Re: [Tagging] How to tag disputed names in the same language?
On Apr 21, 2012 2:29 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Apr 20, 2012 9:04 AM, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote: I would go with name:en-PH=* or name:en:PH=* to mimic the standard IETF language tag format. en-PH feels more correct, since it's specifying dialect in a standard format. This seems workable. But I don't think that these differing names that are proper nouns can be considered as a difference in dialect. Well, dialect in the sense that the two countries call the same thing by two differing names in the same language. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] School tag
Am 22 Apr 2012 um 06:17 schrieb Владимир Поквалитов p...@isnet.ru: This could also be used with: driving schools (amenity=school + school=driving instead of amenity=driving_school) foreign language schools (amenity=school + school=language + language=en;fr;de) pottery workshops (amenity=school + school=pottery) karate schools (amenity=school + school=sport + sport=karate) I think we shouldn't mix general education institutions with hobby skill trainings and short-term professional trainings. +1, don't use amenity=school for the latter. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
2012/4/21 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk: You can Tag lanes:forward= and lanes:backward= Would this make sense? Lanes=3 Lanes:forward=2 Lanes:backward=2 No, it wouldn't. This was one of the reasons, why I suggested an additional suffix both-ways in the original version of the lanes proposal (see [1]). With this suffix you would tag this as follow: lanes=3 lanes:forward=1 lanes:backward=1 lanes:both_ways=1 What you are now missing is the information, what exactly can be done on the both_ways-lane: is it a passing, median or reversible lane? Originally I suggested an additional tag reversible for this. But this was ambiguous so when I wrote a proposal for this I changed the tag to two_way_lane (see [2]). Then you could either use the lanes suffix or the both_ways suffix to specify the kind of lane. Using the both_ways suffix we would add the following to the aforementioned tags: two_way_lane:both_ways=passing Now it is defined, that the lane in the middle is a passing lane. But there are two reasons, why I think, that two_way_lane is not a good solution: 1) two_way_lane:both_ways is awful and two_way_lane makes only sense with both_ways, but not with forward or backward. 2) A more generic tag could be better readable and at the same time provide more information with amore compact style. So I am thinking of renaming two_way_lane to lane_kind. This tag then should specify the kind of lane, e.g. passing, reversible, median but also directional for normal lanes, and some more. If we have a road with four lanes and two of them are reversibles, we would tag them as follows: lanes=4 lanes:forward=1 lanes:backward=1 lanes:both_ways=2 lanes_kind:both_ways=reversible We would need the tags with the lanes suffix then only in such cases, where we really need the layout of the lanes, e.g. on junctions. In this context the values of lane_kind for normal lanes then would be helpful. But this all is off-topic right now: for the lanes article I will add a statement, that this issue is currently unresolved. Martin [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/lanes_General_Extension/ProposalPreVoting#Center.2Fmedian_turn_lanes [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/two_way_lane ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
2012/4/21 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk: The words the use are 'generally more than 4m wide' and 'generally less than 4m wide'. Roads of this width will vary in width, they are almost never the same width throughout. Can we agree on that for narrow roads, where one can not determine the width exactly we would recommend: lanes=2 width=4 source:width=estimated or lanes=2 est_width=4 Or any better estimation of the width. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag disputed names in the same language?
At 2012-04-21 23:36, Paul Johnson wrote: On Apr 21, 2012 2:29 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Apr 20, 2012 9:04 AM, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote: I would go with name:en-PH=* or name:en:PH=* to mimic the standard IETF language tag format. en-PH feels more correct, since it's specifying dialect in a standard format. This seems workable. But I don't think that these differing names that are proper nouns can be considered as a difference in dialect. Well, dialect in the sense that the two countries call the same thing by two differing names in the same language. So your concern is that using en-PH implies that it's a dialectical variant and not a country- or culture-related variant. I would suggest this is a minor difference that should be solved by documentation. There _is_ the potential that there would be different cultural groups within the same country that refer to an area by different names in the same language (in e.g. central Asia), so perhaps the format might be extended to language_code[-COUNTRY_CODE[-culture]]. Culture values could be standardized and documented by local mappers, or not. This seems better than the old loc_name, int_name, etc. format, which always seemed too subjective and limited. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On 22 April 2012 08:41, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: Can we agree on that for narrow roads, where one can not determine the width exactly we would recommend: lanes=2 width=4 source:width=estimated or lanes=2 est_width=4 I've had a look for uk guidance as the uk's ordnance survey was mentioned, and a lot of older uk advice appears based around a now historic view that 'cars = saloon cars' and were 1.8m or less. If cars were assumed to be 1.8m wide then implied OS figure of 4m for two lanes makes sense. But saloon cars are no longer the 'standard' car, in the uk they've more or less been replaced by hatchbacks 4x4's. If we look at best selling cars in the UK (and I assume Europe) we have to assume car widths (with mirrors) are now just over 2m, which I'd round up to 2.1m. Therefore I believe a road with a width of 4m should be mapped as a single lane. I'd argue you'd need at least 4.3m before a road could now be considered narrow, or car only, 2 lanes. Though I'd think a road 4.3m wide would fall under the 'lanes=1.5' idea Following image was taken from a uk guidance document, although as I've said above it appears to rely on the now incorrect idea that car widths can be assumed to be 1.8m. I think it's good advice if you add on 0.2m for each car lane. http://bit.ly/IkVv9B Realising this is a far more complex issue that I first thought. Personally I don't I'll be adding widths. I'll simply add the lanes based on what seems obvious to me. After reading through these emails I'm beginning to think the lanes=1.5 would less confusing for narrow two lane roads. Jason ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
2012/4/22 Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com: After reading through these emails I'm beginning to think the lanes=1.5 would less confusing for narrow two lane roads. The problem with lanes=1.5 stays: data consumers might not be able to handle this correctly. What we need right now is a recommendation how to handle this narrow road-problem, without using a tag, that might cause more problems than it solves. What is the problem with the following: __ If a two-way road is so narrow, that passing cars have to slow down, then besides lanes=2 either 1) measure the width and set the tag accordingly (preferable, but usually much too difficult) or 2) simply use est_width=4 (or width together with source:width). __ Instead of one problematic tag (lanes=1.5) we would use well established tags. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
I've had a look for uk guidance as the uk's ordnance survey was mentioned, and a lot of older uk advice appears based around a now historic view that 'cars = saloon cars' and were 1.8m or less. If cars were assumed to be 1.8m wide then implied OS figure of 4m for two lanes makes sense. I am not sure we should base the lanes tag value on typical car width. IMO the lanes tag should *not* be another kind of estimate for the width. A further problem is the definition: For example the euro track has a maximum allowed width of 2.55m without mirrors (refrigerated ones even 2.60m). This would be as fair as basis as a average car in UK or a UK guide. And in US or India we may find another situation again. My opinion: If the width of the road can be estimated and no lanes are marked: We should tag the width (of the carriageway(*)) only (or est_width or width+source:width) and no lanes tag. (*) Sadly the width itself is pretty ambiguous tag at the moment (e.g. is it the width of the complete street or just the carriageway, etc.). But this is a topic for its own. When you look at following example: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bangalore_India_traffic.jpg then I conclude: If there are no marked lanes, it lanes gets simply too subjective. My current practice: On non-residential areas (tertiary, etc.) I typically tag lanes=2 only if the road allows *two* trucks (that don't require police escort because they are wider than allowed, means 2.6m) to pass. In my area this means 5.2m. In residential areas/streets I omit lanes if they are not marked. Parking allowance and parking cars on the street/carriageway make the situation very complicated. Look here: http://bit.ly/I2hna7 While the carriageway in this example is more than 6m wide and allows two trucks to pass, you also see parking cars in this street (I don't know the German law, but they might be allowed to do that). What would you do now? And if the parking allowance is time limited? For me lanes is simply not applicable here. -- I would tag the parking information with parking:lane, width, but not lanes. What I also propose: If lanes are marked, but narrow for trucks (e.g. just 2m each), I would tag them width:lanes=2.0|2.0 now. If there is a dedicated maximum width road sign -- maxwidth. Though I'd think a road 4.3m wide would fall under the 'lanes=1.5' idea [...] After reading through these emails I'm beginning to think the lanes=1.5 would less confusing for narrow two lane roads. -1 1.5 makes no sense. If we can agree that a lane is a strip, which is wide enough for one moving line of motor vehicles other than motor cycles (from the Vienna Convention of Road Signs, used as basis for local law in many countries all over the world) -- then either one line of vehicles can move -- or two. -- For me this lanes=1.5 is a clear indication for an attempt to turn the lanes tag into a rough width-estimate. I think the width tag is the better tag for width-estimates. martinq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On Mon, April 23, 2012 03:57, Martin Vonwald wrote: 2012/4/22 Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com: After reading through these emails I'm beginning to think the lanes=1.5 would less confusing for narrow two lane roads. The problem with lanes=1.5 stays: data consumers might not be able to handle this correctly. What we need right now is a recommendation how to handle this narrow road-problem, without using a tag, that might cause more problems than it solves. What is the problem with the following: __ If a two-way road is so narrow, that passing cars have to slow down, then besides lanes=2 either 1) measure the width and set the tag accordingly (preferable, but usually much too difficult) or 2) simply use est_width=4 (or width together with source:width). __ Instead of one problematic tag (lanes=1.5) we would use well established tags. I agree. I think lanes=* should record the total number of marked lanes (i.e. road markings must be present to indicate the lanes). lanes=1.5 is subjective, and anything subjective should be avoided. Instead, record width=* (estimated or actual) then the onus of interpretation falls on the user, not the mapper. Best wishes, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Andrew Errington a.erring...@lancaster.ac.uk wrote: On Mon, April 23, 2012 03:57, Martin Vonwald wrote: 2012/4/22 Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com: After reading through these emails I'm beginning to think the lanes=1.5 would less confusing for narrow two lane roads. The problem with lanes=1.5 stays: data consumers might not be able to handle this correctly. What we need right now is a recommendation how to handle this narrow road-problem, without using a tag, that might cause more problems than it solves. What is the problem with the following: __ If a two-way road is so narrow, that passing cars have to slow down, then besides lanes=2 either 1) measure the width and set the tag accordingly (preferable, but usually much too difficult) or 2) simply use est_width=4 (or width together with source:width). __ Instead of one problematic tag (lanes=1.5) we would use well established tags. I agree. I think lanes=* should record the total number of marked lanes (i.e. road markings must be present to indicate the lanes). lanes=1.5 is subjective, and anything subjective should be avoided. Instead, record width=* (estimated or actual) then the onus of interpretation falls on the user, not the mapper. Best wishes, Andrew I agree that having the actual width helps. I once encountered a country road that had a center line painted, so that, officially, it was two lanes wide. Unfortunately, the total road width was only about three meters, so only bicycles or motorcycles would have been able to use it in both directions simultaneously. For anything four-wheeled, it was only one lane wide. -- 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
