Re: [Tagging] Proposed: landuse=civic_admin - looking for comments.

[John Willis]

themselves(?)). My original point was, that I didn't find it very clear that on 
one side the definition is: 
> 
> ___
> "This proposal aims to introduce a new value for landuse=* for Civic / 
> Governmental / public institutional building administration complexes, for 
> correctly tagging areas used by the buildings of local, regional, national, 
> and supranational administration buildings and capitals. This includes 
> executive, legislative, ministerial, and mixed-use "public/government/civil" 
> buildings that administrate citizens or services.
> If it is used for administrating/legislating the civilian population or its 
> programs, a the seat of civil or national power, or a common place for the 
> civilian population to interact with government-public-civil agents, then 
> civic_admin is the landuse for the complex."
> 
> ___
> 
> This (quite long) text seems to imply you could use civic_admin for all 
> offices and other places part of the executive and legislative power, on all 
> levels (from local to supranational). 
> 
> 
> 
> Then under the headline "What to Include?" there is this sentence: 
> 
> ___
> 
> "This is for complexes who's primary purpose is the citizens interaction with 
> government agents and other civil service workers".
> 
> ___
> 
> I find this problematic for the reason that "primary purpose" requires some 
> interpretation and might lead to inconsistencies, and because this seems to 
> restrict very much (eventually too much) the scope of the key.
> 
> I'm also not sure about the exclusion of police offices: "it is also not 
> intended to map civic safety services - such as fire stations, police 
> offices, lifeguard, search and rescue or other safety services."
> 
> We should have some easy rules, with no or few exceptions, and hopefully 
> expressable / definable in 1, 2 or max. 3 sentences. There can be more text 
> of course, with examples and explanations (not for stating exceptions), but 
> the general definition should ideally be one sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Yea, at a national level there is a big legal and physical separation 
>> between legislative and executive bodies (White House / Capitol building) - 
>> they both have different roles, but together they make the sausage.
> 
> 
> actually the judicial power (supreme court etc.) also is needed to complete 
> the sausage. The proposal unifies executive and legislative, but excludes the 
> judicial part, maybe consciously, but I couldn't find a reasoning.
>  
> 
>> at the supranational landuse level, there is only legislative (UN, NATO, EU, 
>>  etc) as I understand it. 
> 
> 
> well there is for instance the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the 
> Hague, supported by many nations (Europe 41, Asia 11, America 28, Africa 34, 
> Oceania 8) and more than 1500 NGOs, but opposed by the USA, China, Iran, 
> Iraq, North Corea, Israel, Cuba, Russia, Pakistan, India, Syria, Saudi 
> Arabia, Sudan and Turkey.  ;-)
> 
>  
> 
>> Government is executive, legislative, and judicial together - the military, 
>> police and penal all spring from those (usually in between 2 of them)  but 
>> the line that landuse is often drawn by is what your role is in relation to 
>> rules and laws and power, not the legal standing for said power.
> 
> 
> to make it short, I see it like this: government is administration, police 
> and military (executive), legislation and judicial are not government 
> typically, under the strict separation of powers.
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> - executive and legislative make the laws together
> 
> 
> the legislation makes the law, the judicial interpretes it, the executive is 
> ruled by the law, at least that's the theory.
> 
> 
> 
>> Thanks again for the thoughtful responses and comments. 
> 
> 
> Thank you for replying so patiently ;-)
> 
> 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] Draft Proposed Relationship Area Steps

[Warin]

On 6/03/2015 11:50 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:

Maybe add position=top position=bottom
the direction of the way is fragile.



The incline=up/down is used for that reason on a step way ...

For
Portugal, Lisbon, Queluz_National_Palace - inconsistent width 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4648262


this method would have a minimum of

 3 step ways ..
and one area ..

without a method of indicating a slope on the top and/or bottom ... more 
ways?


-
The proposed method uses
4 ways - one top, one bottom and 2 laterals.

That should indicate;
 routable
number of steps
slopes (inclines) at top and/or bottom
handrails
etc.. I cannot see anything it misses.

Yet to add that info to the example .. and would need to survey the 
Sydney Opera House steps to get the data.



I've updated the draft with the above.. oh and made clear that the 5 
metre minimum is a guide.. not a rule!


-
Doing the Spanish steps .. Portland steps .. ? meh .. If I have time and 
board?


- side topic
Landings I would do as a simple pedestrian area .. small .. but do able.




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - register

[Dudley Ibbett]

The Dartmoor Letter Box dates back 50 years.   It was setup as a letter box.  
i.e. you would leave a card or letter and the next person to visit would take 
the latter and the put it in an "proper" letter box.  My experience dates backs 
35 years.  If they are still used in this way then perhaps they should be 
tagged as amenity=post_box, operator="next person to visit!"



From: bry...@obviously.com
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 11:00:13 -0800
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org; b...@volki.at
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - register

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

 May be related to the United States Department of Agriculture's National 
Forest Service use permits.  Typically a small wooden box with some pencils and 
waterproof application cards inside, on which you are either strongly 
encouraged or legally obligated to spell out where you're going, who's with 
you...

There are various types in the USA:

A "trail register" is at the trail head (start of a trail) or a wilderness 
entrance.  It's used to track visitor counts for statistics purposes, and for 
gaining hints about lost people after they are reported lost.  It's left by an 
official agency (official=yes).

A "log book" or "peak register" is a social creation, unrelated to the above.  
These are placed at peaks, in caves, or or at nice destinations.  Visitors are 
encouraged to flip through past responses and leave their own.  People revisit 
old sites, perhaps with kids, and show off their entries.  These are typically 
kept in an old jar and hidden under a rock (official=no).
Some of the hardest to get to peaks in California have registers from 50 or 
more years back, which are still readable.  In some cases the registers, 
especially those signed by famous people like John Muir, have been archived 
elsewhere.  These are a social creation, not an official register.  In the USA 
the official land managers rarely if ever place a true log book, though they 
occasionally read them.

A "letterbox" and "geocache" are related extensions of the idea, developed 
later.  There are well developed sites outside of OSM for locating geocaches, 
in particular.  They are not the same as as "peak register", and appeal to 
different use cases. 


___
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 - register

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

>
> May be related to the United States Department of Agriculture's National
> Forest Service use permits.  Typically a small wooden box with some pencils
> and waterproof application cards inside, on which you are either strongly
> encouraged or legally obligated to spell out where you're going, who's with
> you...
>

There are various types in the USA:

A* "trail register" *is at the trail head (start of a trail) or a
wilderness entrance.  It's used to track visitor counts for statistics
purposes, and for gaining hints about lost people after they are reported
lost.  It's left by an official agency (*official=yes*).

A* "log book"* or *"peak register"* is a social creation, unrelated to the
above.  These are placed at peaks, in caves, or or at nice destinations.
Visitors are encouraged to flip through past responses and leave their
own.  People revisit old sites, perhaps with kids, and show off their
entries.  These are typically kept in an old jar and hidden under a rock (
*official=no*).
Some of the hardest to get to peaks in California have registers from 50 or
more years back, which are still readable.  In some cases the registers,
especially those signed by famous people like John Muir, have been archived
elsewhere.  These are a social creation, not an official register.  In the
USA the official land managers rarely if ever place a true log book, though
they occasionally read them.

A* "letterbox*" and *"geocache"* are related extensions of the idea,
developed later.  There are well developed sites outside of OSM for
locating geocaches, in particular.  They are not the same as as "peak
register", and appeal to different use cases.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - register

[Jan van Bekkum]

When you enter a National Park in a country in Africa you usually have to
register with the gatekeeper (not the same as the ticket counter)

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:47 PM Friedrich Volkmann  wrote:

> On 06.03.2015 12:09, Paul Johnson wrote:
> >  May be related to the United States Department of Agriculture's National
> > Forest Service use permits.  Typically a small wooden box with some
> pencils
> > and waterproof application cards inside, on which you are either strongly
> > encouraged or legally obligated to spell out where you're going, who's
> with
> > you, when you're expected back, what trailhead you parked at and what
> your
> > vehicle's registration plate (or serial number in case of vehicles that
> > don't require a plate).  Usually no charge (and often there's a warning
> > encouraging people not to donate cash in the box).  Rangers typically
> check
> > these weekly or so, as well as before bad weather, empty out the filled
> out
> > cards and resupply them so they know who didn't come back, who needs
> rescue,
> > and where they need to hike to in order to warn people to get off the
> mountain.
>
> You may add that to the proposal page if you like.
>
> I heard of one or two fia ferrata where climbers are required to add to the
> log, but most registers in central europe are optional to use.
>
> We can tag which registers are optional or obligatory, but I don't know if
> that information is of any practical use.
>
> It's similar to obligatory cycleways. I think that the information should
> not be set on the cylceways or the register, respectively, because the use
> is obligatory only for users of a corresponding feature. Concerning
> registers, that corresponding feature is a highway=path, a route relation,
> a
> building, a cave, or similar. In your example, it's certainly a forest.
>
> So we could add some register=yes/no/obligatory (or compulsory?) tag to the
> path/route/forest/etc.
>
> --
> 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 mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - register

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 06.03.2015 12:09, Paul Johnson wrote:
>  May be related to the United States Department of Agriculture's National
> Forest Service use permits.  Typically a small wooden box with some pencils
> and waterproof application cards inside, on which you are either strongly
> encouraged or legally obligated to spell out where you're going, who's with
> you, when you're expected back, what trailhead you parked at and what your
> vehicle's registration plate (or serial number in case of vehicles that
> don't require a plate).  Usually no charge (and often there's a warning
> encouraging people not to donate cash in the box).  Rangers typically check
> these weekly or so, as well as before bad weather, empty out the filled out
> cards and resupply them so they know who didn't come back, who needs rescue,
> and where they need to hike to in order to warn people to get off the 
> mountain.

You may add that to the proposal page if you like.

I heard of one or two fia ferrata where climbers are required to add to the
log, but most registers in central europe are optional to use.

We can tag which registers are optional or obligatory, but I don't know if
that information is of any practical use.

It's similar to obligatory cycleways. I think that the information should
not be set on the cylceways or the register, respectively, because the use
is obligatory only for users of a corresponding feature. Concerning
registers, that corresponding feature is a highway=path, a route relation, a
building, a cave, or similar. In your example, it's certainly a forest.

So we could add some register=yes/no/obligatory (or compulsory?) tag to the
path/route/forest/etc.

-- 
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 - register

[SomeoneElse]

On 06/03/2015 11:48, ael wrote:

I don't know if any of the Dartmoor boxes are marked in OSM. A very
Addition: I just found one of them:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/node/1129854737
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/50.65508/-3.97769&layers=D

ael




I suspect that a better tag than "place=locality" could certainly be 
found :)



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - register

[ael]

On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 11:40:23AM +, ael wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 11:08:44AM +0100, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/register
> > 
> > This is for books where people enter their names, routes and comments. These
> > books are located on peaks, along trails, in buildings and in caves.
> 
> I don't know if any of the Dartmoor boxes are marked in OSM. A very

Addition: I just found one of them:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/node/1129854737
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/50.65508/-3.97769&layers=D

ael


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - courtyard

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 13.02.2015 13:21, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> I'm now in favour of man_made=courtyard, because it is man made (as opposed
> to natural) without doubt, and it is similar to man_made=cutline. Both
> cutlines and courtyards are intentionally empty spaces, and both are only
> defined by their sourroundings.
> 
> man_made=courtyard does not conflict with other tags. It can be combined
> with leisure=*, landuse=* etc., and I can't imagine any other man_made=*
> feature that is congruent with a courtyard.

I finally created a proposal:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/courtyard

-- 
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 - register

[ael]

On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 11:08:44AM +0100, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/register
> 
> This is for books where people enter their names, routes and comments. These
> books are located on peaks, along trails, in buildings and in caves.
> In German we call them Gipfelbuch, Steigbuch, Hüttenbuch, Gästebuch,
> Höhlenbuch, Pilgerbuch, Turmbuch...
> English terminology seems more ambiguous. I took the word that seems most
> common.

As far as I know, this started on Dartmoor in 1854 and is known as
letterboxing. Long before OSM and gps, I visited some of the original
boxes on Dartmoor.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letterboxing_%28hobby%29 .

I don't know if any of the Dartmoor boxes are marked in OSM. A very
quick search didn't find anything. I *think* that a very few were
marked on OS maps, and maybe still are. At least, I think that's how
I navigated to them long ago.

ael





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Draft Proposed Relationship Area Steps

[Paul Johnson]

Martin, could we get an example of what you're proposing at Pioneer
Courthouse Square ?  Portland's central transit hub
and main square seems like it would be a suitably complex use scenario that
would make all other examples simpler.

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> 2015-03-05 12:29 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić :
>
>> I'm pretty sure you don't need relations to define wide steps. All you
>> need is an area (area:highway=steps) and one or more ways that connect the
>> bottom and the top (we can decide if the direction of ways sets what is up,
>> or incline=up). Just set the step_count=* tag, and you're good to go.
>>
>
>
> -0.3, for simple cases (those currently defined by the relation) you're
> right that it could be done without a relation, but not with an area, you'd
> have to use 3 ways, one upper, one lower, one connecting. If you use an
> area, you won't know where the steps run and where they don't (save maybe
> the simplest case of an area out of just 4 nodes).
>
>
>
>>
>> In case of more complicated steps, you can add a new tag,
>> step_count:left=* and step_count:right=*, and put those ways on the
>> dividing line, where you have a different number of steps on the left and
>> on the right.
>>
>
>
> -1, this doesn't seem to work. I also can't imagine a situation where this
> would occur actually, looks like a problem in the modelling (lower / upper
> way not modelled correctly). Steps not being there is all a question where
> you see the lateral boundary. Or maybe I am getting this wrong, can you
> point to a real world example?
>
>
>
>>
>> That would be much simpler for everyone, from mappers to data consumers.
>
>
>
> -1, I doubt it would be _much_ simpler, actually you'd have to draw more
> ways and at least the same amount of tags. For data consumers it also seems
> to be more complicated.
>
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - register

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:08 AM, Friedrich Volkmann  wrote:

> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/register
>
> This is for books where people enter their names, routes and comments.
> These
> books are located on peaks, along trails, in buildings and in caves.
> In German we call them Gipfelbuch, Steigbuch, Hüttenbuch, Gästebuch,
> Höhlenbuch, Pilgerbuch, Turmbuch...
> English terminology seems more ambiguous. I took the word that seems most
> common.


 May be related to the United States Department of Agriculture's National
Forest Service use permits.  Typically a small wooden box with some pencils
and waterproof application cards inside, on which you are either strongly
encouraged or legally obligated to spell out where you're going, who's with
you, when you're expected back, what trailhead you parked at and what your
vehicle's registration plate (or serial number in case of vehicles that
don't require a plate).  Usually no charge (and often there's a warning
encouraging people not to donate cash in the box).  Rangers typically check
these weekly or so, as well as before bad weather, empty out the filled out
cards and resupply them so they know who didn't come back, who needs
rescue, and where they need to hike to in order to warn people to get off
the mountain.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed: landuse=civic_admin - looking for comments.

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-03-06 4:23 GMT+01:00 John Willis :

> On Mar 5, 2015, at 11:57 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>
> what about the pentagon or the NSA headquarters? I would likely include
> them in "civic_admin" and surely in some sort of "governmental" landuse,
> but I don't think these are places where the primary purpose is the
> citizen's interaction with government agents.
>
>
> They are not for administrating/legislating the civilian population or its
> programs, nor the seat of civil/national power, nor a common place for the
> civilian population to interact with government agents.
>
> Pentagon and NSA are both military.
>



OK, agreed, in OSM they are both military (i.e. there might be some overlap
as military is part of the executive), (unlike e.g. the German secret
service BND, which is explicitly not military and lead by the chancellor's
office), but we could look at the FBI or maybe also the CIA (although they
support the military I think they are not military themselves(?)). My
original point was, that I didn't find it very clear that on one side the
definition is:

___
"This proposal aims to introduce a new value for landuse
=* for Civic / Governmental
/ public institutional building administration complexes, for correctly
tagging areas used by the buildings of local, regional, national, and
supranational administration buildings and capitals. This includes
executive, legislative, ministerial, and mixed-use
"public/government/civil" buildings that administrate citizens or services.

If it is used for administrating/legislating the civilian population or its
programs, a the seat of civil or national power, or a common place for the
civilian population to interact with government-public-civil agents, then
civic_admin is the landuse for the complex."

___

This (quite long) text seems to imply you could use civic_admin for all
offices and other places part of the executive and legislative power, on
all levels (from local to supranational).


Then under the headline "What to Include?" there is this sentence:

___

"This is for complexes who's primary purpose is the citizens interaction
with government agents and other civil service workers".

___

I find this problematic for the reason that "primary purpose" requires some
interpretation and might lead to inconsistencies, and because this seems to
restrict very much (eventually too much) the scope of the key.

I'm also not sure about the exclusion of police offices: "it is also *not*
intended to map civic safety services - such as fire stations, police
offices, lifeguard, search and rescue or other safety services."

We should have some easy rules, with no or few exceptions, and hopefully
expressable / definable in 1, 2 or max. 3 sentences. There can be more text
of course, with examples and explanations (not for stating exceptions), but
the general definition should ideally be one sentence.




Yea, at a national level there is a big legal and physical separation
> between legislative and executive bodies (White House / Capitol building) -
> they both have different roles, but together they make the sausage.
>


actually the judicial power (supreme court etc.) also is needed to complete
the sausage. The proposal unifies executive and legislative, but excludes
the judicial part, maybe consciously, but I couldn't find a reasoning.


at the supranational landuse level, there is only legislative (UN, NATO,
> EU,  etc) as I understand it.
>


well there is for instance the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the
Hague, supported by many nations (Europe 41, Asia 11, America 28, Africa
34, Oceania 8) and more than 1500 NGOs, but opposed by the USA, China,
Iran, Iraq, North Corea, Israel, Cuba, Russia, Pakistan, India, Syria,
Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Turkey.  ;-)



Government is executive, legislative, and judicial together - the military,
> police and penal all spring from those (usually in between 2 of them)  but
> the line that landuse is often drawn by is what your role is in relation to
> rules and laws and power, not the legal standing for said power.
>


to make it short, I see it like this: government is administration, police
and military (executive), legislation and judicial are not government
typically, under the strict separation of powers.




> - executive and legislative make the laws together
>


the legislation makes the law, the judicial interpretes it, the executive
is ruled by the law, at least that's the theory.



Thanks again for the thoughtful responses and comments.
>


Thank you for replying so patiently ;-)

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - register

[Friedrich Volkmann]

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/register

This is for books where people enter their names, routes and comments. These
books are located on peaks, along trails, in buildings and in caves.
In German we call them Gipfelbuch, Steigbuch, Hüttenbuch, Gästebuch,
Höhlenbuch, Pilgerbuch, Turmbuch...
English terminology seems more ambiguous. I took the word that seems most
common.

-- 
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] Tagging accepted payments at each toll lane

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 3:27 AM, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Simone Saviolo 
> wrote:
>
>> 2015-03-03 19:07 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt :
>>
>>> By the time you get to that level of tagging,
>>> why not micro map each lane?
>>>
>>
>> One of the reasons (not a good reason) is that when I and others did that
>> we got bashed because of our pointlessly detailed representation, despite
>> it being actually a good model and the easiest way for consumers to
>> understand what's going on.
>>
>
> It seems a very reasonable way to map.  The individual lanes method embeds
> quite a bit more information about the road geometry, not the least of
> which is the (brief) switch to a median.  It's also dead simple to look at
> and determine if it's right.
>

Not only that, but it cleanly handles situations where you have a PIKEPASS,
in which there might only be one reasonable way to go through without
stopping, and only one possible way to go through if you're changing
highways .

>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging accepted payments at each toll lane

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Simone Saviolo 
wrote:

> 2015-03-03 19:07 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt :
>
>> By the time you get to that level of tagging,
>> why not micro map each lane?
>>
>
> One of the reasons (not a good reason) is that when I and others did that
> we got bashed because of our pointlessly detailed representation, despite
> it being actually a good model and the easiest way for consumers to
> understand what's going on.
>

It seems a very reasonable way to map.  The individual lanes method embeds
quite a bit more information about the road geometry, not the least of
which is the (brief) switch to a median.  It's also dead simple to look at
and determine if it's right.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging accepted payments at each toll lane

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 2:53 AM, Simone Saviolo 
wrote:

> 2015-03-03 19:07 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt :
>
>> By the time you get to that level of tagging,
>> why not micro map each lane?
>>
>
> One of the reasons (not a good reason) is that when I and others did that
> we got bashed because of our pointlessly detailed representation, despite
> it being actually a good model and the easiest way for consumers to
> understand what's going on.
>

I powered on nonetheless and it seems since then, my method for tagging
this situation (which really isn't special, since we're just consistently
putting ways around traffic islands) ended up being the prevailing method
over time.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging accepted payments at each toll lane

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Jake Wasserman 
wrote:

> I'm trying to capture the accepted payment for each lane at a toll booth.
> I haven't been able to find any other examples of this and I'm hoping for
> some pointers here.
>
> One thought is to use the ":lanes" suffix in conjunction with "payment:*"
>
> So for this toll: http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/o9KwF2A5eWLsaV7VpofMPw (
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/761143113)
> the node at the toll would be tagged like:
>
> barrier=toll_booth
> payment:e_zpass:lanes=yes|no|no|yes
> payment:cash:lanes=no|yes|yes|no
>

The lanes are typically not continuous through the plaza, as there's
usually a median separating each lane into individual roadways at the
booth.  Check tollbooth nodes on ways whose parent relation is tagged
network=US:OK:Turnpike for examples.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging accepted payments at each toll lane

[Simone Saviolo]

2015-03-03 19:07 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt :

> By the time you get to that level of tagging,
> why not micro map each lane?
>

One of the reasons (not a good reason) is that when I and others did that
we got bashed because of our pointlessly detailed representation, despite
it being actually a good model and the easiest way for consumers to
understand what's going on.

Regards,

Simone
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging