[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Temperature=
Hi, Well it has been 3 weeks for the comments .. a few changes/modifications, thanks for those. Time now to vote... Review the whole page - from the top https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Temperature Or go straight to voting https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Temperature#Voting = amenity=reception_desk voting in 2 days time waste_collection voting in 8 days time ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:58 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I'd expect the width to be the width of the bollard and maxwidth the (in theory legal) width of the vehicle that can pass through (e.g. number taken by reading off a sign) and you might want to add maxwidth:physical=1.22m (the actual maximum width of a vehicle or person that can pass through). Oregon's got some badly designed cycleways, since in theory anything human powered up to 3 feet wide can legally traverse unless otherwise signed, but there are bollards and bike barriers that are closer spaced than this and present a real hazard (particularly underwidth bicycle barriers, since these tend to have other spacing problems that make larger standard bicycles and some increasingly common varieties (particularly larger ones like goods bikes http://dguides.com/portland/events/upcoming-events/the-school-lunch-shakedown-tour-wheels-around-portland-free-salads-september-24-25-2011/, bikes with extended wheelbases http://bakfiets.nl/eng/, or pretty much anything pulling trailers http://www.utilitycycling.org/2011/01/carrying-your-stuff-bicycle-cargo-trailers/, that are otherwise perfectly legal, difficult to completely impossible to navigate). In other words: A potential tag combination might be maxwidth=3', maxwidth:physical=2'3... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:15 AM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for all comments. I would like to throw another issue in before I update the proposal with the recommendations all of you made. What to do with places where one *cannot* camp? I have run in many situations where it would be really useful to have those on the map. I am thinking of the following situations: - A camping used to exist at the place but stopped business; No longer a camp site, find some other tag. - A hotel owner offered camping on his premises, but stopped doing so; Not a camp site. - Police has chased away people who tried to wild camp at the location; Obviously not a campsite. - Campers have been robbed at the location; May actually be a campsite, though if you want to call it not a campsite, this really eliminates damn near all camping within 100 miles of Eugene, Salem and Portland, plus Crater Lake National Park. - Camping is not allowed, because it is in a protected area. Also not a campsite. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Super-keys are evil
In a previous thread on this mailing list, someone proposed amenity=reception_desk. Someone else observed that the amenity key is where you put a new tag when you don't know where else to put it. I think this is a symptom of a bigger problem with tags on OSM. Right now, tags serve two distinct purposes. There are attribute tags like name=Wall Street, and there are category tags like amenity=parking or aeroway=helipad. Categories are represented as values of a few super-keys: highway, amenity, building, aerialway, aeroway, and a few others. When you create a new category, you're expected to shove it under the most appropriate super-key. This is not easy. I sympathize with contributors who propose new tags. When you want to tag the same point with multiple categories, those categories must share the same tag and be separated by a semicolon e.g. shop=convenience;alcohol. That is, unless the two categories are under two different super-keys, in which case the object will have a separate tag for each category. This is inconsistent. But nevermind the inconsistency. More importantly, this key-value tag hierarchy makes it unnecessarily difficult for contributors to remember tags. More specifically, it's difficult to remember under which super-key the category is located. Is it building=shrine or amenity=shrine? Is it barrier=city_wall or historic=city_wall? What about city_gate? Many tags don't even make sense. What does highway=track mean? Is it a highway that acts as a track? A track is clearly not a type of highway. A track is just a track. A contributor is left to feel like an idiot for not understanding the logic behind this system. For these reasons, I believe there is a case to be made for an overhaul of category tags. My personal opinion is that we should get rid of super-keys altogether and instead promote all categories to keys with empty values: amenity=reception_desk becomes reception_desk=, highway=track becomes track=, aerialway=gondola becomes gondola=, barrier=city_wall becomes city_wall=, historic=city_gate becomes city_gate=, sport=volleyball becomes volleyball=, etc. Attribute tags would remain as they are now. This solution would make all the problems I mentioned above go away. Also, it would be pretty easy for current contributors to learn the new tags since we're essentially just removing super-keys, not adding anything. Now, I don't actually think such an overhaul is currently feasible given the massive burden it would put on the database system. However, it might be something to think about for the future. TRY FREE IM TOOLPACK at http://www.imtoolpack.com/default.aspx?rc=if5 Capture screenshots, upload images, edit and send them to your friends through IMs, post on Twitter®, Facebook®, MySpace™, LinkedIn® – FAST! ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Super-keys are evil
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:43 AM, Kurt Blunt k.bl...@inbox.com wrote: When you want to tag the same point with multiple categories, those categories must share the same tag and be separated by a semicolon e.g. shop=convenience;alcohol. That is, unless the two categories are under two different super-keys, in which case the object will have a separate tag for each category. This is inconsistent. We have other options than the semicolon e.g. shop=convenience + alcohol=yes. We have noticed that excepted some rare exceptions (like multi-refs or opening hours), semicolons should be avoided in OSM because data consumers don't like them. But nevermind the inconsistency. More importantly, this key-value tag hierarchy makes it unnecessarily difficult for contributors to remember tags. More specifically, it's difficult to remember under which super-key the category is located. Is it building=shrine or amenity=shrine? Is it barrier=city_wall or historic=city_wall? What about city_gate? Editors are supposed to provide some help tools like the presets where you type city wall and the editor finds the correct tag for you. Otherwise you can open the infamous wiki Map features page and use your browser search function. Many tags don't even make sense. What does highway=track mean? Is it a highway that acts as a track? A track is clearly not a type of highway. A track is just a track. A contributor is left to feel like an idiot for not understanding the logic behind this system. English is not my native language but I learned with OSM that highway has a modern meaning for main (inter-cities) roads but also an older meaning for any public road (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/highway?s=t). I hope you feel less like an idiot now... amenity=reception_desk becomes reception_desk=, highway=track becomes track=, aerialway=gondola becomes gondola=, barrier=city_wall becomes city_wall=, historic=city_gate becomes city_gate=, sport=volleyball becomes volleyball=, etc. A key with an empty value doesn't save much. And it can be worse and lead to misunderstandings. When you write track=, is it for cars or for trains ? Then you need a subkey again... I know one example following your idea: the bus=yes which can be used with public_transport or access keys but with different meanings (and no possibility to combine on the same element). In addition, you create much more work for the data consumers. The first example is the renderer who can render all buildings or all barriers in the same style, using a single rendering rule for all types of buildings or barriers which wouldn't be possible with your solution. I'm not saying the current system is perfect, we made mistakes (like the tourism category imho) but it's a compromise. And things can be changed (see highway=ford or aed) although it's not easy and really needs good and valid reasons. Now, I don't actually think such an overhaul is currently feasible given the massive burden it would put on the database system. However, it might be something to think about for the future. I think that after 10+ years of discussions, you are not the first who came with this idea. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
*Camping categories* From this discussion I propose to maintain three categories, but name them as listed below. I give examples from own experience from our overland trip from the Netherlands to South Africa in an attempt to answer the question why we would want them on the map: - Designated: everything that has been designated to accommodate campers: (a) commercial campsites, with hot showers, swimming pool, etc., (b) locations in a town where you are allowed to put your camper. You don't pay but have few or no amenities. France has many of such places, (c) the camping in a N.P. It is the only place in the park where you can camp, you don't pay on top of the park entrance fee, there are no amenities. We had one like this in Akagera N.P. in Rwanda, (d)... see more examples from the previous mail. Additional tags (fee=*) and nodes (amenity=shower, ...) tell more about the services level of the camping; - Opportunistic (?): camping facilities that are opportunistic (from the point of view of the provider): hotels/hostels etc. that allow campers to park at their premises and offer access to their amenities (key of a hotel room to take a shower, access to shared ablutions, etc.). You find this a lot in countries without and established camping culture. In a city like Axum in Ethiopia you may find 15 hotels of which 3 provide this service - Informal: to be used in areas where you are allowed to camp anywhere except...like in Sweden) or where no rules exist (like in many countries in African and the Middle East (except the rules invented on the spot by local policemen :-))), but where a place is much more appropriate to camp than other places in the environment. Some examples: (1) we had a hard time finding a good spot in Dubai with its high building density. Few people in Dubai will object if you just put your camper on the parking lot of a shopping mall, but it is not really nice. We eventually found a spot near the kite club at a tiny stretch of public beach with public toilets and beach showers, (2) for safety reasons it is in general not recommended to camp wild in Tanzania. In one area of the country, far away from any designated campsite, we found a mission station that offered us shelter, but no amenities, (3) in Tabriz in Iran is one location almost all overlanders go to: a guarded parking near one of the city parks with public toilets nearby, (4) in the Kaluts desert in Iran is one stretch of road of some 5 km with breathtaking countryside. It does not really matter where you camp within the 5 km stretch, but it should be within that area. *No camping areas* By its nature OSM is not complete, certainly in developing countries: if a camping opportunity in Kenya is not on OSM I do not automatically assume there is no camping. Therefore if a camping is discontinued (we had for example one camping in Meknes, Morocco that was closed by the municipality and a hotel in Ethiopia that had offered camper facilities, but stopped doing so - the hotel itself continued business) it should not just be removed from OSM, because if I find the camping in other, older sources I just assume that nobody has mapped it in OSM. So I would like to have it on the map with some marking that it no longer operational. In countries like the Netherlands where you are not allowed to camp anywhere except in designated areas a no camping warning is not needed. In countries that allow for camping anywhere except... there is a tri state: positive exceptions like described above neutral place (anywhere is ok, nothing is special) and negative exceptions (police chases you away like we had in one place in Iran, history of robbery of earlier campers, protected area, etc.). As a traveler I want to be warned. I don't think the main tag should be tourism=camp_site, with subtagging explaining why the place should *not *be used: general renderers like OsmAnd will still show the spot with a regular camping symbol, sending exactly the opposite message of what you want. You can find out from the small print of the details of a node, but you lose it in the overview. Perhaps we should introduce a tag tourism=no_camp_site. Regards, Jan On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 11:47:47 AM Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:59 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-02-24 5:23 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org: they're just there because enough people have camped in the same spot. +0,9 actually people (if not completely ignorant) tend to camp in spots that are suitable to do so. Those will not be the only possibility, naturally, but they will typically provide good conditions (view, even terrain, enough space, protected from wind and weather, sunny / shady, accessible, ...), so even if those spots are not designated for camping but only put into existence by usage, knowing their location might
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
Perhaps there should also be a way to tag unofficial campsites where there is evidence someone has camped in the past, but the action is now risky? For example, the site is downhill from a slope where the ground is starting to split open, meaning that there is a high risk of a landslide in the near future. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. On February 24, 2015 4:46:52 AM Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:59 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-02-24 5:23 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org: they're just there because enough people have camped in the same spot. +0,9 actually people (if not completely ignorant) tend to camp in spots that are suitable to do so. Those will not be the only possibility, naturally, but they will typically provide good conditions (view, even terrain, enough space, protected from wind and weather, sunny / shady, accessible, ...), so even if those spots are not designated for camping but only put into existence by usage, knowing their location might still be useful. Especially since low-impact campers will usually try to pick a spot that has already been impacted in an effort to reduce increasing a manmade impact footprint (assuming we're not talking Tre Arrow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tre_Arrow types), knowing where these are in advance can be handy. Such a spot can be found at the hook end of NFD 4420 in the MHNF near http://osm.org/go/WILBqCsE--?m= (which, coincidentally, someone should check to see who is deleting vast shitloads of tracks in that forest, since I know there was far, far, far more NFD routes in there than appear on OSM now, and I know NFD 44 is littered with all kinds of four-digit branches, largely ungated and open. I suspect some vandalism or a potentially accidental deletion may have been in play. BTW, I based on local knowledge, I recommend* not* attempting to ground survey this until June or July as Dufur Valley Road (NFD 44) is not plowed by the Forest Service at all, full length. The Boy Scouts of America do plow from Heimrich Street in Dufur, Oregon to NFD 4460 (Camp Baldwin's driveway) for the livability of their camp ranger, who is there year-round. The ~11 mile segment west of 4460 to OR 35 is impassable until the thaw, often well into June assuming the BSA doesn't plow open the west end to avoid a lengthy detour for summer camp troops around on I 84 to loop back to Dufur and come up from the other side in years with a long winter. (Can you tell I've spent way too long on 44?) We could be using the informal modifier for places like this, which I use on paths as well. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:informal Just informal=yes together with tourism=camp_site doesn't sound right though, I'd probably use something different as main tag to stronger distinguish these features, e.g. leisure=camp_spot or tourism=camp_spot to make clear it is a smaller place. When there is a recognizable and reasonably secure spot to light a fire you could add additional feature like http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dfirepit I think a freestanding campsite using the established tag (but not within a campground or caravan site) should suffice. -- ___ 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] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
On 24 February 2015 at 08:55, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: On Tue, 2015-02-24 at 06:15 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote: What to do with places where one cannot camp? But your examples mostly focus on what were once campsites and are now not. So is it camp_site=closed (or disused or similar) ? I guess the renderers would need to trap that particular camp_site= and it has the potential to confuse. To avoid the trap for the data users/renderers, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix would advocate: disused:camp_site=* ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Super-keys are evil
The editing tools have a role here, with iD leading the way. With iD one writes the thing, for example a bathroom. The editor matches this to available tags and lets you choose. It even hides the actual tag name (amenity=toilet most likely in this case). Thus with a good set of aliases, the actual tag name becomes unimportant to remember. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Super-keys are evil
I think the top level keys have tremendous value. For example the current scheme allows rendering of generic tourist attractions and shops, even if the individual shop types are unknown (e.g. the singular dog collar shop in OSM and probably the world). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Super-keys are evil
Hi, On 02/23/2015 02:43 AM, Kurt Blunt wrote: Right now, tags serve two distinct purposes. There are attribute tags like name=Wall Street, and there are category tags like amenity=parking or aeroway=helipad. This works for many things but not all; the border can be blurred. You will not be able to fit every key into your category or attribute schema. Many tags don't even make sense. What does highway=track mean? Is it a highway that acts as a track? A track is clearly not a type of highway. A track is just a track. And if you travel along a dark track in the night then you might be robbed by a highwayman. A contributor is left to feel like an idiot for not understanding the logic behind this system. Woe betide all who mistake highway=unclasssified for a street that lacks classification. For these reasons, I believe there is a case to be made for an overhaul of category tags. My personal opinion is that we should get rid of super-keys altogether and instead promote all categories to keys with empty values: amenity=reception_desk becomes reception_desk=, highway=track becomes track=, aerialway=gondola becomes gondola=, barrier=city_wall becomes city_wall=, historic=city_gate becomes city_gate=, sport=volleyball becomes volleyball=, etc. And power=line becomes line= and barrier=line becomes, uh, wait a minute. It is not so simple, even leaving aside the fact that many programs would simply dismiss your empty values. Now, I don't actually think such an overhaul is currently feasible given the massive burden it would put on the database system. However, it might be something to think about for the future. I think that in theory what you call super keys is a good thing to have because it gives you a layered level of understanding. For example, if someone tags natural=water water=lake lake=turlough then you have a chance to understand this is a natural feature (and not man-made) even if you don't know what a lake is; you can understand this is a lake (and not a reservoir) even if you don't know what a turlough is; or you're so much into water bodies that you can actually understand the full message. If the tag was instead the space-saving turlough= then you'd be stumped without recourse to the giant tag dictionary that explains to your renderer that something tagged turlough= should perhaps be drawn in a blue-ish colour. Matter in a nutshell: Certainly the way we use these super tags has a lot of historical baggage but I don't think it is a stupid idea per se, *especially* if your goal is (like you're claiming yours to be) making tags easy for mappers. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: Areas, e.g. National Parks, often have a blanket camping policy. For example camp only in designated sites. Or camp anywhere 200 feet from water. That too could use a tagging. Restriction multipolygons? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Super-keys are evil
On Feb 25, 2015, at 3:55 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: The editing tools have a role here, with iD leading the way. With iD one writes the thing, for example a bathroom. The editor matches this to available tags and lets you choose. It even hides the actual tag name (amenity=toilet most likely in this case). Thus with a good set of aliases, the actual tag name becomes unimportant to remember. This is really true - sidewalk is an alias (?) to footpath, and crosswalk is an alias to footpath + crossing=zebra It's really convenient, and I don't have to remember to even hit a radio button or a choice from a drop down menu to select what kind of crossing it is. As long as the terms are not ambiguous, it is a great abstraction of the tags. Javbw ___ 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] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
On 24/02/2015 4:41 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: A strongly related discussion: tagging the difference between an official trail, and shortcut / use trail / squatter trail. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Link to this discussion? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
