Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead

[johnw]

> On Apr 15, 2015, at 1:34 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> The easy definition is: A place where you you officially enter or exit a 
>> wilderness area on a maintained trail or track *and* there is some kind of 
>> allowance for switching modes of transportation.
>> 
>> 
> Many 'trailheads' in my area have no additional parking, nor do they have a 
> shelter, bench, water, toilets etc. Some have a sign .. some do not. 
> 
> To me a 'trailhead' is simply a place where I can enter or leave a trail that 
> is officially condoned.


Officially condoned is the biggest part. It shouldn’t be some deer trail or a 
tiny abandoned pathway into the brush, nor does it need to be a place where you 
can park a car - though in some places, that is almost implicit int he 
definition of trailhead. 

Switching modes of transportation may be as simple as getting off your road 
bike and putting on your hiking shoes - from road/sidewalk “walking” to 
“hiking” in the wilderness. 

However, if it is completely unsigned and there isn’t even a turnout, is it 
official, and not just an unofficial cut-through made by farmers or 
dog-walkers? 

This is another great reason for separating trailhead into the point on the way 
and and an area - the trails you speak of would have a point on the entrance, 
whereas the Mt Fuji 5th stations would be huge areas with many amenities and 
the trailhead entrance marked on a pedestrian road (it’s big!).

Javbw

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

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

[Colin Smale]

 

On 2015-04-15 07:40, Dave Swarthout wrote: 

> Rethinking it again, no router will send you the wrong way on a oneway 
> street. It would be a pretty poor routing program that would do that.

...except for emergency vehicles possibly? They can ignore legal
restrictions (like oneway) but not physical restrictions (like
maxweight:physical). These spikes look like a physical restriction to
me. How about oneway:physical=yes? 

Are there any other ways of having oneway:physical? Maybe a lifting
barrier with a sensor on one side only? ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

[Dave Swarthout]

Rethinking it again, no router will send you the wrong way on a oneway
street. It would be a pretty poor routing program that would do that.

Maybe the whole issue I've raised is a tempest in a teacup. It was my
reaction to such a mean-spirited traffic control that made me ask myself
how I would tag something that was so inherently dangerous. And as a
Thailand motorcycle driver I see Thais going the wrong way on oneways all
the time. Having these spikes in Chiang Mai or Bangkok would put a stop to
that I reckon.

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 7:57 AM, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:

> I think this does it:
>
>
> *barrier=spikes*
> *oneway=yes*
> *access=yes*
>
>
> As a node on the one way street way. No router will route around it.  A
> smart router can notice the spikes.
> The oneway on the node is redundant for emphasis, as that's also implied
> by the way.
>



-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Money transfer amenities

[Jan van Bekkum]

Alternatively you could use brand=moneygram;western_union;orlandi_valuta

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 7:28 AM Shawn K. Quinn  wrote:

> On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 05:18 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
> > As an amenity it is no problem that it is combined with other services
> > (like amenity=toilets), although here (again) I feel shop would be
> > better than amenity. I would recommend to use operator=moneygram
> > rather than money_transfer:moneygram=yes to be consistent with other
> > businesses like gas stations.
>
> The potential problem with this is a shop can offer MoneyGram, Western
> Union, Orlandi Valuta, etc. at the same location. Both "solutions" feel
> a bit hackish and each has its own set of complications.
>
>
> --
> Shawn K. Quinn 
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Money transfer amenities

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 05:18 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
> As an amenity it is no problem that it is combined with other services
> (like amenity=toilets), although here (again) I feel shop would be
> better than amenity. I would recommend to use operator=moneygram
> rather than money_transfer:moneygram=yes to be consistent with other
> businesses like gas stations.

The potential problem with this is a shop can offer MoneyGram, Western
Union, Orlandi Valuta, etc. at the same location. Both "solutions" feel
a bit hackish and each has its own set of complications.


-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 


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

Re: [Tagging] Money transfer amenities

[Jan van Bekkum]

As an amenity it is no problem that it is combined with other services
(like amenity=toilets), although here (again) I feel shop would be better
than amenity. I would recommend to use operator=moneygram rather than
money_transfer:moneygram=yes
to be consistent with other businesses like gas stations.

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 3:50 AM Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Shawn K. Quinn 
> wrote:
>>
>> The problem is that (for example) in the US, it's a very poor fit as
>> there aren't businesses dedicated to just money transfer. Sometimes they
>> will be combined with check cashing places (which I think is tagged with
>> something else under amenity=*), other times your local convenience
>> store or grocery store will also do money transfers.
>>
>
> I used a USA dedicated money transfer store just last month.  It was
> tagged:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dbureau_de_change
>
> There are separate systems for high and low income users in the USA.
> The low income places do payday loans, secured loans, check cashing, loan
> sharking,
> auto title loans, focusing on the community that can't or won't use banks.
> ___
> 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] Highway barrier

[Bryce Nesbitt]

I think this does it:


*barrier=spikes*
*oneway=yes*
*access=yes*


As a node on the one way street way. No router will route around it.  A
smart router can notice the spikes.
The oneway on the node is redundant for emphasis, as that's also implied by
the way.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead

[Warin]

On 15/04/2015 12:13 PM, johnw wrote:


On Apr 15, 2015, at 6:35 AM, Bryce Nesbitt > wrote:


But there are cases where the trail-head has a given and well known NAME.
So far I generally tag that on the parking area, but parking is not 
necessarily a requirement for having a trailhead.


The easy definition is: A place where you you officially enter or exit 
a wilderness area on a maintained trail or track *and* there is some 
kind of allowance for switching modes of transportation.



Many 'trailheads' in my area have no additional parking, nor do they 
have a shelter, bench, water, toilets etc. Some have a sign .. some do not.


To me a 'trailhead' is simply a place where I can enter or leave a trail 
that is officially condoned. Other things (like parking areas, toilets 
etc) should be marked with the appropriate tag. Oh .. some of the signs 
direct you to the local railway station .. about 2 miles walk away.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 11:29 PM, Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> I don't think they are all that common Bryce but I have seen them. And
> that is a controlled situation. This is a normal street! It would be good
> to be able to alert drivers about something like this when using a GPS for
> guidance but I'm not sure there's a good way to do that.
>

I can think of two dozen off the top of my head, within local parks and
parking lots.  There are probably thousands
in just the city I live in.

But I agree that on a normal road that's kind of extreme!
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Defacto: man_made=storage_tank

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On the other hand, there are thousands of man_made=storage_tank without a
building tag.
A rendering engine could make the "building" implicit.  Or a mechanical
retag could add the building tag.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Defacto: man_made=storage_tank

[johnw]

On Apr 15, 2015, at 1:47 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> Technically, buildings are a subset of man made structures, built for humans 
> occupancy, btw also under German law (de: Gebäude vs bauliche  Anlagen).

we have building=farm_auxiliary, shed, and roof, so I think it is broader than 
the german definition. 

People put building=* on any structure that is vaguely building shaped - a 
roof, decks, arcades, barns, sheds, storage lockers for lawnmowers, tiny 
shrines where you couldn’t fit a cat inside, and other “buildings”.


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead

[johnw]

> On Apr 15, 2015, at 11:17 AM, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:
> 
> On paper maps major trailheads tend to be marked as such.  The average 
> parking lot near a trail may not be.

Just because it is unnamed (on the map you happen to be looking at) doesn’t 
mean it isn’t a trailhead. 

The maps I was looking at Fro Mission trails named the smaller trailheads I 
thought wouldn’t have names, and didn’t label the 2 biggest ones!

Then other maps had some named and others unlabeled. 


All are trailheads, but not all are named. 


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead

[johnw]

That sounds like switching modes of transportation to wilderness hiking to me!

Javbw


> On Apr 15, 2015, at 11:17 AM, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:
> 
> A railway station with no parking leading to a trail can be a trailhead.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 7:13 PM, johnw  wrote:

>
> On Apr 15, 2015, at 6:35 AM, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:
>
> But there are cases where the trail-head has a given and well known NAME.
> So far I generally tag that on the parking area, but parking is not
> necessarily a requirement for having a trailhead.
>
> The easy definition is: A place where you you officially enter or exit a
> wilderness area on a maintained trail or track *and* there is some kind of
> allowance for switching modes of transportation.
>
> even easier: If the purpose is to park your car there and then leave the
> area, it is a trailhead. If the purpose is to park your car and stay there
> and have a BBQ and play in the creek, it is a park.
>

Few lines are that clear. A railway station with no parking leading to a
trail can be a trailhead.

On paper maps major trailheads tend to be marked as such.  The average
parking lot near a trail may not be.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead

[johnw]

> On Apr 15, 2015, at 6:35 AM, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:
> 
> But there are cases where the trail-head has a given and well known NAME.
> So far I generally tag that on the parking area, but parking is not 
> necessarily a requirement for having a trailhead.

The easy definition is: A place where you you officially enter or exit a 
wilderness area on a maintained trail or track *and* there is some kind of 
allowance for switching modes of transportation.

even easier: If the purpose is to park your car there and then leave the area, 
it is a trailhead. If the purpose is to park your car and stay there and have a 
BBQ and play in the creek, it is a park. 

There are named and unnamed trailheads, but any place you transition from 
driving, street biking, or walking on a street/sidewalk to hiking in a 
wilderness area  - that place where the transition takes place is a 
entrance=trailhead. 

To me, the easiest way to define a trailhead is a sign of some sort signed and 
maintained trail junction to the normal transportation network, along with some 
kind of parking area - a turnout, a small spot to get your car off the road, a 
place to saddle a horse, a place to leave a car and unload a bicycle etc.  Up 
from that is na information sign, nameboard (Wilderness park), paved parking 
with driveways, water, bathrooms, staging area, and after that it turns into a 
park - grass, picnic areas, playgrounds, etc. 

This is why separating the actual entrance from the area is useful - 

The trailhead might be “outside” the wilderness area - a large park, with 
parking and amenities shared by the park; roadside parking;  a paved parking 
lot with bathrooms and gate that separates the parking lot from the path 
leading into the wilderness area.  

That gate / trail start point - the entrance where the highway=service meets 
highway=path (or track) is the entrance=trailhead, and the parking lot, 
driveway, bathrooms, etc is leisure=trailhead on the area. 

With some places, the “trailhead” is inside the park - it has a trashcan and a 
signboard as you enter, and a gate from the path/track to the street. 
The gate is entrance=trailhead, but there is no area - as there is no *special* 
area for staging, BUT normal roadside parking is available. mapping the 
amenities (Sign, trash can) are mapped normally. 

Understanding the last bit - at least normal parking is available - is a great 
definition for a trailhead. 

One of the places I hiked in Japan had a large parking lot, but the trail 
entrance was 200m down the road. there was absolutely no place to park at the 
entrance=trailhead, though the leisure=trailhead had a lot of amenities nearby. 
 You had to walk down the sidewalk, cross the street, and then start hiking. 

http://www.gunmajet.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/photo_06-584x441.jpg 
  The 
“P” is the leisure=trailhead in the lower left. the green line meeting the road 
at the bottom is the entrance=trailhead.


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

Re: [Tagging] Money transfer amenities

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Shawn K. Quinn 
wrote:
>
> The problem is that (for example) in the US, it's a very poor fit as
> there aren't businesses dedicated to just money transfer. Sometimes they
> will be combined with check cashing places (which I think is tagged with
> something else under amenity=*), other times your local convenience
> store or grocery store will also do money transfers.
>

I used a USA dedicated money transfer store just last month.  It was tagged:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dbureau_de_change

There are separate systems for high and low income users in the USA.
The low income places do payday loans, secured loans, check cashing, loan
sharking,
auto title loans, focusing on the community that can't or won't use banks.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Money transfer amenities

[Warin]

On 15/04/2015 10:09 AM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:

On Tue, 2015-04-14 at 23:37 +, Severin Menard wrote:

Hi,


In Africa,

Which country in Africa specifically? It's a huge continent with many
different countries.


Example country given later .. keep reading.




a frequent amenity in cities and towns focus on money transfer. It can
be banks abut also specific amenities (called "multi-services" in
Senegal). THe number of money transfer services is often high, as you
see on this picture, on the right side of the door (Western Union,
Moneygram, Orange, Wari, Ria, Money Express, Joni Joni).

There is a proposed tag amenity=money_transfer that is not used a lot
(162 occurrences) that IMHO perfectly fits.

The problem is that (for example) in the US, it's a very poor fit as
there aren't businesses dedicated to just money transfer. Sometimes they
will be combined with check cashing places (which I think is tagged with
something else under amenity=*), other times your local convenience
store or grocery store will also do money transfers.



Because it is a 'poor fit' in one place does not mean that it cannot be used 
elsewhere in the world.
OSM is world wide and should allow for regional variations .. like speeds in 
mph rather than kmh.

Severin  .. I'd simply use the tag. If you want you can add a wiki page on it 
.. documenting what you have done.


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

Re: [Tagging] Money transfer amenities

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On Tue, 2015-04-14 at 23:37 +, Severin Menard wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
> In Africa, 

Which country in Africa specifically? It's a huge continent with many
different countries.

> a frequent amenity in icties and towns focus on money transfer. It can
> be banks abut also specific amenities (called "multi-services" in
> Senegal). THe number of money transfer services is often high, as you
> see on this picture, on the right side of the door (Western Union,
> Moneygram, Orange, Wari, Ria, Money Express, Joni Joni). 
> 
> There is a proposed tag amenity=money_transfer that is not used a lot
> (162 occurrences) that IMHO perfectly fits. 

The problem is that (for example) in the US, it's a very poor fit as
there aren't businesses dedicated to just money transfer. Sometimes they
will be combined with check cashing places (which I think is tagged with
something else under amenity=*), other times your local convenience
store or grocery store will also do money transfers.


-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 


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

[Tagging] Money transfer amenities

[Severin Menard]

Hi,

In Africa, a frequent amenity in icties and towns focus on money transfer.
It can be banks abut also specific amenities (called "multi-services" in
Senegal). THe number of money transfer services is often high, as you see
on this picture
,
on the right side of the door (Western Union, Moneygram, Orange, Wari, Ria,
Money Express, Joni Joni).
There is a proposed tag amenity=money_transfer that is not used a lot (162
occurrences) that IMHO perfectly fits.
Related tags could be:

money_transfer:western_union=yes
money_transfer:moneygram=yes

etc.

Thoughts?

Sincerely,

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

Re: [Tagging] Paintball

[fly]

Am 12.04.2015 um 18:01 schrieb Andreas Goss:
> Since most people here seem to agree on this and we also have
> sport=archery I created a wiki page:
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dpaintball
> 
> Question is if we should to some retagging with shooting=paintball.

Yes, but with care. May be, even by contacting the previous author.
Otherwise we quickly end up with a mechanical edit.

Could you please add some information about leisure=pitch and
leisure=sports_centre on the paintball page. shooting and archery should
me present as link as well.

Cheers fly


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead

[fly]

Am 14.04.2015 um 23:35 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 12:40 PM, fly  wrote:
>>
>> Why not map the amenity/features as own objects ?
>>
>> If it is important for the route relations I rather have a new role
>> similar to guidepost for the starting/end node.
> 
> I agree the toilet/parking/information sign should all be tagged separately.
> 
> But there are cases where the trail-head has a given and well known NAME.
> So far I generally tag that on the parking area, but parking is not
> necessarily a requirement for having a trailhead.

Sounds like place=location then.

Cheers fly

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 12:40 PM, fly  wrote:
>
> Why not map the amenity/features as own objects ?
>
> If it is important for the route relations I rather have a new role
> similar to guidepost for the starting/end node.
>
> cu fly


I agree the toilet/parking/information sign should all be tagged separately.

But there are cases where the trail-head has a given and well known NAME.
So far I generally tag that on the parking area, but parking is not
necessarily a requirement for having a trailhead.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Paintball

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Andreas Goss  wrote:

> Since most people here seem to agree on this and we also have
> sport=archery I created a wiki page:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dpaintball
> Question is if we should to some retagging with shooting=paintball.


Yes, I think retagging to a single scheme is appropriate.

--
One question is how to distinguish businesses that offer paintball for a
fee,
from places where people go with their own equipment.  The later is more
like a paintball "pitch".
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead

[Gmail]

role=start is used for crosscountry ski routes relations.
Yves


On 14 avril 2015 21:40:39 UTC+02:00, fly  wrote:
>Am 14.04.2015 um 21:32 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt:
>> +1
>> I've long wanted a tag for trailheads,
>> and they are commonly mapped on paper maps.
>> 
>> However that said I've found the definition of trailhead to be
>slippery.
>
>+1
>
>> Is every road/trail/parking lot junction automaticaly trailhead?
>> Or are we only talking about named trailheads?
>
>Why not map the amenity/features as own objects ?
>
>If it is important for the route relations I rather have a new role
>similar to guidepost for the starting/end node.
>
>cu fly
>
>___
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Paintball

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Andreas Goss  wrote:

> Since most people here seem to agree on this and we also have
> sport=archery I created a wiki page:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dpaintball
>
> Question is if we should to some retagging with shooting=paintball.


Yes, I think retagging to a single scheme is appropriate.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead

[fly]

Am 14.04.2015 um 21:32 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt:
> +1
> I've long wanted a tag for trailheads,
> and they are commonly mapped on paper maps.
> 
> However that said I've found the definition of trailhead to be slippery.

+1

> Is every road/trail/parking lot junction automaticaly trailhead?
> Or are we only talking about named trailheads?

Why not map the amenity/features as own objects ?

If it is important for the route relations I rather have a new role
similar to guidepost for the starting/end node.

cu fly

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead

[Bryce Nesbitt]

+1
I've long wanted a tag for trailheads,
and they are commonly mapped on paper maps.

However that said I've found the definition of trailhead to be slippery.
Is every road/trail/parking lot junction automaticaly trailhead?
Or are we only talking about named trailheads?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features/camp type=*

[Jan van Bekkum]

The voting was officially closed by today, but I'll leave it open for
another week. So far 13 people have voted.

Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards,

*Jan van Bekkum*
www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Jan van Bekkum 
wrote:

> I agree that we should not use the star system or six categories It is
> becoming far too complex for mappers and renderers. This level of
> refinement must be achieved with additional attributes or extra amenities
> in a relation.
>
> I really do want to keep *non-designated* as currently proposed. It was
> my main reason to start with the proposal. I understand it is not important
> in western countries, but it is vital in Africa and the Middle East. It is
> a site with the opportunistic blessing and amenity use of a hotel/ hostel,
> etc.
>
> Why do we need to keep trekking? Isn't it a special case of unimproved?
> Summarized my preference is
>
>- Designated
>- Unimproved (although I like the word Basic better)
>- Non-designated
>- Wild_camp_site: separate namespace tag for unimproved without
>blessing
>
>
>>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Defacto: man_made=storage_tank

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 14.04.2015 um 13:05 schrieb fly :
> 
> and not every storage_tank might be a building.


well, this is another question. Strictly, most of them are not buildings, they 
are almost all structures, but OSM seems not to use this technical distinction. 
Technically, buildings are a subset of man made structures, built for humans 
occupancy, btw also under German law (de: Gebäude vs bauliche  Anlagen).

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory

[fly]

Am 14.04.2015 um 09:08 schrieb Volker Schmidt:
>> How would you tag:
>>
> 
> Here are my reformulated answers.
> Note that the answers do not apply to all countries, and most certainly not
> to the US, where to my knowledge there are no distinctions between bicycle
> and pedestrian use of sidewalks and cycleways. More specifically, I believe
> my replies are correct in Germany and Italy

Do only know the tagging in my region in Germany.

> 1) Picture 1 with the blue traffic sign
>>
> 
> My answer:
> highway=path; foot=designated; bicycle=designated; segregated=yes.
> In addition you may want to specify which side is the footway and which
> side is the cycleway by lanes=2 and bicycle:lanes=yes|no and
> foot:lanes=no|yes
> You may also add colour:lanes=red|grey

Please, use the proper access tags with :lanes
highway=path
bicycle=designated
foot=designated
segregated=yes
bicycle:lanes=designated|no
foot:lanes=no|designated
vehicle=no

>> 2) Picture 1 without the blue traffic sign
>>
> 
> My answer:
> Anything of the following, depending on context:
> highway=unclassified/track/pedestrian/cycleway/...
> But none of foot/bicycle=designated/official/yes

+1
would use highway=unclassified/service/track/path

>> 3) Picture 2 with the blue traffic sign
>>
> 
> My answer:
> exactly as in case (1) for the cycle-and-foot-way and in addition
> bicycle=use_sidepath on the street

Would not tag the sidewalk as separate object

highway=*
cycleway=track
segregated=yes
sidewalk=both

alternatively as separate objects three ways
main:

highway=*
bicyle=use_sidepath
sidewalk=sidepath

and on both sides

as 1) with additional
oneway=yes
path=sidewalk

>> 4) Picture 2 without the blue traffic sign
>>
> 
> My answers:
> 
> Alternative (a)
> highway=residential
> sidewalk=both
> Reason: If there is no sign whatsoever, I would consider both sides as
> sidewalk (Buergersteig in German).

+1

Well, in Germany bicycles are legally allowed to use the sidewalk in
this case but it is not compulsory.

As the German bicycle club (ADFC) advises its member not to use it
anymore (after the blue signs where removed) and my personal observation
are that other people riding on the former cycle track higher the
chances that car driver honk and even riskily overtake when I correctly
ride one meter left of the curb on the street.

Therefor everyone using this former cycle track is lifting the risk of
accidents and there are usually more than one reason why the signs where
removed.

All together I can understand others using

sidewalk:bicycle=yes

but would not tag it. Instead I usually add a note=* to tell others that
the signes where removed.

> Alternative (b)
> Use separate ways on both sides of the street with: highway=footway, but
> none of foot/bicycle=designated/official
> Without additional signs the paths on both sides of the road are sidewalks
> (i.e. pedestrian use)

highway=*
sidewalk=sidepath

plus on both sides

highway=path
foot=designated
bicyles=yes
oneway=yes
path=sidewalk

> In all four cases there are in addition all the other tags like surface=;
> smoothness=; lit=

+1

sidewalk:surface=paving_stones
cycleway:surface=paving_stones

sidewalk:smoothness=good/intermittent
cycleway:smoothness=good/intermittent

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

Re: [Tagging] Way inside riverbank

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 14/04/2015, Christoph Hormann  wrote:
> It is the other way round - the riverbank polygon is optional and 'nice
> to have'.  The waterway line is what actually defines a river in OSM,
> it also gets the name tag and other attributes.

Yes, this is the same principle that gives us highway=* vs
area:highway=* 
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Street_area).
Note that as a result, the riverbank polygon doesn't need a name=*,
because that is taken from the linear river way instead.


Changing topics, I've just stumbled on the wiki on the "natural=water,
water=river" tagging that I wasn't aware of and is supposed to replace
waterway=riverbank. 4 years after being "approved", it still
represents only about 3% of the riverbank tagging. I guess that the
"it's more uniform and logical" argument wasn't compeling enough, and
that "tagg...@osm.org" != "osm community"...

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

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

[Janko Mihelić]

uto, 14. tra 2015. 14:34 Dave Swarthout  je
napisao:

All interesting arguments but if a highway has a barrier, won't all access
be treated as blocked (access=no) by _most_ routing software?



 I agree, maybe something like barrier:oneway=spikes would be a better
concept.

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

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

[Dave Swarthout]

All interesting arguments but if a highway has a barrier, won't all access
be treated as blocked (access=no) by _most_ routing software? I realize one
can accommodate  almost anything with appropriate styles and rules but how
can one know in advance? I guess what I'm saying is, there is a risk that
these ways will become non-routable if I put a barrier tag on them. As long
as you're traveling in the correct direction, you've got nothing to fear
(Where have we heard that before?)

I know this: I will never drive a motorcycle in this city, and especially
not a night. You could end up dead on one of these.

By the way, for those of you wondering; these are permanent devices and are
built into the pavement.

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 2:12 PM, johnw  wrote:

>
> > On Apr 14, 2015, at 8:04 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> >
> > I'd tend to think this would be an enforcement device and a barrier.
> Though, shark teeth would be something different, tagged with
> highway=give_way where the centerline of the way crosses the pavement
> marking.
>
>
> Wouldn’t the enforcement be the camera on the road reading your plate
> number?
>
> enforcement is about catching people breaking the existing rules.
>
> barriers about blocking access, so you can’t break the rules. I can ram a
> fence, smash a bollard, or go over tire spikes, but they are physically
> trying to prevent my access, rather than record rule breakers for fines
> later.
>
>
> Mapping these should be a way of two nodes very close together, shared
> with the highway they are on (before spikes & after spikes nodes).
>
> The direction of the way is the allowed direction of motion.
>
> Javbw
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

[johnw]

> On Apr 14, 2015, at 8:04 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> 
> I'd tend to think this would be an enforcement device and a barrier.  Though, 
> shark teeth would be something different, tagged with highway=give_way where 
> the centerline of the way crosses the pavement marking.


Wouldn’t the enforcement be the camera on the road reading your plate number? 

enforcement is about catching people breaking the existing rules. 

barriers about blocking access, so you can’t break the rules. I can ram a 
fence, smash a bollard, or go over tire spikes, but they are physically trying 
to prevent my access, rather than record rule breakers for fines later.


Mapping these should be a way of two nodes very close together, shared with the 
highway they are on (before spikes & after spikes nodes). 

The direction of the way is the allowed direction of motion. 

Javbw


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

Re: [Tagging] Way inside riverbank

[fly]

Am 14.04.2015 um 12:52 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
> On Monday 13 April 2015, Torstein Ingebrigtsen Bø wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm currently importing topological data of Norway to OSM. From the
>> data set we have riverbanks; however, we do not have the deepest
>> middle way as required by the wiki [1]. This middle line is therefore
>> drawn manually. This is a time consuming (and dull) job. For one
>> municipal it takes around 5-10 hours to draw all these lines, in
>> Norway we have 428 municipals. Drawing all these middle lines will
>> slow down the time to import everything dramatical. I am therefore
>> curious of what is the benefits of this line. Is it really necessary
>> or is it a "nice to have"?
> 
> It is the other way round - the riverbank polygon is optional and 'nice 
> to have'.  The waterway line is what actually defines a river in OSM, 
> it also gets the name tag and other attributes.  The primary reason for 
> this is to map the water flow structure.  Also it is much easier to 
> verify and fix structural errors in waterway line mapping than for 
> water polygons.
> 
> Generating a waterway line when you only have polygons is fairly simple 
> via straight skeletons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_skeleton)  
> If the source data set does not contain continuous line features for 
> rivers generating those should be part of import preparation.  And i 
> disagree with Janko here - if the source data does not contain certain 
> information that is required according to OSM mapping conventions you 
> should not import the data unless you produce the information in some 
> way (either through manual mapping, computing the missing data or 
> getting it from other sources).  Otherwise the data becomes dead mass 
> in the OSM database.

+1

Thanks for the wording.

Cheers fly


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

Re: [Tagging] Defacto: man_made=storage_tank

[fly]

Am 14.04.2015 um 11:34 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> 2015-04-14 7:20 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
> 
>> I think that building=storage_tank would be even better.
> 
> 
> 
> you can use both. Building is about a building typology, while man_made is
> about a function.

+1

and not every storage_tank might be a building.

cu fly


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

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

[Paul Johnson]

I'd tend to think this would be an enforcement device and a barrier.
Though, shark teeth would be something different, tagged with
highway=give_way where the centerline of the way crosses the pavement
marking.

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Dave F.  wrote:

>  I've tagged these a spikes, although I think I saw some described as
> 'shark teeth'.
>
> IMO oneway on the node is inconclusive as a node has no direction & it
> should already be on the way.
>
> Dave F.
>
> On 14/04/2015 09:16, Dave Swarthout wrote:
>
> I had not seen the barrier=spikes tagging before. That might be the best
> one to use even though barrier=one_way_spikes describes the situation
> better.
>
>  And the Enforcement Relation is also new to me. It might apply here but
> I'm not interested in modifying the current page to include it. By the way,
> my congratulations to those of you who actually create and maintain Wiki
> pages. What an ugly beast of a job that is. I have yet to add shop=fuel to
> the Shops page because the amount of nitpicking work required is more than
> I can handle.
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

[fly]

Am 14.04.2015 um 11:45 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> 2015-04-14 11:35 GMT+02:00 Dave F. :
> 
>> IMO oneway on the node is inconclusive as a node has no direction & it
>> should already be on the way.
>>
> 
> 
> +1, but the spikes are oneway spikes, so I think we should have this
> distinction at the top level (i.e. barrier-key). It is fundamental that you
> can cross from one side and are hindered from the other. There are also
> omnidirectional spikes like this type elsewhere:
> http://www.indosoftcorp.com/image.php?pid=50 (that's a portable version)

Not sure if top level is needed as with one sentence about
barrier=spike, I can not really distinguish.

Though, we need to differ by subtag or main value.

* without main value I fear it gets complicated for routing software
* direction=* would be useful to indicate which side is "dangerous"
* with bollard=* we can tell if a bollard is removable, similar would by
useful for any spikes.

cu fly

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

Re: [Tagging] Way inside riverbank

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 13 April 2015, Torstein Ingebrigtsen Bø wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm currently importing topological data of Norway to OSM. From the
> data set we have riverbanks; however, we do not have the deepest
> middle way as required by the wiki [1]. This middle line is therefore
> drawn manually. This is a time consuming (and dull) job. For one
> municipal it takes around 5-10 hours to draw all these lines, in
> Norway we have 428 municipals. Drawing all these middle lines will
> slow down the time to import everything dramatical. I am therefore
> curious of what is the benefits of this line. Is it really necessary
> or is it a "nice to have"?

It is the other way round - the riverbank polygon is optional and 'nice 
to have'.  The waterway line is what actually defines a river in OSM, 
it also gets the name tag and other attributes.  The primary reason for 
this is to map the water flow structure.  Also it is much easier to 
verify and fix structural errors in waterway line mapping than for 
water polygons.

Generating a waterway line when you only have polygons is fairly simple 
via straight skeletons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_skeleton)  
If the source data set does not contain continuous line features for 
rivers generating those should be part of import preparation.  And i 
disagree with Janko here - if the source data does not contain certain 
information that is required according to OSM mapping conventions you 
should not import the data unless you produce the information in some 
way (either through manual mapping, computing the missing data or 
getting it from other sources).  Otherwise the data becomes dead mass 
in the OSM database.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-04-14 12:04 GMT+02:00 Dave F. :

> Those are stingers used to catch nefarious car jacking criminals or
> operate temporary road blocks in down town Baghdad. Are there examples of
> permanent ones?



yes, they are typically removable and somehow temporary, but if they are
there for a longer time then just to catch a bank robber (e.g. could be in
Baghdad) then we could still reasonably map them.

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

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

[Dave F.]

Those are stingers used to catch nefarious car jacking criminals or 
operate temporary road blocks in down town Baghdad. Are there examples 
of permanent ones? I'd have thought a more obvious barrier, such as a 
fence would be built if it were to be long term.


The 'one-way' spikes are often used in combination with lifting barriers 
so: barrier=lift_gate;spikes.


Dave F.


On 14/04/2015 10:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


2015-04-14 11:35 GMT+02:00 Dave F. >:


IMO oneway on the node is inconclusive as a node has no direction
& it should already be on the way.



+1, but the spikes are oneway spikes, so I think we should have this 
distinction at the top level (i.e. barrier-key). It is fundamental 
that you can cross from one side and are hindered from the other. 
There are also omnidirectional spikes like this type elsewhere: 
http://www.indosoftcorp.com/image.php?pid=50 (that's a portable version)


Cheers,
Martin


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




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory

[Georg Feddern]

Am 14.04.2015 um 07:28 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny:

On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 00:08:31 +0200
Volker Schmidt  wrote:


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Separated_cycle_and_foot_path.jpg


I would add also surface (and maybe smoothness) as this one seems
to be quite bad.


3) How would you tag the segregated cycle-and-foot-way shown in


Also, I would add also surface (and maybe smoothness) as this one
for footway/cycleway seems to be quite bad.


No wonder that smoothness ist supposed to be totally subjective - I 
would tend to the opposite "quite good" ...


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

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

[phil]

On Tue Apr 14 07:16:54 2015 GMT+0100, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Dave Swarthout 
> wrote:
> 
> > Take a look at this nasty device that prevents traveling the wrong way on
> > a oneway street. I've seen several of these here in Istanbul. Some have
> > signs to alert motorists but this one does not. It is unmarked in any way.
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:One-way_barrier_IMG_7111.JPG
> > It is surely a barrier of some sort yet it does allow traffic to flow
> > unimpeded in one direction. Traffic_calming doesn't quite get it either.
> > LOL
> >
> 
> These are very common in the USA on parking lots.  Often the entrance road
> will be shut after hours,
> but the exit gate left open allowing motor vehicles to exit.  "Do not back
> up, severe tire damage" is the usual sign.
>
Likewise in the UK, have never seem one on a public highway though.

Phil (trigpoint )
-- 
Sent from my Jolla
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Way inside riverbank

[Janko Mihelić]

Now I see you said that the direction is not necesarry. I can't agree with
this, it's a pretty important fact.

Anyway, I don't see a problem with you just importing incomplete data and
waiting for someone else down the line to complete the ways inside areas.

Janko.

uto, 14. tra 2015. 11:48 Janko Mihelić  je napisao:

> How do you know the direction of water flow if you don't have the way?
>
> Janko
>
> uto, 14. tra 2015. 11:45 Torstein Ingebrigtsen Bø 
> je napisao:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm currently importing topological data of Norway to OSM. From the data
>> set we have riverbanks; however, we do not have the deepest middle way as
>> required by the wiki [1]. This middle line is therefore drawn manually.
>> This is a time consuming (and dull) job. For one municipal it takes around
>> 5-10 hours to draw all these lines, in Norway we have 428 municipals.
>> Drawing all these middle lines will slow down the time to import everything
>> dramatical. I am therefore curious of what is the benefits of this line. Is
>> it really necessary or is it a "nice to have"?
>>
>> Some disadvantages with this middle way are:
>> - The line add redundancy. I guess that many add this line such that it
>> is inside the multipolygon of the riverbank. Doing so the added data is
>> only the direction of the river. (Other tags may be added to the
>> multipolygon.)
>> - Sometimes people draw the line wrong or forget to update it when
>> updating the multipolygon. I have seen "middle" lines outside of the
>> multipolygon (either inside islands or outside of the multipolygon). This
>> gives false islands and splitting of islands when rendered.
>> - A similar way can be generated, if direction and deepest point is not
>> required. This comes as a fact of the first point and removes the
>> previously mentioned problem.
>> - For routing purposes this is not needed. (I have not seen any practical
>> marine navigation/routing implementations yet, either.) Routing algorithms
>> may also represent a riverbank as a node (or multiple nodes). The same
>> problem occurs for lakes where it is not required to have a middle way for
>> routing.
>> - The direction of the river is seldom used. The direction of a river is
>> seldom (or never?) rendered in any map. It is implicitly shown (e.g., by
>> contour lines).
>> - Specifically for the import of Kartverket N50 [2], this requirement is
>> slowing down the import process dramatical and import of other data of more
>> current value are delayed. This is therefore also a question of
>> prioritizing data to be imported.
>>
>> I therefore propose to make this middle way in riverbanks recommended
>> (when the deepest way is known), not required.
>>
>> [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driverbank
>> 
>> [2]
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/N50_import_(Norway)
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Torstein I. Bø
>> tibnor
>>  ___
>> 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] Way inside riverbank

[Janko Mihelić]

How do you know the direction of water flow if you don't have the way?

Janko

uto, 14. tra 2015. 11:45 Torstein Ingebrigtsen Bø 
je napisao:

> Hi,
>
> I'm currently importing topological data of Norway to OSM. From the data
> set we have riverbanks; however, we do not have the deepest middle way as
> required by the wiki [1]. This middle line is therefore drawn manually.
> This is a time consuming (and dull) job. For one municipal it takes around
> 5-10 hours to draw all these lines, in Norway we have 428 municipals.
> Drawing all these middle lines will slow down the time to import everything
> dramatical. I am therefore curious of what is the benefits of this line. Is
> it really necessary or is it a "nice to have"?
>
> Some disadvantages with this middle way are:
> - The line add redundancy. I guess that many add this line such that it is
> inside the multipolygon of the riverbank. Doing so the added data is only
> the direction of the river. (Other tags may be added to the multipolygon.)
> - Sometimes people draw the line wrong or forget to update it when
> updating the multipolygon. I have seen "middle" lines outside of the
> multipolygon (either inside islands or outside of the multipolygon). This
> gives false islands and splitting of islands when rendered.
> - A similar way can be generated, if direction and deepest point is not
> required. This comes as a fact of the first point and removes the
> previously mentioned problem.
> - For routing purposes this is not needed. (I have not seen any practical
> marine navigation/routing implementations yet, either.) Routing algorithms
> may also represent a riverbank as a node (or multiple nodes). The same
> problem occurs for lakes where it is not required to have a middle way for
> routing.
> - The direction of the river is seldom used. The direction of a river is
> seldom (or never?) rendered in any map. It is implicitly shown (e.g., by
> contour lines).
> - Specifically for the import of Kartverket N50 [2], this requirement is
> slowing down the import process dramatical and import of other data of more
> current value are delayed. This is therefore also a question of
> prioritizing data to be imported.
>
> I therefore propose to make this middle way in riverbanks recommended
> (when the deepest way is known), not required.
>
> [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driverbank
> 
> [2]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/N50_import_(Norway)
>
> Best regards,
> Torstein I. Bø
> tibnor
>  ___
> 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] Highway barrier

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-04-14 11:35 GMT+02:00 Dave F. :

> IMO oneway on the node is inconclusive as a node has no direction & it
> should already be on the way.
>


+1, but the spikes are oneway spikes, so I think we should have this
distinction at the top level (i.e. barrier-key). It is fundamental that you
can cross from one side and are hindered from the other. There are also
omnidirectional spikes like this type elsewhere:
http://www.indosoftcorp.com/image.php?pid=50 (that's a portable version)

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

[Tagging] Way inside riverbank

[Torstein Ingebrigtsen Bø]

Hi,

I'm currently importing topological data of Norway to OSM. From the data
set we have riverbanks; however, we do not have the deepest middle way as
required by the wiki [1]. This middle line is therefore drawn manually.
This is a time consuming (and dull) job. For one municipal it takes around
5-10 hours to draw all these lines, in Norway we have 428 municipals.
Drawing all these middle lines will slow down the time to import everything
dramatical. I am therefore curious of what is the benefits of this line. Is
it really necessary or is it a "nice to have"?

Some disadvantages with this middle way are:
- The line add redundancy. I guess that many add this line such that it is
inside the multipolygon of the riverbank. Doing so the added data is only
the direction of the river. (Other tags may be added to the multipolygon.)
- Sometimes people draw the line wrong or forget to update it when updating
the multipolygon. I have seen "middle" lines outside of the multipolygon
(either inside islands or outside of the multipolygon). This gives false
islands and splitting of islands when rendered.
- A similar way can be generated, if direction and deepest point is not
required. This comes as a fact of the first point and removes the
previously mentioned problem.
- For routing purposes this is not needed. (I have not seen any practical
marine navigation/routing implementations yet, either.) Routing algorithms
may also represent a riverbank as a node (or multiple nodes). The same
problem occurs for lakes where it is not required to have a middle way for
routing.
- The direction of the river is seldom used. The direction of a river is
seldom (or never?) rendered in any map. It is implicitly shown (e.g., by
contour lines).
- Specifically for the import of Kartverket N50 [2], this requirement is
slowing down the import process dramatical and import of other data of more
current value are delayed. This is therefore also a question of
prioritizing data to be imported.

I therefore propose to make this middle way in riverbanks recommended (when
the deepest way is known), not required.

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driverbank

[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/N50_import_(Norway)

Best regards,
Torstein I. Bø
tibnor
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

[Dave F.]

I've tagged these a spikes, although I think I saw some described as 
'shark teeth'.


IMO oneway on the node is inconclusive as a node has no direction & it 
should already be on the way.


Dave F.

On 14/04/2015 09:16, Dave Swarthout wrote:
I had not seen the barrier=spikes tagging before. That might be the 
best one to use even though barrier=one_way_spikes describes the 
situation better.


And the Enforcement Relation is also new to me. It might apply here 
but I'm not interested in modifying the current page to include it. By 
the way, my congratulations to those of you who actually create and 
maintain Wiki pages. What an ugly beast of a job that is. I have yet 
to add shop=fuel to the Shops page because the amount of nitpicking 
work required is more than I can handle.


Dave

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:






> Am 14.04.2015 um 07:45 schrieb Dave Swarthout
mailto:daveswarth...@gmail.com>>:
>
>
> It is surely a barrier of some sort yet it does allow traffic to
flow unimpeded in one direction.


+1, is some kind of spike barrier. Maybe literally it is also a
kind of enforcement but the current OSM definition limits its use
to monitoring and documentation
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:enforcement

cheers
Martin




--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com


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




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Defacto: man_made=storage_tank

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-04-14 7:20 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> I think that building=storage_tank would be even better.



you can use both. Building is about a building typology, while man_made is
about a function.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-04-14 10:16 GMT+02:00 Dave Swarthout :

> That might be the best one to use even though barrier=one_way_spikes
> describes the situation better.




+1, that's why I wrote "some kind of" ;-)

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

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

[Kotya Karapetyan]

I wonder if we want to limit it to spikes only. What about these things:

http://www.siapress.ru/images/news/main/24438.jpg

http://park-ur.ru.images.1c-bitrix-cdn.ru/upload/medialibrary/bee/beebb476f5dc4c2cccedd1ab6f41.jpg?142435251415224

My proposal would be to add "oneway" to the existing barrier.


On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 08:08 Janko Mihelić  wrote:

Well, the street is likely already tagged with oneway=yes, so we know the
direction of spikes. I'll throw out a suggestion: barrier=one_way_spikes.


Janko

uto, 14. tra 2015. 07:47 Dave Swarthout  je
napisao:

Take a look at this nasty device that prevents traveling the wrong way on a
oneway street. I've seen several of these here in Istanbul. Some have signs
to alert motorists but this one does not. It is unmarked in any way.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:One-way_barrier_IMG_7111.JPG

It is surely a barrier of some sort yet it does allow traffic to flow
unimpeded in one direction. Traffic_calming doesn't quite get it either.
LOL

How should I tag this?

Regards,

Dave

-- 

Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com

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


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

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

[Dave Swarthout]

I had not seen the barrier=spikes tagging before. That might be the best
one to use even though barrier=one_way_spikes describes the situation
better.

And the Enforcement Relation is also new to me. It might apply here but I'm
not interested in modifying the current page to include it. By the way, my
congratulations to those of you who actually create and maintain Wiki
pages. What an ugly beast of a job that is. I have yet to add shop=fuel to
the Shops page because the amount of nitpicking work required is more than
I can handle.

Dave

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> > Am 14.04.2015 um 07:45 schrieb Dave Swarthout :
> >
> >
> > It is surely a barrier of some sort yet it does allow traffic to flow
> unimpeded in one direction.
>
>
> +1, is some kind of spike barrier. Maybe literally it is also a kind of
> enforcement but the current OSM definition limits its use to monitoring and
> documentation http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:enforcement
>
> cheers
> Martin




-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 14.04.2015 um 07:45 schrieb Dave Swarthout :
> 
> 
> It is surely a barrier of some sort yet it does allow traffic to flow 
> unimpeded in one direction.


+1, is some kind of spike barrier. Maybe literally it is also a kind of 
enforcement but the current OSM definition limits its use to monitoring and 
documentation http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:enforcement

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

Re: [Tagging] Defacto: man_made=storage_tank

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Sorry, I thought about using man_made=storage tank and in addition
building=storage_tank (rather than mentioned building=yes).

On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 22:43:18 -0700
Clifford Snow  wrote:

> That ship has sailed. man_made=storage_tank is the standard. Maybe
> early on it should have been man_made=building, building=* but we
> have an accepted standard.

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory

[Volker Schmidt]

> How would you tag:
>

Here are my reformulated answers.
Note that the answers do not apply to all countries, and most certainly not
to the US, where to my knowledge there are no distinctions between bicycle
and pedestrian use of sidewalks and cycleways. More specifically, I believe
my replies are correct in Germany and Italy

1) Picture 1 with the blue traffic sign
>

My answer:
highway=path; foot=designated; bicycle=designated; segregated=yes.
In addition you may want to specify which side is the footway and which
side is the cycleway by lanes=2 and bicycle:lanes=yes|no and
foot:lanes=no|yes
You may also add colour:lanes=red|grey


> 2) Picture 1 without the blue traffic sign
>

My answer:
Anything of the following, depending on context:
highway=unclassified/track/pedestrian/cycleway/...
But none of foot/bicycle=designated/official/yes


> 3) Picture 2 with the blue traffic sign
>

My answer:
exactly as in case (1) for the cycle-and-foot-way and in addition
bicycle=use_sidepath on the street


> 4) Picture 2 without the blue traffic sign
>

My answers:

Alternative (a)
highway=residential
sidewalk=both
Reason: If there is no sign whatsoever, I would consider both sides as
sidewalk (Buergersteig in German).

Alternative (b)
Use separate ways on both sides of the street with: highway=footway, but
none of foot/bicycle=designated/official
Without additional signs the paths on both sides of the road are sidewalks
(i.e. pedestrian use)

In all four cases there are in addition all the other tags like surface=;
smoothness=; lit=
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging