Re: [Tagging] opening_hours:sign=no - RFC

[Mateusz Konieczny]

22. May 2018 23:03 by 61sundow...@gmail.com :


> On 23/05/18 07:44, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/opening_hours:sign%3Dno
>>  
>> 
>>
>> All comments are welcomed!
>
> Could not this information be included in the note tag?

My entire motivation for making this tag is to record this data

 in machine-readable form. I want  to make my detector of things to survey to 
stop suggesting opening hours that are not worth surveying.




Proposal page links to already implemented and used code.




It would be impossible with note field,

without forcing all mappers to use 


specific phrase to record it (in one language across the world),

what is undesirable.

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

Re: [Tagging] marking shop as street vendor

[Mateusz Konieczny]

23. May 2018 00:32 by dieterdre...@gmail.com :


>
>
> 2018-05-22 23:37 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com 
> > >:
>
>>   >> Some street vendors appear in one place regularly, so it makes 
>> sense to map them as shops.
>> But at the same time it makes sense to 
>> mark them specially, as it makes clear>> that outside opening hours there 
>> may>> be little to no evidence that one may buy>> anything there.
>> I looked at taginfo and found nothing 
>> interesting, so I used street_vendor=yes>> for objects that I mapped.
>>
>
>
> what is your criterion for the property? Someone standing always at the same 
> spot with a barbecue and sausages attached to his body? A temporary structure 
> or even a plaid with the merchandise on it, that gets removed every evening? 
> A structure that is not a solid building (e.g. no foundation but standing on 
> the road) selling newspapers?




Good question. At least for me "entire shop structure gets regularly removed", 
so

permanent kiosk that is not a solid building would not be one,

plaid/roof that gets removed would count as a street vendor.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Sample tagging for highways with no lane markings

[José G Moya Y .]

@Martin:I don't want to be a troll, but I feel there is some inconsistence
between answers in this thread and answers in cycle:lanes last week.

@javier, yopaseopor: I don't drive, but I think you can overtake a Guardia
Civil car in two-way roads where there are one lane.
The cycle:lane thread told much about what is and isn't to be marked as
lane, and one case came to my mind.
 Think of the road from Villoslada de Cameros, Rioja, Spain and Montenegro
de Cameros, Soria, SameCountry. Rioja side is a two-fake-lanes road ("line
between lanes just mark centre of road") while Soria side is a two way one
lane road (markings at sides of the road). The width of the road is the
same.



P.D. Enviado desde un móvil (celular). Disculpe las erratas. No veo bien la
pantalla...

El 23/5/2018 7:16,  escribió:





*From:* yo paseopor 
*Sent:* Wednesday, 23 May 2018 04:11

*To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
*Subject:* Re: [Tagging] Sample tagging for highways with no lane markings



oneway=no

lanes=1

https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/jYQQwOGMPC6imwyGhMHMCg





I would consider that wrong.



lanes=1

oneway=no



is a road that is so narrow that opposing traffic can only pass by slowing
down and making use of shoulder/verge to pass each other. Or maybe even has
the need to look for a
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=passing_place to be able to
pass each other (like the example image shown on that page).



What your image above shows is pretty clearly a lanes=2, which you can see
very well by just following the street a few meters:



https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/6QXgHLK26FTMlmovwuaxfg



as you can see, there are clear road markings establishing two lanes.





Here is an example of the roads I mean that should be tagged with



lanes=2

divider=no

(oneway=no is normally implicit, so no need to tag it when there is no
reason to wrongly assume a road should be oneway)



https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/KQjnvNHHcOLKZj2P4pB2WQ



You can see that the roads generally have no marked lanes, but at the
T-intersection there are markings that make it clear the road is intended
to be a two lane road.



Cheers,

Thorsten
___
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] opening_hours:sign=no - RFC

[osm.tagging]

> -Original Message-
> From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 23 May 2018 09:31

> >> Could not this information be included in the note tag?
> > note is free text for mapper
> > unsigned is also used by tools like http://qa.poole.ch/
> 
> I don't think any data consumer will use this information, so it is
> for the mapper .. so that fits in the note key. If may not be easy
> to automate it, but is that required?

A tool could make recommendations about what to survey, which might point out 
business that don't have an opening_hours tag.

If there is an easily automatable tag indicating that the opening_hours are not 
signed at the premises, the tool could either not recommend that location for a 
survey or specifically list that opening hours might have to be looked up 
online or inquired about in some other way.

So I'm in agreement that it's worthwhile to tag this information in a fixed 
way, not using the note tag for it.

Instead of making that specific about opening_hours, I would suggest we 
establish one of the following pattern:

:sign=yes/no/disused
(disused = sign is present but unreadable or known to be out of date and not 
matching the real situation)

or:

unsigned:=yes/no
(disused would sound wrong in this context, though I would like to be able to 
map that information in some way)

There are other tags (like source) that already follow the 2nd pattern. On the 
other hand, the first pattern keeps the information that should stay together 
better in one place when looking at a sorted list of tags.

I might be worthwhile to also consider how this would interact with 
last_checked (not that commonly used, but probably useful in combination with 
this tag):

:sign:last_checked=
last_checked::sign=

unsigned::last_checked=
last_checked:unsigned:=

Personally I would prefer the first over the last choice, and the middle two 
just look wrong.

Cheers,
Thorsten



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

Re: [Tagging] Sample tagging for highways with no lane markings

[osm.tagging]

 

 

From: yo paseopor  
Sent: Wednesday, 23 May 2018 04:11
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Sample tagging for highways with no lane markings

 

oneway=no

lanes=1

https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/jYQQwOGMPC6imwyGhMHMCg

 

 

I would consider that wrong.

 

lanes=1

oneway=no 

 

is a road that is so narrow that opposing traffic can only pass by slowing down 
and making use of shoulder/verge to pass each other. Or maybe even has the need 
to look for a https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=passing_place to 
be able to pass each other (like the example image shown on that page).

 

What your image above shows is pretty clearly a lanes=2, which you can see very 
well by just following the street a few meters:

 

https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/6QXgHLK26FTMlmovwuaxfg

 

as you can see, there are clear road markings establishing two lanes.

 

 

Here is an example of the roads I mean that should be tagged with

 

lanes=2

divider=no

(oneway=no is normally implicit, so no need to tag it when there is no reason 
to wrongly assume a road should be oneway)

 

https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/KQjnvNHHcOLKZj2P4pB2WQ

 

You can see that the roads generally have no marked lanes, but at the 
T-intersection there are markings that make it clear the road is intended to be 
a two lane road.

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

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

Re: [Tagging] marking shop as street vendor

[Warin]

On 23/05/18 10:32, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



2018-05-22 23:37 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny >:


Some street vendors appear in one place regularly, so it makes
sense to map them as shops.

But at the same time it makes sense to
mark them specially, as it makes clear
that outside opening hours there may
be little to no evidence that one may buy
anything there.

I looked at taginfo and found nothing
interesting, so I used street_vendor=yes
for objects that I mapped.



what is your criterion for the property? Someone standing always at 
the same spot with a barbecue and sausages attached to his body? A 
temporary structure or even a plaid with the merchandise on it, that 
gets removed every evening? A structure that is not a solid building 
(e.g. no foundation but standing on the road) selling newspapers?




Some are trucks, some caravans, some hand trolleys (hand carts) ...
arr wikipedia
Hawker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_(trade)
food truck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_truck
mobile catering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_catering

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

Re: [Tagging] marking shop as street vendor

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-05-22 23:37 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> Some street vendors appear in one place regularly, so it makes sense to
> map them as shops.
>
> But at the same time it makes sense to
> mark them specially, as it makes clear
> that outside opening hours there may
> be little to no evidence that one may buy
> anything there.
>
> I looked at taginfo and found nothing
> interesting, so I used street_vendor=yes
> for objects that I mapped.
>


what is your criterion for the property? Someone standing always at the
same spot with a barbecue and sausages attached to his body? A temporary
structure or even a plaid with the merchandise on it, that gets removed
every evening? A structure that is not a solid building (e.g. no foundation
but standing on the road) selling newspapers?

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

Re: [Tagging] opening_hours:sign=no - RFC

[Warin]

On 23/05/18 09:18, marc marc wrote:


Le 23. 05. 18 à 01:03, Warin a écrit :

On 23/05/18 07:44, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/opening_hours:sign%3Dno


All comments are welcomed!

the same as before :) unsigned key already exist and are in use by
several app. what the added value to have another key (unsigned <> sign)
for the same kind of feature ?


That key is for names .. not hours ... possible unsigned:opening_hours=yes 
would be applicable, and can be further applied to anything else?




Could not this information be included in the note tag?

note is free text for mapper
unsigned is also used by tools like http://qa.poole.ch/


I don't think any data consumer will use this information, so it is for the 
mapper .. so that fits in the note key. If may not be easy to automate it, but 
is that required?


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

Re: [Tagging] opening_hours:sign=no - RFC

[marc marc]

Le 23. 05. 18 à 01:03, Warin a écrit :
> On 23/05/18 07:44, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/opening_hours:sign%3Dno
>>  
>>
>>
>> All comments are welcomed!

the same as before :) unsigned key already exist and are in use by 
several app. what the added value to have another key (unsigned <> sign) 
for the same kind of feature ?

> Could not this information be included in the note tag?

note is free text for mapper
unsigned is also used by tools like http://qa.poole.ch/

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

Re: [Tagging] opening_hours:sign=no - RFC

[Warin]

On 23/05/18 07:44, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/opening_hours:sign%3Dno

All comments are welcomed!


Could not this information be included in the note tag?
The pages says this is a 'typical reason' .. that hints that there are 
other reasons .. so those other reasons could also be stated in a note 
rather than proliferate yet more tags?


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

Re: [Tagging] RFC proposed water property key 'ephemeral '

[Warin]

On 23/05/18 07:25, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:




21. May 2018 22:34 by 61sundow...@gmail.com 
:


Hi,

Following from the discussion on "Seasonal, intermittent, and
ephemeral water tags" I have created this proposal.


Hopefully the definition is tight enough that it excludes
intermittent, seasonal and any other thing that is not ephemeral.

I have also included a guide on determination so that mappers can
see how to determine if something is ephemeral.


So here it is ...

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


Is it clear? Do you understand it?


No, "ephemeral=summer" is unclear -



It is a possible ephemeral flow (a flow of short duration) ... that can 
only occur in summer.


Similar to a tag seasonal=summer ... something that is seasonal that can 
only occur in summer.


I quote from the seasonal OSM wiki page
"describes exact season (if possible) when feature is present."

I'll put simillar on the proposed ephemeral page too, see below.



is it

for flow that is constant but ephemeral



An ephemeral flow is of short duration.
A constant flow would be there all the time ... so it could never be 
described as ephemeral.


---
The tagging text on the ephemeral page now reads
"If a season is specified it states the exact season (if possible) when 
the ephemeral can occur, during other seasons there would be no 
ephemeral flow.


For example, when tagged  ephemeral=summer the ephemeral flow can only 
take place in summer, thus the ephemeral flow is restricted to one season."


Is that clear?


Note that ephemeral=yes does not mean that a flow will occur every year.
It only says that any flow will be of short duration and will be dry 
most of the time.


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

[Tagging] opening_hours:sign=no - RFC

[Mateusz Konieczny]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/opening_hours:sign%3Dno 

All comments are welcomed!
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] marking shop as street vendor

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Some street vendors appear in one place regularly, so it makes sense to map 
them as shops.
But at the same time it makes sense to 
mark them specially, as it makes clearthat outside opening hours there maybe 
little to no evidence that one may buyanything there.
I looked at taginfo and found nothing 
interesting, so I used street_vendor=yesfor objects that I mapped.

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC proposed water property key 'ephemeral '

[Mateusz Konieczny]

21. May 2018 22:34 by 61sundow...@gmail.com :


> Hi,
>
> Following from the discussion on "Seasonal, intermittent, and ephemeral water 
> tags" I have created this proposal.
>
>
> Hopefully the definition is tight enough that it excludes intermittent, 
> seasonal and any other thing that is not ephemeral.
>
> I have also included a guide on determination so that mappers can see how to 
> determine if something is ephemeral.
>
>
> So here it is ...
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ephemeral 
> 
>
>
> Is it clear? Do you understand it?
>
>




No, "ephemeral=summer" is unclear - is it 


for flow that is constant but ephemeral

during summer? Or water that is not present at all but flows ephemerally

only during summer? Or for both?

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

Re: [Tagging] Sample tagging for highways with no lane markings

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, May 22, 2018, 11:29 Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> 2018-05-22 17:18 GMT+02:00 Tod Fitch :
>
>> In reviewing the wiki in preparation to fixing some of my older mapping,
>> it seems there is an inconsistency in how to tag a road that is wide enough
>> to two lanes of traffic but is lacking lane striping.
>>
>> In the lanes description [1] it says "the lanes=* key should be used to
>> specify the total number of marked lanes of a road." But in the out of town
>> highway tagging sample page [2] with a photo described as "smaller road,
>> maybe tertiary with appropriate administrative status" it shows a lane
>> count on a road with no markings.
>>
>> Am I correct in believing that the example photo should have its tagging
>> changed, dropping the lanes=2 and adding a width tag (if the width is known
>> or can be reasonably estimated)?
>>
>
>
> From practise in my area I would think we should drop the requirement of
> road markings and leave more freedom to the mapper. If a road is wide
> enough for 2 lanes and traffic is using 2 lanes, but there are no road
> markings, or currently no road markings, or mostly no road markings, I
> would still tag allow to tag 2 lanes. We could add a tag about road
> markings, or maybe absence of road markings.
> I'm unsure whether to differentiate absence of road markings because they
> are not deemed necessary from absence where they once were there but are
> not visible any more and someday might return.
>
> For example on a typical provincial country road with clearly 2 lanes
> there will often be no markings. (IMHO lanes=2 as it would be implied also
> when not setting a lanes tag), while in another case the situation is more
> ambiguous. This is a primary with a wide dual-carriageway, where 2 cars
> sometimes fit, while sometimes would require the slower driver to drive on
> the shoulder (what actually happens) so the other can overtake. I would be
> reluctant to tag these roads with 1.5-2 lanes (unmarked) as lanes=2 (in OSM
> it is indeed one lane).
>
> references, case A: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/487717815
> case B: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/90537120
> if you pay attention on google you can see how it is used as 2 lanes and
> even a car surpass:
> https://www.google.it/maps/@41.392393,13.0069698,167m/data=!3m1!1e3
>
> We've also seen the example of the residential area in Australia where
> only the intersections had road markings.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> My current interest is in fixing the tagging for residential roads that
>> are wide enough for bi-directional traffic with legal parallel parking but
>> have no markings on the pavement. I don't see a exact match to that in
>> either the urban [3] or rural highway [2] tagging example pages.
>>
>> To use the street I live on as an example, am I correct that a
>> residential road with bidirectional traffic and parallel parking with no
>> markings should be tagged as:
>>
>> highway=residential
>> surface=asphalt
>> parking:lane:both=parallel
>> width=40’0"
>> maxspeed=25 mph
>>
>>
>
> to me this seems lanes=2
>

In the case of your typical bog standard American residential street, I'm
strongly disinclined to agree that this is a two lane situation.  I'd be
inclined to mark unpainted lanes in the cases where channelization
regularly occurs without the pavement markings anyway.  This isn't the case
on residential streets, as people will tend to drive right up the middle of
such streets, only movingly right to meet oncoming traffic and maybe when
approaching a stop sign.

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

Re: [Tagging] Sample tagging for highways with no lane markings

[Javier Sánchez Portero]

I'm not completely sure of what you want tou express. When you say "a
oneway one-wide-lane", I think you refers to a oneway=yes, lanes=1 (correct
me if not). I'm referring to a two way road (oneway=no) with enough width
for two approaching cars to pass each other without having to slow down or
use the shoulder.

In this kind of way, having enough space) you could leagally overtake any
vehicle if there isn't a restriction sign, even if it's a police one. I
have many examples of this around.

Regards, Javier

El mar., 22 may. 2018 19:31, yo paseopor  escribió:

> Javier, I don't know if it has enough sense to use a new tag to tag
> something we have already tagged or not. But try it in Spain, overtake a
> Guardia Civil de tráfico car or motorbike in a oneway one-wide-lane and
> expect it ;)
>
> Salut i marques viales
> yopaseopor
> ___
> 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] Sample tagging for highways with no lane markings

[yo paseopor]

Javier, I don't know if it has enough sense to use a new tag to tag
something we have already tagged or not. But try it in Spain, overtake a
Guardia Civil de tráfico car or motorbike in a oneway one-wide-lane and
expect it ;)

Salut i marques viales
yopaseopor
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Sample tagging for highways with no lane markings

[Javier Sánchez Portero]

I agree with the solution mentioned by Thorsten. The keys oneway=no +
[lanes=2] + division=no have much more sense to me than tagging lanes=1 +
oneway=no for this kind of highway (just the same width that a two lanes
way but without division).

A proper value could serve to indicate also that the division was present
once ago but actually are blured, as Martin suggested.

I would like a proposal for the division key and a clarification in they
key lanes wiki.

Cheers, Javier


El mar., 22 may. 2018 18:46,  escribió:

> Personally, I tend to tag roads that are wide enough for 2 lanes (two cars
> can pass each other without noticeably slowing down) and which are clearly
> meant to be two lane (one lane each direction) roads with:
>
> lanes=2
> divider=no
>
> Yes, I know that is in violation of the strict reading of the wiki, but I
> feel it makes sense, and as far as I can determine, tagging roads that are
> meant to have two lanes with lanes=2 even in the absence of such road
> markings seems to be pretty widespread practice. (The use of the divider
> tag isn't very widespread, but again, I feel it makes sense in this
> context.)
>
> Cheers,
> Thorsten
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Tod Fitch 
> > Sent: Wednesday, 23 May 2018 01:18
> > To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> > 
> > Subject: [Tagging] Sample tagging for highways with no lane
> > markings
> >
> > In reviewing the wiki in preparation to fixing some of my older
> > mapping, it seems there is an inconsistency in how to tag a road
> > that is wide enough to two lanes of traffic but is lacking lane
> > striping.
> >
> > In the lanes description [1] it says "the lanes=* key should be
> > used to specify the total number of marked lanes of a road." But in
> > the out of town highway tagging sample page [2] with a photo
> > described as "smaller road, maybe tertiary with appropriate
> > administrative status" it shows a lane count on a road with no
> > markings.
> >
> > Am I correct in believing that the example photo should have its
> > tagging changed, dropping the lanes=2 and adding a width tag (if
> > the width is known or can be reasonably estimated)?
> >
> > My current interest is in fixing the tagging for residential roads
> > that are wide enough for bi-directional traffic with legal parallel
> > parking but have no markings on the pavement. I don't see a exact
> > match to that in either the urban [3] or rural highway [2] tagging
> > example pages.
> >
> > To use the street I live on as an example, am I correct that a
> > residential road with bidirectional traffic and parallel parking
> > with no markings should be tagged as:
> >
> > highway=residential
> > surface=asphalt
> > parking:lane:both=parallel
> > width=40’0"
> > maxspeed=25 mph
> >
> > If, and only if, a center strip is added then lanes=2 should be
> > added. (I actually measured the width in this case but for hope to
> > be able to use the measurement tool on aerial imagery in JOSM for
> > most cases).
> >
> > Is my current understanding correct? If so, I will update the wiki
> > pages for both the urban and rural highway tagging examples to
> > reflect that and will take some photos of the roads in my area to
> > make additional examples.
> >
> >
> > [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lanes#Description
> > [2]
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_tagging_samples/out_of_
> > town
> > [3]
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_tagging_samples/urban
> > ___
> > 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] Sample tagging for highways with no lane markings

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-05-22 20:10 GMT+02:00 yo paseopor :

>
> Think about it : with more than one lane you can overtake legally. With
> only one lane you cannot overtake in your same direction because you don't
> have any lane to pass by.
>


Not sure about the jurisdiction you write about, but also this is perfectly
legal, at least in Germany. You don't need to have a lane for overtaking,
you just have to have sufficient space to not endanger anyone and you must
not cross a continuous divider line (and there must not be a sign that
forbids overtaking).




> If the streetof only one lane is wide enough you can pass a stopped car,
> but you cannot overtake it if they are moving also. Ask it to the police.
>


different law in different countries.

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

Re: [Tagging] Sample tagging for highways with no lane markings

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-05-22 18:33 GMT+02:00 yo paseopor :

>  One of the problems of driving in Rome is that people overtakes you in a
> one-lane-street for every side they can turn it. If police would punished
> them this problem will not exist as not exists in the other countries of
> Europe.
>



in Germany this is perfectly legal (I believe in Italy it is not), you can
use any lane you like inside settlements.

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

Re: [Tagging] Sample tagging for highways with no lane markings

[yo paseopor]

You have other tags to mark there is more than one direction:
oneway=no

I think it is important to  keep the sense of the wiki, why?
Because , with data you can "imagine" (or render) some kind of reality. It
is not the same:

1
oneway=no
lanes=1
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/jYQQwOGMPC6imwyGhMHMCg

2
oneway=no
lanes=2
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/xg8szNBm0vd2ESAkjds1DA

3
oneway=yes
lanes=1
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/OxpRJfW_9qy_Z8QL4NoWXw

4
oneway=yes
lanes=2
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/oENxpXhruhvcFszNlkudtg

Think about it : with more than one lane you can overtake legally. With
only one lane you cannot overtake in your same direction because you don't
have any lane to pass by. If the streetof only one lane is wide enough you
can pass a stopped car, but you cannot overtake it if they are moving also.
Ask it to the police. I think is interesting to keep the meaning of the
tagging scheme.

May we have to retag all the oneway=no without lanes all over the world?
May we have to add a new tag called divider (or similar?) . For me if
divider=yes lanes > 1 , if divider=no lanes = 1 so I don't need a new tag
to remark it.

Salut i marques vials (Health and road marks)
yopaseopor

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 7:45 PM,  wrote:

> Personally, I tend to tag roads that are wide enough for 2 lanes (two cars
> can pass each other without noticeably slowing down) and which are clearly
> meant to be two lane (one lane each direction) roads with:
>
> lanes=2
> divider=no
>
> Yes, I know that is in violation of the strict reading of the wiki, but I
> feel it makes sense, and as far as I can determine, tagging roads that are
> meant to have two lanes with lanes=2 even in the absence of such road
> markings seems to be pretty widespread practice. (The use of the divider
> tag isn't very widespread, but again, I feel it makes sense in this
> context.)
>
> Cheers,
> Thorsten
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Tod Fitch 
> > Sent: Wednesday, 23 May 2018 01:18
> > To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> > 
> > Subject: [Tagging] Sample tagging for highways with no lane
> > markings
> >
> > In reviewing the wiki in preparation to fixing some of my older
> > mapping, it seems there is an inconsistency in how to tag a road
> > that is wide enough to two lanes of traffic but is lacking lane
> > striping.
> >
> > In the lanes description [1] it says "the lanes=* key should be
> > used to specify the total number of marked lanes of a road." But in
> > the out of town highway tagging sample page [2] with a photo
> > described as "smaller road, maybe tertiary with appropriate
> > administrative status" it shows a lane count on a road with no
> > markings.
> >
> > Am I correct in believing that the example photo should have its
> > tagging changed, dropping the lanes=2 and adding a width tag (if
> > the width is known or can be reasonably estimated)?
> >
> > My current interest is in fixing the tagging for residential roads
> > that are wide enough for bi-directional traffic with legal parallel
> > parking but have no markings on the pavement. I don't see a exact
> > match to that in either the urban [3] or rural highway [2] tagging
> > example pages.
> >
> > To use the street I live on as an example, am I correct that a
> > residential road with bidirectional traffic and parallel parking
> > with no markings should be tagged as:
> >
> > highway=residential
> > surface=asphalt
> > parking:lane:both=parallel
> > width=40’0"
> > maxspeed=25 mph
> >
> > If, and only if, a center strip is added then lanes=2 should be
> > added. (I actually measured the width in this case but for hope to
> > be able to use the measurement tool on aerial imagery in JOSM for
> > most cases).
> >
> > Is my current understanding correct? If so, I will update the wiki
> > pages for both the urban and rural highway tagging examples to
> > reflect that and will take some photos of the roads in my area to
> > make additional examples.
> >
> >
> > [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lanes#Description
> > [2]
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_tagging_samples/out_of_
> > town
> > [3]
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_tagging_samples/urban
> > ___
> > 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] Sample tagging for highways with no lane markings

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-05-22 18:33 GMT+02:00 yo paseopor :

> I'm not agree with that , Martin
> Road markings are real, touchable, checkable, objective...estimated width
> and estimated lanes not. OSM data serves to a lot of apps with lane
> indications, if we drop this then the apps will show erroneous information
> or less exact information.
>
>  One of the problems of driving in Rome is that people overtakes you in a
> one-lane-street for every side they can turn it. If police would punished
> them this problem will not exist as not exists in the other countries of
> Europe.
>


I have explicitly not cited Rome but other places, including Australia, and
I believe it is common on a global level not to have always road markings
on a 2 lane road. As I said, I wouldn't tag 2 lanes in cases where you have
to slow down in order to pass an approaching vehicle, or use the shoulder,
but there are many places with sufficient space and ordinary 2 lane
traffic, just no markings.

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

Re: [Tagging] Sample tagging for highways with no lane markings

[osm.tagging]

Personally, I tend to tag roads that are wide enough for 2 lanes (two cars can 
pass each other without noticeably slowing down) and which are clearly meant to 
be two lane (one lane each direction) roads with:

lanes=2
divider=no

Yes, I know that is in violation of the strict reading of the wiki, but I feel 
it makes sense, and as far as I can determine, tagging roads that are meant to 
have two lanes with lanes=2 even in the absence of such road markings seems to 
be pretty widespread practice. (The use of the divider tag isn't very 
widespread, but again, I feel it makes sense in this context.)

Cheers,
Thorsten

> -Original Message-
> From: Tod Fitch 
> Sent: Wednesday, 23 May 2018 01:18
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> 
> Subject: [Tagging] Sample tagging for highways with no lane
> markings
> 
> In reviewing the wiki in preparation to fixing some of my older
> mapping, it seems there is an inconsistency in how to tag a road
> that is wide enough to two lanes of traffic but is lacking lane
> striping.
> 
> In the lanes description [1] it says "the lanes=* key should be
> used to specify the total number of marked lanes of a road." But in
> the out of town highway tagging sample page [2] with a photo
> described as "smaller road, maybe tertiary with appropriate
> administrative status" it shows a lane count on a road with no
> markings.
> 
> Am I correct in believing that the example photo should have its
> tagging changed, dropping the lanes=2 and adding a width tag (if
> the width is known or can be reasonably estimated)?
> 
> My current interest is in fixing the tagging for residential roads
> that are wide enough for bi-directional traffic with legal parallel
> parking but have no markings on the pavement. I don't see a exact
> match to that in either the urban [3] or rural highway [2] tagging
> example pages.
> 
> To use the street I live on as an example, am I correct that a
> residential road with bidirectional traffic and parallel parking
> with no markings should be tagged as:
> 
> highway=residential
> surface=asphalt
> parking:lane:both=parallel
> width=40’0"
> maxspeed=25 mph
> 
> If, and only if, a center strip is added then lanes=2 should be
> added. (I actually measured the width in this case but for hope to
> be able to use the measurement tool on aerial imagery in JOSM for
> most cases).
> 
> Is my current understanding correct? If so, I will update the wiki
> pages for both the urban and rural highway tagging examples to
> reflect that and will take some photos of the roads in my area to
> make additional examples.
> 
> 
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lanes#Description
> [2]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_tagging_samples/out_of_
> town
> [3]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_tagging_samples/urban
> ___
> 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] Sample tagging for highways with no lane markings

[yo paseopor]

I'm not agree with that , Martin
Road markings are real, touchable, checkable, objective...estimated width
and estimated lanes not. OSM data serves to a lot of apps with lane
indications, if we drop this then the apps will show erroneous information
or less exact information.

 One of the problems of driving in Rome is that people overtakes you in a
one-lane-street for every side they can turn it. If police would punished
them this problem will not exist as not exists in the other countries of
Europe.
Tagging in OSM has to be clear, scalable, objective...as road marks should
be.

Salut i marques vials
yopaseopor


On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Tod Fitch  wrote:

> In reviewing the wiki in preparation to fixing some of my older mapping,
> it seems there is an inconsistency in how to tag a road that is wide enough
> to two lanes of traffic but is lacking lane striping.
>
> In the lanes description [1] it says "the lanes=* key should be used to
> specify the total number of marked lanes of a road." But in the out of town
> highway tagging sample page [2] with a photo described as "smaller road,
> maybe tertiary with appropriate administrative status" it shows a lane
> count on a road with no markings.
>
> Am I correct in believing that the example photo should have its tagging
> changed, dropping the lanes=2 and adding a width tag (if the width is known
> or can be reasonably estimated)?
>
> My current interest is in fixing the tagging for residential roads that
> are wide enough for bi-directional traffic with legal parallel parking but
> have no markings on the pavement. I don't see a exact match to that in
> either the urban [3] or rural highway [2] tagging example pages.
>
> To use the street I live on as an example, am I correct that a residential
> road with bidirectional traffic and parallel parking with no markings
> should be tagged as:
>
> highway=residential
> surface=asphalt
> parking:lane:both=parallel
> width=40’0"
> maxspeed=25 mph
>
> If, and only if, a center strip is added then lanes=2 should be added. (I
> actually measured the width in this case but for hope to be able to use the
> measurement tool on aerial imagery in JOSM for most cases).
>
> Is my current understanding correct? If so, I will update the wiki pages
> for both the urban and rural highway tagging examples to reflect that and
> will take some photos of the roads in my area to make additional examples.
>
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lanes#Description
> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_tagging_
> samples/out_of_town
> [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_tagging_samples/urban
> ___
> 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] Sample tagging for highways with no lane markings

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-05-22 17:18 GMT+02:00 Tod Fitch :

> In reviewing the wiki in preparation to fixing some of my older mapping,
> it seems there is an inconsistency in how to tag a road that is wide enough
> to two lanes of traffic but is lacking lane striping.
>
> In the lanes description [1] it says "the lanes=* key should be used to
> specify the total number of marked lanes of a road." But in the out of town
> highway tagging sample page [2] with a photo described as "smaller road,
> maybe tertiary with appropriate administrative status" it shows a lane
> count on a road with no markings.
>
> Am I correct in believing that the example photo should have its tagging
> changed, dropping the lanes=2 and adding a width tag (if the width is known
> or can be reasonably estimated)?
>


>From practise in my area I would think we should drop the requirement of
road markings and leave more freedom to the mapper. If a road is wide
enough for 2 lanes and traffic is using 2 lanes, but there are no road
markings, or currently no road markings, or mostly no road markings, I
would still tag allow to tag 2 lanes. We could add a tag about road
markings, or maybe absence of road markings.
I'm unsure whether to differentiate absence of road markings because they
are not deemed necessary from absence where they once were there but are
not visible any more and someday might return.

For example on a typical provincial country road with clearly 2 lanes there
will often be no markings. (IMHO lanes=2 as it would be implied also when
not setting a lanes tag), while in another case the situation is more
ambiguous. This is a primary with a wide dual-carriageway, where 2 cars
sometimes fit, while sometimes would require the slower driver to drive on
the shoulder (what actually happens) so the other can overtake. I would be
reluctant to tag these roads with 1.5-2 lanes (unmarked) as lanes=2 (in OSM
it is indeed one lane).

references, case A: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/487717815
case B: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/90537120
if you pay attention on google you can see how it is used as 2 lanes and
even a car surpass:
https://www.google.it/maps/@41.392393,13.0069698,167m/data=!3m1!1e3

We've also seen the example of the residential area in Australia where only
the intersections had road markings.




>
> My current interest is in fixing the tagging for residential roads that
> are wide enough for bi-directional traffic with legal parallel parking but
> have no markings on the pavement. I don't see a exact match to that in
> either the urban [3] or rural highway [2] tagging example pages.
>
> To use the street I live on as an example, am I correct that a residential
> road with bidirectional traffic and parallel parking with no markings
> should be tagged as:
>
> highway=residential
> surface=asphalt
> parking:lane:both=parallel
> width=40’0"
> maxspeed=25 mph
>
>

to me this seems lanes=2



> If, and only if, a center strip is added then lanes=2 should be added. (I
> actually measured the width in this case but for hope to be able to use the
> measurement tool on aerial imagery in JOSM for most cases).
>
> Is my current understanding correct?



it is the literal reading of the lanes tag description, but as you pointed
out, it conflicts with other parts of the wiki. And if you don't add a
lanes tag, the common default is lanes=2.

What do you think about a new tag for the absence of road markings?


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

[Tagging] Sample tagging for highways with no lane markings

[Tod Fitch]

In reviewing the wiki in preparation to fixing some of my older mapping, it 
seems there is an inconsistency in how to tag a road that is wide enough to two 
lanes of traffic but is lacking lane striping.

In the lanes description [1] it says "the lanes=* key should be used to specify 
the total number of marked lanes of a road." But in the out of town highway 
tagging sample page [2] with a photo described as "smaller road, maybe tertiary 
with appropriate administrative status" it shows a lane count on a road with no 
markings.

Am I correct in believing that the example photo should have its tagging 
changed, dropping the lanes=2 and adding a width tag (if the width is known or 
can be reasonably estimated)?

My current interest is in fixing the tagging for residential roads that are 
wide enough for bi-directional traffic with legal parallel parking but have no 
markings on the pavement. I don't see a exact match to that in either the urban 
[3] or rural highway [2] tagging example pages.

To use the street I live on as an example, am I correct that a residential road 
with bidirectional traffic and parallel parking with no markings should be 
tagged as:

highway=residential
surface=asphalt
parking:lane:both=parallel
width=40’0"
maxspeed=25 mph

If, and only if, a center strip is added then lanes=2 should be added. (I 
actually measured the width in this case but for hope to be able to use the 
measurement tool on aerial imagery in JOSM for most cases).

Is my current understanding correct? If so, I will update the wiki pages for 
both the urban and rural highway tagging examples to reflect that and will take 
some photos of the roads in my area to make additional examples.


[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lanes#Description
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_tagging_samples/out_of_town
[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_tagging_samples/urban
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Conflicting wiki docu for aerialway=goods and aerialway=station

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-05-15 20:38 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

> I agree. If there is general agreement, I would like to amend the wiki for
> aerialway=station to state it is not for passenger transport only.
>


as the ultimate test for general agreement, I have changed the wiki now, to
make the station page consistent with the goods page.

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