Re: [Tagging] motorcar definition changed recently

[Warin]

On 03/09/18 10:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone

On 3. Sep 2018, at 01:36, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


"In the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and_Signals 
 
the symbol that depicts a (passenger) car 
 -either from the 
front or the side- is also used to describe the wider category of 
vehicles, as in most countries that follow the Vienna Convention. A 
separate sign that prohibits use especially for passenger cars is not 
included in the Vienna Convention and is also absent in the 
legislation of most joining European countries (absent in 19 of the 
20 countries



the access classes are used for many different things, not just access 
to roads and not just specific restrictions with *=no, there can also 
be exclusive restrictions (e.g. nobody except motorcars, so to exclude 
motorcycles, hgv, bikes, etc. in one go) where motorcar=yes is used.




Looks like the changes were made in April by Multimodall.

As I say .. not a tag I use. My usual things exclude all motor vehicles 
.. so I don't have that problem.


How many cases are there where cars only are evident? i.e. where hgv, 
trucks motorcycles, side-cars, tractors and mopeds are not effected?

While they may exist in the data base .. are they not really motor_vehicle?
I don't know.. will have a look locally
Ok .. they all look like they should be motor_vehicle not motorcar!!!
Thanks .. I'll change all these here to motor_vehicle.

Perhaps the wiki page for motorcar should suggest the use of motor_vehicle.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging suggestions for electricity

[Warin]

On 03/09/18 10:47, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 3. Sep 2018, at 02:37, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

You can simply start to use the tag AND document its use.


yes, but documenting the use means starting a proposal,


No it does not, "any tags you like' - documenting them simply helps people 
understand their use.

Show me the proposals for shop, office, crop, produce ..
New tags start out with little use.. but they should be documented ..
and if they don't go through the proposal process than they  don't need a 
proposal page ..
they just get put on the OSM wiki .. sink or swim. They get used over time .. 
or they fadeout.



writing down the meaning of the tag in a proposal form or maybe on your user 
page and subpages. It is not mandatory to bring the proposal further, you do 
not have to ever start voting or even send a RFC. But you should not mix your 
used-2-times-tag into the documentation of widely established and globally used 
tags with thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions of uses. It confuses 
people.


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] Tagging suggestions for electricity

[Dave Swarthout]

One of the biggest problems with "creating a proposal" is that the Wiki
markup language is so painfully tedious I've taken pains to avoid it.
People always say, "write it up in the Wiki" as though it's similar to
writing a letter in a word processor. It is not. It's a process I've
criticized in the past as being very difficult— it's one reason why many
proposals aren't written up but simply acted upon.

My 2 cents

Dave

On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 7:38 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 03/09/18 10:05, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 3. Sep 2018, at 01:42, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Just one question though: for the wiki page of this do I put "draft" or
> "proposed" or "de facto" or "in use" for the status?
>
>
> I would not put a status on it.
>
> It is not a draft, proposed nor approved.
> It has no use at the moment, and it is certainly not de facto.
>
>
>
> if you want to introduce an (also almost) unused tag to the wiki you
> should create a proposal, it is the established way. You can set the status
> to draft while you work on it, then formally ask for comments here, it
> should be all explained there:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process
>
>
> That is one way.
> It is not compulsory to do that.
> You can simply start to use the tag AND document its use.
> The problem with tags that have some use but no documentation is that no
> one really knows what was intended. e.g. landuse=clearing.
> I have tried to contact the people that used this tag -- no response.
>
> Things like the key shop have been introduced without going through a
> proposal process.
> If you don't want to go through the proposal process .. then don't.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] wiki modification landuse=meadow definition

[Tod Fitch]

> On Sep 2, 2018, at 5:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
>> On 3. Sep 2018, at 02:31, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> The land is not used by/for  'meadow'.
> 
> 
> it is used as a meadow
> 

There are natural meadows within the forested areas in the mountains near me. 
At least they look like the typical images I see of meadows and the locals call 
them meadows. The use is exactly the same as the use of the surrounding forest: 
Recreation, wild life management, etc. What is the “use” of a meadow that makes 
it a meadow rather than, say and area of un-mowed, un-grazed herbaceous flowers 
and grasses?

For what its worth, I’ve been tagging them with landcover=grass though that is 
not exactly correct and it is not purely grass as there are usually a bunch of 
flowing plants intermixed.

Cheers!




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging suggestions for electricity

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 3. Sep 2018, at 02:37, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> You can simply start to use the tag AND document its use.


yes, but documenting the use means starting a proposal, writing down the 
meaning of the tag in a proposal form or maybe on your user page and subpages. 
It is not mandatory to bring the proposal further, you do not have to ever 
start voting or even send a RFC. But you should not mix your used-2-times-tag 
into the documentation of widely established and globally used tags with 
thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions of uses. It confuses people.


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

Re: [Tagging] wiki modification landuse=meadow definition

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 3. Sep 2018, at 02:31, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> The land is not used by/for  'meadow'.


it is used as a meadow 


cheers,
Martin 

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging suggestions for electricity

[Warin]

On 03/09/18 10:05, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone

On 3. Sep 2018, at 01:42, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


Just one question though: for the wiki page of this do I put "draft" 
or "proposed" or "de facto" or "in use" for the status?


I would not put a status on it.

It is not a draft, proposed nor approved.
It has no use at the moment, and it is certainly not de facto.



if you want to introduce an (also almost) unused tag to the wiki you 
should create a proposal, it is the established way. You can set the 
status to draft while you work on it, then formally ask for comments 
here, it should be all explained there:


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



That is one way.
It is not compulsory to do that.
You can simply start to use the tag AND document its use.
The problem with tags that have some use but no documentation is that no 
one really knows what was intended. e.g. landuse=clearing.

I have tried to contact the people that used this tag -- no response.

Things like the key shop have been introduced without going through a 
proposal process.

If you don't want to go through the proposal process .. then don't.

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

Re: [Tagging] wiki modification landuse=meadow definition

[Warin]

On 03/09/18 10:05, Paul Allen wrote:
On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 12:59 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:


meadow in this context means land where grass and other plants
grow high (rather than let animals graze) so they can be cut to
produce hay or silage. I would not question the term landuse in
this case.


+1


The land is not used by/for  'meadow'.
It is used to produce animal_fodder .. so landuse=animal_fodder would be 
a better term.


Land use should not have values of land cover but rather the land use.
This helps separate it from the cover and sets it as the use. Mixing it 
with the cover than gets mappers to use things like landuse=shrub, sand, 
rock etc.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] motorcar definition changed recently

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 3. Sep 2018, at 01:36, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> "In the Vienna Convention on Road   Signs and_Signals the symbol that 
> depicts a (passenger) car -either from the front or the side- is also used to 
> describe the wider category of vehicles, as in most countries that follow the 
> Vienna Convention. A separate sign that prohibits use especially for 
> passenger cars is not included in the Vienna Convention and is also absent in 
> the legislation of most joining European countries (absent in 19 of the 20 
> countries


the access classes are used for many different things, not just access to roads 
and not just specific restrictions with *=no, there can also be exclusive 
restrictions (e.g. nobody except motorcars, so to exclude motorcycles, hgv, 
bikes, etc. in one go) where motorcar=yes is used.

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

Re: [Tagging] motorcar definition changed recently

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 3. Sep 2018, at 01:36, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> When  you look at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:motorcar 
> it has some details that make the change possibly valid ...


hm. After 10+ years of all mappers tagging according to the same definition 
someone comes along and says the meaning of the tag must change to something 
different (broader), and he changes it. Why didn’t he introduce a new tag for 
the different class he needs?

I don’t know why you believe cars aren’t dealt with in legislation, at least in 
Germany (Personenkraftwagen) and in Italy they are defined as vehicle classes 
in the law, but I would expect the situation in many countries to be analogous.

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

Re: [Tagging] wiki modification landuse=meadow definition

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 12:59 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

meadow in this context means land where grass and other plants grow high
> (rather than let animals graze) so they can be cut to produce hay or
> silage. I would not question the term landuse in this case.
>

+1
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging suggestions for electricity

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

On 3. Sep 2018, at 01:42, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Just one question though: for the wiki page of this do I put "draft" or 
>> "proposed" or "de facto" or "in use" for the status?
> 
> I would not put a status on it. 
> 
> It is not a draft, proposed nor approved.
> It has no use at the moment, and it is certainly not de facto.


if you want to introduce an (also almost) unused tag to the wiki you should 
create a proposal, it is the established way. You can set the status to draft 
while you work on it, then formally ask for comments here, it should be all 
explained there:

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


cheers,
Martin 


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

Re: [Tagging] wiki modification landuse=meadow definition

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 3. Sep 2018, at 01:23, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Land use? What is the land used for?
> It should not be defined as the land cover!


meadow in this context means land where grass and other plants grow high 
(rather than let animals graze) so they can be cut to produce hay or silage. I 
would not question the term landuse in this case.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging suggestions for electricity

[Warin]

On 03/09/18 02:22, Dolly Andriatsiferana wrote:


But if your going to use it ..please document it on the OSM wiki
so people can find what it means.

Just one question though: for the wiki page of this do I put "draft" 
or "proposed" or "de facto" or "in use" for the status?


I would not put a status on it.

It is not a draft, proposed nor approved.
It has no use at the moment, and it is certainly not de facto.

So I'd leave the status off.
Do include the tagifo information so people can see the use - that will 
give them more information than the status statement anyway.






2018-09-02 18:20 GMT+03:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
>:


On 03/09/18 01:08, Dolly Andriatsiferana wrote:

To make it simple, for our ongoing mapping project we're going to
use the
*electricity=yes/no/grid/solar/generator/whatever_the_source_is* system



I don't like it. But I'm not using it anyway.
But if your going to use it ..please document it on the OSM wiki
so people can find what it means.


and omit any specific detail such as standard, current or
grounding system to avoid possible conflicting tagging


Good decision.


___
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] motorcar definition changed recently

[Warin]

On 03/09/18 07:13, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
OMG the Germans have overtaken the wiki. I just noticed this change to 
the motorcar access definition:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Aaccess=revision=1601167=1598869

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:motorcar=next=1532406


I used motorcar to mean automobile in the past, although most of the 
time the restrictions were more general. motorcar=no meant probably 
also hgv=no, but in access=no & motorcar=yes I don’t think that 
hgv=yes is implied.




I don't use it. Ands I don't think I've seen it .. the motor_vehicle is 
the one I use and see.
Look at the wiki pages for these values shows motor_vehicle is ~3 times 
more frequent in the data base than motorcar.


When  you look at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:motorcar
it has some details that make the change possibly valid ...

"In the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and_Signals 
 
the symbol that depicts a (passenger) car 
 -either from the front 
or the side- is also used to describe the wider category of vehicles, as 
in most countries that follow the Vienna Convention. A separate sign 
that prohibits use especially for passenger cars is not included in the 
Vienna Convention and is also absent in the legislation of most joining 
European countries (absent in 19 of the 20 countries listed in this 
overview  )."
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] wiki modification landuse=meadow definition

[Warin]

On 03/09/18 07:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

Another change I noticed which wasn’t discussed AFAIR:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:landuse%3Dmeadow=prev=1515853


Comments?




Land use? What is the land used for?
It should not be defined as the land cover!

It is a poor tag with that value and that key. I'd depreciate it.


Note also the later changes to the definitions of landuse=grass and 
natural=grassland.
Again these are poor tags with those values and those keys. I'd 
depreciate them.


The case for landcover is clear.

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

Re: [Tagging] horse rental

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 2. Sep 2018, at 22:06, Thilo Haug OSM  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I don't have a general preference about the format,


Would you mind moving all your proposals into the proposal section of the wiki? 
You should also refrain from linking to them from the tag definition pages as 
if they were common combinations.

It is confusing for new users to find these tags, they might not look at the 
usage numbers and mistake them for established tagging.

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

[Tagging] wiki modification landuse=meadow definition

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Another change I noticed which wasn’t discussed AFAIR:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:landuse%3Dmeadow=prev=1515853


Comments?


Cheers,
Martin 

sent from a phone___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] motorcar definition changed recently

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

OMG the Germans have overtaken the wiki. I just noticed this change to the 
motorcar access definition:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Aaccess=revision=1601167=1598869

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:motorcar=next=1532406


I used motorcar to mean automobile in the past, although most of the time the 
restrictions were more general. motorcar=no meant probably also hgv=no, but in 
access=no & motorcar=yes I don’t think that hgv=yes is implied.

Cheers,
Martin 


sent from a phone___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] routes with double use hiking and bicycle

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 3 Sep 2018 at 00:22, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> > On 2. Sep 2018, at 12:23, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> >
> >  the real objects I want to describe are really double-use and not the
> superposition of two separate objects with identical geometry.
>
> +1, it is one route for both, so it would be nice to be able to model
> that.
>

Just for interests sake, if a route is tagged as both foot & bike, what
would it render as? In OSM, cycle paths are blue, while foot paths are red.
In OSMAND, cycle paths are blue dashes, foot paths are black dots.

Would it render as the first one you put down eg foot; bicycle = foot,
while bicycle; foot = bike?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] horse rental

[Thilo Haug OSM]

Hi,

I don't have a general preference about the format,
but I think it should be possible to express several things to rent
(buy/repair etc.)
and it should be easily be possible to filter for all these items
(regardless whether it's a shop/hotel/farm).

So the format should be flexible enough to allow this.
I think it's easier to read (for humans) when the "subject" is in front,
so all the related characteristics are "listed".

There are several existing namespaces using this format :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr#Commonly_used_subkeys
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:social_facility:for
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:generator:output
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane#Examples

An example for the underscore format :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/Seamark_Objects

The current namespace article doesn't mention underscores :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Namespace#Example_namespace_uses

The amenity=* version is IMHO the worst possibility (in case of several
"amenities")
as you could just work with semicolon separator,
which isn't recommended :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semi-colon_value_separator#When_NOT_to_use
I think this is an overcome way to express simple things from a time
when POIs weren't in focus
(which meanwhile changes with OsmAnd, maps.me, komoot
and other popular apps which allow to use the data not only for pure
navigation).

Cheers,
Thilo


Am 02.09.2018 um 15:37 schrieb Hufkratzer:
> It looks like you didn't understand me. I am sorry that my English is
> so bad. I am trying to express my question in a different way:
>
> We have some differnet ways to tag a bicycle rental:
> a) amenity=bicycle_rental (30k uses), bicycle_rental=yes (< 20 uses)
> b) rental=bicycle (< 300 uses) (rental:bicycle=yes not used)
> c) bicycle:rental=yes (< 40 uses) (links to shop=rental)
>
> ... and a boat rental;
> a) amenity=boat_rental (2k uses), boat_rental=yes (< 10 uses)
> b) rental=boat (< 50 uses) (rental:boat=yes not used)
> c) boat:rental=yes (< 20 uses) (links to shop=rental)
>
> Now we are looking for the best way to tag a place where horses are
> for rent.
>
> The corresponding current numbers for horse rentals are:
> a) amenity=horse_rental : 5 uses, horse_rental=yes : 1 use
> b) rental=horse : 5 uses (rental:horse=yes not used)
> c) horse:rental=yes : 1 use (links to shop=rental)
>
> I wrote that I think the best way would be
> a) amenity=horse_rental or horse_rental=yes (if secondary activity)
> and wrote I don't like
> c) horse:rental=yes
> for the following reasons:
> - horses are usually not sold nor rented in shops
> - horses are no vehicles and no equipment and shop=rental is for these
> - amenity=horse_rental is like how car, bicycle. and boat rentals are
> usually tagged
>
> Why doyou nevertheless prefer to tag a horse rental with b)
> rental=horse rather than with a) amenoty=horse_rental or with
> horse_rental=yes? Why should we propose to tag them in a differnt way
> than bicycle or boat rentals? I think this would be unnecessarily
> confusing. Thanks.
>
>
> ___
> 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] horse rental

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 2 Sep 2018 at 23:38, Hufkratzer  wrote:

> I am sorry that my English is so bad.


Your English is fine!


> I wrote that I think the best way would be
> a) amenity=horse_rental or horse_rental=yes (if secondary activity)
> and wrote I don't like
> c) horse:rental=yes
>

 I'm sorry, my fault in that I didn't go back & check how you had worded
it. :-(

I was agreeing with your suggestion of amenity=horse_rental, but I wrote it
down incorrectly!

Sorry about that.

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] routes with double use hiking and bicycle

[Peter Elderson]

How many routes are ciclopedonale in Italy? I have seen one in 8 days of 
cycling though Northern Italia, and it was a way or connection rather than a 
marked/named  route. 

Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 2 sep. 2018 om 16:13 heeft Jo  het volgende geschreven:
> 
> My reaction was to how I read your message, it seemed like you would create 2 
> route_master relations and use those as members in a route relation.
> 
> For foot and bicycle relations it is possible to use sub relations for parts 
> in common between multiple routes, or if one route is designated separately 
> but is part of a 'superroute', but if I understood correctly for that case 
> both would be route relations.
> 
> That's not what this case is about is about though.
> 
> If the renderers and routers can cope with it, simply use a semicolon between 
> the tags, in case the members are exactly the same. If not, ask them to 
> update their software logic. In that case one route relation for multiple 
> 'modes of transport' suffices and we can keep things simple.
> 
> Polyglot
> 
> 
> 
> Op zo 2 sep. 2018 om 15:05 schreef Paul Allen :
>> On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 1:53 PM, Jo  wrote:
>>> In public transport:
>> 
>> Walking and cycling routes are not public transport.  Nevertheless 
>> (according to the wiki) route masters can be used
>> with them.
>> 
>>> 1 (one) route_master relation for the line
>>> 
>>> 1 or more (typically 2) route relations for the variations in itinerary.
>> 
>> I don't understand what point you're trying to make.  Or how those sentences 
>> contradict the idea of using a route
>> master to cope with the variations of walking and cycling.  Unconventional, 
>> yes, but you're the person who invented
>> the reverse role for routes, so you don't let conventions bind you.  If the 
>> walking and cycling route weren't exactly
>> identical (as is often the case) but largely corresponded, would a route 
>> master be appropriate then?  If not, why
>> not?  It's a route from A to B with variants.
>> 
>> It was just a thought, anyway.  As I said, I didn't think through all the 
>> ramifications.  But nothing you've said so far
>> convinces me the idea is wrong.
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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] Tagging suggestions for electricity

[Dolly Andriatsiferana]

>
> But if your going to use it ..please document it on the OSM wiki so people
> can find what it means.


Just one question though: for the wiki page of this do I put "draft" or
"proposed" or "de facto" or "in use" for the status?



2018-09-02 18:20 GMT+03:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> On 03/09/18 01:08, Dolly Andriatsiferana wrote:
>
>
> To make it simple, for our ongoing mapping project we're going to use the
> *electricity=yes/no/grid/solar/generator/whatever_the_source_is* system
>
>
> I don't like it. But I'm not using it anyway.
> But if your going to use it ..please document it on the OSM wiki so people
> can find what it means.
>
> and omit any specific detail such as standard, current or grounding system
> to avoid possible conflicting tagging
>
>
> Good decision.
>
>
> ___
> 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 suggestions for electricity

[Warin]

On 03/09/18 01:08, Dolly Andriatsiferana wrote:
To make it simple, for our ongoing mapping project we're going to use 
the 
*electricity=yes/no/grid/solar/generator/whatever_the_source_is* system


I don't like it. But I'm not using it anyway.
But if your going to use it ..please document it on the OSM wiki so 
people can find what it means.


and omit any specific detail such as standard, current or grounding 
system to avoid possible conflicting tagging


Good decision.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging suggestions for electricity

[Dolly Andriatsiferana]

Thank you all for your helpful inputs.

- those who use individual power source for the building
> (generator/windmill/solar panel...)
> There are a few methods in the data base. I looked in taginfo for the
> value solar;
> the dominate one with over 160,000 uses is generator:source=solar
> Of course this would need to be combined wit the tag power=generator.
> This is an existing tag .. I see no limit on the size of the power
> generation so small should be fine.
>


> - those who have no electricity at all
>  If it has none of the above tags ... then it may have no electricity.
> Could be the default state for rural Africa.
> Adding the tag power=no maybe an idea?
> There is a little use of things like power_source=no, power_supply=no.
>

As already stated above:

>
power=* key is intended for infrastructure related power producing,
> transmitting or distributing the power.
> power_supply=* is here to map places where you can find power for
> different purposes (like water taps for water if I can make such a link)


both of power and power_supply already have their specific domains and
aren't applicable to individual buildings.

So for now we have:

What about *utilities:electricity=yes*



>  *electricity:connected=yes/no*



> wouldn't it be much simpler just to say this house / building has power
> connected / available: *electricity = yes / no*?


To make it simple, for our ongoing mapping project we're going to use the
*electricity=yes/no/grid/solar/generator/whatever_the_source_is* system and
omit any specific detail such as standard, current or grounding system to
avoid possible conflicting tagging with other electricity-related tags
(power, power_supply...). It's only very general and this way will be more
coherent to almost of the ~ 400 current use of the tag.

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

Re: [Tagging] why do we discourage leisure=skatepark/skate_park?

[Lorenzo Mastrogiacomi]

I am for choosing one now and leaving the other in discouraged state.
My preference is for skatepark.


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

Re: [Tagging] Questions about subway tags

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 2. Sep 2018, at 14:44, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> 
> If this is the consensus then we should change the wiki as it
> currently says "A subway entrance is a place where people enter or
> exit a train station", it should be enter or exit a subway (mass rapid
> transit train) station.


thanks for spotting this. It used to be like this, here’s the “offending” edit:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Arailway%3Dsubway_entrance=revision=1344056=1320376



> 
>> Is there a tag for heavy rail above ground station entrances? These usually 
>> have branded signage visible on the streets of where to enter the train 
>> station.
>> 
>> entrance=*
> 
> How about entrance=yes + train=yes + tunnel=yes (only when the
> entrance is above ground and leads down stairs to the underground
> train station) + name = station name, network + operator tags?



I would not add tunnel=yes to a node (which is what entrances usually are), for 
the actual footway tunnel which connects the entrance with the station, you 
could add location=underground and tunnel=*
The station related information should go to the station, as long as the 
entrance is connected it would “work” for routing without additional tags.

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

Re: [Tagging] Questions about subway tags

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

On 2. Sep 2018, at 14:44, Andrew Harvey  wrote:

>> station=subway is the “legacy” tag (undocumented for a long time), 
>> subway=yes is ptv2
> 
> station=subway is well documented
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:station%3Dsubway with 11k uses
> and approved status.


right, but that’s from 2014, the tag was already quite used by that time...


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

Re: [Tagging] Questions about subway tags

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 2. Sep 2018, at 14:44, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> 
> I think the biggest confusion for me is that in Sydney we have heavy
> rail which is underground (it's not a metro, aka subway), but soon a
> mass rapid transit train (metro aka. subway) which is above ground.
> 
> So we'll be tagging railway=subway_entrance (the accepted tag for
> metro entrances) on entrances that don't lead underground, and we'll
> be tagging regular train station entrances on entrances which do lead
> underground.


yes, I think this is how it is currently done. In Berlin also a lot of subways 
run overground and some railway stations are underground, it’s not a problem, 
it’s only strange if you call the metro “underground” ;-)


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

Re: [Tagging] routes with double use hiking and bicycle

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 2. Sep 2018, at 12:23, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> In addition would be only a work-around, because the real objects I want to 
> describe are really double-use and not the superposition of two separate 
> objects with identical geometry.


+1, it is one route for both, so it would be nice to be able to model that. 
Maybe you can combine a foot and a cycle relation with a route master relation?



> This is a bit like as if you were to superimpose two highways one for cars 
> and one for HGVs.


that’s a bit far stretched, because a route is a theoretical concept a road is 
also a physical object 


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

Re: [Tagging] routes with double use hiking and bicycle

[Jo]

My reaction was to how I read your message, it seemed like you would create
2 route_master relations and use those as members in a route relation.

For foot and bicycle relations it is possible to use sub relations for
parts in common between multiple routes, or if one route is designated
separately but is part of a 'superroute', but if I understood correctly for
that case both would be route relations.

That's not what this case is about is about though.

If the renderers and routers can cope with it, simply use a semicolon
between the tags, in case the members are exactly the same. If not, ask
them to update their software logic. In that case one route relation for
multiple 'modes of transport' suffices and we can keep things simple.

Polyglot



Op zo 2 sep. 2018 om 15:05 schreef Paul Allen :

> On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 1:53 PM, Jo  wrote:
>
>> In public transport:
>>
>
> Walking and cycling routes are not public transport.  Nevertheless
> (according to the wiki) route masters can be used
> with them.
>
> 1 (one) route_master relation for the line
>>
>> 1 or more (typically 2) route relations for the variations in itinerary.
>>
>
> I don't understand what point you're trying to make.  Or how those
> sentences contradict the idea of using a route
> master to cope with the variations of walking and cycling.
> Unconventional, yes, but you're the person who invented
> the reverse role for routes, so you don't let conventions bind you.  If
> the walking and cycling route weren't exactly
> identical (as is often the case) but largely corresponded, would a route
> master be appropriate then?  If not, why
> not?  It's a route from A to B with variants.
>
> It was just a thought, anyway.  As I said, I didn't think through all the
> ramifications.  But nothing you've said so far
> convinces me the idea is wrong.
>
> --
> Paul
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] horse rental

[Hufkratzer]

It looks like you didn't understand me. I am sorry that my English is so 
bad. I am trying to express my question in a different way:


We have some differnet ways to tag a bicycle rental:
a) amenity=bicycle_rental (30k uses), bicycle_rental=yes (< 20 uses)
b) rental=bicycle (< 300 uses) (rental:bicycle=yes not used)
c) bicycle:rental=yes (< 40 uses) (links to shop=rental)

... and a boat rental;
a) amenity=boat_rental (2k uses), boat_rental=yes (< 10 uses)
b) rental=boat (< 50 uses) (rental:boat=yes not used)
c) boat:rental=yes (< 20 uses) (links to shop=rental)

Now we are looking for the best way to tag a place where horses are for 
rent.


The corresponding current numbers for horse rentals are:
a) amenity=horse_rental : 5 uses, horse_rental=yes : 1 use
b) rental=horse : 5 uses (rental:horse=yes not used)
c) horse:rental=yes : 1 use (links to shop=rental)

I wrote that I think the best way would be
a) amenity=horse_rental or horse_rental=yes (if secondary activity)
and wrote I don't like
c) horse:rental=yes
for the following reasons:
- horses are usually not sold nor rented in shops
- horses are no vehicles and no equipment and shop=rental is for these
- amenity=horse_rental is like how car, bicycle. and boat rentals are 
usually tagged


Why doyou nevertheless prefer to tag a horse rental with b) rental=horse 
rather than with a) amenoty=horse_rental or with horse_rental=yes? Why 
should we propose to tag them in a differnt way than bicycle or boat 
rentals? I think this would be unnecessarily confusing. Thanks.



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

Re: [Tagging] routes with double use hiking and bicycle

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 1:53 PM, Jo  wrote:

> In public transport:
>

Walking and cycling routes are not public transport.  Nevertheless
(according to the wiki) route masters can be used
with them.

1 (one) route_master relation for the line
>
> 1 or more (typically 2) route relations for the variations in itinerary.
>

I don't understand what point you're trying to make.  Or how those
sentences contradict the idea of using a route
master to cope with the variations of walking and cycling.  Unconventional,
yes, but you're the person who invented
the reverse role for routes, so you don't let conventions bind you.  If the
walking and cycling route weren't exactly
identical (as is often the case) but largely corresponded, would a route
master be appropriate then?  If not, why
not?  It's a route from A to B with variants.

It was just a thought, anyway.  As I said, I didn't think through all the
ramifications.  But nothing you've said so far
convinces me the idea is wrong.

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

Re: [Tagging] routes with double use hiking and bicycle

[Jo]

In public transport:

1 (one) route_master relation for the line

1 or more (typically 2) route relations for the variations in itinerary.

Jo

Op zo 2 sep. 2018 om 13:59 schreef Paul Allen :

> On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Jo  wrote:
>
>> You are inverting how route_master relations are used in public
>> transport. There the route master represents a line, and our route
>> relations represent the itineraries (all the variations).
>>
>
> Variant 1: you can walk.
>
> Variant 2: you can cycle.
>
> I don't see how that differs significantly from variant 1 = "A B C D" and
> variant 2 = "A B D."  They are all ways of getting from A to D.
>
> To put it another way, how would you handle a bus route with two operators
> who use different service numbers and names for the same route?
>
> Creative abuse of the rules is fun.  Ask any company using tax avoidance
> schemes, like Google, Apple, etc.
>
> --
> Paul
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Questions about subway tags

[Andrew Harvey]

Thanks for your thoughts Martin, very much appreciated.

I think the biggest confusion for me is that in Sydney we have heavy
rail which is underground (it's not a metro, aka subway), but soon a
mass rapid transit train (metro aka. subway) which is above ground.

So we'll be tagging railway=subway_entrance (the accepted tag for
metro entrances) on entrances that don't lead underground, and we'll
be tagging regular train station entrances on entrances which do lead
underground.

On Sat, 1 Sep 2018 at 23:29, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> On 1. Sep 2018, at 15:20, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
>> Should we be using that tag to tag entrances to heavy rail underground 
>> stations, even though they aren't metros?
>
> I would not do it. It is explicitly for subways.

If this is the consensus then we should change the wiki as it
currently says "A subway entrance is a place where people enter or
exit a train station", it should be enter or exit a subway (mass rapid
transit train) station.

> Is there a tag for heavy rail above ground station entrances? These usually 
> have branded signage visible on the streets of where to enter the train 
> station.
>
> entrance=*

How about entrance=yes + train=yes + tunnel=yes (only when the
entrance is above ground and leads down stairs to the underground
train station) + name = station name, network + operator tags?

On Sat, 1 Sep 2018 at 23:41, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>
> although I’m not completely sure, it seems redundant, station=subway is the 
> “legacy” tag (undocumented for a long time), subway=yes is ptv2

station=subway is well documented
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:station%3Dsubway with 11k uses
and approved status.

subway=yes is completed undocumented as a Key or Tag,

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

Re: [Tagging] routes with double use hiking and bicycle

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Jo  wrote:

> You are inverting how route_master relations are used in public transport.
> There the route master represents a line, and our route relations represent
> the itineraries (all the variations).
>

Variant 1: you can walk.

Variant 2: you can cycle.

I don't see how that differs significantly from variant 1 = "A B C D" and
variant 2 = "A B D."  They are all ways of getting from A to D.

To put it another way, how would you handle a bus route with two operators
who use different service numbers and names for the same route?

Creative abuse of the rules is fun.  Ask any company using tax avoidance
schemes, like Google, Apple, etc.

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

Re: [Tagging] routes with double use hiking and bicycle

[Jo]

You are inverting how route_master relations are used in public transport.
There the route master represents a line, and our route relations represent
the itineraries (all the variations).

Polyglot

Op zo 2 sep. 2018 om 13:35 schreef Paul Allen :

> On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 10:02 AM, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>
>> There are routes out there that can be used by bicycle and on foot. Up tp
>> now I have classified them as one or the or the other, tagging according to
>> the prevalent use. This is unsatisfactory and, strictly speaking, not
>> corresponding to the principle of on-the-ground-truth.
>>
> [...]
>
>> The formally correct solution is "route=hiking;bicycle", and
>> network=lwn;lcn ecc
>> but this tagging is discouraged [1] and is flagged as error by JOSM, and
>> I suspect that it also not supported by data users, as it is not documented
>> anywhere.
>>
>
> The semi-colon is semi-deprecated, nevertheless it is the standard method
> of indicating that a tag has multiple
> values even if a particular tag does not explicitly say it can be used.
>
> I wouldn't worry about validators flagging it as an error.  By the nature
> of things they always lag behind new
> tagging.  JOSM flagging it as an error is only a serious problem if it
> refuses to let you save it.
>
> As for data consumers, maybe this would work (I haven't thought through
> all the ramifications).  Create a route
> with route=hiking;bicycle.  Then create two route masters, one with
> route_master=hiking and the other with
> route_master=bicycle; each route master includes the common
> route=hiking;bicycle.  This might solve some
> problems.  It will also likely cause different problems.
>
> The alternative, of course, is to use JOSM to clone the route, set one
> copy to route=hiking and the other copy to
> route=bicycle.  But that will be a pain in the bum to maintain the route
> changes.
>
> --
> 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] routes with double use hiking and bicycle

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 10:02 AM, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> There are routes out there that can be used by bicycle and on foot. Up tp
> now I have classified them as one or the or the other, tagging according to
> the prevalent use. This is unsatisfactory and, strictly speaking, not
> corresponding to the principle of on-the-ground-truth.
>
[...]

> The formally correct solution is "route=hiking;bicycle", and
> network=lwn;lcn ecc
> but this tagging is discouraged [1] and is flagged as error by JOSM, and I
> suspect that it also not supported by data users, as it is not documented
> anywhere.
>

The semi-colon is semi-deprecated, nevertheless it is the standard method
of indicating that a tag has multiple
values even if a particular tag does not explicitly say it can be used.

I wouldn't worry about validators flagging it as an error.  By the nature
of things they always lag behind new
tagging.  JOSM flagging it as an error is only a serious problem if it
refuses to let you save it.

As for data consumers, maybe this would work (I haven't thought through all
the ramifications).  Create a route
with route=hiking;bicycle.  Then create two route masters, one with
route_master=hiking and the other with
route_master=bicycle; each route master includes the common
route=hiking;bicycle.  This might solve some
problems.  It will also likely cause different problems.

The alternative, of course, is to use JOSM to clone the route, set one copy
to route=hiking and the other copy to
route=bicycle.  But that will be a pain in the bum to maintain the route
changes.

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

Re: [Tagging] routes with double use hiking and bicycle

[Yves]

Maybe it would be worth mentioning on the semicolon page that a lot of tools 
(including mapnik) support regex matching for tag values instead of simple 
equality. Just a head up for data consumers.
Yves 

Le 2 septembre 2018 12:36:06 GMT+02:00, Volker Schmidt  a 
écrit :
>Maybe the correct (and tedious) way is to make a formal proposal to
>allow
>multiple values in the route tag, have it approved, and then push the
>data
>consumers (renderers and routing algorithms) to use the multiple
>values.
>
>On 2 September 2018 at 12:28, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Here is a route that is;
>> a horse riders route
>> a mtb route
>> and
>> a walking route ... It is displayed correctly here
>> https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=176684 as a hiking route
>>
>> https://riding.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=176684 as a horse riders
>> route.
>>
>> But misses out on the mtb!
>>
>> Presently tagged
>> network=nwn
>> route=mtb;hiking;horse
>>
>> While the semi colon is discouraged ... these cases appear to be
>> exceptions.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 02/09/18 19:02, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> There are routes out there that can be used by bicycle and on foot.
>Up tp
>> now I have classified them as one or the or the other, tagging
>according to
>> the prevalent use. This is unsatisfactory and, strictly speaking, not
>> corresponding to the principle of on-the-ground-truth.
>>
>> I would like to distinguish between
>>
>>- routes that are exclusively hiking (containing ways that are
>>off-limits for bicycles)
>>- routes that are exclusively for cycling (containing ways that
>are
>>not suitable for pedestrians)
>>- routes that are intended for double use
>>
>> The formally correct solution is "route=hiking;bicycle", and
>> network=lwn;lcn ecc
>> but this tagging is discouraged [1] and is flagged as error by JOSM,
>and I
>> suspect that it also not supported by data users, as it is not
>documented
>> anywhere.
>> In my part of the world (Northern Italy) we have plenty of mixed-use
>> routes, which is in most cases already reflected in their name "
>percorso
>> ciclo-pedonale ".
>>
>> I suppose that this has been discussed in the past, and apologize if
>I did
>> not find  (or forgot) where.
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semi-colon_value_separator
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing
>listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://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] routes with double use hiking and bicycle

[Volker Schmidt]

Maybe the correct (and tedious) way is to make a formal proposal to allow
multiple values in the route tag, have it approved, and then push the data
consumers (renderers and routing algorithms) to use the multiple values.

On 2 September 2018 at 12:28, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Here is a route that is;
> a horse riders route
> a mtb route
> and
> a walking route ... It is displayed correctly here
> https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=176684 as a hiking route
>
> https://riding.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=176684 as a horse riders
> route.
>
> But misses out on the mtb!
>
> Presently tagged
> network=nwn
> route=mtb;hiking;horse
>
> While the semi colon is discouraged ... these cases appear to be
> exceptions.
>
>
>
> On 02/09/18 19:02, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
> There are routes out there that can be used by bicycle and on foot. Up tp
> now I have classified them as one or the or the other, tagging according to
> the prevalent use. This is unsatisfactory and, strictly speaking, not
> corresponding to the principle of on-the-ground-truth.
>
> I would like to distinguish between
>
>- routes that are exclusively hiking (containing ways that are
>off-limits for bicycles)
>- routes that are exclusively for cycling (containing ways that are
>not suitable for pedestrians)
>- routes that are intended for double use
>
> The formally correct solution is "route=hiking;bicycle", and
> network=lwn;lcn ecc
> but this tagging is discouraged [1] and is flagged as error by JOSM, and I
> suspect that it also not supported by data users, as it is not documented
> anywhere.
> In my part of the world (Northern Italy) we have plenty of mixed-use
> routes, which is in most cases already reflected in their name " percorso
> ciclo-pedonale ".
>
> I suppose that this has been discussed in the past, and apologize if I did
> not find  (or forgot) where.
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semi-colon_value_separator
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://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] routes with double use hiking and bicycle

[Warin]

Here is a route that is;
a horse riders route
a mtb route
and
a walking route ... It is displayed correctly here
https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=176684 as a hiking route

https://riding.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=176684 as a horse riders route.

But misses out on the mtb!

Presently tagged
network=nwn
route=mtb;hiking;horse

While the semi colon is discouraged ... these cases appear to be exceptions.


On 02/09/18 19:02, Volker Schmidt wrote:
There are routes out there that can be used by bicycle and on foot. Up 
tp now I have classified them as one or the or the other, tagging 
according to the prevalent use. This is unsatisfactory and, strictly 
speaking, not corresponding to the principle of on-the-ground-truth.


I would like to distinguish between

  * routes that are exclusively hiking (containing ways that are
off-limits for bicycles)
  * routes that are exclusively for cycling (containing ways that are
not suitable for pedestrians)
  * routes that are intended for double use

The formally correct solution is "route=hiking;bicycle", and 
network=lwn;lcn ecc
but this tagging is discouraged [1] and is flagged as error by JOSM, 
and I suspect that it also not supported by data users, as it is not 
documented anywhere.
In my part of the world (Northern Italy) we have plenty of mixed-use 
routes, which is in most cases already reflected in their name " 
percorso ciclo-pedonale ".


I suppose that this has been discussed in the past, and apologize if I 
did not find  (or forgot) where.


[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semi-colon_value_separator



___
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] routes with double use hiking and bicycle

[Volker Schmidt]

Good question.
I forget to mention that the handling of long relations is cumbersome, and
even the duplication is a lot of work. In addition would be only a
work-around, because the real objects I want to describe are really
double-use and not the superposition of two separate objects with identical
geometry. This is a bit like as if you were to superimpose two highways one
for cars and one for HGVs. In case of roads we solved the problem by
default tables according to highway classes and with access tagging, but
for relations I cannot use access=no plus foot=yes plus bicycle=yes or
similar constructs.
It is true that when you increase the mapping detail with separate
sidewalks you may end up with separate relations anyway, but here we use,
so far, very rarely separate ways for sidewalks, and, in addition, a large
percentage of separately tagged "cycle" ways are in reality mixed
foot-cycleways anyway.

Volker


On 2 September 2018 at 11:26, Yves  wrote:

> Why don't you Tage separate relations?
> Yves
>
> Le 2 septembre 2018 11:02:39 GMT+02:00, Volker Schmidt 
> a écrit :
>>
>> There are routes out there that can be used by bicycle and on foot. Up tp
>> now I have classified them as one or the or the other, tagging according to
>> the prevalent use. This is unsatisfactory and, strictly speaking, not
>> corresponding to the principle of on-the-ground-truth.
>>
>> I would like to distinguish between
>>
>>- routes that are exclusively hiking (containing ways that are
>>off-limits for bicycles)
>>- routes that are exclusively for cycling (containing ways that are
>>not suitable for pedestrians)
>>- routes that are intended for double use
>>
>> The formally correct solution is "route=hiking;bicycle", and
>> network=lwn;lcn ecc
>> but this tagging is discouraged [1] and is flagged as error by JOSM, and
>> I suspect that it also not supported by data users, as it is not documented
>> anywhere.
>> In my part of the world (Northern Italy) we have plenty of mixed-use
>> routes, which is in most cases already reflected in their name " percorso
>> ciclo-pedonale ".
>>
>> I suppose that this has been discussed in the past, and apologize if I
>> did not find  (or forgot) where.
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semi-colon_value_separator
>>
>>
> ___
> 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] routes with double use hiking and bicycle

[Jo]

I would also think that the bicycle part would be somewhat different (more
split due to oneway traffic for bicycles on cycleways, whereas foot routes
can take the shortest path in both directions), so I think the best
approach is 2 route relations with quite some overlap.
It is a bit annoying that you then have 2 OSM objects for the same real
world 'concept' and I'm afraid there is no completely satisfying solution
for this.
Over here in Belgium bicycle routes and foot routes are always
'segregated'. The numbered foot route networks are also at a more granular
scale than the numbered cycle route networks.

Polyglot

Op zo 2 sep. 2018 om 11:27 schreef Yves :

> Why don't you Tage separate relations?
> Yves
>
> Le 2 septembre 2018 11:02:39 GMT+02:00, Volker Schmidt 
> a écrit :
>>
>> There are routes out there that can be used by bicycle and on foot. Up tp
>> now I have classified them as one or the or the other, tagging according to
>> the prevalent use. This is unsatisfactory and, strictly speaking, not
>> corresponding to the principle of on-the-ground-truth.
>>
>> I would like to distinguish between
>>
>>- routes that are exclusively hiking (containing ways that are
>>off-limits for bicycles)
>>- routes that are exclusively for cycling (containing ways that are
>>not suitable for pedestrians)
>>- routes that are intended for double use
>>
>> The formally correct solution is "route=hiking;bicycle", and
>> network=lwn;lcn ecc
>> but this tagging is discouraged [1] and is flagged as error by JOSM, and
>> I suspect that it also not supported by data users, as it is not documented
>> anywhere.
>> In my part of the world (Northern Italy) we have plenty of mixed-use
>> routes, which is in most cases already reflected in their name " percorso
>> ciclo-pedonale ".
>>
>> I suppose that this has been discussed in the past, and apologize if I
>> did not find  (or forgot) where.
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semi-colon_value_separator
>>
>> ___
> 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] routes with double use hiking and bicycle

[Yves]

Why don't you Tage separate relations?
Yves 

Le 2 septembre 2018 11:02:39 GMT+02:00, Volker Schmidt  a 
écrit :
>There are routes out there that can be used by bicycle and on foot. Up
>tp
>now I have classified them as one or the or the other, tagging
>according to
>the prevalent use. This is unsatisfactory and, strictly speaking, not
>corresponding to the principle of on-the-ground-truth.
>
>I would like to distinguish between
>
>   - routes that are exclusively hiking (containing ways that are
>   off-limits for bicycles)
>- routes that are exclusively for cycling (containing ways that are not
>   suitable for pedestrians)
>   - routes that are intended for double use
>
>The formally correct solution is "route=hiking;bicycle", and
>network=lwn;lcn ecc
>but this tagging is discouraged [1] and is flagged as error by JOSM,
>and I
>suspect that it also not supported by data users, as it is not
>documented
>anywhere.
>In my part of the world (Northern Italy) we have plenty of mixed-use
>routes, which is in most cases already reflected in their name "
>percorso
>ciclo-pedonale ".
>
>I suppose that this has been discussed in the past, and apologize if I
>did
>not find  (or forgot) where.
>
>[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semi-colon_value_separator
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] routes with double use hiking and bicycle

[Volker Schmidt]

There are routes out there that can be used by bicycle and on foot. Up tp
now I have classified them as one or the or the other, tagging according to
the prevalent use. This is unsatisfactory and, strictly speaking, not
corresponding to the principle of on-the-ground-truth.

I would like to distinguish between

   - routes that are exclusively hiking (containing ways that are
   off-limits for bicycles)
   - routes that are exclusively for cycling (containing ways that are not
   suitable for pedestrians)
   - routes that are intended for double use

The formally correct solution is "route=hiking;bicycle", and
network=lwn;lcn ecc
but this tagging is discouraged [1] and is flagged as error by JOSM, and I
suspect that it also not supported by data users, as it is not documented
anywhere.
In my part of the world (Northern Italy) we have plenty of mixed-use
routes, which is in most cases already reflected in their name " percorso
ciclo-pedonale ".

I suppose that this has been discussed in the past, and apologize if I did
not find  (or forgot) where.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semi-colon_value_separator
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging