Re: [Tagging] How to tag a "Olive Oil Factory"?

[Warin]

On 26/10/2015 4:19 AM, david wrote:

Hello,

My name is David, and I'm a novel user. I find OpenStreetMap really
interesting. My user in OpenStreetMap is dlv3.

Welcome!


I'm sourveying my little village. I'm trying to tag a "Olive Oil
Factory"(I'm not a english speaker, ¿is this name corret?

Yes

The factory
takes harvested olives, after a few process, olive oil is produced).I
have looked for the tag in the wiki. However, I only have found the
following tag "man_made,works". Is this tag enough?


Depends on what you are tagging ...

The land area the factory occupies can be tagged landuse=industrial or 
commercial depend on how you see it


The building itself can be tagged building=factory - either as an area 
or a single point (node).


--
You can then add other tags (I call these subtags) for detail
name=
operator=
and so on

then there is the proposal for industrial/factory 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/industrial


You could then add 'new' tags such as 'factory=olive_oil'.
 Rules - use lower case only, try to match any existing tag use or 
proposals and then add your use to the wiki documents.


Good luck.. keep asking questions. The OSM wiki is a reasonable source 
of information.





Thank you in advanced
David López Villegas

___
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] How to tag a "Olive Oil Factory"?

[John Willis]

> On Oct 26, 2015, at 2:19 AM, david  wrote:
> 
> The factory
> takes harvested olives, after a few process, olive oil is produced).

The olive mill suggested was 5 years old, so adding that man_made tag would be 
on top of a few other tags. 

The big thing is if it is an industrial facility. 

If the factory is big enough / clear enough to see the land used by the factory 
and it's related things (parking lots, storage sheds) make an area for it and 
tag it as landuse=industrial. 

Outline the big buildings and tag as building=industrial. Add the office 
(building=office) and other small buildings (building=yes) if they are there or 
separate.   Put the man_made=olive_mill (or whatever that tag was) on the 
landuse area, along with the factory's name, address, and contact info.  Add 
any building references (Building A, #2 ) to the buildings themselves (ref=a or 
ref=2). 

Good luck in OSM!

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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[Ian Sanders]

Here are some examples of this, just to clarify. I don't see how these
could possibly be mapped as nodes, so I really don't understand what the
debate was in the first place:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/26.53270/-81.75712
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/26.53696/-81.77442
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/26.59305/-81.86069

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:48 PM Gerd Petermann <
gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> I want to thank all of you for the input. I think
> it is common sense (now) that tunnel=culvert
> should be used on ways only, so I'd be happy to see
> the wiki pages changed so that they don't suggest
> to use the tag on a node.
> Who can do that?
>
> Gerd
>
> 
> Von: Florian Lohoff 
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. Oktober 2015 14:39
> An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> Betreff: Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert
>
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 10:20:10AM +, Gerd Petermann wrote:
> > I don't think that this is a strong point.
> > Thinking about my own edits I'd say that the
> > length could be +/- 4m because typically I just try to place
> > the nodes somewhere neer the road, if I find an existing
> > node that looks good enough I use that.
> >  On the other hand, I think we make
> > assumptions about the width of the road based on its
> > type (primary, secondary ,etc),
> > so this assumption would also apply on the culvert.
>
> So we implicitly assume a width of a road now we propagate
> this fault to all attached objects?
>
> We should reduce errors by implicitly assuming something not
> increase them.
>
> Flo
> --
> Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
>   We need to self-defend - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!
>
> ___
> 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] How to tag a "Olive Oil Factory"?

[Éric Gillet]

Hi and welcome on OSM !

There is a proposed feature about olive oil mills
 on
the wiki.

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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[Gerd Petermann]

Hi, 
I want to thank all of you for the input. I think 
it is common sense (now) that tunnel=culvert
should be used on ways only, so I'd be happy to see
the wiki pages changed so that they don't suggest
to use the tag on a node.
Who can do that?

Gerd


Von: Florian Lohoff 
Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. Oktober 2015 14:39
An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 10:20:10AM +, Gerd Petermann wrote:
> I don't think that this is a strong point.
> Thinking about my own edits I'd say that the
> length could be +/- 4m because typically I just try to place
> the nodes somewhere neer the road, if I find an existing
> node that looks good enough I use that.
>  On the other hand, I think we make
> assumptions about the width of the road based on its
> type (primary, secondary ,etc),
> so this assumption would also apply on the culvert.

So we implicitly assume a width of a road now we propagate
this fault to all attached objects?

We should reduce errors by implicitly assuming something not
increase them.

Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
  We need to self-defend - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!

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

[Tagging] How to tag a "Olive Oil Factory"?

[david]

Hello,

My name is David, and I'm a novel user. I find OpenStreetMap really
interesting. My user in OpenStreetMap is dlv3.

I'm sourveying my little village. I'm trying to tag a "Olive Oil
Factory"(I'm not a english speaker, ¿is this name corret? The factory
takes harvested olives, after a few process, olive oil is produced).I
have looked for the tag in the wiki. However, I only have found the
following tag "man_made,works". Is this tag enough?

Thank you in advanced
David López Villegas

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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[Florian Lohoff]

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 10:20:10AM +, Gerd Petermann wrote:
> I don't think that this is a strong point.
> Thinking about my own edits I'd say that the
> length could be +/- 4m because typically I just try to place
> the nodes somewhere neer the road, if I find an existing
> node that looks good enough I use that.
>  On the other hand, I think we make 
> assumptions about the width of the road based on its 
> type (primary, secondary ,etc),
> so this assumption would also apply on the culvert.

So we implicitly assume a width of a road now we propagate
this fault to all attached objects? 

We should reduce errors by implicitly assuming something not
increase them.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
  We need to self-defend - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[John Willis]

Javbw
> On Oct 25, 2015, at 9:33 PM, Dave Swarthout  wrote:
> 
> two tags describe a situation quite common in Alaska.

Quite common here too in Japan. The runoff is captured and fed into a 
feed/drain system to fill rice fields with water, as well as used as a mostly 
open air storm drain system. Almost all of this system is concrete U shaped 
sections along fields or roads -  with or without lids depending on its 
proximity to road/foot traffic and cost. They go under roads everywhere, then 
feed into large streams (in larger 3 feet concrete Us) and finally dumped in 
the river (the cost for this even in the most rural areas must be 
astronomical). There are probably 200 culverts in a 1/2 mile-1KM circle around 
my house. I have seen a lot of galvanized ridged piping used for culverts in 
the US (suburban or rural culverts over paved / gravel roads - the frequency is 
less - but unless it is a ford, its basically the same "tunnel".

 Dropped Pin
near 2995 Niisatochō Nikkawa, Kiryū-shi, Gunma-ken 376-0121
https://goo.gl/maps/ANVYKNSXdBn

Two culverts crossing the intersection (grated drains) feeding into a 3ft/1m 
covered stream, whose lid sections form the sidewalk. The water will be 
diverted to flood rice fields further downstream.  Smaller drains along the 
sides of the road feed a tiny rice field reservoir, also crossing under the 
road as a fully buried culvert. 

So a "culvert sidewalk" with 3 culverts at one intersection. None of them are 
ever noticed by the drivers that speed over them. The drains are so plentiful 
here mapping them is very difficult. 

The hazard to drivers here, especially in the mountains and very rural areas, 
Is open topped drains running parallel - not across - the roads. The drains are 
wide enough to catch a tire or a whole. bicycle. 

https://maps.google.com/?q=36.327169,139.289432&hl=en-JP&gl=jp

The drain here is dangerous - but the culvert for it (metal grates) at the 
intersection is not. 

The drain here (by its open nature) shares a level with the road - but thanks 
to the culvert, it does not share the same level at intersections. They share 
no nodes. 

Javbw. 


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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[Dave Swarthout]

I must comment here as I believe those two tags describe a situation quite
common in Alaska. Many many smaller waterways cross under a highway in a
special large diameter pipe called a culvert. The water flows through the
culvert, both are below the roadbed and consequently they do not share or
should not share any nodes. I map them using tunnel=culvert and the
additional tag of layer=-1. The situation is exactly analogous to when a
waterway flows under a bridge except in this case the bridge gets a layer=1
tag. A railway level crossing is quite different because the two ways do
cross on the same layer. Here tagging a node is correct.

I cannot think of a situation where one would tag a culvert as a node
unless it's to indicate an entrance to a very long, invisible culvert.

My 2 cents.

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Georg Feddern 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Am 25.10.2015 um 11:44 schrieb Gerd Petermann:
>
> I do not fully agree here. In Germany, I often see a traffic sign
> "Vorsicht Düker"
>
> (~ "Attention! Culvert") next to these culverts.
>
> I am not sure why I should pay attention, but it seems that some
>
> people think that the traffic on the road should notify it.
>
> Maybe because it also often means that there is a
>
> barrier=fence along the road.
>
>
> In fact I thought that these signs are the explanation for the
>
> use of tunnel=culvert on a node.
>
>
> please be careful:
> A "Düker" is not a normal "culvert"!
> At a culvert the water is flowing on the same level in the culvert,
> normally with airy room above water level in the culvert.
> At a "Düker" the water is "pressured" on a level below the normal water
> level through the "Düker", so there is no room above water level.
> The normal road traffic has not to obey these sign - but any street work
> or use (crawling ;) ) at the waterside.
>
> Georg
>
> ___
> 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] tunnel=culvert

[Georg Feddern]

Hello,

Am 25.10.2015 um 11:44 schrieb Gerd Petermann:


I do not fully agree here. In Germany, I often see a traffic sign 
"Vorsicht Düker"


(~ "Attention! Culvert") next to these culverts.

I am not sure why I should pay attention, but it seems that some

people think that the traffic on the road should notify it.

Maybe because it also often means that there is a

barrier=fence along the road.


In fact I thought that these signs are the explanation for the

use of tunnel=culvert on a node.




please be careful:
A "Düker" is not a normal "culvert"!
At a culvert the water is flowing on the same level in the culvert, 
normally with airy room above water level in the culvert.
At a "Düker" the water is "pressured" on a level below the normal water 
level through the "Düker", so there is no room above water level.
The normal road traffic has not to obey these sign - but any street work 
or use (crawling ;) ) at the waterside.


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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 25/10/2015 10:55, Richard wrote:

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 07:29:02PM +0900, johnw wrote:


the rail and road share an intersection. it is a level crossing. The whole 
point of a level crossing is to say “Hey!” the road and train meet here! that’s 
why they share the node.


Which is exactly the point.


it is not that simple. Ways covered by objects are mapped as having shared nodes
with the object covering them.
No, normally they _aren't_ mapped like this.  Take a look at any number 
of "waterway=stream;layer=-1;tunnel=something".  How may share a node 
with something above?  How many don't?


And 
"https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Simple_one_node_bridge"; 
didn't exactly meet a positive reception when it was mentioned here 
previously:


https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-April/thread.html#17202

Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[Richard]

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 11:44:17PM -0700, GerdP wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> up to now I've used tunnel=culvert 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tunnel=culvert
> like this:
> 1) JOSM warns that a waterway and highway are crossing
> 2) I split the waterway into 3 parts and add 
> tunnel=yes, layer=-1 to the short one in the middle (or 
> split the road and add bridge=yes,layer=1)
> 
> Now I noticed that the wiki also "allows" to use tunnel=culvert
> on a node, but this is rarely used 
> (taginfo shows 945 tags on nodes and > 305.000 on ways) 
> I wonder why. The usage of a node seems to be clearer for me,
> at least in those cases where the tunnel is almost as broad as the 
> road. In my eyes it is the same case as with a 
> railway=level_crossing. We map it as a node (and only as a node).
> Did I miss something?

there is also 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Simple_one_node_bridge

Richard


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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[Richard]

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 07:29:02PM +0900, johnw wrote:
> 
> > On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:27 PM, Ineiev  wrote:
> > 
> >> In my eyes it is the same case as with a
> >> railway=level_crossing. We map it as a node (and only as a node).
> >> Did I miss something?
> > 
> > In this case, the highway and the railway share the same level.
> 
> +1 
> 
> the rail and road share an intersection. it is a level crossing. The whole 
> point of a level crossing is to say “Hey!” the road and train meet here! 
> that’s why they share the node. 

it is not that simple. Ways covered by objects are mapped as having shared nodes
with the object covering them. Pylons connect objects/ways of different layers 
and 
are frequently mapped as nodes.

Nodes and layer are difficult. Usually "layer" on a node does not make 
sense but can be defined to have a special meaning.

Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[Gerd Petermann]

I do not fully agree here. In Germany, I often see a traffic sign "Vorsicht 
Düker"

(~ "Attention! Culvert") next to these culverts.

I am not sure why I should pay attention, but it seems that some

people think that the traffic on the road should notify it.

Maybe because it also often means that there is a

barrier=fence along the road.


In fact I thought that these signs are the explanation for the

use of tunnel=culvert on a node.


Gerd




Von: johnw 
Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. Oktober 2015 11:29
An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert


On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:27 PM, Ineiev mailto:ine...@gnu.org>> 
wrote:

In my eyes it is the same case as with a
railway=level_crossing. We map it as a node (and only as a node).
Did I miss something?

In this case, the highway and the railway share the same level.

+1

the rail and road share an intersection. it is a level crossing. The whole 
point of a level crossing is to say "Hey!" the road and train meet here! that's 
why they share the node.


a train in a tunnel doesn't - so it doesn't share a node with the road(s) 
above. There is no notice to a driver of subway lines, storm drains, water 
pipes, etc in the road as you drive - why is the culvert a node property of the 
road?

Water and a road sharing the same node on the same level is called a ford.

A culvert is a type of tunnel.  Zoom in and make a tiny going across the road 
and tag it as a culvert.

In general, Tunnels are a property of ways, not nodes.

Occasionally it is not completely sealed (there is a grate, or just rail ties 
and track), but it none the less has no bearing on the traffic on the track, 
road, or path above it - so it does not share a node with the road/track above 
- just as power lines crossing above do not either.

It is not a stream that you have to get your car through.

it is a small tunnel under the road.

So tag it as a way. tunnels on nodes - especially on shared nodes with roads 
that are not in tunnels seems really really bad.

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

Re: [Tagging] WG: how to tag a "highway" that doesn't exist?

[Andre Engels]

I think the one to contact there is SimMoonXP - in the tiger upload
these were highway=residential, he is the one who changed them to
highway=unbuilt.

André Engels

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Hans De Kryger
 wrote:
> The example above i mentioned
> (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/5987185/history) i'm guessing i shouldn't
> contact anyone since it was a tiger upload from 2007?
>
> Regards,
>
> Hans
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
>
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 2:02 AM, Hans De Kryger 
> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for getting back to me, if you have a list of them shoot it my way.
>> I'll start working on them.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Hans
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:55 AM, GerdP 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Hans,
>>>
>>> I think that is part of the problem, you always have to decide if the
>>> way is of any use for others, else we could just use a mass edit.
>>> Each case needs review and thinking, that's why I am asking for help ;-)
>>> As long as you contact the original mapper I see no problem.
>>>
>>> Gerd
>>>
>>>
>>> Hans De Kryger wrote
>>> > Hey Gerd,
>>> >
>>> > Thanks for reaching out to me, i have to say I'm a little confused. The
>>> > ways you mentioned were a mistake and were suppose to be tagged
>>> > (historic,railway etc) i get. But like the example shown here (1) there
>>> > seems to be no plausible reason for it? It seems to me that any
>>> > examples
>>> > which are similar to this need to be deleted. The original mapper can
>>> > always be contacted beforehand.
>>> >
>>> > (1)
>>> >
>>> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=5987185#map=19/32.97970/-117.05502
>>> >
>>> > *Regards,*
>>> >
>>> > *Hans*
>>> >
>>> > *http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
>>> > *
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:03 AM, GerdP <
>>>
>>> > gpetermann_muenchen@
>>>
>>> > >
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Hi Hans,
>>> >>
>>> >> Yes, I think I need help, not only from you:
>>> >> I've commented many of the changesets which introduced
>>> >> new highway=* tags on ways which are rarely used.
>>> >>
>>> >> I learned that many of them were typos, often
>>> >> highway=* should be historic=* or railway=* or
>>> >> waterway=*. I think I can manage to cleanup those.
>>> >>
>>> >> If we decide to change those with tags values like pre_proposed,
>>> >> paper,
>>> >> design,not_yet_bla_bla to a note describing the reason why the
>>> >> way doesn't yet deserve a highway=proposed tag
>>> >> it would be great if the mappers would do that.
>>> >>
>>> >> I think the best way to do that without being to rude is to
>>> >> change the highway tag to a note AND add a specific comment
>>> >> to the corresponding changeset which introduced the tag, something
>>> >> like "please review way 1234567, I've changed the rarely used tag
>>> >> highway=xyz to a note. See also
>>> > 
>>> > .
>>> >>
>>> >> I did that a few times now without any complains from the mappers,
>>> >> so I hope that's okay.
>>> >>
>>> >> Gerd
>>> >>
>>> >> Hans De Kryger wrote
>>> >> > Let me know if you need any help.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > *Regards,*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > *Hans*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > *http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
>>> >> > *
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Gerd Petermann <
>>> >>
>>> >> > GPetermann_muenchen@
>>> >>
>>> >> >> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> Hi Hans,
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> that was my thought as well. I assume I have to check all the
>>> >> suspicious
>>> >> >> entries that
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/highway#values
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> shows. The data is a bit out-aged now (2015-10-14 23:58 UTC)
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> as I am constantly cleaning up but I think 842 different highway=*
>>> >> tags
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> are far too many, both for consumers and for newbies.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Gerd
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> --
>>> >> >> *Von:* Hans De Kryger <
>>> >>
>>> >> > hans.dekryger13@
>>> >>
>>> >> > >
>>> >> >> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 16. Oktober 2015 08:13
>>> >> >> *An:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
>>> >> >> *Betreff:* Re: [Tagging] WG: how to tag a "highway" that doesn't
>>> >> exist?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Thanks for the examples, i definitely disagree with both examples.
>>> >> Makes
>>> >> >> no sense to have those at all to me. In my opinion they need to be
>>> >> >> reverted/deleted.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> *Regards,*
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> *Hans*
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> *http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
>>> >> >> 
>>> >> >>  OpenStreetMap
>>> >> |
>>> >> >> TheDutchMan13 OpenStreetMap is the free wiki world map. ...
>>> >> >> "Changing
>>> >> the
>>> >> >> world one edit at a time" In love with OpenStreetMap! I mostly map
>>> >> within
>>> >> >> the

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[johnw]

> On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:27 PM, Ineiev  wrote:
> 
>> In my eyes it is the same case as with a
>> railway=level_crossing. We map it as a node (and only as a node).
>> Did I miss something?
> 
> In this case, the highway and the railway share the same level.

+1 

the rail and road share an intersection. it is a level crossing. The whole 
point of a level crossing is to say “Hey!” the road and train meet here! that’s 
why they share the node. 


a train in a tunnel doesn’t - so it doesn’t share a node with the road(s) 
above. There is no notice to a driver of subway lines, storm drains, water 
pipes, etc in the road as you drive - why is the culvert a node property of the 
road?  

Water and a road sharing the same node on the same level is called a ford. 

A culvert is a type of tunnel.  Zoom in and make a tiny going across the road 
and tag it as a culvert. 

In general, Tunnels are a property of ways, not nodes. 

Occasionally it is not completely sealed (there is a grate, or just rail ties 
and track), but it none the less has no bearing on the traffic on the track, 
road, or path above it - so it does not share a node with the road/track above 
- just as power lines crossing above do not either. 

It is not a stream that you have to get your car through. 

it is a small tunnel under the road. 

So tag it as a way. tunnels on nodes - especially on shared nodes with roads 
that are not in tunnels seems really really bad. 

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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[Gerd Petermann]

I don't think that this is a strong point.
Thinking about my own edits I'd say that the
length could be +/- 4m because typically I just try to place
the nodes somewhere neer the road, if I find an existing
node that looks good enough I use that.
 On the other hand, I think we make 
assumptions about the width of the road based on its 
type (primary, secondary ,etc),
so this assumption would also apply on the culvert.

Gerd


Von: Florian Lohoff 
Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. Oktober 2015 11:04
An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 11:44:17PM -0700, GerdP wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> up to now I've used tunnel=culvert
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tunnel=culvert
> like this:
> 1) JOSM warns that a waterway and highway are crossing
> 2) I split the waterway into 3 parts and add
> tunnel=yes, layer=-1 to the short one in the middle (or
> split the road and add bridge=yes,layer=1)
>
> Now I noticed that the wiki also "allows" to use tunnel=culvert
> on a node, but this is rarely used
> (taginfo shows 945 tags on nodes and > 305.000 on ways)
> I wonder why. The usage of a node seems to be clearer for me,
> at least in those cases where the tunnel is almost as broad as the
> road. In my eyes it is the same case as with a

But our model only marks the CENTER of the road not its extent.
So making it a node would mean you have an tunnel= with an extent/length
of near 0 ...

Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
  We need to self-defend - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!

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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[Florian Lohoff]

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 11:44:17PM -0700, GerdP wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> up to now I've used tunnel=culvert 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tunnel=culvert
> like this:
> 1) JOSM warns that a waterway and highway are crossing
> 2) I split the waterway into 3 parts and add 
> tunnel=yes, layer=-1 to the short one in the middle (or 
> split the road and add bridge=yes,layer=1)
> 
> Now I noticed that the wiki also "allows" to use tunnel=culvert
> on a node, but this is rarely used 
> (taginfo shows 945 tags on nodes and > 305.000 on ways) 
> I wonder why. The usage of a node seems to be clearer for me,
> at least in those cases where the tunnel is almost as broad as the 
> road. In my eyes it is the same case as with a 

But our model only marks the CENTER of the road not its extent.
So making it a node would mean you have an tunnel= with an extent/length
of near 0 ...

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
  We need to self-defend - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[Gerd Petermann]

Hi Colin,


good point, I agree that they don't share the node. So I guess the wiki

should be changed ?


Gerd



Von: Colin Smale 
Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. Oktober 2015 10:49
An: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert






Does the pipe have to be below the road? There could be another tunnel below 
the culvert as well.

In any case the pipe and the road are (in real life, and by design) not 
connected and if they share a node it will doubtless lead to all kinds of QA 
complaints.

--colin

On 2015-10-25 10:38, Gerd Petermann wrote:

Hi,

thanks for the feedback. I think tunnel=culvert is special,
my understanding is that it implies that the water goes through
some kind of pipe. So tunnel=culvert on a node
simply implies that the waterway is below the road,
no layer tag is needed.

Gerd

Von: Ineiev mailto:ine...@gnu.org>>
Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. Oktober 2015 10:27
An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

Hello,

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 11:44:17PM -0700, GerdP wrote:
Now I noticed that the wiki also "allows" to use tunnel=culvert
on a node,

On the other hand, the wiki "disallows" to use tunnel=* on a node.

but this is rarely used
(taginfo shows 945 tags on nodes and > 305.000 on ways)
I wonder why. The usage of a node seems to be clearer for me,
at least in those cases where the tunnel is almost as broad as the
road.

What would be in the tunnel? the waterway or the highway? how would
the layer= apply?

In my eyes it is the same case as with a
railway=level_crossing. We map it as a node (and only as a node).
Did I miss something?

In this case, the highway and the railway share the same level.

___
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] tunnel=culvert

[Colin Smale]

 

Does the pipe have to be below the road? There could be another tunnel
below the culvert as well. 

In any case the pipe and the road are (in real life, and by design) not
connected and if they share a node it will doubtless lead to all kinds
of QA complaints. 

--colin 

On 2015-10-25 10:38, Gerd Petermann wrote: 

> Hi,
> 
> thanks for the feedback. I think tunnel=culvert is special,
> my understanding is that it implies that the water goes through
> some kind of pipe. So tunnel=culvert on a node
> simply implies that the waterway is below the road,
> no layer tag is needed.
> 
> Gerd
> 
> Von: Ineiev 
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. Oktober 2015 10:27
> An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> Betreff: Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert
> 
> Hello,
> 
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 11:44:17PM -0700, GerdP wrote: 
> 
>> Now I noticed that the wiki also "allows" to use tunnel=culvert
>> on a node,
> 
> On the other hand, the wiki "disallows" to use tunnel=* on a node.
> 
>> but this is rarely used
>> (taginfo shows 945 tags on nodes and > 305.000 on ways)
>> I wonder why. The usage of a node seems to be clearer for me,
>> at least in those cases where the tunnel is almost as broad as the
>> road.
> 
> What would be in the tunnel? the waterway or the highway? how would
> the layer= apply?
> 
>> In my eyes it is the same case as with a
>> railway=level_crossing. We map it as a node (and only as a node).
>> Did I miss something?
> 
> In this case, the highway and the railway share the same level.
> 
> ___
> 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] tunnel=culvert

[Gerd Petermann]

Hi,

thanks for the feedback. I think tunnel=culvert is special,
my understanding is that it implies that the water goes through
some kind of pipe. So tunnel=culvert on a node
simply implies that the waterway is below the road,
no layer tag is needed.

Gerd

Von: Ineiev 
Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. Oktober 2015 10:27
An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

Hello,

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 11:44:17PM -0700, GerdP wrote:
> Now I noticed that the wiki also "allows" to use tunnel=culvert
> on a node,

On the other hand, the wiki "disallows" to use tunnel=* on a node.

> but this is rarely used
> (taginfo shows 945 tags on nodes and > 305.000 on ways)
> I wonder why. The usage of a node seems to be clearer for me,
> at least in those cases where the tunnel is almost as broad as the
> road.

What would be in the tunnel? the waterway or the highway? how would
the layer= apply?

> In my eyes it is the same case as with a
> railway=level_crossing. We map it as a node (and only as a node).
> Did I miss something?

In this case, the highway and the railway share the same level.

___
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] tunnel=culvert

[Ineiev]

Hello,

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 11:44:17PM -0700, GerdP wrote:
> Now I noticed that the wiki also "allows" to use tunnel=culvert
> on a node,

On the other hand, the wiki "disallows" to use tunnel=* on a node.

> but this is rarely used
> (taginfo shows 945 tags on nodes and > 305.000 on ways)
> I wonder why. The usage of a node seems to be clearer for me,
> at least in those cases where the tunnel is almost as broad as the
> road.

What would be in the tunnel? the waterway or the highway? how would
the layer= apply?

> In my eyes it is the same case as with a
> railway=level_crossing. We map it as a node (and only as a node).
> Did I miss something?

In this case, the highway and the railway share the same level.

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

Re: [Tagging] WG: how to tag a "highway" that doesn't exist?

[GerdP]

The following overpass turbo query shows > 200 candidates
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/cf3


Gerd


Hans De Kryger wrote
> Thanks for getting back to me, if you have a list of them shoot it my way.
> I'll start working on them.
> 
> *Regards,*
> 
> *Hans*
> 
> *http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
> *
> 
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:55 AM, GerdP <

> gpetermann_muenchen@

> >
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Hans,
>>
>> I think that is part of the problem, you always have to decide if the
>> way is of any use for others, else we could just use a mass edit.
>> Each case needs review and thinking, that's why I am asking for help ;-)
>> As long as you contact the original mapper I see no problem.
>>
>> Gerd
>>
>>
>> Hans De Kryger wrote
>> > Hey Gerd,
>> >
>> > Thanks for reaching out to me, i have to say I'm a little confused. The
>> > ways you mentioned were a mistake and were suppose to be tagged
>> > (historic,railway etc) i get. But like the example shown here (1) there
>> > seems to be no plausible reason for it? It seems to me that any
>> examples
>> > which are similar to this need to be deleted. The original mapper can
>> > always be contacted beforehand.
>> >
>> > (1)
>> >
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=5987185#map=19/32.97970/-117.05502
>> >
>> > *Regards,*
>> >
>> > *Hans*
>> >
>> > *http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
>> > *
>> >
>> > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:03 AM, GerdP <
>>
>> > gpetermann_muenchen@
>>
>> > >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Hans,
>> >>
>> >> Yes, I think I need help, not only from you:
>> >> I've commented many of the changesets which introduced
>> >> new highway=* tags on ways which are rarely used.
>> >>
>> >> I learned that many of them were typos, often
>> >> highway=* should be historic=* or railway=* or
>> >> waterway=*. I think I can manage to cleanup those.
>> >>
>> >> If we decide to change those with tags values like pre_proposed,
>> paper,
>> >> design,not_yet_bla_bla to a note describing the reason why the
>> >> way doesn't yet deserve a highway=proposed tag
>> >> it would be great if the mappers would do that.
>> >>
>> >> I think the best way to do that without being to rude is to
>> >> change the highway tag to a note AND add a specific comment
>> >> to the corresponding changeset which introduced the tag, something
>> >> like "please review way 1234567, I've changed the rarely used tag
>> >> highway=xyz to a note. See also
>> > 
> 
>> > .
>> >>
>> >> I did that a few times now without any complains from the mappers,
>> >> so I hope that's okay.
>> >>
>> >> Gerd
>> >>
>> >> Hans De Kryger wrote
>> >> > Let me know if you need any help.
>> >> >
>> >> > *Regards,*
>> >> >
>> >> > *Hans*
>> >> >
>> >> > *http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
>> >> > *
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Gerd Petermann <
>> >>
>> >> > GPetermann_muenchen@
>> >>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Hi Hans,
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> that was my thought as well. I assume I have to check all the
>> >> suspicious
>> >> >> entries that
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/highway#values
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> shows. The data is a bit out-aged now (2015-10-14 23:58 UTC)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> as I am constantly cleaning up but I think 842 different highway=*
>> >> tags
>> >> >>
>> >> >> are far too many, both for consumers and for newbies.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Gerd
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> *Von:* Hans De Kryger <
>> >>
>> >> > hans.dekryger13@
>> >>
>> >> > >
>> >> >> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 16. Oktober 2015 08:13
>> >> >> *An:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
>> >> >> *Betreff:* Re: [Tagging] WG: how to tag a "highway" that doesn't
>> >> exist?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks for the examples, i definitely disagree with both examples.
>> >> Makes
>> >> >> no sense to have those at all to me. In my opinion they need to be
>> >> >> reverted/deleted.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> *Regards,*
>> >> >>
>> >> >> *Hans*
>> >> >>
>> >> >> *http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
>> >> >> ;
>> >> >> ;
>> OpenStreetMap
>> >> |
>> >> >> TheDutchMan13 OpenStreetMap is the free wiki world map. ...
>> "Changing
>> >> the
>> >> >> world one edit at a time" In love with OpenStreetMap! I mostly map
>> >> within
>> >> >> the borders of Arizona. Weitere Informationen...
>> >> >> ; *
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Gerd Petermann <
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >> > GPetermann_muenchen@
>> >>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Oops, forgot to set the list on cc
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> --
>> >> >>> *Von:* Gerd Petermann
>> >> >>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 16. Oktober 2015 07:21
>> >> >>> *An:* Hans De 

Re: [Tagging] WG: how to tag a "highway" that doesn't exist?

[GerdP]

I've never commented the large tiger imports, but
sometimes asked for a review by one of the later 
editors, when they appeared to be locals.

Gerd

Hans De Kryger wrote
> ​The example above i mentioned (​
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/5987185/history) i'm guessing i shouldn't
> contact anyone since it was a tiger upload from 2007?
> 
> *Regards,*
> 
> *Hans*
> 
> *http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
> *
> 
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 2:02 AM, Hans De Kryger <

> hans.dekryger13@

> >
> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks for getting back to me, if you have a list of them shoot it my
>> way.
>> I'll start working on them.
>>
>> *Regards,*
>>
>> *Hans*
>>
>> *http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
>> *
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:55 AM, GerdP <

> gpetermann_muenchen@

> >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Hans,
>>>
>>> I think that is part of the problem, you always have to decide if the
>>> way is of any use for others, else we could just use a mass edit.
>>> Each case needs review and thinking, that's why I am asking for help ;-)
>>> As long as you contact the original mapper I see no problem.
>>>
>>> Gerd
>>>
>>>
>>> Hans De Kryger wrote
>>> > Hey Gerd,
>>> >
>>> > Thanks for reaching out to me, i have to say I'm a little confused.
>>> The
>>> > ways you mentioned were a mistake and were suppose to be tagged
>>> > (historic,railway etc) i get. But like the example shown here (1)
>>> there
>>> > seems to be no plausible reason for it? It seems to me that any
>>> examples
>>> > which are similar to this need to be deleted. The original mapper can
>>> > always be contacted beforehand.
>>> >
>>> > (1)
>>> >
>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=5987185#map=19/32.97970/-117.05502
>>> >
>>> > *Regards,*
>>> >
>>> > *Hans*
>>> >
>>> > *http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
>>> > *
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:03 AM, GerdP <
>>>
>>> > gpetermann_muenchen@
>>>
>>> > >
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Hi Hans,
>>> >>
>>> >> Yes, I think I need help, not only from you:
>>> >> I've commented many of the changesets which introduced
>>> >> new highway=* tags on ways which are rarely used.
>>> >>
>>> >> I learned that many of them were typos, often
>>> >> highway=* should be historic=* or railway=* or
>>> >> waterway=*. I think I can manage to cleanup those.
>>> >>
>>> >> If we decide to change those with tags values like pre_proposed,
>>> paper,
>>> >> design,not_yet_bla_bla to a note describing the reason why the
>>> >> way doesn't yet deserve a highway=proposed tag
>>> >> it would be great if the mappers would do that.
>>> >>
>>> >> I think the best way to do that without being to rude is to
>>> >> change the highway tag to a note AND add a specific comment
>>> >> to the corresponding changeset which introduced the tag, something
>>> >> like "please review way 1234567, I've changed the rarely used tag
>>> >> highway=xyz to a note. See also
>>> > 
> 
>>> > .
>>> >>
>>> >> I did that a few times now without any complains from the mappers,
>>> >> so I hope that's okay.
>>> >>
>>> >> Gerd
>>> >>
>>> >> Hans De Kryger wrote
>>> >> > Let me know if you need any help.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > *Regards,*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > *Hans*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > *http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
>>> >> > *
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Gerd Petermann <
>>> >>
>>> >> > GPetermann_muenchen@
>>> >>
>>> >> >> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> Hi Hans,
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> that was my thought as well. I assume I have to check all the
>>> >> suspicious
>>> >> >> entries that
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/highway#values
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> shows. The data is a bit out-aged now (2015-10-14 23:58 UTC)
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> as I am constantly cleaning up but I think 842 different highway=*
>>> >> tags
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> are far too many, both for consumers and for newbies.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Gerd
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> --
>>> >> >> *Von:* Hans De Kryger <
>>> >>
>>> >> > hans.dekryger13@
>>> >>
>>> >> > >
>>> >> >> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 16. Oktober 2015 08:13
>>> >> >> *An:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
>>> >> >> *Betreff:* Re: [Tagging] WG: how to tag a "highway" that doesn't
>>> >> exist?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Thanks for the examples, i definitely disagree with both examples.
>>> >> Makes
>>> >> >> no sense to have those at all to me. In my opinion they need to be
>>> >> >> reverted/deleted.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> *Regards,*
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> *Hans*
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> *http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
>>> >> >> ;
>>> >> >> ;
>>> OpenStreetMap
>>> >> |
>>> >> >> TheDutchMan13 OpenStreetMap is the free wiki world map. 

Re: [Tagging] WG: how to tag a "highway" that doesn't exist?

[Hans De Kryger]

​The example above i mentioned (​
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/5987185/history) i'm guessing i shouldn't
contact anyone since it was a tiger upload from 2007?

*Regards,*

*Hans*

*http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
*

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 2:02 AM, Hans De Kryger 
wrote:

> Thanks for getting back to me, if you have a list of them shoot it my way.
> I'll start working on them.
>
> *Regards,*
>
> *Hans*
>
> *http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
> *
>
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:55 AM, GerdP 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Hans,
>>
>> I think that is part of the problem, you always have to decide if the
>> way is of any use for others, else we could just use a mass edit.
>> Each case needs review and thinking, that's why I am asking for help ;-)
>> As long as you contact the original mapper I see no problem.
>>
>> Gerd
>>
>>
>> Hans De Kryger wrote
>> > Hey Gerd,
>> >
>> > Thanks for reaching out to me, i have to say I'm a little confused. The
>> > ways you mentioned were a mistake and were suppose to be tagged
>> > (historic,railway etc) i get. But like the example shown here (1) there
>> > seems to be no plausible reason for it? It seems to me that any examples
>> > which are similar to this need to be deleted. The original mapper can
>> > always be contacted beforehand.
>> >
>> > (1)
>> >
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=5987185#map=19/32.97970/-117.05502
>> >
>> > *Regards,*
>> >
>> > *Hans*
>> >
>> > *http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
>> > *
>> >
>> > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:03 AM, GerdP <
>>
>> > gpetermann_muenchen@
>>
>> > >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Hans,
>> >>
>> >> Yes, I think I need help, not only from you:
>> >> I've commented many of the changesets which introduced
>> >> new highway=* tags on ways which are rarely used.
>> >>
>> >> I learned that many of them were typos, often
>> >> highway=* should be historic=* or railway=* or
>> >> waterway=*. I think I can manage to cleanup those.
>> >>
>> >> If we decide to change those with tags values like pre_proposed, paper,
>> >> design,not_yet_bla_bla to a note describing the reason why the
>> >> way doesn't yet deserve a highway=proposed tag
>> >> it would be great if the mappers would do that.
>> >>
>> >> I think the best way to do that without being to rude is to
>> >> change the highway tag to a note AND add a specific comment
>> >> to the corresponding changeset which introduced the tag, something
>> >> like "please review way 1234567, I've changed the rarely used tag
>> >> highway=xyz to a note. See also
>> > 
>> > .
>> >>
>> >> I did that a few times now without any complains from the mappers,
>> >> so I hope that's okay.
>> >>
>> >> Gerd
>> >>
>> >> Hans De Kryger wrote
>> >> > Let me know if you need any help.
>> >> >
>> >> > *Regards,*
>> >> >
>> >> > *Hans*
>> >> >
>> >> > *http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
>> >> > *
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Gerd Petermann <
>> >>
>> >> > GPetermann_muenchen@
>> >>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Hi Hans,
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> that was my thought as well. I assume I have to check all the
>> >> suspicious
>> >> >> entries that
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/highway#values
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> shows. The data is a bit out-aged now (2015-10-14 23:58 UTC)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> as I am constantly cleaning up but I think 842 different highway=*
>> >> tags
>> >> >>
>> >> >> are far too many, both for consumers and for newbies.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Gerd
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> *Von:* Hans De Kryger <
>> >>
>> >> > hans.dekryger13@
>> >>
>> >> > >
>> >> >> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 16. Oktober 2015 08:13
>> >> >> *An:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
>> >> >> *Betreff:* Re: [Tagging] WG: how to tag a "highway" that doesn't
>> >> exist?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks for the examples, i definitely disagree with both examples.
>> >> Makes
>> >> >> no sense to have those at all to me. In my opinion they need to be
>> >> >> reverted/deleted.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> *Regards,*
>> >> >>
>> >> >> *Hans*
>> >> >>
>> >> >> *http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
>> >> >> 
>> >> >>  OpenStreetMap
>> >> |
>> >> >> TheDutchMan13 OpenStreetMap is the free wiki world map. ...
>> "Changing
>> >> the
>> >> >> world one edit at a time" In love with OpenStreetMap! I mostly map
>> >> within
>> >> >> the borders of Arizona. Weitere Informationen...
>> >> >>  *
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Gerd Petermann <
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >> > GPetermann_muenchen@
>> >>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Oops, forgot to set the

Re: [Tagging] WG: how to tag a "highway" that doesn't exist?

[Hans De Kryger]

Thanks for getting back to me, if you have a list of them shoot it my way.
I'll start working on them.

*Regards,*

*Hans*

*http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
*

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:55 AM, GerdP 
wrote:

> Hi Hans,
>
> I think that is part of the problem, you always have to decide if the
> way is of any use for others, else we could just use a mass edit.
> Each case needs review and thinking, that's why I am asking for help ;-)
> As long as you contact the original mapper I see no problem.
>
> Gerd
>
>
> Hans De Kryger wrote
> > Hey Gerd,
> >
> > Thanks for reaching out to me, i have to say I'm a little confused. The
> > ways you mentioned were a mistake and were suppose to be tagged
> > (historic,railway etc) i get. But like the example shown here (1) there
> > seems to be no plausible reason for it? It seems to me that any examples
> > which are similar to this need to be deleted. The original mapper can
> > always be contacted beforehand.
> >
> > (1)
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=5987185#map=19/32.97970/-117.05502
> >
> > *Regards,*
> >
> > *Hans*
> >
> > *http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
> > *
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:03 AM, GerdP <
>
> > gpetermann_muenchen@
>
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Hans,
> >>
> >> Yes, I think I need help, not only from you:
> >> I've commented many of the changesets which introduced
> >> new highway=* tags on ways which are rarely used.
> >>
> >> I learned that many of them were typos, often
> >> highway=* should be historic=* or railway=* or
> >> waterway=*. I think I can manage to cleanup those.
> >>
> >> If we decide to change those with tags values like pre_proposed, paper,
> >> design,not_yet_bla_bla to a note describing the reason why the
> >> way doesn't yet deserve a highway=proposed tag
> >> it would be great if the mappers would do that.
> >>
> >> I think the best way to do that without being to rude is to
> >> change the highway tag to a note AND add a specific comment
> >> to the corresponding changeset which introduced the tag, something
> >> like "please review way 1234567, I've changed the rarely used tag
> >> highway=xyz to a note. See also
> > 
> > .
> >>
> >> I did that a few times now without any complains from the mappers,
> >> so I hope that's okay.
> >>
> >> Gerd
> >>
> >> Hans De Kryger wrote
> >> > Let me know if you need any help.
> >> >
> >> > *Regards,*
> >> >
> >> > *Hans*
> >> >
> >> > *http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
> >> > *
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Gerd Petermann <
> >>
> >> > GPetermann_muenchen@
> >>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi Hans,
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> that was my thought as well. I assume I have to check all the
> >> suspicious
> >> >> entries that
> >> >>
> >> >> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/highway#values
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> shows. The data is a bit out-aged now (2015-10-14 23:58 UTC)
> >> >>
> >> >> as I am constantly cleaning up but I think 842 different highway=*
> >> tags
> >> >>
> >> >> are far too many, both for consumers and for newbies.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Gerd
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> *Von:* Hans De Kryger <
> >>
> >> > hans.dekryger13@
> >>
> >> > >
> >> >> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 16. Oktober 2015 08:13
> >> >> *An:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> >> >> *Betreff:* Re: [Tagging] WG: how to tag a "highway" that doesn't
> >> exist?
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks for the examples, i definitely disagree with both examples.
> >> Makes
> >> >> no sense to have those at all to me. In my opinion they need to be
> >> >> reverted/deleted.
> >> >>
> >> >> *Regards,*
> >> >>
> >> >> *Hans*
> >> >>
> >> >> *http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
> >> >> 
> >> >>  OpenStreetMap
> >> |
> >> >> TheDutchMan13 OpenStreetMap is the free wiki world map. ... "Changing
> >> the
> >> >> world one edit at a time" In love with OpenStreetMap! I mostly map
> >> within
> >> >> the borders of Arizona. Weitere Informationen...
> >> >>  *
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Gerd Petermann <
> >> >>
> >>
> >> > GPetermann_muenchen@
> >>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Oops, forgot to set the list on cc
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>> *Von:* Gerd Petermann
> >> >>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 16. Oktober 2015 07:21
> >> >>> *An:* Hans De Kryger
> >> >>> *Betreff:* AW: [Tagging] how to tag a "highway" that doesn't exist?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Example:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/5987185
> >> >>>
> >> >>> which is just the first best from 130 "highway=unbuilt" ways,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Its history shows that it was imported in 2007.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>

Re: [Tagging] WG: how to tag a "highway" that doesn't exist?

[GerdP]

Hi Hans,

I think that is part of the problem, you always have to decide if the 
way is of any use for others, else we could just use a mass edit.
Each case needs review and thinking, that's why I am asking for help ;-)
As long as you contact the original mapper I see no problem.

Gerd
 

Hans De Kryger wrote
> Hey Gerd,
> 
> Thanks for reaching out to me, i have to say I'm a little confused. The
> ways you mentioned were a mistake and were suppose to be tagged
> (historic,railway etc) i get. But like the example shown here (1) there
> seems to be no plausible reason for it? It seems to me that any examples
> which are similar to this need to be deleted. The original mapper can
> always be contacted beforehand.
> 
> (1)
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=5987185#map=19/32.97970/-117.05502
> 
> *Regards,*
> 
> *Hans*
> 
> *http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
> *
> 
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:03 AM, GerdP <

> gpetermann_muenchen@

> >
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Hans,
>>
>> Yes, I think I need help, not only from you:
>> I've commented many of the changesets which introduced
>> new highway=* tags on ways which are rarely used.
>>
>> I learned that many of them were typos, often
>> highway=* should be historic=* or railway=* or
>> waterway=*. I think I can manage to cleanup those.
>>
>> If we decide to change those with tags values like pre_proposed, paper,
>> design,not_yet_bla_bla to a note describing the reason why the
>> way doesn't yet deserve a highway=proposed tag
>> it would be great if the mappers would do that.
>>
>> I think the best way to do that without being to rude is to
>> change the highway tag to a note AND add a specific comment
>> to the corresponding changeset which introduced the tag, something
>> like "please review way 1234567, I've changed the rarely used tag
>> highway=xyz to a note. See also 
> 
> .
>>
>> I did that a few times now without any complains from the mappers,
>> so I hope that's okay.
>>
>> Gerd
>>
>> Hans De Kryger wrote
>> > Let me know if you need any help.
>> >
>> > *Regards,*
>> >
>> > *Hans*
>> >
>> > *http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
>> > *
>> >
>> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Gerd Petermann <
>>
>> > GPetermann_muenchen@
>>
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Hans,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> that was my thought as well. I assume I have to check all the
>> suspicious
>> >> entries that
>> >>
>> >> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/highway#values
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> shows. The data is a bit out-aged now (2015-10-14 23:58 UTC)
>> >>
>> >> as I am constantly cleaning up but I think 842 different highway=*
>> tags
>> >>
>> >> are far too many, both for consumers and for newbies.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Gerd
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> *Von:* Hans De Kryger <
>>
>> > hans.dekryger13@
>>
>> > >
>> >> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 16. Oktober 2015 08:13
>> >> *An:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
>> >> *Betreff:* Re: [Tagging] WG: how to tag a "highway" that doesn't
>> exist?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the examples, i definitely disagree with both examples.
>> Makes
>> >> no sense to have those at all to me. In my opinion they need to be
>> >> reverted/deleted.
>> >>
>> >> *Regards,*
>> >>
>> >> *Hans*
>> >>
>> >> *http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
>> >> ;
>> >> ; OpenStreetMap
>> |
>> >> TheDutchMan13 OpenStreetMap is the free wiki world map. ... "Changing
>> the
>> >> world one edit at a time" In love with OpenStreetMap! I mostly map
>> within
>> >> the borders of Arizona. Weitere Informationen...
>> >> ; *
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Gerd Petermann <
>> >>
>>
>> > GPetermann_muenchen@
>>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Oops, forgot to set the list on cc
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> *Von:* Gerd Petermann
>> >>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 16. Oktober 2015 07:21
>> >>> *An:* Hans De Kryger
>> >>> *Betreff:* AW: [Tagging] how to tag a "highway" that doesn't exist?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Example:
>> >>>
>> >>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/5987185
>> >>>
>> >>> which is just the first best from 130 "highway=unbuilt" ways,
>> >>>
>> >>> Its history shows that it was imported in 2007.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Just a few m south is another one:
>> >>>
>> >>> ;
>> >>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/199739291
>> >>>
>> >>> which doesn't have a long history but seems to be
>> >>>
>> >>> exactly like it.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Gerd
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> *Von:* Hans De Kryger <
>>
>> > hans.dekryger13@
>>
>> > >
>> >>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 16. Oktober 2015 01:09
>> >>> *An:* OpenStreetMap
>> >>> *Cc:* Gerd Petermann
>> >>> *Betreff:* Re: [Tagging] how to tag a "highw

Re: [Tagging] WG: how to tag a "highway" that doesn't exist?

[Hans De Kryger]

Hey Gerd,

Thanks for reaching out to me, i have to say I'm a little confused. The
ways you mentioned were a mistake and were suppose to be tagged
(historic,railway etc) i get. But like the example shown here (1) there
seems to be no plausible reason for it? It seems to me that any examples
which are similar to this need to be deleted. The original mapper can
always be contacted beforehand.

(1) http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=5987185#map=19/32.97970/-117.05502

*Regards,*

*Hans*

*http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
*

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:03 AM, GerdP 
wrote:

> Hi Hans,
>
> Yes, I think I need help, not only from you:
> I've commented many of the changesets which introduced
> new highway=* tags on ways which are rarely used.
>
> I learned that many of them were typos, often
> highway=* should be historic=* or railway=* or
> waterway=*. I think I can manage to cleanup those.
>
> If we decide to change those with tags values like pre_proposed, paper,
> design,not_yet_bla_bla to a note describing the reason why the
> way doesn't yet deserve a highway=proposed tag
> it would be great if the mappers would do that.
>
> I think the best way to do that without being to rude is to
> change the highway tag to a note AND add a specific comment
> to the corresponding changeset which introduced the tag, something
> like "please review way 1234567, I've changed the rarely used tag
> highway=xyz to a note. See also .
>
> I did that a few times now without any complains from the mappers,
> so I hope that's okay.
>
> Gerd
>
> Hans De Kryger wrote
> > Let me know if you need any help.
> >
> > *Regards,*
> >
> > *Hans*
> >
> > *http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
> > *
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Gerd Petermann <
>
> > GPetermann_muenchen@
>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Hans,
> >>
> >>
> >> that was my thought as well. I assume I have to check all the suspicious
> >> entries that
> >>
> >> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/highway#values
> >>
> >>
> >> shows. The data is a bit out-aged now (2015-10-14 23:58 UTC)
> >>
> >> as I am constantly cleaning up but I think 842 different highway=* tags
> >>
> >> are far too many, both for consumers and for newbies.
> >>
> >>
> >> Gerd
> >>
> >> --
> >> *Von:* Hans De Kryger <
>
> > hans.dekryger13@
>
> > >
> >> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 16. Oktober 2015 08:13
> >> *An:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> >> *Betreff:* Re: [Tagging] WG: how to tag a "highway" that doesn't exist?
> >>
> >> Thanks for the examples, i definitely disagree with both examples. Makes
> >> no sense to have those at all to me. In my opinion they need to be
> >> reverted/deleted.
> >>
> >> *Regards,*
> >>
> >> *Hans*
> >>
> >> *http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
> >> 
> >>  OpenStreetMap |
> >> TheDutchMan13 OpenStreetMap is the free wiki world map. ... "Changing
> the
> >> world one edit at a time" In love with OpenStreetMap! I mostly map
> within
> >> the borders of Arizona. Weitere Informationen...
> >>  *
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Gerd Petermann <
> >>
>
> > GPetermann_muenchen@
>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Oops, forgot to set the list on cc
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> *Von:* Gerd Petermann
> >>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 16. Oktober 2015 07:21
> >>> *An:* Hans De Kryger
> >>> *Betreff:* AW: [Tagging] how to tag a "highway" that doesn't exist?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Example:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/5987185
> >>>
> >>> which is just the first best from 130 "highway=unbuilt" ways,
> >>>
> >>> Its history shows that it was imported in 2007.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Just a few m south is another one:
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/199739291
> >>>
> >>> which doesn't have a long history but seems to be
> >>>
> >>> exactly like it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Gerd
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> *Von:* Hans De Kryger <
>
> > hans.dekryger13@
>
> > >
> >>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 16. Oktober 2015 01:09
> >>> *An:* OpenStreetMap
> >>> *Cc:* Gerd Petermann
> >>> *Betreff:* Re: [Tagging] how to tag a "highway" that doesn't exist?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Do you have any examples?
> >>> On Oct 15, 2015 12:27 PM, "Mateusz Konieczny" <
>
> > matkoniecz@
>
> > >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:35:08 +
>  Gerd Petermann <
>
> > gpetermann_muenchen@
>
> > > wrote:
> 
>  > Hi all,
>  >
>  > forgive me if this was discussed before:
>  > There seems to be a need to map highways which do not exist.
>  > I understand the idea that we map highway=proposed / highway=planned
>  > as this might be used to visualize 

Re: [Tagging] WG: how to tag a "highway" that doesn't exist?

[GerdP]

Hi Hans,

Yes, I think I need help, not only from you:
I've commented many of the changesets which introduced
new highway=* tags on ways which are rarely used.

I learned that many of them were typos, often
highway=* should be historic=* or railway=* or
waterway=*. I think I can manage to cleanup those.

If we decide to change those with tags values like pre_proposed, paper,
design,not_yet_bla_bla to a note describing the reason why the 
way doesn't yet deserve a highway=proposed tag
it would be great if the mappers would do that.

I think the best way to do that without being to rude is to
change the highway tag to a note AND add a specific comment
to the corresponding changeset which introduced the tag, something
like "please review way 1234567, I've changed the rarely used tag
highway=xyz to a note. See also . 

I did that a few times now without any complains from the mappers,
so I hope that's okay.

Gerd

Hans De Kryger wrote
> Let me know if you need any help.
> 
> *Regards,*
> 
> *Hans*
> 
> *http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
> *
> 
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Gerd Petermann <

> GPetermann_muenchen@

>> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Hans,
>>
>>
>> that was my thought as well. I assume I have to check all the suspicious
>> entries that
>>
>> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/highway#values
>>
>>
>> shows. The data is a bit out-aged now (2015-10-14 23:58 UTC)
>>
>> as I am constantly cleaning up but I think 842 different highway=* tags
>>
>> are far too many, both for consumers and for newbies.
>>
>>
>> Gerd
>>
>> --
>> *Von:* Hans De Kryger <

> hans.dekryger13@

> >
>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 16. Oktober 2015 08:13
>> *An:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
>> *Betreff:* Re: [Tagging] WG: how to tag a "highway" that doesn't exist?
>>
>> Thanks for the examples, i definitely disagree with both examples. Makes
>> no sense to have those at all to me. In my opinion they need to be
>> reverted/deleted.
>>
>> *Regards,*
>>
>> *Hans*
>>
>> *http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
>> ;
>> ; OpenStreetMap |
>> TheDutchMan13 OpenStreetMap is the free wiki world map. ... "Changing the
>> world one edit at a time" In love with OpenStreetMap! I mostly map within
>> the borders of Arizona. Weitere Informationen...
>> ; *
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Gerd Petermann <
>> 

> GPetermann_muenchen@

>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Oops, forgot to set the list on cc
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Von:* Gerd Petermann
>>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 16. Oktober 2015 07:21
>>> *An:* Hans De Kryger
>>> *Betreff:* AW: [Tagging] how to tag a "highway" that doesn't exist?
>>>
>>>
>>> Example:
>>>
>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/5987185
>>>
>>> which is just the first best from 130 "highway=unbuilt" ways,
>>>
>>> Its history shows that it was imported in 2007.
>>>
>>>
>>> Just a few m south is another one:
>>>
>>> ;
>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/199739291
>>>
>>> which doesn't have a long history but seems to be
>>>
>>> exactly like it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Gerd
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Von:* Hans De Kryger <

> hans.dekryger13@

> >
>>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 16. Oktober 2015 01:09
>>> *An:* OpenStreetMap
>>> *Cc:* Gerd Petermann
>>> *Betreff:* Re: [Tagging] how to tag a "highway" that doesn't exist?
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you have any examples?
>>> On Oct 15, 2015 12:27 PM, "Mateusz Konieczny" <

> matkoniecz@

> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:35:08 +
 Gerd Petermann <

> gpetermann_muenchen@

> > wrote:

 > Hi all,
 >
 > forgive me if this was discussed before:
 > There seems to be a need to map highways which do not exist.
 > I understand the idea that we map highway=proposed / highway=planned
 > as this might be used to visualize a plan, I can also understand that
 > we have tags like highway=dismantled and highway=razed (which seem to
 > mean the same) but why do we have ways with
 > highway=x-residential , highway=unbuilt ,  highway=neverbuilt, and
 > several more with similar meaning ?
 > They all seem to describe ways which where once added as normal
 > highway=* to the database and later someone found out that there is
 > no highway, but did not dare to remove the way.
 >
 > Is that meant to document something important?
 >
 > Gerd
 >

 Purpose of such objects is to ensure that armchair mappers will not
 remap it again. Object with note=* seem better than highway=neverbuilt.

 In case of low risk of remapping by armachair mappers such ways may be
 safely deleted.

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 

> Tagging@

 http