Re: [Tagging] Tagging a residential bridge building

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 9:54 PM Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> The negative building levels are correct. The floor numbering attempts
> to be continuous among the connected buildings, and the ones to the
> east were built later without renumbering floors; their levels are
> lettered A-G. E and F connect to floors 2 and 3 respectively.

Sorry, that should be the ones to the WEST were built later, etc.

It struck me as being quite a bit of industrial hubris to continue the
building straight across a ravine. The workers there sometimes joke
that it's our 'horizontal skyscraper'.
It's mosly office space because the infrastructure is limited; all the
toilets, for instance, are in the abutments of the span.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a residential bridge building

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 5:10 PM Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> I left out the references to the wiki page: [1], which clearly shows a bridge 
> building, similar in structure to the one I mapped, only much bigger. It 
> straddles a motorway and houses a huge car park. "My" bridge-building is 
> smaller, straddles a park and is inhabited (residential), but the basic 
> concept is the same.
> Both are bridge buildings, not bridges.
>
> The "tunnel" below is also not correct, because the bridge building is 
> entirely off the ground, like a road bridge.
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dbridge

OK, building=bridge it shall be, for my case. I see that the highway
and stream beneath still have to be 'covered' to render properly, and
raising the building to layer>0 doesn't help. The change is made. I
wasn't the one who used 'tunnel' - I agree that it's not right.
'covered=yes' is close enough. If you look straight up from the road,
you will see building and not sky, so the way is indeed covered.

At this point, I'm not going to try to map the short footway that
exists under the building, which runs roughly on the centerline of the
span and in turn crosses the stream on a small bridge. Too much visual
clutter for too little value added.

The negative building levels are correct. The floor numbering attempts
to be continuous among the connected buildings, and the ones to the
east were built later without renumbering floors; their levels are
lettered A-G. E and F connect to floors 2 and 3 respectively. There's
no connection on the other levels. Level A is still far above the
ravine, and the footway has many steps. It's really intended only as a
fire escape, but I used to use it as a shortcut when my laboratory was
in one of the buildings on the riverfront.

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

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

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 6:01 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
 wrote:

> On 14 August 2018 at 07:24, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
>> maybe the way wasn’t impassable before and now it is, I don’t see why it 
>> would be nonsense to state it. Maybe the way is still passable, but you‘ll 
>> die of nuclear radiation? There are infinite possibilities why a way or area 
>> would be made legally inaccessible for everyone, although it doesn’t occur 
>> very often, usually there will be exceptions.
>
> We actually have this situation at the moment, only not with radiation!
>
> A dedicated walking track (no vehicles, bikes or horses) round the front of a 
> National Park headland has been closed for several months following a 
> land-slide, & due to the risk of further slips, while they work on 
> stabilising the hill side, so it will be access=no on a path.

OK, we're officially off in the weeds here. (But all apparently
reading from the same page, which is good.) 'No' means 'you cannot',
'private' means 'you may not.'

I'd call the nuclear radiation 'invisblly impassable', but OK, the way
is still visible.  An 'abandoned' lifecycle prefix might be in order
too, since a way in that condition is rather unlikely to be
maintained!

I'd map the way with the landslide as abandoned:highway=footway or
construction:highway=footway, but I suppose that access=no isn't too
long a stretch. I have a similar situation locally with a
highway=tertiary that was wiped out by a landslide. It's still open to
the handful of people who live along it (who have keys to the gates),
but has a stretch in the middle that's passable only on foot. At the
moment I have it as highway=path, motor_vehicle=no,
abandoned:highway=tertiary, and it still belongs to its route
relation, since it's still signed, "County Road 59." (I should mark it
as highway=unclassified motor_vehicle=private up to the actual
blockage, but it's in the bottom of a deep and narrow canyon with
dense tree cover, and so far I've always lost GPS signal when trying
to map the closed section.)

I once saw a sign reading, "All hope abandon, ye who enter
unauthorized!" access=private access:authority=Dante? The way was not
paved with good intentions. :)

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

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

[Warin]

On 14/08/18 02:09, Kevin Kenny wrote:

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 11:07 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:

On 13. Aug 2018, at 14:35, Paul Allen  wrote:

All I was attempting here was to point out that access=no is different from
access=private and can have valid uses.   It's not crazy to have both.  It may 
be rare to have access=no, but any time
you see a sign "No vehicles beyond this point" it applies.

actually that is vehicle=no

Still I agree with the rest of what you wrote, there is a distinction of 
private and no, at least conceptually (not so sure about actual tagging), and 
no would expectly be much fewer than anything else.

OK, mostly makes sense. 'no' = 'impassable', 'you can't
drive/cycle/ride here because of hazards.'
'private' = 'forbidden', 'you can't drive/cycle/ride here because the
landowner/government doesn't allow it.'

'access=no' standing alone (not 'transport_mode=no', not 'access=no
transport_mode=something') is still pretty nonsensical - what is the
point of mapping a way that's impassable to everything? When is a way
not a way? It does indeed make sense when some transport mode has an
answer other than 'no'.


With access=no and no other modes allowed it still is worth mapping.
It makes sense to map what is 'on the ground'.

The way is still there, you can see it and go past it.
It is visible and can be used as a navigation point as you pass it.

Possibly the way may be open in the future.
In an emergency it may be useful.
It is still there, so it goes in the data base.

If you were to pass a way that is not on the map ..
would you would not add it?






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

[Tagging] When is a way not a way? [Was: Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)]

[José G Moya Y .]

Hi!
In a post about access=permit, Kevin Kevin wrote:


El lun., 13 ago. 2018 18:10, Kevin Kenny 
escribió:

>  - what is the
> point of mapping a way that's impassable to everything? When is a way
> not a way? It does indeed make sense when some transport mode has an
> answer other than 'no'.
>

In Madrid we have some streets that have a street plaque but are completely
closed to cars or even walking people. I call them "streets that are not
streets". One example is Calle Maestro Tellería in Madrid:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/85518639

That street is closed with a lift gate and it is exclusively used as
parking space by people working on Ministry of Health-care or Consejo
Económico y Social (a consultive government agency).

But the most stupid no-street is Calle Francisco Piquer: it is completely
closed with fences (no doors on it) and served as a backyard for Palacio de
las Alhajas, a former pawnhouse and bank:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/31053349

I know the following question is off-topic on this group, but I'm curious:

Are there many of these no-streets on your cities?

Are they mapped?

Are they named upon someone, as Madrid no-streets are?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On 14 August 2018 at 07:24, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> maybe the way wasn’t impassable before and now it is, I don’t see why it
> would be nonsense to state it. Maybe the way is still passable, but you‘ll
> die of nuclear radiation? There are infinite possibilities why a way or
> area would be made legally inaccessible for everyone, although it doesn’t
> occur very often, usually there will be exceptions.
>

We actually have this situation at the moment, only not with radiation!

A dedicated walking track (no vehicles, bikes or horses) round the front of
a National Park headland has been closed for several months following a
land-slide, & due to the risk of further slips, while they work on
stabilising the hill side, so it will be access=no on a path.

Thanks

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 13. Aug 2018, at 20:32, Szem  wrote:
> 
> OK?


I would not set a general very restrictive access tag together with a lot of 
specific permissions, as it is likely you will thereby accidentally exclude 
some means of transport you didn’t think about. Just omit the generic „access“ 
and tag specific groups like vehicle, motor_vehicle, foot, bicycle, for which 
you know the situation.

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 13. Aug 2018, at 18:09, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> 
> is still pretty nonsensical - what is the
> point of mapping a way that's impassable to everything? When is a way
> not a way?


maybe the way wasn’t impassable before and now it is, I don’t see why it would 
be nonsense to state it. Maybe the way is still passable, but you‘ll die of 
nuclear radiation? There are infinite possibilities why a way or area would be 
made legally inaccessible for everyone, although it doesn’t occur very often, 
usually there will be exceptions.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a residential bridge building

[Volker Schmidt]

I left out the references to the wiki page: [1], which clearly shows a
bridge building, similar in structure to the one I mapped, only much
bigger. It straddles a motorway and houses a huge car park. "My"
bridge-building is smaller, straddles a park and is inhabited
(residential), but the basic concept is the same.
Both are bridge buildings, not bridges.

The "tunnel" below is also not correct, because the bridge building is
entirely off the ground, like a road bridge.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dbridge



On 13 August 2018 at 22:42, Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> The one example that I have, I tagged 'building=industrial bridge=yes'
> for the part of the building that's above the ground, and then tagged
> 'covered=yes' on the road and the stream that pass beneath it.
>
> It seems to render well enough, and it makes sense to me.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/504875160 is the bridge.
>
> tunnel=building-passage doesn't make much sense to me for this one -
> the bridge is at least sixty metres long and maybe twenty metres off
> the floor of the ravine in the centre.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a residential bridge building

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 13. Aug 2018, at 22:10, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> How do I correctly tag a building that is a bridge (building=bridge) and is 
> also residential (building=residential), This is a single-storey building 
> containing some flats that connects two multi-storey residential buildings 
> (it's partially visible in the Mapillary image [1])
> You can see my tentative tagging here: [2]


the (IMHO terrible) standard tagging is building:levels=2 for this one level 
building, together with building:min_level=1
Unless you consider the level of the bridge building a roof level, than it 
would be building:levels=0

This is only working if the ground floors of the buildings that are connected 
are at a similar elevation and have similar floor heights, otherwise you would 
have to roll the dice which building to consider.


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

Re: [Tagging] addr:street=* combined with place=square, name=*

[SelfishSeahorse]

Hi

I'd rather use addr:place="Square Name" in that case. In don't agree
that addr:place is 'intended for larger objects like "villages,
islands, territorial zones"'. I also use addr:place e.g. for
settlements (place=neighbourhood) or hamlets, if there is no street
with the addresses' name (example: [^1]).

[^1]: 


Regards
Markus
On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 at 21:05, Toggenburger Lukas
 wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I'm the main author of the address view of Geofabrik's OSM inspector: 
> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses , a QA tool for OSM, whose 
> sourcecode you can find at https://github.com/ltog/osmi-addresses/
>
> Some time ago I received the following issue and subsequent pull request:
>
> - https://github.com/ltog/osmi-addresses/issues/111
> - https://github.com/ltog/osmi-addresses/pull/115
>
> The submitter johsin18 proposes the following:
>
> Given a (node|way) with addr:street=theName and a (node|way) with 
> place=square, name=theName, the first object should logically be tied to the 
> second. Correspondingly, osmi-addresses should recognize this and not display 
> it as an error as it is currently the case, e.g. at: 
> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses&lon=7.59448&lat=47.54290&zoom=18&overlays=buildings,buildings_with_addresses,postal_code,entrances_deprecated,entrances,no_addr_street,street_not_found,place_not_found,misformatted_housenumber,nodes_with_addresses_defined,nodes_with_addresses_interpolated,interpolation,interpolation_errors,connection_lines,nearest_points,nearest_roads,nearest_areas,addrx_on_nonclosed_way
>
> osmi-addresses currently expects either
> addr:street=* used in combination with highway=*, name=*
> or
> addr:place=* used in combination with place=*, name=*
>
> Both myself and the current maintainer of osmi-addresses (=Nakaner) are 
> unsure if this proposed change would be appreciated by the larger public or 
> not. We are therefore seeking your opinion.
>
> Best regards
>
> Lukas
>
> ___
> 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] healthcare : nurse <> nursing_home <> nursing

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 13. Aug 2018, at 19:40, Jmapb  wrote:
> 
> If this is something akin to a doctor's office, but staffed by a nurse 
> instead of a doctor, I'd suggest healthcare=nurse. It's a parallel structure 
> to healthcare=doctor, healthcare=dentist, healthcare=midwife, etc. It's not 
> in the wiki, but it is the most popular tag and IMO self-explanatory.
> 
> The healthcare=office + office=nurse combo I'm not so keen on. Obviously 
> "doctor's office" and even "nurse's office" are common phrases in English, 
> but in OSM I feel that healthcare=office implies that it's an administrative 
> office not a location where patients are treated.


+1 to all of this 


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a residential bridge building

[Kevin Kenny]

The one example that I have, I tagged 'building=industrial bridge=yes'
for the part of the building that's above the ground, and then tagged
'covered=yes' on the road and the stream that pass beneath it.

It seems to render well enough, and it makes sense to me.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/504875160 is the bridge.

tunnel=building-passage doesn't make much sense to me for this one -
the bridge is at least sixty metres long and maybe twenty metres off
the floor of the ravine in the centre.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a residential bridge building

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 9:10 PM, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> How do I correctly tag a building that is a bridge (building=bridge) and
> is also residential (building=residential), This is a single-storey
> building containing some flats that connects two multi-storey residential
> buildings (it's partially visible in the Mapillary image [1])
> You can see my tentative tagging here: [2]
>

Is it really a bridge?  I assume there's a corridor in it to get to the
flats and the corridor may be traversible from one of
the multi-storey buildings to the other, but is it the primary route that
people would take because it is impossible to
traverse the road beneath it?  If it's not, the simplest way is to use
tunnel=building_passage + layer=0 for the section of
way that passes beneath it.  See the second example picture here
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/building_passage#tunnel.3Dbuilding_passage
although you'd probably need to add a width to the way.

Alternatively, indoor mapping gives more complicated ways of doing the same
thing.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a residential bridge building

[Neil Matthews]

I mark the part of the way that "underlaps" the building with "building
passage" in Josm, i.e. tunnel=building_passage
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tunnel#tunnel.3Dbuilding_passage)
-- maybe add a maxheight too :-)

Neil

On 13/08/2018 21:10, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> How do I correctly tag a building that is a bridge (building=bridge)
> and is also residential (building=residential), This is a
> single-storey building containing some flats that connects two
> multi-storey residential buildings (it's partially visible in the
> Mapillary image [1])
> You can see my tentative tagging here: [2]
>
>
> [1] https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/vJb1Yi6iJksTqdkM-fO11g
> [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/616757636
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Tagging a residential bridge building

[Volker Schmidt]

How do I correctly tag a building that is a bridge (building=bridge) and is
also residential (building=residential), This is a single-storey building
containing some flats that connects two multi-storey residential buildings
(it's partially visible in the Mapillary image [1])
You can see my tentative tagging here: [2]


[1] https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/vJb1Yi6iJksTqdkM-fO11g
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/616757636
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Szem]

2018.08.13. 20:32 keltezéssel, Szem írta:

Tags in summary:
- Roads found in Waterworks area:
access=private, bicycle=permit, foot=permit, horse=no

-Roads on the embankments:
access= private, motor_vehicle=permit, foot=yes, horse=yes, bicycle=yes,

access=permit, foot=yes, horse=yes, bicycle=yes
?


- Roads in wildlife conservation areas:
access= private, motor_vehicle=permit, bicycle=permit, foot=yes

access=permit, foot=yes
?



OK?

Counter:
In the page of 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access%3Dpermit  
the small counter counts only "access=permit" tag, but these roads 
doesn't have this tag.
Can be converted it to "*=permit" or sg like this? If I change all the 
roads, it will not look.


Wiki:
When I mentioned the wiki, I meant this page below it:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access  -  Access tag values
Can not you put this access value there?

Thanks,

Szem

2018.08.12. 23:30 keltezéssel, Graeme Fitzpatrick írta:
On 13 August 2018 at 06:50, Kevin Kenny > wrote:



On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 9:48 AM Szem mailto:szembiket...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> I begun to use the "permit" tag, what is the correct tagging for
these categories?
>
> - Roads found in Waterworks area (You could get permit only for
biking and walking, no cars except for their own ones)
> access=private, motor_vehicle / vehicle = private ?
bicycle=permit, foot=permit, horse=no

Sounds right; no need to tag motor_vehicle separately, since 'access'
covers all transportation modes that aren't called out separately.

> - Roads on the embankments (By any motor vehicle without
permission is forbidden, except for their own ones, other access
is free)
> access= private, motor_vehicle / vehicle =permit ? foot=yes,
horse=yes, bicycle=yes,

If permission is readily obtainable, then 'permit'. If permission
happens on a case-by-case basis, 'private' is probably closer.


In cases when only official vehicles (National Parks, Water supply 
etc) are allowed, I've always called that vehicles=no, working on 
"/no/ – No access for the general public."?


> - Roads managed by Hunting Association, wildlife conservation
areas (Crossing by any vehicle without permission is forbidden,
except for their own ones):
> access= private, motor_vehicle / vehicle = permit, foot=yes,
horse=permit, bicycle= permit

Once again, if it's "access granted if you comply with the
formalities", then 'permit', otherwise 'private'.  The Hunting
Association one sounds as if it restricts access to its own members?
In that case, it's definitely "private."


& yes, I'd agree that Members only is "private"

Thanks

Graeme


___
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] addr:street=* combined with place=square, name=*

[Toggenburger Lukas]

Hi

I'm the main author of the address view of Geofabrik's OSM inspector: 
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses , a QA tool for OSM, whose 
sourcecode you can find at https://github.com/ltog/osmi-addresses/ 

Some time ago I received the following issue and subsequent pull request:

- https://github.com/ltog/osmi-addresses/issues/111
- https://github.com/ltog/osmi-addresses/pull/115

The submitter johsin18 proposes the following:

Given a (node|way) with addr:street=theName and a (node|way) with place=square, 
name=theName, the first object should logically be tied to the second. 
Correspondingly, osmi-addresses should recognize this and not display it as an 
error as it is currently the case, e.g. at: 
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses&lon=7.59448&lat=47.54290&zoom=18&overlays=buildings,buildings_with_addresses,postal_code,entrances_deprecated,entrances,no_addr_street,street_not_found,place_not_found,misformatted_housenumber,nodes_with_addresses_defined,nodes_with_addresses_interpolated,interpolation,interpolation_errors,connection_lines,nearest_points,nearest_roads,nearest_areas,addrx_on_nonclosed_way

osmi-addresses currently expects either
addr:street=* used in combination with highway=*, name=*
or 
addr:place=* used in combination with place=*, name=*

Both myself and the current maintainer of osmi-addresses (=Nakaner) are unsure 
if this proposed change would be appreciated by the larger public or not. We 
are therefore seeking your opinion.

Best regards

Lukas

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

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

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 5:09 PM, Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

>
> 'access=no' standing alone (not 'transport_mode=no', not 'access=no
> transport_mode=something') is still pretty nonsensical - what is the
> point of mapping a way that's impassable to everything? When is a way
> not a way? It does indeed make sense when some transport mode has an
> answer other than 'no'.
>

I think you've just answered your own question.  As I understand it,
access=* specifies an overall default with
exceptions being carved out with, for example, bus=yes meaning nothing but
buses may pass.  Which seems to be
what
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Transport_mode_restrictions
is saying.  Therefore access=no
only makes sense with other tags that carve out exceptions, but it does
have a legitimate use.

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

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

[Szem]

Tags in summary:
- Roads found in Waterworks area:
access=private, bicycle=permit, foot=permit, horse=no

-Roads on the embankments:
access= private, motor_vehicle=permit, foot=yes, horse=yes, bicycle=yes,

- Roads in wildlife conservation areas:
access= private, motor_vehicle=permit, bicycle=permit, foot=yes

OK?

Counter:
In the page of  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access%3Dpermit  
the small counter counts only "access=permit" tag, but these roads 
doesn't have this tag.
Can be converted it to "*=permit" or sg like this? If I change all the 
roads, it will not look.


Wiki:
When I mentioned the wiki, I meant this page below it:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access  -  Access tag values
Can not you put this access value there?

Thanks,

Szem

2018.08.12. 23:30 keltezéssel, Graeme Fitzpatrick írta:
On 13 August 2018 at 06:50, Kevin Kenny > wrote:



On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 9:48 AM Szem mailto:szembiket...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> I begun to use the "permit" tag, what is the correct tagging for
these categories?
>
> - Roads found in Waterworks area (You could get permit only for
biking and walking, no cars except for their own ones)
> access=private, motor_vehicle / vehicle = private ?
bicycle=permit, foot=permit, horse=no

Sounds right; no need to tag motor_vehicle separately, since 'access'
covers all transportation modes that aren't called out separately.

> - Roads on the embankments (By any motor vehicle without
permission is forbidden, except for their own ones, other access
is free)
> access= private, motor_vehicle / vehicle =permit ? foot=yes,
horse=yes, bicycle=yes,

If permission is readily obtainable, then 'permit'. If permission
happens on a case-by-case basis, 'private' is probably closer.


In cases when only official vehicles (National Parks, Water supply 
etc) are allowed, I've always called that vehicles=no, working on 
"/no/ – No access for the general public."?


> - Roads managed by Hunting Association, wildlife conservation
areas (Crossing by any vehicle without permission is forbidden,
except for their own ones):
> access= private, motor_vehicle / vehicle = permit, foot=yes,
horse=permit, bicycle= permit

Once again, if it's "access granted if you comply with the
formalities", then 'permit', otherwise 'private'.  The Hunting
Association one sounds as if it restricts access to its own members?
In that case, it's definitely "private."


& yes, I'd agree that Members only is "private"

Thanks

Graeme


___
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] healthcare : nurse <> nursing_home <> nursing

[Jmapb]

If this is something akin to a doctor's office, but staffed by a nurse 
instead of a doctor, I'd suggest healthcare=nurse. It's a parallel 
structure to healthcare=doctor, healthcare=dentist, healthcare=midwife, 
etc. It's not in the wiki, but it is the most popular tag and IMO 
self-explanatory.


The healthcare=office + office=nurse combo I'm not so keen on. Obviously 
"doctor's office" and even "nurse's office" are common phrases in 
English, but in OSM I feel that healthcare=office implies that it's an 
administrative office not a location where patients are treated.


J


On 8/5/2018 5:38 PM, marc marc wrote:

I'm interested by the premise/local/office/room where a nurse work.
those 2 url doesn't help,
healthcare key on wiki doesn't have the word nurse on it.
social_facility is wrong for this case.

Le 05. 08. 18 à 17:56, Dave F a écrit :

Could you clarity: Are you interested in the noun - 'a nurse' or verb -
'to nurse'?

There are many varieties of nurses & many establishments where people
are nursed:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:healthcare
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:social_facility

DaveF

On 04/08/2018 22:39, marc marc wrote:

Hello,

I'm trying to help a mapper to add the premise where a nurse works

According to taginfo, several healthcare=* value look like similar
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=healthcare#values
nurse 44
nursing_home 39
nursing 24
Home_Nursing 1
wiki seem to only have one of them (and only a few line in french)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Comment_cartographier_un_(sant%C3%A9)

I also found some some variant
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:social_facility%3Dnursing_home
but it's not the case here.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Healthcare_2.0
health_facility:type=office + office=nurse or health_person:type=nurse

I was wondering if these terms were identical ?

Regards,
Marc
___
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] Fwd: Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 11:07 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
> > On 13. Aug 2018, at 14:35, Paul Allen  wrote:
> >
> > All I was attempting here was to point out that access=no is different from
> > access=private and can have valid uses.   It's not crazy to have both.  It 
> > may be rare to have access=no, but any time
> > you see a sign "No vehicles beyond this point" it applies.
>
> actually that is vehicle=no
>
> Still I agree with the rest of what you wrote, there is a distinction of 
> private and no, at least conceptually (not so sure about actual tagging), and 
> no would expectly be much fewer than anything else.

OK, mostly makes sense. 'no' = 'impassable', 'you can't
drive/cycle/ride here because of hazards.'
'private' = 'forbidden', 'you can't drive/cycle/ride here because the
landowner/government doesn't allow it.'

'access=no' standing alone (not 'transport_mode=no', not 'access=no
transport_mode=something') is still pretty nonsensical - what is the
point of mapping a way that's impassable to everything? When is a way
not a way? It does indeed make sense when some transport mode has an
answer other than 'no'.

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 13. Aug 2018, at 14:35, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> All I was attempting here was to point out that access=no is different from
> access=private and can have valid uses.   It's not crazy to have both.  It 
> may be rare to have access=no, but any time
> you see a sign "No vehicles beyond this point" it applies. 



actually that is vehicle=no

Still I agree with the rest of what you wrote, there is a distinction of 
private and no, at least conceptually (not so sure about actual tagging), and 
no would expectly be much fewer than anything else.


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

Re: [Tagging] healthcare : nurse <> nursing_home <> nursing

[Dave F]

Nurses work in many types social facilities. Especially 'nursing homes'.

I think you're being to blinkered to limit your search to places which 
explicitly mention 'nurses'.


DaveF


On 05/08/2018 22:38, marc marc wrote:

I'm interested by the premise/local/office/room where a nurse work.
those 2 url doesn't help,
healthcare key on wiki doesn't have the word nurse on it.
social_facility is wrong for this case.

Le 05. 08. 18 à 17:56, Dave F a écrit :

Could you clarity: Are you interested in the noun - 'a nurse' or verb -
'to nurse'?

There are many varieties of nurses & many establishments where people
are nursed:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:healthcare
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:social_facility

DaveF

On 04/08/2018 22:39, marc marc wrote:

Hello,

I'm trying to help a mapper to add the premise where a nurse works

According to taginfo, several healthcare=* value look like similar
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=healthcare#values
nurse 44
nursing_home 39
nursing 24
Home_Nursing 1
wiki seem to only have one of them (and only a few line in french)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Comment_cartographier_un_(sant%C3%A9)

I also found some some variant
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:social_facility%3Dnursing_home
but it's not the case here.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Healthcare_2.0
health_facility:type=office + office=nurse or health_person:type=nurse

I was wondering if these terms were identical ?

Regards,
Marc
___
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] Fwd: Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 2:34 AM, Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

I guess where we split is that I tend to tag these odd cases based on
> the use that they currently support, and not what they legally are or
> may have been.
>

The only difference is I'd evaluate it on a case-by-case basis until I'd
encountered enough of them to formulate a
general rule as to when to apply it.  All I was attempting here was to
point out that access=no is different from
access=private and can have valid uses.   It's not crazy to have both.  It
may be rare to have access=no, but any time
you see a sign "No vehicles beyond this point" it applies.  A pier might
well be an example of such: the road it connects
to may be accessible to all but don't drive a motor vehicle on the pier
itself.

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