Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 13:54:45 +0100
Colin Smale  wrote:

> Duck test: short link between two primaries is primary_link, so a
> short link between two residentials is residential_link. The fact
> that it is a very rare scenario does not detract from the fact that
> it is existable. Why resort to a different tagging pattern if it fits
> in the one we use for other analogous situations? 

I encountered many short links between highway=residential, every
single one was clear highway=residential.

For example see
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24789911#map=17/50.06036/19.92942

Can you provide an example of real situation where
highway=residential_link makes sense?

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] highway=residential_link

[Greg Troxel]

Martin Koppenhoefer  writes:

> 2015-11-10 14:07 GMT+01:00 Greg Troxel :
>
>> So I would lean to calling this highway=residential and perhaps
>> link=yes
>
> I think unclassified is ok, like it is now. There's really nothing
> residential about this way, nor the surroundings.

Sorry, I didn't mean to offer an opinion on residential vs unclassified
on this particular way, and made a bad assumption.


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging dangerous intersections

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 11:24:13 +0200
Kieron Thwaites  wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I recently passed through an intersection in a particularly dodgy part
> of town that actually had warning signs up, warning motorists that
> said intersection is a hotspot for "smash and grab" robberies.  (If
> anyone is interested, it's on Google Streetview too:
> https://goo.gl/maps/kYkdMR9Kmpk)
> 
> I'd like to add this information to OSM -- certainly, it could be used
> by routing software to avoid the area unless there was no other
> sensible alternative.  However, I'm not sure how best to tag it.  The
> only thing that I've found is the proposed "hazard" tag
> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard), but as
> it seems to be in a permanent draft state (since 2009), I'm not sure
> if this is the best solution.
> 
> Are there better, more current ways of tagging things like these, or
> is the proposed "hazard" tag the best option?
> 
> (As an aside: if we go with the "hazard" tag, perhaps some work on
> completing the proposal and getting it approved would be a good idea.
> taginfo shows a few thousand usages to date.)
> 
> --K
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

For start, traffic sign itself may be also mapped. It would also make
clear that hazard (or other method to tag this) is based on something
verifiable, not opinion of the mapper.

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=bicycle_repair_station

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 10/11/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>> What ambiguity of repair_station would be cleared by tool_stand or
>> tool_station ?
>
> it is the word "station" that could be interpreted as a shop / service
> station. "stand" does not bear this risk (for me). "tool_station" would be
> similarly ambiguous.

I don't think the possible confusion with a service station is an
issue: plenty of them are unmaned. Or are you worried about the
assumption that one is free and not the other ? Also: to me a "stand"
sounds much more likely to be maned than a "station".

We're not going to get a unanimous opinion on wether
stand/station/repair/tool matches the maned/unmaned/free/commercial
concepts,  the link is too tenous. To me so far there's no clear
benefit in those alternate tags, to be weighted against the clear
downside of migrating away from an existing tag.

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Michał Brzozowski]

To me residential_link doesn't provide any meaningful distinction to
warrant a new highway tag. Maybe you misunderstood what link is about.
Links are for when collision-less means of joining or leaving high(er)
speed traffic are needed. From what I know about your residential_link
examples it's not really that, they are just shortcuts to make turns
less awkward. It's not standardized for a reason - they don't make
sense.

Michał

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] highway=residential_link

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-11-10 14:07 GMT+01:00 Greg Troxel :

> So I would lean to calling this highway=residential and perhaps
> link=yes
>



I think unclassified is ok, like it is now. There's really nothing
residential about this way, nor the surroundings.

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=bicycle_repair_station

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-11-10 13:31 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo :

> >> I like amenity=bicycle_tool_stand,
> >
> > +1, "repair_station" is ambigous / can easily be misunderstood. Even
> though
> > "amenity=self_serve_bicycle_tool_stand" looks like an overkill on first
> > sight, it is even more verbose and less likely to be misunderstood.
>
> What ambiguity of repair_station would be cleared by tool_stand or
> tool_station ?



it is the word "station" that could be interpreted as a shop / service
station. "stand" does not bear this risk (for me). "tool_station" would be
similarly ambiguous.

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=bicycle_repair_station

[Lauri Kytömaa]

>> What ambiguity of repair_station would be cleared by tool_stand or
>> tool_station ?
> it is the word "station" that could be interpreted as a shop / service
> station. "stand" does not bear this risk (for me). "tool_station" would be

Additionally, "repair" does not state who does the repairing (cyclist or
hired help), but "tool" should guide the readers focus on the availability
of tools, not on the action.

-- 
alv

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 12:31:08 -0500
Bryan Housel  wrote:

> Please consider the one I just added today:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/379558356#map=19/40.68812/-74.38970
> 
> 
> 
> > Can you provide an example of real situation where
> > highway=residential_link makes sense?
> 

I would use just highway=residential for cases like this.

It is not a grade-separated junction, I see no slip roads or ramps.
Though wiki has "_link tags should be used for physical channelization
of turning traffic lanes at traffic signal junctions and in roundabout
designs that physically separate a specific turn from the main
roundabout." that seems to fit. What more there is
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_link#Simple_at-grade_intersections

But in that case I would consider it reason to change wiki rather than
start using residential_link, service_link, cycleway_link etc.

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Bryan Housel]

Please consider the one I just added today:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/379558356#map=19/40.68812/-74.38970 



> Can you provide an example of real situation where
> highway=residential_link makes sense?

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Colin Smale]

 

No, I can't think of any real examples at the moment, but that doesn't
make them any less existable. And if they exist, then
highway=residential_link is more logical than forcing
highway=residential and adding link=yes or some other flag to
distinguish them. 

On 2015-11-10 17:19, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 

> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 13:54:45 +0100
> Colin Smale  wrote:
> 
>> Duck test: short link between two primaries is primary_link, so a
>> short link between two residentials is residential_link. The fact
>> that it is a very rare scenario does not detract from the fact that
>> it is existable. Why resort to a different tagging pattern if it fits
>> in the one we use for other analogous situations?
> 
> I encountered many short links between highway=residential, every
> single one was clear highway=residential.
> 
> For example see
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24789911#map=17/50.06036/19.92942
> 
> Can you provide an example of real situation where
> highway=residential_link makes sense?
 ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] time-conditioned turn restriction

[Martijn van Exel]

Looking at the pages for turn restrictions and conditional restrictions, I
gather that you would map a left turn restriction that is only valid
between 6am and 9am and again between 4pm and 7pm as:

type=restriction;restriction=no_left_turn; no_left_turn:conditional=no @
(Mo-Fr 06:00-19:00,16:00-19:00)

Is this the preferred way? Should it be?

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging dangerous intersections

[André Pirard]

On 2015-11-10 10:24, Kieron Thwaites wrote :
> Hi,
>
> I recently passed through an intersection in a particularly dodgy part
> of town that actually had warning signs up, warning motorists that
> said intersection is a hotspot for "smash and grab" robberies.  (If
> anyone is interested, it's on Google Streetview too:
> https://goo.gl/maps/kYkdMR9Kmpk)
>
> I'd like to add this information to OSM -- certainly, it could be used
> by routing software to avoid the area unless there was no other
> sensible alternative.  However, I'm not sure how best to tag it.  The
> only thing that I've found is the proposed "hazard" tag
> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard), but as
> it seems to be in a permanent draft state (since 2009), I'm not sure
> if this is the best solution.
Of course yes it would be the best solution to resurrect that draft
.
Presently, OSM takes little care for road security, especially for children.
And it's not a good reason to neglect the existing kitchen because there
are no eggs.
I have mapped a number of 30km/h zones.
I was literally abashed that, among all the zones mapped in Belgium,
Germany, France and Netherlands, not a single one indicated a school
zone

hazard.
I stopped my mapping because I don't like to redo everything correctly
later.

On 2015-11-10 17:15, Mateusz Konieczny wrote :
> For start, traffic sign itself may be also mapped. It would also make
> clear that hazard (or other method to tag this) is based on something
> verifiable, not opinion of the mapper.
The problem, as with most traffic signs, is that they are not located
where the problem is and that, as I see them used, they do not even
indicate the direction to where it is.
As well as duplicating other information albeit the word "duplicate" is
spoken as an OSM sin.
GSM software is perfectly able to draw most traffic signs on the screen
without an added element.

André.




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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-11-10 17:19 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> Can you provide an example of real situation where
> highway=residential_link makes sense?
>



Maybe in situations like this:
https://www.google.it/maps/@41.8565439,12.4845837,3a,75y,156.19h,80.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sf54XmkoY54jisVhPubtUSw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/379591766

I don't know what we would gain by not calling it either a service or a
residential road though...

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Tod Fitch]

That is exactly the type of place I’d consider using a highway=residential_link 
tag.

> On Nov 10, 2015, at 10:31 AM, Bryan Housel  wrote:
> 
> Please consider the one I just added today:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/379558356#map=19/40.68812/-74.38970 
> 
> 
> 
>> Can you provide an example of real situation where
>> highway=residential_link makes sense?
> 

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Joachim]

Many see _link only as slip roads. But using it for at-grade junctions
like described in the wiki has one advantage: _link is usually tagged
without a name because it connects two named roads and has none
itself. Using no link gives many warning in QA tools. Using
highway=residential plus noname=yes might be a workaround in the
current situation.

Examples where unclassified_link and residential_link might fit:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/286954889
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/193840995
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/155949371
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/286954889

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=bicycle_repair_station

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 4:24 AM, moltonel 3x Combo 
wrote:

> I don't see how a name change will help.
> amenity=bicycle_repair_station and service:bycicle:repair=yes are
> rather self-explanatory and well defined as far as I can tell.
> Abandoning a tag because some large contributor misuses it isn't going
> to improve the state of the database. Contact the ill-advised
> contributors to make them understand the issue and fix objects which
> got the wrong tag, but don't move a well-established tag to a new name
> just to make cleaning up easyer.
>

If it were just one or two, I'd agree.
The problem is more distributed, and concentrated in non-English areas of
mapping.

Note that I "invented" this tag in the first place, so feel a
responsibility to fix it.



I've left a number of notes or changeset comments and just feel it's
playing whack-a-mole.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] amenity=bicycle_repair_station

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 14:34:14 +0900
John Willis  wrote:

> 
> 
> > On Nov 10, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Andrew Guertin
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > amenity=bicycle_tool_stand
> 
> +1
> 
> Self_serve_bicycle_tool_stand is also good too, if you want to really
> drive the point home, though a bit long. Javbw. 

I like amenity=bicycle_tool_stand,
amenity=self_serve_bicycle_tool_stand seems to be an overkill.

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

[Tagging] WG: [OSM-talk] highway=residential_link

[Gerd Petermann]

hell, forgot again to set the list on cc :-(
see below.
I think tagging is really the better place for it.

Gerd


Von: Gerd Petermann
Gesendet: Dienstag, 10. November 2015 09:46
An: Mateusz Konieczny
Betreff: AW: [OSM-talk] highway=residential_link

I don't say that it makes sense here, but
I confess that the case is special. I also
think that the discussion short should be read by anybody:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35120619

The typical case where a way is tagged residential_link
is this:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/288458290

Gerd (GerdP)


Von: Mateusz Konieczny 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 10. November 2015 09:36
An: Andrew Guertin
Cc: GerdP; t...@openstreetmap.org
Betreff: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=residential_link

On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 22:36:28 -0500
Andrew Guertin  wrote:

> So the question is, should uses of highway=residential_link be edited
> away, should they be left as-is (unless a different highway type is
> clearly better), or should the tag be approved and documented?

Can somebody give examples of locations where residential_link makes
sense?

In theory, it is possible that former motorway/.../tertiary with slip
roads/ramps was converted to residential road, without changing road
infrastructure and traffic is still grade-separated.

But is it really happening anywhere?

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

[Tagging] Tagging dangerous intersections

[Kieron Thwaites]

Hi,

I recently passed through an intersection in a particularly dodgy part
of town that actually had warning signs up, warning motorists that
said intersection is a hotspot for "smash and grab" robberies.  (If
anyone is interested, it's on Google Streetview too:
https://goo.gl/maps/kYkdMR9Kmpk)

I'd like to add this information to OSM -- certainly, it could be used
by routing software to avoid the area unless there was no other
sensible alternative.  However, I'm not sure how best to tag it.  The
only thing that I've found is the proposed "hazard" tag
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard), but as
it seems to be in a permanent draft state (since 2009), I'm not sure
if this is the best solution.

Are there better, more current ways of tagging things like these, or
is the proposed "hazard" tag the best option?

(As an aside: if we go with the "hazard" tag, perhaps some work on
completing the proposal and getting it approved would be a good idea.
taginfo shows a few thousand usages to date.)

--K

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=bicycle_repair_station

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-11-10 9:38 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

>
> I like amenity=bicycle_tool_stand,



+1, "repair_station" is ambigous / can easily be misunderstood. Even though
"amenity=self_serve_bicycle_tool_stand" looks like an overkill on first
sight, it is even more verbose and less likely to be misunderstood.

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

Re: [Tagging] Named junctions

[johnw]

> On Nov 9, 2015, at 10:14 PM, Andrew Errington  wrote:
> 
> Surely this is a rendering problem?
> 
> In other words, if there are many named traffic lights within a
> certain distance of each other then only one symbol/name/whatever
> should be rendered?  If the traffic lights are all tagged the same
> then it ought to be even easier.


> On Nov 9, 2015, at 8:28 PM, Michał Brzozowski  wrote:
> 
> Frankly I don't find their road system to be that different to
> necessitate areal representation,

I have been showing easy sections. There are large parts of the road network 
where the maxwidth changes every 10-20 meters, so they use area based visual 
for the roads. 

The signals can be very close to one another becuase of complex and convoluted 
roads.  A rule that would work well in Tokyo, with it’s massive intersections, 
could easily group 2 unrelated lights together. 

The goal (if I understand it correctly, but I am not good at relations) of 
traffic Signals area was to leave nodes in their normal places on the roads, 
and connect them together with an area to say “this is a single light” via a 
relation, which better renderers can then render the light icon (and an 
attached name) as a single light. 

I’m not sure some fuzzy logic rule could group them together unless we just put 
all the nodes (and crosswalk crossings?) into a relation for a renderer to 
easily parse in some manner. 

Having a system that allowed multiple icons to be rendered for complicated 
junctions was, IMO, a mistake in the first place. a simple intersection between 
two ways, fine, but when we get into messy intersections, have 5-6 signal icons 
represented seems odd. Perhaps the data customers don’t mind - but the default 
rendered map is my priority. I care about fixing it for this regional issue, 
but I if this helps everyone, and we can find a way to make it not such a 
bother for mappers (making a relation, etc), then I am all for it - whatever 
does the job properly. 

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Tom Pfeifer]

Tod Fitch wrote on 2015-11-10 06:57:

If the two roads the connecting way links are tagged as residential I don’t see

> any other choice than to use residential_link.

I'm skeptical about highway=residential_link as it further fragments the usage 
of the
highway key. I prefer to consider highway=service for the lowest category of 
car-drivable
roads, not just at the end of a route.

It could be further specified as service=residential_link if you want.

> I don’t think that service works for that (and some routers only allow 
passage over
> a service way at the ends of a route so that would mess them up).

Which routers are this, and what is the reason for such decision? If the 
service road
has a sufficient penalty, it would only be preferred over a longer road if it 
provides
a significant shortcut.

> And tagging it
> with a higher classification (e.g. tertiary_link) makes no sense to me either.

Certainly not of course. However I even consider those short connections of dual
carriageways, that allow the occasional u-turn, or accessing a property on
the other side, as service roads and not as abc_link.



The only alternative would be to tag it as residential which seems to lose some
meaning to me as the ones I can think of are too short to have residences on 
them.


highway=service + service=residential_link

tom


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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=bicycle_repair_station

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 10/11/2015, Andrew Guertin  wrote:
> On 11/09/2015 09:41 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
>> amenity=bicycle_repair_station has a problem: it's attracting lots of
>> active tagging
>> of shops offering bicycle repair.  For example:
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3772809894
>> and http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/337421757
>>
>> That was not the intent.  amenity=bicycle_repair_station was meant for
>> unattended
>> tool stands, often outdoors, often 24/7, generally public.
>>
>> I'm seeking support for a mechanical edit to a new tag name.
>> There are known automated clients of this tag, and I am in contact with
>> both.
>
> I'd support a name change.

I don't see how a name change will help.
amenity=bicycle_repair_station and service:bycicle:repair=yes are
rather self-explanatory and well defined as far as I can tell.
Abandoning a tag because some large contributor misuses it isn't going
to improve the state of the database. Contact the ill-advised
contributors to make them understand the issue and fix objects which
got the wrong tag, but don't move a well-established tag to a new name
just to make cleaning up easyer.

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=bicycle_repair_station

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 10/11/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> 2015-11-10 9:38 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
>
>> I like amenity=bicycle_tool_stand,
>
> +1, "repair_station" is ambigous / can easily be misunderstood. Even though
> "amenity=self_serve_bicycle_tool_stand" looks like an overkill on first
> sight, it is even more verbose and less likely to be misunderstood.

What ambiguity of repair_station would be cleared by tool_stand or
tool_station ? I can see the point of puting self-serve in there
somewhere, but even then I feel it is a very weak reason to rename an
established tag.

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=bicycle_repair_station

[Andy Townsend]

On 10/11/2015 02:41, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
amenity=bicycle_repair_station has a problem: it's attracting lots of 
active tagging
of shops offering bicycle repair.  For example: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3772809894

and http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/337421757




Have you asked why?  I don't see any discussion on 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34441015 , for example.


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Colin Smale]

 

Duck test: short link between two primaries is primary_link, so a short
link between two residentials is residential_link. The fact that it is a
very rare scenario does not detract from the fact that it is existable.
Why resort to a different tagging pattern if it fits in the one we use
for other analogous situations? 

//colin 

On 2015-11-10 13:28, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 

> 2015-11-10 13:20 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer :
> 
>> highway=service + service=residential_link
> 
> or 
> highway=residential 
> + highway_link=yes
> 
> cheers, 
> Martin 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Marco Antonio]

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Mateusz Konieczny
 wrote:
> Can you provide an example of real situation where
> highway=residential_link makes sense?

In my city (in South America) it is very common to have this type of roads

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/253086441
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/223240901
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/223240900
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/230640681
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/239951395
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/358563357
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/358563356
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/202716638
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/319956454
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/230640660

This ways connect two residential roads, do not have names, and have a
direction. maybe some roads appear the prolongation of roads but no.

Abrazos,

Marco Antonio

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging dangerous intersections

[John Willis]

> On Nov 11, 2015, at 1:15 AM, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> For start, traffic sign itself may be also mapped. It would also make
> clear that hazard (or other method to tag this) is based on something
> verifiable, not opinion of the mapper.

Sounds like a similar situation  to the advisory sign discussion (non-rule/law 
based signs giving information to motorists) 

Traffic_sign:advisory=carjacking
Coupled with whatever hazard=* you want to throw on it. 

(Or similar, I forget the exact tag syntax at the moment...)

I'm sure there are plenty of situations where "no stopping because of natural 
danger" exist. 

One of the roads up a volcano here (Kusatsu-Shirane) in Japan is surrounded by 
sulphur vents. There is an advisory to roll up windows and not to stop, to 
avoid the smell and possible asphyxiation (if there is a big burp of sulphur). 

It's not too much of a stretch to use it for a social danger *if* the signage 
actually exists.

If it is just your opinion, that is also debatable, as we do strive to get the 
local mapper's ground truth - but without a sign, that certainly is a big can 
of worms. 

With a sign - we're just mapping signs.

- theft of valuables (don't leave valuables in the car)
- car theft (lock your car!) 
- pickpockets / bag thieves  
- prison (no stopping for hitchhikers) 

Also, natural warning signs 
- dangerous animals (lions, bears, Pumas, snakes, etc) in rural/backcountry 
trailheads 
- land mines (certain countries)  
-tsunami zone (entering a low area) 
- turn car wheels to curb (very steep hill parking) 

These signs may not be necessary, but for micromappers who are mapping the 
vending machines' serial numbers (found in Tokyo), having a decent framework 
for advisory signs themselves to be mapped (regardless if they are rendered) 
should be considered. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Sunset ref=* on ways in favor of relations

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Richard Welty 
wrote:

> On 11/7/15 6:02 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> > sent from a phone
> >
> >> Am 07.11.2015 um 22:31 schrieb Richard Fairhurst  >:
> >>
> >> To do it properly and
> >> lessen the chance of multiple relations being accidentally created for
> the
> >> same route (as continues to happen with NCN routes in the UK and
> elsewhere),
> >> it will need either a new API search method or a dependency on Overpass.
> >
> > Are multiple relations for (pieces of) the same route really a big
> problem? We could have multiple relations until they meet and then merge
> them.
> >
> >
> for the very long Interstate and US highways, in the US we usually
> create a super relation and then have per-state relations. otherwise
> you get into relations that you can barely if at all load into an editor.
>

I thought the problem was a 2000 member limitation in the API, though the
geographic grouping really helps manageability anyway even if the network
doesn't change at the jurisdiction line (ie, I 44 is still I 44 when it
runs into Missouri, as opposed to OK 325 which turns into NM 456 when it
crosses the Dry Cimmaron River at the border).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] amenity=bicycle_repair_station

[Warin]

On 11/11/2015 11:24 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:



On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 4:24 AM, moltonel 3x Combo > wrote:


I don't see how a name change will help.
amenity=bicycle_repair_station and service:bycicle:repair=yes are
rather self-explanatory and well defined as far as I can tell.
Abandoning a tag because some large contributor misuses it isn't going
to improve the state of the database. Contact the ill-advised
contributors to make them understand the issue and fix objects which
got the wrong tag, but don't move a well-established tag to a new name
just to make cleaning up easyer.


If it were just one or two, I'd agree.
The problem is more distributed, and concentrated in non-English areas 
of mapping.


Note that I "invented" this tag in the first place, so feel a 
responsibility to fix it.




I've left a number of notes or changeset comments and just feel it's 
playing whack-a-mole.


Is theOSMwiki page for amenity=bicycle_repair_station available in 
'their' language?

I note that basic pages are done for German, Russian and Japanese ...

No matter what new name is chosen .. there will still be misuse of it.
I'm presently trying to resolve the basketball, volleyball and netball 
confusion ... as in these can be easily confused by armchair mappers. 
But I think that I must accept that there will be errors.


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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Sunset ref=* on ways in favor of relations

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

>
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 5:39 AM, moltonel 3x Combo 
> wrote:
>
>> While I agree that relations can break and can be tricky to edit, I
>> find it tiring to see this argument repeatedly used against the use of
>> relations for this or that usecase.
>>
>
> Your point is well taken. You've heard the last on this topic from me. I
> suppose in some way my arguments are an attempt to raise awareness of the
> limitations of the tools we use to work with relations not with the use of
> relations, which are certainly necessary to deal with complex mapping
> situations.
>

Though it's one of those chicken/egg problems.  Something's got to make the
first move.  I really believe bringing road routes onto the same scheme as
every other route used in OSM is about the only real way to break the
deadlock with the toolchain on this and get some creative juices flowing on
how to make relations less of the red-headed stepchild people are making it
out to be.  We ran into the same issue and overcame it with turn
restrictions already...now it's almost exceedingly difficult to break one
of these relations in JOSM.

Granted, I've seen folks also bring up the difficulties with administrative
boundaries, however, that type of relation has it's own unique set of
issues editing that are largely not in play with routes.  Additionally,
road routes tend to be the simplest flavor of route, since it's just an
ordered list where each member way only appears one time:  Very editor and
validator friendly already.

I have run into the conflict situation a few times when working with very
long routes crossing more frequently edited areas, however, this conflict
is usually pretty obvious and easy to resolve with a sort and check for
continuity.

Where I have run into issues that make it difficult to tell if the relation
is correct is when a route ends on a dual carriageway on one or both ends
with at least one central segment being a two-way single carriageway.  In
this case, the simplest fix seems to be to create a super-relation, and
then add a child relation for each direction with a role of a cardinal
direction, and have all the ways in the child directions have a role of
forward or backward as appropriate, and tag the relation direction=west,
for example (this is already how Interstates, which are, AFAICT, always
fully divided).

But, you do get a lot of advantages from relations for this, such as being
able to quickly and easily pull from API an entire network of highways, a
single highway, or even just a section where it shares with another route,
in a relatively sane and easy way.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-11-10 13:20 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer :

>
> highway=service + service=residential_link


or
highway=residential
+ highway_link=yes

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging dangerous intersections

[Tom Pfeifer]

The situation you describe is a social hazard, and if continued it
would lead to mapping social hotspots in general, which would be
a very controversial issue, that could be seen as discrimination
by people living there.

In larger towns you see lots of warnings, e.g. pickpocketing in
crowded places or public transport systems -- where would we draw the line?

tom

Kieron Thwaites wrote on 2015-11-10 10:24:

Hi,

I recently passed through an intersection in a particularly dodgy part
of town that actually had warning signs up, warning motorists that
said intersection is a hotspot for "smash and grab" robberies.  (If
anyone is interested, it's on Google Streetview too:
https://goo.gl/maps/kYkdMR9Kmpk)

I'd like to add this information to OSM -- certainly, it could be used
by routing software to avoid the area unless there was no other
sensible alternative.  However, I'm not sure how best to tag it.  The
only thing that I've found is the proposed "hazard" tag
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard), but as
it seems to be in a permanent draft state (since 2009), I'm not sure
if this is the best solution.

Are there better, more current ways of tagging things like these, or
is the proposed "hazard" tag the best option?



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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Colin Smale]

 

Tom, 

To avoid key fragmentation? Really? Apparently creating is_link=yes is
OK, but using residential_link is wrong. People only cite things like
"key fragmentation" when it appears to support their case; it is not
really an active Basic Principle of OSM. If it was, there are probably
loads of other keys which should be attacked and deprecated as well, and
actual usage (however small) seems to trump any arguments about
correctness of the underlying tagging model including "key
fragmentation". 

//colin 

On 2015-11-10 14:05, Tom Pfeifer wrote: 

> Colin Smale wrote on 2015-11-10 13:54: 
> 
>> Duck test: short link between two primaries is primary_link, so a short link
>> between two residentials is residential_link. The fact that it is a very rare
>> scenario does not detract from the fact that it is existable.
> 
>> Why resort to a different tagging
>> pattern if it fits in the one we use for other analogous situations?
> 
> As said, to avoid key fragmentation, for this very rare species of ducks.
> amenity=poultry + poultry=rare_duck
> You can squeeze in more species hierarchy if you like.
> 
> Cartography involves an abstraction process, and that is supported by
> categorising the tagging schemes.
> 
> tom
> 
> ___
> 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=residential_link

[Tom Pfeifer]

Colin Smale wrote on 2015-11-10 13:54:

Duck test: short link between two primaries is primary_link, so a short link

> between two residentials is residential_link. The fact that it is a very rare
> scenario does not detract from the fact that it is existable.

> Why resort to a different tagging

pattern if it fits in the one we use for other analogous situations?


As said, to avoid key fragmentation, for this very rare species of ducks.
amenity=poultry + poultry=rare_duck
You can squeeze in more species hierarchy if you like.

Cartography involves an abstraction process, and that is supported by
categorising the tagging schemes.

tom

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] highway=residential_link

[Greg Troxel]

Andrew Guertin  writes:

> A question recently came up as to whether highway=residential_link is
> a meaningful tag or whether uses of it should be changed to some other
> value (like highway=residential or highway=service).
>
> This tag has no description in the wiki, though it is analogous to the
> other highway=*_link types described on
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_link .

I'm very mixed on this.  With motorway_link, I think it's good that it
is a different road type, because a motorway_link is very different in
terms of speed, curvature, #lanes, etc. and there are strong norms about
what's the motorway proper and what are links (that do get a little
fuzzy in some very-high-speed interchanges, but those are fairly rare).

In residential (or unclassified), the link ways and the main ways can't
in general be clearly separated on quality terms.  But, in the example
at

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27854328#map=17/41.85903/12.49988=N

it does seem clear that the link way is considered an auxiliary way to
reverse direction and not really part of the main road.  It presumably
doesn't really have a name.  So tagging that as link makes sense.

On the third hand, one wouldn't call it a onramp or a slip road, and one
wouldn't say that it is for the purpose of changing speed to match the
road it's for.

So I would lean to calling this highway=residential and perhaps
link=yes, which would suppress the warnings about not having a name, but
leave link roads that really do have the speed-matching or
limited-access access property as foo_link.



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