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

[Mark Wagner]

On Thu, 24 May 2018 09:23:43 +1000
Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Most websites have some copyright thing .. that makes some nervous.
> I usually only tag things that interest me, and stuff I like to
> support.

In the United States, at least, opening hours are uncopyrightable.  You
can only copyright creative expression, not facts, and "Joe's
Barbershop is open 9 to 5 on weekdays" is about as "fact" as you can
get.

-- 
Mark

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

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

[osm.tagging]

If I’ve understood it correctly, I would tag that as:

 

seasonal=winter,spring,autumn

ephemeral=summer

 

From: Mateusz Konieczny  
Sent: Thursday, 24 May 2018 16:28
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Cc: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] RFC proposed water property key 'ephemeral '

 




22. May 2018 22:53 by 61sundow...@gmail.com  :

Is that clear? 

 

Do how easiest that is

- flowing during winter, spring, autumn

- generally not flowing during summer but with possible ephemeral flows

 

should be tagged?

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

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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

22. May 2018 22:53 by 61sundow...@gmail.com :


> Is that clear? 




Do how easiest that is

- flowing during winter, spring, autumn

- generally not flowing during summer but with possible ephemeral flows




should be tagged?

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

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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

23. May 2018 22:10 by graemefi...@gmail.com :


> I've been wondering about this apparent dilemma & whether I've been doing the 
> wrong thing?




Surveying allows me to verify whatever feature is present at all (in around 1/4 
to 1/2 cases it is not),

I can check location (many maps.me edits are helpful but require tuning - 
restaurants in the middle of street instead on building 


where restaurant really is),

or also is done as lowest priority task,

after processing notes, fixme tags and

adding more useful info.




Also, I like going around the city on the walk,

andI should move more - and I am happy 


to solve some StreetComplete quests as i pass by something.





List of things that I want/should do at 


computer is so long that copying

opening hours from website is behind

hundreds of TODO waiting in the queue.




Overall: both methods are ok and one is free to prefer one or another.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Warin]

On 24/05/18 13:47, Tod Fitch wrote:


On May 23, 2018, at 7:57 PM, Paul Johnson > wrote:


On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Tod Fitch > wrote:




On May 22, 2018, at 12:48 PM, Paul Johnson mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org>> wrote:

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.




Hmmm. I guess driving culture may vary from place to place in the
US. I always keep to the right regardless of the existence of a
lane markings. I will admit, however, that traffic studies
indicate that the average driver will be a bit more to the center
of the pavement if there are no lane markings. Similarly, at
least in residential areas, it has been found that drivers will
generally go slower if there is no center marking. At least that
is the rational my local government is using to remove the center
divider marking for traffic calming purposes.

While this may be true, most people will shy towards center (and 
perhaps even stay in center) for most of their trip down a standard 
width street (which, while typically 40 feet, this is /inclusive/ of 
all features including sidewalks, making the effective width of the 
roadway closer to 25 feet, a random pull from Mesa, Arizona's design 
guide  blindly from 
Google confirms this, with their design guide being 27 feet across 
between curbs), means that two full size pickups can (barely) pass 
two cars parked on opposite sides of the street at once.  That's also 
generously wide compared to a lot of places, many suburban and small 
town residential streets I've encountered are open-edged with parking 
off the paved area, and the paved area being maybe 20 feet on a 
particularly wide street.  New urbanist street designs are similarly, 
deliberately, narrow as a traffic calming measure, as parked vehicles 
will tend to provide de facto ad hoc chicanes.  As such, if lanes are 
marked at all, it's usually at the very ends of blocks only, where 
parking is prohibited, as a confirmation that the street is indeed 
two-way and provide a hint as to the default passing rule.


I have noticed that newer developments, especially infill development, 
have narrower residential roads than where I live. And I admit I did 
not look up current design standards. I simply took a tape measure to 
a number of residential streets in my neighborhood. The one in front 
of my house is 40’0" +/- 1" between the curbs. There are sidewalks but 
I excluded them from my 40’ number. Subjectively my current street 
seems about the same as others in the area and the same as my in 
previous neighborhood in a different city. Both neighborhoods are 
older, laid out when accommodating the automobile was high on the list 
of design criteria. It would be interesting to pull out the design 
standards that were in effect in the 1950s, 60s and 70s when much of 
our current suburbia was created. I would not be surprised if a lot of 
our current stock of residential roads are wider than the current 
standards specify.


By the way, I don’t see a way to tag the accuracy or confidence level 
for a measurement. Seems like we ought to have something like 
*:confidence=*, similar to the *:lanes tagging so we could, for 
example tag the width of a road as:


width=18’0"
width:confidence=2’0"

The metrology term is 'uncertainty' .. so

width:uncertainty=2'0"
To be complete there would need to be a statement of level of confidence 
and coverage factor.
However, for OSM simplicity, it could be assumed to have a normal 
distribution covering one standard deviation .. making the confidence 
level ~68% and the coverage factor ~1.
Of course the stated confidence level and coverage factor would be 
assessed by the next metrologist.


There is a rough wikipedea thing on it .. it is rough. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_uncertainty ...
Best to look at the second reference in that wikipedia page ... NPL do 
good articles.





If you are only estimating from the most likely source (allowable 
imagery) then you probably are not going to be much closer than 0.5 
meters or a couple of feet.


A confidence/accuracy tag would probably be another can of worms. How 
are you determining it? Statistically? One sigma? Two sigma? Or assume 
a single measurement but with a technique known to some typical error 
pattern?


But I digress.



I know that road design varies over the world and even, to a
certain extent, within different states in the United 

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

[Tod Fitch]

> On May 23, 2018, at 7:57 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Tod Fitch  > wrote:
> 
>> On May 22, 2018, at 12:48 PM, Paul Johnson > > wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
> 
> Hmmm. I guess driving culture may vary from place to place in the US. I 
> always keep to the right regardless of the existence of a lane markings. I 
> will admit, however, that traffic studies indicate that the average driver 
> will be a bit more to the center of the pavement if there are no lane 
> markings. Similarly, at least in residential areas, it has been found that 
> drivers will generally go slower if there is no center marking. At least that 
> is the rational my local government is using to remove the center divider 
> marking for traffic calming purposes.
>  
> While this may be true, most people will shy towards center (and perhaps even 
> stay in center) for most of their trip down a standard width street (which, 
> while typically 40 feet, this is inclusive of all features including 
> sidewalks, making the effective width of the roadway closer to 25 feet, a 
> random pull from Mesa, Arizona's design guide 
>  blindly from Google 
> confirms this, with their design guide being 27 feet across between curbs), 
> means that two full size pickups can (barely) pass two cars parked on 
> opposite sides of the street at once.  That's also generously wide compared 
> to a lot of places, many suburban and small town residential streets I've 
> encountered are open-edged with parking off the paved area, and the paved 
> area being maybe 20 feet on a particularly wide street.  New urbanist street 
> designs are similarly, deliberately, narrow as a traffic calming measure, as 
> parked vehicles will tend to provide de facto ad hoc chicanes.  As such, if 
> lanes are marked at all, it's usually at the very ends of blocks only, where 
> parking is prohibited, as a confirmation that the street is indeed two-way 
> and provide a hint as to the default passing rule.

I have noticed that newer developments, especially infill development, have 
narrower residential roads than where I live. And I admit I did not look up 
current design standards. I simply took a tape measure to a number of 
residential streets in my neighborhood. The one in front of my house is 40’0" 
+/- 1" between the curbs. There are sidewalks but I excluded them from my 40’ 
number. Subjectively my current street seems about the same as others in the 
area and the same as my in previous neighborhood in a different city. Both 
neighborhoods are older, laid out when accommodating the automobile was high on 
the list of design criteria. It would be interesting to pull out the design 
standards that were in effect in the 1950s, 60s and 70s when much of our 
current suburbia was created. I would not be surprised if a lot of our current 
stock of residential roads are wider than the current standards specify.

By the way, I don’t see a way to tag the accuracy or confidence level for a 
measurement. Seems like we ought to have something like *:confidence=*, similar 
to the *:lanes tagging so we could, for example tag the width of a road as:

width=18’0"
width:confidence=2’0"

If you are only estimating from the most likely source (allowable imagery) then 
you probably are not going to be much closer than 0.5 meters or a couple of 
feet.

A confidence/accuracy tag would probably be another can of worms. How are you 
determining it? Statistically? One sigma? Two sigma? Or assume a single 
measurement but with a technique known to some typical error pattern?

But I digress.

> 
> I know that road design varies over the world and even, to a certain extent, 
> within different states in the United States. So this discussion is showing 
> different regional points of view. A typical, or to borrow the UK slang  “bog 
> standard”, American suburban residential street is wide enough for parallel 
> parking on each side and space for trucks/lorries to get past one another 
> [1]. Typical parking lanes are about 8 feet (2.4 meters) and a typical 
> traffic lane is 12 feet (3.7 meters). So a total pavement width is typically 
> around 40 feet (12.2 meters). In some parts of the world, even in older 
> crowded US cities, a road of that width might be striped for four lanes of 
> traffic. But a typical US residential street has no lane markings.
> 
> US tends to favor 9 feet per lane and 6

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

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:31 PM, yo paseopor  wrote:

> Case B: some pics before
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=41.46210902249982&lng=12.
> 874923250143638&z=17&pKey=ygjsHztch9KkrIILOPA3Jg&focus=
> photo&x=0.4957587433175&y=0.4652742508751958&zoom=0.3348214285714282
>
> lanes=1, impossible to be estimated:lanes=2 , instead of some itallian
> driver would try to overtake you for the right. There is no invitation at
> all, please be clever, be serious, think about all the vehicles that may
> use some osm app with these values. And also map for the safety of the
> different kind of drivers.
>

Plus in the US, this often isn't terribly different, as people will attempt
(smart and legal or otherwise) to pass bicycles on blind curves and whatnot
on a road like this, and there's a tendency to use residential streets as
defacto living streets, since we have no formalized concept of that in our
road designs, so the entire width is shared space with the only real
consistency being that parking is facing forward on the right hand curb or
just past the right edge of the paved surface.
___
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 Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Tod Fitch  wrote:

>
> On May 22, 2018, at 12:48 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>>
>
> Hmmm. I guess driving culture may vary from place to place in the US. I
> always keep to the right regardless of the existence of a lane markings. I
> will admit, however, that traffic studies indicate that the average driver
> will be a bit more to the center of the pavement if there are no lane
> markings. Similarly, at least in residential areas, it has been found that
> drivers will generally go slower if there is no center marking. At least
> that is the rational my local government is using to remove the center
> divider marking for traffic calming purposes.
>

While this may be true, most people will shy towards center (and perhaps
even stay in center) for most of their trip down a standard width street
(which, while typically 40 feet, this is *inclusive* of all features
including sidewalks, making the effective width of the roadway closer to 25
feet, a random pull from Mesa, Arizona's design guide
 blindly from Google
confirms this, with their design guide being 27 feet across between curbs),
means that two full size pickups can (barely) pass two cars parked on
opposite sides of the street at once.  That's also generously wide compared
to a lot of places, many suburban and small town residential streets I've
encountered are open-edged with parking off the paved area, and the paved
area being maybe 20 feet on a particularly wide street.  New urbanist
street designs are similarly, deliberately, narrow as a traffic calming
measure, as parked vehicles will tend to provide de facto ad hoc chicanes.
As such, if lanes are marked at all, it's usually at the very ends of
blocks only, where parking is prohibited, as a confirmation that the street
is indeed two-way and provide a hint as to the default passing rule.

I know that road design varies over the world and even, to a certain
> extent, within different states in the United States. So this discussion is
> showing different regional points of view. A typical, or to borrow the UK
> slang  “bog standard”, American suburban residential street is wide enough
> for parallel parking on each side and space for trucks/lorries to get past
> one another [1]. Typical parking lanes are about 8 feet (2.4 meters) and a
> typical traffic lane is 12 feet (3.7 meters). So a total pavement width is
> typically around 40 feet (12.2 meters). In some parts of the world, even in
> older crowded US cities, a road of that width might be striped for four
> lanes of traffic. But a typical US residential street has no lane markings.
>

US tends to favor 9 feet per lane and 6 or 7 foot parking strips for a full
size residential street (and combine with 6 feet being the minimum, 7
becoming common, and even wider in some places for the bike lane, this will
feel quite clausterphobic and many, if not most, drivers who will yield the
entire space to a vehicle passing a parked vehicle first to stay out of the
door zones).  Per federal guidelines, a boulevard would be at least 10,
preferably 11 foot lanes (and this will still feel quite narrow to most
American drivers).


> I can see the logic of only using the lanes tag if there is paint on the
> pavement. But that leads to another issue: It is pretty easy from
> experience to glance at a photo of a road and say it is wide enough for two
> lanes of traffic. But it is much harder for me to determine a width
> accurate to a couple of feet. I don’t see a way to show a measurement error
> estimate [2] and listing something as width=40'0" implies much more
> accuracy than a guess based on a quick visual survey or imagery actually
> provides.
>

Look for the wear marks, these will be quite prominent in sun-prone areas
and where concrete is used.  Generally speaking if there's defined lanes
that are just worn off, there will be wear marks where passing motorists
have rolled the same spot repeatedly.  This can often be confirmed with
your favorite license-compatible street-level imagery or a survey.  Though
if you're using JOSM and have suitably high resolution aerials available,
you can use JOSM to draw a line perpendicular to the way from curbface to
curbface to find the width.


> I am rambling. To the point, if I were to add my photo [1] to the urban
> highway tagging examples page of the wiki [3] what tags should it have. My
> current guess is:
>
> highway=residential
> parking:lane:both=parallel
> sidewa

Re: [Tagging] highway=service // public road?

[Warin]

Yep... a long bit of road Graeme .. does not really convey what is 
sought here - house at end of long road?


Some from wikipedia ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Driveway,_Fosbury_House_-_geograph.org.uk_-_274950.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Llantysilio_Hall_(geograph_2366127).jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:North_Wales_Hospital_Denbigh_-_geograph.org.uk_-_40233.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Llanrhaeadr_Hall_-_geograph.org.uk_-_109992.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulliallan,_Melbourne#/media/File:Tulliallan_Elm_Trees_Front_View.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C3%A2teau_du_Broutel#/media/File:Rue_(Somme),_France,_Ch%C3%A2teau_du_Broutel.JPG

Not found a really good one.

On 24/05/18 09:31, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

I know it's not really what you were after, but you did ask! :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pg30-LKCzgY

https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/Anna+Creek+SA+5723/@-29.3724521,130.8420885,6z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x6a83558ecda63c19:0xb9ea36b2cf0f9cb3!8m2!3d-28.7528625!4d136.2042088 



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Creek_Station


Thanks

Graeme

On 24 May 2018 at 08:04, Mateusz Konieczny > wrote:


Has anybody got a good example of
photo of a long driveway to add to wiki?



___
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

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 12:23 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 24/05/18 08:26, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> [Getting opening hours from websites]

>
> Most websites have some copyright thing .. that makes some nervous.
> I usually only tag things that interest me, and stuff I like to support.
>

In countries which are signatories to the Berne Convention (which is most
of them),
copyright applies AUTOMATICALLY to any creative work, whether that
copyright is
asserted or not.  Websites often assert copyright and signs showing opening
hours
usually do not, but they both ARE copyright.  AUTOMATICALLY.

Would a copyright claim over opening hours (however the info was obtained)
be upheld?  Very unlikely.

1) Telephone companies have lost claims against people who produced DVDs
of their phone books (by having lots of people keyboard the information).
The
same goes for tide tables and bus timetables.  The info was deemed
insufficiently creative.

2) The shop isn't making money by selling copies of the opening hours so
putting those hours into OSM is not depriving them of income.

Would a copyright claim even be asserted?

1) It's in the company's interest to have their opening hours known to
potential customers.

2) It would be expensive to mount a claim, and the claim would be unlikely
to succeed.

If you really are worried about getting opening hours from a website
then you should be just as worried about getting it from a sign.  Either
way you should ask the owner for permission because the risk is the
same either way.

Note: IANAL.

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=service // public road?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

I know it's not really what you were after, but you did ask! :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pg30-LKCzgY

https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/Anna+Creek+SA+5723/@-29.3724521,130.8420885,6z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x6a83558ecda63c19:0xb9ea36b2cf0f9cb3!8m2!3d-28.7528625!4d136.2042088

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Creek_Station


Thanks

Graeme

On 24 May 2018 at 08:04, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:

> Has anybody got a good example of
> photo of a long driveway to add to wiki?
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Warin]

On 24/05/18 08:26, Paul Allen wrote:



On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:10 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:



If I drive / walk past & see Papa Luigi's Pizza Shop, with no
other info visible, I go home, search for Papa Luigi's in this
suburb, & get their website, which gives you their phone number,
opening hours, takeaway / delivery etc. If I'm feeling
particularly enthusiastic :-), it will usually also tell me how
many tables, indoor / outdoor & so on.


I tend to do it that way too.  It's time consuming to write down the 
opening hours.  Getting close enough for a
readable photo makes people wondering why you're taking pictures of 
the people inside.  And I usually have
to google to find out if there's a website to tag (mostly there is) so 
it's a lot easier to also get opening
hours that way.   Sometimes they don't put opening hours on the web 
site but  these days they usually do.
It's also often an easy way to get the phone number (not always on 
display) and sometimes even the
number for the address (around here identifying one's house or 
business with a house name or number

on the building itself seems optional).

Isn't this the simplest way of finding missing info?


That's what I thought.  But apparently some people don't like doing it 
that way or think it's more work.


Most websites have some copyright thing .. that makes some nervous.
I usually only tag things that interest me, and stuff I like to support.



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

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

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:10 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> If I drive / walk past & see Papa Luigi's Pizza Shop, with no other info
> visible, I go home, search for Papa Luigi's in this suburb, & get their
> website, which gives you their phone number, opening hours, takeaway /
> delivery etc. If I'm feeling particularly enthusiastic :-), it will usually
> also tell me how many tables, indoor / outdoor & so on.
>

I tend to do it that way too.  It's time consuming to write down the
opening hours.  Getting close enough for a
readable photo makes people wondering why you're taking pictures of the
people inside.  And I usually have
to google to find out if there's a website to tag (mostly there is) so it's
a lot easier to also get opening
hours that way.   Sometimes they don't put opening hours on the web site
but  these days they usually do.
It's also often an easy way to get the phone number (not always on display)
and sometimes even the
number for the address (around here identifying one's house or business
with a house name or number
on the building itself seems optional).


> Isn't this the simplest way of finding missing info?
>

That's what I thought.  But apparently some people don't like doing it that
way or think it's more work.

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

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

I've been wondering about this apparent dilemma & whether I've been doing
the wrong thing?

If I drive / walk past & see Papa Luigi's Pizza Shop, with no other info
visible, I go home, search for Papa Luigi's in this suburb, & get their
website, which gives you their phone number, opening hours, takeaway /
delivery etc. If I'm feeling particularly enthusiastic :-), it will usually
also tell me how many tables, indoor / outdoor & so on.

Isn't this the simplest way of finding missing info?

Or have I been doing the "wrong" thing? :-(


Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=service // public road?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Has anybody got a good example ofphoto of a long driveway to add to wiki?

23. May 2018 14:51 by yve...@gmail.com :


> I always found it strange to find a driveway over a few kilometers in a 
> mountainous area given the picture available in the wiki > 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service=driveway 
> 
>___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=service // public road?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

23. May 2018 11:16 by f...@zz.de :


> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:12:42AM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>> 23. May 2018 07:18 by >> f...@zz.de >>  <>> 
>> mailto:f...@zz.de >> >:
>>
>
>
>> This applies to all road types (up to 
>> highway=motorway sometimes build by private companies,
>> as a toll roads).
>
> Thats a little nitpicking - I know that some public official
> does not take his shovel and builds a street themselves.




Sorry, I was not clear here - I wanted to mention that there are privately owned

or privately operated roads that are not service roads.





>> >  public most likely
>> > does not have a right of way although this might need additional
>> > tagging.
>> I would always tag access=private for private road rather
>> than leaving it as supposedly obvious.
>
> When there is a sign "Private road" i wouldnt tag anything. Thats
> just a liability issue. When there is "Access prohibited" or
> something its probably okay with "access=private"




This one probably depends on local culture (what marks road as nonpublic 


and allows entry, and what marks entry 


as disallowed).

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=service // public road?

[Greg Troxel]

Florian Lohoff  writes:

> I now see increasing usage of service roads as a category below
> unclassified. People tagging "smaller roads" in the countryside
> as a service roads. 

I think this is basically wrong tagging.

> I find this a little disturbing and now got into an argument whereas
> my position is the above - broken down into my more strict language:
>
> - If the public has a right of way
> - The road is build/run by public authorities
> - Its not something obvious like a parking space
> - It cant be service
>
> It might not fit 100% everywhere, but no rule without its exception.

Broadly agreed with your concerns.

A very important characteristic of a place you can drive is

  - it is legally a road, where more or less anyone has a right to
drive (and this can be public ownership or private).  Typically this
means that the ground on which it is built is carved out as a
separate lot for ownership (or government owned).  This can be
government, or it can be a road in a subdivision which is in the US
marked "private way" meaning that it is legally a road but privately
owned.  You can still get a speeding ticket on it, because the road
use rules apply to private ways, but do not apply to what you do in
your farm field.

Whether they apply in a shopping center is an interesting question.
I'd say: yes, you will be cited, and probably that does not hold
up.  But in some places (north carolina), the property owner can put
up signs that the traffic laws apply anyway - I saw these at the
biltmore estate.   Basically "this is private but the unwashed
public is here and we want the police to be able to bust them" :-)

  - not legally a road, in that there is no right of access, traffic
laws do not necessarily apply, and there is no separate parcel for
it

This is basically
"highway=primary/secondary/tertiary/unclassified/residential" vs
"highway=service/track".

It would be goo to have this be 


> The Argument of the usage is:
> - It only serves as access to a single house/company/farm.

Mostly agreed, but that's not quite right.  It's "a legal road" vs "a
place you can drive on someone's property".  If the pavement (assume
paved, but that's not the point) is on land owned and maintained by the
government, even if it only goes to one house, it's a road, not a
driveway.

> IMHO It should be driveway (Where there is no right of way and no name)
> when its not in public ownership, or unclassified with all the
> bells and whistles like a name, maxspeed etc.

I don't quite follow - but agreed that if no right of way it's service/driveway.

> To find those roads in my QA tools i dump/highlight roads which
> are highway=service and carry a name. The argument behind this is that
> at least in Germany only official public roads get names in a process
> called "Widmung" 1) - So if it carries a name, either the name has
> been copied (E.g. people copying the residentials name to all driveways)
> or somebody has "downgraded" a public road to a service.

That's a clue, but having a name on a service road is not proof of it
not being service.   My town has an airport access road which sort of
has a name, but is on a private lot and really a service/driveway.

> So i am asking where my misconception is:>

> - Is service a street category below unclassified/residential?

no, it's special - not a legal road, and typically should not be used
for through routing.

> - Does a service road typically have a right of way for the public?

typically not, maybe almost never.

> - Is service usage "just because there is only one house/company/farm"
>   valid? 

typically yes, but it's not exactly the right test.  I've seen a
residential legal road with more or less one house, but a separate land
area for the road, just like roads with more than one house.


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

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

[yo paseopor]

Also I add

oneway=no

Salut i marques vials
yopaseopor

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Tod Fitch  wrote:

>
> On May 22, 2018, at 12:48 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>>
>
> Hmmm. I guess driving culture may vary from place to place in the US. I
> always keep to the right regardless of the existence of a lane markings. I
> will admit, however, that traffic studies indicate that the average driver
> will be a bit more to the center of the pavement if there are no lane
> markings. Similarly, at least in residential areas, it has been found that
> drivers will generally go slower if there is no center marking. At least
> that is the rational my local government is using to remove the center
> divider marking for traffic calming purposes.
>
> I know that road design varies over the world and even, to a certain
> extent, within different states in the United States. So this discussion is
> showing different regional points of view. A typical, or to borrow the UK
> slang  “bog standard”, American suburban residential street is wide enough
> for parallel parking on each side and space for trucks/lorries to get past
> one another [1]. Typical parking lanes are about 8 feet (2.4 meters) and a
> typical traffic lane is 12 feet (3.7 meters). So a total pavement width is
> typically around 40 feet (12.2 meters). In some parts of the world, even in
> older crowded US cities, a road of that width might be striped for four
> lanes of traffic. But a typical US residential street has no lane markings.
>
> I can see the logic of only using the lanes tag if there is paint on the
> pavement. But that leads to another issue: It is pretty easy from
> experience to glance at a photo of a road and say it is wide enough for two
> lanes of traffic. But it is much harder for me to determine a width
> accurate to a couple of feet. I don’t see a way to show a measurement error
> estimate [2] and listing something as width=40'0" implies much more
> accuracy than a guess based on a quick visual survey or imagery actually
> provides.
>
> I am rambling. To the point, if I were to add my photo [1] to the urban
> highway tagging examples page of the wiki [3] what tags should it have. My
> current guess is:
>
> highway=residential
> parking:lane:both=parallel
> sidewalk=right
> surface=asphalt
> width=40'
>
> For the specific example given by the photo, what tags would you suggest.
>
> Thanks!
>
> [1] https://www.dropbox.com/s/1g3vt0egw4ntg7q/2018_0523_
> 072821_908_173.jpg?dl=0
> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features/Units
> [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]

https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/6QXgHLK26FTMlmovwuaxfg
-For these reasons it is important the local knowledge . Instead you can
see in some parts of this street some road markings at the both sides I
assure you only one car fits in the unique lane it has along the street.
Try to pass two cars. It is not the unique street with this problem at that
town (Sant Pere de Ribes).
It is a very clear case of lanes=1 / and oneway=no

For the other answer I make a petition to the non-spanish speakers as I
cannot make a correct translation of this. Please use an automatic
translator for this sentence to understand the meaning:
"No hay webos de adelantar a la Guardia Civil en su propio carril por ancho
que este sea mientras ellos estén circulando y no hagan ninguna indicación
dejando paso, no los hay."

I insist .The number of lanes based in the road marks is an exact value of
an objective tag. An estimated lanes number without markings will be the
result of a big amount of subjective errors as the first you said with my
example.

I am agree with a new extra tag called divider or road_marks to ensure
there are or not road marks.

Salut i marques vials
yopaseopor


On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 7:15 AM,  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* yo paseopor 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 23 May 2018 04:11
> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> *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] Sample tagging for highways with no lane markings

[yo paseopor]

Case B: some pics before
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=41.46210902249982&lng=12.874923250143638&z=17&pKey=ygjsHztch9KkrIILOPA3Jg&focus=photo&x=0.4957587433175&y=0.4652742508751958&zoom=0.3348214285714282

lanes=1, impossible to be estimated:lanes=2 , instead of some itallian
driver would try to overtake you for the right. There is no invitation at
all, please be clever, be serious, think about all the vehicles that may
use some osm app with these values. And also map for the safety of the
different kind of drivers.

Salut i marques vials
yopaseopor


On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> 2018-05-23 8:07 GMT+02:00 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.
>>
>
>
> Here are mapillary images for the 2 examples I gave,
> Case A, for me lanes=2, unmarked: https://www.mapillary.com/app/
> ?lat=42.19987521996&lng=12.37958488039&z=17.080616229522438&pKey=
> dxeGLQKJpAKONnVjOyHCuQ&focus=photo&x=0.5039420595168772&y=
> 0.5520701196885281&zoom=0
>
> Case B which is larger than case A, with 1 lane marked (but effectively 2
> lanes traffic), for which I agree to tag lanes=1
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=41.45943826996552&lng=12.
> 876404262878054&z=17&pKey=r-semo9mp70dR08qELPgYw&focus=photo
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=41.43346094747278&lng=12.
> 935902815838062&z=15.827449025905015&pKey=3xxozoDy6nVpc8bd3-d-Fw&focus=
> photo
> (there's no imagery for the exact spot I mentioned before, the images
> demonstrate the way it is built is inviting to use the shoulder)
>
> 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] Sample tagging for highways with no lane markings

[Tod Fitch]

> On May 22, 2018, at 12:48 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 

Hmmm. I guess driving culture may vary from place to place in the US. I always 
keep to the right regardless of the existence of a lane markings. I will admit, 
however, that traffic studies indicate that the average driver will be a bit 
more to the center of the pavement if there are no lane markings. Similarly, at 
least in residential areas, it has been found that drivers will generally go 
slower if there is no center marking. At least that is the rational my local 
government is using to remove the center divider marking for traffic calming 
purposes.

I know that road design varies over the world and even, to a certain extent, 
within different states in the United States. So this discussion is showing 
different regional points of view. A typical, or to borrow the UK slang  “bog 
standard”, American suburban residential street is wide enough for parallel 
parking on each side and space for trucks/lorries to get past one another [1]. 
Typical parking lanes are about 8 feet (2.4 meters) and a typical traffic lane 
is 12 feet (3.7 meters). So a total pavement width is typically around 40 feet 
(12.2 meters). In some parts of the world, even in older crowded US cities, a 
road of that width might be striped for four lanes of traffic. But a typical US 
residential street has no lane markings.

I can see the logic of only using the lanes tag if there is paint on the 
pavement. But that leads to another issue: It is pretty easy from experience to 
glance at a photo of a road and say it is wide enough for two lanes of traffic. 
But it is much harder for me to determine a width accurate to a couple of feet. 
I don’t see a way to show a measurement error estimate [2] and listing 
something as width=40'0" implies much more accuracy than a guess based on a 
quick visual survey or imagery actually provides.

I am rambling. To the point, if I were to add my photo [1] to the urban highway 
tagging examples page of the wiki [3] what tags should it have. My current 
guess is:

highway=residential
parking:lane:both=parallel
sidewalk=right
surface=asphalt
width=40'

For the specific example given by the photo, what tags would you suggest.

Thanks!

[1] https://www.dropbox.com/s/1g3vt0egw4ntg7q/2018_0523_072821_908_173.jpg?dl=0
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features/Units
[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_tagging_samples/urban___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=service // public road?

[Wiklund Johan]

I would argue that as long as there is an access tagging scheme the road 
classes should have no implicit access values, regardless of class. As for 
driveways, in most cases the geometry makes tagging like destination quite 
pointless anyway, just like adding a no exit tag would be.



From: Yves [mailto:yve...@gmail.com]
Sent: onsdag 23. mai 2018 16.52
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools ; 
Florian Lohoff ; tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] highway=service // public road?

I always found it strange to find a driveway over a few kilometers in a 
mountainous area given the picture available in the wiki 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service=driveway
Yves
Le 23 mai 2018 09:18:35 GMT+02:00, Florian Lohoff 
mailto:f...@zz.de>> a écrit :

Hi,

in the past 10 years or so my impression of a service road was that it
is typically not a public road per se and not part of the other roads
classifications. It is a piece of tarmac built for a specific purpose by
somebody not necessarily the public authorities. The public most likely
does not have a right of way although this might need additional
tagging.

I now see increasing usage of service roads as a category below
unclassified. People tagging "smaller roads" in the countryside
as a service roads.

I find this a little disturbing and now got into an argument whereas
my position is the above - broken down into my more strict language:

- If the public has a right of way
- The road is build/run by public authorities
- Its not something obvious like a parking space
- It cant be service

It might not fit 100% everywhere, but no rule without its exception.

The Argument of the usage is:
- It only serves as access to a single house/company/farm.

IMHO It should be driveway (Where there is no right of way and no name)
when its not in public ownership, or unclassified with all the
bells and whistles like a name, maxspeed etc.

To find those roads in my QA tools i dump/highlight roads which
are highway=service and carry a name. The argument behind this is that
at least in Germany only official public roads get names in a process
called "Widmung" 1) - So if it carries a name, either the name has
been copied (E.g. people copying the residentials name to all driveways)
or somebody has "downgraded" a public road to a service.

So i am asking where my misconception is:

- Is service a street category below unclassified/residential?
- Does a service road typically have a right of way for the public?
- Is service usage "just because there is only one house/company/farm"
  valid?

Flo
1) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stra%C3%9Fenwidmung

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=service // public road?

[Yves]

I always found it strange to find a driveway over a few kilometers in a 
mountainous area given the picture available in the wiki 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service=driveway
Yves 

Le 23 mai 2018 09:18:35 GMT+02:00, Florian Lohoff  a écrit :
>
>Hi,
>
>in the past 10 years or so my impression of a service road was that it
>is typically not a public road per se and not part of the other roads
>classifications. It is a piece of tarmac built for a specific purpose
>by
>somebody not necessarily the public authorities. The public most likely
>does not have a right of way although this might need additional
>tagging.
>
>I now see increasing usage of service roads as a category below
>unclassified. People tagging "smaller roads" in the countryside
>as a service roads. 
>
>I find this a little disturbing and now got into an argument whereas
>my position is the above - broken down into my more strict language:
>
>- If the public has a right of way
>- The road is build/run by public authorities
>- Its not something obvious like a parking space
>- It cant be service
>
>It might not fit 100% everywhere, but no rule without its exception.
>
>The Argument of the usage is:
>- It only serves as access to a single house/company/farm.
>
>IMHO It should be driveway (Where there is no right of way and no name)
>when its not in public ownership, or unclassified with all the
>bells and whistles like a name, maxspeed etc.
>
>To find those roads in my QA tools i dump/highlight roads which
>are highway=service and carry a name. The argument behind this is that
>at least in Germany only official public roads get names in a process
>called "Widmung" 1) - So if it carries a name, either the name has
>been copied (E.g. people copying the residentials name to all
>driveways)
>or somebody has "downgraded" a public road to a service.
>
>So i am asking where my misconception is:
>
>- Is service a street category below unclassified/residential?
>- Does a service road typically have a right of way for the public?
>- Is service usage "just because there is only one house/company/farm"
>  valid? 
> 
>Flo
>1) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stra%C3%9Fenwidmung
>-- 
>Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
> UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=service // public road?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 23. May 2018, at 15:22, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> 
> The question is is a highway=service without service=* a replacement
> for an unclassified.


no, it remains a service road.

WRT to totals not matching partial numbers for service=* are you aware the 
service tag is also used for railways 


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

Re: [Tagging] highway=service // public road?

[Florian Lohoff]

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 03:09:14PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:28:43PM +1000, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> > > in the past 10 years or so my impression of a service road was that it
> > > is typically not a public road per se and not part of the other roads
> > > classifications. It is a piece of tarmac built for a specific purpose by
> > > somebody not necessarily the public authorities. The public most likely
> > > does not have a right of way although this might need additional
> > > tagging.
> > > 
> > A significant proportion of the highway=service objects in OSM won't meet
> > that assumption. Think alley ways.
> 
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/service#values
> 
> Looking at the values only 10% of the service=* are alley.
> 
> What about highway=service without service=* ?

An interesting point is that of all highway=service only 
4% have an service=alley. So there must be some highway!=service
which carry an service=alley.

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=service#combinations

37% percent carry an service=* tag

I am assume service=parking_aisle, driveway out of scope. Its pretty
clear what that means.

The question is is a highway=service without service=* a replacement
for an unclassified.

IMHO not 

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
 UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away


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

Re: [Tagging] highway=service // public road?

[Florian Lohoff]

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:28:43PM +1000, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> > in the past 10 years or so my impression of a service road was that it
> > is typically not a public road per se and not part of the other roads
> > classifications. It is a piece of tarmac built for a specific purpose by
> > somebody not necessarily the public authorities. The public most likely
> > does not have a right of way although this might need additional
> > tagging.
> > 
> A significant proportion of the highway=service objects in OSM won't meet
> that assumption. Think alley ways.

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/service#values

Looking at the values only 10% of the service=* are alley.

What about highway=service without service=* ?

> > - Does a service road typically have a right of way for the public?
> 
> It might make sense for highway=service + service=driveway to assume
> access=private, but service=alley I would assume to be a public road just
> like any other and at for a lot of regions almost all would be public roads.
> 
> It's best to explicitly spell out the access (access=*) separately from the
> classification (highway=*) to avoid any doubt.

That it makes sense to tag this explicitly makes sense.

The point is that in Ukraine and Russia routing default assumes
highway=service to be acces=destination. For me that makes perfectly
sense beeing service not a through or public road.

Germany does not make such an assumption although i would very much
appreciate this.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
 UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away


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

Re: [Tagging] highway=service // public road?

[Andrew Harvey]

> in the past 10 years or so my impression of a service road was that it
is typically not a public road per se and not part of the other roads
classifications. It is a piece of tarmac built for a specific purpose by
somebody not necessarily the public authorities. The public most likely
does not have a right of way although this might need additional
tagging.

A significant proportion of the highway=service objects in OSM won't meet
that assumption. Think alley ways.

> - Is service a street category below unclassified/residential?

Yes

> - Does a service road typically have a right of way for the public?

It might make sense for highway=service + service=driveway to assume
access=private, but service=alley I would assume to be a public road just
like any other and at for a lot of regions almost all would be public roads.

It's best to explicitly spell out the access (access=*) separately from the
classification (highway=*) to avoid any doubt.


On 23 May 2018 at 17:18, Florian Lohoff  wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> in the past 10 years or so my impression of a service road was that it
> is typically not a public road per se and not part of the other roads
> classifications. It is a piece of tarmac built for a specific purpose by
> somebody not necessarily the public authorities. The public most likely
> does not have a right of way although this might need additional
> tagging.
>
> I now see increasing usage of service roads as a category below
> unclassified. People tagging "smaller roads" in the countryside
> as a service roads.
>
> I find this a little disturbing and now got into an argument whereas
> my position is the above - broken down into my more strict language:
>
> - If the public has a right of way
> - The road is build/run by public authorities
> - Its not something obvious like a parking space
> - It cant be service
>
> It might not fit 100% everywhere, but no rule without its exception.
>
> The Argument of the usage is:
> - It only serves as access to a single house/company/farm.
>
> IMHO It should be driveway (Where there is no right of way and no name)
> when its not in public ownership, or unclassified with all the
> bells and whistles like a name, maxspeed etc.
>
> To find those roads in my QA tools i dump/highlight roads which
> are highway=service and carry a name. The argument behind this is that
> at least in Germany only official public roads get names in a process
> called "Widmung" 1) - So if it carries a name, either the name has
> been copied (E.g. people copying the residentials name to all driveways)
> or somebody has "downgraded" a public road to a service.
>
> So i am asking where my misconception is:
>
> - Is service a street category below unclassified/residential?
> - Does a service road typically have a right of way for the public?
> - Is service usage "just because there is only one house/company/farm"
>   valid?
>
> Flo
> 1) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stra%C3%9Fenwidmung
> --
> Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
>  UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away
>
> ___
> 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

[José G Moya Y .]

El mié., 23 de mayo de 2018 9:28, Javier Sánchez Portero <
javiers...@gmail.com> escribió:

>
>
> Anyway, for your example of the LR-333 road, most of the time it isn't
> enough wide for two cars to pass comfortably (see here
> https://goo.gl/maps/6PC2Wfkfw7A2 like the van has to put the wheel in the
> border line and probably stop). In this case, lanes=1, oneway=no is the
> best tagging.
>

I don't know why is this image tagged as LR-333, since this is
CL--SO-Whatever (Soria side). My interest was in how to tag the Rioja-style
twoway-onelane roads, which are marked as twolane roads with a nonstandard
road sign with the text "línea central solo marca eje carretera" (middle
line just marks middle of road").
According to wiki definition, that way would be considered twolane (since
the only standard marking on it is a lane divisor), despite of being a
defacto onelane road.
(Painting a single line on the middle is cheaper than painting a line on
each border).

Anyway, the entire riad (all segments) should be tagged as Javier says.

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=service // public road?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-05-23 13:16 GMT+02:00 Florian Lohoff :

> When there is a sign "Private road" i wouldnt tag anything. Thats
> just a liability issue. When there is "Access prohibited" or
> something its probably okay with "access=private"



if it is private property (referring to Germany) and has a fence it means
you have no right to enter, even if the gate is open.

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

Re: [Tagging] marking shop as street vendor

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-05-23 8:17 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> 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.
>


I know some cases that for me are clearly street vendors, but would require
you amend your definition (because the structure is not removed):
these are "light" wooden booths, which are used to sell books during the
day, but aren't removed (the books are removed). Similar to some kind of
fleamarket (also these have sometimes "semi-permanent" light structures),
e.g.:
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=41.902814&lng=12.468088&z=17&pKey=JIjxIVtTBITaTY5ZP_ilvw&focus=photo


For reference, here is an image of a vehicle based street vendor:
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=41.902601&lng=12.467558&z=17&pKey=ZHd6LnmlJJgJJv7W6DVaXw&focus=photo

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=service // public road?

[Florian Lohoff]

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:12:42AM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> 23. May 2018 07:18 by f...@zz.de :
> 
> > It is a piece of tarmac
> 
> Service road may have any surface,
> not only asphalt. Surface is indicated by
> surface tag, not highway tag (except 
> 
> highway=motorway that indicates high quality surface).

This was a short form of "somebody built a road" - Not necessary tarmac
although in Germany most roads are paved :)


> This applies to all road types (up to 
> highway=motorway sometimes build by private companies,
> as a toll roads).

Thats a little nitpicking - I know that some public official
does not take his shovel and builds a street themselves.

Toll road btw is a complete different beast.

> >  public most likely
> > does not have a right of way although this might need additional
> > tagging.

> I would always tag access=private for private road rather
> than leaving it as supposedly obvious.

When there is a sign "Private road" i wouldnt tag anything. Thats
just a liability issue. When there is "Access prohibited" or
something its probably okay with "access=private"

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
 UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away


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

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

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 7:25 AM, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

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.
>

My thoughts about this keep evolving.  At the moment it seems to me that
your reason for wanting to do it is
actually a good reason not to do it.

My first thought was that a note is adequate.

My second thought was that being able to use something like overpass-turbo
to detect shops that need to
be resurveyed is a good thing.

My final (so far) thought is that it will cause more problems than it
fixes.  Somebody, perhaps you,
surveyed the place and didn't see a sign, so used this tag.  At some future
point somebody, perhaps
you again, runs a query to see which shops need to be resurveyed.  This
particular shop doesn't
need to be resurveyed because it doesn't have a sign.  The problem is that
your idea makes the
assumption that the shop will NEVER have a sign, so may never get
resurveyed.  A sign
could have been put up five minutes after the first survey.

Some shops in my town (it's not a big town) start up and fail after a
couple of years (sometimes after
only a couple of months), so I have to keep re-surveying anyway.  Shops
change their opening
hours, occasionally.

I don't see a need for this new tag.  Leaving the opening hours unspecified
seems perfectly adequate.

Oh, I misunderstood your reason.  You want a special tag invented solely
for the purpose of
making your app stop complaining about lack of opening hours.  I'm not
convinced about that
being either necessary or a good idea.  Things change.  If you're
resurveying an area anyway
then it's worth checking the opening hours because they may have changed,
or a sign may
have been put up, or the business may have gone bankrupt and a new business
is there, or...

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=service // public road?

[Warin]

On 23/05/18 18:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone


On 23. May 2018, at 09:18, Florian Lohoff  wrote:

- Is service a street category below unclassified/residential?
- Does a service road typically have a right of way for the public?
- Is service usage "just because there is only one house/company/farm"
  valid?


in the countryside  I map either driveways (on private property) or access 
roads to “things” (e.g. smaller power facilities) as service,


A 'driveway' in country Australia can be 100kms long... I usually use 
unclassified for them... they tend to be the same physically as the local 
'unclassified' roads.


  but I use hw service and service=alley for very small public ways which do 
not have access restrictions but width doesn’t permit using them with a car (or 
hardly),


I mark back lanes in cities and towns with service, alley if I remember .. they 
are usable by public cars .. and trucks if they can manage the turns.
Typically these lanes were created to 'service' 'night soil' retrieval before 
sewers were put in.




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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-05-23 8:25 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> 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.
>


in absence of a sign you might ask the owner or staff. Let's encourage this.

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

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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

23. May 2018 05:41 by osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
:

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




I prefer to keep my proposal focused just to one specific tag, 


but I would not be opposed to somebody making a generic proposal.




I would prefer :sign=yes/no scheme as simpler.





>  known to be out of date and not matching the real situation




I admit that I never encountered something like that. I would just use note 
field.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-05-23 8:07 GMT+02:00 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.
>


Here are mapillary images for the 2 examples I gave,
Case A, for me lanes=2, unmarked:
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=42.19987521996&lng=12.37958488039&z=17.080616229522438&pKey=dxeGLQKJpAKONnVjOyHCuQ&focus=photo&x=0.5039420595168772&y=0.5520701196885281&zoom=0

Case B which is larger than case A, with 1 lane marked (but effectively 2
lanes traffic), for which I agree to tag lanes=1
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=41.45943826996552&lng=12.876404262878054&z=17&pKey=r-semo9mp70dR08qELPgYw&focus=photo
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=41.43346094747278&lng=12.935902815838062&z=15.827449025905015&pKey=3xxozoDy6nVpc8bd3-d-Fw&focus=photo
(there's no imagery for the exact spot I mentioned before, the images
demonstrate the way it is built is inviting to use the shoulder)

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

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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

23. May 2018 07:15 by 61sundow...@gmail.com :


> > On 23/05/18 16:25, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> > 
>> 
>>   
>>   
>>   22. May 2018 23:03 by >> 61sundow...@gmail.com 
>> >> :
>>   
>>   
>>> On 23/05/1807:44, 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 ofthings to 
>> survey to stop suggesting opening hours that are notworth 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 theworld),
>>   
>> what is undesirable.
>> 
> Ok, that is a fine reason. Might want to make that clear on the
> proposal page?  

 

I added more explicit note why new tag is preferred over note. 





> What about similar tags for missing address signs? 

 

If one needs it something similar may be also used.

addr:housenumber:sign=no? addr:sign = no? 


But I would leave it for somebody who needs this tag.

___
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: Javier Sánchez Portero  
Sent: Wednesday, 23 May 2018 17:27
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Sample tagging for highways with no lane markings

 

Anyway, for your example of the LR-333 road, most of the time it isn't enough 
wide for two cars to pass comfortably (see here 
https://goo.gl/maps/6PC2Wfkfw7A2 like the van has to put the wheel in the 
border line and probably stop). In this case, lanes=1, oneway=no is the best 
tagging. 

 

I agree that for this particular road lanes=1 is appropriate. Some people may 
tag it as lanes=1.5. But I find non-integer values for lanes quite problematic.

 

You could use lanes:both_ways=1 (in addition to lanes=1) to be explicit about 
it, but that is sort of implied. (In the absence of oneway=yes or an explicit 
lanes:forward or lanes:backward, if the lanes count is odd, it’s assumed the 
middle lane is both_ways while the remaining lanes are evenly split between 
forward and backward).

 

 

Would you tag the same in GC-210 road?: 
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/v_G65XwwVnjf0u3i0RxRqA

What I suggest is that the tagging division=no is correct for examples like 
this.

 

 

This one looks like the prototypical:

 

lanes=2

divider=no

 

I don’t think anyone could argue this is a lanes:both_ways=1 (which would be 
implied by lanes=1 oneway=no, even if not explicitly tagged).

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=service // public road?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

23. May 2018 07:18 by f...@zz.de :


> It is a piece of tarmac

Service road may have any surface,

not only asphalt. Surface is indicated by

surface tag, not highway tag (except 


highway=motorway that indicates high quality surface).




In a given region some surfaces may be typical for given highway=* value,

but there are no defaults.





>  for a specific purpose by
> somebody not necessarily the public authorities


This applies to all road types (up to 


highway=motorway sometimes build by private companies,

as a toll roads).





>  public most likely
> does not have a right of way although this might need additional
> tagging.




I would always tag access=private for private road rather

than leaving it as supposedly obvious.




> - Its not something obvious like a parking space




What do you mean by "obvious"?

Used for one purpose?

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=service // public road?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 23. May 2018, at 09:18, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> 
> - Is service a street category below unclassified/residential?
> - Does a service road typically have a right of way for the public?
> - Is service usage "just because there is only one house/company/farm"
>  valid?


in the countryside  I map either driveways (on private property) or access 
roads to “things” (e.g. smaller power facilities) as service, but I use hw 
service and service=alley for very small public ways which do not have access 
restrictions but width doesn’t permit using them with a car (or hardly), 
typically I add a width tag (or maxwidth if there is a sign). I am writing 
about historic context mostly, these ways might be used by the locals to access 
their house with small vehicles (e.g. for loading) and motorcycles, and they 
are public roads in terms of property and maintenance. Often they are 
interrupted by steps though (so they won’t be used for through traffic besides 
pedestrians).

TL;DR;
yes, besides service=alley which are public roads.


cheers,
Martin
___
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]

Hi Jose

The facts of be able (or not) to overtake and drive in the middle (as Paul
says) are interesting but not necessary relevant for the discussion (IMO).

Anyway, for your example of the LR-333 road, most of the time it isn't
enough wide for two cars to pass comfortably (see here
https://goo.gl/maps/6PC2Wfkfw7A2 like the van has to put the wheel in the
border line and probably stop). In this case, lanes=1, oneway=no is the
best tagging. Would you tag the same in GC-210 road?:
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/v_G65XwwVnjf0u3i0RxRqA

What I suggest is that the tagging division=no is correct for examples like
this.

2018-05-23 7:07 GMT+01:00 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 <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> *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
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Selfish Seahorse]

On 23 May 2018 at 08:07, José G Moya Y.  wrote:
> @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.

Exactly. I too prefer to not dilute the current definition of the
lanes key because it corresponds to what a lane is:

'A division of a road marked off with painted lines ...'
(https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lane)

On 22 May 2018 at 19:45,   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

This is subjective. If two cars can pass there, this doesn't also mean
that two buses or lorries can pass (or a bus/lorry and a car).

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

[Tagging] highway=service // public road?

[Florian Lohoff]

Hi,

in the past 10 years or so my impression of a service road was that it
is typically not a public road per se and not part of the other roads
classifications. It is a piece of tarmac built for a specific purpose by
somebody not necessarily the public authorities. The public most likely
does not have a right of way although this might need additional
tagging.

I now see increasing usage of service roads as a category below
unclassified. People tagging "smaller roads" in the countryside
as a service roads. 

I find this a little disturbing and now got into an argument whereas
my position is the above - broken down into my more strict language:

- If the public has a right of way
- The road is build/run by public authorities
- Its not something obvious like a parking space
- It cant be service

It might not fit 100% everywhere, but no rule without its exception.

The Argument of the usage is:
- It only serves as access to a single house/company/farm.

IMHO It should be driveway (Where there is no right of way and no name)
when its not in public ownership, or unclassified with all the
bells and whistles like a name, maxspeed etc.

To find those roads in my QA tools i dump/highlight roads which
are highway=service and carry a name. The argument behind this is that
at least in Germany only official public roads get names in a process
called "Widmung" 1) - So if it carries a name, either the name has
been copied (E.g. people copying the residentials name to all driveways)
or somebody has "downgraded" a public road to a service.

So i am asking where my misconception is:

- Is service a street category below unclassified/residential?
- Does a service road typically have a right of way for the public?
- Is service usage "just because there is only one house/company/farm"
  valid? 
 
Flo
1) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stra%C3%9Fenwidmung
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
 UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away


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

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

[Warin]

On 23/05/18 16:25, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:




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.

Ok, that is a fine reason. Might want to make that clear on the proposal 
page?


What about similar tags for missing address signs?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging