Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Tagging Live indoor music venues
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Peter Wendorff wrote: > But where's the border? In the following examples let all these facilities > serve food and drinks. > - an event location that has daily concerts and opens only for these events. > - an event location that has daily concerts, but is open two hours before > already and stays open for the rest of the night until everyone is gone. > - an event location that has daily concerts in the evening but is open for > lunch guests and the like around > - a restaurant where occasionally life music is played by bands and so on > (also known as "concerts") > - a restaurant where once in a year life music is played > - a restaurant where all music comes from CD or mp3 > - a restaurant that's entirely silent Yep, it's a spectrum. And we can argue endlessly about how to ontologise the world. IMHO to make progress we must consider actual uses of this data. Like...a map. A general purpose map. a) Would a general purpose map need to distinguish between a place which is primarily for food and a place which is primarily for music? Yes. b) Would a general purpose map need to distinguish between all the grades of music vs food above? No. c) Would a general purpose map need to distinguish between a music venue for rock music vs a music venue for classical music? Probably not. The purpose of our tagging scheme is to make life as easy as possible for general uses, and flexible enough for specialist uses. So if someone wants to make a "music venues of Amsterdam" map, they can tag "amenity=music_venue, music_venue=concert_hall, music=classical 83%;light_opera 10%;rock 7%" etc. Forcing people to make distinctions they lack information about, or don't care about, like the concert_hall/music_venue distinction, doesn't create good data. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposition for a classification of path
Richard Welty wrote: > i think it has the potential to be confusing, in part because > tracktype > already exists > for highway=track, and tracktype is entirely about actual physical > characteristics. > > i suspect it is a mistake to try to aggregate logical information > about > a path's > significance (or the significance of its endpoints) with information > about its > physical characteristics. > > richard > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging I agree. Speaking as someone who deals with databases every day at work, given separate pieces of information, you can always combine them at need. If all you have is the composite data, it isn't always possible to derive the details. In this instance, someone else might need just the volume-of-use information, or just the degree-of-overgrowth information. -- 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] Amenity=shelter for field shelter?
To Martin Vonwald. I've added field_shelter here [1]. Can you upload a picture for it? I haven't one and I don't want to upload a copyrighted picture. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shelter_type Thank you Alberto - Viking81 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Wikidata tag
Hi, I made a wikidata tag proposal, here is the link: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Wikidata I think connecting our data with wikidatas data would give us a big potential. It's as easy as giving our entities a wikidata=Qxxx tag. Similar to wikipedia tag, but better as wikidata is more data oriented. I would like to see what you guys think about it. Janko Mihelić ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposition for a classification of path
i think it has the potential to be confusing, in part because tracktype already exists for highway=track, and tracktype is entirely about actual physical characteristics. i suspect it is a mistake to try to aggregate logical information about a path's significance (or the significance of its endpoints) with information about its physical characteristics. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposition for a classification of path
> i think i'll summarize thusly: the proposal tries to combine distinctly > different concepts into one tag, and the result is a simple taxonomy > that sort of looks ok but doesn't handle a bunch of real world cases > very well. It's a good summary of my proposition. But where you think combine different concepts led a poor quality information, I think it brings more value. You can do a classification by statistics algorithms, and it would be very interesting for research work, but it will never aggregate all subjectives criteria which make a path more important than an other. It's the difference between a computer and a humain brain. I don't know if my definitions are good (and you can modifie them), but I am sure it is useful. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] As the crow flies
2013/2/26 A.Pirard.Papou > > > The specification I'm trying to suggest is exactly that. > There is a gap in an OSM route and the sole idea is to bridge it. > We must indicate "go from here to there in an unspecified way". > It is just to > >- make sure that those who follow the route will go "there" and not >somewhere else > > >- indicate to validators that there is no mistake and that the route >is connected and maybe looped > > That there are paths in between or not, what those possible parts are > called, that the route may exist and just be unknown, that there should be > paths but that there is a map bug, or any other reason for a gap, all that > is very good for a note=literature but is totally irrelevant for the > attempted specification. > They were mentioned because the idea evolved from a path feature to a > relation feature. > > Thanks for the clarification. Now I understand the problem. The order of ways in the relation is of course giving you a hint on where to continue after a gap, but a router might now now on which end of the next way to continue. The route might not follow the direction of the way in the OSM-sense. Nor is it always the 'unconnected' end, as it might be a gap on both ends of the next way. Also the nearest end might not always be the right one. Imagine a path below and on top of a steep cliff. They might be quite near, but you can't go there directly. When encountering a gap, routers will now probably switch to their standard routing algorithm (either 'follow road' or 'straight line') to lead you to the next point. What the next point is will be determined by the router or the conversion software that brings the OSM format into a format understandable by the router. I imagine it will mostly be 'nearest endpoint'. You now search for a way to give those tools a hint to influence their decision. One easy solution would be: include (of course in the correct order) the start- and endpoints of the ways in the relation. (Maybe with a different role.) That's all the information the router needs. Either their is a way between those points that's also included in the relation, then the router can use it, or there isn't, than the router can do it's standard routing between those points. The user can choose the type of standard routing on the routing device/software. Is this to much 'mapping for the router' or aceptable in the database? Best regards, Chaos ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposition for a classification of path
Le lundi 25 février 2013 à 18:27 -0500, Richard Welty a écrit : > On 2/25/13 5:17 PM, Balaitous wrote: > > Hi, > > I have wrote a proposition of classification for path. > > You can see it at : > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/pathtype > > > given the descriptions on the proposal page, how would you categorize > this path: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.299921&lon=-77.708957&zoom=18&layers=M > > it is a loop trail at a historic tour stop, it travels through the woods > to several points of > interest on the Wilderness Battlefield and returns to the original > parking area. it is well > maintained, defined by a rubberized surface, and is intended > specifically for use on foot. > > i'd think grade 1 or 2 based on maintenance, but it's short and doesn't > entirely fit in the > rest of the definition. > > richard > In my mind, grade1 is only for long route, so it could by 2 or 3. It seems to be culturally significant so may be 2. In a such forest, in France we have many and many paths, I don't know for USA. Some of them are long route, other are short, bad, without POI and only used by hunters, mushroom collector, ... Today I don't see others path in your map, but if such paths exist, it would be important to be able to distinguish them. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposition for a classification of path
> Also, the proposed path types would classify any path that ends in a > cul-de-sac as the least-used and least-maintained category, which isn't > necessarily the case. When I say "cul-de-sac" I refer to paths that go nowhere, like this : http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/166766130 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/169660967 At the beginning, there look good, but there are more and more bad, and at the end there simply disappear ! I have corrected : "This path can be end in cul de sac without any POI." ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] As the crow flies
On 2013-02-26 15:24, Erik Johansson wrote : On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 7:53 PM, A.Pirard.Papou wrote: maybe add the key "informal"=yes to the path? I do this for "spontaneous" ways and it is also documented in the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:informal And the other suggestions, many thanks, sorry for not listing them all. I'm looking for a general feature, not only a solution to my particular problem. A non-way is not the best word to describe my idea and I also do not feel comfortable with it. It's sort of a "secret [winding] little passage" that one must follow on demand. You mean a shortcut? http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shortcut So, more than "informal=yes" (which I don't understand well), it would be a straight "exists=no". How could it be mapped, sort of dotted line, so that the human understands that he may follow a route for which there's no path under the conditions otherwise described (no cars in a meadow)? This is like the landcover/landuse debate So basically we have: 1. existing roads that are official 2. existing, but non-official paths 3. routes that exists without paths (for hiking, buses, tour jeeps, beachbumming etc) 4. shortcuts that exists with and with out paths. I think if there is something that you are ment to walk on, then you can add a way, I don't think you should use a relation just because highway=footway is a bad fit. I've added a highway=footway where there was only grass, because the only other way was to take a ~5km detour, but as I said I was feeling very dirty when I did this (surface=mud). So to restate, I don't want to use a "relation" instead of a "way" to draw a way where people are supposed to walk, even if it's a short cut. I don't want to add a relation. There *is* one already. A route is a relation. The preceding message might clarify. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] As the crow flies
On 2013-02-26 15:47, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote : 2013/2/23 A.Pirard.Papou A non-way is not the best word to describe my idea and I also do not feel comfortable with it. It's sort of a "secret [winding] little passage" that one must follow on demand. So, more than "informal=yes" (which I don't understand well), it would be a straight "exists=no". I'll try to explain the idea of "informal=yes" on a highway=footway/path: it is a path (there is something recognizable on the ground) which is there because people (or maybe animals) are using it frequently, but it is not built on purpose, in fact, nobody built it at all. In German this would be called "Trampelpfad", in French "Ligne de désir", in English "desire line". If there is nothing at all, I don't know if I'd map it (in the end you can find shortcuts on all non-linear ways, depending on the terrain, your equipment and your abilities). If there is a route using this way it surely won't be "nothing". Let me explain with an example. Have you ever seen the route of the Tour de France? It is made of a series of stages. Usually, the stages are connected, like the ways of an OSM route. But sometimes they're not. There is a gap between two stages. And nobody cares about why, what there's in between or how the cyclists bridge the gap. The specification I'm trying to suggest is exactly that. There is a gap in an OSM route and the sole idea is to bridge it. We must indicate "go from here to there in an unspecified way". It is just to * make sure that those who follow the route will go "there" and not somewhere else * indicate to validators that there is no mistake and that the route is connected and maybe looped That there are paths in between or not, what those possible parts are called, that the route may exist and just be unknown, that there should be paths but that there is a map bug, or any other reason for a gap, all that is very good for a note=literature but is totally irrelevant for the attempted specification. They were mentioned because the idea evolved from a path feature to a relation feature. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Fwd: Tagging Live indoor music venues
sorry, again missled to talk, should have gone to tagging: From: Martin Koppenhoefer Date: 2013/2/26 Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Tagging Live indoor music venues To: Peter Wendorff Cc: t...@openstreetmap.org 2013/2/26 Peter Wendorff : > But where's the border? we won't be able to find this out in a general and universal way, it is up to the local mapper with his knowledge to decide this on an individual basis. What we can do as a community is to establish a reasonable system with proposals how to tag certain types of things, and what are the categories the single mapper will probably choose from. In the following examples let all these facilities > serve food and drinks. > - an event location that has daily concerts and opens only for these events. a church? ;-) > - an event location that has daily concerts, but is open two hours before > already and stays open for the rest of the night until everyone is gone. a subway station? ;-) Sorry for bringing these up, but you simply can't rely on this few information, you will need a concrete case to decide (and will maybe not choose based on the criteria you are trying to bring in but on others). > You may add arbitrary many steps in between - where's the point to switch > from one to another, as the proposed scheme was to put both under amenity > and therefore to conflict, you have to decide for one. all the restaurants will be restaurants in my tagging world, with maybe an additional attribute like "live_music", surely they won't be concert halls. > I would say, food & drinks and music are (at least) two different things > that should be kept different and should not conflict if possible. fine. I could agree on this, but it's probably not necessary: If it's a restaurant, it won't be a concert hall at the same time, if it's a music venue, the restaurant will be either a (smaller) part of it (taggable inside the venue boundary) or it will be a special kind of restaurant (i.e. the music is an attribute and tagged as such on a restaurant). Btw.: It is not so common to have concerts in restaurants time anyway, usually having concerts is more a thing of bars, pubs and nightclubs (which also offer food, but which are not restaurants). The kind of music you usually have in a restaurant (even if it's live) is more "background" music (IMHO). > Agreed for the super-tag, it's not necessary. But nevertheless the very big > amenity bunch often is a problem. it is indeed a problem when there are several orthogonal values for the same key, agreed. I'd also prefer to have more descriptive keys like "eating" (or "food"), "drinking", "accommodation" and have proposed a key "culture" some years ago (with not the greatest reception but someone amended it): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/culture > To break it down one level, we could use "top level tags" for > - gastronomy (pub or bar serving drinks, restaurant, club as serving drinks, > cafe, ice cafe), +1, but a little bit late ;-) > - music (club as offering [live|dj|...] music floors), concert hall, ... -1 > - events (trade fairs, conferences, concerts, circus, comedy, theatre, ...) +1, thought we had these (i.e. we have tags for describing the areas where these take place, we _usually_ don't map events themselves as far as I know). > but > 1) that's not perfect either > 2) it does not solve the problem but just breaks it down to the next level. +1, there is no such thing as a completely logical model of the world, and while for some it might make sense to group everything remotely related to music into this new music keys, for others it might not make sense to have a choral society under the same key as a nightclub or as a concert hall. If I was the OP I'd go with amenity=music_venue for those rock concert places and with amenity=concert_hall for concert halls, plus documented subtags cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] As the crow flies
2013/2/23 A.Pirard.Papou > > A non-way is not the best word to describe my idea and I also do not feel > comfortable with it. > It's sort of a "secret [winding] little passage" that one must follow on > demand. > So, more than "informal=yes" (which I don't understand well), it would be a > straight "exists=no". I'll try to explain the idea of "informal=yes" on a highway=footway/path: it is a path (there is something recognizable on the ground) which is there because people (or maybe animals) are using it frequently, but it is not built on purpose, in fact, nobody built it at all. In German this would be called "Trampelpfad", in French "Ligne de désir", in English "desire line". If there is nothing at all, I don't know if I'd map it (in the end you can find shortcuts on all non-linear ways, depending on the terrain, your equipment and your abilities). If there is a route using this way it surely won't be "nothing". cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] As the crow flies
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 7:53 PM, A.Pirard.Papou wrote: > maybe add the key "informal"=yes to the path? I do this for "spontaneous" > ways and it is also documented in the wiki: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:informal > > And the other suggestions, many thanks, sorry for not listing them all. > I'm looking for a general feature, not only a solution to my particular > problem. > > A non-way is not the best word to describe my idea and I also do not feel > comfortable with it. > It's sort of a "secret [winding] little passage" that one must follow on > demand. You mean a shortcut? http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shortcut > So, more than "informal=yes" (which I don't understand well), it would be a > straight "exists=no". > How could it be mapped, sort of dotted line, so that the human understands > that he may follow a route for which there's no path under the conditions > otherwise described (no cars in a meadow)? This is like the landcover/landuse debate So basically we have: 1. existing roads that are official 2. existing, but non-official paths 3. routes that exists without paths (for hiking, buses, tour jeeps, beachbumming etc) 4. shortcuts that exists with and with out paths. I think if there is something that you are ment to walk on, then you can add a way, I don't think you should use a relation just because highway=footway is a bad fit. I've added a highway=footway where there was only grass, because the only other way was to take a ~5km detour, but as I said I was feeling very dirty when I did this (surface=mud). So to restate, I don't want to use a "relation" instead of a "way" to draw a way where people are supposed to walk, even if it's a short cut. /Erik ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Proposition for a classification of path
2013/2/25 Balaitous : > Hi, > I have wrote a proposition of classification for path. > You can see it at : > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/pathtype Looking at your proposal I guess you are aware of these: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sac_scale http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trail_visibility http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Obstacle surface width etc. Other parts of the definitions (if a way is part of one or more hiking routes) can also be seen from the actual relations that way is part of. Generally this would introduce a less detailed, generic and additional way to subjectively classify paths similar to tracks. cheers, Martin PS: Please keep this on the tagging list and don't crosspost to talk or talk-fr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Fwd: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Tagging Live indoor music venues
Sorry, somehow this thread was hijacked to talk: 2013/2/25 Peter Wendorff : > Some stadiums nowadays are built with multiple usages in mind, e.g. the > arena "Auf Schalke" of the German soccer club "Schalke 04". Mainly a soccer > stadium there have been events like Sensation White (Electro and House > music), concerts (Herbert Grönemeyer, Metallica, Slayer, Pur, Bruce > Springsteen, U2, AC/DC, Bon Jovi, Robbie Williams), operas (Aida, Carmen, > Turandot) Fine, but it remains a soccer stadium (or maybe multipurpose stadium/hall), the fact that there were some concerts doesn't make this a concert hall. It is quite common for big rock concerts to be in soccer stadiums. > e.g. by using a very generic term (like > amenity=event_location) and several sub tags (like: concert_events=yes, > sport_events=regularly, theatre=yes, opera=no, parties=no, conferences=yes) > or something like that. -1, far too generic, it would be a huge step back. There is no point in having endlessly structures tagging like amenity=poi, poi:type:cultural=20%, poi:type:sports=80%, opera=rarely_but_only_the_popular_ones, parties=if_you_pay_enough_you_can_rent_almost_any_place, ... if it is a soccer stadium which already has its tagging. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] source:maxspeed vs. maxspeed:type
2013/2/26 SomeoneElse : > If I remember correctly, the idea of using source:maxspeed for urban limits > came from somewhere on continental Europe where there's a rule that if > you're within the boundary of an urban place, the speed limit is > automatically the urban limit rather than the national one, making it quite > feasible to set the speed limit on urban roads (without a survey) and adding > "source:maxspeed" to indicate that the maxspeed hadn't been surveyed. > > In the UK it's not so straightforward - there are implicit rules about "what > creates an urban limit", but they're not as simple as "slow down at the > village sign and speed up when you see the village crossed out one". Also, > the plethora of slow-down and speed-up zones, and the large number of rural > non-national limits and urban non-30 ones make surveys essential. Finally, > the same "national speed limit" sign can mean different things on different > roads (and different things to different sorts of traffic). Also in Germany or Italy it is not possible to add source:maxspeed without a survey, for several reasons, like the ones mentioned: - there can be differing limits inside the urban boundary (e.g. 30, 40 or sometimes 60 or 70 instead of the default 50 km/h). - the limit of the urban area (legally, trafficwise) has to be obtained by survey - there can be an explicit maxspeed=50 signposted inside the urban area (so in both cases the limit is 50, but the reason is different and in case of a change of the law only the implicit limits would change) > Hence the need for "source:maxspeed" in the UK to mean "I've actually > surveyed this rather than just guessed" and the use of "maxspeed:type" to > say e.g. "this isn't a 60mph sign, it's a national speed limit one" and all > that that implies. I don't agree that you have to use "source:maxspeed", you could as well use "maxspeed:source" to indicate the way the information was collected (or better put it into the changeset comment). "maxspeed:type" isn't more intuitive or unambiguous anyway, you can see this by looking at the actual values, it's chaotic. Stuff like "numeric", "national" doesn't convey information (IMHO), there is no proposal which tags to use for "context" and there isn't even consensus whether to use UK or GB. The definitions from this page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Amaxspeed%3Atype are not describing what the actual values look like (e.g. there is no "sign" value at all, but "signed" is used a poor 10 times). In the end it doesn't matter, we can invent variants for everything that already has established and defined tagging, the system allows for it, and if you're particularly interested in maxspeeds you will evaluate also the typos and variants, I'd only question the utility. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] source:maxspeed vs. maxspeed:type
Richard Mann wrote: My impression is that a lot of the source:maxspeed were added by a single user in an armchair edit. So its prevalence is not really an indicator of anything. You might be referring to the "FIXME:nsl = inferred single-carriageway NSL - remove this tag once verified" incident, of which this was an example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/25457815/history (roughly half of those revisions are armchair maxspeed edits) Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] source:maxspeed vs. maxspeed:type
On 26 February 2013 09:16, Richard Mann wrote: > My impression is that a lot of the source:maxspeed were added by a single > user in an armchair edit. So its prevalence is not really an indicator of > anything. > But we could also say that a lot of the maxspeed:type were added by a single user in an armchair edit? The amount of maxspeed:type tags in the UK is about to increase. I'm going to attempt to find and change 'my' source:maxspeed tags to the maxspeed:type. Jason ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] source:maxspeed vs. maxspeed:type
If I remember correctly, the idea of using source:maxspeed for urban limits came from somewhere on continental Europe where there's a rule that if you're within the boundary of an urban place, the speed limit is automatically the urban limit rather than the national one, making it quite feasible to set the speed limit on urban roads (without a survey) and adding "source:maxspeed" to indicate that the maxspeed hadn't been surveyed. In the UK it's not so straightforward - there are implicit rules about "what creates an urban limit", but they're not as simple as "slow down at the village sign and speed up when you see the village crossed out one". Also, the plethora of slow-down and speed-up zones, and the large number of rural non-national limits and urban non-30 ones make surveys essential. Finally, the same "national speed limit" sign can mean different things on different roads (and different things to different sorts of traffic). Hence the need for "source:maxspeed" in the UK to mean "I've actually surveyed this rather than just guessed" and the use of "maxspeed:type" to say e.g. "this isn't a 60mph sign, it's a national speed limit one" and all that that implies. Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] source:maxspeed vs. maxspeed:type
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Richard Mann wrote: > My impression is that a lot of the source:maxspeed were added by a single > user in an armchair edit. So its prevalence is not really an indicator of > anything. For sure, only the number of tags is not a clear indicator. But here we have a factor 20 between the two versions (12.000 vs 245.000). And taginfo shows an interesting geographical distribution: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=maxspeed%3Atype#map http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=source%3Amaxspeed#map Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] source:maxspeed vs. maxspeed:type
My impression is that a lot of the source:maxspeed were added by a single user in an armchair edit. So its prevalence is not really an indicator of anything. On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Jason Cunningham wrote: > On 22 February 2013 16:38, Martin Vonwald wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> Recently the use of the key maxspeed:type was documented in the wiki >> (see [1] and [2]). It seems to be used in the UK for the same purpose >> as source:maxspeed. I quote: "In the UK the general practice is to use >> the maxspeed:type tag as the source:*=* should be for how the data was >> collected, not how it was derived. " >> >> Well - there's a point. Yes, I know how often source:maxspeed is >> tagged (241,738 times). But besides being tagged, is it "used" for >> anything at the moment? >> > > I think the changes to the wiki are slightly misleading. It is not general > practice in the UK to use maxspeed:type There have been a few discussions > about maxspeed tagging on the talk-gb list with limited consensus. It's > difficult topic to summarise. > A number of UK mappers feel that the simple maxspeed tag with a numerical > value is of limited value or even incorrect. Along the majority of our > roads the speed limit is derived by the type of the road and your vehicle. > As Philip Barnes pointed out, speed limit changes can happen and if so are > likely to be applied to a type of road. Discussions on the subject can be > found by searching maxspeed in the GB mailing list. > > Discussion in the talk-gb list suggested that maxspeed:type would be > better than source:maxspeed. Several people agreed but it was pointed out > the globally source:maxspeed was preferred, and that in the UK > source:maxspeed was also preferred (demonstrated by tagwatch). I believe > Peter Miller (of ITO Map) was one of those arguing for the maxspeed:type > tag. In the last year Peter has put a lot of time into adding and cleaning > up maxspeed tags on major UK roads and has been using the maxspeed:type > tag. This has led to significant increase in the number of times the tag > now appears in the UK. > > The updates to the wiki page imply that maxspeed:type is the UK standard, > but that is not the case. Source:maxspeed still appears more widespread > across the country. Personally I think maxspeed:type is better but I > carried on using source:maxspeed because it appeared to be the accepted > 'global' way of doing things. > > Jason > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
