Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Marc Gemis]

For your first image lanes=0, lanes:forward=2, lanes:backward=1. Awkward
but correct.  But as said before,  the lanes tag is pretty useless beside
some simple,  straightforward street layouts,  for even number of total
lanes evenly divided in both directions.  Lanes=3 is useless,  not?

So once again,  define a new tag or do not use the lanes tag,  or use it as
it is defined now.  Do not change its meaning.

Op za 12 mei 2018 23:16 schreef Paul Johnson :

> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 3:01 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:
>>
>> Why do you keep taggig roads if you know the wiki tells you not to
>> count cycle lanes?
>
>
> The wiki doesn't mesh with the real world on this issue.
>
> How is this lanes=0 and not lanes=2?
>
> https://imgur.com/gallery/3C3lHbj
>
> How is this lanes=2 and not lanes=4?
>
>
> http://www.oregonlive.com/cycling/index.ssf/2013/10/hawthorne_bridge_gets_new_bike.html
>
> What now?
>
>
> https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/gallery/bicycleboulevard_offsetcrossing_rendering/offset_crossings3.jpg
>
> I'm sure this fits the wiki's idea of the world and doesn't give cyclists
> bad lane advice at all.
>
>
> https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a3/76/c2/a376c2693250554476060fc87b00be9f.jpg
>
> All involved would probably appreciate advanced warning of this example of
> what's on the ground being stupid.
>
>
> https://systemicfailure.wordpress.com/2016/09/28/dangerous-double-right-turn-in-fremont/
>
> It's not just the US doing stuff like this.
>
> https://tinlizzieridesagain.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/100_8603.jpg
>
> Christchurch, NZ actually suggests this:
>
>
> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SPHHygdFnRA/UwCbqrLXfoI/RMA/yPT4ic1zTqw/s1600/christchurchmadjunction.jpg
> ___
> 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] complete tagging of all 'right of way'-cases

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 12. May 2018, at 23:27, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> 
> Then, it doesn't matter what other traffic control is present, bicycles 
> turning right have a yield.


a yield is different than a stop though, as a stop requires you stop in any 
case while a yield doesn’t.


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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 12. May 2018, at 22:01, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> 
> So far 2 people keep insisting that cycle lanes are counted and a
> larger number says no.


I don’t know who the other person is, my stance is they would better be counted 
but I don’t do it currently, apart from lanes on cycleways (dedicated ways). 
Btw: according to the lanes page wiki definition the cycleway lanes must not be 
tagged as lanes (it refers to all highways), but on the same page there is an 
example for a highway=cycleway with lanes=2
i.e. the page is not clear (ok, just saw this is a recent addition from january 
and might have to be reverted).

So basically according to the wiki there is no way to state the amount of lanes 
on a cycleway, at least “lanes” should not be used?

Cheers,
Martin



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

Re: [Tagging] complete tagging of all 'right of way'-cases

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:53 AM, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

>
> 10. May 2018 21:03 by ru...@vfn-nrw.de:
>
> What do you think about the relation-approach designed by AMDmi3:
>
>
> Relations are generally horrible to edit.
>
Don't blame a primitive designed to model complex situations for the
shortcomings of your preferred editor.

It greatly depends on how they're presented.  Consider how ID and JOSM
present turn restriction editing now.  Both are quite easy.  Likewise,
enforcement and route relations are reasonably easy to work with in JOSM
(no worse than working with ways), but ID (and Vespucci, and...) makes
working with relations other than turn restrictions about as easy to work
with as just editing raw XML in a text editor.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 3:01 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:
>
> Why do you keep taggig roads if you know the wiki tells you not to
> count cycle lanes?


The wiki doesn't mesh with the real world on this issue.

How is this lanes=0 and not lanes=2?

https://imgur.com/gallery/3C3lHbj

How is this lanes=2 and not lanes=4?

http://www.oregonlive.com/cycling/index.ssf/2013/10/hawthorne_bridge_gets_new_bike.html

What now?

https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/gallery/bicycleboulevard_offsetcrossing_rendering/offset_crossings3.jpg

I'm sure this fits the wiki's idea of the world and doesn't give cyclists
bad lane advice at all.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a3/76/c2/a376c2693250554476060fc87b00be9f.jpg

All involved would probably appreciate advanced warning of this example of
what's on the ground being stupid.

https://systemicfailure.wordpress.com/2016/09/28/dangerous-double-right-turn-in-fremont/

It's not just the US doing stuff like this.

https://tinlizzieridesagain.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/100_8603.jpg

Christchurch, NZ actually suggests this:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SPHHygdFnRA/UwCbqrLXfoI/RMA/yPT4ic1zTqw/s1600/christchurchmadjunction.jpg
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Marc Gemis]

So far 2 people keep insisting that cycle lanes are counted and a
larger number says no. AFAIK a non-OSM person will not count cycle
lanes when asked to tell how many lanes a road has.
I asked around on the Belgian OSM Riot Channel and immediately got 3
responses, to NOT count cycle lanes.

So please follow the wiki, create your own tag to include cycle lanes
and hope that it will get traction.

Why do you keep mistagging roads if you know the wiki tells you not to
count cycle lanes? I see this as deliberate vandalism.

I understand that you do not agree with the current definition,
however I do not understand why you insist on putting an incorrect
value in that tag.
We have a free tagging schema, so it is easy to create a new tag for
your purpose.

regards

m.


On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 9:19 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 1:27 PM, Steve Doerr 
> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/05/2018 12:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually, while I know about and abide to the wiki definition, I don't
>>> think it is intuitive to count some lanes and other not.
>>
>>
>> We do that because of a UN convention:
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2011-September/008578.html
>
>
> Sure, and that was a pretty motorist-oriented convention, unsurprising since
> its inception was in 1968.  There's plenty of Vienna Convention countries
> that have bicycle lanes now and even marked out lanes on ways only open to
> bicycles, an increasing number of which have multiple bike lanes on the same
> roadway in the same direction.  So I'm pretty sure the idea has evolved a
> bit in the intervening half century.
>
> ___
> 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] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 1:27 PM, Steve Doerr 
wrote:

> On 12/05/2018 12:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>> Actually, while I know about and abide to the wiki definition, I don't
>> think it is intuitive to count some lanes and other not.
>>
>
> We do that because of a UN convention: https://lists.openstreetmap.or
> g/pipermail/tagging/2011-September/008578.html


Sure, and that was a pretty motorist-oriented convention, unsurprising
since its inception was in 1968.  There's plenty of Vienna Convention
countries that have bicycle lanes now and even marked out lanes on ways
only open to bicycles, an increasing number of which have multiple bike
lanes on the same roadway in the same direction.  So I'm pretty sure the
idea has evolved a bit in the intervening half century.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Steve Doerr]

On 12/05/2018 12:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Actually, while I know about and abide to the wiki definition, I don't 
think it is intuitive to count some lanes and other not.


We do that because of a UN convention: 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2011-September/008578.html


--
Steve

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 11:56 AM, Paul Allen  wrote:

> Considering that it's already been wrong for nearly 300,000 ways for years
>> now, the only thing that could
>>
> happen on this would be improve.
>>
>
> So, of 7 million lanes tags, 300,000 get it wrong.  Which means that
> 6,700,000 get it right.  And it has been that
> way for YEARS.  So with your proposal, we switch from 6,700,000 tags that
> are right and 300,000 that are wrong
> to 300,000 that are right and 6,700,000 that are wrong.  And you consider
> that an improvement???
>

I'm not sure where you're getting an inversion of the problem from.
Improving lane tagging by removing the error by omission would reduce the
number of wrong ways while increasing the number of correct ways.


> Oh, but you reject (as an arbitrary rule) any suggestion that we would
> have to fix all those broken tags at
> the same time as we redefine the meaning, so they would STAY BROKEN for
> YEARS.
>

There's ways to deal with this situation, but you have to first acknowledge
that there's a 300,000 way glaring error by omission with the current
situation, that *won't* be fixed, *ever*, by maintaining the status quo.


> Do you really not understand why motorists want to plan routes around the
> number of lanes suitable
> for motor vehicles rather than the total number of lanes, not all of which
> may be suitable for motor
> vehicles?
>

Do you not understand that some roads have more than one bicycle lane, and
many places have bicycle lanes *between* motor vehicle lanes?  Like
literally anywhere in the US that has a right turn lane and a bicycle lane
at this point.  Also, this is supposed to be a map of increasing
completeness for everyone.  Not a map of we only care what motor vehicles
need.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-05-12 18:56 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen :

> So, of 7 million lanes tags, 300,000 get it wrong.  Which means that
> 6,700,000 get it right.
>


These numbers are inflated, most highways don't have cycle lanes, so it
doesn't matter, they keep their count in both ways of counting.
254 459
*cycleway* 
*lane* 


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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:38 AM, Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> You forgot an important condition.  ALL of these changes must take place
>> AT THE SAME
>> TIME.  Not just co-ordination of software, but of every lanes=* tag.
>> SIMULTANEOUSLY.
>> I'd be prepared to let him have a little leeway, like a whole hour to do
>> it in.  Maybe, if he
>> asks very nicely, a day.  Definitely no longer than that.
>>
>
> Where are you getting this arbitrary rule from?
>

This "arbitrary rule" is simply common sense.  It is what is necessary in
order to prevent a sub-optimal
mess of conflicting meanings.  Even you know that this is so, although you
do not understand the
implications.  Consider your own words:


> Considering that it's already been wrong for nearly 300,000 ways for years
> now, the only thing that could
>
happen on this would be improve.
>

So, of 7 million lanes tags, 300,000 get it wrong.  Which means that
6,700,000 get it right.  And it has been that
way for YEARS.  So with your proposal, we switch from 6,700,000 tags that
are right and 300,000 that are wrong
to 300,000 that are right and 6,700,000 that are wrong.  And you consider
that an improvement???

Oh, but you reject (as an arbitrary rule) any suggestion that we would have
to fix all those broken tags at
the same time as we redefine the meaning, so they would STAY BROKEN for
YEARS.

Do you really not understand why this is not an improvement?

Do you really not understand why motorists want to plan routes around the
number of lanes suitable
for motor vehicles rather than the total number of lanes, not all of which
may be suitable for motor
vehicles?

Do you really not understand that your suggestion has received no support
here?  I know, you're
thinking that you are smarter than the rest of us.  Remember this: "They
laughed at Galileo.
They laughed at Newton.  They laughed at Einstein.  They also laughed at
Koko the Clown."

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:38 AM, Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Mateusz Konieczny <
> matkoni...@tutanota.com> wrote:
>
>> 11. May 2018 19:16 by ba...@ursamundi.org:
>>
>> This honestly sounds more of gatekeeping through laziness than an actual
>> barrier.
>>
>>
>> You are free to organize resurvey of over 7 million places where ;anes=*
>> is used and
>>
>> coordinate release of new version of any software using lane=* tag.
>>
>
> You forgot an important condition.  ALL of these changes must take place
> AT THE SAME
> TIME.  Not just co-ordination of software, but of every lanes=* tag.
> SIMULTANEOUSLY.
> I'd be prepared to let him have a little leeway, like a whole hour to do
> it in.  Maybe, if he
> asks very nicely, a day.  Definitely no longer than that.
>

Where are you getting this arbitrary rule from?  Considering that it's
already been wrong for nearly 300,000 ways for years now, the only thing
that could happen on this would be improve.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:04 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> 2018-05-11 21:48 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen :
>
>> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Paul Johnson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> None of these three things are a problem now, except that the omission
>>> of bicycle lane tagging orthagonal to other lanes gives off by x problems
>>> for lane guidance, where x is the number of bicycle lanes.
>>>
>>
>> All three of them will become problems if you have your way.  Almost
>> every other mapper, apart from yourself, does not
>> see an "off by x" problem here because almost every other mapper sees
>> "lanes" as meaning car lanes only.
>>
>
>
> Actually, while I know about and abide to the wiki definition, I don't
> think it is intuitive to count some lanes and other not. It is not about
> "car" lanes, bus lanes are counted as well. Even motorcycle lanes would be
> counted according to the current definition. I would count all vehicle
> lanes that are used for travel (i.e. not shoulders, not pavements /
> sidewalks). The current definition "Total number of marked traffic lanes
> available for motorised traffic." is completely arbitrary and will lead for
> a bicycle superhighway with 4 lanes to get a lanes=0 tag. Also the part of
> the definition (because we always have at least 2 definitions, the short
> one from the template and the first paragraph / the full text from the tag
> definition page, which often doesn't contain the same requirements as the
> template definition/summary (in this case "motorised" is only contained in
> the template), another paradoxon that somehow bothers me).
>
> Why should we count marked motorcycle lanes but not marked horse carriage
> lanes?
>

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 5:45 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 11. May 2018, at 18:18, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> >
> > We have this problem even at this moment
> > (since you apply another definition than many other mappers), but we
> > can refer you, new mappers and  data consumers to the wiki page and
> > say this is how it should be done.
>
>
> we could do this also with a changed definition. We would assume
> everything to be tagged according to the new definition and if it doesn’t
> fit it should be corrected, and people could be referred to the wiki ;-)
>

Especially since the number of ways that has a lanes tag that also has a
cycleway on it, worldwide, is smaller than the number of ways I've counted
lanes on, in Oklahoma alone.


> On the other hand I agree it is a hard step, and transitioning via a new
> tag would be more sane / cause few problems.
>

Except implementation.  This is a change that most data consumers and
editors are able to handle cleanly now, and if not, might kick 'em in the
pants to finally implement lane access parsing like they should have been
already anyway.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 6:16 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>> This honestly sounds more of gatekeeping through laziness than an actual
>> barrier.
>>
>> It does not sound that way to me.  It sounds to me like there is a very
> real problem in
> redefining, in an INCOMPATIBLE way, a tag which has been used 7,972,733
> times.
>

Or, you know, check Taginfo, on this, since you only have to look at
the 299,658 objects that have a cycleway tag and a lanes tag.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Removing helpful information in wiki pages

[Colin Smale]

Sorry, I must have misinterpreted the emails somewhere. 

On 2018-05-12 16:41, Frederik Ramm wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On 12.05.2018 13:53, Colin Smale wrote: 
> 
>> As Thilo had pointed out, removing off-topic info from the Wiki is not a
>> documented activity of the DWG so I assume everyone was acting in a
>> purely personal capacity?
> 
> Nobody from DWG was involved until Thilo asked DWG to get involved, and
> after that the involvement of DWG was limited to exchanging messages
> with Thilo.
> 
> Bye
> Frederik___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Removing helpful information in wiki pages

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 12.05.2018 13:53, Colin Smale wrote:
> As Thilo had pointed out, removing off-topic info from the Wiki is not a
> documented activity of the DWG so I assume everyone was acting in a
> purely personal capacity?

Nobody from DWG was involved until Thilo asked DWG to get involved, and
after that the involvement of DWG was limited to exchanging messages
with Thilo.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [Tagging] Removing helpful information in wiki pages

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 12. May 2018, at 15:54, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> 
> we try to make tag definition pages concise so that they contain only 
> essential information. While I don’t think the pictures are irritating, I 
> think they are mostly irrelevant and distracting from the actual content.


the pictures are not relevant because they are not about the feature, they are 
about rocket technology. It would be like explaining the functioning of an 
engine on the motorway page.

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

Re: [Tagging] Removing helpful information in wiki pages

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 12. May 2018, at 14:38, Thilo Haug OSM  wrote:
> 
> What I dont't understand is how these pictures may be disturbing or
> irritating ?


we try to make tag definition pages concise so that they contain only essential 
information. While I don’t think the pictures are irritating, I think they are 
mostly irrelevant and distracting from the actual content.


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

Re: [Tagging] key: starting=yes ??

[Alberto Nogaro]

As a node, the trailhead proposal might fit as well:



https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/trailhead



Alberto



From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com]
Sent: venerdì 11 maggio 2018 11:33
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] key: starting=yes ??



2018-05-11 11:22 GMT+02:00 Peter Elderson  >:

Well, in a roundtrip there are often multiple designated starting points with a 
parking lot, information panels, bus stop or railway statin nearby, toilets. 
These designated starting points are commonly shown on paper maps and tourist 
maps, and present themselves as starting points.



I do not see how this is recorded by adding ways.





I agree it is worth tagging (if objectively observable / signposted), and agree 
with Mateusz it has to be part of the route relation, not a node. My suggestion 
would be to add a node (or more if needed) to the route relation with the role 
"start" or "starting_point".

There are already 3476 role "start" in route relations by the way: 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/relations/route#roles

And I have found some docu in the wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:roundtrip
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dfitness_trail



Cheers,

Martin



---
Questa email è stata esaminata alla ricerca di virus da AVG.
http://www.avg.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Removing helpful information in wiki pages

[Thilo Haug OSM]

Hi,

IMHO the picture helps understand the process of starting and landing,
as not everyone heard about the recent development.
I thought this would be helpful to get an overview at a glance.
(talking about the spacex schematic picture, not the " long exposure" one,
which should only show the "real world"- version of the above).

What I dont't understand is how these pictures may be disturbing or
irritating ?

Illustrations in general are usual to help understand a topic,
especially if one isn't already a specialist in it.
Those were just a bit bigger, but this could be solved by using
"thumbnails",
means smaller versions you have to click on to see the full size.

An alternative would be to link to an wikipedia article which explains it,
but if I can get this general understanding with just some pictures,
I think this is more effective ("a picture is worth a thousand words").

Cheers,
Thilo

Am 12.05.2018 um 13:15 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> Why would you think it is not, and what is the content you believe is
> contained that could help understanding the tags in question?


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

Re: [Tagging] Removing helpful information in wiki pages

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 12:53 PM, Colin Smale  wrote:

> As Thilo had pointed out, removing off-topic info from the Wiki is not a
> documented activity of the DWG
>

It's not?  Hm...

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data_working_group says:

DWG members perform a variety of activities.

and:

The Data Working Group is empowered to put *temporary* blocks (up to 96
hours) on user activity on OSM. This
 is to force people engaging in questionable activity to pause their
efforts, to give other community members
 time to discuss, and so on.

Taken together, those do not exclude removing off-topic info from the Wiki
and imply that doing so is within
the scope of the DWG.  Editing the Wiki is a user activity...

That same page also says:

If you find any acts of vandalism, illegal copying from sources, or major
border alterations, and the
 user does not respond to messages, you can contact the Data Working Group

So how is vandalism defined?  That's on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism which says:

There are various *other types* of bad editing which are very similar to
vandalism, carried out with

various motivations beyond childish fun, but resulting in the need for the
same types of remedies.

These include:

   - [...]
   - Disputes on the wiki
   - [...]

I'll leave you to peruse the documentation yourself to confirm that the DWG
is also the dispute
resolution authority in the event of vandalism (hint: it's on one of those
two pages I gave links
for and it's not hard to find).

So the documentation does indeed say that it is within the scope of the DWG
to remove off-topic
info from the Wiki, and that the DWG is the final arbiter of what is and
isn't off-topic on the Wiki.

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

Re: [Tagging] Removing helpful information in wiki pages

[Colin Smale]

As Thilo had pointed out, removing off-topic info from the Wiki is not a
documented activity of the DWG so I assume everyone was acting in a
purely personal capacity?

On 2018-05-12 13:15, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> 2018-05-11 18:22 GMT+02:00 Thilo Haug :
> 
>> Hi all, 
>> 
>> would you say this picture is "off topic" ?
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:aeroway%3Dspaceport=1519060#Pictures
>>  [1]
> 
> Yes, this is clearly off topic for the tag definition page. Why would you 
> think it is not, and what is the content you believe is contained that could 
> help understanding the tags in question?
> 
> Cheers, 
> Martin 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 

Links:
--
[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:aeroway%3Dspaceportoldid=1519060#Pictures___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:

> 11. May 2018 19:16 by ba...@ursamundi.org:
>
> This honestly sounds more of gatekeeping through laziness than an actual
> barrier.
>
>
> You are free to organize resurvey of over 7 million places where ;anes=*
> is used and
>
> coordinate release of new version of any software using lane=* tag.
>

You forgot an important condition.  ALL of these changes must take place AT
THE SAME
TIME.  Not just co-ordination of software, but of every lanes=* tag.
SIMULTANEOUSLY.
I'd be prepared to let him have a little leeway, like a whole hour to do it
in.  Maybe, if he
asks very nicely, a day.  Definitely no longer than that.

I wish you a good luck with this project.
>

Indeed.

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

Re: [Tagging] Removing helpful information in wiki pages

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-05-11 18:22 GMT+02:00 Thilo Haug :

> Hi all,
>
> would you say this picture is "off topic" ?
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:
> aeroway%3Dspaceport=1519060#Pictures
>


Yes, this is clearly off topic for the tag definition page. Why would you
think it is not, and what is the content you believe is contained that
could help understanding the tags in question?

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-05-12 13:04 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

>
> Why should I split the highway and add lanes=4 on parts where lanes are
> marked and lanes=1 on parts where just the outer limits of the carriageway
> are marked, on the very same road with the same width (because of the
> "marked" requirement)?
>



the answer is probably because someone has unilaterally added these words
10 years ago into the wiki, based on assumptions from his regional context,
without being aware that many parts of the world are built according to
different standards (or no standards). It is a typical norther European /
American point of view, where everything is "well organised" and
structured, so that unsigned lanes at most occur systematically in the
countryside, but not in the centre of a big city. And where all traffic is
focussed on motorized vehicles.

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-05-11 21:48 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen :

> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>>
>> None of these three things are a problem now, except that the omission of
>> bicycle lane tagging orthagonal to other lanes gives off by x problems for
>> lane guidance, where x is the number of bicycle lanes.
>>
>
> All three of them will become problems if you have your way.  Almost every
> other mapper, apart from yourself, does not
> see an "off by x" problem here because almost every other mapper sees
> "lanes" as meaning car lanes only.
>


Actually, while I know about and abide to the wiki definition, I don't
think it is intuitive to count some lanes and other not. It is not about
"car" lanes, bus lanes are counted as well. Even motorcycle lanes would be
counted according to the current definition. I would count all vehicle
lanes that are used for travel (i.e. not shoulders, not pavements /
sidewalks). The current definition "Total number of marked traffic lanes
available for motorised traffic." is completely arbitrary and will lead for
a bicycle superhighway with 4 lanes to get a lanes=0 tag. Also the part of
the definition (because we always have at least 2 definitions, the short
one from the template and the first paragraph / the full text from the tag
definition page, which often doesn't contain the same requirements as the
template definition/summary (in this case "motorised" is only contained in
the template), another paradoxon that somehow bothers me).

Why should we count marked motorcycle lanes but not marked horse carriage
lanes?

Why should I split the highway and add lanes=4 on parts where lanes are
marked and lanes=1 on parts where just the outer limits of the carriageway
are marked, on the very same road with the same width (because of the
"marked" requirement)?

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 11. May 2018, at 18:18, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> 
> We have this problem even at this moment
> (since you apply another definition than many other mappers), but we
> can refer you, new mappers and  data consumers to the wiki page and
> say this is how it should be done.


we could do this also with a changed definition. We would assume everything to 
be tagged according to the new definition and if it doesn’t fit it should be 
corrected, and people could be referred to the wiki ;-)

On the other hand I agree it is a hard step, and transitioning via a new tag 
would be more sane / cause few problems.

Paul mentioned Linux Kernel changes but it isn’t really comparable, because the 
Kernel is not something depending on the user actions/adoption, it is decided 
top down and the users ideally will not even notice changes. Changing a tag 
definition is more like changing the interpretation of a code word in 
legislation, e.g. the meaning of “must” or “should” (simple examples, excuse my 
ignorance of english legislation, but I hope you understand what I try to say). 
This is AFAIK never done, because nobody can oversee all the consequences for 
all legal texts.

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

Re: [Tagging] Removing helpful information in wiki pages

[Mateusz Konieczny]

11. May 2018 18:22 by th...@gmx.de :


> 
> Hi all,
> 
> would you say this picture is "off topic" ?
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:aeroway%3Dspaceport=1519060#Pictures
>  
> 
> 
> 




(1)




Adding massive images of rockets is not helpful in documenting how tags are 
used. 
OSM Wiki is not a place to present inspiring and beautiful images of every 
mapped objects. 
I recommend 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_pictures/Space_exploration 

for this purpose




This images were offtopic and should be removed ASAP if added again.




(2)




Your question is offtopic on this mailing list (@tagging)




(3)





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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Mateusz Konieczny]

11. May 2018 19:16 by ba...@ursamundi.org :


> This honestly sounds more of gatekeeping through laziness than an actual 
> barrier.




You are free to organize resurvey of over 7 million places where ;anes=* is 
used and 


coordinate release of new version of any software using lane=* tag.




I wish you a good luck with this project.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[Mateusz Konieczny]

11. May 2018 19:49 by pla16...@gmail.com :


> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 6:16 PM, Paul Johnson <> ba...@ursamundi.org 
> > > wrote:
>
>> This honestly sounds more of gatekeeping through laziness than an actual 
>> barrier.
>>
> It does not sound that way to me.  It sounds to me like there is a very real 
> problem in
> redefining, in an INCOMPATIBLE way, a tag which has been used 7,972,733 times.




To repeat: redefining tag use over 7 million times is impossible.




If you really think it is necessary and useful please use a new tag 


(all_lanes=* or something) rather by destroying data by using your personal

definition for lane tag.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging