Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpool
2010/11/13 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: On 13 November 2010 21:38, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: access no is completely wrong IMHO, better might be access=private, which also might be wrong, as the access might be allowed, but not to park there. access=destination ? My point was that access is about the accessibility while here it might be needed a tag to indicate who is allowed to park. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpool
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:08 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/11/13 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: On 13 November 2010 21:38, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: access no is completely wrong IMHO, better might be access=private, which also might be wrong, as the access might be allowed, but not to park there. access=destination ? My point was that access is about the accessibility while here it might be needed a tag to indicate who is allowed to park. We use access=private for private parking lots, do we not? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] geology taggin?
2010/11/13 Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com: Am 13.11.2010 12:58, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer: landuse is the usage of the land, natural is used to denote features like summits, cave entrances, beaches, bays, ... No. Have a look at the natural section of: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features heath, scree, scrub, fell, sand is what you think what landcover should be. We already have that. Yes, I know, but only scree and sand would be landcover tags (sand is not well established I'd say, and it is not helpful at all, as you can't combine it with beach or other natural values, user Skippern put this to the features on 5th Nov. 2010, but there was no discussion, announcement or voting), and on the other hand most of the natural values are not landcover tags: bay, beach, cave_entrance, cliff, coastline, fell, (heath not sure), land, peak, spring, tree, volcano, stone (=free standing stone). I think you know this as I posted a similar list recently to talk-de. I'd take the few landcover values from natural to the landcover tag. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpool
2010/11/14 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:08 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/11/13 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: On 13 November 2010 21:38, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: access no is completely wrong IMHO, better might be access=private, which also might be wrong, as the access might be allowed, but not to park there. access=destination ? My point was that access is about the accessibility while here it might be needed a tag to indicate who is allowed to park. We use access=private for private parking lots, do we not? Maybe not a good idea. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] geology taggin?
On 13/11/2010, at 12.40, Ulf Lamping wrote: How is landcover orthogonal to landuse / natural? Because you can imagine a landcover area overlapping -- or being a part of -- a landuse area. For example, landuse=nature_reserve might include landcover=heath, landcover=trees, landcover=lava_field. And these may also include areas outside of the nature reserve and be part of an adjacent landuse=farmyard. OSM tags were not delivered to us on stone tablets. They are constantly evolving because new and surprising uses and ways of doing things emerge. Yes, we can use surface=* for everything, roads, buildings, forests, lakes, banks, restaurants, and so on, and that perhaps makes sense if you think of the map as a photoshop document where each pixel only has one colour. But those of us concerned future development of the database, wish for a more expressive and rich set of tagging options, enabling us to describe more complex circumstances of the world. -- Morten ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Waterway relations
2010/11/14 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: What's the current best practice for waterway relations, particularly for a system of canals (all operated by the same agency) that don't necessarily flow from one end to the other? What do you need the relation for? You could tag operator=xy and were done. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpool
Le 13/11/2010 12:38, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer a écrit : 2010/11/13 Paul Norman penor...@mac.com: Hi, I propose a to add parking=carpool for carpooling. I'm not english so please be kind with my bad grammar, I do my best and be happy if you fix the mistake in the wiki. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Carpool Why not amenity=parking with access=no and hov=yes using existing tags? access no is completely wrong IMHO, better might be access=private, which also might be wrong, as the access might be allowed, but not to park there. I do not understand why you want to restrict the access. Carpooling is the action to share it's own car with someone else for a journey. To meet the other people you have to left your car somewhere, and this is often on a parking. It's a little bit new to do carpooling and here in France there's some parking not dedicated ti carpooling but designated to carpooling welcome ! So the access is not restrcited and you can park on it even if you do not do carpooling. Hope this is clear -- Rodolphe Quiédeville - Artisan Logiciel Libre Travailleur indépendant spécialisé en logiciel libre http://rodolphe.quiedeville.org/ SIP/XMPP : rodol...@quiedeville.org ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpool
Le 14/11/2010 12:15, Nathan Edgars II a écrit : On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:08 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/11/13 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: On 13 November 2010 21:38, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: access no is completely wrong IMHO, better might be access=private, which also might be wrong, as the access might be allowed, but not to park there. access=destination ? My point was that access is about the accessibility while here it might be needed a tag to indicate who is allowed to park. We use access=private for private parking lots, do we not? No parking where you can do carpooling are not private, you can park without doing carpooling too. Regards -- Rodolphe Quiédeville - Artisan Logiciel Libre Travailleur indépendant spécialisé en logiciel libre http://rodolphe.quiedeville.org/ SIP/XMPP : rodol...@quiedeville.org ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Waterway relations
On 14/11/2010 07:01, Nathan Edgars II wrote: What's the current best practice for waterway relations, particularly for a system of canals (all operated by the same agency) that don't necessarily flow from one end to the other? To tag the actual canal I don't think a relation is needed. I've used a relation attached to a canal to map a route that uses both canals rivers. Regarding the flow we need more info. Is it physically filled in, broken locks, or just not passable by boat. Send us a link. Cheers Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Busways
How to tag busways ? I added some cases in this wiki page : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bus on this model : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle I add also a busway page : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:busway Is it right to use busway or should we use another tag ? (like psv ?) Should we open a proposed feature for busway and share_busway ? Please tell me if one of this case if not well tagged and if I'm wrong : (1) Separate busway track highway=service service=bus (or psv ?) access=no psv=yes (or bus=yes ?) bicycle=yes/no if needed oneway=yes (A) Bus lanes in bidirectional motor car roads (A1) cycle lanes on left and right sides of the road (open to bicycles) highway=* busway=lane cycleway=share_busway (A2) Oneway bus lane on right side of the road only. highway=* busway:right (or left)=lane (B) Bus lanes in oneway motor car roads (B1) Oneway bus lane on opposite way of the oneway road. highway=* oneway=yes busway=opposite_lane (B2) Bus lanes in oneway motor car roads highway=* oneway=yes busway=opposite_lane busway:right=lane (B3) Bus lanes on left and right sides of the oneway road. 2 ways highway=* oneway=yes and highway=service service=bus psv=yes access=no oneway=yes bicycle=yes/no ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] geology taggin?
Am 14.11.2010 14:24, schrieb Morten Kjeldgaard: On 13/11/2010, at 12.40, Ulf Lamping wrote: How is landcover orthogonal to landuse / natural? Because you can imagine a landcover area overlapping -- or being a part of -- a landuse area. For example, landuse=nature_reserve might include landcover=heath, landcover=trees, landcover=lava_field. And these may also include areas outside of the nature reserve and be part of an adjacent landuse=farmyard. landuse=nature_reserve is your own personal concept. Please have a look at (and make yourself comfortable with) the existing map features before you discuss here. If you would now this specific discussion a bit longer, you might have known that it was suggested (some time ago) to use some kind of boundary for a nature reserve - which would be an improvement IMHO. OSM tags were not delivered to us on stone tablets. They are constantly evolving because new and surprising uses and ways of doing things emerge. Yes, we can use surface=* for everything, roads, buildings, forests, lakes, banks, restaurants, and so on, and that perhaps makes sense if you think of the map as a photoshop document where each pixel only has one colour. I can argue exactly the same way: Yes, we can use landcover=* for everything ... But those of us concerned future development of the database, wish for a more expressive and rich set of tagging options, enabling us to describe more complex circumstances of the world. You may have to learn that a change isn't always an improvement ;-) BTW: There was exactly *no* good example, which real world problem could be solved with landcover that can't be done with: surface, natural and/or landuse. Regards, ULFL ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpool
If, however, a parking lot were to be restricted for car-pooling use only, it would be reasonable to tag it as access=carpool or access=carpooling. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpool From :mailto:rodol...@quiedeville.org Date :Sun Nov 14 08:35:02 America/Chicago 2010 Le 14/11/2010 12:15, Nathan Edgars II a écrit : On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:08 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/11/13 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: On 13 November 2010 21:38, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: access no is completely wrong IMHO, better might be access=private, which also might be wrong, as the access might be allowed, but not to park there. access=destination ? My point was that access is about the accessibility while here it might be needed a tag to indicate who is allowed to park. We use access=private for private parking lots, do we not? No parking where you can do carpooling are not private, you can park without doing carpooling too. Regards -- Rodolphe Quiédeville - Artisan Logiciel Libre Travailleur indépendant spécialisé en logiciel libre http://rodolphe.quiedeville.org/ SIP/XMPP : rodol...@quiedeville.org ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] geology taggin?
On 14/11/2010 19:30, Ulf Lamping wrote: BTW: There was exactly *no* good example, which real world problem could be solved with landcover that can't be done with: surface, natural and/or landuse. I think it would help with the mess of natural=wood vs landuse=forest. eg if I see an area of trees, I don't know whether or not it is natural or managed. Best to just have a tag that says this land is covered with trees. Then you can add extra tags for how managed it is (if you know that), plus tag what type of trees it is, and what it is used for etc. So I think a tag of something like landcover=trees would be very useful. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpool
Le 14/11/2010 20:33, j...@jfeldredge.com a écrit : If, however, a parking lot were to be restricted for car-pooling use only, it would be reasonable to tag it as access=carpool or access=carpooling. Why do you make a relation between carpooling and access limitation ? The carpooling utilization is not exclusive, you can park your car without doing carpooling. So IMHO the access key is a mistake. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpool From :mailto:rodol...@quiedeville.org Date :Sun Nov 14 08:35:02 America/Chicago 2010 Le 14/11/2010 12:15, Nathan Edgars II a écrit : On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:08 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/11/13 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: On 13 November 2010 21:38, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: access no is completely wrong IMHO, better might be access=private, which also might be wrong, as the access might be allowed, but not to park there. access=destination ? My point was that access is about the accessibility while here it might be needed a tag to indicate who is allowed to park. We use access=private for private parking lots, do we not? No parking where you can do carpooling are not private, you can park without doing carpooling too. Regards -- Rodolphe Quiédeville - Artisan Logiciel Libre Travailleur indépendant spécialisé en logiciel libre http://rodolphe.quiedeville.org/ SIP/XMPP : rodol...@quiedeville.org ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpool
Read what I wrote. My suggestion was for use IF a parking lot was restricted to car-poolers only. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpool From :mailto:rodol...@quiedeville.org Date :Sun Nov 14 14:16:07 America/Chicago 2010 Le 14/11/2010 20:33, j...@jfeldredge.com a écrit : If, however, a parking lot were to be restricted for car-pooling use only, it would be reasonable to tag it as access=carpool or access=carpooling. Why do you make a relation between carpooling and access limitation ? The carpooling utilization is not exclusive, you can park your car without doing carpooling. So IMHO the access key is a mistake. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpool From :mailto:rodol...@quiedeville.org Date :Sun Nov 14 08:35:02 America/Chicago 2010 Le 14/11/2010 12:15, Nathan Edgars II a écrit : On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:08 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/11/13 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: On 13 November 2010 21:38, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: access no is completely wrong IMHO, better might be access=private, which also might be wrong, as the access might be allowed, but not to park there. access=destination ? My point was that access is about the accessibility while here it might be needed a tag to indicate who is allowed to park. We use access=private for private parking lots, do we not? No parking where you can do carpooling are not private, you can park without doing carpooling too. Regards -- Rodolphe Quiédeville - Artisan Logiciel Libre Travailleur indépendant spécialisé en logiciel libre http://rodolphe.quiedeville.org/ SIP/XMPP : rodol...@quiedeville.org Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] geology taggin?
2010/11/14 Craig Wallace craig...@fastmail.fm: BTW: There was exactly *no* good example, which real world problem could be solved with landcover that can't be done with: surface, natural and/or landuse. I think it would help with the mess of natural=wood vs landuse=forest. eg if I see an area of trees, I don't know whether or not it is natural or managed. Best to just have a tag that says this land is covered with trees. Then you can add extra tags for how managed it is (if you know that), plus tag what type of trees it is, and what it is used for etc. So I think a tag of something like landcover=trees would be very useful. I'm actually already doing this: landcover=tree. There is already 2545 entities of them in the db. You could still use a different surface there by the way, so it is not superfluous. Also landcover=scree, grass, ice, sand are good values IMHO. Probably we should simply start using them. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] geology taggin?
2010/11/14 Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com: Am 14.11.2010 14:24, schrieb Morten Kjeldgaard: of -- a landuse area. For example, landuse=nature_reserve might include landcover=heath, landcover=trees, landcover=lava_field. And these may landuse=nature_reserve is your own personal concept. Please have a look at (and make yourself comfortable with) the existing map features before you discuss here. There is actually more then one proposal, personally I like this one: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area which defines tags for cultural and social protection as well. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpool
2010/11/14 j...@jfeldredge.com: Read what I wrote. My suggestion was for use IF a parking lot was restricted to car-poolers only. Yes but I am still not sure: are you talking about access-restrictions or parking-restrictions? Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpool
What I am visualizing is a parking lot, perhaps government-owned, where only those who are currently car-pooling are allowed to park. Others would be allowed to enter to drop off or pick up passengers there, but not to park there. I don't, offhand, know of any such, but would not be surprised to learn of their existence. They would be a logical extension of High-Occupancy Vehicle lanes (highway lanes that, at certain times of day, are restricted to use by vehicles containing more than one person). ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpool From :mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com Date :Sun Nov 14 15:01:51 America/Chicago 2010 2010/11/14 j...@jfeldredge.com: Read what I wrote. My suggestion was for use IF a parking lot was restricted to car-poolers only. Yes but I am still not sure: are you talking about access-restrictions or parking-restrictions? Cheers, Martin Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Waterway relations
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Regarding the flow we need more info. Is it physically filled in, broken locks, or just not passable by boat. Send us a link. http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/xrepository/sfwmd_repository_pdf/lake_management_area_descriptions.pdf The smaller S-58 water control structure located at the north end of Trout Lake generally acts as the drainage divide for flows through the KCOL. This is the case except under very high water conditions when water can be released northward through the C-32C Canal into the Lake Preston, Myrtle, and Joel LMA. [S-58 is about midway along C-32C, so the part of C-32C between Trout Lake and S-58 can flow either way.] ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Busways
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 1:09 PM, esperanza espera...@no-log.org wrote: Is it right to use busway or should we use another tag ? (like psv ?) psv includes taxis; use access=no bus=yes unless taxis are allowed. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpool
Le 14/11/2010 22:16, j...@jfeldredge.com a écrit : What I am visualizing is a parking lot, perhaps government-owned, where only those who are currently car-pooling are allowed to park. Others would be allowed to enter to drop off or pick up passengers there, but not to park there. I don't, offhand, know of any such, but would not be surprised to learn of their existence. They would be a logical extension of High-Occupancy Vehicle lanes (highway lanes that, at certain times of day, are restricted to use by vehicles containing more than one person). In this case I suggest the combination of access and parking keys like amenity = parking parking = carpool access = carpooling Because, this is a parking, and it is used by carpoolers, and it is restricted to them. Lots of parking used by carpoolers are not in limited acces nor designated to them, it is just an extra for the initial parking. Regards -- Rodolphe Quiédeville - Artisan Logiciel Libre Travailleur indépendant spécialisé en logiciel libre http://rodolphe.quiedeville.org/ SIP/XMPP : rodol...@quiedeville.org ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] geology taggin?
On 14/11/2010 20:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/11/14 Craig Wallacecraig...@fastmail.fm: BTW: There was exactly *no* good example, which real world problem could be solved with landcover that can't be done with: surface, natural and/or landuse. I think it would help with the mess of natural=wood vs landuse=forest. eg if I see an area of trees, I don't know whether or not it is natural or managed. Best to just have a tag that says this land is covered with trees. Then you can add extra tags for how managed it is (if you know that), plus tag what type of trees it is, and what it is used for etc. So I think a tag of something like landcover=trees would be very useful. I'm actually already doing this: landcover=tree. There is already 2545 entities of them in the db. You could still use a different surface there by the way, so it is not superfluous. Also landcover=scree, grass, ice, sand are good values IMHO. Probably we should simply start using them. I think it would make more sense to use the plural, ie landcover=trees. As it for tagging an area covered by a number of trees, and would avoid confusion with natural=tree, which is for tagging individual trees. Plus you would usually say something like this land is covered by trees, with the plural. All of your other suggested values are basically uncountable, so work in this way. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
