Re: [Tagging] iD news - v2.6.0 lots of new features...

[Bryan Housel]

I can’t think of any reason off the top of my head, but anything is possible.. 
Please open an issue here, thanks!:  https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues 

Bryan



> On Jan 22, 2018, at 4:06 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 23 January 2018 at 02:48, Bryan Housel  > wrote:
> Happy 2018!  I just released iD v2.6.0 yesterday..
> 
> Thank you & your team for all your hard work - some of these, especially the 
> brightness control will be very handy!
> 
> One question though - could this update have stopped Ctrl-S from opening the 
> normal "Save" page?
> 
> Did some mapping yesterday & when I hit Ctrl-S, it tries to save file 
> "OpenStreetMap" to "My Documents", as a "Web Page, Complete"?
> 
> Using Windows 8.1 via Chrome if this makes any difference? 
> ___
> 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] iD news - v2.6.0 lots of new features...

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On 23 January 2018 at 02:48, Bryan Housel  wrote:

> Happy 2018!  I just released iD v2.6.0 yesterday..
>

Thank you & your team for all your hard work - some of these, especially
the brightness control will be very handy!

One question though - could this update have stopped Ctrl-S from opening
the normal "Save" page?

Did some mapping yesterday & when I hit Ctrl-S, it tries to save file
"OpenStreetMap" to "My Documents", as a "Web Page, Complete"?

Using Windows 8.1 via Chrome if this makes any difference?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - Voting - Pressurized waterways

[François Lacombe]

Regarding power plants involving lakes upstream of tunnels or pipelines,
this won't affect the current proposal :
lakes are mapped as areas waterway=riverbanks or natural=water or whatever.

But tunnels / drains / pipelines connects to streams/river feeding the lake
(watershed) and not to riverbanks or water areas.

Then, lake or not, all is about linear topology and waterway=pressurised is
extending river, stream, canal...
See here : https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5355138006

François

2018-01-22 21:11 GMT+01:00 François Lacombe :

> This has been under RFC for 2 month.
>
> I'm not native English speaker so please, you decide.
>
> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pressurize
> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/fr/dictionnaire/anglais/pressurized
>
> Both stands for pressurised in British English.
>
>
> François
>
>
> 2018-01-22 21:06 GMT+01:00 Steve Doerr :
>
>> ize is correct British English spelling - see the Oxford English
>> Dictionary.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On 22 Jan 2018, at 19:14, Colin Smale  wrote:
>>
>> How about waterway=pressurised (with an s instead of a z) for correct
>> (British) English spelling which (unless I have missed something) is still
>> the lingua franca of OSM?
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2018-01-22 19:40, François Lacombe wrote:
>>
>> Hi Volker,
>>
>> waterway=pressurized is compatible with both standard and pumping
>> hydropower plants.
>> The doesn't cover power parts and hydraulic parts may be the same.
>>
>> I've tested this tagging on a site with 2 different power plants, one is
>> pumping and the second is standard (last is used to power up the first to
>> start pumping)
>> Pumping : https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3113489
>> Standard : https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3113488
>>
>> They use the same pipes, with waterway=pressurized on it.
>>
>> Is this clear for you ?
>>
>> François
>>
>> 2018-01-22 19:12 GMT+01:00 Volker Schmidt :
>>
>>> I would suggest to have something similar for the thousands of water
>>> pumping stations here in the Veneto region of Northern Italy (Po valley),
>>> and most likely hundreds of thousands world-wide.
>>> Not sure if it makes sense to put it in the same proposal. Certainly
>>> some components are identical at least in appearance, but also most likely
>>> in function.
>>> I see them daily,but am not an expert, unfortunately
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Proposed features - Voting - Pressurized waterways

[François Lacombe]

This has been under RFC for 2 month.

I'm not native English speaker so please, you decide.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pressurize
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/fr/dictionnaire/anglais/pressurized

Both stands for pressurised in British English.


François

2018-01-22 21:06 GMT+01:00 Steve Doerr :

> ize is correct British English spelling - see the Oxford English
> Dictionary.
>
> Steve
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 22 Jan 2018, at 19:14, Colin Smale  wrote:
>
> How about waterway=pressurised (with an s instead of a z) for correct
> (British) English spelling which (unless I have missed something) is still
> the lingua franca of OSM?
>
>
>
> On 2018-01-22 19:40, François Lacombe wrote:
>
> Hi Volker,
>
> waterway=pressurized is compatible with both standard and pumping
> hydropower plants.
> The doesn't cover power parts and hydraulic parts may be the same.
>
> I've tested this tagging on a site with 2 different power plants, one is
> pumping and the second is standard (last is used to power up the first to
> start pumping)
> Pumping : https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3113489
> Standard : https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3113488
>
> They use the same pipes, with waterway=pressurized on it.
>
> Is this clear for you ?
>
> François
>
> 2018-01-22 19:12 GMT+01:00 Volker Schmidt :
>
>> I would suggest to have something similar for the thousands of water
>> pumping stations here in the Veneto region of Northern Italy (Po valley),
>> and most likely hundreds of thousands world-wide.
>> Not sure if it makes sense to put it in the same proposal. Certainly some
>> components are identical at least in appearance, but also most likely in
>> function.
>> I see them daily,but am not an expert, unfortunately
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>
> ___
> 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] Proposed features - Voting - Pressurized waterways

[Steve Doerr]

ize is correct British English spelling - see the Oxford English Dictionary. 

Steve 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 22 Jan 2018, at 19:14, Colin Smale  wrote:
> 
> How about waterway=pressurised (with an s instead of a z) for correct 
> (British) English spelling which (unless I have missed something) is still 
> the lingua franca of OSM?
> 
>  
> 
> 
>> On 2018-01-22 19:40, François Lacombe wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Volker,
>> 
>> waterway=pressurized is compatible with both standard and pumping hydropower 
>> plants.
>> The doesn't cover power parts and hydraulic parts may be the same.
>> 
>> I've tested this tagging on a site with 2 different power plants, one is 
>> pumping and the second is standard (last is used to power up the first to 
>> start pumping)
>> Pumping : https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3113489
>> Standard : https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3113488
>> 
>> They use the same pipes, with waterway=pressurized on it.
>>  
>> Is this clear for you ?
>>  
>> François
>> 
>> 2018-01-22 19:12 GMT+01:00 Volker Schmidt :
>>> I would suggest to have something similar for the thousands of water 
>>> pumping stations here in the Veneto region of Northern Italy (Po valley), 
>>> and most likely hundreds of thousands world-wide.
>>> Not sure if it makes sense to put it in the same proposal. Certainly some 
>>> components are identical at least in appearance, but also most likely in 
>>> function.
>>> I see them daily,but am not an expert, unfortunately
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> 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
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - Voting - Pressurized waterways

[François Lacombe]

Hi Colin,

This is right, I've missed the "uk usual" here :
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/fr/dictionnaire/anglais/pressurized

I think I can change this without breaking anything.


All the best

François

2018-01-22 20:14 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale :

> How about waterway=pressurised (with an s instead of a z) for correct
> (British) English spelling which (unless I have missed something) is still
> the lingua franca of OSM?
>
>
>
> On 2018-01-22 19:40, François Lacombe wrote:
>
> Hi Volker,
>
> waterway=pressurized is compatible with both standard and pumping
> hydropower plants.
> The doesn't cover power parts and hydraulic parts may be the same.
>
> I've tested this tagging on a site with 2 different power plants, one is
> pumping and the second is standard (last is used to power up the first to
> start pumping)
> Pumping : https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3113489
> Standard : https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3113488
>
> They use the same pipes, with waterway=pressurized on it.
>
> Is this clear for you ?
>
> François
>
> 2018-01-22 19:12 GMT+01:00 Volker Schmidt :
>
>> I would suggest to have something similar for the thousands of water
>> pumping stations here in the Veneto region of Northern Italy (Po valley),
>> and most likely hundreds of thousands world-wide.
>> Not sure if it makes sense to put it in the same proposal. Certainly some
>> components are identical at least in appearance, but also most likely in
>> function.
>> I see them daily,but am not an expert, unfortunately
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - Voting - Pressurized waterways

[Colin Smale]

How about waterway=pressurised (with an s instead of a z) for correct
(British) English spelling which (unless I have missed something) is
still the lingua franca of OSM?

On 2018-01-22 19:40, François Lacombe wrote:

> Hi Volker,
> 
> waterway=pressurized is compatible with both standard and pumping hydropower 
> plants. The doesn't cover power parts and hydraulic parts may be the same.
> 
> I've tested this tagging on a site with 2 different power plants, one is 
> pumping and the second is standard (last is used to power up the first to 
> start pumping) Pumping : https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3113489 
> Standard : https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3113488
> 
> They use the same pipes, with waterway=pressurized on it.
> 
> Is this clear for you ? 
> 
> François 
> 
> 2018-01-22 19:12 GMT+01:00 Volker Schmidt :
> 
>> I would suggest to have something similar for the thousands of water pumping 
>> stations here in the Veneto region of Northern Italy (Po valley), and most 
>> likely hundreds of thousands world-wide. Not sure if it makes sense to put 
>> it in the same proposal. Certainly some components are identical at least in 
>> appearance, but also most likely in function. I see them daily,but am not an 
>> expert, unfortunately
>> 
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [1]
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 

Links:
--
[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for surface=cobblestone/sett/paving_stones

[Fernando Trebien]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
> 2018-01-22 17:25 GMT+01:00 Fernando Trebien :
>> - sett: hewn stones with flat top, wide filled gaps, comfortable to
>> cycle and walk on, uncomfortable on high heels [today's image and also
>> [2] used previously for sett]
>
> ok, although it remains unclear what "filled" gaps means. Is this
> purposefully filled (e.g. with sand, or bitumen), or is it about them being
> old? You'll hardly find open gaps in older pavements, because they will fill
> themselves.

I would make no distinction between the two cases. The filling makes
the difference in height between the stones and the gaps less
pronounced, so it produces a smoother surface, especially it is nearly
at the same height as the stones.

>> - cobblestone: hewn stones with slightly arched top, wide filled gaps,
>> uncomfortable to cycle on, difficult on high heels [images [3] and [4]
>> used previously for cobblestone:flattened and cobblestone]
>
> difficult to distinguish from your previous example (sett)

From the opinions I've found from British and German mappers, I think
the distinction is perhaps almost irrelevant for large vehicles such
as cars, but significant for smaller vehicles such as bicycles, and
also for pedestrians (both those wearing shoes and those wearing high
heels). We can use the images that have already been used as examples
(I think the threshold lies between images 4 and 5):
https://i.imgur.com/HYmjeO6.jpg

We can also try to define it more technically (what does it mean to be
"slightly" arched). Right now, or as a future refinement of the
difference.

But I think we can't escape the issue of borderline cases (that happen
also with other values of surface=*) and this hasn't prevented mappers
from making sensible choices.

>> - cobblestone:raised: natural or hewn stones with very round/irregular
>> top, wide empty gaps, fixed to a bedding, difficult to cycle and walk
>> on, uncomfortable to drive on [images [5] and [6] used previously for
>> cobblestone but rejected]
>
> again "empty gaps", same comment as for filled gaps.
> "uncomfortable" for driving in a car? Depends on the suspension of the car
> I'd say.
> I agree that these seem to occur more rarely than the cobblestone:flattened,
> although around here it is full of them (in old villages / towns).

I'm proposing this because I think, looking at the wiki edit history,
that cobblestone:flattened has caused some confusion depending on what
definition of "cobblestone" a mapper has in mind - the vernacular,
arched, cuboid type [3] or the technical, fully roundish type [4][6].
So, if its usage is low, maybe it's a good idea to get rid of it to
improve clarity overall. It would be a much smaller effort than trying
to make sett and cobblestone adhere to their exact technical
definitions.

-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

"Nullius in verba."

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for surface=cobblestone/sett/paving_stones

[Fernando Trebien]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 3:59 PM, Tobias Knerr  wrote:
> On 22.01.2018 17:25, Fernando Trebien wrote:
>> - sett: hewn stones with flat top (...) [2] (...)> - cobblestone: hewn 
>> stones with slightly arched top (...) images [3]
> and [4]
>
> I don't believe requiring mappers to make a distinction between these
> two is a good idea. Let's look at your images:
>
>> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/e/ec/Dscf1641-800.jpg
>> [3] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Kasseien.jpg
>> [4]
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Guzow-oryszew_road_cm03.jpg
>
> If I read your mail correctly, you suggest that [3] and [4] belong in
> the same category, while [2] is a fundamentally different surface type.
>
> But when I look at these, [2] and [3] feel a lot more similar to each
> other than [4] is to either of them.

[2] and [3] are similar according to the layout pattern (regular,
cuboid stones), whereas [3] and [4] are similar according to their
usability by various modes of travel (car, bicycle, foot - shoes, foot
- high heels). This is because in [2] the stones are mostly flat,
whereas in [3] and in [4] they are slightly arched.

Having an arched top (but not as round as [6]) has been pointed out as
a distinctive character by both British [9][10] and German [11]
mappers.

[9] https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681311#p681311
[10] https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681502#p681502
[11] https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681773#p681773

-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

"Nullius in verba."

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - Voting - Pressurized waterways

[François Lacombe]

Hi Volker,

waterway=pressurized is compatible with both standard and pumping
hydropower plants.
The doesn't cover power parts and hydraulic parts may be the same.

I've tested this tagging on a site with 2 different power plants, one is
pumping and the second is standard (last is used to power up the first to
start pumping)
Pumping : https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3113489
Standard : https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3113488

They use the same pipes, with waterway=pressurized on it.

Is this clear for you ?

François

2018-01-22 19:12 GMT+01:00 Volker Schmidt :

> I would suggest to have something similar for the thousands of water
> pumping stations here in the Veneto region of Northern Italy (Po valley),
> and most likely hundreds of thousands world-wide.
> Not sure if it makes sense to put it in the same proposal. Certainly some
> components are identical at least in appearance, but also most likely in
> function.
> I see them daily,but am not an expert, unfortunately
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Proposed definition for surface=cobblestone/sett/paving_stones

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-01-22 17:25 GMT+01:00 Fernando Trebien :

> - paving_stones: blocks or stones with smooth flat top, tight gaps
> [same images as today]
>


ok



> - sett: hewn stones with flat top, wide filled gaps, comfortable to
> cycle and walk on, uncomfortable on high heels [today's image and also
> [2] used previously for sett]
>


ok, although it remains unclear what "filled" gaps means. Is this
purposefully filled (e.g. with sand, or bitumen), or is it about them being
old? You'll hardly find open gaps in older pavements, because they will
fill themselves.



> - cobblestone: hewn stones with slightly arched top, wide filled gaps,
> uncomfortable to cycle on, difficult on high heels [images [3] and [4]
> used previously for cobblestone:flattened and cobblestone]
>


difficult to distinguish from your previous example (sett)




>
> - cobblestone:raised: natural or hewn stones with very round/irregular
> top, wide empty gaps, fixed to a bedding, difficult to cycle and walk
> on, uncomfortable to drive on [images [5] and [6] used previously for
> cobblestone but rejected]
>


again "empty gaps", same comment as for filled gaps.
"uncomfortable" for driving in a car? Depends on the suspension of the car
I'd say.
I agree that these seem to occur more rarely than the
cobblestone:flattened, although around here it is full of them (in old
villages / towns).



>
> - cobblestone:flattened: never (to avoid confusion)
>


OK by me, only 4 271 of these, and most cobblestone tagged surfaces would
maybe be better described as cobblestone:flattened (current definitions).

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - Voting - Pressurized waterways

[Volker Schmidt]

I would suggest to have something similar for the thousands of water
pumping stations here in the Veneto region of Northern Italy (Po valley),
and most likely hundreds of thousands world-wide.
Not sure if it makes sense to put it in the same proposal. Certainly some
components are identical at least in appearance, but also most likely in
function.
I see them daily,but am not an expert, unfortunately
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for surface=cobblestone/sett/paving_stones

[Tobias Knerr]

On 22.01.2018 17:25, Fernando Trebien wrote:
> - sett: hewn stones with flat top (...) [2] (...)> - cobblestone: hewn stones 
> with slightly arched top (...) images [3]
and [4]

I don't believe requiring mappers to make a distinction between these
two is a good idea. Let's look at your images:

> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/e/ec/Dscf1641-800.jpg
> [3] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Kasseien.jpg
> [4]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Guzow-oryszew_road_cm03.jpg

If I read your mail correctly, you suggest that [3] and [4] belong in
the same category, while [2] is a fundamentally different surface type.

But when I look at these, [2] and [3] feel a lot more similar to each
other than [4] is to either of them.

Yours,
Tobias

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for surface=cobblestone/sett/paving_stones

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Seems to be a good idea for me.

Requires rushing of real cobblestones, but solves problem of mixing setts
colloquially named cobblestone and real cobblestone.

So we stop pretending that current tags are correctly used and increase
changes that we can distinguish cobblestone and uneven sett.

On 22 Jan 2018 5:27 p.m., "Fernando Trebien" 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Following from this analysis [1], I would like to propose that we
> abandon cobblestone:flattened, define the new value cobblestone:raised
> for a rare case, and redefine existing values as follows:
>
> - paving_stones: blocks or stones with smooth flat top, tight gaps
> [same images as today]
>
> - sett: hewn stones with flat top, wide filled gaps, comfortable to
> cycle and walk on, uncomfortable on high heels [today's image and also
> [2] used previously for sett]
>
> - cobblestone: hewn stones with slightly arched top, wide filled gaps,
> uncomfortable to cycle on, difficult on high heels [images [3] and [4]
> used previously for cobblestone:flattened and cobblestone]
>
> - cobblestone:raised: natural or hewn stones with very round/irregular
> top, wide empty gaps, fixed to a bedding, difficult to cycle and walk
> on, uncomfortable to drive on [images [5] and [6] used previously for
> cobblestone but rejected]
>
> - cobblestone:flattened: never (to avoid confusion)
>
> What do you think?
>
> This follows from two previous discussions here: [7] and [8].
>
> [1] https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681775#p681775
> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/e/ec/Dscf1641-800.jpg
> [3] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Kasseien.jpg
> [4] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Guzow-
> oryszew_road_cm03.jpg
> [5] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/2/20/Koppenberg_cobbles.jpg
> [6] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/1/10/ItalianStones.jpg
> [7] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-
> January/034795.html
> [8] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-
> January/034816.html
>
> --
> Fernando Trebien
> +55 (51) 9962-5409
>
> "Nullius in verba."
>
> ___
> 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] Sidewalks and cycleways as tags vs as extra lines and StreetComplete

[Andy Townsend]

On 22/01/2018 16:05, Fernando Trebien wrote:

Undone.

Thanks

But we need to talk about how messy the scheme is becoming by
mapping cycleways and sidewalks differently when separate from the
main way.
To be honest I wouldn't worry too much about how complicated the tagging 
scheme is, as long as it's well supported both by mappers and by the 
editors that mappers use (except of course that the less complicated a 
tagging scheme is the more likely mappers are to adopt it).


Best Regards,
Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - Voting - Pressurized waterways

[François Lacombe]

Thanks Martin,

Indeed, such power plant are very interesting and sometimes really huge.
It can be an additional criteria for waterway=pressurized since water
between plant and storage always and necessarily pipe flows.

I'll think to add it during wiki cleanup if applicable

François

*François Lacombe*

fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
www.infos-reseaux.com
@InfosReseaux 

2018-01-22 17:55 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

> Great proposal, I just wanted to mention that there are also pumped
> storage plants (fr:Pompage-turbinage), where the upper reservoir is filled
> by means of pumps (in case of ecessive power available) and not naturally
> by a river or similar.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
>
>
> 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] Proposed features - Voting - Pressurized waterways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Great proposal, I just wanted to mention that there are also pumped storage
plants (fr:Pompage-turbinage), where the upper reservoir is filled by means
of pumps (in case of ecessive power available) and not naturally by a river
or similar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity


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

[Tagging] iD news - v2.6.0 lots of new features...

[Bryan Housel]

Happy 2018!  I just released iD v2.6.0 yesterday..


  Release Highlights

-   You can now adjust imagery brightness, contrast, saturation, and 
sharpness. 
(Not currently available in Internet Explorer or Edge)
Try enhancing the background imagery by opening the Background pane (shortcut 
“B") and adjusting the slider controls.

-   iD will now prevent users from drawing many self-crossing lines and areas. 
See issue https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/4646 
 for examples and more info. 
You can override these checks by holding down the Alt/Option key while drawing.

- ↕️  Features with a direction-type tag will display view cones indicating the 
directions they face. 
This is useful for mapping features like street signs, traffic signals, 
billboards, security cameras, and more.

-   Transit-related presets have been updated to support Public Transport v2 
tagging schema. 
Many presets have new icons too, to better match the mode of transport (tram, 
light rail, trolleybus, etc.)
Try mapping some transit platforms, stations, stop positions, etc.

-   We've completely refreshed the in-app Help content in iD. 
Huge thanks to Manfred Brandl, Minh Nguyễn, and our many volunteers on 
Transifex for their work on this!
Check out the new help texts by opening the Help pane (shortcut "H").


There are many many more presets, usability improvements, and bug fixes 
included too.
I’m really proud of the work we’ve been able to roll into this release, and I 
hope everyone takes a look at the changelog.
About 20 people contributed pull requests, many of them are first time 
contributors:  Thank you!  


Changelog:
   https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md#260 


Twitter:
   v2.6.0, Imagery sliders:  
https://twitter.com/bhousel/status/955146596211150852 

   New Help content:  https://twitter.com/bhousel/status/955148340857065472 


Reddit:
   
https://www.reddit.com/r/openstreetmap/comments/7s2m3g/id_editor_v260_released_and_available_on/
 



As always, follow me on Twitter https://twitter.com/bhousel 
 for the latest iD news.  2018 will be a great 
year!

Thank you!
❤️ Bryan, and the rest of the  team.

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

[Tagging] Proposed features - Voting - Pressurized waterways

[François Lacombe]

Hi all,

This proposal is now available for voting
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hydropower_water_supplies

This picture summarizes the topic a bit
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Waterway_flows.png

Main goal is to involve pressurized waterways in the global hydrographic
graph and ease access of water data with the use of existing waterway key.
Waterway=* use to be used about free flowing features, but actually isn't
restricted to.

Despite its title, this proposal deals about a much more wide family of
pressurized waterways, including natural siphons for speleologists.


Thanks in advance for your time, all the best

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

[Tagging] Proposed definition for surface=cobblestone/sett/paving_stones

[Fernando Trebien]

Hello,

Following from this analysis [1], I would like to propose that we
abandon cobblestone:flattened, define the new value cobblestone:raised
for a rare case, and redefine existing values as follows:

- paving_stones: blocks or stones with smooth flat top, tight gaps
[same images as today]

- sett: hewn stones with flat top, wide filled gaps, comfortable to
cycle and walk on, uncomfortable on high heels [today's image and also
[2] used previously for sett]

- cobblestone: hewn stones with slightly arched top, wide filled gaps,
uncomfortable to cycle on, difficult on high heels [images [3] and [4]
used previously for cobblestone:flattened and cobblestone]

- cobblestone:raised: natural or hewn stones with very round/irregular
top, wide empty gaps, fixed to a bedding, difficult to cycle and walk
on, uncomfortable to drive on [images [5] and [6] used previously for
cobblestone but rejected]

- cobblestone:flattened: never (to avoid confusion)

What do you think?

This follows from two previous discussions here: [7] and [8].

[1] https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681775#p681775
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/e/ec/Dscf1641-800.jpg
[3] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Kasseien.jpg
[4] 
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Guzow-oryszew_road_cm03.jpg
[5] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/2/20/Koppenberg_cobbles.jpg
[6] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/1/10/ItalianStones.jpg
[7] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-January/034795.html
[8] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-January/034816.html

-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

"Nullius in verba."

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

Re: [Tagging] Sidewalks and cycleways as tags vs as extra lines and StreetComplete

[Fernando Trebien]

Undone. But we need to talk about how messy the scheme is becoming by
mapping cycleways and sidewalks differently when separate from the
main way.

We have sidewalk=separate [1] on the main way to express that a
sidewalk was mapped separately.
We have footway=sidewalk [2] on the separate way to express that it is
a sidewalk and not some other kind of footway.
On cycleways, we don't suggest using any tag (we only advise against
double representation) [3], even though cycleway=sidepath has been
used for both purposes [4].

It would be sensible to use the same terminology to express the same
concept, while adoption is still low.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sidewalk%3Dseparate
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway%3Dsidewalk
[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway#Cycle_tracks
[4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dsidepath

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:19 PM, Andy Townsend  wrote:
> On 15/01/2018 14:47, Fernando Trebien wrote:
>>
>> When mapping sidewalks and cycleways, it is possible to do so as tags
>> on the line of the motorised way [1][2] or as standalone lines
>> parallel to it [1][3].
>
>
> You've recently changed the wiki to suggest that sidewalk=sidepath is valid:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:sidewalk=next=1523440
>
> taginfo suggests that almost no-one uses it, so I don't think that this is a
> sensible wiki change:
>
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/sidewalk=sidepath
>
> The wiki is at its best when it describes how people map, not when people
> who have not mapped a thing tell other people how to map things.
>
> Best Regards,
> Andy
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

"Nullius in verba."

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

Re: [Tagging] Sidewalks and cycleways as tags vs as extra lines and StreetComplete

[Andy Townsend]

On 15/01/2018 14:47, Fernando Trebien wrote:

When mapping sidewalks and cycleways, it is possible to do so as tags
on the line of the motorised way [1][2] or as standalone lines
parallel to it [1][3].


You've recently changed the wiki to suggest that sidewalk=sidepath is valid:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:sidewalk=next=1523440

taginfo suggests that almost no-one uses it, so I don't think that this 
is a sensible wiki change:


https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/sidewalk=sidepath

The wiki is at its best when it describes how people map, not when 
people who have not mapped a thing tell other people how to map things.


Best Regards,
Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag shop areas in a shopping mall ?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-01-21 19:11 GMT+01:00 Tobias Knerr :

> I believe the list of tags that needs to be extended to fix the issue is
> the same as it was with a similar issue (overlapping way warning with
> waterway=riverbank), but I'm not very familiar with JOSM's codebase:
> https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/9140
>
> > It seems indoor walls cannot overlap. Same if I try indoor=room.
>
> Note that unlike indoor=room, overlapping indoor=wall segments are
> indeed an error.
>



Looking in the wiki at this scheme:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Indoor2.0_elements.svg

it seems that indoor=room is to describe a room (which is delimited by
walls). In this case, these objects indeed should not overlap, as there
will always be a wall between 2 rooms. If the walls were to be included in
the object, it would be ok to overlap the rooms. Unfortunately the wiki
(where I looked) didn't explain these basic concepts.

FWIW, in architecture you would account for wall thickness (walls as 2
lines) for representation in scales below 1:200 and would use 1 line for
scales 1:200 and 1:500. Different layers of the wall (=more than 2 lines)
would be drawn in scales 1:1 - 1:25 (according to the materials, etc., in
1:50 you would use hatches to symbolize different kind of wall
constructions, but would have generalized drawings without entering into
specifics, usually).

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

Re: [Tagging] Sidewalks and cycleways as tags vs as extra lines and StreetComplete

[Fernando Trebien]

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 7:49 PM, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> Two nice examples of complex cases, which in my view would be best tagged
> using the cycleway=lane tag and separate foot- and cycle-ways (both are at
> present not yet correctly tagged in OSM)

Very nice examples indeed. But they are not very common.

> mapillary.com/map/im/kRr5NPEzjLiwDsHWdAL-aw
> (from left to right in the picture:))
> | oneway single lane road | one-way cycle lane (same direction) | segregated
> cycle-foot-way with one-way bicycle lane in the opposite direction |

Here the kerb is a physical barrier between the opposite directions of
the cycleway, so it must be split into different lines. One direction
is level with the road (it is a cycle lane), the other is physically
separated from the main way (it is a cycle track) and is level with
the sidewalk. There is no sidewalk between the two directions of
cycling, so we must represent that somehow. Fortunately, simply adding
sidewalk=left to the main way and sidewalk=right to the cycle track
does the trick.

Assuming the OSM's lines direction are the same as the viewing
direction of those pictures (whenever oneway=-1 or oneway:bicycle=-1,
one could just reverse the way and use oneway=yes or
oneway:bicycle=yes instead):

1. Main way's line:
- highway=residential/unclassified/tertiary/secondary/primary
- oneway=yes
- oneway:bicycle=yes
- cycleway:left=no
- cycleway:right=lane
- sidewalk=left

2. Combined sidewalk/cycleway's line (case S4 [1]):
- highway=cycleway
- oneway=-1
- foot=designated
- segregated=yes
- sidewalk=right

> mapillary.com/map/im/6Ga2jVWZUd9TNFssCIAb-g
> (from left to right in the picture:)
>
> | separate side walk only for pedestrians (not visible) | oneway cycle lane
> tords the camera | two-lane road with opposite directions |  separate
> cycle-foot-way with segregation |

This changes the tags of the previous case as follows:

1. Main way's line:
- oneway=no
- oneway:bicycle=-1
- cycleway:left=lane
- cycleway:right=no (or nonstandard cycleway:right=separate/sidepath
for clarity)

2. Combined sidewalk/cycleway's line (case S4 [1]):
- oneway=yes

I just noticed that cycleway=sidepath, cycleway:left=sidepath and
cycleway:right=sidepath are much more common than sidewalk=separate.
So it might make more sense to suggest sidewalk=sidepath instead.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle

> On 18 January 2018 at 22:02, Fernando Trebien 
> wrote:
>>
>> "Note that a cycle track may alternatively be drawn as a separate way
>> next to the road which is tagged as highway=cycleway. Both methods
>> each have their pros and cons. While adding a single tag to an
>> existing way takes less time and still often describes the cycle track
>> accurately, a separately tagged cycle way is generally more flexible
>> and allows to capture more detail. When mapping a cycle track as its
>> own way, do not use any of the tags described below. "
>>
>> I think this means that, when trying to represent in OSM a road with a
>> parallel cycle track, if the track is mapped as a different line with
>> highway=cycleway, you should not add cycleway=* on the main road's
>> line.
>>
>> Or is it about a road with both a cycle lane AND a parallel cycle
>> track? If it is so, there would be no need to discuss pros and cons of
>> either method (tag on main way vs separate way), one should surely use
>> cycleway=lane on the main way and also map the parallel track as a
>> separate line.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 3:30 PM, Dave F 
>> wrote:
>> > You've either misread the paragraph or misused the asterisk.
>> >
>> > Roads can have a separate cycle path running parallel to it *and* a
>> > designated cycle lane in the road.
>> >
>> > DaveF
>> >
>> >
>> > On 16/01/2018 19:31, Fernando Trebien wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Second paragraph here:
>> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway#Cycle_tracks
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Dave F 
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On 15/01/2018 14:47, Fernando Trebien wrote:
>> 
>>  The wiki also says that, when mapping a parallel cycleway as a
>>  parallel line, one should not use the cycleway=* tag on the motorised
>>  way
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> For clarity, could you confirm which wiki page that is written.
>> >>>
>> >>> DaveF
>> >>>
>> >>> ___
>> >>> Tagging mailing list
>> >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Fernando Trebien
>> +55 (51) 9962-5409
>>
>> "Nullius in verba."
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



--