[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Designation - second call
This has been updated in light of initial comments. I would however appreciate feedback on whether the values subsequently proposed for Germany (by Nop) have support before moving to a vote. Richard http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Designation ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Designation - secondcall
Hi I've added a comment and question on the Discussion Page of the wiki - concerning the use of the new tag on roads. Otherwise no further comments and ready to go to vote when Richard is ready. I wouldn't dream of commenting on Germany! England is quite complicated enough! (:) Mike Harris _ From: Richard Mann [mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com] Sent: 25 June 2009 11:18 To: osm Subject: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Designation - secondcall This has been updated in light of initial comments. I would however appreciate feedback on whether the values subsequently proposed for Germany (by Nop) have support before moving to a vote. Richard http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Designation ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Designation
I'm in favour. I think separating legal status from the highway tag is a good thing in general. Currently with bridleways tagged as highway=bridleway you have no idea what kind of actual way you are dealing with. Where I live (Devon) there are a lot of bridleways, some on wide tracks and some on singletrack paths. I also know of one bridleway near me that runs up the driveway of a country house. It would be nice to be able to differentiate that with: highway=footway designation=bridleway highway=track designation=bridleway highway=service designation=bridleway Rather than the current situation where either the type of way or the legal status is lost. Kevin On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: Richard Mann wrote: This is a request for comments on the proposal for a new Key:designation. Hopefully it's had it's rough edges removed already, but I would appreciate your comments. Richard http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Designation I'm opposed; this seems like a duplication of effort for what route relations are currently for, and creates redundancy and overlap in scope with the service= and highway= tags. As such, this really sounds like a step in the wrong direction. Perhaps expanding the service= tags and getting the mapnik and osmarender we use on the slippymap to render these things instead of route tags on the underlying ways when the underlying way is a member of a route=road relation. The cyclemap is getting this right; but strangely, none of the other renderers. And it's not like it would be that hard to get that fixed; someone's already rendering road relations complete with correct highway badges already. http://weait.com/maps/?zoom=11lat=43.14469lon=-79.17383layers=0B0 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Designation
I think the custom is to attach comments to the wiki on the discussion page. It would also be helpful if the comments focused on the aspect of the proposal that you don't like (eg the use of the designation tag for US road classifications), since the objective of this stage is to refine the proposal. Voting comes later. And of course you are entitled to propose something else instead. Richard On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: Richard Mann wrote: This is a request for comments on the proposal for a new Key:designation. Hopefully it's had it's rough edges removed already, but I would appreciate your comments. Richard http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Designation I'm opposed; this seems like a duplication of effort for what route relations are currently for, and creates redundancy and overlap in scope with the service= and highway= tags. As such, this really sounds like a step in the wrong direction. Perhaps expanding the service= tags and getting the mapnik and osmarender we use on the slippymap to render these things instead of route tags on the underlying ways when the underlying way is a member of a route=road relation. The cyclemap is getting this right; but strangely, none of the other renderers. And it's not like it would be that hard to get that fixed; someone's already rendering road relations complete with correct highway badges already. http://weait.com/maps/?zoom=11lat=43.14469lon=-79.17383layers=0B0 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Designation
Paul I think you may misunderstand the intention of the proposal - which I strongly support. I use route relations a great deal and find them very valuable indeed - but they do not meet the need for assigning a property (designation=) to a particular single stretch of way to describe its legal status. I very often find it is necessary to tag a way (a) for its physical condition on the ground using highway= , (b) for its legal status - hugely important to know whether it is permissible to walk a way, illegal to walk it or permissive - and to know whether use of the way in question is likely to meet with obstructions and, if so, whether there are legal remedies or not. I agree that there is a rendering problem. I do not see how a service= tag meets this need in any way - are you suggesting we use highway=service for a minor footpath that may not even be visible on the ground across fields but is a vital link between villages with a legal status and centuries of use? I fail to see the connection! Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org] Sent: 11 June 2009 02:43 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Designation Richard Mann wrote: This is a request for comments on the proposal for a new Key:designation. Hopefully it's had it's rough edges removed already, but I would appreciate your comments. Richard http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Designation I'm opposed; this seems like a duplication of effort for what route relations are currently for, and creates redundancy and overlap in scope with the service= and highway= tags. As such, this really sounds like a step in the wrong direction. Perhaps expanding the service= tags and getting the mapnik and osmarender we use on the slippymap to render these things instead of route tags on the underlying ways when the underlying way is a member of a route=road relation. The cyclemap is getting this right; but strangely, none of the other renderers. And it's not like it would be that hard to get that fixed; someone's already rendering road relations complete with correct highway badges already. http://weait.com/maps/?zoom=11lat=43.14469lon=-79.17383layers=0B0 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Designation
Absolutely - this is exactly the sort of situation that the proposal would resolve and there are many others. Mike Harris _ From: Kevin Peat [mailto:ke...@kevinpeat.com] Sent: 11 June 2009 10:08 To: Paul Johnson; talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Designation I'm in favour. I think separating legal status from the highway tag is a good thing in general. Currently with bridleways tagged as highway=bridleway you have no idea what kind of actual way you are dealing with. Where I live (Devon) there are a lot of bridleways, some on wide tracks and some on singletrack paths. I also know of one bridleway near me that runs up the driveway of a country house. It would be nice to be able to differentiate that with: highway=footway designation=bridleway highway=track designation=bridleway highway=service designation=bridleway Rather than the current situation where either the type of way or the legal status is lost. Kevin On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: Richard Mann wrote: This is a request for comments on the proposal for a new Key:designation. Hopefully it's had it's rough edges removed already, but I would appreciate your comments. Richard http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Designation I'm opposed; this seems like a duplication of effort for what route relations are currently for, and creates redundancy and overlap in scope with the service= and highway= tags. As such, this really sounds like a step in the wrong direction. Perhaps expanding the service= tags and getting the mapnik and osmarender we use on the slippymap to render these things instead of route tags on the underlying ways when the underlying way is a member of a route=road relation. The cyclemap is getting this right; but strangely, none of the other renderers. And it's not like it would be that hard to get that fixed; someone's already rendering road relations complete with correct highway badges already. http://weait.com/maps/?zoom=11 http://weait.com/maps/?zoom=11lat=43.14469lon=-79.17383layers=0B0 lat=43.14469lon=-79.17383layers=0B0 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Designation
Paul Johnson wrote: I'm opposed; this seems like a duplication of effort for what route relations are currently for You've utterly lost me - I don't see how the 'designation' tag (already in use anyway) has anything to do with route relations. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-tagging--Feature-Proposal---RFC---Designation-tp23961398p23981028.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Designation
It doesn't! But your message seemed to imply that you believed it did and that that was your reason for opposing the proposal! And, yes, designation= is already in use - I may well be one of the more frequent users. Which is why imho the current proposal to approve current (best?) practice seems a good one to me. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Richard Fairhurst [mailto:rich...@systemed.net] Sent: 11 June 2009 14:11 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Designation Paul Johnson wrote: I'm opposed; this seems like a duplication of effort for what route relations are currently for You've utterly lost me - I don't see how the 'designation' tag (already in use anyway) has anything to do with route relations. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-tagging--Feature-Proposal---RFC---Designation-tp23961 398p23981028.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Designation
Richard Mann wrote: This is a request for comments on the proposal for a new Key:designation. Hopefully it's had it's rough edges removed already, but I would appreciate your comments. Richard http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Designation I'm opposed; this seems like a duplication of effort for what route relations are currently for, and creates redundancy and overlap in scope with the service= and highway= tags. As such, this really sounds like a step in the wrong direction. Perhaps expanding the service= tags and getting the mapnik and osmarender we use on the slippymap to render these things instead of route tags on the underlying ways when the underlying way is a member of a route=road relation. The cyclemap is getting this right; but strangely, none of the other renderers. And it's not like it would be that hard to get that fixed; someone's already rendering road relations complete with correct highway badges already. http://weait.com/maps/?zoom=11lat=43.14469lon=-79.17383layers=0B0 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
