Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Greg Troxel]

Florian Lohoff  writes:

> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified
>   "Public roads of low importance within town and cities that are not
>   residential may also be highway=unclassified."
>
> Residential roads are by definition:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=residential
>   "This tag is used for roads accessing or around residential areas."
>
> So - bringing this together - as soon as there is residential usage
> it cant be unclassified? Am i so wrong?

I think that is actually wrong...

In the UK, an unclassified road is signed with U and a number.  There
can be houses along them.  There can be houses along A roads.  In the
US, I know of a ighway=secondary which is a "state highway", one level
down from "US highway", the non-motorway national system.  There are
some businesses on it, but there are many houses.  This is totally
normal.  But it's not tagged residential because of houses - it's
secondary because that's the importance in the road network.

So saying "if there are hosues it must be residential" is wrong.

Really the notion of "unclassified" is odd, and it probably should be
"quaternary".  Arguably residential should then be highway=level5,
regardless of housing, and perhaps some tag on all highways about
residential or not - but as I said earlier, you can tell that from
landuse.

But, I don't really expect this to change other than by slow drift.

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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Greg Troxel]

Jan S  writes:

> Am 22. Februar 2019 17:59:28 MEZ schrieb Paul Allen :
>>Residential areas, to me, are
>>named localities.
>
> That may be true in Western Europe, but in many places in other parts
> of the world there may be areas of residential use that are not named
> or only have, sometimes even several, unofficial denominations.

In the US, what's a named locality, and what has enough houses to merit
residential are not causally located.  Except that a large number of
houses probably has a name.

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

[Peter Elderson]

This will not suit the situation in Nederland, as explained earlier in this 
thread. We would have tons of exceptions on all the ‘ usually’s’ and ‘ 
typically’s’.

Fr gr Peter Elderson

> Op 23 feb. 2019 om 00:09 heeft Graeme Fitzpatrick  het 
> volgende geschreven:
> 
> 
>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 20:48, Eugene Podshivalov  wrote:
> 
>> The primary concern of mine about the current definitios of drain and ditch 
>> is that some people are differentiating them by size.
>> 
>> or stay close to dictionary definitions which assumes some overlapping 
>> between the meanings. Here is an example:
>> drain - a narrow artificial open-air channel that takes away waste liquids 
>> or rainwater
>> ditch - a narrow channel dug at the side of a road or field to hold, bring 
>> or carry away water
> 
> I'd agree that you can't differentiate between drain & ditch based on size 
> (except they're both smaller / narrower than a canal), but you also can't 
> pick them based on locations - either of them can run alongside a road, or go 
> across a field
> 
> I'd suggest we just stick with the simple definitions based on lined / 
> unlined that I thought we all sort of agreed on, way back up there ^ :-)
> 
> =canal: Use waterway=canal for large man-made open flow (free flow vs pipe 
> flow) waterways used to carry useful water, usually for transportation, but 
> also for hydro-power generation or irrigation purposes
> 
> =drain: Use waterway=drain for artificial waterways, typically lined with 
> concrete or similar, usually used to carry water for drainage or irrigation 
> purposes.
> 
> =ditch: Use waterway=ditch for artificial waterways, typically unlined, 
> usually used to remove storm-water or similar from nearby land. They may 
> contain little water or even be dry most of the year – to mark this 
> intermittent=yes may be used.
> 
> 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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 20:48, Eugene Podshivalov  wrote:

> The primary concern of mine about the current definitios of drain and
> ditch is that some people are differentiating them by size.
>
> or stay close to dictionary definitions which assumes some overlapping
> between the meanings. Here is an example:
> drain - a narrow artificial open-air channel that takes away waste liquids
> or rainwater
> ditch - a narrow channel dug at the side of a road or field to hold, bring
> or carry away water
>

I'd agree that you can't differentiate between drain & ditch based on size
(except they're both smaller / narrower than a canal), but you also can't
pick them based on locations - either of them can run alongside a road, or
go across a field

I'd suggest we just stick with the simple definitions based on lined /
unlined that I thought we all sort of agreed on, way back up there ^ :-)

=canal: Use waterway =
canal for large man-made *open flow* (free flow vs pipe flow) waterways
 used to carry useful water,
usually for transportation, but also for hydro-power generation or
irrigation purposes

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

=ditch: Use waterway =
ditch for artificial waterways
, typically unlined,
usually used
to remove storm-water or similar from nearby land. They may contain little
water or even be dry most of the year – to mark this intermittent
=yes may be used.

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Jan S]

Am 22. Februar 2019 17:59:28 MEZ schrieb Paul Allen :
>On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 16:42, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
>
>>
>> I have never said that residential may only be used in city limits.
No, but other did. Sorry I didn't separate this from the reference to your 
post. No offense meant.

>Residential areas, to me, are
>named localities.

That may be true in Western Europe, but in many places in other parts of the 
world there may be areas of residential use that are not named or only have, 
sometimes even several, unofficial denominations. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 16:42, Florian Lohoff  wrote:

>
> I have never said that residential may only be used in city limits.
> I have said that as soon as there is usage for residential purposes
> its not unclassified - Thats exactly the terminology from the wiki:
>
[...]

> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=residential
> "This tag is used for roads accessing or around residential areas."
>
> So - bringing this together - as soon as there is residential usage
> it cant be unclassified? Am i so wrong?
>

It depends how you define "residential usage."  Years ago, my walk to work
(from a bus stop) took
me along a mile of unclassified road.  I actually saw a planning order
pinned to a telephone pole
referring to it as U1234 (the real number has been changed to protect the
innocent), so I know
it was officially unclassified.  About halfway along was a cluster of three
or four cottages.  Some
people would map that as a residential area, although there were no signs
indicating it was a named
hamlet.  I wouldn't class that as a residential road, not even the brief
section with the cottages.  It's
an unclassified road with some houses and that's how I'd map it.
Residential areas, to me, are
named localities.

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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Florian Lohoff]

On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 05:23:36PM +0100, Jan S wrote:
> I understand the documentation of the highway tag as indicating that
> "unclassified" indeed designates a more important road than
> "residential". Under "usage" it reads: "See the table below for an
> ordered list from most important (motorway) to least important
> (service)." And as "unclassified" is above "residential", I would
> consider it as being more important (although this may not be
> respected by routing engines).
> 
> Also, there is nothing to support that residential roads were to be
> used within city limits only. Residential roads are described as an
> "access to housing" or "accessing or around residential areas".
> Residential areas may also well be unincorporated groups of houses
> (thinking e.g. of task description for HOT OSM tasks in Africa).

I have never said that residential may only be used in city limits.
I have said that as soon as there is usage for residential purposes
its not unclassified - Thats exactly the terminology from the wiki:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified
"Public roads of low importance within town and cities that are not
residential may also be highway=unclassified."

Residential roads are by definition:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=residential
"This tag is used for roads accessing or around residential areas."

So - bringing this together - as soon as there is residential usage
it cant be unclassified? Am i so wrong?

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Jan S]

Am 22. Februar 2019 16:20:23 MEZ schrieb Florian Lohoff :
>On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 04:54:09AM -0700, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>> Florian Lohoff wrote:
>> > From the original meaning unclassified was the lowest class road 
>> > in rural or off city limits. residential was the lowest class road 
>> > within city limits. (Assuming that city limits mean residential 
>> > usage)
>> 
>> That's reasonable but not _quite_ true. highway=unclassified is often
>used
>> in urban areas to denote a minor distributor road. 
>
>But the above is the documentation we had for like 10 Years - This is 
>why i asked for clarification. It seems everybody has different
>assumptions about usage and priority of unclassified vs residential
>and those are not reflected in the unclassified tag page. The German
>page has much more stuff but IMHO wrongfully added by a small group.

I understand the documentation of the highway tag as indicating that 
"unclassified" indeed designates a more important road than "residential". 
Under "usage" it reads: "See the table below for an ordered list from most 
important (motorway) to least important (service)." And as "unclassified" is 
above "residential", I would consider it as being more important (although this 
may not be respected by routing engines).

Also, there is nothing to support that residential roads were to be used within 
city limits only. Residential roads are described as an "access to housing" or 
"accessing or around residential areas". Residential areas may also well be 
unincorporated groups of houses (thinking e.g. of task description for HOT OSM 
tasks in Africa).

Best, Jan___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Florian Lohoff]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 04:54:09AM -0700, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > From the original meaning unclassified was the lowest class road 
> > in rural or off city limits. residential was the lowest class road 
> > within city limits. (Assuming that city limits mean residential 
> > usage)
> 
> That's reasonable but not _quite_ true. highway=unclassified is often used
> in urban areas to denote a minor distributor road. 

But the above is the documentation we had for like 10 Years - This is 
why i asked for clarification. It seems everybody has different
assumptions about usage and priority of unclassified vs residential
and those are not reflected in the unclassified tag page. The German
page has much more stuff but IMHO wrongfully added by a small group.

> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/145016745 is a good example
> (https://goo.gl/maps/YUc6XfuA5wQ2 if you'll excuse the Google Street View
> link). It's the distributor road for that estate, and of greater importance
> than the largely cul-de-sac residential roads going off it; but doesn't have
> a significant through-traffic purpose nor the engineering standards that
> would imply highway=tertiary.
> 
> > [...]
> > From OSRM profiles it isnt - So it doesnt make a difference for at 
> > least OSRM.
> 
> OSRM's default profiles don't measure importance, only speed, and are fairly
> blunt instruments which aren't used unmodified by anyone who's serious about
> quality routing results. (Mapbox, OSRM's sponsors, override them with
> traffic speed data, for example.) I wouldn't count them as a useful
> indicator.

But users try to retag residentials to unclassifieds to gain importance
in routing which would not work at least for OSRM because they are
treated identical in the default OSRM setup.

OSRM is just an example i had at hand quickly as i use it for
QA/Monitoring of routing changes.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] start_date variants

[Tobias Knerr]

On 15.02.19 11:03, Stephan Bösch-Plepelits wrote:
> Example: There is this museum, which openened in 2011, but the building is
> much older, it was built in 1725: 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1937535

The root of the issue is that two different features (a building, and a
museum inside that building) are mapped as a single OSM element. That's
ok as a shortcut in simple cases, but when the two features have
different names, different Wikipedia links, and different start dates,
they should really be split into two elements: One for the building, one
for the museum.

Generally, I believe that following a "One feature <=> one OSM element"
principle will lead to cleaner data.

Tobias

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

Re: [Tagging] start_date variants

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 21.02.19 21:46, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> Does this essentially mean that data consumers should treat
> architect:wikidata as an overriding tag?

I wouldn't want to tell data consumers that they should. Depending on
who contributed it, "architect" might have better or worse information
than "architect:wikidata".

> I would like to somehow get rid of the "us vs them" (osm vs wikidata)

Both projects have different cultures and we can work and thrive
together if we understand and respect that, in a "good fences make good
neighbours" kind of way.

For OSM, my main concern is that it must remain usable independent of
wikidata, and that the OSM community must not be lured into spending
their time to further wikidata integration if they don't have that
personal interest.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [Tagging] Dykes

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,


On 22.02.19 12:46, Ulrich Lamm wrote:
> if you map a dyke, ID-editor recently gives a warning that a dyke ought to be 
> a closed (circular) line.

I put this into an id ticket:

https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/5933

Bye
Frederik
-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

[Tagging] Dykes

[Ulrich Lamm]

Hi friends,

if you map a dyke, ID-editor recently gives a warning that a dyke ought to be a 
closed (circular) line.
On lowland coasts such as in Germany, this demand is a nonsense.
Some dyke lines (especially on the North Sea) have a length of several hundreds 
of kilometers. Nobody can map them in one session.
Other coasts, such as on the Baltic Sea, but also in England, have very low 
sections, that are protected by dykes, and hilly sections that do not require 
dykes. 
There the dykes end at slopes of natural hills – which are not mapped, unless 
they are prominent escarpments.

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

[Eugene Podshivalov]

The primary concern of mine about the current definitios of drain and ditch
is that some people are differentiating them by size.
Since there is no consent on "drain" tag deprecation, I suggest to at least
correct the current definitions to prevent the misuse.

We can either make a clear distinction between the two as suggested in
Varian #1 in
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-February/042762.html

or stay close to dictionary definitions which assumes some overlapping
between the meanings. Here is an example:
drain - a narrow artificial open-air channel that takes away waste liquids
or rainwater
ditch - a narrow channel dug at the side of a road or field to hold, bring
or carry away water

Cheers,
Eugene

ср, 20 февр. 2019 г. в 12:50, Eugene Podshivalov :

> ср, 20 февр. 2019 г. в 02:30, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
>
>> On 19/02/19 20:40, Eugene Podshivalov wrote:
>>
>> Canals and ditches are artificial channels carrying naturual water
>>
>> this suggests there is 'unnatural' water...
>>
> What does "unnatural" water mean to you? To me, "natural" means emerging
> from springs and flowing by it's own along an open-air channel. Examples of
> "unnatural" is a swimming pool which you fill in with a hose or stome water
> drainage channels or when water is served by a pumping station.
> Both navigable canal and a canal of a straightened river carry water
> through an aritificial (digged out) channel.
>
> Here is an example of such river.
> http://www.picshare.ru/view/9902044/
> On the left is the natural waterway of a river in the year of 1937. On the
> right is the same river nowadays. Note that the current geometry is drawn
> detailed enough, it is the waterway itself which is very straght now.
>
> Cheers,
> Eugene
>
> ср, 20 февр. 2019 г. в 02:41, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
>
>> On 19/02/19 21:21, Tony Shield wrote:
>>
>> I'm not in favour of combining ditch and drain. My mind sees a ditch as a
>> dug-out stream which may flow into a stream or flow into a drain, the drain
>> being a much larger flow. I see drains as  having water flow several metres
>> wide but a ditch as less than a metre of surface flow.
>>
>>
>> Those differences can be mapped using the key width.
>>
>> Other than the width .. what other differences do you see?
>>
>> To me;
>>
>> a drain is a ditch that only provides for water removal. Some of these
>> are small - less that 1 meter wide. The direction of water flow will tell
>> you if it is a supply or a removal (drain) system.
>>
>> a ditch could provide water supply or removal and possibly in some cases
>> either depending on water levels?
>>
>> TonyS
>> On 11/02/2019 16:18, Hufkratzer wrote:
>>
>> On 10.02.2019 14:57, Eugene Podshivalov wrote:
>>
>> [...}
>> *Variant #2*
>> Combine "ditch" and "drain" tags into one.
>> [...}
>> Personally I lean toward variant 2 [...}
>>
>>
>> This would require to deprecate "drain" and remove it from the presets,
>> otherwise we will continue to have 2 tags in the long run.  As far as I
>> know deprecating a tag is only possible if it's usage declines. Currently
>> its usage increases steadily. How do you intend to change that? What is the
>> incentive for the mapper to use "ditch" instead of "drain" from now on? I
>> am not even sure that most mappers will notice the change on the wiki pages.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing 
>> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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