subject:"Re\: \[OSM\-talk\] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs..."

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
 Yes, because there are two solutions to that problem.

 1) Add an extra tag in that single country that differs from the rest of
the
 world. But don't bother all the other mappers.

IMHO Don't piss off the whole world, just piss off one country is a bad
solution, if there is no need to piss off anyone at all.

 2) Any sufficiently sophisticated router will pre-process the data and it
can
 do something with different national defaults.

Yes, but I would like us to define what the different national defaults are,
so that everyone can work off the same playbook.

For example, in Noppia, bikes can do the wrong one down one way streets. One
way streets are just tagged oneway, nothing special.
In Stevia, they can't.

We define use cases:
UC1) Oneway street with bikes allowed in wrong direction
UC2) Oneway street with bikes not allowed in wrong direction

We have a 2x2 matrix:

   UC1
UC2

Noppia: oneway=true  | oneway=true;bicycle=oneway
Stevia: oneway=true;bicycle=twoway   | oneway=true

That's the table that needs to go in the wiki so that everyone understands
how to code the same thing in different countries.

Meanwhile the area for Noppia could be tagged
bicycle_rule:wrong_way_in_oneway_permitted or whatever.

Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:

 It would also be possible to solve the problem generically for the whole
 planet.

 The real problem is that many people claim that there is no problem or
 that they have already solved it and everybody should just do as they do.

+1

 Several of the approaches would work on their own if they were completed
 to cover all use cases - but not with other interpretations using the
 same tags in different ways thrown in between.

+1. I wonder how to proceed...

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:

 IMHO Don't piss off the whole world, just piss off one country is a bad
 solution, if there is no need to piss off anyone at all.

+1

 Yes, but I would like us to define what the different national defaults are,
 so that everyone can work off the same playbook.

I'm not a fan of this solution, because usually I don't think it's
necessary - not in this case, anyway (read on...).

 For example, in Noppia, bikes can do the wrong one down one way streets. One
 way streets are just tagged oneway, nothing special.
 In Stevia, they can't.

 We define use cases:
 UC1) Oneway street with bikes allowed in wrong direction
 UC2) Oneway street with bikes not allowed in wrong direction

 We have a 2x2 matrix:

    UC1
 UC2
 
 Noppia: oneway=true  | oneway=true;bicycle=oneway
 Stevia: oneway=true;bicycle=twoway   | oneway=true

 That's the table that needs to go in the wiki so that everyone understands
 how to code the same thing in different countries.

 Meanwhile the area for Noppia could be tagged
 bicycle_rule:wrong_way_in_oneway_permitted or whatever.

I see your point, but WOW, that seems like a lot of extra STUFF to
maintain - and we don't have a good track record with maintenance (see
the wiki... :P). You don't need it. Use this, which is exactly as
*already documented in the wiki*:

UC1: oneway=yes; cycleway=opposite
UC2: oneway=yes

(see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:oneway and
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway).

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-30 Thread Mike Harris

As an Englander who has lived, albeit briefly, in Germany I do perhaps
recognise the difference between Germany and England as regards cycleways. I
think - but am not certain - that Germany is relatively unusual in having a
lot of cycleways that are NOT for pedestrians (foot=no) as Cartinus
suggests.

However, segregated cycleways are - I believe - common in both countries
(and others) - i.e. there are parallel 'lanes' for cyclists and pedestrians
(even if the separation / segregation is only by a  painted white line - and
[only in England, of course, never in Germany (;)] - often ignored by both
classes of user). Rather than use something a bit complicated like
highway=cycleway+footway=lane I tend to prefer the advice given in the
wiki at:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated

which even addresses the dreaded snowmobile issue.

In a more general vein the use of the designated= tag has 'solved' a number
of related problems - at  least for me.

But long live chaos, anarchy and OSM ... (:)

Mike Harris
 

 -Original Message-
 From: Cartinus [mailto:carti...@xs4all.nl] 
 Sent: 30 November 2009 00:31
 To: talk@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
 
 On Sunday 29 November 2009 23:10:15 Steve Bennett wrote:
  Before you go, do you think there is potential at least to have 
  consistency within each country?
 
 I'm not the one that leaves, but the answer would be yes.
 
 It's fairly simple to put foot=no on all cycleways in what is 
 probably the only country with rules for cycleways that are so strict.
 
 The often mentioned German paths with a white line in the 
 middle (that separates cyclists and pedestrians) could have 
 been done with highway=cycleway+footway=lane or something 
 similar. That is analogous to how we treat e.g. a tertiary 
 road with cycle lanes.
 
 etc. etc. etc.
 
 The path crowd however wanted one solution for everything 
 and can't accept that people didn't want to redo all existing 
 tagging. Especially not in places where it simply works.
 
 The result is that some people use path as it is designed, 
 some people don't use path at all and other people use path 
 for what the translated word path means in their language 
 (often some kind of unpaved footway).
 
 --
 m.v.g.,
 Cartinus
 
 
 


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:

  IMHO Don't piss off the whole world, just piss off one country is a bad
  solution, if there is no need to piss off anyone at all.

 +1
 I see your point, but WOW, that seems like a lot of extra STUFF to
 maintain - and we don't have a good track record with maintenance (see
 the wiki... :P). You don't need it. Use this, which is exactly as
 *already documented in the wiki*:

 UC1: oneway=yes; cycleway=opposite
 UC2: oneway=yes


You just pissed off Noppia. You just told them that every single oneway
street has to be explicitly marked cycleway=opposite. The citizens of
Noppia resent this, and most of them refuse to put it in. After all, they
reason, everyone knows that you can ride the wrong way up any oneway
street.

And you reply...?

Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-30 Thread Nick Whitelegg

I'm doing a lot of mapping of pedestrian and bike paths around my
area, and am having trouble deciding when to use path, when footway,
and when cycleway. I'm particularly troubled by the way Potlatch
describes path as unofficial path - making it sound like an
unpaved line of footprints carved through the grass.

I don't think highway=path means unofficial path. Though different 
people have interpretations, highway=path seems to be used most often for 
dirt paths in the countryside. An unofficial path where the landowner has 
allowed access (or doesn't mind access) should be tagged as highway=path 
*and* foot=permissive. Without the foot tag, many would assume the path's 
private.

Could someone give me guidance on a few specific scenarios:
1) In the parks near me, there are lots of paths, which I guess were
probably intended for pedestrians, but cyclists use them too.
Sometimes paved, sometimes not. I've been tagging them highway=path,
bicycle=yes (to be safe).

I generally use footway, rather than path, for paved paths but again this 
is a contentious point.
Do you know whether bikes can access the path? If a designated bike path, 
use highway=cycleway/bicycle=designated (optional). If you're not 
sure, use highway=footway and leave the bicycle tag out or use 
bicycle=unknown.

2) Multi-use paths, like in new housing developments. Usually paved,
and connecting streets together.

If a definite cycle path:
highway=cycleway

If not:
highway=footway; foot=permissive; [bicycle=unknown]

3) Genuine multi-use paths along the sides of creeks or freeways.
Frequently with a dotted line down the middle. Most people think of
them as bike paths, but plenty of pedestrians use them too.
highway=cycleway, foot=yes seems the most satisfying, but according
to the definition, it should just be a path? I tend to assume it's a
cycleway if the gap between two entrances ever exceeds a kilometre or
so...

This would simply be highway=cycleway, I think the general assumption is 
that pedestrians are permitted unless foot=no is added.

Nick






___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk
 wrote:

 Do you know whether bikes can access the path? If a designated bike path,
 use highway=cycleway/bicycle=designated (optional). If you're not
 sure, use highway=footway and leave the bicycle tag out or use
 bicycle=unknown.


That's a really hard question. Reflecting my biases here, but I tend to
believe I can ride my bike wherever the hell I want unless there's a sign
saying otherwise. I actually find it very to objectively decide whether
paths in my neighbourhood are bicycle=yes. There are some narrow laneways
that I ride through - no idea if anyone else does, or whether the council
expects people to. Paths through gardens and parks are the same.

(I've noticed in the media sometimes a prevailing assumption that you can
ride a bike on a road, or on a designated bike path...and that's it. But I
think it has more to do with lack of imagination than actual restrictions.)



 2) Multi-use paths, like in new housing developments. Usually paved,
 and connecting streets together.

 If a definite cycle path:
 highway=cycleway

 If not:
 highway=footway; foot=permissive; [bicycle=unknown]


Lol. If I knew what a definite cycle path was, this thread wouldn't exist.
Well, I guess if there are painted bikes on the ground, it's definite. But
that's not many.


 This would simply be highway=cycleway, I think the general assumption is
 that pedestrians are permitted unless foot=no is added.


I wish we could codify these general assumptions. Because they won't be
universal, which means there is bad map data being generated.

Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-30 Thread Richard Mann

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Nick Whitelegg 
nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote:

 This would simply be highway=cycleway, I think the general assumption is
 that pedestrians are permitted unless foot=no is added.

 The crux of the matter is that this is not what the wiki says, and not what
at least some in Germany would like:

The UK view appears to be: foot can go anywhere (except motorways) unless
you say foot=no
The German view appears to be: foot can go anywhere except motorways,
cycleways and bridleways

And we have no way of resolving this :(
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Richard Mann 
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:

 The UK view appears to be: foot can go anywhere (except motorways) unless
 you say foot=no
 The German view appears to be: foot can go anywhere except motorways,
 cycleways and bridleways

 And we have no way of resolving this :(


I think you just did resolve it.

I guess the other alternative is to have some new concept of German
bikepath and German bridleway, which all renderers will render the same,
but which routers will distinguish.

Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:

  IMHO Don't piss off the whole world, just piss off one country is a
  bad
  solution, if there is no need to piss off anyone at all.

 +1
 I see your point, but WOW, that seems like a lot of extra STUFF to
 maintain - and we don't have a good track record with maintenance (see
 the wiki... :P). You don't need it. Use this, which is exactly as
 *already documented in the wiki*:

 UC1: oneway=yes; cycleway=opposite
 UC2: oneway=yes

 You just pissed off Noppia. You just told them that every single oneway
 street has to be explicitly marked cycleway=opposite. The citizens of
 Noppia resent this, and most of them refuse to put it in. After all, they
 reason, everyone knows that you can ride the wrong way up any oneway
 street.

 And you reply...?

Hmm good question...

Several thoughts:

1) I told them that *the wiki recommends* that they do need to use
cycleway=opposite where appropriate.

1a) This is different to *me* telling them what to do - the wiki
carries more weight as it is the outcome of discussion (see the
discussion page, for example). It's also where newbies go to learn how
to map, and where others (me, at least) go for reference. Using a
common set of guidelines like this is key to maintaining consistency.
Also, importantly, if the Noppians think something is suboptimal in
the wiki, and want to re-open the discussion, propose something else,
etc., there are mechanisms available for that.

1b) Is it really so hard to add cycleway=opposite where applicable?
Really? Maybe I'm missing something (but then again, I'm one of those
strange people who have no problem adding source=* tags to everything
I change). I am always a little perplexed at some people's aversion to
extra tags - we have autocomplete, presets, DB compression, ... I
don't think it is ever worth compromising consistency to save
keystrokes.

2) They may think everyone knows the rules in Noppia, but this is
unlikely to be true. e.g. what if I visit Noppia on holiday or
business? What if my routing software uses the defaults for oneway=*
as described in the wiki?

3) You say the citizens refuse to follow the wiki's recommendations.
If they do realise that this is a problem, I cannot imagine that they
would refuse to change their practices - after all, usually OSM
contributors do want to contribute to a consistent i.e. useful OSM
database. If they can't see that ignoring the wiki can be dangerous,
then I would probably leave the room in frustration.

But Steve, the point is that surely the Noppians also want to come up
with a solution that gives us the best possible OSM database. Right? I
would ask them: what do they think is the best way to achieve that?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-30 Thread Richard Mann

I didn't resolve it because either the UK view or the German view (or some
other view) has to be the default. What we can't agree is which should be
the default.

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:

  On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Richard Mann 
 richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:

  The UK view appears to be: foot can go anywhere (except motorways)
 unless you say foot=no
 The German view appears to be: foot can go anywhere except motorways,
 cycleways and bridleways

 And we have no way of resolving this :(


 I think you just did resolve it.

 I guess the other alternative is to have some new concept of German
 bikepath and German bridleway, which all renderers will render the same,
 but which routers will distinguish.

 Steve

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-30 Thread Jonathan Bennett

Steve Bennett wrote:

 [...] I tend to
 believe I can ride my bike wherever the hell I want unless there's a
 sign saying otherwise. 

That's fine for your personal decision making. However, for OSM we need
to provide people with as much information as possible so they can make
their own, possibly different, decisions.

Record legal access rights using access=* and bicycle=* tags, and record
physical characteristics using width=* and surface=* tags, and include
any barrier=* on the path. Routers can choose whether only to use legal
routes that way, or add to path cost where there's a bike-unfriendly
barrier in the way.

If you don't *know* the legal situation this gets tricky, but that's
something we can clear up within each country eventually.

-- 
Jonathan (Jonobennett)

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-30 Thread Liz

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Richard Mann wrote:
 I didn't resolve it because either the UK view or the German view (or some
 other view) has to be the default. What we can't agree is which should be
 the default.
not at all
we can have a cycleway 
und einen Fahrradweg



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:

1) I told them that *the wiki recommends* that they do need to use
cycleway=opposite where appropriate.

1a) This is different to *me* telling them what to do - the wiki
carries more weight as it is the outcome of discussion (see the
discussion page, for example). It's also where newbies go to learn how

Ok, to recap, I said

IMHO Don't piss off the whole world, just piss off one country is a bad
solution, if there is no need to piss off anyone at all.

And you said:
+1

(It's ok if you don't agree with the position, but you're having it both
ways - saying you don't want to piss off Noppia, but then complaining when
the Noppians get pissed off.

to map, and where others (me, at least) go for reference. Using a
common set of guidelines like this is key to maintaining consistency.

Across all countries? Why?

Also, importantly, if the Noppians think something is suboptimal in
the wiki, and want to re-open the discussion, propose something else,
etc., there are mechanisms available for that.

But they're only one country. As long as there is an assumption that
everyone has to follow the same rules, then there are going to be losers.

1b) Is it really so hard to add cycleway=opposite where applicable?

Yep. Like I said, I refuse to add direction=clockwise to mini_roundabouts.
One extra tag is a lot of extra effort, when the total number of tags you're
adding is usually 2-3.

Really? Maybe I'm missing something (but then again, I'm one of those
strange people who have no problem adding source=* tags to everything
I change). I am always a little perplexed at some people's aversion to
extra tags - we have autocomplete, presets, DB compression, ... I
don't think it is ever worth compromising consistency to save
keystrokes.

What if you had to type bicycle=yes on every single road? It would suck.
How about car=yes? How about
bicycle=yes;car=yes;bus=yes;surface=paved;smoothness=5;colour=black;lines=white;parking=parallel;lanes=2;
on every road?

2) They may think everyone knows the rules in Noppia, but this is
unlikely to be true. e.g. what if I visit Noppia on holiday or
business?

What if my routing software uses the defaults for oneway=*
as described in the wiki?

Then your routing software needs to be Noppia-compatible. And since,
theoretically, we have published an RFC explaining all the international
variations in an XML file, what the rules are, that's easy.

3) You say the citizens refuse to follow the wiki's recommendations.
If they do realise that this is a problem, I cannot imagine that they

They don't have a problem. Their maps render fine, and they know exactly how
oneway streets.

would refuse to change their practices - after all, usually OSM
contributors do want to contribute to a consistent i.e. useful OSM

Locally consistent.

But Steve, the point is that surely the Noppians also want to come up
with a solution that gives us the best possible OSM database. Right? I
would ask them: what do they think is the best way to achieve that?

That's one goal. I suspect most people's goals are more pragmatic and
localised. Do I really care what the Bulgarian OSM data looks like? Not
unless I'm going there. Do I care what the Melbourne data looks like? Yes.
Do I care what the Melbourne bike path data looks like? Yes, a lot.

Am I out of line here? Of course I want to see a globally consistent, useful
database. But ultimately, I want to see the most number of users happy with
their local data. And if that means tags mean something slightly different
in Cambodia than they do in Ireland, then...what was the problem again?

Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:

 I wish we could codify these general assumptions. Because they won't be
 universal, which means there is bad map data being generated.

I think it's critical that this stuff be summarised on the wiki.
Besides being highly relevant to those who want to know *how to tag
things*, it might help us find a way forward out of this mess.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Jonathan Bennett 
openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote:

 Steve Bennett wrote:

  [...] I tend to
  believe I can ride my bike wherever the hell I want unless there's a
  sign saying otherwise.

 That's fine for your personal decision making. However, for OSM we need
 to provide people with as much information as possible so they can make
 their own, possibly different, decisions.


In case it wasn't clear, I was using the above statement to explain my
difficult in judging accurately where bikes are actually allowed to go.
There aren't many signs. Real observation-based tagging (surface,
smoothness, width etc...) seems like less shakey ground.


 If you don't *know* the legal situation this gets tricky, but that's
 something we can clear up within each country eventually.


Ok.

Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:

 I didn't resolve it because either the UK view or the German view (or some
 other view) has to be the default. What we can't agree is which should be
 the default.

Does it matter?? How hard is it to tag cycleways and bridleways with
foot=yes/no??

I would have no problem with that, if it helped give us consistency.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:

 Does it matter?? How hard is it to tag cycleways and bridleways with
 foot=yes/no??

 I would have no problem with that, if it helped give us consistency.


From a purely pragmatic perspective, the more repetitive tasks you assign to
people, the less likely it is that those tasks will be performed
consistently. I'm not convinced that telling people how to perform a task,
and getting them to do it 10,000 times will lead to 10,000 correctly
performed tasks.

(At about this stage, maybe someone should introduce some statistics into
the discussion, like number of cycleways/footways/paths tagged in various
combinations in various countries.)

Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009/11/29 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com

 On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 
  When is there a path and when is there not a path?  I walk through an
  area of grass every time I go to the park near my house.  Isn't that a
  path which is part of reality?

 An area of grass is - to me - not a path. A path, IMHO, is something
 that exists independently of people walking or not walking on it (i.e.
 usually you can *see* that it resembles a path).


-1, a path is either planned and constructed (the ones you are refering to)
or it creates itself by frequent use (e.g. shortcuts on grass). IMHO the
latter are even more valueable to the project because they are usable but
you don't find them in other maps.

cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:

 Am I out of line here? Of course I want to see a globally consistent, useful
 database. But ultimately, I want to see the most number of users happy with
 their local data. And if that means tags mean something slightly different
 in Cambodia than they do in Ireland, then...what was the problem again?

Ok, let me summarise my position, before this thread derails.

I think we should aim for a globally consistent database, because
1) I travel a fair bit (I've never been to Bulgaria, but maybe someday soon)
2) I do NOT want to be limited to Noppia-compatible routing software
if I visit Noppia (etc.)
3) I think it's not that hard to be globally consistent - it just
comes at the cost of verbosity (which is cheap)

Adding tags that help clarify what I mean does not piss me off. I am
quite happy to add direction=clockwise to roundabouts if necessary.
Ultimately, why not aim to have direction=* applied to ALL
roundabouts? I know you have a different position, which is fine. I'm
surprised that you feel one extra tag is a lot of extra effort -
have you tried various editor presets, auto-complete, selecting
multiple entities before applying a tag, etc.?

For me, your example of a road tagged with:

bicycle=yes;car=yes;bus=yes;surface=paved;smoothness=5;colour=black;lines=white;parking=parallel;lanes=2

just looks like a very well-mapped road. Good job, I would say to
the mapper, as they were obviously very thorough. Seriously.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009/11/30 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com

 On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Nick Whitelegg 
 nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote:

 This would simply be highway=cycleway, I think the general assumption is
 that pedestrians are permitted unless foot=no is added.

 The crux of the matter is that this is not what the wiki says, and not
 what at least some in Germany would like:

 The UK view appears to be: foot can go anywhere (except motorways) unless
 you say foot=no
 The German view appears to be: foot can go anywhere except motorways,
 cycleways and bridleways

 And we have no way of resolving this :(


there is some ways to resolve this:
- use a polygon (border) to determine whether the path is in Germany or in
the UK
- explicitly tag foot=yes in the UK or foot=no in Germany on those ways (or
both for best consistency).
- use path like described in the wiki and tag according to the right of ways
and tags proposed


cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:14 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:

 Does it matter?? How hard is it to tag cycleways and bridleways with
 foot=yes/no??

 I would have no problem with that, if it helped give us consistency.

 From a purely pragmatic perspective, the more repetitive tasks you assign to
 people, the less likely it is that those tasks will be performed
 consistently. I'm not convinced that telling people how to perform a task,
 and getting them to do it 10,000 times will lead to 10,000 correctly
 performed tasks.

Good point, but I think it's ok to first work out how we *should* be
tagging, before we assume that people will stuff it up.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:

 An area of grass is - to me - not a path. A path, IMHO, is something
 that exists independently of people walking or not walking on it (i.e.
 usually you can *see* that it resembles a path).

 -1, a path is either planned and constructed (the ones you are refering to)
 or it creates itself by frequent use (e.g. shortcuts on grass). IMHO the
 latter are even more valueable to the project because they are usable but
 you don't find them in other maps.

A shortcut through grass that you can see, sure! e.g.
http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/18/97/189701_92c9a5d5.jpg

But if you can't see it - sorry - you're not going to convince me that
there is a path.

If you can see some grass, sure, map that. But just being able to walk
on the grass does not turn the grass into a path. Otherwise, in any
area of grass there would actually be *infinite* overlapping,
criss-crossing invisible-paths. :P

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

 On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.comwrote:

 I think it's critical that this stuff be summarised on the wiki.
 Besides being highly relevant to those who want to know *how to tag
 things*, it might help us find a way forward out of this mess.



Yep. Even if some of us don't agree that long term the usecase vs country
matrix is appropriate, it would be a very useful discussion point if we
could map out *current practice* this way. Oh, the French do that???

Liz wrote:
we can have a cycleway
und einen Fahrradweg

Yep. And cycleway ~= Fahrradweg.


Steve

[originally sent to Roy only by mistake - still not used to mailing lists
that don't have reply-to list.]
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-30 Thread Peter Childs

2009/11/30 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
 On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:

 An area of grass is - to me - not a path. A path, IMHO, is something
 that exists independently of people walking or not walking on it (i.e.
 usually you can *see* that it resembles a path).

 -1, a path is either planned and constructed (the ones you are refering to)
 or it creates itself by frequent use (e.g. shortcuts on grass). IMHO the
 latter are even more valueable to the project because they are usable but
 you don't find them in other maps.

 A shortcut through grass that you can see, sure! e.g.
 http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/18/97/189701_92c9a5d5.jpg

 But if you can't see it - sorry - you're not going to convince me that
 there is a path.

 If you can see some grass, sure, map that. But just being able to walk
 on the grass does not turn the grass into a path. Otherwise, in any
 area of grass there would actually be *infinite* overlapping,
 criss-crossing invisible-paths. :P


Perhaps what we need here is a tag that says you can walk anyway you
like within this area, Like a large town squares, playing field, etc I
know that places like Scotland there is a Right to Roam but for most
of us, we need to keep to paths but sometimes areas are less
strict Walking routing software could see this area and take the
shortest route across the area.

Peter

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:

 I think we should aim for a globally consistent database, because
 1) I travel a fair bit (I've never been to Bulgaria, but maybe someday
 soon)
 2) I do NOT want to be limited to Noppia-compatible routing software
 if I visit Noppia (etc.)


Consider it internationally aware software. Routing software that is aware
of the local laws of each country seems obvious. We'll limit the variations
as much as possible, of course.


 3) I think it's not that hard to be globally consistent - it just
 comes at the cost of verbosity (which is cheap)


I think verbosity is expensive. My experience is with Wikipedia, where
everyone always thinks the labour is free. It may be free, but it's finite.
And the more you get people to waste their time doing tedious busywork, the
less time they spend doing useful things.



 Adding tags that help clarify what I mean does not piss me off. I am
 quite happy to add direction=clockwise to roundabouts if necessary.
 Ultimately, why not aim to have direction=* applied to ALL
 roundabouts?


Sure, by all means, have that tag applied. But forcing someone to manually
add it when the roundabout in question is in a left-drive country is
insulting. Maybe the client could add it automatically. I don't know.


 I know you have a different position, which is fine. I'm
 surprised that you feel one extra tag is a lot of extra effort -
 have you tried various editor presets, auto-complete, selecting
 multiple entities before applying a tag, etc.?


Auto-complete, yes, and I still think plus-s-o-enter-n-enter is too many
keystrokes to add source=nearmap. (It's even worse in josm:
alt+b-s-o-tab-n-enter).

Maybe I need to use josm to do something like search for everything I've
touched that has no source and bulk-update. But that could make mistakes.

Will investigate editor presets.

Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-30 Thread Emilie Laffray

2009/11/30 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com

  On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.comwrote:

 I think it's critical that this stuff be summarised on the wiki.
 Besides being highly relevant to those who want to know *how to tag
 things*, it might help us find a way forward out of this mess.



 Yep. Even if some of us don't agree that long term the usecase vs country
 matrix is appropriate, it would be a very useful discussion point if we
 could map out *current practice* this way. Oh, the French do that???


+1

Emilie Laffray
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-30 Thread Richard Mann

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:

  Liz wrote:
 we can have a cycleway
 und einen Fahrradweg

 Yep. And cycleway ~= Fahrradweg.


 Steve


There are umpteen ways of resolving it. The problem is that we don't have a
process for agreeing which. I wouldn't go for a different highway value
personally.

Richard
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009/11/30 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com

 A shortcut through grass that you can see, sure! e.g.
 http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/18/97/189701_92c9a5d5.jpg

 But if you can't see it - sorry - you're not going to convince me that
 there is a path.


+1, I completely agree with you. Only visible paths (where visibility
indicates frequent use, if it is not in use, there won't be a visible
trail). I guess I misunderstood you before.

cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:

 I think we should aim for a globally consistent database, because
 1) I travel a fair bit (I've never been to Bulgaria, but maybe someday
 soon)
 2) I do NOT want to be limited to Noppia-compatible routing software
 if I visit Noppia (etc.)

 Consider it internationally aware software. Routing software that is aware 
 of the local laws of each country seems obvious.

Um...what??? That will not write itself. Do you expect us to
successfully digitize and maintain a database of all laws of all
countries? In a wiki, even? That's ambitious! I'd prefer to stick to
mapping what's on the ground.

 3) I think it's not that hard to be globally consistent - it just
 comes at the cost of verbosity (which is cheap)

 I think verbosity is expensive. My experience is with Wikipedia, where
 everyone always thinks the labour is free. It may be free, but it's finite.
 And the more you get people to waste their time doing tedious busywork, the
 less time they spend doing useful things.

I agree that tedious busywork is not good. But we have computers -
surely we're able to use presets etc. so that more
verbosity/explicitness requires negligible amounts of additional
labour. Let's get the tagging schemes right first. Seriously, it's not
going to be a big deal to e.g. add foot=yes/no to cycleways. Look at
the big picture - we're making a map of the entire world. We're trying
to find the best and easiest way to do it. Remember that additional
labour adding foot=yes/no can *avoid* future labour spent sorting out
messes like this one. And it can give us a better quality result.

 Adding tags that help clarify what I mean does not piss me off. I am
 quite happy to add direction=clockwise to roundabouts if necessary.
 Ultimately, why not aim to have direction=* applied to ALL
 roundabouts?

 Sure, by all means, have that tag applied. But forcing someone to manually
 add it when the roundabout in question is in a left-drive country is
 insulting. Maybe the client could add it automatically. I don't know.

Well, I don't find it insulting. And yes, the client (editor) could
certainly add it automatically. Remember that we are also not limited
to current versions of current editors - editors can be improved.

Let's get the tagging right first - editor improvements will follow. I
think we shouldn't tag for the editor (if you know what I mean) :P

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:

 Um...what??? That will not write itself. Do you expect us to
 successfully digitize and maintain a database of all laws of all
 countries?


What do you think? Work with me, here.


 In a wiki, even? That's ambitious! I'd prefer to stick to
 mapping what's on the ground.



 I agree that tedious busywork is not good. But we have computers -
 surely we're able to use presets etc. so that more
 verbosity/explicitness requires negligible amounts of additional
 labour.


Yes...macros and scripts are always a first step in improving usability.
Smarter data structures and algorithms, and better analysis of needs and
solutions is the next.


 Let's get the tagging schemes right first. Seriously, it's not
 going to be a big deal to e.g. add foot=yes/no to cycleways.


You: It's easy to add foot=yes.
Me: It's hard to get everyone to consistently add foot=yes.

Just so we're clear on that. Can we move on?


 Let's get the tagging right first - editor improvements will follow.

 If by get the tagging right you mean analyse the problem, work out what
people are doing, and come up with the most efficient set of tags for people
to use, then yes. But I don't think you mean that.

Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:

 An area of grass is - to me - not a path. A path, IMHO, is something
 that exists independently of people walking or not walking on it (i.e.
 usually you can *see* that it resembles a path).

 -1, a path is either planned and constructed (the ones you are refering to)
 or it creates itself by frequent use (e.g. shortcuts on grass). IMHO the
 latter are even more valueable to the project because they are usable but
 you don't find them in other maps.

 A shortcut through grass that you can see, sure! e.g.
 http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/18/97/189701_92c9a5d5.jpg

 But if you can't see it - sorry - you're not going to convince me that
 there is a path.

 If you can see some grass, sure, map that. But just being able to walk
 on the grass does not turn the grass into a path. Otherwise, in any
 area of grass there would actually be *infinite* overlapping,
 criss-crossing invisible-paths. :P

What if I map the entire section of grass which is within the right of
way as a polygon with highway=path, area=yes?  That's how we represent
infinite overlapping criss-crossing invisible-paths, like a
pedestrian mall.

On the right is a road.  On the left is a lake.  In the middle, is a
path, made out of grass.  It's probably not much wider than the road.
And only about half of it is within the right of way.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:

 What if I map the entire section of grass which is within the right of
 way as a polygon with highway=path, area=yes?  That's how we represent
 infinite overlapping criss-crossing invisible-paths, like a
 pedestrian mall.


I'm kind of hoping future routers will assume people can walk anywhere
within parks, if it saves time. For most of the parks I've been dealing
with, it would make far more sense to map the occasional barrier rather than
all the open space.

(I confess I've been dreaming of a super-router that plots a path, then
quickly walks you through it, checking that you're happy with its
decisions...)

Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:

 What if I map the entire section of grass which is within the right of
 way as a polygon with highway=path, area=yes?  That's how we represent
 infinite overlapping criss-crossing invisible-paths, like a
 pedestrian mall.

 I'm kind of hoping future routers will assume people can walk anywhere
 within parks, if it saves time. For most of the parks I've been dealing
 with, it would make far more sense to map the occasional barrier rather than
 all the open space.

Maybe, but this isn't in the park.  This is on the way to the park.
The way.  Ha.  No pun intended.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-30 Thread Lester Caine

Anthony wrote:
 On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
 An area of grass is - to me - not a path. A path, IMHO, is something
 that exists independently of people walking or not walking on it (i.e.
 usually you can *see* that it resembles a path).
 -1, a path is either planned and constructed (the ones you are refering to)
 or it creates itself by frequent use (e.g. shortcuts on grass). IMHO the
 latter are even more valueable to the project because they are usable but
 you don't find them in other maps.
 A shortcut through grass that you can see, sure! e.g.
 http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/18/97/189701_92c9a5d5.jpg

 But if you can't see it - sorry - you're not going to convince me that
 there is a path.

 If you can see some grass, sure, map that. But just being able to walk
 on the grass does not turn the grass into a path. Otherwise, in any
 area of grass there would actually be *infinite* overlapping,
 criss-crossing invisible-paths. :P

 What if I map the entire section of grass which is within the right of
 way as a polygon with highway=path, area=yes?  That's how we represent
 infinite overlapping criss-crossing invisible-paths, like a
 pedestrian mall.
 
 On the right is a road.  On the left is a lake.  In the middle, is a
 path, made out of grass.  It's probably not much wider than the road.
 And only about half of it is within the right of way.

I think that is probably covers some of the 'paths' that I need to describe. 
They are really large areas of grass which can be walked across to get to other 
points, rather than a 'tag' on the side of a near by road  using the road 
to 
do the 'pedestrian' routing is simply wrong but so also is drawing an imaginary 
additional set of ways except where they are specifically marked.

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:

 What if I map the entire section of grass which is within the right of
 way as a polygon with highway=path, area=yes?  That's how we represent
 infinite overlapping criss-crossing invisible-paths, like a
 pedestrian mall.

Not bad. But what makes that area of grass a path as opposed to just
an area of grass you can walk on (e.g. landuse=meadow or something +
foot=yes)? Is there a difference?

I tend to think paths should be limited to elongated areas, designed
for or used typically for travel (other than for large vehicles like
cars), with usually a constant or slowly varying width. There's
probably a better definition though.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:

 Um...what??? That will not write itself. Do you expect us to
 successfully digitize and maintain a database of all laws of all
 countries?

 What do you think? Work with me, here.

I think that would be a nightmare, and would not work. If anything, it
would introduce MORE inconsistency due to 1) difficulty maintaining
the lawbook and 2) a more complicated set of guidelines and more
complicated wiki, making it even LESS likely that people will follow
it consistently.

As I've said, I'd prefer to stick to *mapping what's on the ground*,
*according to the guidelines in the wiki*. This is the only way to get
global consistency, which I think is important for the reasons I've
already described.

 Let's get the tagging schemes right first. Seriously, it's not
 going to be a big deal to e.g. add foot=yes/no to cycleways.

 You: It's easy to add foot=yes.
 Me: It's hard to get everyone to consistently add foot=yes.

 Just so we're clear on that. Can we move on?

Me: It *will be* easy to get everyone to consistently add foot=yes when:
1) I can convince you guys that this approach is the best way to get
global consistency, and that that's important;
2) people realise that editors can be used to avoid additional
keystrokes and so there is actually no cost in adding foot=yes;
3) this mess is sorted out, and the guidelines for
path/footway/cycleway are consolidated and improved (made clear)

Re: 3), I often hear people say it's such a mess, I gave up asking on
the email list and now I just use cycleway when [ insert custom
definition ].

 Let's get the tagging right first - editor improvements will follow.

 If by get the tagging right you mean analyse the problem, work out what
 people are doing, and come up with the most efficient set of tags for people
 to use, then yes. But I don't think you mean that.

I do mean that! Assuming that, by most efficient, you mean most
likely to result in a complete and consistent map of the Earth. And
before you say but that's not necessarily efficient, part of being
likely to result in a good outcome is that mappers remain motivated
to contribute - so this does take into account that the tags have to
be satisfying to use.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-30 Thread Cartinus

On Monday 30 November 2009 22:25:36 Roy Wallace wrote:
 1) I can convince you guys that this approach is the best way to get
 global consistency, and that that's important;
 2) people realise that editors can be used to avoid additional
 keystrokes and so there is actually no cost in adding foot=yes;

I've been told that when OSM started (I wasn't involved then) that every 
motorway had to be tagged horse=no+foot=no+bicycle=no.

There is a reason they stopped doing that.

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-30 Thread Tobias Knerr

Roy Wallace wrote:

 Routing software that is aware of the local laws of each country seems 
 obvious.
 
 Um...what??? That will not write itself. Do you expect us to
 successfully digitize and maintain a database of all laws of all
 countries? In a wiki, even? That's ambitious! I'd prefer to stick to
 mapping what's on the ground.

If we map what's on the ground, then we create a map database containing
here is an oneway sign, over there is a cycleway sign. That's
nice, but if I want to do routing with this, I need information such as
can I use way w in direction d with vehicle v? - and in order to know
this, I need another database that tells me what a sign means in that
part of the world (for example: are pedestrians allowed to walk on ways
with a cycleway sign?).

If we don't want a traffic law database, then we need to tag the
required information directly. But then mappers don't just map physical
reality. They interpret the signs (and other information) using their -
hopefully correct - knowledge of the laws.

Both can work, but /someone/ has to do the transfer from reality to road
network attributes - either software (using a traffic laws DB) or humans
(mapping more than just what's on the ground).

Tobias Knerr

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
 On Monday 30 November 2009 22:25:36 Roy Wallace wrote:
 1) I can convince you guys that this approach is the best way to get
 global consistency, and that that's important;
 2) people realise that editors can be used to avoid additional
 keystrokes and so there is actually no cost in adding foot=yes;

 I've been told that when OSM started (I wasn't involved then) that every
 motorway had to be tagged horse=no+foot=no+bicycle=no.

 There is a reason they stopped doing that.

The reason is that that's *globally* redundant.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-30 Thread Liz

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
 On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
  On Monday 30 November 2009 22:25:36 Roy Wallace wrote:
  1) I can convince you guys that this approach is the best way to get
  global consistency, and that that's important;
  2) people realise that editors can be used to avoid additional
  keystrokes and so there is actually no cost in adding foot=yes;
 
  I've been told that when OSM started (I wasn't involved then) that every
  motorway had to be tagged horse=no+foot=no+bicycle=no.
 
  There is a reason they stopped doing that.

 The reason is that that's *globally* redundant.


not exactly correct.
We do have highway marked motorway in Au where bicycles are allowed.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
 Roy Wallace wrote:

 Routing software that is aware of the local laws of each country seems 
 obvious.

 Um...what??? That will not write itself. Do you expect us to
 successfully digitize and maintain a database of all laws of all
 countries? In a wiki, even? That's ambitious! I'd prefer to stick to
 mapping what's on the ground.

 If we map what's on the ground, then we create a map database containing
 here is an oneway sign, over there is a cycleway sign. That's
 nice, but if I want to do routing with this, I need information such as
 can I use way w in direction d with vehicle v? - and in order to know
 this, I need another database that tells me what a sign means in that
 part of the world (for example: are pedestrians allowed to walk on ways
 with a cycleway sign?).

 If we don't want a traffic law database, then we need to tag the
 required information directly. But then mappers don't just map physical
 reality. They interpret the signs (and other information) using their -
 hopefully correct - knowledge of the laws.

 Both can work, but /someone/ has to do the transfer from reality to road
 network attributes - either software (using a traffic laws DB) or humans
 (mapping more than just what's on the ground).

Good points. You did find a flaw in my argument - that I was sort of
advocating exhaustive tagging as well as only mapping what's on the
ground. Funnily enough, I actually find both of these extremes
acceptable. But that's not the point...

The point I was making was that it should *not* be necessary to
*require* a database of all laws of all countries to know what
highway=cycleway means. There should be one definition that is
consistent for the whole world. For example, this path is marked with
a sign with a bicycle symbol on it. If people also want to put in
exhaustive information inferred from a law book, I'd prefer they go
ahead and use foot=no + source:foot=lawbook. If people prefer to
leave out the inferred information, and instead write routers with
country-specific defaults, that's cool, too.

But highway=cycleway tags in the OSM database should all mean the same thing.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
 On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
 On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
  On Monday 30 November 2009 22:25:36 Roy Wallace wrote:
  1) I can convince you guys that this approach is the best way to get
  global consistency, and that that's important;
  2) people realise that editors can be used to avoid additional
  keystrokes and so there is actually no cost in adding foot=yes;
 
  I've been told that when OSM started (I wasn't involved then) that every
  motorway had to be tagged horse=no+foot=no+bicycle=no.
 
  There is a reason they stopped doing that.

 The reason is that that's *globally* redundant.


 not exactly correct.
 We do have highway marked motorway in Au where bicycles are allowed.

Ok, rephrased: the reason they stopped is because it wasn't necessary.
Obviously, we have a problem here. I'm suggesting some solutions.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-30 Thread Elizabeth Dodd

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
 On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
  On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
  On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
   On Monday 30 November 2009 22:25:36 Roy Wallace wrote:
   1) I can convince you guys that this approach is the best way to get
   global consistency, and that that's important;
   2) people realise that editors can be used to avoid additional
   keystrokes and so there is actually no cost in adding foot=yes;
  
   I've been told that when OSM started (I wasn't involved then) that
   every motorway had to be tagged horse=no+foot=no+bicycle=no.
  
   There is a reason they stopped doing that.
 
  The reason is that that's *globally* redundant.
 
  not exactly correct.
  We do have highway marked motorway in Au where bicycles are allowed.

 Ok, rephrased: the reason they stopped is because it wasn't necessary.
 Obviously, we have a problem here. I'm suggesting some solutions.


I'm not sure that those roads (Hume Highway) should be marked as motorway, but 
got no comment on the talk-au list when i asked for comments.



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-30 Thread Tobias Knerr

Roy Wallace wrote:
 The point I was making was that it should *not* be necessary to
 *require* a database of all laws of all countries to know what
 highway=cycleway means. There should be one definition that is
 consistent for the whole world. For example, this path is marked with
 a sign with a bicycle symbol on it. If people also want to put in
 exhaustive information inferred from a law book, I'd prefer they go
 ahead and use foot=no + source:foot=lawbook. If people prefer to
 leave out the inferred information, and instead write routers with
 country-specific defaults, that's cool, too.
 
 But highway=cycleway tags in the OSM database should all mean the same thing.

Do you only suggest that there should be exactly one meaning per tag, or
would you also want the same tags to be used all over the world?

It makes a difference for possible approaches like using
highway=Fahrradweg (or DE:cycleway or any other value that isn't exactly
cycleway) for German cycleways, as that would still be one meaning
per tag.

Tobias Knerr

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

Various comments:

I'm not sure that those roads (Hume Highway) should be marked as motorway,
 but
 got no comment on the talk-au list when i asked for comments.


The Hume *Freeway* is definitely a motorway. There are places between
Melbourne and Sydney where it's just a highway, but it's dual carriage
almost the whole way through Victoria. The Western Freeway also allows
bikes. (And for anyone who hasn't tried it, riding on a motorway has some
serious slipstreaming benefits!)

This is one area where national defaults won't help - you'd have to get
down to local rules.

I've referred to Jurisdictions a few times for this reason. I imagine US
states are possibly even more individual. Would we go as far as
councils/municipalities? Probably not. (Although, as I mentioned somewhere
earlier, the City of Melbourne prohibits bike riding in parks, while other
councils don't. My preferred solution would be tag paths in the former as
footway, and in the latter as cycleway).

The point I was making was that it should *not* be necessary to
*require* a database of all laws of all countries

This statement is unnecessarily scary. Database. All laws. All
countries. Like I said, think about it. Of course not. The variations are
minor, and represent a tiny proportion of the traffic laws of each country.
And we could certainly have defaults that most countries match.

Remember, the goal here is to have a situation where the most intuitive and
convenient way to tag stuff where people live is as consistent as possible
with the rest of the world. A cultural/legal matrix is the right way to do
that.

Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
 Roy Wallace wrote:
 The point I was making was that it should *not* be necessary to
 *require* a database of all laws of all countries to know what
 highway=cycleway means. There should be one definition that is
 consistent for the whole world. For example, this path is marked with
 a sign with a bicycle symbol on it. If people also want to put in
 exhaustive information inferred from a law book, I'd prefer they go
 ahead and use foot=no + source:foot=lawbook. If people prefer to
 leave out the inferred information, and instead write routers with
 country-specific defaults, that's cool, too.

 But highway=cycleway tags in the OSM database should all mean the same thing.

 Do you only suggest that there should be exactly one meaning per tag, or
 would you also want the same tags to be used all over the world?

 It makes a difference for possible approaches like using
 highway=Fahrradweg (or DE:cycleway or any other value that isn't exactly
 cycleway) for German cycleways, as that would still be one meaning
 per tag.

One meaning per tag is essential. If a German cycleway is *different*
in some important way to a UK (or whatever) cycleway, it should
ultimately be tagged *differently*. I find this obvious.

The details of how they should be tagged are of secondary importance.
To answer your question specifically, I don't have so much of a
problem with highway=fahrradweg, though I doubt that's the best way to
do it. If highway=fahrradweg at least has the same meaning in all
usages, it would be an improvement!

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-30 Thread Liz

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Steve Bennett wrote:
 I'm not sure that those roads (Hume Highway) should be marked as motorway,

  but
  got no comment on the talk-au list when i asked for comments.

 The Hume Freeway is definitely a motorway. There are places between
 Melbourne and Sydney where it's just a highway, but it's dual carriage
 almost the whole way through Victoria. The Western Freeway also allows
 bikes. (And for anyone who hasn't tried it, riding on a motorway has some
 serious slipstreaming benefits!)
i agree with you
there are many km of Hume Highway in NSW which are marked as motorway, when 
they are technically not so, they are a high quality dual carriageway. But 
there are no flyovers, traffic can cross the lanes to enter and leave the 
road.



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009/12/1 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de

 Roy Wallace wrote:
  The point I was making was that it should *not* be necessary to
  *require* a database of all laws of all countries to know what
  highway=cycleway means.


+1. even if for implicit regulations this would be needed, at least the
consensus could be (like you suggested) that cycleway is a marked cycleway.
Whether I'm allowed to use it with a 25ccm motorcycle (mofa) or not, could
be optionally tagged or considered as implicitly given by local law.


 Do you only suggest that there should be exactly one meaning per tag, or
 would you also want the same tags to be used all over the world?


what do you mean by this? The meaning is always different. Do we need
different tags for roads in the UK because the drive on the left? IMHO no.

cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009/12/1 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com


 I've referred to Jurisdictions a few times for this reason. I imagine US
 states are possibly even more individual. Would we go as far as
 councils/municipalities? Probably not. (Although, as I mentioned somewhere
 earlier, the City of Melbourne prohibits bike riding in parks, while other
 councils don't. My preferred solution would be tag paths in the former as
 footway, and in the latter as cycleway).

 no, I wouldn't tag all ways in a park as cycleways, just because you can
also ride a bike. I would tag both as footway (or service if big enough for
cars to drive, with access-tags) and put bicycle=yes/no aside, as long as
they are not dedicated cycleways.

cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:

 What if I map the entire section of grass which is within the right of
 way as a polygon with highway=path, area=yes?  That's how we represent
 infinite overlapping criss-crossing invisible-paths, like a
 pedestrian mall.

 Not bad. But what makes that area of grass a path as opposed to just
 an area of grass you can walk on (e.g. landuse=meadow or something +
 foot=yes)? Is there a difference?

Well, I didn't know landuse tags were routable.  And landuse=meadow
sounds to me like a terrible tag (meadow is not a type of usage of
land).

But I think the key difference is that the area of land is located in
a right of way.  And a second key difference is that it's useful for
routing purposes.

 I tend to think paths should be limited to elongated areas, designed
 for or used typically for travel (other than for large vehicles like
 cars), with usually a constant or slowly varying width. There's
 probably a better definition though.

I'd say this strip of land qualifies by that definition.  Length,
about 80 meters.  Width: about 10-15 meters.  Used quite often for
pedestrian travel (it's the way you get to the park, plus school
children regularly walk across it on their way to/from school).  The
width is fairly constant.

Frankly, I don't see much point in using an area, unless you're going
to use an area for basically everything.  I was kind of being
sarcastic about that.  But whatever.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009/12/1 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com


 One meaning per tag is essential.


it depends what this meaning is. If you intend by meaning: cycleway is a way
with a bicycle-sign: fine, if you intent that all access rights should be
implicitly and globally given: no.


 If a German cycleway is *different*
 in some important way to a UK (or whatever) cycleway, it should
 ultimately be tagged *differently*. I find this obvious.


what's the difference? Minimum width differs 5 cm? Kind of sign? Forbidden
to pedestrians? Obligatory for bicycles? Forbidden to 25ccm? Blue lines
instead of white ones? If every smallest difference will cause another
top-tag, we'll get thousands of them.

cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009/12/1 Anthony o...@inbox.org


 I'd say this strip of land qualifies by that definition.  Length,
 about 80 meters.  Width: about 10-15 meters.  Used quite often for
 pedestrian travel (it's the way you get to the park, plus school
 children regularly walk across it on their way to/from school).  The
 width is fairly constant.


what about highway=pedestrian, area=yes, surface=grass?


 Frankly, I don't see much point in using an area, unless you're going
 to use an area for basically everything.


in the end yes.

cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 7:38 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
 That will not write itself. Do you expect us to
 successfully digitize and maintain a database of all laws of all
 countries? In a wiki, even? That's ambitious! I'd prefer to stick to
 mapping what's on the ground.

You can map what's on the ground, then.  But in order to make a decent
routing application, someone is going to have to maintain a database
of certain laws in any states they wish for their routing application
to work.  There's really no question about that.  The only question is
whether you want to store that information in every single element of
the database, or store it once for each jurisdiction.

I vote for once for each jurisdiction.  But I vote strongly against
doing so using a wiki.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:

 If a German cycleway is *different*
 in some important way to a UK (or whatever) cycleway, it should
 ultimately be tagged *differently*. I find this obvious.

 what's the difference? Minimum width differs 5 cm? Kind of sign? Forbidden
 to pedestrians? Obligatory for bicycles? Forbidden to 25ccm? Blue lines
 instead of white ones? If every smallest difference will cause another
 top-tag, we'll get thousands of them.

If you're indicating something that might be useful for someone (e.g.
foot=yes/no), then yes, it should ultimately be recorded. Eventually.
And yes, eventually, I would expect OSM will have more tags than it
does now, as the scope of the project expands (note this doesn't mean
it has to expand illogically, or without structure).

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:

 Um...what??? That will not write itself. Do you expect us to
 successfully digitize and maintain a database of all laws of all
 countries?

 What do you think? Work with me, here.

 I think that would be a nightmare, and would not work. If anything, it
 would introduce MORE inconsistency due to 1) difficulty maintaining
 the lawbook and 2) a more complicated set of guidelines and more
 complicated wiki, making it even LESS likely that people will follow
 it consistently.

 As I've said, I'd prefer to stick to *mapping what's on the ground*,
 *according to the guidelines in the wiki*. This is the only way to get
 global consistency, which I think is important for the reasons I've
 already described.

If the law of one jurisdiction says bicycles are allowed on all roads
except freeways, and the law of another jurisdiction says bicycles are
allowed on all roadways with speed limits less than 45, and there
aren't any signs on the ground making people aware of this, and we
don't want to maintain a database of laws, what are we to do?

I like the idea of mapping only what's on the ground.  But it can be
taken to far.  Does anyone honestly suggest that we shouldn't tag a
road's name using any knowledge other than what's literally on the
ground - on a street sign?  Should we really do away with pretty much
all boundary=* tags altogether (or replace them with nodes at the
points where there are signs)?  Map what's on the ground is a good
guideline, but there have to be exceptions.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:

 I vote for once for each jurisdiction.  But I vote strongly against
 doing so using a wiki.


Not quite sure what you're voting against. I would suggest using the wiki to
collect and organise information on jurisdictional varations, current
tagging practice, and proposed practice, then codifying that information in
something like XML.

Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-29 Thread Lester Caine

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
 Steve Bennett wrote:
 Instinctively, I want to tag it a cycleway...but there's absolutely
 nothing to justify that. Nowhere will you see any primacy given to
 cycling over walking. Conundrum.
 
 highway=cycleway doesn't mean cycles have priority. It just means it's 
 intended for pedestrian and cycle use. There's no suggestion of primacy 
 for either.
 
 (Incidentally, I missed out the footnote from my last mail, which was 
 going to say that in some countries (like the UK) cycles are permitted 
 on bridleways; nonetheless it's most sensible to treat highway=bridleway 
 as a path for pedestrian and horse use, and tag over and above that if 
 it's a cyclable one.)

http://www.horsedata.co.uk/Jargon.htm I think nicely covers most of the options.
But 'cycleway' is still a rather woolly term, with many specially constructed 
cycle routes using that term only for a fully-segregated cycle route, however 
sustrans.org.uk works on the basis that the national cycle network is also for
'walkers, wheelchair uses and horseriders' and this is where the 'path' 
designation sort of came from since many vehicle free routes are not footway, 
cycleway or bridalway.

Personally I would only use cycleway where the 'path' was specifically 
restricted to cycles for reasons of safety - such as the segregated routes that 
form part of a main vehicle way, lanes on the side such as described in 
http://www.cycling.bham.ac.uk/other/RoadDesignTerminology.shtml but at this 
point we are getting back to the 'micromapping' question on when does a single 
'way' get replaced with a group of parallel ways each with their correct 
designation . around here it is the footpaths which do not follow directly 
the 'roadway' and many of them are 'pavements' where cycling is specifically 
banned.

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...


Hi!

Cartinus schrieb:
 On Sunday 29 November 2009 01:34:19 Nop wrote:
 2) AFAIK the only attempt at a neutral display of the different opinions
 is here:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path
 
 That page is far from neutral, because the only solutions it offers are doing 
 something with the path tag.

It is an attempt. If you find something missing or have another 
suggestion for a solution, why don't you add it?

bye
Nop


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-29 Thread Mike Harris

Not to suggest that there is a 'right' or a 'wrong' approach - but merely to
note that I (England mostly) - and I believe some others in England and
perhaps elsewhere) have a different approach - this is, I stress, what I
currently do - and has evolved as a result of my own (limited) experience in
mapping and participation in various group discussions:

1. All ways that are not available other than to pedestrians are
highway=footway - whether urban paved footways or rural unpaved 'footpaths'.
Even a rural 'footpath' that is barely discernible where it crosses, for
example, pasture, is highway=footway if it is a legal public footpath.

2. Highway=path is only used for a route - usually ill-defined and often in
upland areas where the precise legal line of a public footpath is often less
meaningful than the customary route (e.g. up a mountain) - in the sense that
people walk it.

3. Highway=track is used similarly for something that is wider and, at least
in principle, available for use by a four-wheeled (off-road e.g. a farm
tractor) vehicle.

3. I would then define legal status, where known, using a designated= tag
and surface condition using a combination of tracktype= and/or surface= as
appropriate. I would also add ref= where the reference number of the way was
known.

4. I would always add foot=yes (or at least foot=permissive) for clarity and
also add bicycle ¦ horse = yes ¦ permissive ¦ no as appropriate.

5. I would reserve highway=cycleway for something that was (a) built
primarily for use by bicycles - whether beside a motor road or not and was
(b) (only relevant in England and Wales) not a public
footpath/bridleway/byway (as these have legally defined rights for different
classes of user). I would then add foot=yes (unless pedestrians were
actually forbidden) for additional clarity and perhaps an indication as to
whether it was a shared way for cyclists and walkers or a longitudinally
divided dual use way.

6. I would use a route relation to define medium- / long-distance routes -
e.g. a long-distance path or a national/regional cycleway - adding names and
reference numbers to the relation.

Again, I stress, this is just what I do - in the interest of transparency -
and not in any way to suggest that it is better or worse than what Lesi or
anyone else has adopted. This is OSM - the ultimate popular democracy!

Have fun mapping!

Mike Harris
 

 -Original Message-
 From: Lesi [mailto:l...@lesi.is-a-geek.net] 
 Sent: 28 November 2009 14:29
 To: talk@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
 
 The footway/cycleway/path choas is the one of the biggest 
 drawbacks of OSM.
 
 Here's my approach:
 - A footway is a mostly paved way in a city. It's a way which 
 was mostly built by an authority. You can walk on it safely 
 in high heels.
 - A path is a narrow way, which is mostly not paved and was 
 not built by somebody. This can be short cuts in cities, ways 
 in a forest which are to narrow to be tagged as tracks or 
 hiking trails in the mountains. If it's raining you could get 
 dirty shoes.
 You can indicate that the path is (not) suitable for bikes 
 with bicycle=yes/no.
 You can ride with your bike everywhere in my area, so I do 
 not use cycleway.
 
 lesi
 
 
 
 


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-29 Thread Steve Bennett

 1) Re: connecting paths across small grass areas - don't mark a path
 where there isn't one, and especially don't do it for the purpose of
 trying to make routers work better. Map reality - that will always
 work best in the long term. (just my personal preference)

IMHO accessible paths *must* be marked, because it's impossible to
write a router that will guess correctly. I agree that it would be
preferable not to have these hints to the router appear in the
renderer, and to be distinguished somehow. I'd almost be inclined to
invent a tag with a clearly whimsical name like highway=invisible_path
(to avoid adding to the chaos). Or even highway=none bicycle=yes
etc.


 2) Re: when to use path/footway/cycleway etc. - firstly, I prefer
 highway=path because it is more extensible. Any
 highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway can be expressed in terms of a
 highway=path with additional access tags.

Yes. You have spelt out exactly what is wrong with this approach, with
the terms can be expressed...with additional...tags. Succinct is
good. Semantically rich tags are good.

 In this way, using
 highway=path can be more explicit, because of ongoing disagreements in
 the definition of footway/cycleway/bridleway.

 3) Re: what does TAG really mean? - rather than everyone giving
 their personal opinion on e.g. what highway=path means, for new users
 I would strongly recommend reading the wiki carefully and using that.

The wiki (in my perusal thus far) suffers from a lack of consistency
and a lack of authority. There's nowhere that says THIS is what a
path is, and nothing else. Like Wikipedia's policies, for example.

Steve

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-29 Thread Mike Harris

Btw - no need for highway=grass, why not use highway=path (or =footway, see
previous message) + surface=grass (which seems well-established).

Mike Harris

 -Original Message-
 From: Anthony [mailto:o...@inbox.org] 
 Sent: 29 November 2009 04:30
 To: Roy Wallace
 Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

 On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Roy Wallace 
 waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
  The following, IMHO, are not sufficient reasons to tag an area of 
  grass as a path: 1) you walk on it; 2) you think it would help 
  routing. Analogy: 1) Just because you sit on something, 
 that doesn't 
  make it a chair; 2) Just because you want others to be 
 recommended to 
  sit on it, that doesn't make it a chair.

 Bad analogy.  If I look in a dictionary under chair, there 
 is no definition which says a thing that is sat upon.  But 
 if I look under path, there is a definition which says a 
 route, course, or track along which something moves.

  A path, IMHO, is something
  that exists independently of people walking or not 
 walking on it (i.e.
  usually you can *see* that it resembles a path).

  Usually, or always?

  Um... so the question is, if you can't see a path, can it 
 still be a 
  path?

 No, my question was whether you really meant to use the word 
 usually.

  Answer: No, because otherwise your mapping is not verifiable:
  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability.

 The fact that an area of land is within a legally defined 
 right of way is verifiable.  The fact that it is suitable for 
 travel is verifiable.
  The fact that people use it for travel is verifiable.

 I suppose in that sense I can *see* that it resembles a path.

  Oh, and if you like highway=grass, use that!

 I like highway=path.  More general.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-29 Thread Anthony

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Mike Harris mik...@googlemail.com wrote:
 Btw - no need for highway=grass, why not use highway=path (or =footway, see
 previous message) + surface=grass (which seems well-established).

I was just proposing a compromise.  I don't care what the tags are so
long as they are well-defined.  highway=qwijibo (or
highway=invisible_path) is fine with me.

The wiki right now says that highway=path is to be used for paths,
which is incredibly unhelpful.  There are also some examples, which
suggest to me that a path, as used by OSM, means essentially any
highway (place open to the public where people travel) which doesn't
fall under another highway=* tag.

If I thought the wiki was a productive work environment, I'd try to
add that more specific definition there.  But I don't.

If that isn't the definition, then I propose highway=highway, to
have that definition.  Personally, I don't see much sense
distinguishing between different types of highways except in areas
where there is a formal legal designation.  Number of lanes should be
represented by lanes=*.  Maximum speed should be represented by
maxspeed=*.  Surfaces can be described with surface=*.  Access is
determined by access=*.  Importance can then be determined,
objectively, during a preprocessing stage which factors in all these
conditions along with the physical connections.  It should then be the
job of computers to combine all those elements together and decide
what colors to paint things.

I don't see that happening, so I'll just make my best guess as to
which highway=* tag to use, and not particularly worry about it
(except when someone tells me that I can't use *any* of the highway=*
tags for something which ought to be in the routing network).

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Sunday 29 November 2009 09:31:27 Nop wrote:
 It is an attempt. If you find something missing or have another
 suggestion for a solution, why don't you add it?

Because I am not allowed to.

The page starts with stating that if you don't agree with the problem, then 
you are not allowed to contribute.

Then it tells us about all the problems that the old fuzzy definitions 
cause. Next it barely recognises that the path tag isn't perfect either.

I am of the opinion that the old fuzzy definitions weren't a problem at all 
and the path tag should only be used for things that really don't fit in 
them. (Like the snowmobile trail.)

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Sunday 29 November 2009 19:37:08 Nop wrote:
 Hi!

 Cartinus schrieb:
  I am of the opinion that the old fuzzy definitions weren't a problem at
  all and the path tag should only be used for things that really don't fit
  in them. (Like the snowmobile trail.)

 I guess you are right. Adding a sixth contradictory opinion probably
 will not help.

 If you negate the existence of a problem that has been widely confirmed,
 you're not likely to contribute to a solution.

 bye
   Nop

Except that I am far from alone with my opinion. See e.g. Richards explanation 
somewhere at the start of this thread and the widespread opposition the path 
tag gets.

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

P.S. Please keep list discussions on the list.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...


Hi!

Cartinus schrieb:
 If you negate the existence of a problem that has been widely confirmed,
 you're not likely to contribute to a solution.

 
 Except that I am far from alone with my opinion. See e.g. Richards 
 explanation 
 somewhere at the start of this thread and the widespread opposition the path 
 tag gets.

EVERY contradictory interpretation has a substantial number of followers 
- that IS the problem. Richards view works only in the UK and fails 
terribly in Germany and other countries. But sorry, I really am fed up 
with the pointless discussions on this matter, so I'll refrain from 
plucking apart the details. It has all been said before.

bye
Nop

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-29 Thread Steve Bennett

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
 EVERY contradictory interpretation has a substantial number of followers
 - that IS the problem. Richards view works only in the UK and fails
 terribly in Germany and other countries. But sorry, I really am fed up
 with the pointless discussions on this matter, so I'll refrain from
 plucking apart the details. It has all been said before.

Before you go, do you think there is potential at least to have
consistency within each country?

Steve

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Sunday 29 November 2009 23:10:15 Steve Bennett wrote:
 Before you go, do you think there is potential at least to have
 consistency within each country?

I'm not the one that leaves, but the answer would be yes.

It's fairly simple to put foot=no on all cycleways in what is probably the 
only country with rules for cycleways that are so strict.

The often mentioned German paths with a white line in the middle (that 
separates cyclists and pedestrians) could have been done with 
highway=cycleway+footway=lane or something similar. That is analogous to how 
we treat e.g. a tertiary road with cycle lanes.

etc. etc. etc.

The path crowd however wanted one solution for everything and can't accept 
that people didn't want to redo all existing tagging. Especially not in 
places where it simply works.

The result is that some people use path as it is designed, some people don't 
use path at all and other people use path for what the translated word path 
means in their language (often some kind of unpaved footway).

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-29 Thread Richard Fairhurst


Cartinus wrote:
 It's fairly simple to put foot=no on all cycleways in what is probably 
 the only country with rules for cycleways that are so strict.

Indeed.

 The often mentioned German paths with a white line in the middle 
 (that separates cyclists and pedestrians) could have been done with 
 highway=cycleway+footway=lane or something similar.

highway=cycleway, segregated=yes . There are zillions of these in Britain
too.

(I'd also observe that it's already accepted that you parse highway values
according to the country. A UK primary road is not the same at all as a
French voie express, but both of them are tagged with highway=trunk.)

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Path-vs-footway-vs-cycleway-vs...-tp26551214p26568023.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] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Sunday 29 November 2009 22:53:58 Nop wrote:
 Richards view works only in the UK and fails
 terribly in Germany and other countries.

Richards view works in a lot more countries than the UK. You can see it even 
works in Germany by just looking at how Germany is currently mapped. Fuzzy 
logic is flexible and extensible, that's why it works.

Where it doesn't work is in the minds of people who want one rigid solution 
that solves everything in total detail. A solution that preferably looks like 
some programming logic.

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-29 Thread Steve Bennett

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Richard Fairhurst
rich...@systemed.net wrote:

 Cartinus wrote:
 It's fairly simple to put foot=no on all cycleways in what is probably
 the only country with rules for cycleways that are so strict.

 Indeed.

Yeah, but from the point of view of a resident of that country, doing
the mapping...why should I put 'foot=no' on every cycleway? that's so
redundant!

I have a similar issue with the suggestion that I'm supposed to mark
every mini_roundabout direction=clockwise. I refuse. Some day the
renderers and routers will get smart enough to figure out that EVERY
mini_roundabout goes clockwise in this country, and every other
left-drive country.

So do we just need a more managed approach to interjurisdictional
variation? We have some ad hoc tables for things like freeways. Why
not make this approach more structured, and possibly encoded, so that
we can use plain old cycleway in different countries, and have a
table that explains to routers what that means?

Currently the definitions on each page are very vague, as they try and
capture commonalities across all countries, even though actual
practice is more specific.

Steve

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...


Hi!

Cartinus schrieb:
 On Sunday 29 November 2009 22:53:58 Nop wrote:
 Richards view works only in the UK and fails
 terribly in Germany and other countries.
 
 Richards view works in a lot more countries than the UK. You can see it even 
 works in Germany by just looking at how Germany is currently mapped. Fuzzy 
 logic is flexible and extensible, that's why it works.

Let me apply your logic to a different use case. Just imagine that in my 
country there is a law that generally allows bicycles to use a one-way 
road in both directions.

So I would define one-way as mainly or exclusively intended for use in 
one direction, bicycles may use both and I claim that this is sufficient.

If you have a more rigid law where one-way is strictly for all vehicles, 
  it does not matter, fuzzy logic is good. Right?

I don't think so.

But again, it is a waste of time to discuss whether there is a problem 
at all when we have chaotic and contradictory tagging for very basic use 
cases. That is a problem.


bye
Nop

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...


Hi!

Steve Bennett schrieb:
 
 Before you go, do you think there is potential at least to have
 consistency within each country?

It would be possible to solve the problem for each country.

It would also be possible to solve the problem generically for the whole 
planet.

The real problem is that many people claim that there is no problem or 
that they have already solved it and everybody should just do as they do.

Several of the approaches would work on their own if they were completed 
to cover all use cases - but not with other interpretations using the 
same tags in different ways thrown in between.

bye
Nop

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Monday 30 November 2009 08:29:22 Nop wrote:
 Let me apply your logic to a different use case. Just imagine that in my
 country there is a law that generally allows bicycles to use a one-way
 road in both directions.

 So I would define one-way as mainly or exclusively intended for use in
 one direction, bicycles may use both and I claim that this is sufficient.

 If you have a more rigid law where one-way is strictly for all vehicles,
   it does not matter, fuzzy logic is good. Right?

Yes, because there are two solutions to that problem.

1) Add an extra tag in that single country that differs from the rest of the 
world. But don't bother all the other mappers.

2) Any sufficiently sophisticated router will pre-process the data and it can 
do something with different national defaults.


-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus


P.S. Gosmore ignores oneway for bicycle routing, but not for car routing. One 
wonders why?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-28 Thread Renaud MICHEL

Le samedi 28 novembre 2009, Steve Bennett a écrit :
 1) In the parks near me, there are lots of paths, which I guess were
 probably intended for pedestrians, but cyclists use them too.
 Sometimes paved, sometimes not. I've been tagging them highway=path,
 bicycle=yes (to be safe).

If you use highway=path and not highway=footway, then you should also add 
foot=yes (or even foot=designated if appropriate).
If I understand correctly
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=path
adding a bicycle=yes to a highway=path means that only bicycles are allowed 
(whereas highway=path alone would mean any non-motorized vehicle).

-- 
Renaud Michel

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-28 Thread Konrad Skeri

highway=path
foot=yes
bicycle=no
mtb=yes

highway=footway implies foot=designated and highway=cycleway implies
bicycle=designated.
foot=yes means you can walk there while designated means it's the
primary choise of route for pedestrians.

See also http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness

Konrad

2009/11/28 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
 [...]

 6) Places where a bike is probably permissible, but most people
 wouldn't ride. (But I would :)) I'm not sure where the division of
 responsibility for correctly handling bike routing lies, between the
 OSM data, and the routing software. Is there any software smart enough
 to give options like how far are you willing to push the bike or
 are you willing to cut across grass? etc. An example is at a
 university I used to ride through to get to work. I used to ride
 around the side of an oval, and cut down through some trees on an a
 true unofficial path - basically mountain biking. Do you mark it in
 as an unofficial walking path, and tag it with appropriate mountain
 biking paths, and assume the bike routing software is smart enough not
 to route city bikes that way?

 Maybe I'm looking for a distinction between bicycle=no and
 bicycle=forbidden.

 [...]

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-28 Thread Mike Harris

Steve

This is a big topic that has been very extensively discussed in this group
(and elsewhere). There is quite a range of opinion and, perhaps inevitably,
to some extent the opinions reflect (a) whether mappers see themselves
primarily as walkers, cyclists or ... mappers! and (b) the geographical
location of the mapper. The UK (or at least England and Wales) has developed
a quite sophisticated system based around the local legislation on public
rights of way - but, given your reference to Albert Park, you will probably
want to stand this on its head (:). There are quite a lot of tags to look
at:

Highway=
Surface=
Tracktype=
Foot ¦ Bicycle ¦ Motorcar = yes ¦ permissive ¦ no
Designated =

I wont bore you with my own practice (and this will perhaps avoid starting
up once more one of the long discussions we've had) beyond saying that I
would recommend that you avoid the use of highway=path except for very
ill-defined and unofficial paths (in your own words an unpaved line of
footprints carved through the grass) and give preference to highway=footway
¦ track ¦ cycleway.

Given the controversies over the relative rights and priorities for
different classes of user (e.g. foot ¦ bicycle ¦ horse) and the large
regional differences between what is or is not permitted on different
classes of way (ranging from everyman's right to wander as in Germany and
most Nordic countries) to the strictly legalistic public rights of way
system in England where there is only a legal right where this is recorded
and defined) I would suggest that useful general guidelines are:

- record what is there on the ground by observation of state or signage.
- do not tag to make the maps render nicely - the renderers will eventually
catch up with what mappers do.
- add legal rights where you are sure about them e.g. by using the
designation= tag.
- be as explicit as possible as to what class of user may be able to use the
way (whether in practice or by right) as this will help clarify where one
person might call something a 'footway' and another a 'cycleway' - something
like foot=yes, bicycle=permissive is at least fairly explicit.

Before I get flamed - these are only my ideas and others may well differ -
but I've tried to keep it general as to practice and geography ...

Give my regards to Melbourne!

Mike Harris
 

 -Original Message-
 From: Steve Bennett [mailto:stevag...@gmail.com] 
 Sent: 28 November 2009 08:24
 To: talk@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
 
 Hi all,
   (Apologies if this is the wrong list - still getting my 
 head around them all. Or this has been discussed extensively, 
 please point me at it)...
 
 I'm doing a lot of mapping of pedestrian and bike paths 
 around my area, and am having trouble deciding when to use 
 path, when footway, and when cycleway. I'm particularly 
 troubled by the way Potlatch describes path as unofficial 
 path - making it sound like an unpaved line of footprints 
 carved through the grass.
 
 Could someone give me guidance on a few specific scenarios:
 1) In the parks near me, there are lots of paths, which I 
 guess were probably intended for pedestrians, but cyclists 
 use them too.
 Sometimes paved, sometimes not. I've been tagging them 
 highway=path, bicycle=yes (to be safe).
 
 2) Multi-use paths, like in new housing developments. Usually 
 paved, and connecting streets together.
 
 3) Genuine multi-use paths along the sides of creeks or freeways.
 Frequently with a dotted line down the middle. Most people 
 think of them as bike paths, but plenty of pedestrians use them too.
 highway=cycleway, foot=yes seems the most satisfying, but 
 according to the definition, it should just be a path? I 
 tend to assume it's a cycleway if the gap between two 
 entrances ever exceeds a kilometre or so...
 
 4) In Albert Park (home of the grand prix) near me, there are 
 lots of sealed paths that are wide enough for a car. They're 
 normally blocked off, and used mainly by contractors before 
 and after the grand prix.
 The rest of the time, they're used by pedestrians and 
 cyclists. I had marked them highway=unclassified but now I 
 think highway=track surface=paved would be better?
 
 5) Non-existent paths, but places where access is possible. 
 For example, a bike path passes close to the end of a 
 cul-de-sac. There's no actual paved or dirt path, but a 
 cyclist could easily cross a metre or two of grass (possibly 
 dismounting). It seems crucial for routing to make 
 connections here. So I've been adding highway=path. Is 
 there a better tag?
 
 6) Places where a bike is probably permissible, but most 
 people wouldn't ride. (But I would :)) I'm not sure where the 
 division of responsibility for correctly handling bike 
 routing lies, between the OSM data, and the routing software. 
 Is there any software smart enough to give options like how 
 far are you willing to push the bike or are you willing to 
 cut across grass? etc. An example is

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-28 Thread Richard Fairhurst

 I'm doing a lot of mapping of pedestrian and bike paths around my
 area, and am having trouble deciding when to use path, when footway,
 and when cycleway. I'm particularly troubled by the way Potlatch
 describes path as unofficial path - making it sound like an
 unpaved line of footprints carved through the grass.

highway=footway - a path intended for pedestrian use
highway=cycleway - a path intended for pedestrian and cycle use
highway=bridleway - a path intended for pedestrian and horse use[1]

Useful tags you can add to modify the above:

* access tags such as foot or bicycle. (So highway=cycleway, foot=no 
would cover the rare case of a cycleway from which pedestrians are banned.)
* designation=whatever - for the official status of a path. (For 
example, in the UK, you might have highway=bridleway, 
designation=restricted_byway.)
* surface=tarmac | grass | dirt | gravel | whatever

highway=path is an invention of the wikifiddlers and not needed in 99% 
of cases. The one case that isn't adequately covered by the above is 
what some people call pathways of desire - informal shortcuts that 
were never really laid out as a footpath. Like you say, an unpaved line 
of footprints carved through the grass.

So:

 1) In the parks near me, there are lots of paths, which I guess were
 probably intended for pedestrians, but cyclists use them too.

highway=footway. You could add cycle=yes if bikes are permitted to use 
them; or upgrade to highway=cycleway if they have the width/surface etc. 
that characterises a cycleway.

 2) Multi-use paths, like in new housing developments. Usually paved,
 and connecting streets together.

highway=cycleway.

 3) Genuine multi-use paths along the sides of creeks or freeways.
 Frequently with a dotted line down the middle. Most people think of
 them as bike paths, but plenty of pedestrians use them too.

highway=cycleway. If there's a dotted line you could add segregated=yes.

 4) In Albert Park (home of the grand prix) near me, there are lots of
 sealed paths that are wide enough for a car. They're normally blocked
 off, and used mainly by contractors before and after the grand prix.
 The rest of the time, they're used by pedestrians and cyclists. I had
 marked them highway=unclassified but now I think highway=track
 surface=paved would be better?

Without knowing the exact place, probably something like:
highway=service, access=private, bicycle=permissive, foot=permissive

 5) Non-existent paths, but places where access is possible. For
 example, a bike path passes close to the end of a cul-de-sac. There's
 no actual paved or dirt path, but a cyclist could easily cross a metre
 or two of grass (possibly dismounting). It seems crucial for routing
 to make connections here. So I've been adding highway=path. Is there
 a better tag?

highway=path is well-suited for this.

 6) Places where a bike is probably permissible, but most people
 wouldn't ride. (But I would :)) I'm not sure where the division of
 responsibility for correctly handling bike routing lies, between the
 OSM data, and the routing software. Is there any software smart enough
 to give options like how far are you willing to push the bike or
 are you willing to cut across grass? etc.

cyclestreets.net is an OSM-based routing site with an option for pushing 
your bike, so yes, there is.

 7) Big open concrete spaces that are eminently navigable by
 pedestrians and cyclists, but aren't exactly pedestrian malls.

I have no idea about landuse types so will leave this to others!


All IMO, of course. I've cross-posted this to the tagging@ list which is 
better suited for this kind of discussion.

cheers
Richard

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-28 Thread Steve Bennett

Thanks all, these are very good replies. I'll have to ponder for a
bit. One complication that I should perhaps have mentioned is at the
moment I'm doing a lot of the mapping based on NearMap aerial maps, so
I can't actually observe local practice to see what's going on. Which
is why I'm inferring as much as possible from things like the location
of the path: near houses, or in the middle of the bush... Sometimes
you can make out painted bike signs on the ground, sometimes you
can't.

Another tricky aspect is that the rules about what bikes can do vary
from council to council. It came up in the news recently that if you
ride a bike in a park in the City of Melbourne (ie, the most central
suburb), it's a $200 fine. No other inner city suburb bans bikes from
parks...

I'm still a bit confused by the notion of a cycleway - perhaps
because we don't use that term here at all, we say bike path. OSM is
obviously an empirical process, and empirically, there is very little
or no difference between a footpath and a bike path: they're both
paved, about a metre wide, and connect useful places together. In the
absence of signs, I don't see how there would be any satisfactory way
to decide whether something was a cycleway or a footway, if those
are the only two choices. And with so little to distinguish them,
there must be a big grey area.

I guess I've seen true cycleways in places like the Netherlands,
where it's a genuine single-purpose path between two villages, crowded
with bikes. But there is barely anything like that here - it's always
multi-purpose. As an example:
http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/RoadsAndProjects/RoadProjects/WesternSuburbs/DeerParkBypass.htm

Now, in common language, everyone would refer to this as a bike path.
It clearly has great interest to cyclists, as does the whole network
of trails. But there's nothing about it that says it's a bike path
- it's called a wellness trail and is for walking and cycling.
Instinctively, I want to tag it a cycleway...but there's absolutely
nothing to justify that. Nowhere will you see any primacy given to
cycling over walking. Conundrum.

Steve

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-28 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Steve Bennett wrote:
 Instinctively, I want to tag it a cycleway...but there's absolutely
 nothing to justify that. Nowhere will you see any primacy given to
 cycling over walking. Conundrum.

highway=cycleway doesn't mean cycles have priority. It just means it's 
intended for pedestrian and cycle use. There's no suggestion of primacy 
for either.

(Incidentally, I missed out the footnote from my last mail, which was 
going to say that in some countries (like the UK) cycles are permitted 
on bridleways; nonetheless it's most sensible to treat highway=bridleway 
as a path for pedestrian and horse use, and tag over and above that if 
it's a cyclable one.)

cheers
Richard

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-28 Thread Steve Bennett

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Richard Fairhurst
rich...@systemed.net wrote:
 highway=footway - a path intended for pedestrian use
 highway=cycleway - a path intended for pedestrian and cycle use
 highway=bridleway - a path intended for pedestrian and horse use[1]

Boy, I like this way of thinking. Of course, it must be controversial
given the preceding comments, but it does make a lot of sense.

Not really sure what a bridleway is in practice, but we do have rail
trails that allow all three modes, and a couple of long distance
trails that allow all three, but are really best suited to horses (too
far between camps for walkers, too rough for cyclists).

* access tags such as foot or bicycle. (So highway=cycleway, foot=no
would cover the rare case of a cycleway from which pedestrians are banned.)

I've used this a few times. It crops up in my area where there are two
distinct paths, one for bikes and one for pedestrians, and they follow
slightly different routes. (See the Bay Trail between St Kilda and
Elwood, Victoria, Australia for example...)

To expand on the semantics of what you posted:

highway=footway - purpose built path for pedestrians
highway=cycleway - purpose built path for pedestrians and/or
cyclists, with all the characteristics of a bike path (no steps, no
kerbs, width 1m), no restrictions against bikes

Agree? Then we can keep it totally empirical and objective, without
worrying about whether the thing is labelled xxx bike path or was
intended for that purpose. In particular, I'm thinking of lots of
paths that were built with pedestrians in mind, before the cycling
revolution came along...

highway=cycleway doesn't mean cycles have priority. It just means it's 
intended for pedestrian and cycle use. There's no suggestion of primacy for 
either.

Cool. So again, cycleway is a statement of the quality and
attributes of the path, rather than implying any design decisions,
rules, usage etc.

Next question: how popular is this viewpoint? Is this a minority way
of thinking?

Steve

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-28 Thread Lesi

The footway/cycleway/path choas is the one of the biggest drawbacks of OSM.

Here's my approach:
- A footway is a mostly paved way in a city. It's a way which was mostly 
built by an authority. You can walk on it safely in high heels.
- A path is a narrow way, which is mostly not paved and was not built by 
somebody. This can be short cuts in cities, ways in a forest which are to 
narrow to be tagged as tracks or hiking trails in the mountains. If it's 
raining you could get dirty shoes.
You can indicate that the path is (not) suitable for bikes with 
bicycle=yes/no.
You can ride with your bike everywhere in my area, so I do not use cycleway.

lesi


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-28 Thread John F. Eldredge

Underwater bicycling, the next Olympic sport...

---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
From  :stevag...@gmail.com
Date  :Sat Nov 28 08:24:57 America/Chicago 2009

(Australian bias showing, I'm unable to conceive of the idea of
cycling from one country to another...)



-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-28 Thread Richard Weait

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
 Ok, since I'm new here,

You're new here?  Welcome to OSM.

 I'll ask the obvious question: does it matter
 whether this stuff is done the same across different countries? Is it
 not ok if cycleway has slightly different semantics in different
 jurisdictions?

A map is an abstraction and can not hope to perfectly represent all of
the wonderful variations of 'things' we see.  There are likely to be
several ways to do some of the things that you want to do.  Some of
these variations will have subtle benefits and some will be matters of
personal preference. Others will be noticeably different than what you
will see in other jurisdictions.

Look to see what other are doing locally and in similar places.
Learn and adapt what you see as best practice in other places.
Have fun.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-28 Thread Cartinus

On Saturday 28 November 2009 14:37:12 Steve Bennett wrote:
 Next question: how popular is this viewpoint? Is this a minority way
 of thinking?

It was the only viewpoint before highway=path was invented. Now it is one of 
several competing viewpoints without a clear winner.

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

I have a couple of thoughts:

1) Re: connecting paths across small grass areas - don't mark a path
where there isn't one, and especially don't do it for the purpose of
trying to make routers work better. Map reality - that will always
work best in the long term. (just my personal preference)

2) Re: when to use path/footway/cycleway etc. - firstly, I prefer
highway=path because it is more extensible. Any
highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway can be expressed in terms of a
highway=path with additional access tags. In this way, using
highway=path can be more explicit, because of ongoing disagreements in
the definition of footway/cycleway/bridleway.

3) Re: what does TAG really mean? - rather than everyone giving
their personal opinion on e.g. what highway=path means, for new users
I would strongly recommend reading the wiki carefully and using that.
I'm sure there are plenty of mappers who read the wiki and nothing
else, and if consistency is the goal, I think the wiki should serve to
document the current consensus as well as current disagreements. Of
course, the wiki needs improving, and I personally think we should
make this a priority. See, for example, some of the latest efforts to
improve the situation:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
 On Sun, 29 Nov 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
 I would strongly recommend reading the wiki carefully and using that.
 but Roy, the wiki is written by committee and it is a good example of the
 failure of the committee process
 the minority report cannot be distinguished from the majority report

 so a newbie reading the wiki is just going to become confused when it is a
 non-vehicular way

I think you missed my point - let me clarify.

If a newbie asks hey guys, what's a footway? and they get 50
responses saying well, I think it's... and well I've been using...
and no, no, it's really..., that will get us nowhere. Plus, what
about the newbies who *don't ask?!*

The newbie reading these conflicting responses either 1) becomes
confused, or 2) begins to think that best practice is to invent your
own meaning for existing tags and then pass this secret knowledge on
to only the newbies who ask via email. This is not a good outcome.

Please let me stress that I am not saying the wiki is in a good state!
But it is the best thing to refer to as a reference for tag meanings,
because it is *documented*. That is, for the 10,000's of mapper who
are out there adding footways right now and are *not on this list*,
one must assume they are doing so on the basis of the definition in
the wiki. That is certainly what I did and will continue to do.

So if consistency is the goal, you cannot rely on various personal
opinions that exist only in people's minds and in email discussions
from time to time (which no doubt only a small proportion of mappers
ever read). You must write it down for reference. And if what's
written down has flaws, they must be fixed.

Note also that by the wiki serving as a reference I do not mean that
the wiki page for, say, footway must give only the one true
definition. It should 1) document the usage of tags as they occur in
the database, 2) detail any ongoing controversy and 3) if a consensus
exists, give a clear recommendation on how the tag should be used by
new mappers.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-28 Thread Anthony

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
 I have a couple of thoughts:

 1) Re: connecting paths across small grass areas - don't mark a path
 where there isn't one, and especially don't do it for the purpose of
 trying to make routers work better. Map reality - that will always
 work best in the long term. (just my personal preference)

When is there a path and when is there not a path?  I walk through an
area of grass every time I go to the park near my house.  Isn't that a
path which is part of reality?

 3) Re: what does TAG really mean? - rather than everyone giving
 their personal opinion on e.g. what highway=path means, for new users
 I would strongly recommend reading the wiki carefully and using that.

A generic path, either multi-use, or unspecified usage.

Umm, okay.  I take that to mean anything course of travel that isn't
covered by one of the other highway tags.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-28 Thread Nop


Hi!

Roy Wallace schrieb:
 The newbie reading these conflicting responses either 1) becomes
 confused, or 2) begins to think that best practice is to invent your
 own meaning for existing tags and then pass this secret knowledge on
 to only the newbies who ask via email. This is not a good outcome.

The newbie - who usually assumes that there is a simple and 
straightforward answer to the simple question how to I tag a footway - 
becomes confused - and frustrated that such a basic thing is unsolved 
and not looking like it's going to be solved one of these years. To the 
newcomer, this is somewhere between unexpected and crazy.

  So if consistency is the goal, you cannot rely on various personal
  opinions that exist only in people's minds and in email discussions
  from time to time (which no doubt only a small proportion of mappers
  ever read). You must write it down for reference. And if what's
  written down has flaws, they must be fixed.

No help there. The major contractiory interpretations of the tags around 
this topic are all documented in the wiki in contradictory ways. It 
just depends on which page you find first and what conlusions you derive 
from rather fuzzy definitions.

 Note also that by the wiki serving as a reference I do not mean that
 the wiki page for, say, footway must give only the one true
 definition. It should 1) document the usage of tags as they occur in
 the database, 2) detail any ongoing controversy and 3) if a consensus
 exists, give a clear recommendation on how the tag should be used by
 new mappers.

1) The same tags are used with up to 5 different meanings - usually one 
wiki page only states one interpretation, but there are many different 
pages.
2) AFAIK the only attempt at a neutral display of the different opinions 
is here: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path
3) There has never been anything approaching a consensus. Not even 
close. The discussion has been going around in circles since I first 
thought there had to be a simple answer to a simple question. Which is 
about a year. :-)

bye
 Nop


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:

 When is there a path and when is there not a path?  I walk through an
 area of grass every time I go to the park near my house.  Isn't that a
 path which is part of reality?

An area of grass is - to me - not a path. A path, IMHO, is something
that exists independently of people walking or not walking on it (i.e.
usually you can *see* that it resembles a path).

 3) Re: what does TAG really mean? - rather than everyone giving
 their personal opinion on e.g. what highway=path means, for new users
 I would strongly recommend reading the wiki carefully and using that.

 A generic path, either multi-use, or unspecified usage.

 Umm, okay.  I take that to mean anything course of travel that isn't
 covered by one of the other highway tags.

That's fair enough. My main point was that you can at least be assured
that other mappers are using the same documentation (the wiki as a
whole) to decide how to tag their ways. If you ask on this email list,
you cannot be assured of that.

As an aside, about highway=path...the definition of generic is
descriptive of all members of a genus, so I take it to mean that -
quite intuitively - all paths are a kind of path, regardless of
whether you can ride a bicycle or walk or snowmobile on them :) But
I'm not going to get into this discussion again - instead let's go and
improve http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:

 So if consistency is the goal, you cannot rely on various personal
 opinions that exist only in people's minds and in email discussions
 from time to time (which no doubt only a small proportion of mappers
 ever read). You must write it down for reference. And if what's
 written down has flaws, they must be fixed.

 No help there. The major contractiory interpretations of the tags around
 this topic are all documented in the wiki in contradictory ways. It just
 depends on which page you find first and what conlusions you derive from
 rather fuzzy definitions.

I know. I didn't mean to say the *content* of the wiki is necessarily
good, just that I think the *concept* of the wiki is a better way to
aim for consistency than throwing around personal opinions from time
to time.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-28 Thread Cartinus

On Sunday 29 November 2009 01:34:19 Nop wrote:
 2) AFAIK the only attempt at a neutral display of the different opinions
 is here:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path

That page is far from neutral, because the only solutions it offers are doing 
something with the path tag.


On Sunday 29 November 2009 02:15:14 Roy Wallace wrote:
 That's fair enough. My main point was that you can at least be assured
 that other mappers are using the same documentation (the wiki as a
 whole) to decide how to tag their ways. If you ask on this email list,
 you cannot be assured of that.

Actually you can't, because there is a whole horde of experienced mappers that 
gave up on the wiki-mess. But they do speak up from time to time on the 
mailinglists.

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-28 Thread Anthony

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:

 When is there a path and when is there not a path?  I walk through an
 area of grass every time I go to the park near my house.  Isn't that a
 path which is part of reality?

 An area of grass is - to me - not a path.

Never?  Or just not generally?

What if the grass is slightly bare?
http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/18/97/189701_92c9a5d5.jpg

Cut short?  
http://www.agrigarden.co.nz/Data/Media/Images/Path%20through%20grass%20resize.jpg
http://img2.allposters.com/images/PTGPOD/GPBO05-3171-001-FB.jpg

Through an otherwise impassible area?
http://www.chimacumwoods.com/images/Path%20to%20south.JPG

Marked by a sign?  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/images/5/52/PathSnowmobile.jpg

 A path, IMHO, is something
 that exists independently of people walking or not walking on it (i.e.
 usually you can *see* that it resembles a path).

Usually, or always?

Usually, fine, I agree.  Always, that just doesn't coincide with my
definition of path.  To me, the fact that you can usually recognize
a path is an effect, not a cause.

If there were some other tag for me to use (say highway=grass), fine.
But none of the other highway tags are appropriate, and the routing
information needs to be designated somehow.  The area of grass I have
in mind exists in a legal right of way.  It's not like I'm talking
about cutting through someone's backyard.  It's a perfectly legitimate
path of travel.  It should provided in walking directions.  And that
means having some sort of highway tag.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...