Re: [Tagging] Benefits of namespaces
Visible now! :-) On 2018-12-19 03:30, Sergio Manzi wrote: > > Thank-you Claudius, > > I've posted an answer in the forum, but I'm afraid it is awaiting for > moderation (I'm new to the forum...). > > Cheers, > > Sergio > > > On 2018-12-18 22:20, Claudius Henrichs wrote: >> I couldn't be happier to have the "Benefits of namespaces" discussion >> happening right now on this ML. >> I am about to finalize a tagging proposal for a new sub-tag. I am wondering >> about the pros and cons of the traditional "OSM tag chain" (foo=bar + >> bar=baz) versus "Laymans namespacing" (foo=bar + bar:type=baz). I've laid >> out what I found on the forum and would be curious to learn what your >> recommendation be. Particularly in regard to improved human readability >> versus "staying true to the definition of namespace": >> https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=64825 >> >> I am happy for you to reply here on the ML and I will try to summarize your >> input in the forum thread this coming weekend. >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Highway=*_link roads at Y-junctions and roundabouts?
Thank you for the clarification. (Tagging the Y-junctions and traffic circle entrances results in a small rendering issue with the current Openstreetmap-carto style, but if is a tagging mistake we don’t need to change anything.) On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 7:52 AM Michael Booth wrote: > Agreed, a short Y section before a roundabout because there is a small > bit of painted or physical separation doesn't mean they are _link roads > - it's still the same through road. > > The wiki says "The _link tags are used to identify ... 'channelised' > (physically separated) at-grade turning lanes connecting the through > carriageways ... to other roadways" > > So this way is correctly tagged as a _link road: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/352297911 / > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/5jD0ksQCmHPt11DizKyztA - but the other > ways connecting to the roundabout aren't, because they are through > carriageways (you could argue the roundabout is the thing doing the > linking here). > > On 16/12/2018 15:51, Greg Troxel wrote: > > Joseph Eisenberg writes: > > > >> While checking the rendering of highway link roads (eg motorway_link, > >> primary_link, tertiary_link), I noticed that in some cases these tags > >> are used when a road splits in a Y-junction, for example before a > >> traffic circle / roundabout. In some areas these are the most common > >> forms of _link for less major roads, eg secondary_link and > >> tertiary_link. > >> > >> On the wiki there was some debate about whether it was correct to tag > >> a Y-junction as leading into link roads, or if these should only be > >> used for slip lanes and on-ramps which merge off of or onto the > >> through-lanes of another road: > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Highway_link > > It seems that the Y roads should not be link. link is about a > > connecting road used when changing roads, and the last few feet entering > > a rotary, especially when there is no other choice, does not fit that. > > > > In particular, if a road wouldn't be tagged differently at a rotary, but > > happens to be divided (dual carriageway) the last 50m, then it's fine to > > make two ways, but not to change the way type. > > > > ___ > > 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] Highway=*_link roads at Y-junctions and roundabouts?
Agreed, a short Y section before a roundabout because there is a small bit of painted or physical separation doesn't mean they are _link roads - it's still the same through road. The wiki says "The _link tags are used to identify ... 'channelised' (physically separated) at-grade turning lanes connecting the through carriageways ... to other roadways" So this way is correctly tagged as a _link road: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/352297911 / https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/5jD0ksQCmHPt11DizKyztA - but the other ways connecting to the roundabout aren't, because they are through carriageways (you could argue the roundabout is the thing doing the linking here). On 16/12/2018 15:51, Greg Troxel wrote: Joseph Eisenberg writes: While checking the rendering of highway link roads (eg motorway_link, primary_link, tertiary_link), I noticed that in some cases these tags are used when a road splits in a Y-junction, for example before a traffic circle / roundabout. In some areas these are the most common forms of _link for less major roads, eg secondary_link and tertiary_link. On the wiki there was some debate about whether it was correct to tag a Y-junction as leading into link roads, or if these should only be used for slip lanes and on-ramps which merge off of or onto the through-lanes of another road: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Highway_link It seems that the Y roads should not be link. link is about a connecting road used when changing roads, and the last few feet entering a rotary, especially when there is no other choice, does not fit that. In particular, if a road wouldn't be tagged differently at a rotary, but happens to be divided (dual carriageway) the last 50m, then it's fine to make two ways, but not to change the way type. ___ 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] Benefits of namespaces
I couldn't be happier to have the "Benefits of namespaces" discussion happening right now on this ML. I am about to finalize a tagging proposal for a new sub-tag. I am wondering about the pros and cons of the traditional "OSM tag chain" (foo=bar + bar=baz) versus "Laymans namespacing" (foo=bar + bar:type=baz). I've laid out what I found on the forum and would be curious to learn what your recommendation be. Particularly in regard to improved human readability versus "staying true to the definition of namespace": https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=64825 I am happy for you to reply here on the ML and I will try to summarize your input in the forum thread this coming weekend. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] how to map soft story/soft storey buildings properly?
> On Dec 17, 2018, at 2:17 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > > The bigger problem could be verifiability. OSM is about crowd sourced geodata > while this property seems to require expert capabilities and additional > information you cannot get non-destructively on the ground? > For what it is worth, the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) training I took a while back included a session on earthquake damage including how to identify soft storey construction. CERT is a local citizen response system in the United States and seems to be implemented, sometimes with different names, in most cities in the country. Since earthquake response is an important thing in California there were a number of sessions dedicated to response including quick survey for levels of damage to buildings, setting up evacuation areas, establishing communications with the official fire/rescue/law enforcement agencies, etc. All this is to say that in an earthquake prone area there are likely to be a fair number of people unassociated with official emergency response, building trades, engineering, etc., who have had at least an introduction to identifying buildings that are suspect for structural issues in an earthquake. Cheers! signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] how to map soft story/soft storey buildings properly?
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 2:19 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > It is at least debatable, I know there are some people who love long > structured tags, although this idea is in a minority in Osm tagging, most > people do not use tags like this. It doesn’t seem necessary in this case to > use a structured name, I would not expect other “soft_storey”s in different > domains. > Ah! that makes sense. soft_storey=yes/no as its own key would be used also to keep track of the status of reinforcement. (more about this below) > The bigger problem could be verifiability. OSM is about crowd sourced > geodata while this property seems to require expert capabilities and > additional information you cannot get non-destructively on the ground? > A soft story building can be identified visually by the trained eye and such buildings are inherently weaker than others in earthquakes, even if they've been reinforced. That said, even among soft story buildings there are degrees of weakness and higher rigidity is better. To address this, there are laws and building regulations. In California, the location of soft story buildings is shared publicly including their reinforcement status. A soft_storey key could have value "yes" or "reinforce complete" according to local law? I got interested in this tag because I'm working with San Francisco NERT volunteers to add the official SF soft story database from https://sfdbi.org/soft-story-properties-list to OSM. Eventually, we'd like to do a mass import but before even going close to it, I thought that first we should reach an agreement on which key/value to use. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
