Re: [Tagging] Is a sidewalk always adjacent to a traversable road?

2011-08-27 Thread Anthony 
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> On 8/27/2011 10:53 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>>
>>> If there's no agreement on the latter, there's no point in using the
>>> sidewalk tags.
>>
>> Feel free not to use them.
>
> I didn't ask you.

What's your point, then?

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

Re: [Tagging] Is a sidewalk always adjacent to a traversable road?

2011-08-27 Thread Nathan Edgars II 

On 8/27/2011 10:53 PM, Anthony wrote:

If there's no agreement on the latter, there's no point in using the
sidewalk tags.


Feel free not to use them.


I didn't ask you.

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

Re: [Tagging] Is a sidewalk always adjacent to a traversable road?

2011-08-27 Thread Anthony 
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> Getting this whole thread out of the black hole it's gone into: was it the
> intention of those creating the footway=sidewalk and sidewalk=* tags that:
> *They be consistent with each other: if a footway would be tagged as a
> sidewalk, then the parallel highway would have a sidewalk tag (at least if
> the footway is not separately mapped) and vice versa?

I don't think the creators of footway=sidewalk gave much thought to
this.  On the proposal page, they call footway=sidewalk "a different
but not necessarily conflicting way to tag sidewalks".

> *They include or not include informal desire lines created by walking on the
> grass strip on the side of the road?

I think the answer is neither.  They neither explicitly include nor
explicitly exclude this.

> If there's no agreement on the latter, there's no point in using the
> sidewalk tags.

Feel free not to use them.

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

Re: [Tagging] Another sidewalk question

2011-08-27 Thread Anthony 
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Josh Doe  wrote:
> Yes, crossings that are unmarked should be mapped if they are in fact
> crossings

Having just read a bit about "unmarked crosswalks", and having found
an objective definition (see
http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/opinion/article_d46b9d80-921a-5255-815f-ebdaaa34ef56.html),
I agree.

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Josh Doe  wrote:
> since there
> are intersecting nodes with the road and links, a router *could* send
> someone along the road, though of course that would be foolish because
> it is somewhat longer and less safe.

I'm pretty sure it'd be illegal, too.  (And sure, a router *could* do
foolish things, but it *shouldn't*.)

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

Re: [Tagging] Is a sidewalk always adjacent to a traversable road?

2011-08-27 Thread Nathan Edgars II 
Getting this whole thread out of the black hole it's gone into: was it 
the intention of those creating the footway=sidewalk and sidewalk=* tags 
that:
*They be consistent with each other: if a footway would be tagged as a 
sidewalk, then the parallel highway would have a sidewalk tag (at least 
if the footway is not separately mapped) and vice versa?
*They include or not include informal desire lines created by walking on 
the grass strip on the side of the road?


If there's no agreement on the latter, there's no point in using the 
sidewalk tags.


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

Re: [Tagging] Another sidewalk question

2011-08-27 Thread Josh Doe 
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Josh Doe  wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>>> On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Josh Doe  wrote:
 Of course you'd want to make
 sure you connect the other footways to the roads, so a router can send
 someone along this strip.
>>>
>>> Not of course.  A better route would be to cross the street and use
>>> that sidewalk.
>>
>> Sure, coming from the west along the sidewalk next to S Tampa Ave, it
>> might be safer to turn right and go along the "link", then turn left
>> on the other "link" and get back on the sidewalk continuing to the
>> east along S Tampa Ave. However you'll still connect the sidewalks to
>> the road, so a routing engine can send someone along a faster and more
>> direct route along S Tampa Ave on the shoulder, or a safer route along
>> the "links".
>
> I just checked other places, and it doesn't seem that we do that.  Are
> unmarked (i.e. non-crosswalk) crossing areas even supposed to be
> mapped?

Yes, crossings that are unmarked should be mapped if they are in fact
crossings, i.e. if they are used or intended to be used on a regular
basis. Some hints might be that there are dropped kerbs (curb cuts) on
other side of a street, or if a path comes in perpendicularly (say
from a park or forest) and ends at the road; in both of these cases
you should certainly have a connection between the road and the
footway/path. One of the benefits of doing so is that it enables
routing (whether or not it's a safe route to follow).

>
 In the future someone might tag the section
 of road with something like "shoulder:width=4 ft",
 "shoulder:surface=asphalt", "shoulder:type=striped", etc., which
 routers could use to determine the safety level this section.
>>>
>>> Except that it's not a shoulder.
>>
>> It is a shoulder, but it's part of a traffic island.
>
> Would you also call this a shoulder?
> http://maps.google.com/maps?q=hillsborough+and+memorial&hl=en&ll=27.99668,-82.581544&spn=0.001896,0.002025&sll=27.99685,-82.581777&sspn=0.001896,0.002025&vpsrc=6&gl=us&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=27.996679,-82.581437&panoid=wuOm8S7pnbuRpxx802nJlQ&cbp=12,222.03,,0,10.97
>
> I don't know, but it's certainly not how people are supposed to cross
> the intersection.

That's one ugly intersection! There are dropped kerbs on the raised
part of the island, so one should have a highway=footway on the island
and in the road to connect to the sidewalks on either end. From kerb
to kerb I'd add footway=crossing. But yes, the striped area is a
shoulder (and might also be part of the traffic island depending upon
the exact definition of traffic island). However again, since there
are intersecting nodes with the road and links, a router *could* send
someone along the road, though of course that would be foolish because
it is somewhat longer and less safe.

-Josh

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

Re: [Tagging] Is a sidewalk always adjacent to a traversable road?

2011-08-27 Thread Anthony 
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> On 8/27/2011 10:00 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Nathan Edgars II
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8/27/2011 9:26 PM, Anthony wrote:

 Are you saying this is not a highway=sidewalk,
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>> It quite clearly meets the definition in the wiki for footway=sidewalk.
>
> Then the sidewalk=* tag is useless, since any two-way road would have
> sidewalk=both.

Most two-way roads don't have sidewalks on both sides.

> But since sidewalk=* is well-used, and not just as
> sidewalk=both, a strip of grass cannot be a sidewalk.

That's not very good logic.  Just because one strip of grass is a
sidewalk, that doesn't mean *every* strip of grass is a sidewalk.

In any case, I wasn't talking about the sidewalk=* tag.

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

Re: [Tagging] Is a sidewalk always adjacent to a traversable road?

2011-08-27 Thread Nathan Edgars II 

On 8/27/2011 10:00 PM, Anthony wrote:

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:

On 8/27/2011 9:26 PM, Anthony wrote:


Are you saying this is not a highway=sidewalk,


Yes.


It quite clearly meets the definition in the wiki for footway=sidewalk.


Then the sidewalk=* tag is useless, since any two-way road would have 
sidewalk=both. But since sidewalk=* is well-used, and not just as 
sidewalk=both, a strip of grass cannot be a sidewalk.


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

Re: [Tagging] Is a sidewalk always adjacent to a traversable road?

2011-08-27 Thread Anthony 
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> On 8/27/2011 9:26 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> Are you saying this is not a highway=sidewalk,
>
> Yes.

It quite clearly meets the definition in the wiki for footway=sidewalk.

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

Re: [Tagging] Is a sidewalk always adjacent to a traversable road?

2011-08-27 Thread Nathan Edgars II 

On 8/27/2011 9:26 PM, Anthony wrote:

Are you saying this is not a highway=sidewalk,

Yes.
> but it would be a

legally recognized sidewalk if it were in Florida?

Probably.

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

Re: [Tagging] Another sidewalk question

2011-08-27 Thread Anthony 
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> I just checked other places, and it doesn't seem that we do that.  Are
> unmarked (i.e. non-crosswalk) crossing areas even supposed to be
> mapped?

Looking at the wiki, however, it looks like we have both
crossing=island and crossing=unmarked.  I'm not sure how to use them,
though.

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

Re: [Tagging] Is a sidewalk always adjacent to a traversable road?

2011-08-27 Thread Anthony 
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> Are you saying this is not a highway=sidewalk

*grumble*, I mean footway=sidewalk, of course.

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

Re: [Tagging] Is a sidewalk always adjacent to a traversable road?

2011-08-27 Thread Anthony 
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> On 8/27/2011 6:23 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> What's the difference?  An area which is not meant for foot traffic is
>> not a sidewalk under Florida law.
>
> I guess this is the sort of thing I'm thinking of:
> http://daviswiki.org/The_grass_sidewalk
> I wouldn't call it a sidewalk in any sense other than the legal sense, yet
> it is obviously used by and (at least unofficially) meant for foot traffic.

Fortunately our tags aren't based on what you would call things (nor
mine - I certainly wouldn't call a sidewalk a footway or a highway!).

Are you saying this is not a highway=sidewalk, but it would be a
legally recognized sidewalk if it were in Florida?

"part of a highway" - check; "set aside for the use of pedestrians" -
check; "often separated from the carriageway (or roadway) by a kerb
(also curb)" - check.

"portion of a street" - check; "between the curbline, or the lateral
line, of a roadway and the adjacent property lines" - check; "intended
for use by pedestrians" - check.

Seems to meet both definitions to me.

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

Re: [Tagging] Another sidewalk question

2011-08-27 Thread Anthony 
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Josh Doe  wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Josh Doe  wrote:
>>> Of course you'd want to make
>>> sure you connect the other footways to the roads, so a router can send
>>> someone along this strip.
>>
>> Not of course.  A better route would be to cross the street and use
>> that sidewalk.
>
> Sure, coming from the west along the sidewalk next to S Tampa Ave, it
> might be safer to turn right and go along the "link", then turn left
> on the other "link" and get back on the sidewalk continuing to the
> east along S Tampa Ave. However you'll still connect the sidewalks to
> the road, so a routing engine can send someone along a faster and more
> direct route along S Tampa Ave on the shoulder, or a safer route along
> the "links".

I just checked other places, and it doesn't seem that we do that.  Are
unmarked (i.e. non-crosswalk) crossing areas even supposed to be
mapped?

>>> In the future someone might tag the section
>>> of road with something like "shoulder:width=4 ft",
>>> "shoulder:surface=asphalt", "shoulder:type=striped", etc., which
>>> routers could use to determine the safety level this section.
>>
>> Except that it's not a shoulder.
>
> It is a shoulder, but it's part of a traffic island.

Would you also call this a shoulder?
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=hillsborough+and+memorial&hl=en&ll=27.99668,-82.581544&spn=0.001896,0.002025&sll=27.99685,-82.581777&sspn=0.001896,0.002025&vpsrc=6&gl=us&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=27.996679,-82.581437&panoid=wuOm8S7pnbuRpxx802nJlQ&cbp=12,222.03,,0,10.97

I don't know, but it's certainly not how people are supposed to cross
the intersection.

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

Re: [Tagging] [Imports] Bus data for Fairfax Connector, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA

2011-08-27 Thread Mike N 

On 8/27/2011 8:43 PM, Josh Doe wrote:

>>  The only caution to assigning a name is that GTFS discourages making up 
names for stops that haven't been given formal names.

>

Where can I find this recommendation? All I see in the spec is:
"stop_name - Required. The stop_name field contains the name of a stop
or station. Please use a name that people will understand in the local
and tourist vernacular."


  Oops - my bad; mixing up projects.  So assigning a name would be very 
useful.


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

Re: [Tagging] [Imports] Bus data for Fairfax Connector, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA

2011-08-27 Thread Josh Doe 
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Serge Wroclawski  wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Mike N  wrote:
>> On 8/27/2011 3:09 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
>>>
>>> Skip the name for a bus stop.  If rendered it would create clutter.
>>
>>  I'd say the opposite; the stop name is very useful to anyone using the
>> "Public Transport" JOSM plugin to check and organize stops so that stops can
>> be recognized, rather than just working with a column of anonymous stops.
>>  It also assists riders following a printed set of directions.    The name
>> doesn't currently render on Mapnik or Osmarender.
>
> A bus stop name or ID number is generally useful for navigation.
>
> The issue of "if rendered' is one where the right answer is always "We
> don't map to the renderer".


If there's no name designated for the stop, then wouldn't it be
"tagging for the router" to put a name on it?

However, I think it's appropriate to put a name on it. The county has
been developing a GTFS feed, so I'll ask next week what names they are
assigning to stops for that purpose, as stop_name is a required field
in GTFS, and it would be good to be consistent.

>> The only caution to assigning a name is that GTFS discourages making up 
>> names for stops that haven't been given formal names.

Where can I find this recommendation? All I see in the spec is:
"stop_name - Required. The stop_name field contains the name of a stop
or station. Please use a name that people will understand in the local
and tourist vernacular."

-Josh

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

Re: [Tagging] Another sidewalk question

2011-08-27 Thread Josh Doe 
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Josh Doe  wrote:
>> 2011/8/27 Johan Jönsson :
>>> I would not tag the white and black-striped area of the road as a sidewalk.
>>> Whoever invented the black-white striping probably did not intend it to be a
>>> designated pedestrian area, more something of a no drive zone, probably some
>>> kind of safety issue concerning the joining roads.
>>> /Johan Jönsson, Sweden-do not know anything about american sidewalks, 
>>> really.
>>
>> +1. A sidewalk or even just a footway is a separate way, whereas the
>> striped area is really just a shoulder.
>
> It's not a shoulder.  It's a traffic island.

Partially correct. The traffic island consists of a grassy triangular
area as well as white-striped shoulders.

>> Of course you'd want to make
>> sure you connect the other footways to the roads, so a router can send
>> someone along this strip.
>
> Not of course.  A better route would be to cross the street and use
> that sidewalk.

Sure, coming from the west along the sidewalk next to S Tampa Ave, it
might be safer to turn right and go along the "link", then turn left
on the other "link" and get back on the sidewalk continuing to the
east along S Tampa Ave. However you'll still connect the sidewalks to
the road, so a routing engine can send someone along a faster and more
direct route along S Tampa Ave on the shoulder, or a safer route along
the "links".

>> In the future someone might tag the section
>> of road with something like "shoulder:width=4 ft",
>> "shoulder:surface=asphalt", "shoulder:type=striped", etc., which
>> routers could use to determine the safety level this section.
>
> Except that it's not a shoulder.

It is a shoulder, but it's part of a traffic island.

-Josh

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

Re: [Tagging] Is a sidewalk always adjacent to a traversable road?

2011-08-27 Thread Nathan Edgars II 

On 8/27/2011 6:23 PM, Anthony wrote:

What's the difference?  An area which is not meant for foot traffic is
not a sidewalk under Florida law.


I guess this is the sort of thing I'm thinking of: 
http://daviswiki.org/The_grass_sidewalk
I wouldn't call it a sidewalk in any sense other than the legal sense, 
yet it is obviously used by and (at least unofficially) meant for foot 
traffic.


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

Re: [Tagging] Is a sidewalk always adjacent to a traversable road?

2011-08-27 Thread Anthony 
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
>> There are also mowed grassy strips within highway rights-of-way that are
>> sidewalks by law (at least where used enough to become a beaten path:
>> http://www.dot.state.fl.us/safety/ped_bike/laws/ped_bike_pedLaws.shtm), but
>> not for the purpose of the sidewalk tags in OSM.
>
> Why not?
>

"A sidewalk (also sometimes footway/pavement/footpath/platform) is
that part of a highway set aside for the use of pedestrians, often
separated from the carriageway (or roadway) by a kerb (also curb)."

"That portion of a street between the curbline, or the lateral line,
of a roadway and the adjacent property lines, intended for use by
pedestrians."

Seems pretty much identical to me.  Part of a highway/street, set
aside for / intended for use by, pedestrians.

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

Re: [Tagging] Is a sidewalk always adjacent to a traversable road?

2011-08-27 Thread Anthony 
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> There are also mowed grassy strips within highway rights-of-way that are
> sidewalks by law (at least where used enough to become a beaten path:
> http://www.dot.state.fl.us/safety/ped_bike/laws/ped_bike_pedLaws.shtm), but
> not for the purpose of the sidewalk tags in OSM.

Why not?

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

Re: [Tagging] Is a sidewalk always adjacent to a traversable road?

2011-08-27 Thread Anthony 
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> On 8/27/2011 4:52 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Nathan Edgars II
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8/27/2011 4:11 PM, Anthony wrote:

 On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Nathan Edgars II
  wrote:
>
> On 8/27/2011 9:12 AM, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> Under Florida law [FS 316.003(47)], a sidewalk is always adjacent to a
>> roadway.
>
> Yes, but the sidewalk tag does not apply to unmaintained grassy areas.

 Personally I'm not aware of any unmaintained grassy areas which are
 adjacent to a roadway, so I'm not sure if the tag should apply to them
 or not.
>>>
>>> Sorry, mowed grassy areas that are not maintained for foot traffic.
>>
>> I'm not sure what that has to do with your question, but okay.
>
> It means that the sidewalk tag does not mean the same thing as Florida law.

What's the difference?  An area which is not meant for foot traffic is
not a sidewalk under Florida law.

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

Re: [Tagging] Another sidewalk question

2011-08-27 Thread Anthony 
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> To the left of the off-ramp lane which goes left is a shoulder.

It is marked with a yellow line, per the standards.

> To the right of the off-ramp lane which goes right is a shoulder.

It is marked with a white line, per the standards.

> Separating the two lanes is a traffic island.

It is marked with white lines, per the standards.

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

Re: [Tagging] Another sidewalk question

2011-08-27 Thread Anthony 
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 5:20 PM, John F. Eldredge  wrote:
> Anthony  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Nathan Edgars II 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> http://maps.google.com
>
> maps?q=orlando&hl=en&ll=28.535699,-81.405357&spn=0.002104,0.00515&gl=us&t=k&z=19&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=28.535699,-81.405357&panoid=z9EMHAwlFYXL81LOUKOedQ&cbp=12,200.63,,0,-1.41
>>
>> A better angle, which makes it more clear:
>> http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=nrpb7k86gkty&lvl=19.995300199409805&dir=91.09080655305796&sty=b&where1=28.535699%2C%20-81.405357&form=LMLTCC
>>
>
> I would classify the striped area between merging driving lanes as a traffic 
> island, and that outside the driving lanes as a shoulder, unlike your earlier 
> statement that both were traffic islands.

I'm not sure what you mean, because I agree with that.  To the left of
the off-ramp lane which goes left is a shoulder.  To the right of the
off-ramp lane which goes right is a shoulder.  Separating the two
lanes is a traffic island.  Part of the traffic island is painted, and
part of it is grass.

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

Re: [Tagging] Is a sidewalk always adjacent to a traversable road?

2011-08-27 Thread Nathan Edgars II 

On 8/27/2011 5:22 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:

On 08/27/2011 01:36 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

On 8/27/2011 4:11 PM, Anthony wrote:

Personally I'm not aware of any unmaintained grassy areas which are
adjacent to a roadway, so I'm not sure if the tag should apply to them
or not.


Sorry, mowed grassy areas that are not maintained for foot traffic.

There are tens of thousands of miles of front lawns or park edges that
are mowed grassy, but not appropriately "sidewalks".


There are also mowed grassy strips within highway rights-of-way that are 
sidewalks by law (at least where used enough to become a beaten path: 
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/safety/ped_bike/laws/ped_bike_pedLaws.shtm), 
but not for the purpose of the sidewalk tags in OSM.


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

Re: [Tagging] Is a sidewalk always adjacent to a traversable road?

2011-08-27 Thread Bryce Nesbitt 

On 08/27/2011 01:36 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

On 8/27/2011 4:11 PM, Anthony wrote:

Personally I'm not aware of any unmaintained grassy areas which are
adjacent to a roadway, so I'm not sure if the tag should apply to them
or not.


Sorry, mowed grassy areas that are not maintained for foot traffic.
There are tens of thousands of miles of front lawns or park edges that 
are mowed grassy, but not appropriately "sidewalks".


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

Re: [Tagging] Another sidewalk question

2011-08-27 Thread John F. Eldredge 
Anthony  wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Nathan Edgars II 
> wrote:
> >
> http://maps.google.com

maps?q=orlando&hl=en&ll=28.535699,-81.405357&spn=0.002104,0.00515&gl=us&t=k&z=19&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=28.535699,-81.405357&panoid=z9EMHAwlFYXL81LOUKOedQ&cbp=12,200.63,,0,-1.41
> 
> A better angle, which makes it more clear:
> http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=nrpb7k86gkty&lvl=19.995300199409805&dir=91.09080655305796&sty=b&where1=28.535699%2C%20-81.405357&form=LMLTCC
> 

I would classify the striped area between merging driving lanes as a traffic 
island, and that outside the driving lanes as a shoulder, unlike your earlier 
statement that both were traffic islands.

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


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

Re: [Tagging] Request for comments on proposed tags for amenity=drinking_water

2011-08-27 Thread Bryce Nesbitt 

On 08/27/2011 08:34 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

2011/8/27 Bryce Nesbitt:

On 08/26/2011 02:23 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

We could use the somehow established disused=yes/no for this.

That's the goal of the free text field.  The mapper can say (probably from a
mobile device)

condition=broken
condition:detail="Only a trickle of water comes out when I press the
button"

usually we put "note" for notes to other mappers and "description" for
free text that might be given to end users


Unfortunately here the audience is more mixed than the usual, because an 
operator is involved.  For example given:


amenity=drinking_water
bottle=no
condition=broken
condition:detail="Only trickle of rusty water when button pressed"
description="Lovely cast iron fountain inscribed to 'my dearest 
Madeline'"

operator="Big Chain Store"
note="This appears to be part of Moomoo park, but is actually owned 
by Big Chain Store".



condition  --> sets map symbol on specialist maps
condition:detail   --> for user and operator
description--> meant to describe the fountain not the condition
operator   --> for sorting
note   --> for mappers


Given those audiences, what tag names map best?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is a sidewalk always adjacent to a traversable road?

2011-08-27 Thread Nathan Edgars II 

On 8/27/2011 4:52 PM, Anthony wrote:

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:

On 8/27/2011 4:11 PM, Anthony wrote:


On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Nathan Edgars II
  wrote:


On 8/27/2011 9:12 AM, Anthony wrote:


Under Florida law [FS 316.003(47)], a sidewalk is always adjacent to a
roadway.


Yes, but the sidewalk tag does not apply to unmaintained grassy areas.


Personally I'm not aware of any unmaintained grassy areas which are
adjacent to a roadway, so I'm not sure if the tag should apply to them
or not.


Sorry, mowed grassy areas that are not maintained for foot traffic.


I'm not sure what that has to do with your question, but okay.


It means that the sidewalk tag does not mean the same thing as Florida law.

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

Re: [Tagging] Is a sidewalk always adjacent to a traversable road?

2011-08-27 Thread Anthony 
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> On 8/27/2011 4:11 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Nathan Edgars II
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8/27/2011 9:12 AM, Anthony wrote:

 Under Florida law [FS 316.003(47)], a sidewalk is always adjacent to a
 roadway.
>>>
>>> Yes, but the sidewalk tag does not apply to unmaintained grassy areas.
>>
>> Personally I'm not aware of any unmaintained grassy areas which are
>> adjacent to a roadway, so I'm not sure if the tag should apply to them
>> or not.
>
> Sorry, mowed grassy areas that are not maintained for foot traffic.

I'm not sure what that has to do with your question, but okay.

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

Re: [Tagging] Is a sidewalk always adjacent to a traversable road?

2011-08-27 Thread Nathan Edgars II 

On 8/27/2011 4:11 PM, Anthony wrote:

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:

On 8/27/2011 9:12 AM, Anthony wrote:


Under Florida law [FS 316.003(47)], a sidewalk is always adjacent to a
roadway.


Yes, but the sidewalk tag does not apply to unmaintained grassy areas.


Personally I'm not aware of any unmaintained grassy areas which are
adjacent to a roadway, so I'm not sure if the tag should apply to them
or not.


Sorry, mowed grassy areas that are not maintained for foot traffic.

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

Re: [Tagging] Another sidewalk question

2011-08-27 Thread Anthony 
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> http://maps.google.com/maps?q=orlando&hl=en&ll=28.535699,-81.405357&spn=0.002104,0.00515&gl=us&t=k&z=19&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=28.535699,-81.405357&panoid=z9EMHAwlFYXL81LOUKOedQ&cbp=12,200.63,,0,-1.41

A better angle, which makes it more clear:
http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=nrpb7k86gkty&lvl=19.995300199409805&dir=91.09080655305796&sty=b&where1=28.535699%2C%20-81.405357&form=LMLTCC

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

Re: [Tagging] Is a sidewalk always adjacent to a traversable road?

2011-08-27 Thread Anthony 
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> On 8/27/2011 9:12 AM, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> Under Florida law [FS 316.003(47)], a sidewalk is always adjacent to a
>> roadway.
>
> Yes, but the sidewalk tag does not apply to unmaintained grassy areas.

Personally I'm not aware of any unmaintained grassy areas which are
adjacent to a roadway, so I'm not sure if the tag should apply to them
or not.

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

Re: [Tagging] Another sidewalk question

2011-08-27 Thread Anthony 
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Josh Doe  wrote:
> 2011/8/27 Johan Jönsson :
>> I would not tag the white and black-striped area of the road as a sidewalk.
>> Whoever invented the black-white striping probably did not intend it to be a
>> designated pedestrian area, more something of a no drive zone, probably some
>> kind of safety issue concerning the joining roads.
>> /Johan Jönsson, Sweden-do not know anything about american sidewalks, really.
>
> +1. A sidewalk or even just a footway is a separate way, whereas the
> striped area is really just a shoulder.

It's not a shoulder.  It's a traffic island.

> Of course you'd want to make
> sure you connect the other footways to the roads, so a router can send
> someone along this strip.

Not of course.  A better route would be to cross the street and use
that sidewalk.

> In the future someone might tag the section
> of road with something like "shoulder:width=4 ft",
> "shoulder:surface=asphalt", "shoulder:type=striped", etc., which
> routers could use to determine the safety level this section.

Except that it's not a shoulder.

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

Re: [Tagging] Is a sidewalk always adjacent to a traversable road?

2011-08-27 Thread Nathan Edgars II 

On 8/27/2011 9:12 AM, Anthony wrote:

Under Florida law [FS 316.003(47)], a sidewalk is always adjacent to a roadway.


Yes, but the sidewalk tag does not apply to unmaintained grassy areas.

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

Re: [Tagging] Request for comments on proposed tags for amenity=drinking_water

2011-08-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 
2011/8/27 Bryce Nesbitt :
> On 08/26/2011 02:23 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> We could use the somehow established disused=yes/no for this.
> That's the goal of the free text field.  The mapper can say (probably from a
> mobile device)
>
>    condition=broken
>    condition:detail="Only a trickle of water comes out when I press the
> button"


usually we put "note" for notes to other mappers and "description" for
free text that might be given to end users.


> From the point of view of the thirsty person it matters not if the
> mechanical works busted or simply turned off.


sure, that's why "repair" is not suitable in my area: you can't tell
the reason and if its really broken. That's the reason for the
suggested
disused=yes/no

This tag is already in universal use in OSM. IMHO no reason to
reinvent the wheel.
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/disused#keys

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] Another sidewalk question

2011-08-27 Thread Josh Doe 
2011/8/27 Johan Jönsson :
> I would not tag the white and black-striped area of the road as a sidewalk.
> Whoever invented the black-white striping probably did not intend it to be a
> designated pedestrian area, more something of a no drive zone, probably some
> kind of safety issue concerning the joining roads.
> /Johan Jönsson, Sweden-do not know anything about american sidewalks, really.

+1. A sidewalk or even just a footway is a separate way, whereas the
striped area is really just a shoulder. Of course you'd want to make
sure you connect the other footways to the roads, so a router can send
someone along this strip. In the future someone might tag the section
of road with something like "shoulder:width=4 ft",
"shoulder:surface=asphalt", "shoulder:type=striped", etc., which
routers could use to determine the safety level this section.

-Josh

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

Re: [Tagging] [Imports] Bus data for Fairfax Connector, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA

2011-08-27 Thread Serge Wroclawski 
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Mike N  wrote:
> On 8/27/2011 3:09 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
>>
>> Skip the name for a bus stop.  If rendered it would create clutter.
>
>  I'd say the opposite; the stop name is very useful to anyone using the
> "Public Transport" JOSM plugin to check and organize stops so that stops can
> be recognized, rather than just working with a column of anonymous stops.
>  It also assists riders following a printed set of directions.    The name
> doesn't currently render on Mapnik or Osmarender.

A bus stop name or ID number is generally useful for navigation.

The issue of "if rendered' is one where the right answer is always "We
don't map to the renderer".

- Serge

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

Re: [Tagging] Is a sidewalk always adjacent to a traversable road?

2011-08-27 Thread Anthony 
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/67469500 is an extension of a
> sidewalk across a railroad, whereas the adjacent highway does not cross. Is
> it incorrect to use footway=sidewalk here?

Under Florida law [FS 316.003(47)], a sidewalk is always adjacent to a roadway.

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

[Tagging] Proposed feature: Railway Signals

2011-08-27 Thread Michael Zangl 
Hello,

I have written a proposal that allows you to map signals. The signal
itself is mapped as railway=signal the way it is done already and
proposed in the railway proposal.

What I add is a method to add more tags to a signal.

The tags are meant for people who want to do railway simulations or
special railway maps based on that data, other people are normally only
interested in: is there a signal or not (as much as they are interested
in: is there a tree).

What I also proposed is that signals are placed aside the track, with a
relation that points to the track they belong to and for some signal
types (crossing, advance signals, ...) the thing they protect.

There was a lot of discussion about directions and relations, so I don't
want to trigger an other general pro/con-relation discussion here. I
think that at this point, relations should realy be used for some
signals that are in a special relation to other things on the tracks.

What I hav not added yet (also because of that discussion) is the
forward/backward-definition, which is (for the railways operation) realy
important, but I do not know the best practice for the new proposal. One
could add it as tag to the signal node itself (would save relations for
reverse signals, but there are many problems: What to do if there are
two/three/more ways going on from that point (e.g. a junction with a
junction signal beside it, as it normally is...). Tagging a junction
with a relation is simple: Place the sign on the side it is on, add it
to the relation, the junction node as "for" and the track of the
junction as "track"-role) or we could add the tag to the relation (as
role of the track) which would place the data at the right point.

For most signals, no relation is needed because they are only on a main
track. Signal mapping only makes sense if each single track is mapped,
because they differ most of the time for two-track lines.

Maby we can also decide on only one possible mapping method, where I
would prefer relations.

Link to the proposal:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Railway_Signals
Please discuss stuff, that is only related to the proposal, there.

Michael



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

Re: [Tagging] Another sidewalk question

2011-08-27 Thread Anthony 
2011/8/27 Johan Jönsson :
> Nathan Edgars II  writes:
>
>>
>> There's a piece of road here that recently got a sidewalk on the west
>> side. But they didn't include a couple pieces where there's extra
>> pavement on the side with diagonal lines to keep vehicles off. This is
>> obviously meant as part of the sidewalk, but it's technically not one.
>> How should it be tagged?
>>
>>
> http://maps.google.com/maps?q=orlando&hl=en&ll=28.535699,-81.405357&spn=0.002104,0.00515&gl=us&t=k&z=19&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=28.535699,-81.405357&panoid=z9EMHAwlFYXL81LOUKOedQ&cbp=12,200.63,,0,-1.41
>>
> I would not tag the white and black-striped area of the road as a sidewalk.
> Whoever invented the black-white striping probably did not intend it to be a
> designated pedestrian area, more something of a no drive zone, probably some
> kind of safety issue concerning the joining roads.

Nathan, are you talking about the traffic island?  If so, that is part
of the road, not part of the sidewalk.

How to map it is an interesting question.  According to some people,
it doesn't exist!  In any case, OSM currently doesn't even have the
elements to map traffic islands, let alone the tags.

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

Re: [Tagging] [Imports] Bus data for Fairfax Connector, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA

2011-08-27 Thread Mike N 

On 8/27/2011 3:09 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:

Skip the name for a bus stop.  If rendered it would create clutter.


  I'd say the opposite; the stop name is very useful to anyone using 
the "Public Transport" JOSM plugin to check and organize stops so that 
stops can be recognized, rather than just working with a column of 
anonymous stops.  It also assists riders following a printed set of 
directions.The name doesn't currently render on Mapnik or Osmarender.


  The only caution to assigning a name is that GTFS discourages making 
up names for stops that haven't been given formal names.


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

Re: [Tagging] [Imports] Bus data for Fairfax Connector, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA

2011-08-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 
there is also the tag "network" that might be interesting to look at
in this context:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:network
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] Another sidewalk question

2011-08-27 Thread Johan Jönsson 
Nathan Edgars II  writes:

> 
> There's a piece of road here that recently got a sidewalk on the west 
> side. But they didn't include a couple pieces where there's extra 
> pavement on the side with diagonal lines to keep vehicles off. This is 
> obviously meant as part of the sidewalk, but it's technically not one. 
> How should it be tagged?
> 
>
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=orlando&hl=en&ll=28.535699,-81.405357&spn=0.002104,0.00515&gl=us&t=k&z=19&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=28.535699,-81.405357&panoid=z9EMHAwlFYXL81LOUKOedQ&cbp=12,200.63,,0,-1.41
> 
I would not tag the white and black-striped area of the road as a sidewalk.
Whoever invented the black-white striping probably did not intend it to be a
designated pedestrian area, more something of a no drive zone, probably some
kind of safety issue concerning the joining roads.
/Johan Jönsson, Sweden-do not know anything about american sidewalks, really.




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

Re: [Tagging] [Imports] Bus data for Fairfax Connector, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA

2011-08-27 Thread Bryce Nesbitt 

Josh Doe wrote:


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Fairfax_Connector#Importing


I'd say:

Skip the name for a bus stop.  If rendered it would create clutter.

More useful, but more fragile, would be to add a description
tag documenting the routes served.  This would be the same data on the 
actual sign:

61, F, FX

Yes, wheelchair=yes is a good attribute.  A later wheelmaper may 
disagree and change it,

but as a first cut go with the agency's view on thing.

Others have asked that source:url move to the changeset.

"website=http://www.fairfaxconnector.com"; is still valid for a bus stop, as
is "operator=Fairfax County".



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