Re: [Tagging] Driving side
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: Could you elaborate? The left/right is only on boundary relations. The opposite is only on ways. This will also avoid a proliferation of unnecessary driving_side=left/right on ways where it's only required for the non-default rule. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
On 14/03/2014 15:57, Pieren wrote: You don't see the point where adding one layer=-1 is easier than adding 10 layer=1 ? Not when you could have other entities passing under the bridges. I see it as lazy less accurate. Making OSM more accurate is a primary consideration when editing I see the layer tag in tunnel/bridge in simple cases but you should not follow all recommendations as fixed in stone. True, but you should follow the correct ones. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Adding boat routes to wiki
The exact route across the lake probably isn't a big deal for a canoe, but for any watercraft requiring deeper water and/or moving at greater than hand-paddled speed, it helps to know where the recommended channel is located. On March 25, 2014 12:39:21 AM CDT, Yves yve...@gmail.com wrote: Dave, you can connect with a straight way across the lake with no tag, but part of the relation. Yves On 25 mars 2014 01:39:33 UTC+01:00, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote: There is a definite need for a way to indicate a route that crosses an open body of water like a lake. I came across this issue when mapping a canoe route in Alaska recently. For such a route there are portions that are footways, places where one carries the canoe from one lake to another, these are called portages, and portions that go across the lake. Currently there is no way to tag the waterway portions but one can create a relation to handle them as part of a route. The route is the Swan Lake Canoe Trails: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/60.6847/-150.6384 In the area shown the footway portions are clearly visible but the water portion, which divides in Spruce Lake, is not visible. I did not tag those waterway sections because I could not figure out how to do it short of creating artificial streams through the lakes. Clearly, something needs to be done about this. Also, I am unable to search for this route in OSM. I'm not sure why that is but it's annoying. Cheers, Dave On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:12 AM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: On 24.03.2014 22:11, Janko Mihelić wrote: 2014-03-24 16:41 GMT+01:00 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com mailto:lowfligh...@googlemail.com: I would use a type=waterway relation for the canal. Seems good to me. Yes, it won't but for proper routing you need to know the waterway signs and buoys. But even with waterway signs and buoys you need routes. You can't tag maxdrought=* on a buoy. maxdraught is very special for waterways if not only for canals. In general maxheight, -width and waterdepth are the important factors. Right now your route (waterway) is quite long and some parts do not have the restrictions at all. That is why I prefer it on the ways. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Adding boat routes to wiki
Actually it can be quite important even for a canoe. Perhaps not in my particular example but some bigger lakes have obstacles like islands or areas with heavy headwinds that are best avoided. Even in the small lake at center of my area of interest, Spruce Lake, the trail divides. One leg heads south, the other west. River routes have their own set of problems: channels that go nowhere, rapids, etc. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:30 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.comwrote: The exact route across the lake probably isn't a big deal for a canoe, but for any watercraft requiring deeper water and/or moving at greater than hand-paddled speed, it helps to know where the recommended channel is located. On March 25, 2014 12:39:21 AM CDT, Yves yve...@gmail.com wrote: Dave, you can connect with a straight way across the lake with no tag, but part of the relation. Yves On 25 mars 2014 01:39:33 UTC+01:00, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote: There is a definite need for a way to indicate a route that crosses an open body of water like a lake. I came across this issue when mapping a canoe route in Alaska recently. For such a route there are portions that are footways, places where one carries the canoe from one lake to another, these are called portages, and portions that go across the lake. Currently there is no way to tag the waterway portions but one can create a relation to handle them as part of a route. The route is the Swan Lake Canoe Trails: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/60.6847/-150.6384 In the area shown the footway portions are clearly visible but the water portion, which divides in Spruce Lake, is not visible. I did not tag those waterway sections because I could not figure out how to do it short of creating artificial streams through the lakes. Clearly, something needs to be done about this. Also, I am unable to search for this route in OSM. I'm not sure why that is but it's annoying. Cheers, Dave On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:12 AM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: On 24.03.2014 22:11, Janko Mihelić wrote: 2014-03-24 16:41 GMT+01:00 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com mailto:lowfligh...@googlemail.com: I would use a type=waterway relation for the canal. Seems good to me. Yes, it won't but for proper routing you need to know the waterway signs and buoys. But even with waterway signs and buoys you need routes. You can't tag maxdrought=* on a buoy. maxdraught is very special for waterways if not only for canals. In general maxheight, -width and waterdepth are the important factors. Right now your route (waterway) is quite long and some parts do not have the restrictions at all. That is why I prefer it on the ways. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
+1 for Not when you could have other entities passing under the bridges. I see it as lazy less accurate. Making OSM more accurate is a primary consideration when editing On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 14/03/2014 15:57, Pieren wrote: You don't see the point where adding one layer=-1 is easier than adding 10 layer=1 ? Not when you could have other entities passing under the bridges. I see it as lazy less accurate. Making OSM more accurate is a primary consideration when editing I see the layer tag in tunnel/bridge in simple cases but you should not follow all recommendations as fixed in stone. True, but you should follow the correct ones. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Fwd: Feature Proposal - RFC - use_sideway (was bicycle=use_cycleway)
We have not had very much response on the new proposalhttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/use_sideway. That could mean that most think it is OK (hopefully) but that could also be whishfull thinking ;-) On talk https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/use_sidewayPieren proposed to make the proposal shorter and focus on bicycles. We followed his advice. On the NL forumhttp://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=408025#p408025there was some discussion on the name of the tag. There was an argument that use_sideway is a wrong name for the tag because sideway is not a proper English word and does not reflect our goal. use_adjacent_way was proposed as an alternative or even the old use_cycleway Any more opinions on this? This is also an invitation to those that will oppose the proposal to give us some hints on what they like to see changed in the proposal. Cheers. PeeWee32 -- Forwarded message -- From: Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com Date: 2014-03-21 8:26 GMT+01:00 Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - use_sideway (was bicycle=use_cycleway) To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org We followed Pieren's advice on the Talk pagehttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/use_sidewayand made the proposal https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/use_sidewaymuch shorter. This focuses on making clear what the proposal is and not so much on our arguments. For those that are interested in our arguments we've made a sub pagehttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/use_sideway_arguments including our comment on last proposal. Hope this helps. With regard to Matthijs his question I can say that in yesterday's newspaper (algemeen dagblad) I read that NL has 35.000 KM of cycleways. Not sure why Matthijs qoute's the no backward compatibility to the existing bicycle=no (in e.g. NL) . We've commented on that in the proposal (which has moved to the subpage) Cheers PeeWee32 2014-03-17 0:07 GMT+01:00 Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl: On 16 March 2014 17:34, Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com wrote: Last november we proposed the bicycle=use_cycleway. There was a lot of discussion before and during voting. The voting was very close but we decided to reject the proposal and work on a new one. | no backward compatibility to the existing bicycle=no (in e.g. NL) Just curious: can anyone find out how many percent of the ways with highway=cyclepath are located in the Netherlands? It seems Tagwatch doesn't exist anymore, so I don't really know how to get these data. -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmaphttp://www.openstreetmap.org . -- Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmaphttp://www.openstreetmap.org . ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
2014-03-23 20:25 GMT+01:00 vali val...@gmail.com: Of course no ordinary car is going to use those tracks. Keep in main the track definition: Roads for agricultural use, forest tracks etc. Cars are not agricultural vehicles and they should not be used as a reference when we are talking about tracks. By agricultural vehicles, the main and almost exclusive vehicle that use those tracks I show pictures of, I mean: this might depend heavily on the area/region. Please note that agricultural use has few to do with agricultural vehicles, instead it is referring to the use. Any car (or bike etc.) that goes to a field for agricultural purposes is agricultural traffic, regardless its vehicle class. In some areas like southern Germany you will find a lot of cars on tracks, areas where the fields are very small and nowadays often not used as main breadwinning, but for hobby, on weekends to relax, etc. (some of them are on steep hills, with apple or other fruit trees, etc.). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Gritting routes
Craig said: What is the point in mapping roads where the gritter drives, if it is not gritting there? How is that useful for anyone? In the UK any government data based on a map tends to be derived from the national mapping agency and as such creates licence issues. We therefore opt to use the gritting route schedules. These are literally a list of instructions in the form: * Leave depot, turn Right * GRIT to end of road, turn left * TRAVEL to main street, turn left * GRIT to ... and so on... I'm in two minds about whether to map the route as a relation, but I have to follow the route on the map just to work out which roads are gritted and which are not, so I may add it at the same time. Also if I add them to OSM then I can demonstrate a benefit to the local council - they could use the OSM data in a navigation device in the gritting trucks (thus ensuring that the correct route is followed every time and that excess grit is not wasted). Regards, Rob p.s. For some context, whether a road is gritted or not is quite important in the UK as we are lazy and don't tend to bother with winter tyres/chains etc.. There is a fine balance between gritting more so that the roads are kept moving (economic and safety benefit) and gritting less to reduce direct costs and the corrosion/environmental cost of excess salt/grit. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:38:08PM +0100, fly wrote: On 24.03.2014 20:45, Richard Z. wrote: On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:02:35AM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote: On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote: As it might be even hard to define the ground level (we just have a discussion on talk-de@ about houses built on slops), I would never say that an negative layer value is an indicator/synonym for underground. Again, no mention in the wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer) to negative layer values being used to represent the idea of underground. not an explicit mention, but if there is an object X1 with implicit layer=0, with no level or location tags, and another object X2 with a layer=-1 than there are not too many possibilities where to find X2. It could be underground or it could be under a large overhanging rock. Both should have explicit tags to clarify the situation. No, except for underground rivers. They do exist in karst regions... we need a way to tag underground rivers and lakes. layer=-1 itself is not sufficient, we need additional tags. Perhaps tunnel=cave but this would only describe part of those phenomena. How about location=underground ? seems good to me. covered=yes is another useful tag (eg your overhanging rock) covered is already complicated enough and this might be too much of stretching the original idea. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
