Re: [Tagging] How to tag un-named roundabout?
Excuse my ignorance. Junction=roundabout is the right tag. I was just keeping the load down on the wiki server. :) Richard On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 11:52 AM, G Zamboni gd.zamb...@tiscali.it wrote: I agree that noname=yes is not a good solution, but I don't understand why roundabout=yes... Junction=roundabout isn't enough? Bye Giuliano Richard Mann ha scritto: I'd tend to agree that noname=yes is the wrong approach, but maybe there should be something like roundabout=yes, since that is positively useful information. Richard On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: noname=yes Oh dear. What is the next step, noname=yes on all unnamed buildings if KeepRight tells you it is an error ? Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- ___ Tagging mailing listtagg...@openstreetmap.orghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] shared driveways (was How to tag un-named roundabout?)
You maybe ain't going to like this, but the usual distinction in the UK is that residentials are (typically) 6m+ wide and have pavements/sidewalks, whereas service is for urban roads which don't have pavements/sidewalks. Richrd On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote: Anthony o...@inbox.org writes: But I've come across situations where the unnamed road is not a roundabout, though. In one of these cases I used highway=unclassified, because it was just a dirt road that was really just a shared driveway (it was imported from TIGER because it used to be a real road). here, the question is the road's legal status. If it's a private or public way going to houses, it would be highway=residential. If it's really a driveway legally now, highway=service service=driveway, or highway=track if it's really atrocious. MassGIS data has a lot of driveways showing up as ways that got mapped to residential, and I've been fixing them in my town. What's the legal distinction between a private way going to houses and a shared driveway? The road in question is definitely private - if the shared owners want to put up a gate and restrict access to the way, they have every right to do so. So I'd say it's *both* a private way going to houses *and* a shared driveway. Another situation which I run into more often is the case of a private road owned by a condominium association (or mobile home park), or by an apartment complex. Should these be tagged as something other than highway=residential? I've always reserved highway=service for non-residential roads. I now see on the wiki that highway=service can also be used with service=driveway, but what's the distinction between a driveway and a private road owned by a condominium association or an apartment complex? One distinction is whether or not the way is shared, but then a shared driveway is shared as well. Cross-posting to talk-us, this might be a US-specific issue. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging Greenways (was: Re: [OSM-talk] Good routing vs legal routing (was: Path vsfootwayvs cycleway vs...))
These short-distance signposted routes can be tagged as lcn (local cycle network) relations. I'd prefer there to be a distinction between these (which I think of as leisure/tourist routes and would call tcn) and utility routes into a town centre, but there isn't a distinction at the moment (and altering relations at a later date is easy). Richard On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:09 AM, Sam Vekemans acrosscanadatra...@gmail.comwrote: Ok, oops, didn't get to broadcast about it. ... but anyway... Greenways are (technically) downright confusing to map. The surfaces dont match, nor to the uses match.. the only thing that is common is the name. and that there are signs all over the place for it. In Winnipeg here's an example http://www.winnipegtrails.ca/trails-maps/sturgeon-creek-pathway/ Here's an example in Peterborough, Ontario http://www.jaggedpath.com/modules.php?op=modloadname=Newsfile=articlesid=54 Where the only way i know to map it is to use a relation and call it route=greenway and dont have it render on the cyclemap. Just map the sections as appropriate. If the section is a paved path and there is a line on it and a sign that says 'bike route' then it's called a highway=cycleway, if it's multi-use and paved.. then highway=track surface=paved bicycle=yes foot=yes motorcar=no if there are signs that say 'no bikes' then it would be highway=footway surface=paved bicycle=no And if its gravel.. the consensus is that highway=cycleway is not appropriate. Instead highway=track surface=gravel bicycle=yes foot=yes And if its dirt highway=path surface=dirt works... but ALSO highway=track surface=dirt bicycle=yes foot=yes sac_scale=btb . Anyway, the point is, that internationally when we say 'bicycle' we are referring to a road 'push-bike' where the surface is paved. If the surface is NOT paved then it's a 'mountain_bike' and if it's an all terrain bike it's called a 'trekking_bike' and would that be appropriate for a 'greenway' (following the signs and bi-passing where no bikes aloud) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenway_%28landscape%29 Here's the wiki about it.. how can we tag something thats foot 'and/or' bicycle? Cheers, Sam Vekemans Across Canada Trails -proposed wiki routes (the not confusing kind) Across Canada :-) On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 7:55 AM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: The same meaning of greenways (paths on public land, allowed to pedestrians and bicycles but motorized vehicles), is in use here in Nashville, TN, USA. They are a part of the public park system, and, so far, are mostly along stream or river banks. I don't think we call them that here (southeastern Australia) and we also don't appear to have any network as such - every council just creates their own style of bike path and connects it to whatever else is nearby. The latest trend is to build a bike path alongside every new freeway or freeway extension, presumably to placate the environmental protestors. They end up with such inspiring names as Eastlink Trail, Western Ring Rd Trail, Deer Park Bypass Wellness Trail... Steve ___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
On public land you can usually push a bike and be treated as a pedestrian, but that's not always the case on private land (eg the University Parks in Oxford) - bicycles are banned altogether. So there is a distinction, but it can probably be achieved by using bicycle=no for situations where riding is not allowed, and access=private+foot=permissive for situations where bicycles aren't allowed. I've seen bicycle=dismount tags. This is for situations on UK highways where there's a sign saying Cyclists Dismount - but in the UK there is no formal offence for disobeying the sign, and most cyclists would treat the sign as meaning slow down and be careful. This probably ought to be tagged using a different key, since it is probably UK-specific. IMHO the access tags for bicycle need to be expanded to cover the subtleties of bicycle provision/control (see the consolidation talk page for my suggestions), rather than trying to divide paths into a binary footway/cycleway. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
The problem is when some people use spaces and some underscores. Tagwatch can't tell them apart. Richard On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: but one underscore is more than enough. One of these days I'm going to propose a tag with a space in it. They're not banned. Why don't we use them? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: you're suggesting how to tag that a path is commonly used by bicycles - there isn't a tag for that! I'm only about a year into trying to find a decent answer to this question (how to tag informal bike paths). I know there isn't a tag for it. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed
tight/spacious/critical are terms from the Dutch guidance on assessing/adapting roads for cycling, and endorsed by UK guidance (Type LTN208 into your favourite search engine if interested) Richard On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 3:18 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: While we're about it, there's a few other potential values for cycleway (for interest mainly): cycleway=buslane (shared with buses) Has potential. cycleway=filterlane (explicitly shared with nearside-turning traffic) Has potential. cycleway=tight (nearside lane is shared with traffic and is 3.1m wide Two descriptive. Sounds awfully much like cycleway=no to me. cycleway=spacious (nearside lane is shared with traffic and is 3.7m wide, more if typical traffic speed is faster than 40kph) There's something here. If you look at: http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-37.859974,145.16891z=21t=k This is Springvale Rd, in Melbourne's eastern suburbs. I'm told that that left lane (on the northbound side) is deliberately wider to cater for cyclists. It's not really a bike lane, but there is some benefit for cyclists there. cycleway=critical (nearside lane is shared with traffic and between tight and spacious) Nah. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledgeof the law?
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: highway=path for rough paths highway=footway for paved paths But how would you expect this to solve the current problem? Do you think it's just a matter of tweaking some wiki definitions? Also, with the above proposed definitions, why is there a need to use different top-level highway=* values just based on the surface? There's a tag for surface, and it's called surface=*. I don't think it solves the problem, merely avoids using tag/sets that substantial numbers of people seem to use in different ways. Why the footway/path distinction - because that's what people have done (there's probably more than 100,000 paths in fields and forests in Germany by now). If surface was just paved/unpaved then people wouldn't use the path/footway distinction, but surface has a good five common values, and no obvious boundaries on what values might be used. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: Real cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to avoid. I know German cyclists are fast, but treating cycleways like motorways is ridiculous :) But seriously, you have a point - usability by bikes should be on a separate tag (bicycle:practical, perhaps). And usability by pedestrians should be on a separate tag too. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: My point is: There is an important difference between - a real, official cycleway (prohibited by law for others) - some way that looks like it was pretty much suitable for cycling About like the difference between - a road marked as one-way (prohibited by law in one direction) - a road that looks like it is too narrow for two cars to pass each other Oneway is a separate tag, not a separate highway value. This whole argument stems from a fight over what a particular highway value should mean. There'll never be consensus, so lets find other tags to make the distinctions we want, and discourage people from reading too much into highway=cycleway (I wouldn't go so far as to deprecate it, just insist that people add tags if they want to convey a more precise meaning). Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: highway=path+access=no+bicycle=designated for the former and highway=path+bicycle=yes for the latter. Each to their own, but I'd prefer: highway=cycleway+designation=official_cycleway (or whatever) (for those officially signposted) and highway=cycleway (for those that are not officially signposted but are otherwise just as good) You don't really need the access=no (or foot=no) for the former; it's distinctly rare that there's no route for pedestrians alongside. Using bicycle=designated does not give the precision required (sorry Alex, I know it's your pet scheme, but I don't think it works). Ekkehart - other than the obvious pain of adding another tag to the legions of official cycleways in Germany, is there any real problem with this approach? Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.comwrote: In bare bones basic, Steve, are you for or against using highway = cycleway for officially marked cycleways only? That's what I would like to understand :) I'm for two things: 1) Offially marked cycleways being marked with highway=cycleway 2) A way to mark unofficial cycleways that are of similar or better standard, distinct from highway=footway. It's quite simple really. According to the wiki definition mainly or exclusively for cyclists there are zero cycleways in the UK, since there is no provision in UK law for any such thing (pedestrians have priority over cyclists on all paths). So the 22,000 highway=cycleway in the UK all need to be changed. Unfortunately, UK mappers don't seem to agree with this. I think the objectively-correct solution is to have a less-specific definition for highway=cycleway, since that will allow more distinctions to be made with fewer tags on a whole-world basis. But sometimes you just have to find workarounds for yesterday's mistakes. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] A shop selling fish and seafood
poissonerie, surely? On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Jonathan Bennett openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote: Fishmonger has a slight advantage in that it translates into French as Poissionerie, German as Fischhändler, Italian as Pescivendolo, and so on. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
If the sidewalks are next to the road, and in Europe, you can probably rely on people assuming them by default (unless you advise otherwise). Clearly in other places, it may be necessary to tag them explicitly. Richard On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Tyler Gunn ty...@egunn.com wrote: On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:55:10 +0200, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: What inevitable ?. I think that drawing sidewalks is silly and waste of time. Let say that 99.99% of the unclassified and residential roads can be walked on both sides, why should we draw the sidewalks everywhere ? It would be more clever to tag where sidewalks are missing or not allowed, imo. Say where things are missing, not where they are obviously authorized. Or you add oneway=no to all roads as well ? In my area, sidewalks are most certainly NOT the norm. There are very few of them, and where they are present they are typically separated from the road by a boulevard. Other areas of my city have sidewalks that are right up against the roads. I can see the merit of representing sidewalks that are right up against the road by using an attribute on the road. However for sidewalks separated from the road by a boulevard I'd think it makes more sense to draw them in as separate paths. Just my 2c. Tyler ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Tyler Gunn ty...@egunn.com wrote: I think this is a HUGE improvement over what Google Maps shows: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.82372lon=-97.20104zoom=16layers=B000FTF Tyler Yup, the parking lots give you a real feel for the place. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] differences on wiki about roles of relation route.
the :number roles are obsolete (you should order the relation members instead - probably using JOSM) The English definition of the forward/backward roles is correct. If the relation is one-way, and the direction of the way is the same, then use forward. If the direction of the way is opposite, use backward. This means that the roles for the members of a relation may have to switch between forward and backward, even though the direction of the route remains the same. I'm not sure about the link role; I don't think it's used much, so nobody has got round to translating it Richard On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:36 AM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi There exists major differences on wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route between german and english. All the roles with ...:number are striped out on the german page. There is no role link on the german page. The definition in german for forward/backward say you should use it for the direction of the route but it english it says to use it for the direction of the way. Which page should I use now ? See you Colliar ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What classification for a connecting link?
Nathan - there's some form of setting in your email account that means
that every time you reply to a thread we see a new thread starting
(dropping the Re: prefix, maybe?). This makes it very hard to follow
the thread, as the emails get out of order.
On the specific example, in the UK these would be tertiarys: an
ordinary street that serves a through or within-city distribution
function. They'd have to be pretty dominated by the traffic
(effectively part of a gyratory) before they got tagged as
primary_link
On the general question of links, I think the wiki may be wrong, in
that the link between a primary and a trunk should probably be a
primary_link, not a trunk_link. This is most likely to avoid the
situation where you get an ugly join between ways.
However, there doesn't appear to be consensus even among mainstream UK
renderers (OS and A-Z are different), so I have limited hopes on
arriving at a universal consensus. I've adopted the OS convention
(everything to the lower level) locally, because it renders better. I
think I'll start a survey of what different map brands do on the wiki
page.
{Before you all shout, a link between a motorway and a trunk should be
a motorway_link; that's a special case for motorways, because
motorways are roads with special laws}
Richard
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Simone Saviolo
simone.savi...@gmail.com wrote:
Seeing the pictures, in fact, I wouldn't tag them as links either.
IMHO, they're not really links, they're just streets that happen to
offer a connection between the two main roads.
I agree, _link does not seem to apply well to that type of street. My
preferred solution would be to treat them as normal roads, but
'upgrade' them (from residential to secondary or something like that)
to denote their importance for through-traffic.
--
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What classification for a connecting link?
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 6:00 AM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: On the specific example, in the UK these would be tertiarys: an ordinary street that serves a through or within-city distribution function. They'd have to be pretty dominated by the traffic (effectively part of a gyratory) before they got tagged as primary_link I think of a tertiary highway as a collector or distributor, used in the initial or final portion of the trip to get to or from the higher classifications. These, on the other hand, are short connecting links that could be anywhere in a trip; for instance, here US 30 eastbound follows a portion of Woodlynne Avenue between the normal-looking ramp and White Horse Pike: http://maps.cloudmade.com/?lat=39.91878lng=-75.088924zoom=17directions=39.92145421035915,-75.0871217250824,39.918343875726904,-75.0898790359497,39.91567776216949,-75.08675694465637travel=carstyleId=1opened_tab=1 I think you can get away with either calling it a tertiary, or calling it a trunk_link (or indeed a trunk if it's 2-way). I'd tend towards tertiary if it's clearly residential (ie some effort made to keep speeds down), and trunk/trunk_link if it's non-residential. But it'd be a judgement call. The only absolute is making it the same from start to finish, cos otherwise it's bound to look messy when rendered. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What classification for a connecting link?
The first one is motorway_link, the second primary (because it's two-way), the third primary_link, the fourth could be just about anything from trunk to service. Mapnik makes a mess if a link intersects a service, but that's cos Mapnik renders a trunk_link under a service, which is wrong. The simplest is probably to call the fourth a trunk with a note that there's a case for it being a trunk_link, but that trunk is more renderer-proof. Richard On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 3:37 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: So it looks like the general consensus is that a link should only intersect other links except at the ends? Clarification: I mean that each independent section of the link or connecting string of links should intersect no non-links (including unmapped driveways) along the way. In other words, http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/5696070 is fine, since it's really two links, one from I-87 to 230th and one from 230th to I-87. On the other hand, http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/52557869 and http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/52557872, among other links south of Elizabeth and West Lawn, should be at most primary_link, since the independent sections from NJ 4 can only make it that far before hitting residential streets. But what about http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/11660654, a typical U-turn jughandle that has two (mapped) driveway intersections? Do the driveways really prevent it from being a link the whole way? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What classification for a connecting link?
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: The simplest is probably to call the fourth a trunk with a note that there's a case for it being a trunk_link, but that trunk is more renderer-proof. That seems incorrect, and hence tagging (incorrectly) for the renderer. Whether something is a link should not depend on how links are rendered. Call them two-way links, if you prefer. I may get round to filing a trac ticket to request they are rendered better in Mapnik. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What classification for a connecting link?
Trac: about half a dozen already, all saying slightly different things. There's one situation I hadn't thought of: motorway service areas attached to motorway slip roads. Where I'm getting to is: 1) Except for links between motorways and other roads (which should be motorway_link), the connections between highways of different classification should correspond to the classification of the lower road. I don't think it's actually possible to make it work if you use the classification of the higher road (which is why we've ended up in a bit of a mess) 2) Rendering order should ordinarily be (within a given layer): trunk trunk_link primary primary_link secondary secondary_link tertiary tertiary_link unclassified/residential/pedestrian/living_street motorway motorway_link service/track/cycleway/footway/bridleway At the moment, I think Mapnik puts all links at the bottom, which doesn't work. Richard On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:11 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/6/18 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com: The first one is motorway_link, the second primary (because it's two-way), the third primary_link, the fourth could be just about anything from trunk to service. Mapnik makes a mess if a link intersects a service, but that's cos Mapnik renders a trunk_link under a service, which is wrong. is there a trac-ticket for this issue? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] football or soccer ?
If you say football in en-GB then you mean the game run by the Football Association in England, and by FIFA internationally. If you say Rugby, you mean whichever of the two codes is dominant in your part of the country / social circle (and probably Rugby Union by default). At least the ball's the same shape for Rugby Union and Rugby League. Of course you can tag what you like and if you want to tag sport=soccer and if enough people use that then people will figure out what you mean. But it'll be 95% guesswork if you tag sport=football for anything other than Association Football. Richard On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote: OSM is mostly en_GB, +1 so it seems obvious that football should mean soccer. !! really ?! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_football#Etymology Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] football or soccer ?
The only thing missing on the wiki, as far as I could see, was something sensible for American Football. It is not sensible to use football for American Football, since the most likely meaning if someone tags sport=football (in spite of the wiki advice not to) is that they mean Association Football. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] football or soccer ?
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 10:56 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 June 2010 19:34, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: football for American Football, since the most likely meaning if someone tags sport=football (in spite of the wiki advice not to) is that they mean Association Football. I disagree, if you said sport=football to people in Australia it literally means at least 4 different sports depending on their cultural/regional backgrounds, tag:sport=football should point to a page that shows all the various sports people refer to as football. So clearly, taggers in Australia aren't likely to use sport=football since they'll know it's ambiguous, and renderers in Australia will use a suitably ambiguous icon. This is all getting a bit out of hand. 1) JOSM should use sport=american_football, not the do not use sport=football 2) I'll add sport=american_football to the wiki. I don't think it needs a proposal or vote, frankly, but if anyone cares to go through that loop, feel free to revert my edit and set it up. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Zone 30 (maxspeed)
The fashion in the UK is now to impose 20mph speed limits on each and every street, rather than create zones with entries/exits. It amounts to much the same thing in the end, but it means that we simply put: maxspeed=20 mph+maxspeed:note=Oxford 20 mph zone (the whole city is a 20mph zone except for a handful of main roads outside the centre) I'm not really clear what is the value of tagging a zone, except in a note. Why not just use the standard maxspeed tag? Richard On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Sebastian Klein basti...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi, there seems to be some inconsistency, how to tag a traffic zone with maximum speed limited to 30 km/h (German Tempo-30-Zone). [1] Tagwatch has the following tags for Europe (with maxspeed=30): [2] usages tag -- --- 944 zone:maxspeed=DE:30 631 zone:traffic=DE:30 516 source:maxspeed=traffic_zone 433 source:maxspeed=DE:zone30 152 zone:speed=30 140 maxspeed:zone=yes 40 source:maxspeed=zone30 People have been very creative because there is no proposal or definite suggestion on the wiki. The only one that is remotely documented is the first from the list. [3] Lets pick one and add it as tagging suggestion to the wiki pages Key:source:maxspeed and DE:Road_Signs! [4,5] So which one to choose? Certainly there is no reason to have more than one tag for this. On the one hand, the single most important reason to tag this, is to have a source for the maxspeed value. This would suggest to use the 3rd or 4th. On the other hand, the direct approach would be to tag what is actually there (the traffic zone) and have source:maxspeed implied. There could also be some legal implications, although for Germany, I don't know anything relevant. [1] http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_30 [2] http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/Europe/En/tagstats_maxspeed_30.html [3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/trafficzone#Zones_which_does_not_need_tagging [4] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source:maxspeed [5] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Road_Signs -- Sebastian ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Zone 30 (maxspeed)
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:01 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/7/6 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com: maxspeed=20 mph+maxspeed:note=Oxford 20 mph zone I'd suggest to use source:maxspeed instead of note, as I think it is already widely used and documented in the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source:maxspeed Source tag isn't really appropriate; there's no real dubiety over whether there's a restriction or not. The note's just a way of saying all these were done at once. Maybe your zones are established under laws which have other implications: in which case it'd be better to tag those implications explicitly. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Greenery adjacent to roads
There are 6695 landuse=grass in the UK. They're not turf farms. surface=grass is for highways On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Jonathan Bennett openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote: On 13/07/2010 07:37, char...@cferrero.net wrote: How might I go about tagging the often quite extensive green stretches of land to the side of larger roads here in Abu Dhabi (and indeed in many parts of the world)? Sometimes this is just grass (in which case landuse=grass kind of makes sense) but often this is a mixture of grass, trees and decorative plants in varying proportions. In many cases it kind of looks like a park, but no-one in their right mind would actually try to use it as such (and indeed, in central reservations they'd have to be suicidal to try). One idea might be: leisure=garden or leisure=park combined with access=no but this seems a bit like tag gymnastics to me. surface=grass is about all you can justify. They're certainly not parks or gardens (and landuse=grass is just wrong. You're using the land *for* grass? What does that mean?) Use the tags to describe what it is, and if it's just miscellaneous ground that's not really doing anything, then just map it as part of the surrounding area. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Greenery adjacent to roads
surface=grass 3263 occurrences, 3121 with a highway tag in the UK Feel free to use surface=grass for landcover if you want to. But people are more likely to use your data if you use landuse=grass. Richard On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:38 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 July 2010 20:47, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: There are 6695 landuse=grass in the UK. They're not turf farms. surface=grass is for highways surface=* isn't just for highways any more... because landuse=grass is silly, as Jonathan pointed out, grass isn't a use... landuse v land cover (surface) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC on two proposals: Motorway indication; Expressway indication
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Martin Simon grenzde...@gmail.com wrote: I think a combination of motorroad=* and grade_seperated=* would do grade_separated please (ie with an a in the middle) Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] paved=yes/no
Can't find it on the wiki - do you have a ref? Richard On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:30 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 July 2010 07:26, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: 1300 uses worldwide, against 1.9m for surface= So a wiki entry that says maybe you should consider using surface=paved/unpaved instead might be sensible I was more curious about use cases, or is this just another smoothness tag? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] paved=yes/no
I think surface started as a binary paved/unpaved for roads (with paved assumed by default, and paved meaning tarmac), and has got extended to cover cobbled roads, and (subsequently) as a way of adding more info for tracks/paths. So for most purposes, the principal distinction is between paved and not, and that can perfectly well be determined by checking for the presence of the tag, and whether it's value is paved. There's a bit of a grey area for well-maintained unsealed paths/roads, but the binary paved=yes/no doesn't really help. I tend to use other clues - that it's got a higher road classification, or is flagged as being part of a cycle route. It wouldn't hurt if there was a value for well-maintained unsealed, perhaps surface=graded? Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] paved=yes/no
I've updated the wiki page to try to explain it more clearly. I've included Martin's paved=yes flag (though personally, I'd probably just make it clear in the table that some values such as concrete should be treated as paved) Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] paved=yes/no
I don't think we're reaching any consensus that key:paved is an idea to be positively recommended, so I think it's probably best to record it in the wiki as some people do this. I think the wiki would also benefit from a few notes saying which values should be treated as paved (in the sense of drivable at speed), to encourage consistency of treatment by data users. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] covered definition in the wiki
Layers don't work when there are area/way conflicts, because the norm for rendering is to draw areas first then ways on top. So you have to have a flag that says this way isn't really on top. We have a perfectly adequate flag for this function (tunnel=yes), but people objected to using that for things that are not strictly tunnels. So we spawned covered as an alternative. I suspect it's also used to flag whether a walkway is covered or not, which is a rather different situation. I just use tunnel=yes (I guess one could add something like tunnel:type=building|cloister|avalanche|arcade, though I don't expect anyone to use it). In the UK covered=yes 345 covered=no 480 tunnel=yes 7662 Richard On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:56 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: the covered page lists these use-cases: A. denote that a highway, railway, pedestrian way or waterway passes under a building or other structure, where it is inappropriate to use layering as the differentiator between covered and uncovered. or where covered will more clearly define the condition. - fine, but why not for those ways passing inside a building? B. denote that a power line, water main, water drain, etc., in a narrow trench, has a removable and replaceable covering, allowing for maintenance, and thus potentially allowing it to be traversed without a bridge. - quite limiting. The potentially part is IMHO not good in a definition. Why must the covering be removable and replaceable and which covering is not removable if you put enough effort into it's removal? Why must the power line, water drain etc. be in a narrow trench ? C. denote an area such as an underground parking lot, a covered reservoir/cistern or even such things as an aquarium (e.g., Kelly Tarlton's, Auckland, NZ), when the covering is not a man-made structure that would allow layer differentiation. - Why shouldn't the covering structure be man made, or does this exclude just man_made structures where layering cannot solve the problem (e.g. more than 11 levels)? I think we should rework this definitions. Comments? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:covered Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] covered definition in the wiki
How would you like it rendered? Covered-as-in-a-shopping-mall is quite different to covered-as-in-protected-from-the-rain. The real problem is that it's scope is too broad. Richard On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:11 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/7/20 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com: Layers don't work when there are area/way conflicts, because the norm for rendering is to draw areas first then ways on top. So you have to have a flag that says this way isn't really on top. We have a perfectly adequate flag for this function (tunnel=yes), but people objected to using that for things that are not strictly tunnels. So we spawned covered as an alternative. I suspect it's also used to flag whether a walkway is covered or not, which is a rather different situation. exactly, there is a lot of application cases and I don't see why our definition should be so arbitrarily restrictive. In the UK covered=yes 345 covered=no 480 tunnel=yes 7662 I suspect this is also due to the fact that covered=yes doesn't currently get rendered. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What do others call this?
Most vineyards have something similar, though not always so heavily marketed, so I think you need to find a term that's more international. Perhaps tourism=vineyard_shop or just shop=vineyard. Richard On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:15 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 July 2010 10:44, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: I think that it is likely to lead to a great deal of confusion, since the general meaning of cellar door is any door leading into a building's cellar. This does not necessarily mean that the building is a winery; for example, most houses in the USA that date back to 1950 or earlier have a cellar. The usual terminology here is that a below-ground space that is dirt-floored, or is basically just an excavation, is called a cellar; one that has finished walls and floors, so that it can better be used for storage or as living space is generally called a basement. Are you suggesting people will confuse most cellar doors to cellars as a tourist attraction? I spent a bit of time and effort trying to find something similar to this concept in other countries, these places are heavily marketed as tourism spots in Australia in the various wine regions. I found various tasting rooms in various countries but as best I can tell these differ again, but I would be more than happy to be pointed to some better references. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What do others call this?
winery: no such word in en_gb, we just use vineyard for the whole operation (though of course we don't do these things on the same scale as Australia). Unless you're going to distinguish between shop=winery and shop=vineyard, I'd use the more generic term in the tagging system. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What do others call this?
Most of these call themselves vineyards http://www.englishwineproducers.com/scvineyard.htm On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: can you provide a definition of this use of the word? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: Good idea, or just a local fix? Richard Personally, I think the easiest to fix many issues would be to draw a specific polygon for the bridge and link it to the roads, cycleways, railways, etc by a relation. I don't know for renderers... Multiple parallel bridges is a different problem, though it's related, because of the way Mapnik puts heavy in-layer casings for bridges, to try to make up for the fact that it doesn't do normal casings in-layer. The halo it uses for cycle tracks doesn't help either. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.7911lon=-1.29257zoom=17layers=M The reason it doesn't do casings in-layer is because it produces rendering artefacts, because it doesn't know when the layer changes. Of course, you could pre-process it, but rather than make everyone do that, I'm suggesting putting in an explicit tag for the few occasions when it's not easy to infer. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers
Dave F (et al), Renderers draw roads (typically) by drawing a wide grey line on each segment, a grey circle at each node, then a narrower (say) white line on each segment, and a white circle at each node. All you see of the grey is a thin line on each side of the white line: this is the casing. The circles on each node are called caps (end-caps if they are at the end of a way, join-caps if they are at an intermediate node). If you don't draw the circles on the nodes then you get gaps at corners. If you draw all the grey first, regardless of layer, you get gaps in the casings when one road goes over another, so it looks like they join when they don't (which happens on cyclemap). If you draw the grey in the correct layer, then you get little semi-circular arcs of grey at the end of bridges (if they are layer=1). So renderers have to do something. Different renderers have come up with different solutions, but all produce artefacts because there's a piece of data missing (which they could pre-process, sure, but there are better uses of time). It would be more effective to give them the data, and have renderers do it reasonably well consistently. What I've suggested isn't the only solution, but it's the most economical, I think. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: Shouldn't the layer_change be on the common point, not a way? A way (usually) has two ends, so putting the tag on a way will not indicate at which end of the way the layer change takes place. But then it degenerates to two (or more) connected ways with a different layer=* value, so the layer change can also easily be inferred without introducing a new tag. It's more complicated to do it on the joining node, because the node features on both ways, so you have to know information from the other way to know how to render. Can easily be inferred - only if you have nothing better to do. Am I right in assuming that bridge=yes refers more to the construction (with parapets etc) to determine the rendering style, whereas layer=* is more a hint to the renderer for handling the case where unconnected objects overlap? This is sounding a bit like tagging for the renderer which is AFAIK officially Frowned Upon. Maybe the real problem is the fact that mapnik is not layer-aware. Falsifying for the renderer is frowned upon. Tagging for the renderer is reasonable within bounds. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 26/07/2010 14:07, Richard Mann wrote: If you draw the grey in the correct layer, then you get little semi-circular arcs of grey at the end of bridges (if they are layer=1). I've never noticed this in Mapnik,or an other. Do you have examples of these please. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.45445lon=-0.96211zoom=17layers=O So renderers have to do something. Different renderers have come up with different solutions, but all produce artefacts because there's a piece of data missing What data is this? That one way is at a higher layer than another that it connects to. You can infer this from bridge=yes, but it doesn't always work, and you can't infer it directly from tunnel=yes. (which they could pre-process, sure, but there are better uses of time). It would be more effective to give them the data, and have renderers do it reasonably well consistently. What I've suggested isn't the only solution, but it's the most economical, I think. So your saying to save the renders time, the data collectors have to waste time adding new tags? It sounds like a rendering software problem to me nothing to do with tagging. It could be fixed by the renderer, though they haven't to date, and some of them (me included) can't with the tools available. I still don't see how layer_change solves anything. It fills a hole in the data model. At the moment, for almost all rendering tasks, I only have to look at the tags on the way and it's nodes. Without layer_change, I either have to pre-process information from the attached ways, or simplify, or make a plausible guess. With layer_change I just do what the tags tell me. AFAICS it just adds even more separated sections which cause other render problems such as one-way arrows overlapping cutoff name ref labels. now that is the sort of stuff for renderers to solve; it's a much more general problem than a few tunnel ramps incidentally, is there a reason you've joined the cycle path to the overhead power line? Weren't me guv, but I've fixed it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: Yes, but human mapping time is a far more scarce resource then computer working time. So let the computer fix it. Preprocess! Computer working time is rarely the limiting resource (otherwise we'd all have been out of a job long ago). The advantage of creating a tagging scheme is that the complicated situations get sorted out by humans (who are good at that sort of thing), and not left to doing-their-best-with-confused-data programmers. I note that no-one (other than Colin) has suggested a different tagging scheme. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers
Pre-processing isn't really an option for Kosmos, Maperitive, MapCSS/Halcyon (and judging by the number of rendering tags it spawns) Osmarender. Rendering is not something that only the gods do, there are tools arriving that will make it a lot lot easier to render. When these people render, they will fix the data so that it renders well. Either they will fix it in their own way or they'll fix it in a standard way. This idea that taggers do all the work, and renderers are gods is s noughties. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:27 AM, James Livingston li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote: Someone mentioned http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels up-thread, is there anything it doesn't cover? I've been using it for over a year, although I haven't mapped any really crazy scenarios. You'd probably be better off using parapet:right=no, and hoping the renderers figure out how to draw offset lines (Maperitive does offset lines already, and there's a draft routine for doing them in Mapnik). That's far more likely than they'll pre-process a relation consisting of near-parallel lines. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags
Daniel cycleway=shoulder looks like a good idea for those countries that routinely have a wide shoulder on country roads (I've seen them in Ireland; they aren't common in the UK) on urban roads (maybe even rural roads with centre lines), you could do cycleway=tight/critical/spacious, following the Dutch guidance on the width required for reasonably comfortable cycling in the absence of cycle lanes/tracks (tight is about 6m, spacious 8m+). But it also depends on parking and the number of lanes of traffic, so you might not find it very practical traffic=low/medium/high isn't really specific enough - too subjective but rendering, you will probably have to do yourself (I recommend Maperitive...) Richard On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:56 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: Am 29.07.2010 14:38, schrieb Daniel Tremblay: My need is to give cyclists more info when preparing their rides on road that are not cycleway (nor NCN, RCN, LCN). I saw the tag rtc_rate but not find it very intuitive. We need this kind of tags also for cycleways. I know many areas where the international cycleway is using a quite heavy loaded street with only a cyclelane next to it, where the parallel street is a nice calm street. I think one tag is not enough or you have to be specific. If I am in a hurry with a race-bicycle, I would take the bigger roads with cycle-lanes but if I cycle with a 7 year old child I would prefer the low traffic road even if there is no cycleway at all. My first thought was to document a little more some road by adding a shoulder tag (yes, no) and a traffic indicator tag (low, moderate, high). Both responders confirmed that those tags does not exist. For my cycling need, I would personnaly not go on a highway=secondary with no shoulder and moderate to high traffic ... But, even with high traffic, I might use that road if there is shoulder ... And, even without shoulder, I might go there if the traffic indicator is low. +1 This is one way to add more useful information to a road. But we need at least shoulder:surface, too Cheers colliar ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging bus stops served by more than one public transportation agency
Ed - the proper way to do bus routes is using relations. The operator tag should be on the relation, and should only have one value. This is how we deal with geolocations being part of multiple geographical structures. If you want to add route_ref tags to the bus stops, then just make a single list, as per the wiki. That tag does no harm, but most downstream tools use the relations. The reason there wasn't much discussion on the transit list is because this approach is established; there isn't much to discuss. The only debate is between Potlatch users (who tend to put both directions in one relation, because Potlatch's editing of relations is a work-in-progress) and JOSM users (who tend to create separate relations for each direction, and neatly order the members). Basically the downstream tools have to cope with bidirectional unordered relations for the moment. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation for getting started on relations Richard On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:22 AM, Ed Hillsman ehills...@tampabay.rr.com wrote: operator=HART;USF ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] other landuse values?
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Sebastian Klein basti...@googlemail.com wrote: from what I understand, landuse is to mark a larger area that has multiple I think it's useful to differentiate/subdivide areas where there are noticeable changes in landuse: don't be too enthusiastic about lumping stuff together. This is because it adds texture to maps, particularly at smaller scales, and makes them more readable by people who read maps as sequences of landmarks, rather than constructing a simplified 2D plan in their heads (ie most women). I'm not sure this justifies a huge range of new values though: in some ways it's better to concentrate on identifying retail and commercial areas within residential/industrial, and so on. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
Please: someone write a bot to add landmark=probably to every tree in Germany, and stop this debate. If it's a landmark, then it's worth adding a tag to say so. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Railway routes in different directions.
The proper way to do it is to have separate relations in each direction, probably named for the origin and destination (ie not calling it the up Bristol and the down Bristol, but calling it the Bristol-London and London-Bristol service). Alternatively, put all the ways in one relation and put roles in for ways which are traversed in one direction only (forward if it's the direction of the way, backward if it's the opposite to the direction of the way). Richard On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Hi I've a railway routes that's drawn as a single line with a relation added; except where the tracks become wider apart to go each side of a platform where they are two lines. Does routing software need the relation to differentiate between the directions? Up/Down, Forward/Backward? And how would you decide which direction is which? Cheers Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] amenity=ice_cream: approved?
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: Fast food is simply a style of serving: you go up to the counter and order. It has nothing to do with the cuisine. The Italians probably don't like to think of ice-cream as fast food, because that has connotations of high sugar/fat content, which obviously doesn't apply ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What exactly is a greenfield?
A greenfield site is one that is currently a field, so it should be tagged as a field until it gets built on. Nothing should ever be tagged greenfield. A brownfield site is derelict land that was something once, but is now nothing in particular until someone does something with it. A brownfield tag would therefore make some sense, though I'd probably leave it as landuse=industrial (or whatever else it was) and add further tags to say that it's derelict. Richard On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 2:02 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: According to the wiki, landuse=greenfield Describes land scheduled for new development where there have been no buildings before. Does this mean that any undeveloped land owned by a developer or zoned as planned development is a greenfield? If so, should a bug be filed on trac to render it less obtrusively than the construction/brownfield brown? Also, what if land with another landuse like farm is scheduled for new development? In my experience, these two tags are really unhelpful. Personally, I don't find the greenfield/brownfield distinction all that relevant to a map: it's essentially a way of jamming in past history into the primary tag, where it should go somewhere else. Secondly, I don't find that the concept of scheduled for new development should be tagged this way. When a highway is scheduled for new development, we mark it highway=proposed, proposed=motorway. Something similar would seem appropriate: landuse=proposed, proposed=retail. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Successful proposal
The search box is also a lot faster than opening MapFeatures. Indeed there'd be a case for abolishing MapFeatures (and just making MapFeatures a category). Richard On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:59 AM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: On 13/10/2010 09:30, Lennard wrote: And how exactly would the craft tag become widely used if people have to out on a limb to find it, exactly because it's not mentioned in the Map Features? This will only hamper adoption. Because they do a search of the wiki (and the mailing lists, and osmdoc et al) for terms that might be used to describe what they're trying to map? That's certainly what i did as a novice mapper (and still do). Map Features is linked from the wiki's Main_Page and Beginners'_Guide and subsequent pages, but it's not the most prominent link on any of them - the search box is much more prominent. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Country names
You can also test for the presence of name:de in name, rather than just equality, so that if name contains (say) French/German/Flemish components, then you use that rather than making your own name (name:de) combination. Richard On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de wrote: Am 14.10.2010 15:47, schrieb Craig Wallace: On 14/10/2010 14:36, Andrew Errington wrote: So, when we get a renderer that can render name:ko + (name:en) we can delete all name=* which have been typed in that form and then rename name:ko=* to name=* No, this would not be helpful. Because then how do you know what language the name tag is in? More useful to leave the name:ko tag as it is. Though you could copy (not rename) the name:ko tag to the name tag if you want. To render a German map there are two possibilities: 1. render name:de if it exists, name otherwise 2. render name if its identical to name:de, name (name:de) otherwise name does hereby refer to the local name ((how do the people that live there call their country). This works for all the places that have only one local name. 1. is waht we currently render on the TS and it would be easy to set up 2., but it would not look nice because the name tag sometimes already contains brackets. Peter ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Country names
Copy what is done in Belgium. name = Rue Bouganville - Bouganville Street (ie removing the abbreviation) Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] shop=kiosk
maybe: building=kiosk shop=newsagent and just leave it to local knowledge to know whether a newsagent typically sells sweets/tobacco/tickets The only one I'd have said was worth tagging individually was whether they sell bus tickets: bus_tickets=yes/no? Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] how to tag US townships?
admin_level=8, as per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level#10_admin_level_values_for_specific_countries place=suburb if it's a bit of a larger urban area place=town if it corresponds to a reasonably large standalone urban area place=village if it corresponds to a single small standalone urban area place=locality if it's not got a single small standalone area All of those are subject to the name being meaningful (ie one that at least some people might use to refer to the area in common speech). If the name shouldn't go bang in the centre of the area, create a node where the name should go and put the place tag there instead. Richard On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Antony Pegg anttheli...@gmail.com wrote: ok, I got a question tagging admin area / populated centers / labels in USA seems to come down to two main tags: admin_level and place plus http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Place I've ran into a problem recently fixing up my area, where either the TIGER import, or inexperienced contributors have/are mis-tagging townships as being, in some way, more important / more visible than Cities or Towns. Before I go further, If you aren't sure exactly what a Township is in the US, please read this first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Township_%28United_States%29 In rural PA (Lancaster) I am specifically dealing with a buttload of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Township_%28United_States%29#Civil_townships From personal experience, the best I can equate them to is neighbourhoods or in-town areas in england. West Lampeter is to Lancaster as Tarpots is 918 years ago) to South Benfleet, or the Sea-front in Southend. The problem is that currently we dont have a discrete tag for place=township and all admin_level= are =8 so, half a question, half a statement of intent, unless someone argues me down from the ledge... I'm going to start using place=suburb for townships as the closest comparison I can find http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dsuburb thx Ant ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] how to tag US townships?
Townships are units of govt that are subdivisions of County, typically square, population and urban form varies (to save you the trouble of reading the wiki article he suggested you read if you don't know what they are). If the township contains a series of tiny places, but people do genuinely give the whole thing a name, then place=locality is probably the most appropriate for a first pass (there can be place tags on the tiny places as well, but that's not what he was asking about). If it ain't right, someone can change it later. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Difference between footway and pedestrian
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Noel David Torres Taño env...@rolamasao.org wrote: Thanks to both. My problem is this: I have a street in a city, in a pedestrian zone, but it is small enough to be unsuitable for cars. Near that, I have another one, just in the limits of the urban zone (maybe we can call it outskirts), just as wide as a man, walls on both sides, and it is the only access to some houses. Should I tag them both with highway=footway ? If it's part of a pedestrian area, I'd tend to use highway=pedestrian, and keep highway=footway for foot-ways that join car streets. I think the key question is whether there's a clear difference between the car street and the foot way. If the only difference is that this one is a bit narrower than the other, with no real difference in the legal situation, it's probably better to give them the same tag. You can draw the larger pedestrianised streets as areas, to distinguish them from narrower ones (though please draw the area in addition to a connected-up way, otherwise you generate all sorts of mess for data users). Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Busways
I generally agree with this approach. When buses and bikes share a lane, I'd probably stick to cycleway=lane for the moment, or possibly cycleway=bus_lane. Richard On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:09 PM, esperanza espera...@no-log.org wrote: How to tag busways ? I added some cases in this wiki page : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bus on this model : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle I add also a busway page : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:busway Is it right to use busway or should we use another tag ? (like psv ?) Should we open a proposed feature for busway and share_busway ? Please tell me if one of this case if not well tagged and if I'm wrong : (1) Separate busway track highway=service service=bus (or psv ?) access=no psv=yes (or bus=yes ?) bicycle=yes/no if needed oneway=yes (A) Bus lanes in bidirectional motor car roads (A1) cycle lanes on left and right sides of the road (open to bicycles) highway=* busway=lane cycleway=share_busway (A2) Oneway bus lane on right side of the road only. highway=* busway:right (or left)=lane (B) Bus lanes in oneway motor car roads (B1) Oneway bus lane on opposite way of the oneway road. highway=* oneway=yes busway=opposite_lane (B2) Bus lanes in oneway motor car roads highway=* oneway=yes busway=opposite_lane busway:right=lane (B3) Bus lanes on left and right sides of the oneway road. 2 ways highway=* oneway=yes and highway=service service=bus psv=yes access=no oneway=yes bicycle=yes/no ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Busways
I know nothing about busways (other than that they're a ridiculous waste of money, but that's another story!) RIchard On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 5:14 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: The Cambridgeshire busway is tagged highway=bus_guideway (actuaklly it is currently tagged highway=construction, construction=bus_guideway because it is delayed). We had a long discussion about this at the time. This busway is somewhat different from what's been described below because it is a very special kind of road, which has some aspects ion common with a railway (it has a track and has specially adapted buses running on it; but is it signalled as signed as a road). There are other examples in Essen Germany and Auckland New Zealand I believe. It certainly isn't just a service road to which buses have access. Those (short) sections (of the Cambridgeshire busway) without the trackbed I think are not service either, they are unclassified roads to which buses only have access - they aren't like a service road in an industrial estate or car park. David On 15/11/2010 09:41, Richard Mann wrote: I generally agree with this approach. When buses and bikes share a lane, I'd probably stick to cycleway=lane for the moment, or possibly cycleway=bus_lane. Richard On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:09 PM, esperanzaespera...@no-log.org wrote: How to tag busways ? I added some cases in this wiki page : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bus on this model : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle I add also a busway page : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:busway Is it right to use busway or should we use another tag ? (like psv ?) Should we open a proposed feature for busway and share_busway ? Please tell me if one of this case if not well tagged and if I'm wrong : (1) Separate busway track highway=service service=bus (or psv ?) access=no psv=yes (or bus=yes ?) bicycle=yes/no if needed oneway=yes (A) Bus lanes in bidirectional motor car roads (A1) cycle lanes on left and right sides of the road (open to bicycles) highway=* busway=lane cycleway=share_busway (A2) Oneway bus lane on right side of the road only. highway=* busway:right (or left)=lane (B) Bus lanes in oneway motor car roads (B1) Oneway bus lane on opposite way of the oneway road. highway=* oneway=yes busway=opposite_lane (B2) Bus lanes in oneway motor car roads highway=* oneway=yes busway=opposite_lane busway:right=lane (B3) Bus lanes on left and right sides of the oneway road. 2 ways highway=* oneway=yes and highway=service service=bus psv=yes access=no oneway=yes bicycle=yes/no ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging no truck access in US
HGV = Heavy Goods Vehicle. It seems to be broadly identical (give or take a couple of tons/tonnes) with a US truck so hgv=destination (or hgv=no) would seem to be correct Feel free to add a note on the wiki that hgv is en-gb for truck Or feel free to use truck=destination (or truck=no), and if it catches on put it in the wiki. hgv is currently running at about 2 uses in Europe, truck only 10 Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] self-storage facilities
self-storage would be the usual term in en-gb photo of one attached (not in OSM - yet) Richard On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 9:53 PM, Ed Hillsman ehills...@tampabay.rr.com wrote: Is there a recommended way to tag self-storage facilities? The closest I've been able to find is the tag landuse=garages (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/tag:landuse%3Dgarages) but the wiki discussion is of car storage, and the discussion of the proposal for that tag seems to indicate that it was intended to tag extensive garage areas in residential areas. In the US, we have similar structures, but they typically are located in commercial or retail areas; are owned and operated by private firms charging rent for space; and are probably used more for storing household furnishings, clothing, and other items than they are for storing cars. Access to the individual storage units is typically through a locked gate. These facilities occupy a substantial amount of territory in some suburban areas. I'm willing to draft a proposal if there isn't already a way to tag these, and if someone can advise me on the British English term for these facilities. I agree with a number of the comments on the landuse=garages proposal that landuse= is probably not the right category for this kind of service, but shop= doesn't seem right either. Thanks. Ed HIllsman ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging attachment: BotleySelfStorage.JPG___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] self-storage facilities
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: Why landuse? It's generally going to be located inside a larger landuse area of commercial or industrial, and could be as small as a standard office building. There is some use of http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/tags/amenity=storage but I don't know if any (except for the ones I tagged) are used for this type of facility. Looks good to me. 51st about to be added :) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] self-storage facilities
I'd take the view that amenity implies a degree of personal access, so I reckon amenity=storage is probably sufficient rather than risk unnecessary typos with underscores. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag a loop on a bus route ?
On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: In JOSM you can add a way to a relation multiple times. I'd be interested to see an example. Can you add nodes multiple times? Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping gentle slopes?
The Brussels cycle map (unfortunately only available in a print version, as far as I can see) uses a coloured line on the right side of the road for notably uphill (pink) and severely uphill (red). It takes a bit of getting used to, but it conveys the information reasonably efficiently. Richard On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: I'm interested in mapping which direction of a street slopes down (mainly for cycling purposes). The contour lines used by OpenCycleMap don't have nearly enough resolution for this, yet many streets have a noticeable slope (which can also be seen in how the roadside drains are designed). Is there a way to tag that a street is downhill in the forward or backward direction? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Differences in cycleways
I map both: 1) I add cycleway:left=track to the road 2) I add adjacent=yes to the highway=cycleway, so you know you can refer to tags on the road if you prefer Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Differences in cycleways
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: One situation that this would not cope with, that I see surprisingly often around here, is where there is both a lane *and* a track. cycleway=lane with a highway=cycleway alongside, or cycleway=track (and just treat the lane as a bonus), or cycleway=lane;track (though obviously nothing will understand that) I'd probably go for the second myself. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Signification of designated word
The meaning and use of designated is confused and highly contested in OSM, so I'd avoid using it for any other purpose. I'd have said carpool ought to be a distinct value, not a key, if you've got exclusive parking. Something like: amenity=parking+access=carpool Richard On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Rodolphe Quiedeville rodol...@quiedeville.org wrote: Hi, I began a process to define a new key for carpooling that you can found at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Carpool After some discussion my vision was modified and now I think that something like carpool=designated could be better, but before modify the proposal I need some explanation about Designated. I'm french and want to understand well what is designated for you. I'am afraid is designated is meaning of exclusion. So for you if we use carpool=designated is someone can understand that the parking is forbidden if you do not do carpool ? Thanks -- Rodolphe Quiédeville - Artisan Logiciel Libre Travailleur indépendant spécialisé en logiciel libre http://rodolphe.quiedeville.org/ SIP/XMPP : rodol...@quiedeville.org ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Signification of designated word
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Rodolphe Quiedeville rodol...@quiedeville.org wrote: The problem is the acess is NOT exclusive, and I want to choose the clearest key/value. It's easy to indicate what is exclusive but not so easy to explain what is 'designated too' without restriction. What about carpool=welcome so ? What about a node for the carpool spaces (access=carpool) in an area for the carpark (access=private)? Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Signification of designated word
Ah - now I understand it a bit better - you mean a pick-up location. More a kind of bus stop for carpoolers. On that model I'd probably go for highway=carpool on a node. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Signification of designated word
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: Not really, since at least half the people arriving leave their cars there (assuming everyone drives there). So it's a parking lot that's designated for carpool use, but also available for general parking. I wonder if northern Virginia's slug lines are mapped? They'd provide a good example if they are. The one I was thinking of was a place in a town where students gather to get a lift to the campus university out of town: nobody leaves their car there (the ones looking for lifts are on foot). Autres pays and all that. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Differences in cycleways
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=enie=UTF8hq=hnear=Oxford,+United+Kingdomll=51.763179,-1.235468spn=0,0.009602z=17layer=ccbll=51.763263,-1.235435panoid=2D4TwRiiHwpu0OraA8vbPAcbp=12,7.14,,0,5 Some people (not me particularly) might complain that your example has cycle tracks that are shared with pedestrians. The example above has separate footways and cycle tracks on both sides (and priority for the cycle tracks at side roads, which is a distinct novelty for the UK!) Richard On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Robert Elsenaar rob...@elsenaar.info wrote: Ladies and gentlemen, All great thoughts. Peter i take your critisism on the right way. Still you didn't answer my call for help. Let go back to the base of my question: cycleway=track = Who can give me examples on Google street view of what we have to concider to be cycleway-tracks? - Go to Google map Streetview - find a good example of what you consider to be a cycleway=track - Use the Link in the left upper corner - Post this link. Let me start: http://maps.google.nl/maps?hl=nlie=UTF8ll=52.235698,5.701776spn=0.006163,0.021136z=16layer=ccbll=52.235696,5.701937panoid=amiIS_Sdj-ssgyQipVgJ3Qcbp=12,274.9,,1,4.23 This is a real cycleway track I think Please post your ultimate cycleway=track !!! -Robert- -Oorspronkelijk bericht- From: Richard Mann Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 3:56 PM To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] Differences in cycleways On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 2:30 PM, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: I suspect that I am not the only one who has been confused by the totally-unrelated meanings of highway=track (a minor, rural road) and cycleway=track (a cycleway along side an automobile road). I don't know which one came first, but it is unfortunate that the naming scheme wasn't more consistent. Sorry. English has a habit of doing that, but it matches what highway engineers/planners call them. They wouldn't pick cycleway as the name for the key, however (they'd use cycle_facility or cycle_farcility). Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging --- Tekst ingevoegd door Panda GP 2011: Als het hier gaat om een ongevraagde e-mail (SPAM), klik dan op de volgende link om de e-mail te herclasseren: http://localhost:6083/Panda?ID=pav_1624SPAM=truepath=C:\Windows\system32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Local\Panda%20Security\Panda%20Global%20Protection%202011\AntiSpam --- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Differences in cycleways
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 4:08 AM, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
Does this mean that, should someone else add the cycleway to the map at a
later time, the cycleway=track tag should be removed from the motor-vehicle
road?
No. As I said earlier in this discussion, even when there are
highway=cycleway ways, I leave the cycleway=track tag in place on the
road (and indeed add it if it isn't already there), so that both
tagging styles are available for data users. It is much easier to
render the cycle tracks beautifully (unlike ocm, for instance) if the
cycleway=track tag is used.
For want of an approved scheme, I also add adjacent=yes to the
highway=cycleway, to indicate to data users that it's adjacent to a
more-dominant feature, though renderers are probably capable of
changing drawing order to sort that out themselves. You can try to
find a way of linking ways with relations, but it'll probably be far
too-complicated ever to be mapper-friendly.
{On a related issue, I concluded for railways that the way to go
(if/when people start mapping tracks individually) was to create a
long-thin infrastructure relation that grouped together tracks and
provided a summary of the infrastructure provision (single track or
double track or quadruple track, mainly). Such things change
relatively infrequently on railways, so that's a viable approach; I
don't think it could be made to work for highways}
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Differences in cycleways
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: It's not tagging for the renderers but close. And you may confuse routing applications. When I meet such (very seldom) double tagging, I always clean-up the most undetailled or obsolete version. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer There is absolutely nothing wrong in tagging so that something can be rendered well. It probably wouldn't hurt to document such dual tagging, however. Such dual tagging might slow a router down fractionally, but it's highly unlikely to produce a bad result. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Equivalence relation (was: Re: Differences in cycleways)
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On 11/01/2011 12:20 AM, Richard Mann wrote: The user who'd prefer to use highway=cycleway ways doesn't know that the cycleway=track is a duplicate, but routers only have to give a slight preference for highway=cycleway over cycleway=track to use the right one (and even if they use the wrong one, it doesn't much matter anyway). IMHO, this is being extremely optimistic about the powers of a router. So you're saying that a router could see the adjacent=yes, then locate a nearby cycleway which is adjacent in some way, and conclude that the two refer to the same thing? My suggestion: let's get a relation happening, asap. Something like: No, I'm saying the router doesn't need to know. If they have two almost identical paths in their network alongside one another, it doesn't matter which they pick. As for a relation - it's too complicated. What happens if the ways are different lengths. What happens when someone chops one way in two because of something else happening (etc etc etc). Relations are inherently complex: only use them for things that people will readily understand. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Equivalence relation
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: Like the is_in, adjacent sounds horrible for spatial applications working with spacial database where all elements already have spatial coordinates. I agree for nodes and polygons. Ways next to other ways aren't so-easily capable of spatial analysis, however. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Key:designation)
24000 uses so far, so I guess it's time to put it to a vote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Designation Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Key:designation)
You'all are welcome to: 1) Make another proposal 2) Vote yes or no to the proposal as it stands It's not appropriate to fine-tune the proposal during the voting stage - you either approve or oppose it as it stands. If there's an appropriate majority after 2 weeks, I'll move it to approved. Otherwise we'll just carry on waiting for a better idea (it might be a long wait). Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Key:designation)
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 20:47:04 + Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: If there's an appropriate majority after 2 weeks, I'll move it to approved. Otherwise we'll just carry on waiting for a better idea (it might be a long wait). Appropriate majority on the wiki of how many votes? With the tagging numbers being in their thousands, how will you decide on an appropriate number? A rule of thumb for enough support is 8 unanimous approval votes or 15 total votes with a majority approval, but other factors may also be considered (such as whether a feature is already in use). As some have said, the fact that it's already in widespread use makes the votes recorded on the wiki page a bit superfluous, but there's no particular harm in formally going through the process. If anyone raises issues when voting, the proposer is obliged to consider them before post-vote tidy-up. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Key:designation)
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Tordanik wrote: I'm still not quite sure whether I understand what designation=* is supposed to do. It's to record the legal status, or designation, of a given object - whether that object be a footpath, a waterway, or whatever. Having now looked at the wiki voting page I'm afraid the description given there is spectacularly bad. :( I'll rewrite it tomorrow morning (UK time). During the RFC, the only comments concerned it's use for recording path types in England and Wales. No great desire was expressed for it's use for other purposes, so I left it as largely for the EW purpose, but with the proviso that others could start using it for other purposes if it met a locally-agreed need (or I guess if you just feel like it). Nop added the German values, though they haven't been taken up by the German community (which makes his negative vote a bit cheeky, really, but such is life). My preliminary conclusion is that the suggested German values will simply be dropped, post-vote. I reckon the voting is running at about 24000 a handful for, and a handful against. Comments alongside the votes are more useful than the votes, really. The wiki/RFC/voting process is good for flushing out issues: it's better than just sitting in ignorance of what others think. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Key:designation)
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 11:29 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 03/02/2011 05:01 PM, Richard Mann wrote: I reckon the voting is running at about 24000 a handful for, and a handful against. Oh, come on. If you’re going to count every element tagged with designation=* as a “vote for” you really ought to count every element *not* tagged with designation=* as a vote against. Both cases are obviously silly. At best you could count the number of users who have applied this tag using the values described on the page, which is guaranteed to be less than 24000. I was being flippant. I don't think it's been subject to any imports, so user numbers are probably in the hundreds, at least. I don't think taginfo summarises the user data any more, alas. The general point I was making was that the wiki/RFC/voting system can be used intelligently, if you want to. If someone votes no and provides a killer argument, I would accept that overrules any number of yes votes. It's the same as any form of committee decision - the result might be a bit designed by a committee, but at least the rough edges have been smoothed (oops - probably not the right word). Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Key:designation)
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Yes, I know rewriting a page at this stage isn't the Done Thing. So sue me. Wikifiddler, first class. ;) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] sidewalks and trails
Relations between adjacent ways - yuk - proximity tests between near-parallel ways are computationally horrible. It isn't adequate to just say the two are related and hope the data consumer will sort out the mess. The cycleway key is applied to the road to say what the cycle facility is on that corridor (so I use cycleway:left=track to say there's legitimate cycle access on the adjacent sidewalk, and lcn:left=track to indicate it's part of a local cycle network). Using highway=path just because it's shared-use - yuk. The norm in the UK is to use whichever of footway/cycleway feels right (basically cycleway if it's nice and wide, and bikes are allowed, footway if it's a bit narrow or bikes aren't allowed), and set access tags (bicycle=yes) if the default for the highway value isn't appropriate. highway=path is better left for the countryside. IMO - others disagree. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Requirements for proposals and voting to be valid
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote: The wiki should be a place to document the various parts of OSM, and for things like software it can be useful. For tags, however, it is getting steadily more and more complex and confusing and less and less beneficial. I think we need to set a wiki principle: it should be descriptive. If there are different views then we should describe them, with an objective indication of relative popularity. Deleting someone's views because you disagree is vandalism. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cutting on only one side?
cutting:left=yes Rendering is, as ever, another matter. On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: Is there a way to tag a cutting that's only on one side of the feature? This appears to be an example: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_dXEL7_-VClA/TOnGKjrOgDI/A3Q/dGJZk3ZhETM/s1600/090417_KentuckyHighway-4.JPG ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access=avoid
That'll be a very big boat On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:57 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/6/14 Sander Deryckere sander...@gmail.com: It's Paul Johnson who introduced the tag, not Nathan. Your comment is right, but you should point it to Paul Johnson instead. yes, I saw this, he kept it, so they're sitting in the same boat ;-) Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access=avoid
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:52 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote... Well done Paul, for not rising to the bait. Can we keep discussions productive please. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Missing only_u_turn?
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:40 AM, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote: On 22 June 2011 15:13, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: I assumed he meant only U-turn and forward - ie no left or right turns. I have seen that restriction once at a t-junction, where the side street can enter the main road in either direction, but the main road can't exit onto it across the other lane of traffic. Why they allowed a U-turn I couldn't figure out, though. That'd be a no-left and a no-right (ie two relations). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
Urban normal in the UK is 100-120mm. Raised (at eg bus stops) is about 160-200mm On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: 2011-06-22 Josh Doe: I think we're definitely going for functional. The original author used those height ranges, and I'm not sure if there's any value to mention something specific like 16cm, so I changed it to ~0cm for flush, ~3cm for lowered, and 3cm for raised. I've edited the proposal to that effect. I agree with your decision to go for functional classification. However, I just noticed that it seems there isn't a value for standard kerbs? (One that is neither raised nor lowered?) Ah, I think this may be a regional distinction, and why I was confused about the mention of standard kerbs. Standard kerbs to my US (specifically east coast) context are in fact raised, i.e. they are somewhere between 6-8 inches (15-20cm). If the German/British/Europe standard kerb is something important to define (especially for a functional reason), then we can do so, but should avoid the word standard since that will means something different at least between the US and other parts of the world. Likewise, if raised means something particular to Europeans then perhaps we can change that word to something more neutral. So my question is should we have just flush/lowered/rolled/raised (in order of increasing inaccessibility, and perhaps changing raised to something else), or do we need flush/lowered/rolled/European standard/raised? Thanks, -Josh ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
kerb=flush would mean that there is a kerbstone (with all the potential for localised puddling, misalignment, settling etc), whereas kerb=no would mean there's a continuous tarmac surface - the latter occurs either if someone is trying to make a very smooth transition between the road and a cycle track, or if the pavement/sidewalk is only delineated by a painted line (you get this on narrow village roads, sometimes) the normal UK term for a lowered kerb is dropped ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Road center style
I would be glad if it was revived. As we get ever more detailed imagery, people are starting to want to split roads in two at every intersection and it makes for a right mess: I'd prefer if there was a more elegant way of handling divided roads in towns. The routing stuff should be smothered - it's a lot easier to do turn restrictions now that P2 has a facility for it, so it isn't necessary. Richard On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 5:21 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: Hmmm. That seems a little complicated, combining separation between directions with passing restrictions, and concentrates mostly on physical dividers. I've started using center_turn_lane=yes, but have run into Whee, you're right. I think that routing stuff got added on after I lost interest in it. All I wanted was a way to tag different kinds of medians, particularly to distinguish between physical barriers and painted lines. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=unclassified
When I had a go at re-writing it, I tried to give some clarity on the boundaries with adjacent values (residential, tertiary, track) - without being too country-specific. I'm not sure that the deleted sentence is particularly helpful, so I'd leave it out on the keep-it-simple principle. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=unclassified
The problem is that it ain't that simple. Quite a lot of unclassifieds don't go anywhere much, and aren't really part of the connected network. An unclassified isn't necessarily higher in the hierarchy than a residential. On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:51 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/7/27 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com: When I had a go at re-writing it, I tried to give some clarity on the boundaries with adjacent values (residential, tertiary, track) - Yes, but on the other hand deleting the cited part changed the definition and made it more difficult to differentiate between unclassified and residential. IMHO lower end of the interconnection grid network was very clear, but the current state is a longish and almost unstructured page of text, even including some country specific hints, and a very general short description: Public access road, non-residential. I think that every feature should have a clear definition in 1 (max. 3) sentence(s). All the examples and other particularities can go in different paragraphs, but should not be required to understand the point. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Unclassified cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 3:07 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.kohl-ratingen.de/images/kohl-markierung/z.299.jpg That's a dropped kerb, which is probably semantically equivalent to lowered. But dropped is the standard en-gb term. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalk tag when mapped as a separate way
Put the sidewalk tag on the road, and put some indicator on the footway (I use adjacent=yes) that it's also covered by tagging on the adjacent way. The worst that happens is some router gets two parallel links in their network, or that some super-clever algorithm identifies two parallel sidewalks but doesn't have the wit to work out that they're identical. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*
I think you meant might be advised rather than need On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote: If entrance=* is being used at all, you need to change your rendering to support it, whether or not existing building=entrances are being changed. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bus pullout?
They are called bus bays in EN-GB. I'd probably add a suitable tag (bay=yes, maybe) to the highway=bus_stop node (and maybe to a node on the road on the lines of busway:right=bay or some such). But I haven't tagged any (might be something to do with the negative value I associate with them...) Richard On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: Is there a way to tag a bus pullout that may or may not currently be served by buses? Here's an example of what I mean: http://g.co/maps/9abbu __**_ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagginghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bus pullout?
A bus bay means 1) less sidewalk (usually) 2) buses pulling out and hitting overtaking cyclists 3) buses swinging their noses over the edge of the pavement threatening unwary passengers 4) buses stopping further from the kerb because they've misjudged it, so you can't step from the kerb to the bus 5) more road maintenance cost (or lower quality) 6) buses lose advantage over cars (the reasonableness of this depends on how long the bus stops, obvs) Other than that, they're a great idea. Richard On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 09:11 +, Richard Mann wrote: But I haven't tagged any (might be something to do with the negative value I associate with them...) Curious what negative value this is? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
