date:20190116

Currently, 1188 trailheads have a name tag in OSM. A few hundred have no
name tag.

Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op do 17 jan. 2019 om 01:35 schreef Peter Elderson :

> Op 17 jan. 2019 om 01:14 heeft Kevin Kenny  het
> volgende geschreven:
> >
> > I'd say, by all means you should map the name if the trailhead has a
> > specific name that refers to it. Putting the name of the trail, the
> > name of the park, or the name of a nearby geographic feature on the
> > trailhead node is not the right thing unless that formally names the
> > trailhead as well.
>
> That’s what I mean. The name is not required, but there is one, it’s
> important to tag it. (Why? Because it enables searching, listing and
> rendering by name)
> Trailheads worth mapping tend to have names, see photo gallery, and google
> search. It is up to the mappers to decide if it’s worth mapping and
> determine what the name is, if any.
> If the wording is not clear, can you provide a different wording?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

2019-01-16 Thread Jmapb


On 1/16/2019 2:45 PM, Peter Elderson wrote:
I copied the page from the highway=bus_stop page, because the thing 
resembles a bus stop.


This off the road bit can go. The idea, as discussed earlier, is not 
to include the node in the route or routes. The node allows people to 
hop on one or more routes, but is not part of these routes.


Local mappers / communities can discuss where to put the node. For 
Nederland, current tagging is to put the node exactly where the 
landmark  pole or stele is. Mappers / communities may decide to use 
the location of an infoboard or banner, or a parking place or rest 
facility nearby the trail.


Worldwide at this moment, I see no basis for recommended further 
tagging, just the one basic node.


Vr gr Peter Elderson


Thanks -- I can certainly imagine a mapper contemplating drawing an area 
for a more elaborate trailhead, to include parking or toilets for 
example, but I'm perfectly happy with 1) Keep it simple and just use a 
node, and 2) Put that node where it makes the most sense in local context.


Jason

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

Re: [Tagging] Creating shop=caravan

On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 00:29, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 22:17, Paul Allen  wrote:
>

> Paul. I'm not saying you're wrong, & yes, I'll agree that wikipedia does,
> but when you do a general search for "Types of mobile home", most of the
> results from the US, UK & Australia discuss semi-permanent or static homes
> on site eg
>

[...]

What you're saying is that "mobile home" is not generally used by the
industry as a generic
category.  And in many places, not as a specific category (or not any
more).  But we've also
established that the industry doesn't seem to have a name for the generic
category.

But what the hey, let;'s go against the literal meaning of the words, let's
>> ignore what is used in
>> practice by the industry in various countries and let's change existing
>> wiki definitions because
>> reasons.  And, while we're at it, let's change the two pertinent
>> Wikipedia pages to match our
>> alternative reality.
>>
>
> How's it put? (was mentioned again only a week or so ago but I've
> forgotten the exact wording) - in OSM, words mean their OSM definition, not
> necessarily what they mean in the real world!
>

Which means it's not unreasonable to use "mobile home" as a generic
category.  Especially
as that main tag would be accessed by editor presets for specific
categories.  Search for
caravan (or US equivalent) and the preset for shop=mobile home +
sells=caravan would be
loaded, with options to add sells=rv or whatever.

BTW, although OSM definitions don't always match real-world definitions
there is no
requirement that OSM definitions should go against real-world definitions
and many good
reasons to avoid such conflict if at all possible.

But instead you wish to take a term used by one country or another as a
specific category and
turn it into a generic category.  Or make many shop=caravan and shop=rv
tags and ignore the
problem of places that sell both caravans and RVs.

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

Op 17 jan. 2019 om 01:14 heeft Kevin Kenny  het 
volgende geschreven:
> 
> I'd say, by all means you should map the name if the trailhead has a
> specific name that refers to it. Putting the name of the trail, the
> name of the park, or the name of a nearby geographic feature on the
> trailhead node is not the right thing unless that formally names the
> trailhead as well.

That’s what I mean. The name is not required, but there is one, it’s important 
to tag it. (Why? Because it enables searching, listing and rendering by name)
Trailheads worth mapping tend to have names, see photo gallery, and google 
search. It is up to the mappers to decide if it’s worth mapping and determine 
what the name is, if any.
If the wording is not clear, can you provide a different wording?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Creating shop=caravan

2019-01-16 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 22:17, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 08:24, Dave Swarthout 
> wrote:
>
>> I appreciate your efforts on this, Graeme, believe me.
>>
>
Thanks!


> However, seeing as motorhome and recreational_vehicle are so similar, I
>> would use motorhome as a top-level tag with RVs being a special type of
>> motorhome
>>
>
But sorry, if anything I'd swap that around with R_V at the top then
caravans & motorhomes as sub's. It's a bit hard to say which would be the
best way to go? If you search "types of R-V", you get what was mentioned
earlier : caravans, camper trailers, motorhomes, camper vans, 5th wheelers
etc. Search "types of motorhome" & its A, B, C, campervans. "Types of
caravan" = caravan, 5th wheeler, pop-top & other towed options, so RV would
appear to be the best overall term (I'll get to "mobile homes" in a moment).

But when you look at established usage in OSM, there are 82 shop=caravan,
with ~50 in Europe, 20 in US / Canada & 10 in Australia; 16 shop=motorhome
(2 US, 1 Canada, rest in Europe); 7 shop=rv in US / Canada & 3
shop=recreational_vehicles (2 US, 1 France), so shop=caravan would appear
to be the accepted option by a long way (even in the US!)

and have a separate shop=mobile_home page.
>>
>
I think this may be the best option, with a cross-reference between the two


> Mobile_home covers the odd case of the wheeled structure that is usually
>> installed semi-permanently in a trailer park
>>
>
> I won't bother giving the links again, but Wikipedia (yes, I know) uses
> "mobile home" as an
> encompassing term for trailers/touring caravans/RVs/everything that can be
> lived in and can be
> moved.
>

Paul. I'm not saying you're wrong, & yes, I'll agree that wikipedia does,
but when you do a general search for "Types of mobile home", most of the
results from the US, UK & Australia discuss semi-permanent or static homes
on site eg
https://inspectapedia.com/Design/Building_Construction_Definitions.php
https://www.lifesure.co.uk/blog/2012/05/buying-a-mobile-home-what-to-consider/
https://www.mobilehomesell.com/types-of-mobile-homes/
Interestingly "mobile home" in the US, apparently only applies to something
built before 1976 - after then, they're "manufactured homes"
There are currently only 7 uses of shop=mobile_home in OSM - 6 US & 1
Germany & only 1 =manufactured_homes, in the US

Which accords well with the meaning of the words "mobile" and "home."
>
> I'll also note that at various times, people in this thread have given
> names to types of mobile
> home that are used in various countries and that in most of those lists
> "mobile home" does
> not appear as a specific ctegory.  I'll also note that  the various
> all-encompassing terms that
> many have proposed, such as your own "motorhome" DO appear in those lists
> as specific
> types of mobile home.
>
> But what the hey, let;'s go against the literal meaning of the words,
> let's ignore what is used in
> practice by the industry in various countries and let's change existing
> wiki definitions because
> reasons.  And, while we're at it, let's change the two pertinent Wikipedia
> pages to match our
> alternative reality.
>

How's it put? (was mentioned again only a week or so ago but I've forgotten
the exact wording) - in OSM, words mean their OSM definition, not
necessarily what they mean in the real world!

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

2019-01-16 Thread Kevin Kenny

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 5:29 PM Peter Elderson wrote:
> Most trailheads I have seen mapped have a name that contains the
> trail/track/route name. See
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:trailhead#Photos

That's the name of the route, not the name of the trailhead.

I recognize that your beloved TOP's are named, but naming a trailhead
is the exception, not the rule. Or at least near me, most trailheads
don't have names of their own. They are referred to by a description -
'the Prediger Road trailhead on the Devil's Path', 'the Stony Clove
trailhead on the Becker Hollow trail', 'the Elk Lake trailhead south
of Mount Marcy'.

For instance, one of your images:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:High_Peaks_Trailhead_and_Mileage_sign_-_panoramio.jpg
simply names the High Peaks Wilderness Area, which is a rather large
(275000 acres == km²) place with a couple of dozen trailheads.
From the names of the destinations, it appears to be a trailhead
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4239455477 for which the en route
signage would read 'Elk Lake' - the name of a nearby geographic
feature https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4094054, but that, too,
names the lake, not the trailhead. The destinations shown on the sign
are all in the interior of High Peaks Wilderness, with the exception
of the Adirondak Loj, which is a lodging/camping facility for hikers
(https://www.adk.org/stay/adirondak-loj-at-heart-lake/
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/489821677) and has road access.
The signpost doesn't describe a single route beyond Panther Gorge; the
destinations listed are accessed via various different trails. I don't
see a named trailhead anywhere.

Naming all of the trailheads that enter HPWA 'High Peaks Wilderness
Area' because that's what it says on the sign will serve only to
confuse. Naming them by nearby geographic features will also be
confusing, and the en route signs aren't always consistent about
naming. One sign might say 'Mink Hollow', another 'Roaring Kill',
another 'Elka Park', depending on whether the valley, the stream, or
the settlement are used to identify the place - all three refer to the
same trailhead.

When the sign gives a trail name, that'll be confusing too. A long
trail may have dozens of trailheads, with the signs all bearing its
name.

And trailheads named by the location they're near will also confuse.
There are a lot of trails that converge on the grounds of the Loj, and
naming them all 'Adirondak Loj' will serve no purpose.

I'd say, by all means you should map the name if the trailhead has a
specific name that refers to it. Putting the name of the trail, the
name of the park, or the name of a nearby geographic feature on the
trailhead node is not the right thing unless that formally names the
trailhead as well.

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

Most trailheads I have seen mapped have a name that contains the
trail/track/route name. See
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:trailhead#Photos

Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op wo 16 jan. 2019 om 22:50 schreef Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:

> > in my experience, the spot you start walking from is very rarely named
> as such, it just has a sign to say "Whatever Track".
>
> In that case, the trailhead does not have a name. The track or trail
> itself should have a name=* tag, but the trailhead should only be taggged
> with a name if it is different.
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 6:16 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 20:07, Dave Swarthout 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Your proposal looks good. I would vote "yes" on it.
>>>
>>
>> Yep, I would as well.
>>
>> One every minor thought - under "How to map" you have "Name of the
>> trailhead" - maybe change that to be "trailhead or trail / track"?
>> Reason is that in Australia they're (usually) called tracks, not trails
>> :-), & in my experience, the spot you start walking from is very rarely
>> named as such, it just has a sign to say "Whatever Track".
>>
>> & interesting to see that there's already ~1400 of them in use!
>>
>> 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 mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch

2019-01-16 Thread ael

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 09:45:21PM +, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 21:24, EthnicFood IsGreat <
> ethnicfoodisgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>   I have been tagging them as drains, because they
> > are too small to be called a stream, and they are not artificial, so
> > they are not ditches.  (At least in the OSM sense.)
> >
> 
> You appear to be talking about small streams.  Which are, as far as OSM is
> concerned, just
> streams.  Using either drain or ditch for a natural stream, even a small
> one, is tagging for the
> renderer.

+1  There is no lower limit on the size of a stream in British English,
although something smaller than say, I don't know, 1O cm, might be
called a "trickle" informally.


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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

2019-01-16 Thread Joseph Eisenberg

> in my experience, the spot you start walking from is very rarely named as
such, it just has a sign to say "Whatever Track".

In that case, the trailhead does not have a name. The track or trail itself
should have a name=* tag, but the trailhead should only be taggged with a
name if it is different.

On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 6:16 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 20:07, Dave Swarthout 
> wrote:
>
>> Your proposal looks good. I would vote "yes" on it.
>>
>
> Yep, I would as well.
>
> One every minor thought - under "How to map" you have "Name of the
> trailhead" - maybe change that to be "trailhead or trail / track"?
> Reason is that in Australia they're (usually) called tracks, not trails
> :-), & in my experience, the spot you start walking from is very rarely
> named as such, it just has a sign to say "Whatever Track".
>
> & interesting to see that there's already ~1400 of them in use!
>
> 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] Drain vs. ditch

2019-01-16 Thread Joseph Eisenberg

> a stream is small enough to be stepped over

I believe the wiki says a stream is narrow enough that a health adult can
JUMP over it, so about 2 meters wide or less.

There was a proposal to call smaller natural waterways “brooks” if they
were small enough to step over, but this was rejected.

> I have been tagging them as drains, because they
are too small to be called a stream

I believe this is incorrect, if these are natural waterways rather than
man-made drainage features.

Drains and ditches are always man-made.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 6:38 AM EthnicFood IsGreat <
ethnicfoodisgr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:32:04 -0500
> > From: Kevin Kenny 
> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> >   
> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 1:05 PM EthnicFood IsGreat
> >  wrote:
> >> Then what would you call a natural waterway that is too small to be a
> >> stream?
> > The Wiki says that a stream is small enough to be stepped over, but
> > gives no lower bound.
> >
> > I can't think of many permanent watercourses around here that are
> > small enough to step over. Rock-hop, usually. Sometimes wade. I
> > personally don't switch from 'waterway=stream' to 'waterway=river'
> > until I'm telling myself that I might someday want to map the banks.
> >
> > You can rock-hop https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/21811867291 in a
> > dry season if you're more coordinated than I am (I wound up with boots
> > full of water), but at 30 m across it's still a river. In springtime
> > that crossing is completely impassable.
>
>
> The wiki description of a stream surprises me.  I always thought of a
> stream as something too big to step over.  In the area where I live,
> smaller waterways are sometimes called "ditches" (even if they're
> natural), and sometimes they're called "drains."  There is even such a
> thing as a "legal drain," which carries certain restrictions and
> requirements.
>
> Mark
>
>
> ___
> 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] Trailhead tagging

Adapted the concept.
1400+ is not bad for this kind of POI.
In the OSM-Carto issue, 2K and a wiki-description based on consensus have
been mentioned as minimum requirement for rendering the node at a
reasonable zoom level.

I think with this general description and a nice icon more trailheads will
be mapped in the near future.

-- 
Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op wo 16 jan. 2019 om 22:16 schreef Graeme Fitzpatrick <
graemefi...@gmail.com>:

>
>
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 20:07, Dave Swarthout 
> wrote:
>
>> Your proposal looks good. I would vote "yes" on it.
>>
>
> Yep, I would as well.
>
> One every minor thought - under "How to map" you have "Name of the
> trailhead" - maybe change that to be "trailhead or trail / track"?
> Reason is that in Australia they're (usually) called tracks, not trails
> :-), & in my experience, the spot you start walking from is very rarely
> named as such, it just has a sign to say "Whatever Track".
>
> & interesting to see that there's already ~1400 of them in use!
>
> 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] Drain vs. ditch

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 21:24, EthnicFood IsGreat <
ethnicfoodisgr...@gmail.com> wrote:

  I have been tagging them as drains, because they
> are too small to be called a stream, and they are not artificial, so
> they are not ditches.  (At least in the OSM sense.)
>

In the OSM sense both ditches and drains are artificial.   You dig a ditch
in the ground,
hence the term "ditch digging."   Drains are essentially ditches that are
lined with concrete.

You appear to be talking about small streams.  Which are, as far as OSM is
concerned, just
streams.  Using either drain or ditch for a natural stream, even a small
one, is tagging for the
renderer.

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 20:30:56 +0100
From: Peter Elderson 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

I have added parking space, not as a requirement but as something that will
usually be available. The only requirement is that the place is visibly
designated or customary to hop on a trail.

[...]

Thanks!

Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:32:04 -0500
From: Kevin Kenny 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 1:05 PM EthnicFood IsGreat
 wrote:

Then what would you call a natural waterway that is too small to be a
stream?

The Wiki says that a stream is small enough to be stepped over, but
gives no lower bound.

I can't think of many permanent watercourses around here that are
small enough to step over. Rock-hop, usually. Sometimes wade. I
personally don't switch from 'waterway=stream' to 'waterway=river'
until I'm telling myself that I might someday want to map the banks.

You can rock-hop https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/21811867291 in a
dry season if you're more coordinated than I am (I wound up with boots
full of water), but at 30 m across it's still a river. In springtime
that crossing is completely impassable.

The wiki description of a stream surprises me.  I always thought of a 
stream as something too big to step over.  In the area where I live, 
smaller waterways are sometimes called "ditches" (even if they're 
natural), and sometimes they're called "drains."  There is even such a 
thing as a "legal drain," which carries certain restrictions and 
requirements.

Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 18:11:20 +
From: Paul Allen 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 18:05, EthnicFood IsGreat <
ethnicfoodisgr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Then what would you call a natural waterway that is too small to be a
stream?

Two possibilities.

1) A stream.

2) Not worth mapping.

Take your pick. :)

--
Paul

Well, call it micromapping if you want, but I've mapped many of these in 
the midwestern US.  I do most of my mapping in the country, and 
sometimes these are the only features to map in a certain area without 
the map being blank.  I have been tagging them as drains, because they 
are too small to be called a stream, and they are not artificial, so 
they are not ditches.  (At least in the OSM sense.)  Many of them start 
out as being just a swale in a farmer's field, where they are usually 
intermittent.  Many of them are named.

Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

2019-01-16 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 20:07, Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> Your proposal looks good. I would vote "yes" on it.
>

Yep, I would as well.

One every minor thought - under "How to map" you have "Name of the
trailhead" - maybe change that to be "trailhead or trail / track"?
Reason is that in Australia they're (usually) called tracks, not trails
:-), & in my experience, the spot you start walking from is very rarely
named as such, it just has a sign to say "Whatever Track".

& interesting to see that there's already ~1400 of them in use!

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

I copied the page from the highway=bus_stop page, because the thing
resembles a bus stop.

This off the road bit can go. The idea, as discussed earlier, is not to
include the node in the route or routes. The node allows people to hop on
one or more routes, but is not part of these routes.

Local mappers / communities can discuss where to put the node. For
Nederland, current tagging is to put the node exactly where the landmark
pole or stele is. Mappers / communities may decide to use the location of
an infoboard or banner, or a parking place or rest facility nearby the
trail.

Worldwide at this moment, I see no basis for recommended further tagging,
just the one basic node.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op wo 16 jan. 2019 om 20:25 schreef Jmapb :

> On 1/16/2019 12:56 PM, EthnicFood IsGreat wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 4:28 PM Peter Elderson 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I made a concept wiki page:
> >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:trailhead
> >>> I think it fits the outcome of this discussion. If not, feel free to
> >>> comment.
> >>>
> >
> > A lot of the trailheads I've mapped contain none of the identifiers
> > you mentioned in the first paragraph (shelter, pole, special design,
> > flag, etc.), all they have is a designated parking lot for your
> > vehicle.  I would like your wiki page better if you included a
> > designated parking area in the list of possible identifiers.
> >
> > Mark
>
> I agree that a parking area belongs in that list. I also wonder about
> the text that specifies that the highway=trailhead nodes should be
> positioned "off the road." I think the wording here could be clearer.
> The word "road" isn't mentioned anywhere else on the page, so I'm not
> sure if this refers to the trail (or the route to the trail) or if it
> implies a nearby vehicular road. I would guess the latter, and if so, is
> this a required part of the definition? Offhand I can conceive of a
> trailhead inside a park with no vehicular road nearby. Here's an example:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2896479066
>
> Jason
>
>
> ___
> 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] Trailhead tagging

I have added parking space, not as a requirement but as something that will
usually be available. The only requirement is that the place is visibly
designated or customary to hop on a trail.

The description does not mention, favour nor exclude any local variants, I
think. Most of the photos show trailheads explicitly named Trailhead, so I
assumed that these are called trailheads in at least one flavour of the
English language. None of those are Dutch. I plan to add one Dutch example,
as soon as I find out how to add a photo to the gallery.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op wo 16 jan. 2019 om 19:06 schreef Andy Townsend :

>
> On 1/16/19 5:56 PM, EthnicFood IsGreat wrote:
> > A lot of the trailheads I've mapped contain none of the identifiers
> > you mentioned in the first paragraph (shelter, pole, special design,
> > flag, etc.), all they have is a designated parking lot for your
> > vehicle.  I would like your wiki page better if you included a
> > designated parking area in the list of possible identifiers.
> >
> >
> I'd agree with that.
>
> Currently the wiki page is describing something that doesn't really
> correspond to the word "trailhead" in English.  There are plenty of
> other examples of that sort of thing in OSM ("city" is an obvious one);
> but I'd suggest trying to avoid creating more to avoid future confusion.
>
> To be clear - as I've said before, and based on my experience of them,
> I'm sure that the sites in NL that are driving this are _really
> important_ and _really worth mapping_ but I don't think that they are
> trailheads, in a similar way to Chesterfield's TPT notice board outside
> the station isn't (as also mentioned previously).
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Trailhead tagging

2019-01-16 Thread Jmapb


On 1/16/2019 12:56 PM, EthnicFood IsGreat wrote:


On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 4:28 PM Peter Elderson  
wrote:



I made a concept wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:trailhead
I think it fits the outcome of this discussion. If not, feel free to
comment.



A lot of the trailheads I've mapped contain none of the identifiers 
you mentioned in the first paragraph (shelter, pole, special design, 
flag, etc.), all they have is a designated parking lot for your 
vehicle.  I would like your wiki page better if you included a 
designated parking area in the list of possible identifiers.


Mark


I agree that a parking area belongs in that list. I also wonder about 
the text that specifies that the highway=trailhead nodes should be 
positioned "off the road." I think the wording here could be clearer. 
The word "road" isn't mentioned anywhere else on the page, so I'm not 
sure if this refers to the trail (or the route to the trail) or if it 
implies a nearby vehicular road. I would guess the latter, and if so, is 
this a required part of the definition? Offhand I can conceive of a 
trailhead inside a park with no vehicular road nearby. Here's an example:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2896479066

Jason


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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch

2019-01-16 Thread Kevin Kenny

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 1:05 PM EthnicFood IsGreat
 wrote:
> Then what would you call a natural waterway that is too small to be a
> stream?

The Wiki says that a stream is small enough to be stepped over, but
gives no lower bound.

I can't think of many permanent watercourses around here that are
small enough to step over. Rock-hop, usually. Sometimes wade. I
personally don't switch from 'waterway=stream' to 'waterway=river'
until I'm telling myself that I might someday want to map the banks.

You can rock-hop https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/21811867291 in a
dry season if you're more coordinated than I am (I wound up with boots
full of water), but at 30 m across it's still a river. In springtime
that crossing is completely impassable.

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 15:38:13 +0300
From: Eugene Podshivalov 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

Can you jump over a drain or ditch? I find the jump over information well
chosen for streams and most important property when actually walking in an
area and trying to find a way through.

In the place where I live drainage ditches are 1-5 meters wide and you can
hardly jump over them. Even if they are 1m wide you would not risk jumping
over them because they are located in wetland and have swampy banks. They
usually have a lot of culverts to cross them over.

Somehow it is not satisfactory to distinguish irrigation from drainage for

lined watercourses on the main level

You are right, irrigation ditches can be lined along their way to a field
but when on a field they may be unlined to let water soak into the land.
Drainage ditches are always unlined because they collect water from land.
Drains are always lined (or should be lined on good terms) because they
carry liquid away without letting it soak into the ground.
If you find the above statements correct (I don't know, may be in other
countries it works differently), then the "lined" characteristic lets you
distingish between drainage ditches and drains easily. The only thing we
need to resolve yet is to let irrigation ditches be linied. Here is how we
can complement the definition of ditch to respect this.

ditch - Small artificial free flow waterways used for irrigating or
draining land as well as for deviding land. Irrigation ditches can be lined
or unlined, drainage ditches are usually unlined. Consider using
waterway=canal for large irrigation or land drainage channels. Consider
using waterway=drain for lined superflous liquid drainage channels.

PS: I'm not a native English speaker, so probably someone could formulate
it in a more beautiful way.

Cheers, Eugene

[...]

I'm glad your definition does not require ditches be unlined.  In the US 
we have many highway ditches that are unlined, except for the steepest 
part, typically where they empty into a stream. These areas are 
sometimes lined with concrete to prevent erosion. If I were to map one 
of these, I would consider the whole thing a ditch.  I would not 
consider part of it a "drain," simply because it's lined.

Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 18:05, EthnicFood IsGreat <
ethnicfoodisgr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Then what would you call a natural waterway that is too small to be a
> stream?
>
> Two possibilities.

1) A stream.

2) Not worth mapping.

Take your pick. :)

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

2019-01-16 Thread Andy Townsend



On 1/16/19 5:56 PM, EthnicFood IsGreat wrote:
A lot of the trailheads I've mapped contain none of the identifiers 
you mentioned in the first paragraph (shelter, pole, special design, 
flag, etc.), all they have is a designated parking lot for your 
vehicle.  I would like your wiki page better if you included a 
designated parking area in the list of possible identifiers.




I'd agree with that.

Currently the wiki page is describing something that doesn't really 
correspond to the word "trailhead" in English.  There are plenty of 
other examples of that sort of thing in OSM ("city" is an obvious one); 
but I'd suggest trying to avoid creating more to avoid future confusion.


To be clear - as I've said before, and based on my experience of them, 
I'm sure that the sites in NL that are driving this are _really 
important_ and _really worth mapping_ but I don't think that they are 
trailheads, in a similar way to Chesterfield's TPT notice board outside 
the station isn't (as also mentioned previously).


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 17:06:57 +0700
From: Dave Swarthout 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

Sounds good, Eugene. I like those descriptions.

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 4:41 PM Eugene Podshivalov 
wrote:

=drain

suggested: Use waterway
=drain for artificial
waterways , typically
lined with concrete or similar, usually used to carry water for drainage
or irrigation purposes.

=ditch
suggested: Use waterway
=ditch for simple
narrow artificial waterways
, typically unlined,
usually used to remove storm-water or similar from nearby land. Ditches
are usually straight (as opposed to natural streams). They may contain
little water or even be dry most of the year – to mark this intermittent
=yes may be used.

I don't know if that was done on purpose of by mistake but these
definitions are mixed up a bit. It is ditches that are used for irrigation,
not drains.
I would suggest to define them as follows.

canal - large man-made open flow (free flow vs pipe flow) waterways used
to carry useful water for transportation, hydro-power generation,
irrigation or land drainage purposes. consider using waterway=ditch for
small irrigation or land drainage channels. consider using waterway=drain
for small lined superflous liquid drainage channels.

drain - small artificial free flow waterways usually lined with concrete
or similar used for carrying away superflous liquid like rain water or
industrial discharge. consider using waterway=ditch for unlined channels
used to drain nearby land. consider using waterway=canal for large unlined
land drainage channels.

ditch - small artificial free flow unlined waterways used for irrigating
or draining land as well as for deviding land. consider using
waterway=canal for large irrigation or land drainage channels. consider
using waterway=drain for lined superflous liquid drainage channels.

No need to introduce any new tags.

Eugene

ср, 16 янв. 2019 г. в 05:12, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

On 16/01/19 11:53, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 10:28, Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

Although the 1st definition sort of agrees with your usage, the common
definition in the U.S. is closer to the other two. There are several other
definitions given but most of them are similar to those two. So it will be
a bit confusing to use here in the U.S.

Now why does that amaze me! :-)

irrigation channel: a passage
 dug
 in the
ground 
  and used 
  for bringing
 water
 to land
 in order
 to make
 plants
 grow

OSM gives a distinction between river and stream.
There should be a similar distinction between 'drain' etc.
It should not be base on the flow of water as that could be hard to
determine - especially if the water is off when mapping.

For example, 'a drain can be easily stepped over'?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
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

Then what would you call a natural waterway that is too small to be a 
stream?

Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 17:04:23 +0700
From: Dave Swarthout 
To: Peter Elderson 
Cc: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

Your proposal looks good. I would vote "yes" on it.

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 4:28 PM Peter Elderson  wrote:

I made a concept wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:trailhead
I think it fits the outcome of this discussion. If not, feel free to
comment.

I don't want to change the earlier proposal, it is a step further than my
concept tagging page which just documents existing practice.

Vr gr Peter Elderson

Op di 15 jan. 2019 om 00:41 schreef Dave Swarthout <
daveswarth...@gmail.com>:

Kevin said:
I'm therefore going to stick with 'designated or customary place to
begin or end a trip on a trail.'

Me too. I've mapped many such trailheads in Alaska and almost everybody I
know would recognize the term trailhead as meaning a point of access to a
path or trail. It's fine to add other details, like parking, toilets,
registration facilities, etc. separately. I haven't followed this thread
carefully, so can't speak to the TOP situation fully but I do know a
trailhead when I see it on a map or otherwise.

Dave

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 6:16 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 09:04, Tod Fitch  wrote:

Guess: Someone found it on the trail and figured it would be easier for
the person missing it to find it hanging from the sign than some place
along miles of trail.

Bit of a problem when you've got to walk back the 65 klm looking for it!

Thanks

Graeme
___
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

--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com

A lot of the trailheads I've mapped contain none of the identifiers you 
mentioned in the first paragraph (shelter, pole, special design, flag, 
etc.), all they have is a designated parking lot for your vehicle.  I 
would like your wiki page better if you included a designated parking 
area in the list of possible identifiers.

Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Link roads between different highways type

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 13:07, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

I would argue for motorway links (and trunk links according to the "German
> trunk interpretation") it is already like this, and for all the other links
> it could be the other way round. Maybe the rule should be something like
> the link is the same class than the road it _belongs_ to (and this is to be
> decided by the mapper, e.g. based on context, road typology, shape, ...).
> In practise it seems it is done like this.
>

I would say the rule ought to be that it should be mapped in accordance
with local laws and
regulations as to the nature of the link.  If that cannot be determined,
then the mapper has to use
best guest based on context, topology, shape, speed limit and other
signage.  For UK motorways
the regulations say motorway access roads are classed as motorways and the
road signage
confirms it.  That is not necessarily the case for links other than to
motorways, and possibly not
even for all of those (there are always exceptions).

I suspect the wiki entry was written in days of yore when a question arose
about motorway
access roads and it became enshrined as a general rule for all link roads
of all types in all
countries.  Whatever the origin, I think it is time to amend it to
something more sensible.

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

Re: [Tagging] Link roads between different highways type

2019-01-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer

Am Mi., 16. Jan. 2019 um 13:20 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen :

> On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 03:27, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>>
>> In the US, this shouldn't be a thing; should be trunk from the last ramp
>> due to the intersection.
>>
>
> Radical proposal: change the wiki.  Have it say that the link road should
> have the category
> specified by the pertinent authority: in some countries that is often (but
> not always) the higher
> category.  Something along those lines.  Because it's clear that it is
> very dependent on the
> country and may also be modified by local circumstances.  Having a global
> rule that doesn't
> apply in many circumstances is less than useful.
>

I would argue for motorway links (and trunk links according to the "German
trunk interpretation") it is already like this, and for all the other links
it could be the other way round. Maybe the rule should be something like
the link is the same class than the road it _belongs_ to (and this is to be
decided by the mapper, e.g. based on context, road typology, shape, ...).
In practise it seems it is done like this.

In cases where a minor road has short links to and from a major road, it is
already common practice to use the lower classification, e.g. here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/185148546 (Italy)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/329572626 (DE)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/391467084 (DE)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/35141178 (UK, not tagged as a link but
comparable to above situations)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4089085 (UK, same)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/118449015 (UK, maybe here's a tagging
issue?)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/114398311 (FR, not tagged as link)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/311566506 (FR same)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/35449361 (FR same)

in the UK and France I first did not find any links other than motorway and
trunk links (by clicking around) and had to use Overpass to find some:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/184421347 (wiki conformal)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/41262553 (not)
etc.

Particularly situations like this would look very strange if they were
strictly following the idea of using the higher class:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/145520505

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

2019-01-16 Thread Eugene Podshivalov

>
> Can you jump over a drain or ditch? I find the jump over information well
> chosen for streams and most important property when actually walking in an
> area and trying to find a way through.

In the place where I live drainage ditches are 1-5 meters wide and you can
hardly jump over them. Even if they are 1m wide you would not risk jumping
over them because they are located in wetland and have swampy banks. They
usually have a lot of culverts to cross them over.

Somehow it is not satisfactory to distinguish irrigation from drainage for
> lined watercourses on the main level

You are right, irrigation ditches can be lined along their way to a field
but when on a field they may be unlined to let water soak into the land.
Drainage ditches are always unlined because they collect water from land.
Drains are always lined (or should be lined on good terms) because they
carry liquid away without letting it soak into the ground.
If you find the above statements correct (I don't know, may be in other
countries it works differently), then the "lined" characteristic lets you
distingish between drainage ditches and drains easily. The only thing we
need to resolve yet is to let irrigation ditches be linied. Here is how we
can complement the definition of ditch to respect this.

ditch - Small artificial free flow waterways used for irrigating or
draining land as well as for deviding land. Irrigation ditches can be lined
or unlined, drainage ditches are usually unlined. Consider using
waterway=canal for large irrigation or land drainage channels. Consider
using waterway=drain for lined superflous liquid drainage channels.

PS: I'm not a native English speaker, so probably someone could formulate
it in a more beautiful way.

Cheers, Eugene

ср, 16 янв. 2019 г. в 13:17, Martin Koppenhoefer :

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 16. Jan 2019, at 10:39, Eugene Podshivalov 
> wrote:
> >
> > No need to introduce any new tags.
>
>
> While I mostly agree with your interpretations, there are still some
> problems:
> what about lined irrigation channels?
>
> Can you jump over a drain or ditch? I find the jump over information well
> chosen for streams and most important property when actually walking in an
> area and trying to find a way through.
>
> Somehow it is not satisfactory to distinguish irrigation from drainage for
> lined watercourses on the main level, but not for others (ditches and
> canals).
>
>  I’d say the main issue is with “drain” because if we’d define it for
> irrigation as well it would be an oxymoron
>
>
> 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] Link roads between different highways type

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 03:27, Paul Johnson  wrote:

>
> In the US, this shouldn't be a thing; should be trunk from the last ramp
> due to the intersection.
>

Radical proposal: change the wiki.  Have it say that the link road should
have the category
specified by the pertinent authority: in some countries that is often (but
not always) the higher
category.  Something along those lines.  Because it's clear that it is very
dependent on the
country and may also be modified by local circumstances.  Having a global
rule that doesn't
apply in many circumstances is less than useful.

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

Re: [Tagging] Creating shop=caravan

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 08:24, Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> I appreciate your efforts on this, Graeme, believe me. However, seeing as
> motorhome and recreational_vehicle are so similar, I would use motorhome as
> a top-level tag with RVs being a special type of motorhome and have a
> separate shop=mobile_home page. Then all bases are covered. Mobile_home
> covers the odd case of the wheeled structure that is usually installed
> semi-permanently in a trailer park (see proposed feature for this
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Trailer_Park) or
> similar neighborhood. Note that on that page for anenity=trailer_park, they
> state: "As an amenity, this makes sense for truly mobile homes (aka
> recreational vehicles aka caravans". However, that definition should be
> changed to match our new definitions should you proceed along the path
> we're discussing. Confusion in terminology rears its ugly head on that page
> as well.  LOL
>

I won't bother giving the links again, but Wikipedia (yes, I know) uses
"mobile home" as an
encompassing term for trailers/touring caravans/RVs/everything that can be
lived in and can be
moved.  Which accords well with the meaning of the words "mobile" and
"home."

I'll also note that at various times, people in this thread have given
names to types of mobile
home that are used in various countries and that in most of those lists
"mobile home" does
not appear as a specific ctegory.  I'll also note that  the various
all-encompassing terms that
many have proposed, such as your own "motorhome" DO appear in those lists
as specific
types of mobile home.

But what the hey, let;'s go against the literal meaning of the words, let's
ignore what is used in
practice by the industry in various countries and let's change existing
wiki definitions because
reasons.  And, while we're at it, let's change the two pertinent Wikipedia
pages to match our
alternative reality.

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

Re: [Tagging] Creating shop=caravan

2019-01-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer



sent from a phone

> On 16. Jan 2019, at 10:41, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> 
> In British English we would use horse box for a trailer intended for carrying 
> horses.
> 
> A float is the same, used in carnivals, but it also used to be a slow 
> electric vehicle for delivering milk. I haven't seen one for years so assume 
> they are long gone.


unless we’re talking about the very rare (or not?) combined living and horse 
transportation vehicles I would expect horse transportation offtopic in this 
thread.

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

2019-01-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer

sent from a phone

> On 16. Jan 2019, at 10:39, Eugene Podshivalov  wrote:
> 
> No need to introduce any new tags.

While I mostly agree with your interpretations, there are still some problems:
what about lined irrigation channels?

Can you jump over a drain or ditch? I find the jump over information well 
chosen for streams and most important property when actually walking in an area 
and trying to find a way through.

Somehow it is not satisfactory to distinguish irrigation from drainage for 
lined watercourses on the main level, but not for others (ditches and canals).

 I’d say the main issue is with “drain” because if we’d define it for 
irrigation as well it would be an oxymoron

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

2019-01-16 Thread Dave Swarthout

Sounds good, Eugene. I like those descriptions.

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 4:41 PM Eugene Podshivalov 
wrote:

> =drain
>> suggested: Use waterway
>> =drain for artificial
>> waterways , typically
>> lined with concrete or similar, usually used to carry water for drainage
>> or irrigation purposes.
>>
>> =ditch
>> suggested: Use waterway
>> =ditch for simple
>> narrow artificial waterways
>> , typically unlined,
>> usually used to remove storm-water or similar from nearby land. Ditches
>> are usually straight (as opposed to natural streams). They may contain
>> little water or even be dry most of the year – to mark this intermittent
>> =yes may be used.
>>
>
> I don't know if that was done on purpose of by mistake but these
> definitions are mixed up a bit. It is ditches that are used for irrigation,
> not drains.
> I would suggest to define them as follows.
>
> canal - large man-made open flow (free flow vs pipe flow) waterways used
> to carry useful water for transportation, hydro-power generation,
> irrigation or land drainage purposes. consider using waterway=ditch for
> small irrigation or land drainage channels. consider using waterway=drain
> for small lined superflous liquid drainage channels.
>
> drain - small artificial free flow waterways usually lined with concrete
> or similar used for carrying away superflous liquid like rain water or
> industrial discharge. consider using waterway=ditch for unlined channels
> used to drain nearby land. consider using waterway=canal for large unlined
> land drainage channels.
>
> ditch - small artificial free flow unlined waterways used for irrigating
> or draining land as well as for deviding land. consider using
> waterway=canal for large irrigation or land drainage channels. consider
> using waterway=drain for lined superflous liquid drainage channels.
>
> No need to introduce any new tags.
>
> Eugene
>
> ср, 16 янв. 2019 г. в 05:12, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
>
>> On 16/01/19 11:53, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 10:28, Dave Swarthout 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Although the 1st definition sort of agrees with your usage, the common
>>> definition in the U.S. is closer to the other two. There are several other
>>> definitions given but most of them are similar to those two. So it will be
>>> a bit confusing to use here in the U.S.
>>>
>>
>> Now why does that amaze me! :-)
>>
>> irrigation channel: a passage
>>  dug
>>  in the
>> ground 
>>  and used 
>>  for bringing
>>  water
>>  to land
>>  in order
>>  to make
>>  plants
>>  grow
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> OSM gives a distinction between river and stream.
>> There should be a similar distinction between 'drain' etc.
>> It should not be base on the flow of water as that could be hard to
>> determine - especially if the water is off when mapping.
>>
>> For example, 'a drain can be easily stepped over'?
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> 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] Trailhead tagging

2019-01-16 Thread Dave Swarthout

Your proposal looks good. I would vote "yes" on it.

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 4:28 PM Peter Elderson  wrote:

> I made a concept wiki page:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:trailhead
> I think it fits the outcome of this discussion. If not, feel free to
> comment.
>
> I don't want to change the earlier proposal, it is a step further than my
> concept tagging page which just documents existing practice.
>
>
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>
>
> Op di 15 jan. 2019 om 00:41 schreef Dave Swarthout <
> daveswarth...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Kevin said:
>> I'm therefore going to stick with 'designated or customary place to
>> begin or end a trip on a trail.'
>>
>> Me too. I've mapped many such trailheads in Alaska and almost everybody I
>> know would recognize the term trailhead as meaning a point of access to a
>> path or trail. It's fine to add other details, like parking, toilets,
>> registration facilities, etc. separately. I haven't followed this thread
>> carefully, so can't speak to the TOP situation fully but I do know a
>> trailhead when I see it on a map or otherwise.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 6:16 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 09:04, Tod Fitch  wrote:
>>>

 Guess: Someone found it on the trail and figured it would be easier for
 the person missing it to find it hanging from the sign than some place
 along miles of trail.

>>>
>>> Bit of a problem when you've got to walk back the 65 klm looking for it!
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Graeme
>>> ___
>>> 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
>>
>

-- 
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] Creating shop=caravan

2019-01-16 Thread Philip Barnes



On 16 January 2019 05:26:23 GMT, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
>Michael Patrick:
>> What's a 'Horse Float' under RVs? https://i.gifer.com/SC79.gif
>> Seriously, this term is a great example of a regional difference. In
>the U.S., it's equine dental / foot care.
>On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 8:57 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In Australia a 'horse float' is a trailer to carry horses form one
>place to another pulled by a car/4WD.
>> Frequently used to carry other animals/things too. But designed for
>horses, usually equipped for  2 horses.
>
>Ah. In the US we say just, 'horse trailer.'  The only time I think we
>use 'float' in anything near that sense is 'parade float' - an
>elaborately decorated vehicle taking part in a parade, often carrying
>performers or dignitaries.
>
In British English we would use horse box for a trailer intended for carrying 
horses.

A float is the same, used in carnivals, but it also used to be a slow electric 
vehicle for delivering milk. I haven't seen one for years so assume they are 
long gone.

Phil (trigpoint) 
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

2019-01-16 Thread Eugene Podshivalov

>
> =drain
> suggested: Use waterway 
> =drain for artificial waterways
> , typically lined with
> concrete or similar, usually used to carry water for drainage or
> irrigation purposes.
>
> =ditch
> suggested: Use waterway 
> =ditch for simple narrow artificial waterways
> , typically unlined,
> usually used to remove storm-water or similar from nearby land. Ditches
> are usually straight (as opposed to natural streams). They may contain
> little water or even be dry most of the year – to mark this intermittent
> =yes may be used.
>

I don't know if that was done on purpose of by mistake but these
definitions are mixed up a bit. It is ditches that are used for irrigation,
not drains.
I would suggest to define them as follows.

canal - large man-made open flow (free flow vs pipe flow) waterways used to
carry useful water for transportation, hydro-power generation, irrigation
or land drainage purposes. consider using waterway=ditch for small
irrigation or land drainage channels. consider using waterway=drain for
small lined superflous liquid drainage channels.

drain - small artificial free flow waterways usually lined with concrete or
similar used for carrying away superflous liquid like rain water or
industrial discharge. consider using waterway=ditch for unlined channels
used to drain nearby land. consider using waterway=canal for large unlined
land drainage channels.

ditch - small artificial free flow unlined waterways used for irrigating or
draining land as well as for deviding land. consider using waterway=canal
for large irrigation or land drainage channels. consider using
waterway=drain for lined superflous liquid drainage channels.

No need to introduce any new tags.

Eugene

ср, 16 янв. 2019 г. в 05:12, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> On 16/01/19 11:53, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 10:28, Dave Swarthout 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Although the 1st definition sort of agrees with your usage, the common
>> definition in the U.S. is closer to the other two. There are several other
>> definitions given but most of them are similar to those two. So it will be
>> a bit confusing to use here in the U.S.
>>
>
> Now why does that amaze me! :-)
>
> irrigation channel: a passage
>  dug
>  in the ground
>  and used
>  for bringing
>  water
>  to land
>  in order
>  to make
>  plants
>  grow
> 
>
>
>
> OSM gives a distinction between river and stream.
> There should be a similar distinction between 'drain' etc.
> It should not be base on the flow of water as that could be hard to
> determine - especially if the water is off when mapping.
>
> For example, 'a drain can be easily stepped over'?
> ___
> 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] Trailhead tagging