Re: [Tagging] Commons: mixed purposes
2014-08-17 20:45 GMT+02:00 Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com: On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: What should we sue to link to Wikimedia commons categories like: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:St_Paul,_Birmingham I've previously used Wikimedia_Commons=, but that's verbose; and I seem to be alone in doing so. Wouldn't linking using the wikidata=* tag be better as the Wikidata entry for St Paul's Church in Birmingham should link to the appropriate page or category on Wikimedia Commons? So I would tag the OSM object representing St Paul's Church as wikidata=Q915614 Some minor objects may have category/image on Wikimedia Commons but have no wikidata and never will have - see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Notability ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Commons: mixed purposes
Il giorno 18/ago/2014, alle ore 00:44, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk ha scritto: OK, how's this : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wikimedia_commons as a start? +1, but could have been in the proposal address space, given that it is not in use... Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Commons: mixed purposes
On 18 August 2014 07:20, Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com wrote: Some minor objects may have category/image on Wikimedia Commons but have no wikidata and never will have - see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Notability In which case, pick the best/ most representative image, and use the format: https://wikimedia_commons=File:St Paul Birmingham from south PP.jpg -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Commons: mixed purposes
2014-08-18 9:25 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: Il giorno 18/ago/2014, alle ore 00:44, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk ha scritto: OK, how's this : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wikimedia_commons as a start? +1, but could have been in the proposal address space, given that it is not in use... +1, and now it is in use. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Synonymous values in the shop key
2014-08-14 10:40 GMT+02:00 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: Hi, On 08/14/2014 08:09 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: shop=ice_cream (710, documented but difference between using amenity and shop keys is not documented) - amenity=ice_cream (4053) amenity=ice_cream sounds very strange to me. I can't imagine a lot of people actually coming up with that themselves - can it be a mass edit or an editor preset gone wrong? I mean, the amenity consists not in there being ice cream, but there being a place where you can get ice cream. That would like tagging amenity=bed for a hotel or amenity=food for a restaurant... Not really. A gelateria is a very different thing from a bar, and it's not a shop that sells ice cream. At most you could use ice cream parlour, but amenity=ice_cream_parlour seems worse to me than the current tag. Ciao, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Synonymous values in the shop key
I'm not sure what is a gelateria. Couldn't this be tagged simply with amenity=cafe + cuisine=ice_cream ? 2014-08-18 8:23 GMT-03:00 Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com: 2014-08-14 10:40 GMT+02:00 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: Hi, On 08/14/2014 08:09 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: shop=ice_cream (710, documented but difference between using amenity and shop keys is not documented) - amenity=ice_cream (4053) amenity=ice_cream sounds very strange to me. I can't imagine a lot of people actually coming up with that themselves - can it be a mass edit or an editor preset gone wrong? I mean, the amenity consists not in there being ice cream, but there being a place where you can get ice cream. That would like tagging amenity=bed for a hotel or amenity=food for a restaurant... Not really. A gelateria is a very different thing from a bar, and it's not a shop that sells ice cream. At most you could use ice cream parlour, but amenity=ice_cream_parlour seems worse to me than the current tag. Ciao, Simone ___ 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] Commons: mixed purposes
Perhaps such a category should only be tagged exactly when it's not linked on a wikidata page. Otherwise it seems unnecessary. As Andreas mentioned, if people can add this tag even when it's linked on the wikidata page, eventually people will start adding wikiquote=* wikivoyage=* and so on. Indeed, in most cases wikipedia=* can be redundant when there is already a wikidata=* key, but wikipedia=* is a well-established key, which is not the case of wikimedia_commons=* In other words, don't need to fix what ain't broken. 2014-08-18 3:20 GMT-03:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com: 2014-08-17 20:45 GMT+02:00 Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com: On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: What should we sue to link to Wikimedia commons categories like: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:St_Paul,_Birmingham I've previously used Wikimedia_Commons=, but that's verbose; and I seem to be alone in doing so. Wouldn't linking using the wikidata=* tag be better as the Wikidata entry for St Paul's Church in Birmingham should link to the appropriate page or category on Wikimedia Commons? So I would tag the OSM object representing St Paul's Church as wikidata=Q915614 Some minor objects may have category/image on Wikimedia Commons but have no wikidata and never will have - see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Notability ___ 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] problem with bicycle=designated
bicycle=designated is widely used but it not well defined. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:bicycle%3Ddesignatedredirect=no is just redirect, to page that describes hopelessly inclusive rules It may imply extra usage rights for the given mode of transport (i.e. normally a vehicle is banned, but in this case it is allowed), or may be just a suggested route (e.g. bicycles can in most jurisdictions ride on any street, but some particular streets are recommended and signed as such.). According to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dofficial some_access_tag=designated often includes ways that have no legal dedication like e.g. recommended routes of a local bicycle club - maybe often is not correct, but such tagging would not be against what is described on wiki. bicycle=designated is described as standard for tagging of official cycleways, but AFAIK it is not defined on wiki that it should be used exclusively for this purpose. So how one should tag in following situations? 1) official cycleway 2) road/footway/path widely used by cyclists, cycling is legal 3) road/footway/path widely used by cyclists, cycling is illegal but usually nobody bothers to enforce this rule 4) road/footway/path not used widely by cyclists, cycling is illegal 5) road where normally cyclists are banned but special signs/some other rules change this 6) signed cycle route, cycling is legal 7) signed cycle route, cycling is illegal but usually nobody bothers to enforce this rule 8) signed cycle route, cycling is illegal and this rule is enforced I would use 1) [highway=cycleway] (bicycle=designated is implied) or [highway=path; bicycle=designated] 2) nothing iff bicycle=yes is implied, bicycle=yes otherwise 3) nothing iff bicycle=no is implied, bicycle=no otherwise 4) see above 5) bicycle=yes 6, 7, 8) tag route as relation, with bicycle access tagged as above but according to wiki 1) may be tagged also using bicycle=official 5) should be tagged as bicycle=designated (normally a vehicle is banned, but in this case it is allowed) 6, 7, 8) should be tagged as bicycle=designated (a suggested route) What more, there are people interested in different tags for situation 3) and 4) (usually they want to use bicycle=designated for 3). I am not sure what would be the best solution of situation. I thought about I) redefining =designated to the definition of =official II) defining bicycle=designated to be like =official III) retagging bicycle=designated on official cycleways to bicycle=official IV) creation of new tag official_cycleway=yes/no that may be applied to bicycle=designated ways that would clarify status I and II are not solving I want to tag illegal but popular bicycle routes II in addition would mean that say horse=designated and bicycle=designated follows different logic III would mean that multiple data consumers need to follow tagging change IV is an ugly hack that would be sooner or later followed by III ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Commons: mixed purposes
Am 18.08.2014 10:15, schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: 2014-08-18 9:25 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com: Il giorno 18/ago/2014, alle ore 00:44, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk mailto:a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk ha scritto: OK, how's this : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wikimedia_commons as a start? +1, but could have been in the proposal address space, given that it is not in use... +1, and now it is in use. Come one, some few uses are no argument for an established tag in common use. Please, move it under the proposal name space. Some automatically evaluations to find tags with low numbers under main name space would be useful, as I find these kind of page quite often and it would ease administration. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Synonymous values in the shop key
2014-08-18 13:41 GMT+02:00 John Packer john.pack...@gmail.com: I'm not sure what is a gelateria. Couldn't this be tagged simply with amenity=cafe + cuisine=ice_cream ? Pretty much the same way as a pub could be tagged amenity=restaurant + cuisine=burgers + alcohol=yes. Regards, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated
So how one should tag in following situations? 1) official cycleway bicycle=designated or official This implies in many countries the obligation to use the cycleway if running parallel to a road 2) road/footway/path widely used by cyclists, cycling is legal bicycle=yes 3) road/footway/path widely used by cyclists, cycling is illegal but usually nobody bothers to enforce this rule I use bicycle=permissive for the frequent situation here in Italy that a road is signed to be closed for all vehicles, but in reality bicycles were simply not considered in the decision to put the sign. This approach is a personal solution for the dilemma that the official sign is contradictory to the reality. 4) road/footway/path not used widely by cyclists, cycling is illegal If it's implicit in some other tagging, nothing. Otherwise bicycle=no 5) road where normally cyclists are banned but special signs/some other rules change this bicycle=yes if not implicit in some other tagging 6) signed cycle route, cycling is legal nothing. A signed cycle route is defined by a corresponding relation 7) signed cycle route, cycling is illegal but usually nobody bothers to enforce this rule I would put bicycle=permissive ot he way. Then a router can use the way if it wants to give precedence to cycle routes (by evaluating relations) 8) signed cycle route, cycling is illegal and this rule is enforced The illegality is implicit or explicit in the tagging of the way. I would normally not include such ways in a bicycle route relation. However, sometimes it makes sense to include a short footway or a short piece of road against its oneway direction. In this case the router can route over it, but at a penalty equivalent to bicycle=dismount. I am not sure what would be the best solution of situation. I thought about I) redefining =designated to the definition of =official I thought they are already eqivalent II) defining bicycle=designated to be like =official I thought they are already eqivalent III) retagging bicycle=designated on official cycleways to bicycle=official No IV) creation of new tag official_cycleway=yes/no that may be applied to bicycle=designated ways that would clarify status No I and II are not solving I want to tag illegal but popular bicycle routes Popular cycling routes are anyway not objects that should be tagged in OSM unless they are signposted on the ground. If signposted, use relations for tagging. Volker (Italy, but expressing personal views that are not necessarily shared by other mappers) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Synonymous values in the shop key
cuisine = crisps in a pub :) The nearest in English for gelateria is ice cream parlour. Phil (trigpoint ) On Mon Aug 18 2014 14:00:07 GMT+0100 (BST), Simone Saviolo wrote: 2014-08-18 13:41 GMT+02:00 John Packer john.pack...@gmail.com: I'm not sure what is a gelateria. Couldn't this be tagged simply with amenity=cafe + cuisine=ice_cream ? Pretty much the same way as a pub could be tagged amenity=restaurant + cuisine=burgers + alcohol=yes. Regards, Simone -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated
Am 18.08.2014 14:38, schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: bicycle=designated is widely used but it not well defined. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:bicycle%3Ddesignatedredirect=no is just redirect, to page that describes hopelessly inclusive rules It may imply extra usage rights for the given mode of transport (i.e. normally a vehicle is banned, but in this case it is allowed), or may be just a suggested route (e.g. bicycles can in most jurisdictions ride on any street, but some particular streets are recommended and signed as such.). According to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dofficial some_access_tag=designated often includes ways that have no legal dedication like e.g. recommended routes of a local bicycle club - maybe often is not correct, but such tagging would not be against what is described on wiki. bicycle=designated is described as standard for tagging of official cycleways, but AFAIK it is not defined on wiki that it should be used exclusively for this purpose. So how one should tag in following situations? 1) official cycleway 2) road/footway/path widely used by cyclists, cycling is legal 3) road/footway/path widely used by cyclists, cycling is illegal but usually nobody bothers to enforce this rule 4) road/footway/path not used widely by cyclists, cycling is illegal 5) road where normally cyclists are banned but special signs/some other rules change this 6) signed cycle route, cycling is legal 7) signed cycle route, cycling is illegal but usually nobody bothers to enforce this rule 8) signed cycle route, cycling is illegal and this rule is enforced I would use 1) [highway=cycleway] (bicycle=designated is implied) or [highway=path; bicycle=designated] 2) nothing if bicycle=yes is implied, bicycle=yes otherwise 3) nothing if bicycle=no is implied, bicycle=no otherwise 4) see above 5) bicycle=yes 6, 7, 8) tag route as relation, with bicycle access tagged as above but according to wiki 1) may be tagged also using bicycle=official 5) should be tagged as bicycle=designated (normally a vehicle is banned, but in this case it is allowed) 6, 7, 8) should be tagged as bicycle=designated (a suggested route) What more, there are people interested in different tags for situation 3) and 4) (usually they want to use bicycle=designated for 3). I am not sure what would be the best solution of situation. I thought about I) redefining =designated to the definition of =official II) defining bicycle=designated to be like =official III) retagging bicycle=designated on official cycleways to bicycle=official IV) creation of new tag official_cycleway=yes/no that may be applied to bicycle=designated ways that would clarify status I and II are not solving I want to tag illegal but popular bicycle routes II in addition would mean that say horse=designated and bicycle=designated follows different logic III would mean that multiple data consumers need to follow tagging change IV is an ugly hack that would be sooner or later followed by III In Germany designated is equal to official. Everything else is yes if legal or no if illegal. As addition we have bicycle=use_sidepath if the official cycleway is tagged as separated way. I would not take the relations in count but tag the access of the highways. My problem with official is/was that: 1. the original proposer stepped back 2. the only software, I know, that is supporting the value is JOSM 3. Last but least many mappers did change it back cause of 2. I am still in favour of official as stricter term of designated but only if you have a con-sense in meaning and usage. My 2 ct fly Some ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated
2014-08-18 15:20 GMT+02:00 Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com: I) redefining =designated to the definition of =official I thought they are already eqivalent There are differences. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dofficial and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated For example according to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated bicycle=designated may be tagged on suggested route, in general conditions are unclear and really inclusive. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated
On 8/18/14 9:20 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote: So how one should tag in following situations? 1) official cycleway bicycle=designated or official This implies in many countries the obligation to use the cycleway if running parallel to a road official is not in the wiki here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access designated is in the wiki, i suggest that it is therefore preferable. i have seen a different interpretation of official, which indicates that it is for official vehicles. perhaps this ambiguity is another reason to steer clear of it. 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
Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated
I myself, and I think more Dutch mappers, are using bicycle=designated (along with highway=residential or perhaps highway=unclassified) for a so called fietsstraat (cyclestreet). It's a road that has been set up for bicycles, but has access for all road users. Often they have a board like http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Fietsstraat.JPG/207px-Fietsstraat.JPG (text: Cyclestreet - Cars are guests). On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com wrote: So how one should tag in following situations? I would tag as follows: 1) official cycleway highway=cycleway 2) road/footway/path widely used by cyclists, cycling is legal highway=footway/path, bicycle=yes 3) road/footway/path widely used by cyclists, cycling is illegal but usually nobody bothers to enforce this rule highway=footway/path, bicycle=permissive 4) road/footway/path not used widely by cyclists, cycling is illegal highway=footway (bicycle=no implied) or highway=roadtype/path, bicycle = no 5) road where normally cyclists are banned but special signs/some other rules change this bicycle=yes 6) signed cycle route, cycling is legal Whichever of the above applies 7) signed cycle route, cycling is illegal but usually nobody bothers to enforce this rule Idem 8) signed cycle route, cycling is illegal and this rule is enforced Idem -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] horse=designated for recommend routes?
2014-08-12 3:06 GMT+02:00 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: Am 11.08.2014 13:44, schrieb Simon Poole: Unluckily http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated includes or may be just a suggested route (e.g. bicycles can in most jurisdictions ride on any street, but some particular streets are recommended and signed as such.) Which I personally consider a holdover from days long past which has been replaced by actually mapping routes (which clearly do have a recommended character). Naturally adding *=offical (which is essentially a German tag), hasn't made the confusion any less. Especially, as official was/is not supported by a lot of software and as the author of the proposal did step back. Myself did change quite a lot back to designated as other mappers did already revert parts of my changes. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging On http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:access%3Ddesignated I added proposal to remove or may be just a suggested route (e.g. bicycles can in most jurisdictions ride on any street, but some particular streets are recommended and signed as such.) . ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated
2014-08-18 15:36 GMT+02:00 Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com: 1) official cycleway highway=cycleway What about something that is both footway and cyleway (segregated or not segregated)? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated
On 8/18/14 9:42 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 2014-08-18 15:36 GMT+02:00 Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com mailto:andreeng...@gmail.com: 1) official cycleway highway=cycleway What about something that is both footway and cyleway (segregated or not segregated)? these are common around here (upstate NY) and my preference has been to tag like this: highway=path foot=yes bicycle=yes (or maybe designated.) 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
Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated
Am 18.08.2014 15:42, schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: 2014-08-18 15:36 GMT+02:00 Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com mailto:andreeng...@gmail.com: 1) official cycleway highway=cycleway What about something that is both footway and cyleway (segregated or not segregated)? highway=path foot=designated bicycle=designated segregated=yes/no (vehicle=no) implied by path cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated
On 18.08.2014 15:33, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: For example according to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated bicycle=designated may be tagged on suggested route, in general conditions are unclear and really inclusive. I believe that part of the designated wiki page is wrong, at least based on my regionally biased experience. There is also no reason for using an access tag to map routes because we have route relations for that. So imo we should remove that section about routes, and ideally we would also deprecate the now redundant official value. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] separator for addr:housenumber=*
Hey On the English wiki page [1] comma is the proposed separator for several values of addr:housenumber. This contradicts our rule of using semi-colon as separator of values and I do not have a clue why. I propose to deprecate comma and use semi-colon instead to harmonize our data structure and allow QA software to find problematic values. What do you think ? Cheers fly [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses#Buildings_with_multiple_house_numbers ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] separator for addr:housenumber=*
I believe comma is used instead of semi-colon because the key addr:housenumber frequently gets rendered, and comma is the common separator symbol for end users. 2014-08-18 11:04 GMT-03:00 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: Hey On the English wiki page [1] comma is the proposed separator for several values of addr:housenumber. This contradicts our rule of using semi-colon as separator of values and I do not have a clue why. I propose to deprecate comma and use semi-colon instead to harmonize our data structure and allow QA software to find problematic values. What do you think ? Cheers fly [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses#Buildings_with_multiple_house_numbers ___ 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] separator for addr:housenumber=*
2014-08-18 15:04 GMT+01:00 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: Hey On the English wiki page [1] comma is the proposed separator for several values of addr:housenumber. This contradicts our rule of using semi-colon as separator of values and I do not have a clue why. Probably led by what users are already doing, and probably because renderers produce natural-looking results for places where commas are conventional. This could be considered tagging-for-the-renderer, if it weren't already an established micro-convention. I agree with you it's out of step with convention for other tags. I propose to deprecate comma and use semi-colon instead to harmonize our data structure and allow QA software to find problematic values. What do you think ? I don't mind. I'm happy with your proposal, if there's enough support for it. To prevent the tagging-for-the-renderer, it would help if the main styles would automatically convert 1;3 to 1, 3 when rendering - I'd be surprised if they already do that, but it would help your proposal actually happen! Dan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] interpolated housenumbers on single objects
Hi taggers, When mapping recently, I encountered many addresses which contain multiple housenumbers behind single entrances. I've used interpolation before, and used it in the traditional sense to map a range along a row of houses. But here we have an interpolated range on a single object, not spread across a spatial extent. I intuitively re-used the addr:interpolation tag, but applied it to a single object. For example we might have this on a single node or a building: addr:housenumber=100-126 addr:interpolation=even addr:street=Malmesbury Road Please note that: * These house numbers are _not_ flat numbers. That is clear on the ground. * From the outside of the block there's no spatial distribution of those numbers 100-126 so they can't sensibly be represented as a traditional interpolation from one addr to another. Today (thanks to Fly's email about something else) I noticed that the wiki says this tagging shouldn't be used. It says: You may also add a short way and use addr:interpolation=*. Don't specify the range (e.g., 10-95) directly in the addr:housenumber=* tag. It is impossible to distinguish such ranges from house numbers that officially contain a dash. I beg to differ. it _is_ possible to distinguish such ranges, because of the addr:interpolation tag. I certainly understand that software doesn't currently know that an addr:interpolation tag indicates it may parse addr:housenumber as a range, but this tagging seemed so plausible to me that I didn't question it. Adding a short fake way so that there are addr endpoints seems like a total hack to me. How would you tag it? Best Dan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] interpolated housenumbers on single objects
Maybe the cleanest solution is the proposed node relation: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Node Although that wouldn't give the entrance an attribute with all those addresses, it would just pile the addresses on top of the entrance. I'm not sure. Interpolation tag sounds hacky, but maybe that's better because it gives the entrance an attribute of all those addresses. 2014-08-18 16:29 GMT+02:00 Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com: Hi taggers, When mapping recently, I encountered many addresses which contain multiple housenumbers behind single entrances. I've used interpolation before, and used it in the traditional sense to map a range along a row of houses. But here we have an interpolated range on a single object, not spread across a spatial extent. I intuitively re-used the addr:interpolation tag, but applied it to a single object. For example we might have this on a single node or a building: addr:housenumber=100-126 addr:interpolation=even addr:street=Malmesbury Road Please note that: * These house numbers are _not_ flat numbers. That is clear on the ground. * From the outside of the block there's no spatial distribution of those numbers 100-126 so they can't sensibly be represented as a traditional interpolation from one addr to another. Today (thanks to Fly's email about something else) I noticed that the wiki says this tagging shouldn't be used. It says: You may also add a short way and use addr:interpolation=*. Don't specify the range (e.g., 10-95) directly in the addr:housenumber=* tag. It is impossible to distinguish such ranges from house numbers that officially contain a dash. I beg to differ. it _is_ possible to distinguish such ranges, because of the addr:interpolation tag. I certainly understand that software doesn't currently know that an addr:interpolation tag indicates it may parse addr:housenumber as a range, but this tagging seemed so plausible to me that I didn't question it. Adding a short fake way so that there are addr endpoints seems like a total hack to me. How would you tag it? Best Dan ___ 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] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
I'm afraid that the main problem here is not the use location or layer or cave but highway=path. This tag was created for multiple vehicles ways, not exclusive to a transportation like footways or cycleways. Currently the wiki tries to reflect this in the path definition: A route open to the public which is not intended for motor vehicles, unless so tagged separately. This includes snowmobile trails, ski trails, hiking trails, horse trails, bike trails and paths, mountain bike trails as well as combinations of the above and other modes of transportation. Unfortunatelly, this tag was abusively (impov) reused later for climbing routes. And now for caving. But none of these activities are open to the main public, requires special skills and equipments (incl. for survey) and, as already mentionned, needs a better handling of elevation data which is not easy in our model. I'm afraid that the main reason to not create new highway tags was/is to see them immediately on the rendered maps... That's why I would prefer something new like highway=cave (or whatever you like) without any additional mandatory tags like location=underground (correct me if I'm wrong but a cave is always underground). That would not be immediately visible on the map but data consumers requesting all highway path in Poland could also safely ignore this creation. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] interpolated housenumbers on single objects
Am 18.08.2014 16:29, schrieb Dan S: Hi taggers, When mapping recently, I encountered many addresses which contain multiple housenumbers behind single entrances. I've used interpolation before, and used it in the traditional sense to map a range along a row of houses. But here we have an interpolated range on a single object, not spread across a spatial extent. I intuitively re-used the addr:interpolation tag, but applied it to a single object. For example we might have this on a single node or a building: addr:housenumber=100-126 addr:interpolation=even addr:street=Malmesbury Road Please note that: * These house numbers are _not_ flat numbers. That is clear on the ground. * From the outside of the block there's no spatial distribution of those numbers 100-126 so they can't sensibly be represented as a traditional interpolation from one addr to another. Today (thanks to Fly's email about something else) I noticed that the wiki says this tagging shouldn't be used. It says: You may also add a short way and use addr:interpolation=*. Don't specify the range (e.g., 10-95) directly in the addr:housenumber=* tag. It is impossible to distinguish such ranges from house numbers that officially contain a dash. I beg to differ. it _is_ possible to distinguish such ranges, because of the addr:interpolation tag. I certainly understand that software doesn't currently know that an addr:interpolation tag indicates it may parse addr:housenumber as a range, but this tagging seemed so plausible to me that I didn't question it. Adding a short fake way so that there are addr endpoints seems like a total hack to me. How would you tag it? Alternatively, you could tag the housenumbers as a list. ( Thought addr:interpolation is only defined for ways but your definition for nodes seems fine to me and it is useful for nodes or areas with multiple housenumbers When used on ways you should use the start/end node to define the range and not tag it on the way that is why it is mentioned on the wiki. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated
Mateusz Konieczny wrote: bicycle=designated is widely used but it not well defined. I didn't understand bicycle=designated until I visited Germany for the first time earlier this year. Now I realise why it's used... though I still strongly disagree with it. bicycle=designated exists so that (German) cycleways with the standard sign (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Zeichen_237.svg/120px-Zeichen_237.svg.png) can be tagged: highway=path bicycle=designated This is distinct from footpath but bikes are permitted, which is indicated in Germany by a sign like http://www.geo.sunysb.edu/bicycle-muenster/bicycle-free.gif, and which would be tagged: highway=path foot=designated bicycle=yes Of course, this is yet more nonsense that only exists because of the accursed 'highway=path' tag. The first scenario can simply be tagged 'highway=cycleway' and the second one 'highway=footway, bicycle=yes'. More concise, more clear. But that's 'highway=path' for you. The recommended routes stuff appears to be a recent addition and is wrong in any case. Routes that are recommended with route signs should be in route relations. Routes that are only recommended in someone else's book or map shouldn't be in OSM at all. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/problem-with-bicycle-designated-tp5814781p5814821.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated
Am 18.08.2014 19:00, schrieb Richard Fairhurst: Mateusz Konieczny wrote: bicycle=designated is widely used but it not well defined. I didn't understand bicycle=designated until I visited Germany for the first time earlier this year. Now I realise why it's used... though I still strongly disagree with it. bicycle=designated exists so that (German) cycleways with the standard sign (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Zeichen_237.svg/120px-Zeichen_237.svg.png) can be tagged: highway=path bicycle=designated This is distinct from footpath but bikes are permitted, which is indicated in Germany by a sign like http://www.geo.sunysb.edu/bicycle-muenster/bicycle-free.gif, and which would be tagged: highway=path foot=designated bicycle=yes Of course, this is yet more nonsense that only exists because of the accursed 'highway=path' tag. The first scenario can simply be tagged 'highway=cycleway' and the second one 'highway=footway, bicycle=yes'. More concise, more clear. But that's 'highway=path' for you. No, highway is not part of the problem except of shared ways (segregated or not). The problem is the access definition which excludes other modes from usage and has even legal impact on using parallel road next to it. Cheers fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] separator for addr:housenumber=*
Il giorno 18/ago/2014, alle ore 16:04, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com ha scritto: I propose to deprecate comma and use semi-colon instead to harmonize our data structure and allow QA software to find problematic values. +1 Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated
Il giorno 18/ago/2014, alle ore 19:00, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net ha scritto: Of course, this is yet more nonsense that only exists because of the accursed 'highway=path' tag. The first scenario can simply be tagged 'highway=cycleway' and the second one 'highway=footway, bicycle=yes'. More concise, more clear. But that's 'highway=path' for you.l I think the main reason for introducing the path key were ways which don't have explicit signage (neither foot nor bicycle or horse), the key was originally proposed by someone with his focus on horse riding. Another point was that ways with signs like this http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:120px-Zeichen_240.svg.png http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/a/aa/120px-Zeichen_241.svg.png are neither cycleways nor footways, they are both at the same time (especially the segregated=no version). Before path was introduced the rule was to use the preferred means of transport or the higher one, what didn't make a lot of sense neither. The real mess was that the highway=footway and cycleway tags weren't deprecated when path was introduced (too much resistance was expected), but contributors have gotten used to it. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated
On 18/08/2014 20:54, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Another point was that ways with signs like this http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:120px-Zeichen_240.svg.png http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/a/aa/120px-Zeichen_241.svg.png are neither cycleways nor footways, they are both at the same time (especially the segregated=no version). They _exactly_ fit the British English definition of a cycleway, actually (in fact, most places that I've been apart from Germany) - you can both walk and cycle on them. Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] separator for addr:housenumber=*
What happens when the same entrance has two housenumbers, each from its own street? I'm sure this exists somewhere. 2014-08-18 21:29 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: Il giorno 18/ago/2014, alle ore 16:04, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com ha scritto: I propose to deprecate comma and use semi-colon instead to harmonize our data structure and allow QA software to find problematic values. +1 Cheers, Martin ___ 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] problem with bicycle=designated
You mean the British legal definition of cycleway. Just to ad another bit of legal aspects in this. In Italy, on ways signed like like this http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:120px-Zeichen_240.svg.png, the pedestran has priority over he cyclist. On 18 August 2014 22:00, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: On 18/08/2014 20:54, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Another point was that ways with signs like this http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:120px-Zeichen_240.svg.png http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/a/aa/120px-Zeichen_241.svg.png are neither cycleways nor footways, they are both at the same time (especially the segregated=no version). They _exactly_ fit the British English definition of a cycleway, actually (in fact, most places that I've been apart from Germany) - you can both walk and cycle on them. Cheers, Andy ___ 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] problem with bicycle=designated
2014-08-18 22:45 GMT+02:00 Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com: You mean the British legal definition of cycleway. Just to ad another bit of legal aspects in this. In Italy, on ways signed like like this http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:120px-Zeichen_240.svg.png, the pedestran has priority over he cyclist. This is true also for Poland, and cyclist may not use road next to route like this that would lead in the same direction. And there is a separate name for ways signed like this (ciąg pieszo-rowerowy). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Commons: mixed purposes
Commons is getting its own Wikibase installation, in addition to being present in Wikidata. So every photograph, video or audio is going to have it's own Commons Wikibase ID, with structured properties about that item. Each category will probably have it's own ID as well. The problem is, this won't come out for another year, more or less. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikidata_for_media_info https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Multimedia/Structured_Data https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikidata-l/2014-August/004332.html 2014-08-18 14:43 GMT+02:00 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: Am 18.08.2014 10:15, schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: 2014-08-18 9:25 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com: Il giorno 18/ago/2014, alle ore 00:44, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk mailto:a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk ha scritto: OK, how's this : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wikimedia_commons as a start? +1, but could have been in the proposal address space, given that it is not in use... +1, and now it is in use. Come one, some few uses are no argument for an established tag in common use. Please, move it under the proposal name space. Some automatically evaluations to find tags with low numbers under main name space would be useful, as I find these kind of page quite often and it would ease administration. cu fly ___ 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] Commons: mixed purposes
Some automatically evaluations to find tags with low numbers under main name space would be useful, as I find these kind of page quite often and it would ease administration. I think that's the closest to what you want: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/taginfo/apidoc#api_4_keys_all 2014-08-18 9:43 GMT-03:00 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: Am 18.08.2014 10:15, schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: 2014-08-18 9:25 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com: Il giorno 18/ago/2014, alle ore 00:44, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk mailto:a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk ha scritto: OK, how's this : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wikimedia_commons as a start? +1, but could have been in the proposal address space, given that it is not in use... +1, and now it is in use. Come one, some few uses are no argument for an established tag in common use. Please, move it under the proposal name space. Some automatically evaluations to find tags with low numbers under main name space would be useful, as I find these kind of page quite often and it would ease administration. cu fly ___ 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] interpolated housenumbers on single objects
fly wrote on 18.08.2014 17:40: Am 18.08.2014 16:29, schrieb Dan S: I intuitively re-used the addr:interpolation tag, but applied it to a single object. For example we might have this on a single node or a building: addr:housenumber=100-126 addr:interpolation=even addr:street=Malmesbury Road exactly what i have done in some buildings in Aachen. The sign/reality (ground truth :) is exactly represented and additionally housenumber 101 is not searched here by interpolation. How would you tag it? Alternatively, you could tag the housenumbers as a list. ( But the list could be long (and ugly *duck*) and es not representing reality. You do not want to expand w159099798 to addr:housenumber=15,17,19,21,23,25,27 -- regards Holger Jeromin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Commons: mixed purposes
On 18 August 2014 13:43, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: Please, move it under the proposal name space. To what end? Is there a counter proposal that means this might not be used? Is there significant opposition, that means this might not be used? Or is this just needless bureaucracy? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Commons: mixed purposes
On 18 August 2014 22:00, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: Commons is getting its own Wikibase installation, in addition to being present in Wikidata. So every photograph, video or audio is going to have it's own Commons Wikibase ID, with structured properties about that item. Each category will probably have it's own ID as well. The problem is, this won't come out for another year, more or less. At which point a script can be used to flip existing tags to the new structure. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Commons: mixed purposes
Andy, Usually there is no problem in creating a page documented the key or tag you want to use. I don't think this case is an exception. The only thing is that a key/tag documented without a proposal is more likely to have a future merge/redefinition/deprecation/etc. 2014-08-18 18:57 GMT-03:00 Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk: On 18 August 2014 13:43, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: Please, move it under the proposal name space. To what end? Is there a counter proposal that means this might not be used? Is there significant opposition, that means this might not be used? Or is this just needless bureaucracy? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ 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] Commons: mixed purposes
On 18.08.2014 23:57, Andy Mabbett wrote: Is there significant opposition, that means this might not be used? The key itself is probably relatively uncontroversial, but the details need some discussion. For example, I consider it problematic to duplicate the functionality of the image key by allowing links to individual images. And I guess there will be different opinions whether a wikidata link should always replace commons links or whether they should coexist. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Commons: mixed purposes
For example, I consider it problematic to duplicate the functionality of the image key by allowing links to individual images. And I guess there will be different opinions whether a wikidata link should always replace commons links or whether they should coexist. +1 2014-08-18 19:38 GMT-03:00 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de: On 18.08.2014 23:57, Andy Mabbett wrote: Is there significant opposition, that means this might not be used? The key itself is probably relatively uncontroversial, but the details need some discussion. For example, I consider it problematic to duplicate the functionality of the image key by allowing links to individual images. And I guess there will be different opinions whether a wikidata link should always replace commons links or whether they should coexist. ___ 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] Feature proposal - RFC - nudism
Hi everybody, i'd like to readdress an old draft from Xan, that has never been voted but is nevertheless in use. Please feel free to comment the slightly changed proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Nudism Best regards, Heiko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Commons: mixed purposes
On 18 August 2014 23:38, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: The key itself is probably relatively uncontroversial, but the details need some discussion. I guess that's why we use a wiki, not tablets of stone. Be my guest. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - nudism
Heiko, You added the key naturism=* to the proposal. Is this also being voted on, or is the proposal just mentioning there are some uses of this other key ? 2014-08-18 20:08 GMT-03:00 Heiko Wöhrle m...@heikowoehrle.de: Hi everybody, i'd like to readdress an old draft from Xan, that has never been voted but is nevertheless in use. Please feel free to comment the slightly changed proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Nudism Best regards, Heiko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
