Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
contra arguments: - renderers possibly render more than one name for one street. To solve that It's not (only) a rendering issue. The name of the road is Foo street, but the sidewalk doesn't have a name of its own; it shouldn't be named. If people feel it's necessary to tie it to a specific nearby way, go for some other tag; sidewalk_of=Foo street ? Some have proposed relations for making up whole streets, but it hasn't gained much use with house numbering - most use the tag addr:street - so I doubt it would happen with sidewalks, either. With current tools it's not possible, but could be, to find the nearest parallel proper highway for any footway with the tag footway=sidewalk (or, the alternative I have been using is sidewalk=this) - where there isn't a barrier=retaining_wall in between, if it has a choise; some south european hillside towns have peculiar old streets where that last condition might make a difference. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?
It's not detailled enough. A path is too narrow for a 4 wheels vehicle like a car but not for a 2 wheels vehicle like a moped or a motorbike (or no While that is often true, the criteria goes the other way: - if the way is too narrow to fit a car (hey, my summer car is only 1.48 m wide) or a tractor, it can't be a highway=track, but is a footway, bridleway, cycleway or a path - not all paths are too narrow for four wheel vehicles; many of the things some country guidelines recommend to tag as highway=path + bicycle=designated etc. are 3 to 5 meters wide. Given a random ... linear thing you cross in the forest, without any knowledge of the restrictions possibly posted at the ends, you can be sure it's anything from path to bridleway if it's not wide enough; but not the other way. Replies should go to the tagging list. -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
On 27.08.2010 08:06, lkyto...@cc.hut.fi wrote: contra arguments: - renderers possibly render more than one name for one street. To solve that It's not (only) a rendering issue. The name of the road is Foo street, but the sidewalk doesn't have a name of its own; it shouldn't be named. As the sidewalk is defined as part of the street, not another way, it is named in my interpretation. Your argument counts, if you say the same for the street itself. To be precise we would have to set no name to the street, too and add some kind of relation carrying the name. As that's difficult to do I would prefer to be a little bit unprecise in the other direction, naming sidewalk and street the same. I'm not generally against that argument - I give it equally weight to my opinion at current. I would prefer to get mor opinions ;) If people feel it's necessary to tie it to a specific nearby way, go for some other tag; sidewalk_of=Foo street ? This alternative has two drawbacks leading me to prefer my variant: - sidewalk_of is a new tag with has to be known by mappers. - I don't see, where it's more powerful than just naming the footway + setting it as sidewalk Some have proposed relations for making up whole streets, but it hasn't gained much use with house numbering - most use the tag addr:street - so I doubt it would happen with sidewalks, either. That's the reason for my idea not to use a relation, yes. regards Peter ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
2010/8/26 David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com: * If a street has its sidewalks mapped separately, the street itself should probably be tagged with foot=no. -1. no is too strong: pedestrians are never forbidden to go on a road (except for motorways, at least in Italy). Maybe something like not preferred, only with a better wording that I can't come up with right now :-) ? Of course a router for the blind should do its best to avoid such a way, while a regular pedestrian router could penalize the way but route on it if needed. Regards, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Place of worship
pushing to tagging 2010/8/27 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: On 27 August 2010 09:31, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote: How about a church run unemployed support centre? (gives out food, This could border on the absurd... +1 IMHO all those charity (or other) services run by religious institutions should not be tagged landuse=religous. What about church administration? Living in Rome, this is a question of importance for my mapping, they occupy huge areas here. Actually I don't like landuse religous at all. We are also lacking landuse for all other administrations (governmental, NGO, etc.) that are not commercial (or would you recommend to tag these all landuse=commercial?). I'm still in favour of landuse=institutional with subtagging for governments, NGOs, international organisations, religous institutions. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
2010/8/27 Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de: As the sidewalk is defined as part of the street, not another way, it is named in my interpretation. Your argument counts, if you say the same for the street itself. To be precise we would have to set no name to the street, too and add some kind of relation carrying the name. +1 As that's difficult to do I would prefer to be a little bit unprecise in the other direction, naming sidewalk and street the same. problems will probably arise when the sidewalks are orthogonal ways, e.g. to access garages, houses, etc., because they would have the same name, but no street to be assigned to (that is parallel, of course there will be the street that goes orthogonally). You need explicit association in these cases IMHO. That's the reason for my idea not to use a relation, yes. IMHO there is need for a relation, even if there are also lots of cases where it isn't needed, you would need it even there to distinguish them. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Semicolons? (was Re: RFC: generator:* (for power=generator features))
Martin, Thank you for the feedback. One quick question for the list... On 26 August 2010 18:22, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: the suggested semicolon for combinations is never evaluated by any application (AFAIK). I have been told two different things, now. Do we use semicolons or not? I have been contributing to OSM for five years and have never used semicolons, so I am inclined to go with your proposal. Regards, Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
On Friday 27 August 2010 09:17:18 Peter Wendorff wrote: It's not (only) a rendering issue. The name of the road is Foo street, but the sidewalk doesn't have a name of its own; it shouldn't be named. As the sidewalk is defined as part of the street, not another way, it is named in my interpretation. Your argument counts, if you say the same for the street itself. To be precise we would have to set no name to the street, too and add some kind of relation carrying the name. As that's difficult to do I would prefer to be a little bit unprecise in the other direction, naming sidewalk and street the same. I'm not generally against that argument - I give it equally weight to my opinion at current. I would prefer to get mor opinions ;) If people feel it's necessary to tie it to a specific nearby way, go for some other tag; sidewalk_of=Foo street ? This alternative has two drawbacks leading me to prefer my variant: - sidewalk_of is a new tag with has to be known by mappers. - I don't see, where it's more powerful than just naming the footway + setting it as sidewalk Look at how people are tagging cycleways parallel to a road. AFAIK there are very few mappers who tag them with name= (except if they have a different name than the road.) -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Place of worship
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:44 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I'm still in favour of landuse=institutional with subtagging for governments, NGOs, international organisations, religous institutions. We could slowly get rid of amenity=* by changing the keys to the corresponding landuse value: amenity=place_of_worship becomes institution=place_of_worship, for example. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?
On Friday 27 August 2010 07:48:47 lkyto...@cc.hut.fi wrote: Highway=path alone, with no access tags at all tells nothing Yes it really tells nothing at all. highway=path alone is as useless a tag as you can have, because it is used by different mappers for different things. (Sorry for butchering the quote, but it made my point.) -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/8/26 David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com: * If a street has its sidewalks mapped separately, the street itself should probably be tagged with foot=no. -1. no is too strong: pedestrians are never forbidden to go on a road (except for motorways, at least in Italy). Maybe something like not preferred, only with a better wording that I can't come up with right now :-) ? Of course a router for the blind should do its best to avoid such a way, while a regular pedestrian router could penalize the way but route on it if needed. One would think that a router would be able to prefer a parallel footway without a special tag. One real problem with routing along sidewalks is that they sometimes don't have curb cuts at intersections, yet it's legal to cross there. Example: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.457321,-81.45624spn=0.000993,0.002575t=kz=20layer=ccbll=28.457407,-81.45623panoid=W8rLGRkFUgFWzRRpWLSWCgcbp=12,59.26,,0,10.44 To route correctly here, you'd either have to draw an incorrect footway, or the router would need to be able to jump a gap if there's no barrier (and you don't tell it you're in a wheelchair). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Semicolons? (was Re: RFC: generator:* (for power=generator features))
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote: I have been told two different things, now. Do we use semicolons or not? I have been contributing to OSM for five years and have never used semicolons, so I am inclined to go with your proposal. I've come across at least one situation where a semicolon is necessary: the same node is a highway=traffic_signals and highway=motorway_junction. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Semicolons? (was Re: RFC: generator:* (for power=generator features))
2010/8/27 Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net: the suggested semicolon for combinations is never evaluated by any application (AFAIK). I have been told two different things, now. Do we use semicolons or not? we use semicolons in cases where 2 values have to be assigned to one key, but it is not beeing evaluated AFAIK, at least not by mayor applications. That's why we try to solve issues with two values in a different way: amenity=bank amenity=atm instead of amenity=bank;atm we use amenity=bank atm=yes I would not recommend to design a proposal where it is predictable that multiple values to one key will occur in this way. I was told that it is unlikely that multiple values will be taken into account because this is too cost intensive to calculate. From a non-programmer's point of view I would think that one could do a preprocessing parsing all values before end-using them hence duplicating/multiplicating the nodes into single k/v-pairs at the same coordinates, but this is probably exactly the thing that is expensive. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Semicolons? (was Re: RFC: generator:* (for power=generator features))
At 2010-08-27 02:49, =?UTF-8?Q?M=E2=88=A1rtin_Koppenhoefer?= wrote: 2010/8/27 Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net: the suggested semicolon for combinations is never evaluated by any application (AFAIK). I have been told two different things, now. Do we use semicolons or not? we use semicolons in cases where 2 values have to be assigned to one key, but it is not beeing evaluated AFAIK, at least not by mayor applications. ... I would not recommend to design a proposal where it is predictable that multiple values to one key will occur in this way. I was told that it is unlikely that multiple values will be taken into account because this is too cost intensive to calculate. Semicolons are necessary, used, and need to be evaluated by tools. The alternative is a massive change to the definition and existing use of many tags, something that seems far more unreasonable. It's not ideal to create new tagging schemes that require them, but IMO, we have to deal with the ones that are there. What probably bothers developers is not wanting to decide arbitrarily which icon to show, and not wanting to invent a whole new metadata scheme to decide priorities (thought this problem exists also when there are both amenity and leisure keys present, for example). Personally, I would rather see an arbitrary priority than nothing at all (the current state). -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Semicolons? (was Re: RFC: generator:* (for power=generator features))
On 27 August 2010 10:49, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I would not recommend to design a proposal where it is predictable that multiple values to one key will occur in this way. I was told that it is unlikely that multiple values will be taken into account because this is too cost intensive to calculate. OK, I have amended the proposal accordingly. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/generator_rationalisation Thanks, Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Place of worship
2010/8/27 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:44 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I'm still in favour of landuse=institutional with subtagging for governments, NGOs, international organisations, religous institutions. We could slowly get rid of amenity=* by changing the keys to the corresponding landuse value: amenity=place_of_worship becomes institution=place_of_worship, for example. I would prefer to see something like institution=government institution=ngo institution=religious ... and then operator=catholic_church operator=UNO ... probably we could also associate admin_levels like in boundaries to get the hierarchy of the governments for example. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:03 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Of course this can also be an advantage and be solved by subtagging. I'm forwarding the discussion on the next mailing list. is that okay if I modify the wiki page and suggest to use tunney=culvert (and ford=culvert / bridge=culvert) instead of the ambivalent culvert=yes ? Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: is that okay if I modify the wiki page and suggest to use tunnel=culvert (and ford=culvert / bridge=culvert) instead of the ambivalent culvert=yes ? I'd like to know what ford=culvert means first. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
2010/8/27 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: is that okay if I modify the wiki page and suggest to use tunnel=culvert (and ford=culvert / bridge=culvert) instead of the ambivalent culvert=yes ? I'd like to know what ford=culvert means first. +1 I'd like to see an example for ford=culvert and one for bridge=culvert because I have no clue what this could be. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 7:00 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I'd like to see an example for ford=culvert and one for bridge=culvert because I have no clue what this could be. Bridge=culvert would be the same as tunnel=culvert but applied to the way going over rather than under. It treats a culvert as a kind of bridge, like bridge=suspension or bridge=bascule. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Semicolons? (was Re: RFC: generator:* (for power=generator features))
M?rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: That's why we try to solve issues with two values in a different way: amenity=bank amenity=atm Perhaps API v0.7 should allow this (again). This would spare so many dicussions about how to avoid this. Norbert ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
2010/8/27 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: Bridge=culvert would be the same as tunnel=culvert but applied to the way going over rather than under. It treats a culvert as a kind of bridge, like bridge=suspension or bridge=bascule. I see. I don't like it because it would mean tagging a property of the waterway at the road, but there is no connection between the street and the culvert besides the proximity. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
Hi. On 27.08.2010 11:36, Nathan Edgars II wrote: One would think that a router would be able to prefer a parallel footway without a special tag. +1 One real problem with routing along sidewalks is that they sometimes don't have curb cuts at intersections, yet it's legal to cross there. Example: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.457321,-81.45624spn=0.000993,0.002575t=kz=20layer=ccbll=28.457407,-81.45623panoid=W8rLGRkFUgFWzRRpWLSWCgcbp=12,59.26,,0,10.44 To route correctly here, you'd either have to draw an incorrect footway, or the router would need to be able to jump a gap if there's no barrier (and you don't tell it you're in a wheelchair). Hmm... Where there are strips of grass between street and sidewalk I didn't draw a crossing yet, as usually there is a more secure crossing a few meters away (e.g. traffic signals or zebra crossing). In Germany I think there would be a crossing somewhere on the next kilometer aside - and to get the most secure route it should be advised to use that. To make clear: using crossings only is not a must - that's right. But often the most secure route is required - for blind people or even for children. To fit this requirement an application should be able to decide where a crossing is most secure, Impossible, where not given in the data. If the router has to guess crossings, there will even be routes across big streets outside of cities. In any case: - it's not possible to guess reliable for crossings by software without support from the data - it's not a good option to ignore tagged crossings. regards Peter ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Semicolons? (was Re: RFC: generator:* (for power=generator features))
On 27.08.2010 11:37, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Tom Chancet...@acrewoods.net wrote: I have been told two different things, now. Do we use semicolons or not? I have been contributing to OSM for five years and have never used semicolons, so I am inclined to go with your proposal. I've come across at least one situation where a semicolon is necessary: the same node is a highway=traffic_signals and highway=motorway_junction. I know of highway=crossing with crossing=island;traffic_signals ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
On Fri, 27 August, 2010 7:06:21 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: One real problem with routing along sidewalks is that they sometimes don't have curb cuts at intersections, yet it's legal to cross there. Example: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.457321,-81.45624spn=0.000993,0.002575t=kz=20layer=ccbll=28.457407,-81.45623panoid=W8rLGRkFUgFWzRRpWLSWCgcbp=12,59.26,,0,10.44 To route correctly here, you'd either have to draw an incorrect footway, or the router would need to be able to jump a gap if there's no barrier (and you don't tell it you're in a wheelchair). IMO it's not an incorrect footway, anywhere you can legally use as a sidewalk should be mapped. Just put surface=grass if that's the case :-) For example, here I've tagged the sidewalks as surface=grass http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-34.854348,138.535446z=22t=hnmd=20100614 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/54512800 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sauna
Hello, There is plans to replace amenity=sauna with leisure=sauna. Also usage access in combination is proposed. Feel free to discuss about the map feature at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sauna Br, Kim S ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 7:21 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/8/27 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: Bridge=culvert would be the same as tunnel=culvert but applied to the way going over rather than under. It treats a culvert as a kind of bridge, like bridge=suspension or bridge=bascule. I see. I don't like it because it would mean tagging a property of the waterway at the road, but there is no connection between the street and the culvert besides the proximity. In those cases that are similar to bridges the road surface may change at the culvert. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
(sorry I replied on the wrong list) On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: The seventy people who used the tag did not have a problem with understanding what they did. bridge=culvert is nonsense: A culvert is not a bridge. Again, I'm not a native english speaker but It seems that culvert is also used to designate a bridge. Some quick searches on internet: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Culvert_2_%28PSF%29.png http://www.rommesmo.com/steeltruss.htm or tunnels: http://www.battlefieldsww2.50megs.com/culvert.htm You always claim the culver=yes has been used by 70 people. But we also have hundreds of dozen tunnel=yes on waterways which are probably culverts. My proposal is to change the wiki to tunnel=culvert (then forget the bridge/ford). At least, this would make live easier for data consumers which do not really care about the difference between tunnel=yes and culvert=yes or pipe=yes or sewer=yes but could deal with tunnel=* (if we recommand tunnel=yes/culvert/pipe/sewer) Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
2010/8/27 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: In those cases that are similar to bridges the road surface may change at the culvert. So just tag what's there: a different surface=* on the road. -Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Simon Biber simonbi...@yahoo.com.au wrote: IMO it's not an incorrect footway, anywhere you can legally use as a sidewalk should be mapped. Just put surface=grass if that's the case :-) For example, here I've tagged the sidewalks as surface=grass http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-34.854348,138.535446z=22t=hnmd=20100614 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/54512800 Then why map the sidewalks at all, if you're just going to put them next to every road whether or not one exists? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: is that okay if I modify the wiki page and suggest to use tunnel=culvert (and ford=culvert / bridge=culvert) instead of the ambivalent culvert=yes ? I'd like to know what ford=culvert means first. ___ Sorry, I should have photographed one I passed this morning, complete with water. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Martin Simon grenzde...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/8/27 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: In those cases that are similar to bridges the road surface may change at the culvert. So just tag what's there: a different surface=* on the road. (the other) Martin's statement was that there is no connection between the street and the culvert besides the proximity, which is not true in these cases. (Also, if you're splitting the road to put the different surface tag there, why not apply the culvert tag to it? There's no clear line between bridge and tunnel, and trying to define one will result in failure.) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:55 AM, ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: is that okay if I modify the wiki page and suggest to use tunnel=culvert (and ford=culvert / bridge=culvert) instead of the ambivalent culvert=yes ? I'd like to know what ford=culvert means first. Sorry, I should have photographed one I passed this morning, complete with water. Perhaps you can describe it? The only thing I can think of is a normal culvert where water also flows over the top if it's high enough. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
On 27/08/2010 13:42, Pieren wrote: Again, I'm not a native english speaker but It seems that culvert is also used to designate a bridge. Some quick searches on internet: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Culvert_2_%28PSF%29.png http://www.rommesmo.com/steeltruss.htm or tunnels: http://www.battlefieldsww2.50megs.com/culvert.htm I'd say, from a British-English perspective, that in each of these the thing called the culvert is the thing below the bridge. Obviously language and usage changes greatly with time and place (also, the car in the first link looks like a Chrysler Airflow from the 30s and may not reflect current usage). The second is an excellent example of a culverted stream, over which a bridge happens to run - the company concerned sells Beam Bridges, Truss Bridges, Steel and Aluminum Box Culverts. (i.e. they separate bridges and culverts as products). The third example is also clearly referring to the thing below the bridge ( the Culvert could be used by jeeps if some air was let out of the tires).** My (English) 2p... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/8/26 David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com: * If a street has its sidewalks mapped separately, the street itself should probably be tagged with foot=no. -1. no is too strong: pedestrians are never forbidden to go on a road (except for motorways, at least in Italy). Maybe something like not preferred, only with a better wording that I can't come up with right now :-) ? Of course a router for the blind should do its best to avoid such a way, while a regular pedestrian router could penalize the way but route on it if needed. Exactly. There's no reason to put this into the map. foot=not_preferred would be redundant. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Simon Biber simonbi...@yahoo.com.au wrote: IMO it's not an incorrect footway, anywhere you can legally use as a sidewalk should be mapped. Just put surface=grass if that's the case :-) For example, here I've tagged the sidewalks as surface=grass http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-34.854348,138.535446z=22t=hnmd=20100614 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/54512800 Then why map the sidewalks at all, if you're just going to put them next to every road whether or not one exists? You can't legally walk next to every road. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Then why map the sidewalks at all, if you're just going to put them next to every road whether or not one exists? You can't legally walk next to every road. That's what foot=no is for. Generally walking is only prohibited next to motorways, which imply foot=no. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
On 27 August 2010 13:55, ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: is that okay if I modify the wiki page and suggest to use tunnel=culvert (and ford=culvert / bridge=culvert) instead of the ambivalent culvert=yes ? I'd like to know what ford=culvert means first. ___ Sorry, I should have photographed one I passed this morning, complete with water. I am sure there will be other opportunities to take that photo. Emilie Laffray ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:58 AM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: I'd say, from a British-English perspective, that in each of these the thing called the culvert is the thing below the bridge. I believe, from an engineering perspective, the culvert is the structure itself. So the water goes through the culvert and the road goes either right on top of it or is separated by a layer of dirt. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 5:36 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: One real problem with routing along sidewalks is that they sometimes don't have curb cuts at intersections, yet it's legal to cross there. Example: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.457321,-81.45624spn=0.000993,0.002575t=kz=20layer=ccbll=28.457407,-81.45623panoid=W8rLGRkFUgFWzRRpWLSWCgcbp=12,59.26,,0,10.44 To route correctly here, you'd either have to draw an incorrect footway, or the router would need to be able to jump a gap if there's no barrier (and you don't tell it you're in a wheelchair). I see how that's a problem. However, I'd say the best solution is to just pick some unique way to describe it, and then it can be retagged later when we can come up with a better scheme. Really, this is one of those situations that's going to require editor and/or API improvements to map correctly. But get the data in the db, and the situation can be better analyzed. On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Then why map the sidewalks at all, if you're just going to put them next to every road whether or not one exists? You can't legally walk next to every road. That's what foot=no is for. What if you can walk on the road, but not next to it? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: What if you can walk on the road, but not next to it? Why does it matter (and how would you determine if it's legal)? (If there's no shoulder it's legal to walk next to it at least when a car's approaching.) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:55 AM, ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: is that okay if I modify the wiki page and suggest to use tunnel=culvert (and ford=culvert / bridge=culvert) instead of the ambivalent culvert=yes ? I'd like to know what ford=culvert means first. Sorry, I should have photographed one I passed this morning, complete with water. Perhaps you can describe it? The only thing I can think of is a normal culvert where water also flows over the top if it's high enough. In a town which does not have underground storm water management, the gutters at the side of the roads have to cross one of the roads at an intersection so you have a half-elliptical shaped culvert which traffic crosses, making a little ford. The wikipedia definition of culvert is simply A culvert is a device used to channel water. and these fit into that definition. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
Sorry, I should have photographed one I passed this morning, complete with water. I am sure there will be other opportunities to take that photo. Emilie Laffray rain has been pretty rare in the last 10 years, so only twice since then have I seen the water in the little culverts ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: What if you can walk on the road, but not next to it? Why does it matter (and how would you determine if it's legal)? (If there's no shoulder it's legal to walk next to it at least when a car's approaching.) Why does what matter? Compared to what? I'd like to know whether I can walk on a sidewalk, or walk on the grass in the right of way next to the road, or walk on the road, or not walk there at all. Each is a different situation which I'd be willing to do under different circumstances. It may be legal to walk on private property next to a road at least when a car's approaching (I don't really know, what if there's a no trespassing sign?). But it's not always even possible to do so. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:17 AM, ed...@billiau.net wrote: In a town which does not have underground storm water management, the gutters at the side of the roads have to cross one of the roads at an intersection so you have a half-elliptical shaped culvert which traffic crosses, making a little ford. The wikipedia definition of culvert is simply A culvert is a device used to channel water. and these fit into that definition. I think that is (was, since I fixed it) an error in the Wikipedia article: http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aculvert Without a roof it's simply a drainage ditch (waterway=drain). By the way, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/culvert lists a bridge over a culvert as one definition. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: It may be legal to walk on private property next to a road at least when a car's approaching (I don't really know, what if there's a no trespassing sign?). But it's not always even possible to do so. Roads are designed with a public clear zone next to the pavement (main driving surface). This area is always available for walking unless pedestrians are not allowed on the road at all. Do you have an example of a road where you don't think walking on the grass is legal but walking on the road is? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sauna
Hi Kim, why exactly do you want to convert a widely used tag (amenity=sauna, ~1000 uses) to a very rarely used tag (leisure=sauna, ~13 uses). The Proposal does not tell why this change is required. Peter Am 27.08.2010 14:31, schrieb Kim Slotte: Hello, There is plans to replace amenity=sauna with leisure=sauna. Also usage access in combination is proposed. Feel free to discuss about the map feature at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sauna Br, Kim S ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Semicolons? (was Re: RFC: generator:* (for power=generator features))
On 27.08.2010 13:13, Norbert Hoffmann wrote: M?rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: That's why we try to solve issues with two values in a different way: amenity=bank amenity=atm Perhaps API v0.7 should allow this (again). This would spare so many dicussions about how to avoid this. It might be useful for some cases to allow multiple uses of the same key. That particular example, however, seems wrong from a modelling reality point of view: There is no object in reality that is both a bank and an atm. There is a bank (object #1), there is an atm (object #2), and object #2 is /within/ object #1. I think that creating an atm node within a bank polygon perfectly represents this situation. Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: It may be legal to walk on private property next to a road at least when a car's approaching (I don't really know, what if there's a no trespassing sign?). But it's not always even possible to do so. Roads are designed with a public clear zone next to the pavement (main driving surface). This area is always available for walking unless pedestrians are not allowed on the road at all. All roads in the world were designed this way? Do you have a citation for that? Do you have an example of a road where you don't think walking on the grass is legal but walking on the road is? Not off the top of my head, no. Why does it matter? I have plenty of examples where there is no grass. Also, this situation comes to mind (I think this is the address, though I can't find the exact sign I was thinking of) where there was no sidewalk and a no trespassing sign. But I suspect that wasn't legally enforceable. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=qsource=s_qhl=engeocode=q=8310+woodlake+plsll=28.02403,-82.580055sspn=0.002765,0.00368ie=UTF8hq=hnear=8310+Woodlake+Pl,+Town+%27n%27+Country,+Hillsborough,+Florida+33615t=hlayer=ccbll=28.023837,-82.580104panoid=TOgG6xatTIkUcwNG2DI1Xwcbp=12,336.3,,2,7.47ll=28.023784,-82.580028spn=0.002766,0.00368z=18 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
In construction zones, or if there is a steep embankment at the edge of the road, it is not uncommon for the guardrail or other safety barrier to be at the edge of the outermost driving lane, leaving nowhere for a pedestrian to walk except in the driving lane itself. Also, for narrow ways such as alleys, the driving lane may extend right up to the buildings (I have seen some alleys narrow enough that a vehicle and a pedestrian can't safely pass each other). ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [Tagging] sidewalks From :mailto:o...@inbox.org Date :Fri Aug 27 08:45:57 America/Chicago 2010 On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: It may be legal to walk on private property next to a road at least when a car's approaching (I don't really know, what if there's a no trespassing sign?). But it's not always even possible to do so. Roads are designed with a public clear zone next to the pavement (main driving surface). This area is always available for walking unless pedestrians are not allowed on the road at all. All roads in the world were designed this way? Do you have a citation for that? Do you have an example of a road where you don't think walking on the grass is legal but walking on the road is? Not off the top of my head, no. Why does it matter? I have plenty of examples where there is no grass. Also, this situation comes to mind (I think this is the address, though I can't find the exact sign I was thinking of) where there was no sidewalk and a no trespassing sign. But I suspect that wasn't legally enforceable. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=qsource=s_qhl=engeocode=q=8310+woodlake+plsll=28.02403,-82.580055sspn=0.002765,0.00368ie=UTF8hq=hnear=8310+Woodlake+Pl,+Town+%27n%27+Country,+Hillsborough,+Florida+33615t=hlayer=ccbll=28.023837,-82.580104panoid=TOgG6xatTIkUcwNG2DI1Xwcbp=12,336.3,,2,7.47ll=28.023784,-82.580028spn=0.002766,0.00368z=18 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- 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 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
I have also seen what is usually termed a low-water bridge, where you have a concrete ford across a stream, with a culvert at the center. If the water is low enough for the full flow to pass through the culvert, vehicles can cross without getting their tires wet. At medium water levels, the crossing is a ford. At high water levels, you can't cross the stream. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] Culvert and average contributor From :mailto:openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk Date :Fri Aug 27 08:35:41 America/Chicago 2010 On 27/08/2010 14:17, ed...@billiau.net wrote: In a town which does not have underground storm water management, the gutters at the side of the roads have to cross one of the roads at an intersection so you have a half-elliptical shaped culvert which traffic crosses, making a little ford. The wikipedia definition of culvert is simply A culvert is a device used to channel water. and these fit into that definition. Nice selective quoting. The full description is: A *culvert* is a device used to channel water. It may be used to allow water to pass underneath a road http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road, railway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway, or embankment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embankment_%28transportation%29 for example. Culverts can be made of many different materials; steel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel, polyvinyl chloride http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyvinyl_chloride (PVC) and concrete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete are the most common. Formerly, construction of stone culverts was common. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culvert If the vehicle travels through the water, it's a ford, not a culvert -- the water is passing *over* the road, not under it. ___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- 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 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
2010/8/27 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: My proposal is to change the wiki to tunnel=culvert (then forget the bridge/ford). +1, fine for me. Tag it on the waterway-way. If there is a bridge over it, or a ford etc., tag this on the road as usual. At least, this would make live easier for data consumers which do not really care about the difference between tunnel=yes and culvert=yes or pipe=yes or sewer=yes but could deal with tunnel=* (if we recommand tunnel=yes/culvert/pipe/sewer) yes, but they might have to be careful about culvert=no cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
-Original Message- From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:tagging- boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Simone Saviolo Sent: venerdì 27 agosto 2010 9.41 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] sidewalks 2010/8/26 David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com: * If a street has its sidewalks mapped separately, the street itself should probably be tagged with foot=no. -1. no is too strong: pedestrians are never forbidden to go on a road (except for motorways, at least in Italy). Not really. In Italy pedestrians are forbidden to walk on any road, when paths (such as sidewalks) designated for pedestrians are available. They are only allowed to walk on a road when designated paths either don't exist or are some reason unusable (see Codice della strada, paragraph 190, clause 1). I don't know about other countries, though. Regards Alberto ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
2010/8/27 Anthony o...@inbox.org: I'd like to know whether I can walk on a sidewalk, or walk on the grass in the right of way next to the road, or walk on the road, or not walk there at all. Each is a different situation which I'd be willing to do under different circumstances. I agree on this, but it is IMHO not correct to tag the cited situation in Adelaide as a footway, because there is none. You could just as well invent a few footways here: http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-34.846208,138.578556z=22t=hnmd=20100614 if there is no footway, it shouldn't be tagged as such. If you can walk on the grass, find a compatible method (i.e. not using footway for noway). You might tag it highway=noway foot=yes surface =grass ;-) cheers, Martin cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
2010/8/27 Alberto Nogaro bartosom...@yahoo.it: -1. no is too strong: pedestrians are never forbidden to go on a road (except for motorways, at least in Italy). Not really. In Italy pedestrians are forbidden to walk on any road, when paths (such as sidewalks) designated for pedestrians are available. They are only allowed to walk on a road when designated paths either don't exist or are some reason unusable (see Codice della strada, paragraph 190, clause 1). I don't know about other countries, though. it is the same in Germany, but if you are carrying big stuff with you (e.g. hand barrow), and you would encumber other pedestrians you have to go on the road even if there is a sidewalk. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
2010/8/27 Alberto Nogaro bartosom...@yahoo.it: Not really. In Italy pedestrians are forbidden to walk on any road, when paths (such as sidewalks) designated for pedestrians are available. btw.: there is also strange cases where it seems to me that the existing signage doesn't represent the authorities will to regulate. E.g. here: http://maps.google.de/maps?hl=deie=UTF8ll=41.847187,12.47346spn=0.001027,0.00302z=19layer=ccbll=41.847089,12.473383panoid=eqrJ55YXriuM17WxzW8BfAcbp=12,231.9,,2,1.55 (Via del Mare, Rome, IT) There is a sign which says vehicle=no, motorcar=yes (eccetto autovetture). But actually I am sure they also don't want pedestrians or pedestrians which push their bike there. It has heavy traffic (almost) all around the clock and there is no space for pedestrians (see here some metres later): http://maps.google.de/maps?hl=deie=UTF8ll=41.845682,12.471277spn=0.001019,0.00302z=19layer=ccbll=41.845635,12.471174panoid=Cv8I1oGBppHyZ8p3I-xTwgcbp=12,241.18,,0,-6.07 I am tempted to put foot=no there even if it is legally not forbidden (but IMHO intended). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
2010/8/27 Alberto Nogaro bartosom...@yahoo.it: -Original Message- From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:tagging- boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Simone Saviolo Sent: venerdì 27 agosto 2010 9.41 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] sidewalks 2010/8/26 David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com: * If a street has its sidewalks mapped separately, the street itself should probably be tagged with foot=no. -1. no is too strong: pedestrians are never forbidden to go on a road (except for motorways, at least in Italy). Not really. In Italy pedestrians are forbidden to walk on any road, when paths (such as sidewalks) designated for pedestrians are available. They are only allowed to walk on a road when designated paths either don't exist or are some reason unusable (see Codice della strada, paragraph 190, clause 1). I don't know about other countries, though. Leaving aside the distance between the Codice and reality (the whole art. 190 makes me smile if I think of what happens every day on the roads :-) ), if you go on to comma 2 you'll notice that pedestrians may cross the road anywhere, if there's no crossing less than 100 m far. Also, art. 191 explicitly states that drivers must give way to pedestrians who already began to cross the road - which is often contradictory, as pedestrians *ought* to give way to drivers instead according to art. 190. So, yeah, you shouldn't walk on the road, but if you're on the road you've got a sort of right of way. Which, again, is far less restrictive than foot=no. Also, for roads without separate sidewalks, pedestrians are allowed to walk along the border of the carriageway. What should we do, add a footway that runs along the border of the street, tagging it so that we understand it's not a real sidewalk, but it's sort of a sidewalk, in that pedestrians *ought* to walk there, but it's an indefinite place, and also...? - you get what I mean. Regards Alberto Ciao, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Intermittent water
This one's right here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Intermittent_river There were some discussions on it the past few days in context of Pakistan mapping. The usage is different from those tidal edges though. Am 26.08.2010 23:03, schrieb Samat K Jain: On Thursday, August 26, 2010 02:29:01 pm, Bégin, Daniel wrote: Since last year I have been working with the Canadian Osm community to have the entire Canadian 50K map content (Canvec product) available in .osm format. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CanVec The product is now available and is being uploaded in osm database by the Canadian community ... http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=44.354lon=-79.343zoom=9layers=M http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.1841lon=-66.4949zoom=12layers=M The intermittent water tagging schema used was this one http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_cover. It was chosen with the community, mainly because it was very similar to the original data schema (Canvec product) but also because the wiki pages were saying that the proposal was still at Draft stage (not deprecate). Can we still have discussion about that and have it approved - even if it is a bit late ?-) I've been tagging intermittent rivers and lakes (arroyos and playas, in southwestern US speak) with their usual tagging, but with intermittent=yes. It's mentioned on the wiki somewhere… I'm not sure on the usage. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
2010/8/27 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2010/8/27 Alberto Nogaro bartosom...@yahoo.it: Not really. In Italy pedestrians are forbidden to walk on any road, when paths (such as sidewalks) designated for pedestrians are available. btw.: there is also strange cases where it seems to me that the existing signage doesn't represent the authorities will to regulate. E.g. here: http://maps.google.de/maps?hl=deie=UTF8ll=41.847187,12.47346spn=0.001027,0.00302z=19layer=ccbll=41.847089,12.473383panoid=eqrJ55YXriuM17WxzW8BfAcbp=12,231.9,,2,1.55 (Via del Mare, Rome, IT) There is a sign which says vehicle=no, motorcar=yes (eccetto autovetture). But actually I am sure they also don't want pedestrians or pedestrians which push their bike there. It has heavy traffic (almost) all around the clock and there is no space for pedestrians (see here some metres later): http://maps.google.de/maps?hl=deie=UTF8ll=41.845682,12.471277spn=0.001019,0.00302z=19layer=ccbll=41.845635,12.471174panoid=Cv8I1oGBppHyZ8p3I-xTwgcbp=12,241.18,,0,-6.07 I am tempted to put foot=no there even if it is legally not forbidden (but IMHO intended). As to bikes, the restriction applies. The signal forbids transit to any vehicle, with or without an engine, so bycycles are included. As to pedestrians, I seem to understand there's a separate footway on the right? cheers, Martin Ciao, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
2010/8/27 Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com: As to bikes, the restriction applies. The signal forbids transit to any vehicle, with or without an engine, so bycycles are included. yes, I know, you have to dismount (that's why I wrote push) As to pedestrians, I seem to understand there's a separate footway on the right? no, that one ends at some metres later, see the second link. There is fences and guard rails then. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] radio and/or tv studio?
?? office=broadcasting any other suggestions? richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] pool/billiards hall?
2010/8/27 Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net: ?? amenity=billiards amenity=pool_hall any suggestions? sport? leisure? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] radio and/or tv studio?
2010/8/27 Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net: ?? office=broadcasting any other suggestions? it's not an office. Sorry that I am not helpful with a better suggestion, but definitely not office IMHO. At least for the technical part (studio). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] radio and/or tv studio?
On 8/27/10 1:18 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/8/27 Richard Weltyrwe...@averillpark.net: ?? office=broadcasting any other suggestions? it's not an office. Sorry that I am not helpful with a better suggestion, but definitely not office IMHO. At least for the technical part (studio). generally, they're part office and part studio. there are occasions where the office and the studio are disjoint, but those are rare. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] pool/billiards hall?
On 8/27/10 1:16 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/8/27 Richard Weltyrwe...@averillpark.net: ?? amenity=billiards amenity=pool_hall any suggestions? sport? leisure? it's a tradeoff. in the US, pool halls generally are a mix of pub and pool/billiards. i could see this: amenity=pub sport=pool/billiards or leisure=pool/billiards ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Intermittent water
Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: Can we still have discussion about that and have it approved - even if it is a bit late ?-) If it is in use by a significant number of mappers then it is approved, no matter what the wiki says. Yes, but it would be fine for others that the significant number of mappers update the wiki. So we can have a minimal consistancy. -- Pierre-Alain Dorange ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] now i'm completely stumped...
Weight Watchers? Dale Carnegie Training? Arthur Murray Dance Studio? some of these cases have been discussed recently w/o resolution, i know. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] radio and/or tv studio?
On 8/27/10 1:22 PM, Richard Welty wrote: On 8/27/10 1:18 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/8/27 Richard Weltyrwe...@averillpark.net: ?? office=broadcasting any other suggestions? it's not an office. Sorry that I am not helpful with a better suggestion, but definitely not office IMHO. At least for the technical part (studio). generally, they're part office and part studio. there are occasions where the office and the studio are disjoint, but those are rare. i just found amenity=studio which will do, although i still thing office=broadcasting might be helpful to identify the business office side. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sauna
On 27 August 2010 23:34, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de wrote: why exactly do you want to convert a widely used tag (amenity=sauna, ~1000 uses) I wouldn't exactly say 1000 uses is widely used... A handful of mappers, or perhaps even a single mapper, is capable of doing more than that... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] pool/billiards hall?
On 28 August 2010 03:24, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: it's a tradeoff. in the US, pool halls generally are a mix of pub and pool/billiards. i could see this: Just because a place has a pool table, does that make it a pool hall? Most pubs here have at least one pool table, same with night clubs but they wouldn't be considered the same as a pool hall that make serve alcoholic beverages but people go there primarily to play pool or what not... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] radio and/or tv studio?
On 28 August 2010 03:31, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: i just found amenity=studio which will do, although i still thing office=broadcasting might be helpful to identify the business office side. If you want to be picky, count the rooms... Is there more offices or more studios in the building? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] pool/billiards hall?
On 28 August 2010 11:12, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: given that the one i'm looking at calls itself Diamond Eight Billiards and lists the numbers and types of tables on its web site, i'd think they have the right to call themselves a pool hall. I was trying to show that just because they may serve alcohol, that doesn't make them a pub or club any more than a restaurant that serves alcohol would be a pub... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: generator:* (for power=generator features)
I would not propose both generator:output=* and generator:output:*=yes. I think it should be one or the other (probably the latter until we rationally deal with, or drop, semi-colons). Is there a plan to convert the existing data? -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:56 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: if there is no footway, it shouldn't be tagged as such. Agreed. But what is a footway? The dictionary says it's a narrow way or path for pedestrians. I don't see anything about grass being disqualified. But then, footway is not a term I'm all that familiar with. You might tag it highway=noway foot=yes surface =grass ;-) Noway is a term I'm even less familiar with. :) I guess according to the OSM definitions, it should be highway=path (A route open to the public which is not intended for motor vehicles with four or more wheels.) But then, I think highway=path and highway=footway tend to get interchanged a lot. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
