Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - social facility
Hi. I think, that's a good point. As social_facility has a relatively widespread meaning across the entities it is used for, I think, it's useless to filter the data for amenity=social_facility, because nobody will use that not filtered or sorted further. It's similar simple to filter for social_facility=*, and therefore that should be enough. social_facility is not ambiguous conflicting with other *=social_facility for interpretation as a subtag. That in mind: +1 from me for optional amenity=social_facility regards Peter On 21.10.2010 23:27, Sean Horgan wrote: Hello again everyone. The last day of voting for the Social Facility proposal is tomorrow, 22 Oct. The proposal can be found on the wiki here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/social_facility With 13 votes, 12 for and 1 against, it looks like we are 2 votes away from the community recommended 15 for approval. User Hasemann raised a good point concerning the use of amenity=social_facility. Personally, I'm fine with making the use of amenity an optional but recommended tag instead of required. Would such a change to the proposal change anyone's votes? What is the recommended process for making changes to an approved feature? I'm going to send out a separate email on the amenity issue. Thanks. Sean On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 08:35, Sean Horgan seanhor...@gmail.com mailto:seanhor...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, sounds good. I just bumped the date to the end of next week. On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 05:55, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/10/10 Sean Horgan seanhor...@gmail.com mailto:seanhor...@gmail.com: Hello everyone! The original deadline for voting on the social facility proposal has just passed. The page can be found here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/social_facility We received 4 approvals (2 of those from the authors) and 1 in opposition. We've tried to address concerns in the Discussion page and we've updated the proposal based on feedback from email. Based on the proposed feature process (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features#Proposal_status_process), we should aim for 15 total votes. Could people on this list take a few minutes to either cast their vote or note their objections? Thanks to everyone for their help to this point. I would set a new deadline on the Wiki (say +14 days), to make it clearer. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] how to tag US townships?
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 1:05 AM, Peter Budny pet...@gatech.edu wrote: Anthony o...@inbox.org writes: On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 10/21/2010 08:06 AM, Anthony wrote: On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Greg Troxelg...@ir.bbn.com wrote: So if we have whole-multiple-counties=5 (eg NYC) county=6 township=7 city/town=8 then it would make sense everywhere. What would be an example of a township that would be at admin_level=7? This question of mine was quoted but still not answered. To summarize/quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_divisions_of_the_United_States [snip] So in at least some cases, there's a need for admin_level=7 to express the hierarchy correctly. What would be an example of a township that would be at admin_level=7? I'm not saying you're wrong. I just couldn't come up with an example. The townships that I've seen which overlap with cities/towns aren't administrative areas, they just settlements. So...if they don't do that much, should they be mapped as admin_level? I was told that school districts don't count, because they don't do enough, which has me totally confused as to what it is we're supposed to be mapping. It’s not about whether they do that much; it’s about whether they’re administered by a government. School boards are a part of the government yes, but they’re don’t govern the districts that they cover. Absolutely they do. [snip] Because they are specialized, rather than general-purpose, I don't see how school districts belong in admin_level=. Fair enough, but that's a completely different argument from they don't govern the districts that they cover. I'm not sure what general-purpose means, either. There are a lot of counties, as pointed out, which don't do much of anything (in fact, there are a lot of counties that don't do anything at all). What Anthony wrote seemed quite clear. Thank you. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity key
2010/10/21 Sean Horgan seanhor...@gmail.com: The definition of such a tag/key that is so common the database (3+% according to taginfo: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/amenity), needs more than a single line definition. Why? The shorter the definition, the better. The definitions should be precise and contain the needed definition, but not more. Often there are longish key definitions that explain a certain usecase and therefore restrain unneededly the use of keys/tags. Also examples should not be contained in the definitions IMHO (they can go in an example section but the definition shouldn't need them). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Paper streets?
* Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net [2010-10-19 15:25 -0400]: tiger seems to have spots where there are streets that developers planned but never built. i see them from time to time. The problem there is that proposed roads have been recorded as actual roads. If people want to record proposed roads as highway=proposed, I don't think that's a problem, since they're much less likely to be taken as actual, usable roads. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- I think that's easier to read. Pardon me. Less difficult to read. -- Larry Wall --- -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] how to tag US townships?
Anthony o...@inbox.org writes: On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 1:05 AM, Peter Budny pet...@gatech.edu wrote: Anthony o...@inbox.org writes: On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 10/21/2010 08:06 AM, Anthony wrote: On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Greg Troxelg...@ir.bbn.com wrote: So if we have whole-multiple-counties=5 (eg NYC) county=6 township=7 city/town=8 then it would make sense everywhere. What would be an example of a township that would be at admin_level=7? This question of mine was quoted but still not answered. To summarize/quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_divisions_of_the_United_States [snip] So in at least some cases, there's a need for admin_level=7 to express the hierarchy correctly. What would be an example of a township that would be at admin_level=7? I'm not saying you're wrong. I just couldn't come up with an example. The townships that I've seen which overlap with cities/towns aren't administrative areas, they just settlements. My bad, I didn't realize you wanted a specific example. Let me see if I can find one. It looks like Richmond, Indiana and Wayne Township are an example. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Township_(United_States)#Civil_townships which cites the US Census document I linked earlier, Indiana has township governments that cover all of its area and population. Thus, I presume, Richmond is an incorporated city, but Wayne Township also retains its governance over the areas included in Richmond, putting Richmond under control of 5 governments (federal, state, county, township, and city/municipal). Maybe someone else a little more familiar with this has more examples? So...if they don't do that much, should they be mapped as admin_level? I was told that school districts don't count, because they don't do enough, which has me totally confused as to what it is we're supposed to be mapping. It’s not about whether they do that much; it’s about whether they’re administered by a government. School boards are a part of the government yes, but they’re don’t govern the districts that they cover. Absolutely they do. [snip] Because they are specialized, rather than general-purpose, I don't see how school districts belong in admin_level=. Fair enough, but that's a completely different argument from they don't govern the districts that they cover. I'm not sure what general-purpose means, either. There are a lot of counties, as pointed out, which don't do much of anything (in fact, there are a lot of counties that don't do anything at all). Good question, really. There's an explanation in the US Census document, but it's not very easy to understand: A government is an organized entity which, in addition to having governmental character, has sufficient discretion in the management of its own affairs to distinguish it as separate from the administrative structure of any other governmental unit. To be counted as a government, an entity must possess all three of the attributed reflected in the foregoing definition: existence as an organized entity, governmental character, and substantial autonomy. Elsewhere it says: Special district governments are independent, special-purpose governmental units... that exist as separate entities with substantial administrative and fiscal independence from general-purpose local governments. Special district governments provide specific services that are not being supplied by existing general-purpose governments. Frankly, it's a lot of text and not very clear (what else would you expect from the US govt?) but the gist seems to be that they don't explicitly define general-purpose [1]; they simply single out things which they consider special-purpose and everything that's left is general-purpose. Note 1: At one point they even write, county, municipal, and township governments are readily recognized and generally present no serious problem of classification. Thanks, that really goes a long way to describe your classification... *grumble* -- Peter Budny \ Georgia Tech \ CS PhD student \ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity key
On 21/10/2010 22:29, Sean Horgan wrote: The definition of such a tag/key that is so common the database (3+% according to taginfo: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/amenity), needs more than a single line definition. I see nothing wrong with the vast majority of the usages of amenity. The reason it's so common is because people want to use it it works. Many users don't appreciate the differences between the key tag the value tag. As long as the meanings of the value tags don't overlap I don't see much of a problem. If the key tag does need distinguishing then it can be done with sub tags. I think time would be better spent changing key tags that are subjective adjectives (historic,natural, man-made etc.) to nouns. getting rid of the power tag altogether. Cheers Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
It's now almost 3 years that I'm mapping and when I entered small informal (not planned or built) footpaths I was using cryptic tag combinations like highway=footway, informal=yes, width=0.3 (or highway=path), surface=ground. While that is not impossible, it is still somehow strange. Why shouldn't we simply add another highway class on the lowest end? Would simplify all of our lives (at least for all those who sometimes leave the car when mapping) and add some clarity. Looking at a dictionary I found trail (for german Trampelpfad), and helas: there is already a tag-page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrail It isn't very clear though and from the picture I'd say that is highway=path. I am aiming at stuff like this: http://www.thesenselessunit.net/funnystuff/trampelpfad.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Trampelpfad_zum_Michaelberg_im_Maudacher_Bruch.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Kenkp9DHXXA/SsrR-lYGdOI/B0Q/HqUc6Nob-Ag/s320/trampelpfad1.jpg especially in urban setting (unofficial ways in parks where there should have been a way but nobody planned/built it and similar situations). We could hijack the trail page (given that trail to native speakers implies what I want to express) and - after getting to a conclusion here - put a meaningful definition there. An alternative could be highway=informal (IMHO; what do you think?). There are currently according to taginfo 77 ways highway=trail in our data, which is 0,00% of the total of 32,7 million ways tagged with highway. Probably most (if not all) of those ways will still be congruent with the refined new definition of highway=trail, but we could attach a FIXME to them. Or do you already have another well established tag for those informal paths? Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity key
There are two types of thing that use the amenity tag: Small objects that are usually inside others, like water fountains and post boxes Larger objects that may take up entire lots, like schools and restaurants Perhaps it would make sense to treat these differently? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
Isn't this what highway=path or highway=track is for? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 12:11 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: We could hijack the trail page (given that trail to native speakers implies what I want to express) Not really; see the rails to trails movement. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] how to tag US townships?
On 10/21/2010 06:18 PM, Ant The Limey wrote: Couple of thoughts B) i don't feel that any particular tag should necessarily have a global level of consistency. As a geographer, i instinctively grasp that location itself is context added to any fact - as one of the five fundamental questions of real it (what, where, when, why, how). So why must something that is context define itself as global? IMO: It should be possible to make a map that looks the same for the entire world. I don’t really want to have to know that by convention the UK colors its motorways blue, while the US tends to go for pink. I’d rather have a globally-consistent map so I can look at the UK on it and think “OK, those things that look like freeways on the map in my area must be the equivalents of freeways over there“. They may use different shields and numbering systems, but at least it’ll look the same. I don’t want to have to memorize the mapping conventions of every country to know what I’m looking at when I look at a map, or to shift my mode of thinking as I move around the map. OSM is a map of the world, so that’s the “locational context” in which we (OK, I) am looking. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What tags to use on a scenic route?
On 22/10/2010 00:49, Nathan Edgars II wrote: I just created a relation for the Green Mountain Scenic Byway (which is marked with signs like http://www.floridascenichighways.com/program/wp-content/themes/fshp/images/sidePanther.jpg): http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1239925 Other than network=Florida Scenic Highways, is there anything else that should be added, perhaps scenic=yes or tourism=scenic_route? route=* http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route Cheers Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 22/10/2010 17:14, John Smith wrote: Isn't this what highway=path or highway=track is for? I agree. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
yes, a sub-group to deal with trails can be created for trail=*, i'll also look into that and see what has already been done by the other schemas for this sub-grouping. My aim is to have a full tagging schema report (SchemaTroll 2.01 - White Paper) done by Nov 21st. Cheers, Sam On 10/22/10, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: It's now almost 3 years that I'm mapping and when I entered small informal (not planned or built) footpaths I was using cryptic tag combinations like highway=footway, informal=yes, width=0.3 (or highway=path), surface=ground. While that is not impossible, it is still somehow strange. Why shouldn't we simply add another highway class on the lowest end? Would simplify all of our lives (at least for all those who sometimes leave the car when mapping) and add some clarity. Looking at a dictionary I found trail (for german Trampelpfad), and helas: there is already a tag-page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrail It isn't very clear though and from the picture I'd say that is highway=path. I am aiming at stuff like this: http://www.thesenselessunit.net/funnystuff/trampelpfad.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Trampelpfad_zum_Michaelberg_im_Maudacher_Bruch.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Kenkp9DHXXA/SsrR-lYGdOI/B0Q/HqUc6Nob-Ag/s320/trampelpfad1.jpg especially in urban setting (unofficial ways in parks where there should have been a way but nobody planned/built it and similar situations). We could hijack the trail page (given that trail to native speakers implies what I want to express) and - after getting to a conclusion here - put a meaningful definition there. An alternative could be highway=informal (IMHO; what do you think?). There are currently according to taginfo 77 ways highway=trail in our data, which is 0,00% of the total of 32,7 million ways tagged with highway. Probably most (if not all) of those ways will still be congruent with the refined new definition of highway=trail, but we could attach a FIXME to them. Or do you already have another well established tag for those informal paths? Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Twitter: @Acrosscanada Blogs: http://acrosscanadatrails.posterous.com/ http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans Skype: samvekemans IRC: irc://irc.oftc.net #osm-ca Canadian OSM channel (an open chat room) @Acrosscanadatrails ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] atms with names?
The wiki states the name is a suitable tag for atm. I disagree because I don't know named atms. Do you? I am also proposing the use of the network-tag (or maybe brand?) e.g. cash_group Sparkasse, Volks- und Raiffeisenbank (all german networks for atms). I this is undisputed, I'd change the wiki. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What tags to use on a scenic route?
2010/10/22 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: that should be added, perhaps scenic=yes or tourism=scenic_route? I'd either create a route-tag or use tourism=scenic_route. scenic=yes doesn't feel good IMHO. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 22 Oct 2010, at 9:11 , M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: Looking at a dictionary I found trail (for german Trampelpfad), and helas: there is already a tag-page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrail It isn't very clear though and from the picture I'd say that is highway=path. please no new highway, path/footway is already a very controversial tag. why not add additional tags to path. path is very generic and we have a documented visibility tag ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 22/10/2010 17:14, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 12:11 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: We could hijack the trail page (given that trail to native speakers implies what I want to express) Not really; see the rails to trails movement. Yes, trail is an even more ambiguous word than path. It can refer to just about anything that isn't a paved road. So it might be a forest track, or a hiking path, or a mountain bike trail etc. And it might be an official, signposted route or it might not. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail So best to avoid using trail, as people will assume it applies many different things. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
2010/10/22 Craig Wallace craig...@fastmail.fm: Yes, trail is an even more ambiguous word than path. It can refer to just about anything that isn't a paved road. So it might be a forest track, or a hiking path, or a mountain bike trail etc. And it might be an official, signposted route or it might not. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail So best to avoid using trail, as people will assume it applies many different things. OK, thank you for this comment. So I'd propose highway=informal or highway=informal_path cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] atms with names?
On 23 October 2010 02:25, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: The wiki states the name is a suitable tag for atm. I disagree because I don't know named atms. Do you? I am also proposing the use of the network-tag (or maybe brand?) e.g. cash_group Sparkasse, Volks- und Raiffeisenbank (all german networks for atms). I this is undisputed, I'd change the wiki. What is wrong with the operator=* or brand=* tags? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 23 October 2010 02:34, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: OK, thank you for this comment. So I'd propose highway=informal or highway=informal_path If you are so determined to make a new type, at least do it as a sub-type... highway=path path=informal ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
highway=path is indeed what would currently be used for informal footpaths. But it can also be used to describe intentionally built, well maintained and paved ways. Intentionally built way, too narrow for 4-wheel vehicles, is highway=footway. Unintentional, informal way is highway=path. I see no needs for highway=trail ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
2010/10/22 Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.com: please no new highway, path/footway is already a very controversial tag. Yes, and it could become a little clearer when there is different tags for a 3 m wide and paved path and a 0.3 m wide and unpaved and unmaintained path. We have x road classes and just one for ways that are not roads (given that footway, cycleway and bridleway are all synonyms of highway=path designated=foo, dedicated=foo, official=foo, etc.). I don't say stuff can't be expressed currently, but it would make the life of mappers, renderers, routers much easier if there was a way to put out the difference. why not add additional tags to path. path is very generic and we have a documented visibility tag because it is not working now: we are trying this for years and there is no renderer or other data consumer (AFAIK) that makes a difference. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What tags to use on a scenic route?
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 22/10/2010 00:49, Nathan Edgars II wrote: I just created a relation for the Green Mountain Scenic Byway (which is marked with signs like http://www.floridascenichighways.com/program/wp-content/themes/fshp/images/sidePanther.jpg): http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1239925 Other than network=Florida Scenic Highways, is there anything else that should be added, perhaps scenic=yes or tourism=scenic_route? route=* http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route Oops - forgot route=road. Doesn't really add much though. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
2010/10/22 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: On 23 October 2010 02:34, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: OK, thank you for this comment. So I'd propose highway=informal or highway=informal_path If you are so determined to make a new type, at least do it as a sub-type... highway=path path=informal Why? We don't tag highway=street, street=primary why should we do this for paths? Why not footway=informal, cycleway=informal, ...? I don't see a benefit from subtagging here, it is a new class IMHO. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity key
A short definition is great but I think the wiki page could use a little more explanation *after* the definition, e.g. some examples, references to supporting sources like wikipedia. I also think that it is worth mentioning and linking to pertinent mail archive threads on the use of the tag as it help gives some context. As a new tagger I was confused about its use and I'd like to take a stab at improving the wiki. I'm not talking about a wholesale change. I like the wikipedia definition: *amenities* are any tangible or intangible benefits of a property, especially those that increase its attractiveness or value or that contribute to its comfort or convenience. I'll post something definitive out in a few days. -- Sean On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 06:53, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote: 2010/10/21 Sean Horgan seanhor...@gmail.com: The definition of such a tag/key that is so common the database (3+% according to taginfo: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/amenity), needs more than a single line definition. Why? The shorter the definition, the better. The definitions should be precise and contain the needed definition, but not more. Often there are longish key definitions that explain a certain usecase and therefore restrain unneededly the use of keys/tags. Also examples should not be contained in the definitions IMHO (they can go in an example section but the definition shouldn't need them). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What tags to use on a scenic route?
Locally, these are just added as tourist routes... Most are just numbered, some use icons... http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Custom_Highway_Shields#Australia ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/22/2010 11:43 AM, SURLY_ru wrote: highway=path is indeed what would currently be used for informal footpaths. But it can also be used to describe intentionally built, well maintained and paved ways. Intentionally built way, too narrow for 4-wheel vehicles, is highway=footway. Incorrect, unless it happens to be…a footway. We went over this when path was proposed. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What tags to use on a scenic route?
On 22/10/2010 17:42, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Dave F.dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 22/10/2010 00:49, Nathan Edgars II wrote: I just created a relation for the Green Mountain Scenic Byway (which is marked with signs like http://www.floridascenichighways.com/program/wp-content/themes/fshp/images/sidePanther.jpg): http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1239925 Other than network=Florida Scenic Highways, is there anything else that should be added, perhaps scenic=yes or tourism=scenic_route? route=* http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route Oops - forgot route=road. Doesn't really add much though. Well, it gives a general description of where the route goes. Any extra details can be included in sub tags, some of which are listed on that page.. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 23 October 2010 02:44, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I don't see a benefit from subtagging here, it is a new class IMHO. I don't see a benefit in tagging these differently than highway=path, and so far you have failed to show how they differ, as others have pointed out, the path tag is for any type of walk way and then add other modifiers to indicate the surface and so on. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/22/2010 11:28 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote: John Smith wrote: Isn't this what highway=path or highway=track is for? highway=track is for ways that are wide enough for two-tracked vehicles. highway=path is indeed what would currently be used for informal footpaths. But it can also be used to describe intentionally built, well maintained and paved ways. Because the difference between ways that would currently be tagged as a path can be very significant, it makes sense to split small informal footpaths into their own highway category. I like the idea, but I don’t think splitting it into a separate highway=* value will work out very well. I especially think that coming up with a clear definition of a trail is going to be difficult, even if the difference among such ways is large. I think a combination of surface=*, width=*, and smoothness=* [ducking for cover] is more appropriate to show this, unless you’re able to come up with a good definition. If you can come up with a good definition I’d certainly support it on a separate tag (path:type=trail?) —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/22/10 12:31 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: They have to be not planned, not maintained, ground surface: they are simply there because people (or animal) use them. There might be some intersection with small paths in some cases, but usually I'd also say that paths are broader. this will lead to some confusion in the US, as we have an extensive network of maintained wilderness trails, e.g. The Applalachian Trail (2175 miles from Georgia to Maine) The Long Trail (famous in northern New England) and various others. you intend highway=trail to apply to a substantially less formal entity, but i predict that if highway=trail is there, it will be misused in the US. it'd be interesting to see if highway=trail actually appears now, and on what sorts of trails. i'd recommend some descriptive tags associated with highway=path and highway=footway to further characterize the nature of the path. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
please no new highway, path/footway is already a very controversial tag. Yes, and it could become a little clearer when there is different tags for a 3 m wide and paved path and a 0.3 m wide and unpaved and unmaintained path. We have x road classes and just one for ways that are not roads (given that footway, cycleway and bridleway are all synonyms of highway=path designated=foo, dedicated=foo, official=foo, etc.). I don't say stuff can't be expressed currently, but it would make the life of mappers, renderers, routers much easier if there was a way to put out the difference. I would still say that the current highway=path handles this very well. I've never felt constrained by this tag with the common attributes. You can provide direction to renderers by adding surface=, width=, sac_scale, mtb:scale . If current renderers do not interpret *scale, surface, or numerical width - this is a renderer problem. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] atms with names?
In the USA, ATMs will usually be labeled with the name of the bank chain operating them, and then will have smaller decals on the front showing which networks of banks that bank belongs to (for example, banking chain A and banking chain B both are part of the Cirrus network). You can use any ATM in a network that your bank belongs to, but will probably have to pay higher fees for any withdrawal from an ATM not owned by your own bank. So, I would think that the bank name would go into brand, and possibly name as well; there would be multiple network tags. ---Original Email--- Subject :[Tagging] atms with names? From :mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com Date :Fri Oct 22 11:25:34 America/Chicago 2010 The wiki states the name is a suitable tag for atm. I disagree because I don't know named atms. Do you? I am also proposing the use of the network-tag (or maybe brand?) e.g. cash_group Sparkasse, Volks- und Raiffeisenbank (all german networks for atms). I this is undisputed, I'd change the wiki. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
2010/10/22 SURLY_ru p...@isnet.ru: highway=path is indeed what would currently be used for informal footpaths. But it can also be used to describe intentionally built, well maintained and paved ways. Intentionally built way, too narrow for 4-wheel vehicles, is highway=footway. Unintentional, informal way is highway=path. I see no needs for highway=trail -2 trail is already out of discussion because it is too ambigous. A footway doesn't have to be too narrow for 4-wheel vehicles, they are simply not allowed. Paths can be all kind of stuff, from the wiki: A route open to the public which is not intended for motor vehicles, unless so tagged separately The default access restriction of highway=path is open to all non-motorized vehicles, but emergency vehicles are allowed This tag is used for paths for which all and any of highway=footway, highway=cycleway and highway=bridleway would be inappropriate or inadequate (or simply not sufficient) They might be not intended for any particular use, or intended for several different uses. Intended uses can be indicated with the access=designated keys. The wording intended for already states that those are not unintentional, informal, so at least it's a subset from. This would become clearer what a path isn't if informal_path was introduced. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] atms with names?
John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com writes: On 23 October 2010 02:25, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: The wiki states the name is a suitable tag for atm. I disagree because I don't know named atms. Do you? I am also proposing the use of the network-tag (or maybe brand?) e.g. cash_group Sparkasse, Volks- und Raiffeisenbank (all german networks for atms). I this is undisputed, I'd change the wiki. What is wrong with the operator=* or brand=* tags? +1 to both name=* to me would equate to the name that appears on my bank statement, like Student Center Post Office ATM or Lenox Square Mall ATM. It sounds like what you're describing fits in operator=* or brand=*. I don't know about network=*... even though they're called networks, that seems like a different meaning from the existing uses of network=* in OSM. -- Peter Budny \ Georgia Tech \ CS PhD student \ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=informal_path WAS: Re: new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
Changing the email subject doesn't make this any more valid, most responses so far have highway=path as being sufficient and so far you have failed to show why it's not. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
2010/10/22 Mike N. nice...@att.net: I would still say that the current highway=path handles this very well. I've never felt constrained by this tag with the common attributes. You can provide direction to renderers by adding surface=, width=, sac_scale, mtb:scale . If current renderers do not interpret *scale, surface, or numerical width - this is a renderer problem. Yes, I knew that this would be an argument brought into discussion. Path can basically handle everything (according to the definition in the wiki you could also tag motorways with path, if you put the right additional tags on it, that's not a joke, have a look in the wiki and see below) because it says almost nothing. IMHO it is out of the logic of our highway-classification to have path at all: all tags have their distinct signification, path hasn't. It has almost no meaning, vehicles can be permitted with subtags, lanes could be added, etc. The only reason for path to be there are path with no dedicated means of transport. Why tag a way as footway if it is a bridleway and a cycleway at the same time? That was the reason for path and I agree. But it should have a limit as well. I would distinguish informal and ordinary paths at the main level: they are different. There is a justification to do so. Here comes the motorway tagging as highway=path surface=asphalt width=12 lanes=3 oneway=yes motor_vehicle=official (or designated) foot=no bicycle=no horse=no moped=no snow_mobile=no access:requirement=possible_speed60 maxspeed=130 source:maxspeed=IT:motorway easy. We could do this, why on earth do we need highway=motorway? Path can rule them all. Well, beside this little detail, that some paths are formal (they are intended, sign posted, maintained, have maybe names, etc.) and others are informal, usually shortcuts, usually not very long, shall not be maintained, etc. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] atms with names?
On 10/22/10 1:18 PM, Noel David Torres Taño wrote: I've asked about this too. I can understand that name=* refers to a specific name of the particular ATM, like Lenox Square Mall ATM as you said. But where to write Banca March (bank) and where to write Servired (network)? Which one is operator=* and which one is brand=* ? for ATMs, brand and operator are likely to be the same, as what the user really wants to know is if it's his bank, or one that will hit him up with extra charges. so i'd say use the street name of the financial institution. richafrd ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/22/2010 12:09 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: Well, beside this little detail, that some paths are formal (they are intended, sign posted, maintained, have maybe names, etc.) and others are informal, usually shortcuts, usually not very long, shall not be maintained, etc. OK, but take this example: http://www.trailville.com/wiki/Image:Photo_WI_Kettle_Moraine_Ice_Age_Trail_01.jpg http://www.trailville.com/wiki/Image:Photo_WI_Kettle_Moraine_Ice_Age_Trail_02.jpg Looking at those images, it’s pretty clear to me that this is what you mean by “trail”. And yet it’s a “formal”, sign posted, maintained, named trail: http://www.trailville.com/wiki/WI_Kettle_Moraine_State_Forest_Ice_Age_Trail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Age_Trail —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] atms with names?
2010/10/22 Noel David Torres Taño env...@rolamasao.org: On Viernes 22 Octubre 2010 17:58:04 Peter Budny escribió: What is wrong with the operator=* or brand=* tags? +1 to both name=* to me would equate to the name that appears on my bank statement, like Student Center Post Office ATM or Lenox Square Mall ATM. It sounds like what you're describing fits in operator=* or brand=*. I don't know about network=*... even though they're called networks, that seems like a different meaning from the existing uses of network=* in OSM. I've asked about this too. I can understand that name=* refers to a specific name of the particular ATM, like Lenox Square Mall ATM as you said. But where to write Banca March (bank) and where to write Servired (network)? Which one is operator=* and which one is brand=* ? operator is Banca March (the bank that set up the atm and puts money in when it's empty), the network is Servired and this could also be expressed as brand. This might be OK for most cases. I can imagine cases where it creates problems, because network could be more then one, brand could then refer to the brand of the bank that set up the atm and operator would be the bank that operates it. Brand and operator are not the same in all cases. Using brand with multiple values feeld incorrect to me, because it is not the brands of the atm but it is networks where it is affiliated with. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
2010/10/22 Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net: On 10/22/2010 12:09 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: Well, beside this little detail, that some paths are formal (they are intended, sign posted, maintained, have maybe names, etc.) and others are informal, usually shortcuts, usually not very long, shall not be maintained, etc. OK, but take this example: http://www.trailville.com/wiki/Image:Photo_WI_Kettle_Moraine_Ice_Age_Trail_01.jpg http://www.trailville.com/wiki/Image:Photo_WI_Kettle_Moraine_Ice_Age_Trail_02.jpg Yes, they are highway=path (see the yellow stripe at the tree). Also they are already quite big. I originally wrote about 20-30 cm, the ones in your example are 80-100 cm. They are probably also quite long and not only shortcuts. In urban context it might be easier to differentiate, especially in parks you will see the difference between informal and formal path quite well (in the real world, in OSM they will be treated mostly the same). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] atms with names?
On Viernes 22 Octubre 2010 18:29:58 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer escribió: 2010/10/22 Noel David Torres Taño env...@rolamasao.org: On Viernes 22 Octubre 2010 17:58:04 Peter Budny escribió: What is wrong with the operator=* or brand=* tags? +1 to both name=* to me would equate to the name that appears on my bank statement, like Student Center Post Office ATM or Lenox Square Mall ATM. It sounds like what you're describing fits in operator=* or brand=*. I don't know about network=*... even though they're called networks, that seems like a different meaning from the existing uses of network=* in OSM. I've asked about this too. I can understand that name=* refers to a specific name of the particular ATM, like Lenox Square Mall ATM as you said. But where to write Banca March (bank) and where to write Servired (network)? Which one is operator=* and which one is brand=* ? operator is Banca March (the bank that set up the atm and puts money in when it's empty), the network is Servired and this could also be expressed as brand. This might be OK for most cases. I can imagine cases where it creates problems, because network could be more then one, brand could then refer to the brand of the bank that set up the atm and operator would be the bank that operates it. Brand and operator are not the same in all cases. Using brand with multiple values feeld incorrect to me, because it is not the brands of the atm but it is networks where it is affiliated with. cheers, Martin It is not the same which network an ATM is in (it is only one) and which cards it can work with (this can be multiple). For example, the ATM I have just in from of my flat is operated by CajaCanarias (a caja is bank-like organisation typical of Spain), it belongs to the Red 6000 network like all CajaCanarias' ATMs and all ATMs from other cajas, and it accepts Visa, MasterCard, Cirrus, American Express and other cards. Cards emitted by CajaCanarias can be Maestro, MasterCard or Visa but they always carry the Red 6000 logo, and I can use them without fees in all ATMs from CajaGalicia, CAM, CajaCM and others, but I can not use it freely on Servired ATMs like Banca March, CajaMadrid, BBVA or Banco Santander: it will work, but I will pay fees. So, operator=CajaCanarias brand=Red 6000 ? Thanks Noel er Envite ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] atms with names?
In the USA, an A(M is usually a member of multiple networks, sometimes ten or more, and will usually have decals on the front of the machine identifying which networks it is a member of. You can use the machine if your bank is a member of any of those networks, but may have to pay a surcharge if the bank operating the ATM is not your bank. So, there needs to be provision for belonging to more than one network, either with multiple network tags or by allowing a semicolon- list. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [Tagging] atms with names? From :mailto:env...@rolamasao.org Date :Fri Oct 22 12:59:54 America/Chicago 2010 On Viernes 22 Octubre 2010 18:29:58 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer escribió: 2010/10/22 Noel David Torres Taño env...@rolamasao.org: On Viernes 22 Octubre 2010 17:58:04 Peter Budny escribió: What is wrong with the operator=* or brand=* tags? +1 to both name=* to me would equate to the name that appears on my bank statement, like Student Center Post Office ATM or Lenox Square Mall ATM. It sounds like what you're describing fits in operator=* or brand=*. I don't know about network=*... even though they're called networks, that seems like a different meaning from the existing uses of network=* in OSM. I've asked about this too. I can understand that name=* refers to a specific name of the particular ATM, like Lenox Square Mall ATM as you said. But where to write Banca March (bank) and where to write Servired (network)? Which one is operator=* and which one is brand=* ? operator is Banca March (the bank that set up the atm and puts money in when it's empty), the network is Servired and this could also be expressed as brand. This might be OK for most cases. I can imagine cases where it creates problems, because network could be more then one, brand could then refer to the brand of the bank that set up the atm and operator would be the bank that operates it. Brand and operator are not the same in all cases. Using brand with multiple values feeld incorrect to me, because it is not the brands of the atm but it is networks where it is affiliated with. cheers, Martin It is not the same which network an ATM is in (it is only one) and which cards it can work with (this can be multiple). For example, the ATM I have just in from of my flat is operated by CajaCanarias (a caja is bank-like organisation typical of Spain), it belongs to the Red 6000 network like all CajaCanarias' ATMs and all ATMs from other cajas, and it accepts Visa, MasterCard, Cirrus, American Express and other cards. Cards emitted by CajaCanarias can be Maestro, MasterCard or Visa but they always carry the Red 6000 logo, and I can use them without fees in all ATMs from CajaGalicia, CAM, CajaCM and others, but I can not use it freely on Servired ATMs like Banca March, CajaMadrid, BBVA or Banco Santander: it will work, but I will pay fees. So, operator=CajaCanarias brand=Red 6000 ? Thanks Noel er Envite ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/22/2010 06:11 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: It's now almost 3 years that I'm mapping and when I entered small informal (not planned or built) footpaths I was using cryptic tag combinations like highway=footway, informal=yes, width=0.3 (or highway=path), surface=ground. While that is not impossible, it is still somehow strange. Why shouldn't we simply add another highway class on the lowest end? Would simplify all of our lives (at least for all those who sometimes leave the car when mapping) and add some clarity. Looking at a dictionary I found trail (for german Trampelpfad), and helas: there is already a tag-page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrail It isn't very clear though and from the picture I'd say that is highway=path. I think path is clear enough. A path is - according to the wiki - too narrow for a car to drive on. If you add a surface tag I don't see any need for another tag. If you want to emphasize how difficult it is to walk there we have the sac_scale tags. I'd use highway=footway only on ways which have the blue sign with the white pedestrians on it, because on any other way it is not forbidden to e.g. ride on it with a bicycle. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/22/2010 06:31 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/10/22 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: Isn't this what highway=path or highway=track is for? No, in the case of path this is a common misconception, and in the case of track: where did you get this idea from? This is not a misconception. The wiki says for paths If a path is wide enough for four-wheel-vehicles, and it is not legally signposted or otherwise only allowed for pedestrians, cyclists or horseriders, it is often better tagged as a highway=track. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/22/2010 06:42 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: Yes, and it could become a little clearer when there is different tags for a 3 m wide and paved path and a 0.3 m wide and unpaved and unmaintained path. If it is 3 m wide it is a track. If it's paved it's grade1, if it's worse its a lower grade. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What tags to use on a scenic route?
On 22/10/2010 17:27, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: I'd either create a route-tag or use tourism=scenic_route. Tourism is another tag that shouldn't be used as a primary. Primary tags shouldbe used to describe what it is, not whom it *might* be used by. For example: art galleries museums are used by many other people than those on a holiday. Cheers Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/22/2010 06:43 PM, SURLY_ru wrote: Intentionally built way, too narrow for 4-wheel vehicles, is highway=footway. The wiki and the actual usage say nothing about wether it was intentionally built. Footway on the other hand is for designated pedestrian ways, i.e. in many countries a blue sign with pedestrians on it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Tourism was Re: What tags to use on a scenic route?
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 22/10/2010 17:27, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: I'd either create a route-tag or use tourism=scenic_route. Tourism is another tag that shouldn't be used as a primary. Primary tags shouldbe used to describe what it is, not whom it *might* be used by. For example: art galleries museums are used by many other people than those on a holiday. Perhaps tourism should be folded into leisure? (That's not always correct for hotels anyway, but is better.) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/22/2010 02:18 PM, Ralf Kleineisel wrote: On 10/22/2010 06:42 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: Yes, and it could become a little clearer when there is different tags for a 3 m wide and paved path and a 0.3 m wide and unpaved and unmaintained path. If it is 3 m wide it is a track. If it's paved it's grade1, if it's worse its a lower grade. No. Width is not a sufficient criterion to determine whether it’s a track. There is a rails-to-trails conversions around here that don’t have anything physically preventing cars from driving down it (and in fact they’re driven on by county park vehicles for maintenance and catching people using them without a trail pass.) That does not make it a highway=track. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/22/2010 02:13 PM, Ralf Kleineisel wrote: On 10/22/2010 06:11 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: Looking at a dictionary I found trail (for german Trampelpfad), and helas: there is already a tag-page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrail It isn't very clear though and from the picture I'd say that is highway=path. I think path is clear enough. A path is - according to the wiki - too narrow for a car to drive on. That’s not what the wiki says. It says “If a path is wide enough for four-wheel-vehicles […] it is often better tagged as a highway=track.” That doesn’t mean that that is the only criterion. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity key
Am 22.10.2010 18:28, David Murn: On Fri, 2010-10-22 at 07:55 +0200, Peter Körner wrote: Am 21.10.2010 23:29, schrieb Sean Horgan: The definition of such a tag/key that is so common the database (3+% according to taginfo: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/amenity), needs more than a single line definition. Do you have a suggestion? One way I heard it described, is an amenity is something youre likely to want to navigate to. While that description is a bit vague, it seems to fit most current applications of the key. Like amenity=prison ;) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Prison Generally I agree with your definition and the idea of a short singline line one though. Claudius ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
2010/10/22 Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net: On 10/22/2010 02:18 PM, Ralf Kleineisel wrote: On 10/22/2010 06:42 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: Yes, and it could become a little clearer when there is different tags for a 3 m wide and paved path and a 0.3 m wide and unpaved and unmaintained path. If it is 3 m wide it is a track. If it's paved it's grade1, if it's worse its a lower grade. No. Width is not a sufficient criterion to determine whether it’s a track. There is a rails-to-trails conversions around here that don’t have anything physically preventing cars from driving down it (and in fact they’re driven on by county park vehicles for maintenance and catching people using them without a trail pass.) That does not make it a highway=track. in germany that would probably be tagged as track or service with appropriate access tags. Paths that are wide enough for cars but still paths are for instance found in mountain regions, where inclination and surface actually prevent almost all vehicles from passing. It is sufficient to have un-passable parts only now and then to make the whole path un-passable. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Chamber of Commerce?
In most cities in the US, and even some smaller towns, there's an organization called the Chamber of Commerce. With varying participation from municipal government, it's a portal for new businesses to come to for help and information, networking with other business owners, representing businesses in addressing the city, sometimes informal arbitration, etc. There are only a handful of existing tags with the name [Cc]hamber [oO]f [Cc]ommerce, with no consistent tagging. Any objection to amenity=chamber_of_commerce ? -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Chamber of Commerce?
Hi Alan, I believe that the value of the amenity key should in some way describe what it provides, e.g. cafe, fuel. Is the Chamber of Commerce a private organization? What amenity would you say it provides? Maybe you could propose amenity=lobby or amenity=advocacy and then use name=chamber_of_commerce. Sean On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 17:00, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.netalan_mintz%2b...@earthlink.net wrote: In most cities in the US, and even some smaller towns, there's an organization called the Chamber of Commerce. With varying participation from municipal government, it's a portal for new businesses to come to for help and information, networking with other business owners, representing businesses in addressing the city, sometimes informal arbitration, etc. There are only a handful of existing tags with the name [Cc]hamber [oO]f [Cc]ommerce, with no consistent tagging. Any objection to amenity=chamber_of_commerce ? -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ 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] [Talk-us] how to tag US townships?
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Peter Budny pet...@gatech.edu wrote: Anthony o...@inbox.org writes: What would be an example of a township that would be at admin_level=7? I'm not saying you're wrong. I just couldn't come up with an example. The townships that I've seen which overlap with cities/towns aren't administrative areas, they just settlements. My bad, I didn't realize you wanted a specific example. Let me see if I can find one. It looks like Richmond, Indiana and Wayne Township are an example. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Township_(United_States)#Civil_townships which cites the US Census document I linked earlier, Indiana has township governments that cover all of its area and population. Thus, I presume, Richmond is an incorporated city, but Wayne Township also retains its governance over the areas included in Richmond, putting Richmond under control of 5 governments (federal, state, county, township, and city/municipal). Richmond is not part of any county. Like all Virginia municipalities incorporated as cities, it is an independent city and not part of any county. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond,_Virginia) As far as I can tell, it's not part of any township either, since all the townships seem to be part of a county. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indiana_townships_by_county) (I could be wrong, though. There are 16 townships in Indiana called Wayne Township, and I didn't check them all.) On the other hand, an example would be the town of Fowler, Indiana, which is part of Center Township, which is part of Benton County. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] how to tag US townships?
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 10/21/2010 07:12 PM, Anthony wrote: On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Alex Mauerha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: The point of admin_level is *not* primarily to record which governments are above another. It’s to indicate which governments across different countries and states are (approximately) equivalent. Then we shouldn't use numbers, or if we're going to use numbers we should assign those numbers in random order. Huh? Why? What do you propose instead? Please don’t say “use the name of the entity”, because we already have a key that does that (border_type) and it would make it a nightmare to make a consistent international map. Okay, I won't say it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] how to tag US townships?
Peter Budny was talking about Richmond, Indiana, not Richmond, Virginia. According to the Wikipedia article on Richmond, Indiana, Richmond is a city largely within Wayne Township, Wayne County, in east central Indiana, which borders Ohio. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] how to tag US townships? From :mailto:o...@inbox.org Date :Fri Oct 22 20:08:42 America/Chicago 2010 On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Peter Budny pet...@gatech.edu wrote: Anthony o...@inbox.org writes: What would be an example of a township that would be at admin_level=7? I'm not saying you're wrong. I just couldn't come up with an example. The townships that I've seen which overlap with cities/towns aren't administrative areas, they just settlements. My bad, I didn't realize you wanted a specific example. Let me see if I can find one. It looks like Richmond, Indiana and Wayne Township are an example. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Township_(United_States)#Civil_townships which cites the US Census document I linked earlier, Indiana has township governments that cover all of its area and population. Thus, I presume, Richmond is an incorporated city, but Wayne Township also retains its governance over the areas included in Richmond, putting Richmond under control of 5 governments (federal, state, county, township, and city/municipal). Richmond is not part of any county. Like all Virginia municipalities incorporated as cities, it is an independent city and not part of any county. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond,_Virginia) As far as I can tell, it's not part of any township either, since all the townships seem to be part of a county. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indiana_townships_by_county) (I could be wrong, though. There are 16 townships in Indiana called Wayne Township, and I didn't check them all.) On the other hand, an example would be the town of Fowler, Indiana, which is part of Center Township, which is part of Benton County. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] how to tag US townships?
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 9:17 PM, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: Peter Budny was talking about Richmond, Indiana, not Richmond, Virginia. Wow, that was dumb of me. I knew he was talking about Indiana! Thanks... ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] how to tag US townships? From :mailto:o...@inbox.org Date :Fri Oct 22 20:08:42 America/Chicago 2010 On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Peter Budny pet...@gatech.edu wrote: Anthony o...@inbox.org writes: What would be an example of a township that would be at admin_level=7? I'm not saying you're wrong. I just couldn't come up with an example. The townships that I've seen which overlap with cities/towns aren't administrative areas, they just settlements. My bad, I didn't realize you wanted a specific example. Let me see if I can find one. It looks like Richmond, Indiana and Wayne Township are an example. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Township_(United_States)#Civil_townships which cites the US Census document I linked earlier, Indiana has township governments that cover all of its area and population. Thus, I presume, Richmond is an incorporated city, but Wayne Township also retains its governance over the areas included in Richmond, putting Richmond under control of 5 governments (federal, state, county, township, and city/municipal). Richmond is not part of any county. Like all Virginia municipalities incorporated as cities, it is an independent city and not part of any county. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond,_Virginia) As far as I can tell, it's not part of any township either, since all the townships seem to be part of a county. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indiana_townships_by_county) (I could be wrong, though. There are 16 townships in Indiana called Wayne Township, and I didn't check them all.) On the other hand, an example would be the town of Fowler, Indiana, which is part of Center Township, which is part of Benton County. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry ___ 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] [Talk-us] how to tag US townships?
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Peter Budny pet...@gatech.edu wrote: Anthony o...@inbox.org writes: What would be an example of a township that would be at admin_level=7? I'm not saying you're wrong. I just couldn't come up with an example. The townships that I've seen which overlap with cities/towns aren't administrative areas, they just settlements. My bad, I didn't realize you wanted a specific example. Let me see if I can find one. It looks like Richmond, Indiana and Wayne Township are an example. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Township_(United_States)#Civil_townships which cites the US Census document I linked earlier, Indiana has township governments that cover all of its area and population. Thus, I presume, Richmond is an incorporated city, but Wayne Township also retains its governance over the areas included in Richmond, putting Richmond under control of 5 governments (federal, state, county, township, and city/municipal). Richmond is not part of any county. Like all Virginia municipalities incorporated as cities, it is an independent city and not part of any county. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond,_Virginia) As far as I can tell, it's not part of any township either, since all the townships seem to be part of a county. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indiana_townships_by_county) (I could be wrong, though. There are 16 townships in Indiana called Wayne Township, and I didn't check them all.) On the other hand, an example would be the town of Fowler, Indiana, which is part of Center Township, which is part of Benton County. Since when is Indiana the same as Virginia? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Chamber of Commerce?
On 23/10/2010 01:00, Alan Mintz wrote: In most cities in the US, and even some smaller towns, there's an organization called the Chamber of Commerce. With varying participation from municipal government, it's a portal for new businesses to come to for help and information, networking with other business owners, representing businesses in addressing the city, sometimes informal arbitration, etc. There are only a handful of existing tags with the name [Cc]hamber [oO]f [Cc]ommerce, with no consistent tagging. Any objection to amenity=chamber_of_commerce ? I think its not really an amenity, it would fit better as some sort of office - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:office Maybe office=chamber_of_commerce ? Or something more generic, like office=business_association ? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] how to tag US townships?
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: Since when is Indiana the same as Virginia? Isn't that the whole point of admin_levels? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
