Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
2011/3/21 David Paleino da...@debian.org: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:12:55 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/3/21 David Paleino da...@debian.org: I agree with Serge: you would change the meaning of highway=footway (because to interpret it right after your amendment, you would have to look at the footway-key as well). Why? Sidewalks are just a particular case of highway=footway. A router that doesn't know about footway=*, can treat the sidewalk just fine, because it is a footway, after all. No. Serge's way does tell the router that the sidewalk is just a part of the road, and that you can cross the road anytime. Your proposal doesn't tell the router this, and it would have to check for the next crossing and route you there and back if your target was just on the other side of the road. Then, if you really want, we can just add one tag to the road, say (weird key name, but just to understand each other): is_crossable_everywhere=yes. To not be misunderstood: I prefer explicit sidewalks (=separate ways) as I wrote above. But you should not map them as if they were independent ways. They aren't: have you checked my proposal? They're part of the same relation (street, or associatedStreet). If you need a relation for every sidewalk, it is clear that you are redefining footway, because not interpreting this relation will lead to misunderstanding for all footways (they would be understood as independent ways and routing would work worse then with no sidewalk mapped at all). Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
2011/3/22 Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com: I would not support this proposal to the *exclusion* of mapping separate ways. Rather, I would support this proposal as the simplest way to add sidewalk data with the understanding that if a mapper wishes to add further detail to the sidewalks that they do it via the separate-ways method. But I think that a simple tagging approach that covers a great number of common cases is worth using. I think mapping sidewalk=no at the street might be sufficient for the simple cases in Europe, because almost every street in European settlements has a sidewalk. cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
2011/3/21 David Paleino da...@debian.org: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:04:38 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote: [..] and I feel David wants something else entirely and is suffering from a bit of NIH syndrome, [..] While I thought at the proposal entirely (almost, credits also go to #osm-it folks) on my own, I seem to have reached the same conclusion as other mappers. There is also other proposals with similar aims: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Advanced_footway_and_cycleway http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Footway cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] propose/help to rename a key / about protected areas schemes
Hi, We can design names for the numbers, but the numbers should run ahead (at least for a longer time?). The IUCN is using numbers too - for whatever reason. nature_reserve belongs commonly (in our view) to class 4 national_park is commonly for 2 nature_monument to 3 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area#nature-protected-area I too like names, but a name implicates a weight or meaning, whitch is not given in every case (e.g. some nationalparks are far away from that, what they are commonly). So it might be misleading. Thats one point for numbers. And the type of protection isn´t catch so easily by a photo like it is for a highway. ... how would you deal with several protection operators / institutions Because OSM (still) can´t use two keys for one object, I think, there are two options?, I know * values separated by semicolon and * Relations - it might be simular to a naturereserve, that is part of the european NATURA 2000-protection-network and may bee part of an heritage. Thats (mostly) done with further relations. I know these heritage-page. its working mainly with the ref-key and defined values (don´t know jet, from which base the values are)? Usually including like an external ID. There already exists different affords to map kinds of protcted stuff. certainly nature_reserve and nationalpark ...? as well as http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Military http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Low_emission_zone Sure, Yes, we can try to incorporate other concepts. do you know more? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Habitat these might be - without a further look on this pages - easily done with offical schemes (lists) of governments or institutes and the ref-key, like heritage. regards, crom (I changed the headline a littel, for more participants) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
Martin, On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 6:32 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/3/21 David Paleino da...@debian.org: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:12:55 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/3/21 David Paleino da...@debian.org: To not be misunderstood: I prefer explicit sidewalks (=separate ways) as I wrote above. But you should not map them as if they were independent ways. They aren't: have you checked my proposal? They're part of the same relation (street, or associatedStreet). If you need a relation for every sidewalk, it is clear that you are redefining footway, because not interpreting this relation will lead to misunderstanding for all footways (they would be understood as independent ways and routing would work worse then with no sidewalk mapped at all). Adding footway=sidewalk is not redefining highway=footway, just like saying service=parking_aisle is not redefining highway=service, rather it is a refinement. Likewise, using relations are not redefining highway=footway; relations (to associate sidewalks with an adjacent road) are not required, but rather add information that routers can exploit to give more detailed directions. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages. If one wants both to associate a sidewalk with a road, AND to be specific about crossings, barriers, surface materials, width, etc, then it will get complicated no matter which method you prefer. With one you have two adjacent ways, but require a relation to associate them. With the other you might have to break the road into many arbitrary separate ways to account for changes in the sidewalk. Both methods require tools to enable clear and efficient mapping. And to be clear, I personally prefer mapping as separate ways, which works especially well for my area in the suburbs, but I'm not so concerned about creating relations right now. I can imagine it wouldn't be difficult to write a tool which would generate candidate sidewalk+road pairs based upon the geometry, which upon verification would automatically create or modify relations associating them. -Josh ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
2011/3/22 Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com: Martin, On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 6:32 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/3/21 David Paleino da...@debian.org: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:12:55 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/3/21 David Paleino da...@debian.org: To not be misunderstood: I prefer explicit sidewalks (=separate ways) as I wrote above. But you should not map them as if they were independent ways. They aren't: have you checked my proposal? They're part of the same relation (street, or associatedStreet). If you need a relation for every sidewalk, it is clear that you are redefining footway, because not interpreting this relation will lead to misunderstanding for all footways (they would be understood as independent ways and routing would work worse then with no sidewalk mapped at all). Adding footway=sidewalk is not redefining highway=footway, just like saying service=parking_aisle is not redefining highway=service, rather it is a refinement. I disagree here. In the case of service it is a refinement, but in the case of footway it is not, because highway=service is the tag to use for smaller service ways, but highway=footway is not the tag you use for lanes (a kind of which sidewalks are), it is a tag that you use only on independent ways. The sidewalk is already comprised in the main road according to our data model, and adding a separate highway=footway indicates that there is a barrier between the footway and the road. To overcome this, you would have to use highway=footway on lanes / sidewalks, what is not in accordance with the current conventions. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:04 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/3/22 Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com: Martin, On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 6:32 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/3/21 David Paleino da...@debian.org: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:12:55 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/3/21 David Paleino da...@debian.org: To not be misunderstood: I prefer explicit sidewalks (=separate ways) as I wrote above. But you should not map them as if they were independent ways. They aren't: have you checked my proposal? They're part of the same relation (street, or associatedStreet). If you need a relation for every sidewalk, it is clear that you are redefining footway, because not interpreting this relation will lead to misunderstanding for all footways (they would be understood as independent ways and routing would work worse then with no sidewalk mapped at all). Adding footway=sidewalk is not redefining highway=footway, just like saying service=parking_aisle is not redefining highway=service, rather it is a refinement. I disagree here. In the case of service it is a refinement, but in the case of footway it is not, because highway=service is the tag to use for smaller service ways, but highway=footway is not the tag you use for lanes (a kind of which sidewalks are), it is a tag that you use only on independent ways. The sidewalk is already comprised in the main road according to our data model, and adding a separate highway=footway indicates that there is a barrier between the footway and the road. To overcome this, you would have to use highway=footway on lanes / sidewalks, what is not in accordance with the current conventions. Ah, I think I understand all the confusion now, as we have different models entirely. In my (and I'm guessing David's) view of things, sidewalks are NOT just another lane, but indeed a separate way. Perhaps even our definitions of sidewalks are different. I think you are thinking of city style sidewalks, where there is no barrier between the sidewalk and the road. My sidewalk is not always strictly parallel to the road, and indeed sometimes meanders near and far from the road, and has barriers such as kerbs, grassy strips, and perhaps even parking spaces between the sidewalk and the road. Let me quote David's proposal: When the sidewalk is on its own, i.e. is a structure separated from the main street, it should be mapped separately as highway=footway. So yes indeed, David and I are not re-purposing highway=footway, since we are not applying it to lanes. However I would say considering a sidewalk as a lane is inappropriate if there is any barrier whatsoever between it and other lanes. I can totally get on board with the lane concept for cycle ways, as from my experience they only have a painted line separating them from the road, but most sidewalks I know of have a raised kerb which is a barrier. However I can also imagine that in some areas there are sidewalks that are indeed just another lane next to lanes intended for motor vehicles, bicycles, etc., with no barrier, and I'd be fine considering those a lane. A kerb is certainly a barrier however. Hopefully this clarifies the issue a bit. I certainly can see the two concepts coexisting. Regards, -Josh ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking (redux)
service roads are not explicitly part of the proposal, but can be added to the relation. quote fro the proposal: Other elements, that are of interest, can also be added to the relation. For example: ticket vending machines, emergency phones, a.s.o flaimo Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:02:06 +1100 From: David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking (redux) Message-ID: 1300755727.3701.41.camel@grunge Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 In the case of the roads inside a parking area, there already exists highway=service, service=parking_aisle. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service%3Dparking_aisle Have you considered the existing use of these tags in your proposal? David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
