Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - leisure=fitness_centre
On 27.12.2014 16:20, Andreas Goss wrote: What's wrong with sport=fitness and leisure=sports_centre? Persoanlly I think it would result in all kind of facilities being tagged like this, even though it's not the primary purpose. For example someone posted a User Diary entry about rowing clubs in Denmark and that some have a fitness centre. I don't know about you, but that's not exacly for I'm looking for when searching for one. Why not? Some rowing clubs spend more money on exercise machines than on boats. They are quite proud of their included fitness centers. I like the idea of tagging the clubs's entire property as leisure=sports_centre + sport=rowing, and additionally sport=fitness (or sport=gymnastics) to the building or room dedicated to that. But I wouldn't tag it as a leisure=sports_centre on its own. It is only part of the surrounding sports_centre. -- 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
[Tagging] oneway=no spams
I notice a quicky increasing number of oneway=no tags on roads, probably due to editors offering some flashy list box for the oneway key. I wonder what's next. bridge=no, tunnel=no...? I find these information-less tags annoying, because you have to browse a long list of bogus tags on each object to finally spot the one or two tags that actually matter. I think that those editors should only make undefined, yes and -1 selectable, or omit the no values on upload at last, except for motorways, motorway_links and roundabouts. -- 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - leisure=fitness_centre
I like the idea of tagging the clubs's entire property as leisure=sports_centre + sport=rowing, and additionally sport=fitness (or sport=gymnastics) to the building or room dedicated to that. But I wouldn't tag it as a leisure=sports_centre on its own. It is only part of the surrounding sports_centre. That's fine for a stuation like that, but do want to join a rowing club when you just moved to a city and a looking for a fitness centre to work out? Because that's my issue when having leisure=sports_centre + sport=rowing as tag for your usual commercial gym. __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - leisure=fitness_centre
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de wrote: That's fine for a stuation like that, but do want to join a rowing club when you just moved to a city and a looking for a fitness centre to work out? Because that's my issue when having leisure=sports_centre + sport=rowing as tag for your usual commercial gym. +1 -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] oneway=no spams
On 28/12/2014 16:01, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: I think that those editors should only make undefined, yes and -1 selectable, or omit the no values on upload at last, except for motorways, motorway_links and roundabouts. I don't believe that there's yet an automatic interface between mailing list and code, so you'd probably want to discuss that over at https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues :-) However, explaining politely to the new mappers concerned what's going on (and it is mostly new mappers) is probably more productive - a oneway=no gives you something to talk about, and they'll probably have some questions for you, too. Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] oneway=no spams
I notice a quicky increasing number of oneway=no tags on roads, probably due to editors offering some flashy list box for the oneway key. I wonder what's next. bridge=no, tunnel=no...? I find these information-less tags annoying, because you have to browse a long list of bogus tags on each object to finally spot the one or two tags that actually matter. It depends. Sometimes it is useful to add this tag. I typically add it to bidirectional cycle paths along roads as you would normally expect such cycleways to be oneway. Adding a oneway=no indicates that it has been surveyed and found to be bidirectional and will further prevent eager mappers adding the missing oneway=yes tag to this cycleway. But I agree that it is silly to add it to all highways in general. I occasionally see highways having long lists of obvious *=yes access tags (and some silly *=no as well such as boat=no on a highway=trunk!). I think that those editors should only make undefined, yes and -1 selectable, or omit the no values on upload at last, except for motorways, motorway_links and roundabouts. A roundabout with oneway=no is not a roundabout, just a circular road. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] oneway=no spams
you'd probably want to discuss that over at https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues; I thought that https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/2220 will fix this problem. 2014-12-28 17:27 GMT+01:00 SomeoneElse li...@atownsend.org.uk: On 28/12/2014 16:01, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: I think that those editors should only make undefined, yes and -1 selectable, or omit the no values on upload at last, except for motorways, motorway_links and roundabouts. I don't believe that there's yet an automatic interface between mailing list and code, so you'd probably want to discuss that over at https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues :-) However, explaining politely to the new mappers concerned what's going on (and it is mostly new mappers) is probably more productive - a oneway=no gives you something to talk about, and they'll probably have some questions for you, too. 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - leisure=fitness_centre
Because that's my issue when having leisure=sports_centre + sport=rowing as tag for your usual commercial gym. Oops. I mean sport=fitness (So a rowing club would be fine with leisure=sports_centre + sport=rowing,fitness) __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Crowded links between carriageway and cycletrack
Hi mapping and cycling friends, I have suggested an overall parameter for separately drawn cycletracks, to record crowded links between roadside cycletrack and carriageway: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Traverse_link Yours' Ulrich ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Crowded crossings of a cycletrack and particular accessways
Hi mapping and cycling friends, I have suggested an overall parameter for separately drawn cycletracks to record the (average) layout of crowded crossings of a cycletrack and particular accessways. As these crossings at the same time serve as links between cycletrack and carriageway, the combination of the parameter traverse link (just suggested) and with this qualitative parameter on particular crossings provides a useful information on the comfortable or uncomfortable layout of a cyletrack. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Particular_crossings Yours' Ulrich ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Shared foot- and cycletracks
Hi mapping and cycling friends, I have suggested a special highway-class for the slim tagging of this very common kind of cycling facilities that up to now affords a combination of four tags. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/foot_cycleway Yours' Ulrich ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] oneway=no spams
On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 17:01:16 +0100 Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote: I notice a quicky increasing number of oneway=no tags on roads, probably due to editors offering some flashy list box for the oneway key. Or perhaps due to diligent mappers? I wonder what's next. bridge=no, tunnel=no...? If the cap fits, why not? I find these information-less tags annoying, because you have to browse a long list of bogus tags on each object to finally spot the one or two tags that actually matter. These tags are far from information-less as they convey the fact that a mapper has considered the property in question and wishes to record that it does not apply. I also dislike this idea of tags that actually matter. Just because you might not be interested in a particular tag (or value) does not mean that it is worthless to everybody. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Crowded links between carriageway and cycletrack
It is better to map all existing connections between road and cycleway rather than add this tag (too complicated, anyway it will be not supported by routers). 2014-12-28 18:29 GMT+01:00 Ulrich Lamm ulamm.b...@t-online.de: Hi mapping and cycling friends, I have suggested an overall parameter for separately drawn cycletracks, to record crowded links between roadside cycletrack and carriageway: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Traverse_link Yours' Ulrich ___ 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] Shared foot- and cycletracks
Please, stop proposing tags conflicting with widely used ones. Also, your example with Poland is incorrect (pedestrians have priority over cyclists). 2014-12-28 18:35 GMT+01:00 Ulrich Lamm ulamm.b...@t-online.de: Hi mapping and cycling friends, I have suggested a special highway-class for the slim tagging of this very common kind of cycling facilities that up to now affords a combination of four tags. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/foot_cycleway Yours' Ulrich ___ 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - leisure=fitness_centre
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de wrote: Because that's my issue when having leisure=sports_centre + sport=rowing as tag for your usual commercial gym. Oops. I mean sport=fitness (So a rowing club would be fine with leisure=sports_centre + sport=rowing,fitness) Are you suggesting that a typical fitness centre would be tagged as leisure=fitness_centre. But if it is located in a sports_centre, it would have a different tag? Wouldn't that approach lead to some confusion? Why not just tag any fitness facility within a sports_centre as leisure=fitness_centre. Water fountains, benches, parking, etc. aren't tagged any different just because they are located inside a sports centre. I like the original proposal leisure=fitness_centre. It would work no matter where it is located. Clifford -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] oneway=no spams
Am 28.12.2014 um 19:20 schrieb Andy Street:. These tags are far from information-less as they convey the fact that a mapper has considered the property in question and wishes to record that it does not apply. I'm afraid that you are kidding yourself in a big way. Nearly all massive, I will tag everything that applies tagging extravaganzas are due to misuse of the JOSM access preset, and have nothing at all to do with the mappers in question having the slightest idea of what they are actually doing (not to mention that the net results tend to actually be wrong). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Cleanup flood tagging
Hello. In OSM there seems to be concurrent 2 tagging systems for flood tagging. And each of them seems to be incomplete. Just to remember: There are several types of flood. I think the most common types are: – case 1: caused by heavy rainfall: “on flat or low-lying areas when the ground is saturated and water either cannot run off or cannot run off quickly enough to stop accumulating” (from Wikipedia article “flood”). Typically various times during one year – and quite common in some African countries during the rain season. – case 2: caused by overflow of water of a riverbed: not directly related to rainfall at this spot (rainfall can be hundrids of kilometers upstream, causing a river overflow hundrids of kilometers downstream). Typically maybe one per year or maybe each two or three years… In OSM we have flood_prone. The wiki descript fits most with “case 1”: “ this is mostly applicable to roads that go under water after heavy rains”; so combining it with highway=* on OSM ways (alternatively on nodes within a highway) would be the typical use case. We have currently 204 nodes and 10 582 ways. In OSM we have also hazard_type=flood. The wiki description fits mostly (but not exclusivly) with “case 2”. Tagging areas as independent OSM elements seems to be the typical use case (no combining with other objects). We have currently 1 node and 56 ways. hazard_type=flood comes from OpenHazardMap – but OpenHazardMap wiki page hasn’t been updated since one year. OpenHazardMap seems to focus on landslide (hazard_type=landslide has 3 169 comparing with only 57 elements for hazard_type=flood). Questions: – Shouldn’t we deprecate one of these tagging? If so, which one? – Shouldn’t we introduce a possiblility to distinguish river overflowing floods and directly rainfall related floods? – Only supplementary tagging of highway=*? Or independent OSM elements (areas)? Or both? Probably both makes sense. Suggestions? Lukas Sommer ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleanup flood tagging
PS: About 57% of the key “flood_prone” is “flood_prone=yes”. About 42% of the key “flood_prone” is “flood_prone=no”. About 80% of the elements with the flood_prone key are in 15 km × 15 km area in Jakarta. Lukas Sommer 2014-12-28 20:32 GMT+01:00 Lukas Sommer sommer...@gmail.com: Hello. In OSM there seems to be concurrent 2 tagging systems for flood tagging. And each of them seems to be incomplete. Just to remember: There are several types of flood. I think the most common types are: – case 1: caused by heavy rainfall: “on flat or low-lying areas when the ground is saturated and water either cannot run off or cannot run off quickly enough to stop accumulating” (from Wikipedia article “flood”). Typically various times during one year – and quite common in some African countries during the rain season. – case 2: caused by overflow of water of a riverbed: not directly related to rainfall at this spot (rainfall can be hundrids of kilometers upstream, causing a river overflow hundrids of kilometers downstream). Typically maybe one per year or maybe each two or three years… In OSM we have flood_prone. The wiki descript fits most with “case 1”: “ this is mostly applicable to roads that go under water after heavy rains”; so combining it with highway=* on OSM ways (alternatively on nodes within a highway) would be the typical use case. We have currently 204 nodes and 10 582 ways. In OSM we have also hazard_type=flood. The wiki description fits mostly (but not exclusivly) with “case 2”. Tagging areas as independent OSM elements seems to be the typical use case (no combining with other objects). We have currently 1 node and 56 ways. hazard_type=flood comes from OpenHazardMap – but OpenHazardMap wiki page hasn’t been updated since one year. OpenHazardMap seems to focus on landslide (hazard_type=landslide has 3 169 comparing with only 57 elements for hazard_type=flood). Questions: – Shouldn’t we deprecate one of these tagging? If so, which one? – Shouldn’t we introduce a possiblility to distinguish river overflowing floods and directly rainfall related floods? – Only supplementary tagging of highway=*? Or independent OSM elements (areas)? Or both? Probably both makes sense. Suggestions? Lukas Sommer ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 63, Issue 83
Am 28.12.2014 um 20:42 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org: Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 19:22:47 +0100 From: Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Crowded links between carriageway and cycletrack Message-ID: caldvra6wqnl2epddung9dbqev2oxvh21pmzro6fcrgeiipq...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 It is better to map all existing connections between road and cycleway rather than add this tag In areas with houses dwelt by one or two families, often there is such a traverse link every fifteen meters (too complicated, anyway it will be not supported by routers). If this tag tells the router, please consider the adjacent carraigeway,too, why do you think, routers won't understand that. Routers also find a house next to the roadline. 2014-12-28 18:29 GMT+01:00 Ulrich Lamm ulamm.b...@t-online.de: Hi mapping and cycling friends, I have suggested an overall parameter for separately drawn cycletracks, to record crowded links between roadside cycletrack and carriageway: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Traverse_link ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 63, Issue 83
Am 28.12.2014 um 20:42 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org: From: Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Shared foot- and cycletracks Message-ID: caldvra7thqnf07yier7um5g7oc3wwwxtdkf-bdkn67gcd8t...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Please, stop proposing tags conflicting with widely used ones. Since 2008/2008, there is a coexistence of highway=footway with highway=path + foot=designated and of highway=cycleway with highway=path + bicycle=designated. Why not also a coexistence of highway=foot_cycleway with highway=path + foot=designated + bicycle=designated. I think, we have to map many features, but the simpler the lists of tags we produce that way, the better and the easier is our mapping. Also, your example with Poland is incorrect (pedestrians have priority over cyclists). The regulation I know from Germany is that the cyclists mustn't urge the pedestrians, but the pedestrians have to let the cyclists pass. It is the same regulation as between cars and cyclists on a shared lane in USA or Canada (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_lane_marking and the linked sources: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part9/part9c.htm (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 Edition Chapter 9C. Markings)→ scroll to Section 9C.07 Shared Lane Marking http://www.thunderbay.ca/Assets/Living/Active+Transportation/docs/Bike+Lanes+Shared+Lanes+Pamphlet.pdf Except of the right of the pedestrians to use the whole track and to go two by two or three by three, that is even same relation like between cars and cyclists on normal streets. If the regulation in Poland is different, please tell me. (P.S. You might also explain matter with the two different layouts of Polish sign C-13-16) 2014-12-28 18:35 GMT+01:00 Ulrich Lamm ulamm.b...@t-online.de: Hi mapping and cycling friends, I have suggested a special highway-class for the slim tagging of this very common kind of cycling facilities that up to now affords a combination of four tags. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/foot_cycleway ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - leisure=fitness_centre
Water fountains, benches, parking, etc. aren't tagged any different just because they are located inside a sports centre. But are people searching for that the same way? If I look for stuff like that I'm probably somewhere outside and just look what's near me. Then I probaby realize pretty fast if it is public or private. Would you tag a sauna inside a sports/fitness centre with shop=sauna or rather sauna=yes? On the other hand if I look for a fitness centre I'm probably at home I want to find one to work out and see what's available in the city, how close it is, can I reach it with public transport, is there parking, look up the website for pricing etc. And having all kind of private gyms would not give a good overview. I like the original proposal leisure=fitness_centre. It would work no matter where it is located. It certainly could, but then I would say we also need some kind of subtag to indicate if you just sign up for a gym membership or if you have to join some kind of larger sports club. Then do you tag this as individual node in a sports centre? fitness_centre:access=membership, fitness_centre:access=club? private? Or have something like fitness_centre=yes? (Not sure as we already have sport=*) Honestly didn't think that much about this, because I just wanted a tag in the first place ;D __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - leisure=fitness_centre
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de wrote: ess_centre:access=membership, fitness_centre:access=club? private? Or have something like fitness_centre=yes? (Not sure as we already have sport=*) Honestly didn't think that much about this, because I just wanted a tag in the first place ;D I agree a documented fitness tag is needed. Looking at the sport tag, it is normally associated with the leisure tag. Sport isn't a physical tag, where a baseball field is. I think the same applies to fitness centers. You can survey a fitness center. Not a sport. As a kid, I played baseball in a vacant lot. The only other tag that would work is amenity=fitness_centre. Taginfo would indicate that amenity is the most used. Taginfo results leisure=fitness_centre (and other spelling variations) = 452 (leisure=fitness_centre is used 440 times.) amenity=fitness_centre (and other spelling variations) = 687 (amenity=fitness_center is used 507 times.) My sense is most fitness centres are not associated with sports centres. To keep it simple, lets tag fitness centres as either leisure or amenity. I'd be happy to change the ones I've tagged to whatever the consensus is. Early on I created a proposal at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Fitness_Center. It didn't seem to gain any traction and it was before I understood that British English spelling was prefered. You are welcome to use any of the proposal. Clifford -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - leisure=fitness_centre
Yes, `amenity` please. A gym is something people want to know about when traveling, just as much as other tourist stuff, food, lodging, etc. On Dec 28, 2014, at 10:25 PM, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote: The only other tag that would work is amenity=fitness_centre. Taginfo would indicate that amenity is the most used. Taginfo results leisure=fitness_centre (and other spelling variations) = 452 (leisure=fitness_centre is used 440 times.) amenity=fitness_centre (and other spelling variations) = 687 (amenity=fitness_center is used 507 times.) My sense is most fitness centres are not associated with sports centres. To keep it simple, lets tag fitness centres as either leisure or amenity. I'd be happy to change the ones I've tagged to whatever the consensus is. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - amenity=public_bookcase
Hello, Following the comments held on this list and on the discussion page on amenity=public_bookcase, I updated the amenity=public_bookcase wiki page, and documented how the Little Free Library project can be mapped. I would now like to propose voting on this proposal. Here is the wiki link: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/public_bookcase#Voting http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/public_bookcase#Voting Following proper protocol, voting will be opened until January 12. Thanks, Guillaume___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
