Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:40:00PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote: On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:28:59PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote: Maintaining both bridge=movable and bridge:movable=* has at least one useful side effect, which I documented, for bridge geeks like me (i.e., the people who are probably going to be adding hyper-complicated bridge detail); it lets you tag a formerly or planned movable span that is now fixed in place with bridge:movable=* but not bridge=movable. So you could search for bridge:movable=swing and find both working and fixed swing spans, but a router wouldn't treat the fixed ones as movable. (See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Big_Bayou_Canot_train_wreck for the relevance of such spans.) This may be too subtle for many people and somewhat against the principle of least surprise. Good point. I can easily see people correcting bridge=yes to bridge=movable because they see the bridge:movable tag on a span. What if we made bridge=fixed a synonym of bridge=yes? fine for me. bridge=covered has been mentioned now and before as possibly redundant to bridge=yes and covered=yes. I left it in because of this message: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-May/013546.html http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-May/013546.html which suggested that a bridge covered over wasn't quite the same thing as a covered bridge. I don't have a strong opinion on changing or keeping it at this point. I would be in favor of keeping that one but the problem is - you can't have covered bridge=movable or aqueduct. I have seen covered aqueducts. I don't think there are any extant covered movable bridges. Re. aqueducts, in what sense was that covered? A closed pipe? If we retain bridge=covered in addition to covered=yes, I think it should be particular to the classic covered bridge where a truss (usually) has been covered to keep out the weather. not a pipe, a classic viaduct with canal, a roof and arcade style half-open side walls. The purpose was not quite clear - not drinking water and other parts were not covered. Should we have bridge:cover ? As long as we're simplifying possible values in bridge=, bridge=low_water_crossing, which is somewhat established but a bit awkward, could theoretically just be marked by a separate tag, maybe flood_prone=yes. The essential quality we're looking to convey is that the bridge is engineered to spend some time underwater and come out intact. those can also look as culverts and it would be nice to have the same solution whether it is a bridge or a culvert. I have tagged those with tunnel=culvert and ford=yes flood_prone might be a little better for both in that I think of a ford as having water more or less perennially covering the crossing, whereas a low water bridge, like a road dipping into an arroyo, is only covered by irregular intervals of high water. the flooding can be more or less frequent. In some places that I have seen the flooding was manmade und thus mostly predictable, bellow a dam. The difference I think is how it will be used for routing, so perhaps both are valid alternatives. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 09:27:45PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote: On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com wrote: The image reminds me of a bridge, no longer open for traffic, on the old National Pike in Western Maryland. I can see where one might want to reduce speed on one of those to avoid bottoming out or becoming airborne. I think rather that bridge:structure=humpback I'd prefer bridge:geometry=humpback. At least something that conveys shape meaning. For me structure implies the design element that gives a building, bridge, dam, etc. its strength. In the case of the photo that would be masonry arch for structure. +1. Humpback seems mostly to be defined by the aesthetic effect and the potential effect on vehicles; there seems to be a popular Humpback Bridge on Virginia that's a covered truss with a mild humpback. I'd rather not dilute the more or less coherent nature of bridge:structure=, although better that than bridge=. Although tagging it as some sort of highway hazard or condition is not a bad idea either. I was thinking maybe bridge:architecture would cover both bridge:structure and bridge:geometry but I guess it is too late to change? Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:23:35AM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote: On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:57 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: For the benefit of anyone looking at taginfo stats in this thread, it's worth mentioning that there's some non-survey-based editing going on: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/24690099 All bridge=drawbridge to bridge=movable bridge:movable=drawbridge. The bigger problem is that many of these bridges, whether originally tagged by local surveyors or not, are probably strictly speaking bascule bridges, drawbridge being used casually for any sort of movable bridge. it was a test to see what can go wrong during such conversion. There were quite some odd cases, like bridge=drawbridge used to draw the outline of the bridge. Some time in the future I would like to review all bridge=swing and fix at least those which are not movable at all but hanging rope bridges instead. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - natural=rock cleanup
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/natural%3Drock_cleanup Voting starts. It's now only about a wiki cleanup, because the recent thread convert imported natural=rock areas to bare_rock made me drop the part concerning data cleanup. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging
Richard, Perhaps these cases in which the outline of the bridge was drawn is related to this proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/man_made%3Dbridge I believe it's main purpose is to solve a known rendering problem in bridges. Nowadays, when two or more parallel ways are in a bridge/viaduct, they are drawn as separate bridges. Drawing the area of the bridge would solve that. Cheers, John 2014-08-12 6:26 GMT-03:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:23:35AM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote: On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:57 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: For the benefit of anyone looking at taginfo stats in this thread, it's worth mentioning that there's some non-survey-based editing going on: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/24690099 All bridge=drawbridge to bridge=movable bridge:movable=drawbridge. The bigger problem is that many of these bridges, whether originally tagged by local surveyors or not, are probably strictly speaking bascule bridges, drawbridge being used casually for any sort of movable bridge. it was a test to see what can go wrong during such conversion. There were quite some odd cases, like bridge=drawbridge used to draw the outline of the bridge. Some time in the future I would like to review all bridge=swing and fix at least those which are not movable at all but hanging rope bridges instead. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging
PS: If you removed these 'bridges as area', you probably should fix that. 2014-08-12 9:02 GMT-03:00 John Packer john.pack...@gmail.com: Richard, Perhaps these cases in which the outline of the bridge was drawn is related to this proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/man_made%3Dbridge I believe it's main purpose is to solve a known rendering problem in bridges. Nowadays, when two or more parallel ways are in a bridge/viaduct, they are drawn as separate bridges. Drawing the area of the bridge would solve that. Cheers, John 2014-08-12 6:26 GMT-03:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:23:35AM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote: On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:57 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: For the benefit of anyone looking at taginfo stats in this thread, it's worth mentioning that there's some non-survey-based editing going on: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/24690099 All bridge=drawbridge to bridge=movable bridge:movable=drawbridge. The bigger problem is that many of these bridges, whether originally tagged by local surveyors or not, are probably strictly speaking bascule bridges, drawbridge being used casually for any sort of movable bridge. it was a test to see what can go wrong during such conversion. There were quite some odd cases, like bridge=drawbridge used to draw the outline of the bridge. Some time in the future I would like to review all bridge=swing and fix at least those which are not movable at all but hanging rope bridges instead. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Bitcoin: Distinction of purchase through website and cash register/Point of sale
In Sweden we got an electronics chain called Webhallen who accept Bitcoin as payment through their website and allows the customer to pick up the goods they purchase at any of the business's store locations. It does to my knowledge not accept purchase of goods with Bitcoin through their cash registers or Points of sale. I would just tag each and all of those stores with payment:bitcoin=yes Some in the Swedish osm community find it confusing to find out at CoinMap.org that a business accepts Bitcoin but does not accept it at the cash register/Point of sale. One in the Swedish osm community told me that he/she asked a question at a Webhallen store at Sveavägen 39 where the personnel replied that they do not accept Bitcoin at the cash registers/Points of sale of that store. More in the osm community want a way to tag that a store accepts payment in Bitcoin only through their website and not at a cash register/Point of sale, vice versa or any combination thereof. One idea that got proposed was payment:online:bitcoin=yes/no + payment:offline:bitcoin=yes/no where online=purchase through website and where offline=cash register/Point of sale Any ideas? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bitcoin: Distinction of purchase through website and cash register/Point of sale
On 8/12/14 2:55 PM, Anita Andersson wrote: One idea that got proposed was payment:online:bitcoin=yes/no + payment:offline:bitcoin=yes/no where online=purchase through website and where offline=cash register/Point of sale why not payment:point_of_sale:bitcoin=yes/no payment:offline doesn't seem quite right to me. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Bitcoin: Distinction of purchase through website and cash register/Point of sale
Richard Welty wrote: why not payment:point_of_sale:bitcoin=yes/no payment:offline doesn't seem quite right to me. Ok. My idea is that payment:bitcoin=yes and payment:point_of_sale:bitcoin=yes/no should be used together if it is correct information for a place. My reasoning is that payment:bitcoin=yes is a general tag which means that payment is accepted at the store. payment:point_of_sale:bitcoin=yes/no further means if the store accepts Bitcoin at the cash register/Point of sale or not. What in the case if they accept it both at the cash register/Point of sale and through their website? Do we add both the payment:point_of_sale:bitcoin=yes and 'payment:online:bitcoin=yes?' ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 09:02:39AM -0300, John Packer wrote: Richard, Perhaps these cases in which the outline of the bridge was drawn is related to this proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/man_made%3Dbridge yes, I am pretty sure it was a desperate attempt to make the bridge outline render. I have converted a few of them to man_made=bridge but last I looked they did not render anyway :( Anyway, those that I have converted look like * outline - man_made_bridge * way/calceway - bridge=movable + bridge:movable=drawbridge Better ideas? Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 09:06:02AM -0300, John Packer wrote: PS: If you removed these 'bridges as area', you probably should fix that. I have removed the area around this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25397414 and filed this ticket as it did not render sanely: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/877 Not going to add back an outline as area of bridge=drawbridge hack for a 5x4m cycle path - that is one of the strangest cases of tagging for the renderer that I have seen. I might add man_made=bridge if it would render but I still think that a bikepath/bridge with a width attribute should render sanely. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bitcoin: Distinction of purchase through website and cash register/Point of sale
On 12 August 2014 20:55, Anita Andersson cc0c...@gmx.com wrote: In Sweden we got an electronics chain called Webhallen who accept Bitcoin as payment through their website and allows the customer to pick up the goods they purchase at any of the business's store locations. It does to my knowledge not accept purchase of goods with Bitcoin through their cash registers or Points of sale. I would just tag each and all of those stores with payment:bitcoin=yes I think that OSM is about mapping the physical world out there, even including payment methods accepted at different brick and mortar shops. But if a shop doesn't accept a certain payment method at its physical location then I don't think it should be tagged that way even if they have a website where that payment method is valid. /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging
another lamentable attempt is here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/241772803 what else can I do? Richard On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 09:06:02AM -0300, John Packer wrote: PS: If you removed these 'bridges as area', you probably should fix that. 2014-08-12 9:02 GMT-03:00 John Packer john.pack...@gmail.com: Richard, Perhaps these cases in which the outline of the bridge was drawn is related to this proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/man_made%3Dbridge I believe it's main purpose is to solve a known rendering problem in bridges. Nowadays, when two or more parallel ways are in a bridge/viaduct, they are drawn as separate bridges. Drawing the area of the bridge would solve that. Cheers, John 2014-08-12 6:26 GMT-03:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:23:35AM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote: On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:57 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: For the benefit of anyone looking at taginfo stats in this thread, it's worth mentioning that there's some non-survey-based editing going on: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/24690099 All bridge=drawbridge to bridge=movable bridge:movable=drawbridge. The bigger problem is that many of these bridges, whether originally tagged by local surveyors or not, are probably strictly speaking bascule bridges, drawbridge being used casually for any sort of movable bridge. it was a test to see what can go wrong during such conversion. There were quite some odd cases, like bridge=drawbridge used to draw the outline of the bridge. Some time in the future I would like to review all bridge=swing and fix at least those which are not movable at all but hanging rope bridges instead. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
2014-08-11 18:28 GMT+02:00 Christopher Hoess cahoess@gmail.c caho...@gmail.com As the author of the last big redesign, I'm having trouble understanding some of these criticisms and would appreciate it if people would draw out the critique a bit so I can try to improve things. Some people consider freeform values in bridge tag as a problem and think that bridge tag should have only yes/no values and specific type of bridge should be stored in a separate tag. It is notable as these people maintain Default Style - see https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/440 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bitcoin: Distinction of purchase through website and cash register/Point of sale
2014-08-12 22:54 GMT+02:00 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com: On 12 August 2014 20:55, Anita Andersson cc0c...@gmx.com wrote: In Sweden we got an electronics chain called Webhallen who accept Bitcoin as payment through their website and allows the customer to pick up the goods they purchase at any of the business's store locations. It does to my knowledge not accept purchase of goods with Bitcoin through their cash registers or Points of sale. I would just tag each and all of those stores with payment:bitcoin=yes I think that OSM is about mapping the physical world out there, even including payment methods accepted at different brick and mortar shops. But if a shop doesn't accept a certain payment method at its physical location then I don't think it should be tagged that way even if they have a website where that payment method is valid. /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Exactly, we are not tagging websites. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
