Re: [Tagging] route role on cycle routes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 26. Jan 2018, at 00:57, Fernando Trebien  
> wrote:
> 
> Change the tag "type" to
> anything else and you'll still get a warning saying that "route" is
> not an expected role.


is there docu about role “route” ? If this is established you should open a 
ticket in josm trac, otherwise it is clear that josm warns about things it 
doesn’t know, and it isn’t necessarily a problem.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Piste:type=connection

[Warin]

On 25-Jan-18 05:53 AM, Helge Fahrnberger wrote:

Hi Marc,

I did send an RFC, over a year ago: 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-September/030270.html


Caused some positive comments on the discussion page and quite some 
people actually using the tag.


As for the text on the proposal page itself: I intended it for the 
audience here. I agree that the tag description for a general mappers' 
audience needs to be different. (Not very familiar with the proposal 
habits.) I promise to draft a better tag page after voting ;-)


If you change the tag .. then what are 'we' voting on?
Get the proposal well defined .. it has been in 'comments' for years .. 
so why was it not improved during that time?

There were no changes from September 2016 to Jan 2018.

Looks to me like not many people here have an interest in this.
But in principle - if voted as an 'approved' tag then there should be no 
basic changes to the meanings.
So the description should be very good before voting is requested, not 
changed afterwards to something the voters have no say in.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] route role on cycle routes

[Fernando Trebien]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 7:53 PM, Dave F  wrote:
> The links he provides do not "suggest that such role should not be used."
> The description in [2] is giving clear instruction where 'forward/backward'
> roles
> *can* be used.
> He says "The role is missing" from [2]. It's unclear what he means.

In my original e-mail, the role I'm referring to is named "route", not
"forward" nor "backward".

> Cycle routes aren't Public Transport so don't use PTv2. Therefore "extending
> the discussion was pointless".

[2] is an article about the "route" relation, which can be understood
as applying to all types of route relations, be them
road/bicycle/bus/train/etc.

> Forward/Backward roles are required in cycle route relations.

Surely. I'm not disputing that.

> I believe the wiki pages are correct & Fernando has misinterpreted them.

Please have a look again at [2], first row of the table after its header.

>> JOSM issues a warning whenever this role is used with either PTv2
>> routes or cycle routes (in fact with any kind of route).
>
> I've not received that warning for cycle (or any) routes. What is its exact
> wording? Please give detailed step-by-step instructions on how to replicate
> it.

Draw a way, create a relation, add the way to the relation, assign the
way the role "route", add the following tags to the relation:
type=route, route=bicycle. Close the relation window, clear your
selection, run the validator, and you'll get these two warnings under
"Role verification problem": "Role  missing" and "Role route
unknown in templates /forward/backward". Change the tag "type" to
anything else and you'll still get a warning saying that "route" is
not an expected role.

-- 
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 all,

Due to interesting remarks made while voting, vote is now closed and
delayed until some work will be done.
This discussion can be continued as needed following your concern.

Thank you for your ideas and remarks so far.



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

Re: [Tagging] route role on cycle routes

[Dave F]

On 25/01/2018 21:16, Fernando Trebien wrote:

Then please say so in the public mailing list and let's see other
people's answers.


OK
Synopsis of my private conversation with Fernanado:

The links he provides do not "suggest that such role should not be used."
The description in [2] is giving clear instruction where 'forward/backward' 
roles
*can* be used.
He says "The role is missing" from [2]. It's unclear what he means.

Cycle routes aren't Public Transport so don't use PTv2. Therefore "extending the 
discussion was pointless".

Forward/Backward roles are required in cycle route relations.

I believe the wiki pages are correct & Fernando has misinterpreted them.



JOSM issues a warning whenever this role is used with either PTv2
routes or cycle routes (in fact with any kind of route).


I've not received that warning for cycle (or any) routes. What is its 
exact wording? Please give detailed step-by-step instructions on how to 
replicate it.


DaveF


  If that
warning is incorrect, the developers must be contacted to fix it, and
the wiki must state clearly when the role is supposed to be used and
when it's not. If cycle routes are an exception, the exception must be
evident.

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 6:50 PM, Dave F  wrote:

On 25/01/2018 20:06, Fernando Trebien wrote:

The role is missing here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dbicycle#Members


I'm unsure what you mean by "missing".

The description is giving clear instruction where 'forward/backward' roles
*can* be used.


And I'm not seeing it in any of the cycle routes I'm finding in places
like Berlin and Amsterdam.


Maybe they're not required?


I've been criticised for using that role with PTv2 routes, so I
launched the discussion first on PTv2, then extended it for cycle
routes.


Cycle routes aren't Public Transport.


   And that is because I think the information in the main
article might be incorrect/outdated or it may suggest incorrectly that
it applies to all types of routes.


No. The information is correct, your just misunderstanding it.



On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 5:06 PM, Dave F 
wrote:

Hi

Where in [3] does it "suggest that such role should not be used."?

DaveF


On 11/01/2018 18:30, Fernando Trebien wrote:

Iterating on the previous related discussion [1], I've noticed that,
though the main article on route relations [2] claims that the route
role can be used, the article on cycle routes [3] seems to suggest
that such role should not be used. JOSM issues a warning if it is
used, and most routes I'm seeing mapped do not have that role.

Should we edit the wiki to explicitly advise against using that role
on cycle routes?

[1]

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-January/034587.html
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Members
[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dbicycle









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