Re: [Tagging] Lane geometry in OSM

[Tom Hardy]

I've experimented a bit with lane and road attributes as in 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/505256201 and the adjoining intersection.
No width, but number, function and placement of lanes.  For placement, I 
always selected the center of the throughway.  This allows renderers that pay 
no attention to lane attributes to render a straight line through an 
intersection.

JOSM's "Enhanced lane and road attributes" visualizer shows this quite well.

-- 
Tom Hardy 




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

Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

[Andrew Hain]

It’s not absolutely necessary but you get the chance of some feedback from 
other OSM users that you may appreciate later if you do it, together with the 
chance to advertise the tagging scheme to other mappers or data consumers. 
Think of it as your call, there are other ways especially for intrinsically 
local tags.

--
Andrew

From: Szem 
Sent: 02 August 2018 20:35
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

I would just ask that this proposal process is absolutely necessary? (I
don't want to bypass it simply I don't know)

2018.08.02. 21:25 keltezéssel, Marc Gemis írta:
> Kevin,
>
> Just to prepare you a bit: it's very well possible that you will get
> objections very late in the approval process. eg. during the voting
> phase from people that never discussed the tag before. We've seen this
> e.g. with amenity/tourism=reception(_desk), where people just ignored
> all previous discussion on the mailing list and the discussion page.
>
> I wish you good luck with your proposal though.
>
> m.
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 8:11 PM Kevin Kenny  
> wrote:
>> Is there a documented process for putting a proposal? I'm certainly willing 
>> to draft the text, although I'm not going to be able to do it before the 
>> weekend. Can someone else run the proposal process or at least guide me 
>> through it?
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018, 12:55 PM Szem  wrote:
>>> A couple of us have said their opinion.
>>> It seems to me nobody have said the access=permit tag is useless.
>>> And now, what is the next step? Worldwide the 97% of editors have not read 
>>> this mailing list. Without written a short explanation in the wiki only a 
>>> few editor will use it, or they will use a lot of other form.
>>>
>>> (There would be no greater agreement if we would analyze e.g. 
>>> access=permessive tag…)
>>>
>>>   Szem
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

[Szem]

I would just ask that this proposal process is absolutely necessary? (I 
don't want to bypass it simply I don't know)


2018.08.02. 21:25 keltezéssel, Marc Gemis írta:

Kevin,

Just to prepare you a bit: it's very well possible that you will get
objections very late in the approval process. eg. during the voting
phase from people that never discussed the tag before. We've seen this
e.g. with amenity/tourism=reception(_desk), where people just ignored
all previous discussion on the mailing list and the discussion page.

I wish you good luck with your proposal though.

m.
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 8:11 PM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

Is there a documented process for putting a proposal? I'm certainly willing to 
draft the text, although I'm not going to be able to do it before the weekend. 
Can someone else run the proposal process or at least guide me through it?

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018, 12:55 PM Szem  wrote:

A couple of us have said their opinion.
It seems to me nobody have said the access=permit tag is useless.
And now, what is the next step? Worldwide the 97% of editors have not read this 
mailing list. Without written a short explanation in the wiki only a few editor 
will use it, or they will use a lot of other form.

(There would be no greater agreement if we would analyze e.g. access=permessive 
tag…)

  Szem

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

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

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


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

Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

[Marc Gemis]

Kevin,

Just to prepare you a bit: it's very well possible that you will get
objections very late in the approval process. eg. during the voting
phase from people that never discussed the tag before. We've seen this
e.g. with amenity/tourism=reception(_desk), where people just ignored
all previous discussion on the mailing list and the discussion page.

I wish you good luck with your proposal though.

m.
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 8:11 PM Kevin Kenny  wrote:
>
> Is there a documented process for putting a proposal? I'm certainly willing 
> to draft the text, although I'm not going to be able to do it before the 
> weekend. Can someone else run the proposal process or at least guide me 
> through it?
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018, 12:55 PM Szem  wrote:
>>
>> A couple of us have said their opinion.
>> It seems to me nobody have said the access=permit tag is useless.
>> And now, what is the next step? Worldwide the 97% of editors have not read 
>> this mailing list. Without written a short explanation in the wiki only a 
>> few editor will use it, or they will use a lot of other form.
>>
>> (There would be no greater agreement if we would analyze e.g. 
>> access=permessive tag…)
>>
>>  Szem
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Lane geometry in OSM

[Marc Gemis]

OSM has a free tagging model. That means that everybody can use any
tag they want.
But this is not workable of course. Therefore we try to seek consensus
on how we can tag certain features. One way to do this is by writing a
proposal, asking for comments, improving the proposal, and having a
vote on this.

But some people do not follow this workflow, sometimes they just use a
tag document it a bit and that's it. Others might pick up the idea and
start using the tag. This is "voting by using".

The server does no checking at all on the tags. If it did, that would
mean that there is a small group of people that decides what is wrong
and what is ok. That's against the spirit of the free tagging.

I think thet width:lanes:start/end was part of an "experiment" set up
by an experienced mapper. Unfortunately, he left the project before he
started the proposal phase of those tags.

If you like the tags, you can document them and ask for comments on
that proposal on this mailing list.

I don't know if I understand (4) correctly. example width:lanes=3|4|4
in case the left lane is smaller.
in case the road gets wider, you have to split the OSM way into 2, and
map the other part with width:lanes=4|4|4

The width:lanes:end/start are meant for those sections where a lane
ends or starts. It is not meant to be used on longer streches.

As for area:highway, it is my feeling that most mappers are still
working on more essential stuff (missing roads, addresses, POI) and do
not bother yet about the exact geometry of the road. With essential, I
mean objects that are needed for good routing, whether it is for cars,
cyclists, pedestrians or other categories of road users.
area:highway is needed for self driving cars, but we are not there
yet. For me, those features are just "experiments" by a small group of
people.

Another tag you can use is
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:placement%3Dtransition , it is
supported by the "lanes and road attributes" of JOSM.

You might be interested in the OSM Lane visualizer :
http://osm.mueschelsoft.de/cgi-bin/render.pl

regards

m.

p.s. those questions were also asked on help:
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/65070/adding-detailed-lane-geometry-to-openstreetmap
(for those that do not follow that website)
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 8:58 PM John Lambert  wrote:
>
> Hello OSM Tagging,
>
> I have a question about the use of detailed lane geometry to OpenStreetMap, 
> like (1) lane centerlines, or (2) lane boundaries, (3) variable lane width, 
> or (4) lane connectivity.
>
> Currently, all I see are:
>
> (1) how many marked lanes are there on a highway, e.g. 
>
> (2) which lanes on a two way road are not distributed evenly between the 
> driving directions ,  v="1"/>
>
> (3) the "turn=*" key, specifying the indicated direction in which a way or a 
> lane will lead for turning or merging, e.g.  v="reverse|through|through;right|right"/>  v="left|leftright"/>
>
> (4) uniform lane width
> width:lanes, width:lanes:forward, width:lanes:backward, maxwidth:lanes, 
> width:lanes:both_ways
>
> It seems like we would need a "Way" to describe each lane's centerline. My 
> understanding is that it is not permitted in OSM to add an extra "Way" tag to 
> a specific lane tag currently. Is this correct?  I have heard from another 
> user that the lane centerline model was the previous OSM model, but was 
> scrapped and replaced with the current road centerline model.
>
> Also, another question I have -- would a line width have to be uniform across 
> an entire "Way," or can different line widths be expressed for each separate 
> chunk of the Way?
>
> I saw that there is a key that a few people have used: width:lanes:end and 
> width:lanes:start. I did not see these in the OSM documentation. Are these 
> just fields that people decided to add without approval? Shouldn't the OSM 
> server reject such an upload?
>
> I saw that a proposed feature is street area (or similarly area:highway), 
> where a Way would depict the polygon area of a street, but I'm interested in 
> even more informative lane geometry than this. My understanding, is that this 
> proposed feature will only allow the enumeration of drivable road areas, and 
> not per-lane width/boundaries. There is a figure shown here.
>
> Thank you in advance for your time.
>
> Best wishes,
> John
> ___
> 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] Lane geometry in OSM

[John Lambert]

Hello OSM Tagging,

I have a question about the use of detailed lane geometry to OpenStreetMap,
like (1) lane centerlines, or (2) lane boundaries, (3) variable lane width,
or (4) lane connectivity.

Currently, all I see are:

*(1) how many marked lanes are there on a highway, e.g. *

*(2) which lanes on a two way road are not distributed evenly between the
driving directions , *

*(3) the "turn=*" key, specifying the indicated direction in which a way or
a lane will lead for turning or merging, e.g.  *

*(4) uniform lane width*
*width:lanes, width:lanes:forward, width:lanes:backward, maxwidth:lanes,
width:lanes:both_ways*

It seems like we would need a "Way" to describe each lane's centerline. My
understanding is that it is not permitted in OSM to add an extra "Way" tag
to a specific lane tag currently. Is this correct?  I have heard from
another user that the lane centerline model was the previous OSM model, but
was scrapped and replaced with the current road centerline model.

Also, another question I have -- would a line width have to be uniform
across an entire "Way," or can different line widths be expressed for each
separate chunk of the Way?

I saw that there is a key that a few people have used: width:lanes:end
 and
width:lanes:start
. I did not see
these in the OSM documentation. Are these just fields that people decided
to add without approval? Shouldn't the OSM server reject such an upload?

I saw that a proposed feature is street area
 (or
similarly area:highway), where a Way would depict the polygon area of a
street, but I'm interested in even more informative lane geometry than
this. My understanding, is that this proposed feature will only allow the
enumeration of drivable road areas, and not per-lane width/boundaries.
There is a figure shown here
.

Thank you in advance for your time.

Best wishes,
John
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 7:10 PM, Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> Is there a documented process for putting a proposal?
>

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process


> I'm certainly willing to draft the text, although I'm not going to be able
> to do it before the weekend. Can someone else run the proposal process or
> at least guide me through it?
>

I'm a proposal virgin too.  I'll let you get deflowered this time around.

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

Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

[Kevin Kenny]

Is there a documented process for putting a proposal? I'm certainly willing
to draft the text, although I'm not going to be able to do it before the
weekend. Can someone else run the proposal process or at least guide me
through it?

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018, 12:55 PM Szem  wrote:

> A couple of us have said their opinion.
> It seems to me nobody have said the access=permit tag is useless.
> And now, what is the next step? Worldwide the 97% of editors have not read
> this mailing list. Without written a short explanation in the wiki only a
> few editor will use it, or they will use a lot of other form.
>
> (There would be no greater agreement if we would analyze e.g. 
> access=permessive
> tag…)
>
>  Szem
> ___
> 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] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

[Szem]

A couple of us have said their opinion.
It seems to me nobody have said the access=permit tag is useless.
And now, what is the next step? Worldwide the 97% of editors have not 
read this mailing list. Without written a short explanation in the wiki 
only a few editor will use it, or they will use a lot of other form.


(There would be no greater agreement if we would analyze e.g. 
access=permessive tag...)


 Szem

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

Re: [Tagging] Golf tag combinations

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 2:29 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 02/08/18 23:00, Paul Allen wrote:
>


> I recently came across someone adding the address as the name,
> unfortunately one of the buildings had a real name that I recalled .. and
> it was not the address.
> So while the address may be displayed outside on the building facade, I
> would not take it to be the name of the building without further evidence.
>

This one was a difficult call.  On its own I'd have said it was a
pretentious way of displaying the house number.
But there's a name plate in the same material, style, font and lack of
weathering for "The Annexe" which is arrived
at via a footpath at the side which leads to a rear extension of the
building.  The building in question had no other
identification but through the window I could see it was an office of some
nature.   It also had an entry phone  with
a notice saying that callers needed an appointment.  The Annexe, though,
identified the function of the place.

I know, from the Annexe signage, they were hiding their function from the
general public.  Although I understand their
reasoning, I also know that security through obscurity doesn't work (but
I'm respecting their secrecy anyway).  Although
they don't want the general public to know what they do, they want their
legitimate callers to be sure they've found the
right place.  A housename unlikely to appear on any other house on a
different street meets that need.  I'd have chosen
something like "Coprolite" or "Tibetan Blackbird" but not everyone has my
sense of humour.

The other thing about using "Number 39" as a house name is that they don't
have to go through the process of
formally registering the name with the County Council, which they are
legally required to do (almost nobody does,
but they're supposed to).  They can tell the council it's just a number,
not a name, and the council would have
better things to do than push the point.

Difficult call, but it quacked more like a house name than a number.  As
you can see from this (which I don't
use for mapping but is acceptable for making a point here):
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.0824887,-4.6596585,3a,15y,119.06h,86.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shXJ2DTi4jllXdFtJpx1xnw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
The sign for
"The Annexe" is blurred but you can see it.  If "Number 39" were intended
to be a house number they'd have put
"39" and "39A" on the signs.  Fewer letters so lower cost for the two signs.

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

Re: [Tagging] Golf tag combinations

[Warin]

On 02/08/18 23:00, Paul Allen wrote:
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:48 PM, althio > wrote:


For the Old Course at Saint Andrews (ancient and well-known golf
course), holes do have names.

See the Wikipedia page or the website.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Course_at_St_Andrews#Scorecard


I think tags on OSM should be (it is not the case currently):
ref=1
name=Burn

ref=2
name=Dyke



I did look, some time ago, at St Andrews on OSM .. I do recall seeing 
names, not numbers being displayed but I cannot recall the specifics.
I think there is more than one 'course' at St Andrews... but I could be 
wrong.


Some courses give their holes names as well as numbers.  So ref=2 + 
name=Dyke makes perfect sense.  Some
courses just use the hole number as its name.  So ref=2 + name=2 makes 
sense to me, because it is useful to
identify things with labels.  I'd even go so far as to say in that 
situation you could make do with name=2 alone.


We do have the situation where houses can have names or numbers or 
both.  There's not enough room (usually) to
render both but there is often room to render at least one of them.  
Half the houses where I live have only names.  Some
have only numbers,  Some have both.  And one has the name "Number 
39."  Really.  It is number 39, but it also says on
the front "Number 39" in the same style, font and material as an 
adjacent sign says "The Annexe."


I recently came across someone adding the address as the name, 
unfortunately one of the buildings had a real name that I recalled .. 
and it was not the address.
So while the address may be displayed outside on the building facade, I 
would not take it to be the name of the building without further evidence.

Some are adaptations of the number for example 'One on Macquarie Street".
Older buildings, including houses, have names that predate the house 
numbers.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Golf tag combinations

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:48 PM, althio  wrote:

> For the Old Course at Saint Andrews (ancient and well-known golf course),
> holes do have names.
>
> See the Wikipedia page or the website.
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Course_at_St_Andrews#Scorecard
>
> I think tags on OSM should be (it is not the case currently):
> ref=1
> name=Burn
>
> ref=2
> name=Dyke
>

Some courses give their holes names as well as numbers.  So ref=2 +
name=Dyke makes perfect sense.  Some
courses just use the hole number as its name.  So ref=2 + name=2 makes
sense to me, because it is useful to
identify things with labels.  I'd even go so far as to say in that
situation you could make do with name=2 alone.

We do have the situation where houses can have names or numbers or both.
There's not enough room (usually) to
render both but there is often room to render at least one of them.  Half
the houses where I live have only names.  Some
have only numbers,  Some have both.  And one has the name "Number 39."
Really.  It is number 39, but it also says on
the front "Number 39" in the same style, font and material as an adjacent
sign says "The Annexe."

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

Re: [Tagging] Golf tag combinations

[althio]

For the Old Course at Saint Andrews (ancient and well-known golf course),
holes do have names.

See the Wikipedia page or the website.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Course_at_St_Andrews#Scorecard

I think tags on OSM should be (it is not the case currently):
ref=1
name=Burn

ref=2
name=Dyke

…

-- althio


On Thu, Aug 2, 2018, 14:11 Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> In some situations, where name=* is already used for one thing but a
> reference number is also needed, it makes
> sense.  In other situations t doesn't make sense (to me) to use ref, which
> isn't rendered, rather than name.
>
>> Abusing the name tag is a common beginner's mistake, let's not encourage
>> even more use of the name tag - rather make or find a render that shows
>> what you want for a particular purpose.
>>
> Please explain WHY it's an abuse to use the name tag for golf holes or
> allotment plots.  Name is to be used for names
> and not descriptions, but "hole 7" and "plot 15" can be viewed as both
> names and descriptions.  As in "I saw him 5 minutes
> ago teeing off at hole 7."  In fact, you'd never say "I saw him 5 minutes
> ago teeing off at a hole that looks sort of sevenish."
> The number of a hole or plot is a name as much as a description, if not
> more so.
>
> --
> Paul
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Golf tag combinations

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:21 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry.. don't know what an 'allotment plot' is? I don't see that mentioned
> in the OSMwikis for golf.
>

Allotment plots are nothing to do with golf.  I brought them up as another
example, like putting greens, where it
has been decreed that we use a non-rendered ref=* instead of a rendered
name=* for what are labels which
uniquely identify (given some additional context) an object.  The same
thinking would (if taken to extremes)
have us use ref=7 instead of addr:housenumber=7.

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

Re: [Tagging] Golf tag combinations

[Warin]

Sorry.. don't know what an 'allotment plot' is? I don't see that 
mentioned in the OSMwikis for golf.


I follow the rest of the 'ref' argument. Will have to look at it.

On 02/08/18 22:09, Paul Allen wrote:
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Chris Hill > wrote:


I think people use the ref tag because that makes sense.

In some situations, where name=* is already used for one thing but a 
reference number is also needed, it makes
sense.  In other situations t doesn't make sense (to me) to use ref, 
which isn't rendered, rather than name.


I'm not a golfer but on allotments the whole site usually has a
name and the individual plots have a number (ref=*).

Yes, that's how it was defined.  Which makes no sense. Because what 
use is it not displaying allotment numbers?


As it happens, plots aren't rendered at all in OSM Carto, but I 
believe it's on the to-do list.  When (if) that happens then
the plot boundaries will be rendered but the plot number will not (if 
you do what the wiki says and identify them with

ref).

The guy who wrote the proposal for allotment plots gave an example in 
his proposal.  Of the entire allotment NONE
of them had refs, but one of them had a name.  So it didn't make 
sense, even to him.


The OSM Standard map can't show everything. We used to have a map
like that as a sort of 'debug' map for mappers; it was useful but
horrible to look at as everything was jammed in and not one to
share more widely.

Please don't use that argument for allotments and golf courses, 
because it doesn't apply to them.  Sure, in some
situations not everything fits.  I've mapped shops along a high street 
and not all of their names display because there
is no room (vector mapping may allow higher zooms one day, and then 
they will display).  But that's not the case with
allotments or golf courses.  There's plenty of room for plot 
numbers/hole numbers to be displayed without looking
cluttered because they are widely-spaced and there are no other 
details nearby.


An argument I might accept is that the steps transforming data to 
rendering are horribly complex and highly
inefficient and we don't have the compute power to handle allotments 
and golf courses on top of everything else.  But

please don't trot out the "clutter" argument where it doesn't apply.

Abusing the name tag is a common beginner's mistake, let's not
encourage even more use of the name tag - rather make or find a
render that shows what you want for a particular purpose.

Please explain WHY it's an abuse to use the name tag for golf holes or 
allotment plots.  Name is to be used for names
and not descriptions, but "hole 7" and "plot 15" can be viewed as both 
names and descriptions.  As in "I saw him 5 minutes
ago teeing off at hole 7."  In fact, you'd never say "I saw him 5 
minutes ago teeing off at a hole that looks sort of sevenish."
The number of a hole or plot is a name as much as a description, if 
not more so.


What might be more sensible is for the carto to render a ref if there 
is no name=* in the same way that house names
get rendered if there is no addr:number (which applies to about half 
the houses where I live).  But I'd still like to know

why golf greens and allotment plots specified ref instead of name.

--
Paul



___
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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Line clamps

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 12:49 AM, François Lacombe  wrote:

>
> Indeed there are situations where many kind of clamping is used. I think
> about line_clamp=mixed
> Especially for such poles : https://previews.123rf.com/
> images/saovadee/saovadee1406/saovadee140600044/28858354-
> electric-pole-with-messy-wire-that-look-dangerous.jpg
>

Yeah, all you could do with that one is line_clamp=mixed.  The down/up/down
situation you could maybe handle as
line_clamp=suspension;pin;suspension.

Insulators are a particular practical mean to do so especially for power
> where conductors have to be separated from their supports as to prevent
> electricity to go back to earth.
> You don't have insulator here : https://wiki.openstreetmap.
> org/wiki/File:Wooden_telecom_suspension_pole.jpeg
> But it a suspension clamping.
>

That's true.  Insulated cable, so the attachment isn't an insulator.

The main point is to remove power dedicated values from tower:type.
>
As it's better to make it global, such values are extended to portals,
> poles...
> And to make it an order more global, let's not design it specific to power
> anymore but suitable for telecom or any other line
> That's how line_clamp came to my mind.
> Should I update the proposal and rationale chapter?
>

Maybe.  Or maybe you need different terminology.  How about
"line_attachment" rather than line_clamp?

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

Re: [Tagging] Golf tag combinations

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Chris Hill  wrote:

> I think people use the ref tag because that makes sense.
>
In some situations, where name=* is already used for one thing but a
reference number is also needed, it makes
sense.  In other situations t doesn't make sense (to me) to use ref, which
isn't rendered, rather than name.

> I'm not a golfer but on allotments the whole site usually has a name and
> the individual plots have a number (ref=*).
>
Yes, that's how it was defined.  Which makes no sense.  Because what use is
it not displaying allotment numbers?

As it happens, plots aren't rendered at all in OSM Carto, but I believe
it's on the to-do list.  When (if) that happens then
the plot boundaries will be rendered but the plot number will not (if you
do what the wiki says and identify them with
ref).

The guy who wrote the proposal for allotment plots gave an example in his
proposal.  Of the entire allotment NONE
of them had refs, but one of them had a name.  So it didn't make sense,
even to him.

> The OSM Standard map can't show everything. We used to have a map like
> that as a sort of 'debug' map for mappers; it was useful but horrible to
> look at as everything was jammed in and not one to share more widely.
>
Please don't use that argument for allotments and golf courses, because it
doesn't apply to them.  Sure, in some
situations not everything fits.  I've mapped shops along a high street and
not all of their names display because there
is no room (vector mapping may allow higher zooms one day, and then they
will display).  But that's not the case with
allotments or golf courses.  There's plenty of room for plot numbers/hole
numbers to be displayed without looking
cluttered because they are widely-spaced and there are no other details
nearby.

An argument I might accept is that the steps transforming data to rendering
are horribly complex and highly
inefficient and we don't have the compute power to handle allotments and
golf courses on top of everything else.  But
please don't trot out the "clutter" argument where it doesn't apply.

> Abusing the name tag is a common beginner's mistake, let's not encourage
> even more use of the name tag - rather make or find a render that shows
> what you want for a particular purpose.
>
Please explain WHY it's an abuse to use the name tag for golf holes or
allotment plots.  Name is to be used for names
and not descriptions, but "hole 7" and "plot 15" can be viewed as both
names and descriptions.  As in "I saw him 5 minutes
ago teeing off at hole 7."  In fact, you'd never say "I saw him 5 minutes
ago teeing off at a hole that looks sort of sevenish."
The number of a hole or plot is a name as much as a description, if not
more so.

What might be more sensible is for the carto to render a ref if there is no
name=* in the same way that house names
get rendered if there is no addr:number (which applies to about half the
houses where I live).  But I'd still like to know
why golf greens and allotment plots specified ref instead of name.

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

Re: [Tagging] Golf tag combinations

[Chris Hill]

I think people use the ref tag because that makes sense. I'm not a 
golfer but on allotments the whole site usually has a name and the 
individual plots have a number (ref=*). The OSM Standard map can't show 
everything. We used to have a map like that as a sort of 'debug' map for 
mappers; it was useful but horrible to look at as everything was jammed 
in and not one to share more widely. Abusing the name tag is a common 
beginner's mistake, let's not encourage even more use of the name tag - 
rather make or find a render that shows what you want for a particular 
purpose.


If RichardF's push towards vector maps bears fruit, displaying specific 
items for your own needs should become easier. If Richard succeeds, then 
an OBE should follow his recent award! Well done Richard.


--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


On 01/08/2018 23:49, Paul Allen wrote:
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 11:03 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:



What's the green dot in the middle of the 13th fairway?

With some detective work, it turns out to be a tree.

What puzzles me about golf putting greens and allotment plots is this: 
why did they choose to embed useful information
in a ref (which doesn't get rendered in OSM carto) instead of a name 
(which is rendered)?  Andy's style displays
refs; look at the same course in OSM and you have no way of telling 
which green is which.


This is even more puzzling when I see that the guy who proposed the 
allotment plot tag explicitly mentioned ref but,
in the proposal page his example leads to the only plot in the 
allotment which has a name (and none of the plots have
refs).  Yes, data protection means allotment plots usually should not 
have a person's name but this was something like
the Fred Bloggs Memorial Allotment.  But why hide allotment numbers in 
references rather than displaying them as a
name where people can actually see the plot they're looking for.  
"I've assigned you plot 12, here's a map of the
allotment that doesn't display the plot numbers, so you'll have to 
guess where yours is."


What piece of OSM history that I know nothing of led people to decide 
that it was sensible to encode useful
information that people would wish to see on a map in a way that 
doesn't get displayed?


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