[Tagging] What is a conscription number (addr:conscriptionnumber)?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

I attempted to de describe conscription numbers
at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:conscriptionnumber 

- mostly using automatically translated texts.

Can someone look at this and check whatever what I added is correct
and more or less clear?

Also, has anybody got any idea how addr:provisionalnumber and
addr:housenumber tags differ in meaning?

( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:provisionalnumber 
 )___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] New Tag "Departures" voting results.

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 3 Mar 2019 at 00:06, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> On Sun, 3 Mar 2019 at 00:21, Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 08:14, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> So a documented way of including GTFS link in routes?
>>>
>>
>> Yep.  We could just use url=*
>>
>
> When I've been adding bus stops, I've been using timetable= linked to the
> GTFS data for that stop eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6251012182
> links to https://jp.translink.com.au/plan-your-journey/stops/300772,
> which shows the buses for about the next hour, on both routes that service
> that stop. That page (which, incidentally, we have explicit permission to
> use, plus a waiver!) then also links to the full timetable for today &
> other days.
>

That is not the raw GTFS data but a human-readable, active (it uses web 2.0
magic) timetable based
(presumably) on the GTFS data.

When I've looked at stop info via OSMAND on my phone, the URL is there as a
> clickable link so it would appear to work?
>

I'd guess that OSMAND (and the standard carto, which also treats it as a
link) is using a heuristic
along the lines of "If I don't know what the key means AND the value looks
like a URL then treat the
value as a link."  Which is reasonable, but it would be nice to formalize
it.  If for no other reason than
to allow verification tools to know that the value ought to be a link to a
working web page and that
they should check it.

As I said, I'd prefer not to use url=* because it could be for anything - a
page about the history of
the bus stop (maybe the shelter is a listed building), or a timetable or
whatever web page the
mapper happened to think relevant.  I'd prefer to distinguish between a
human-readable timetable
and raw GTFS data (not really human-readable but could be parsed by an
app).  For lack of anything
better, I'd be happy with timetable=* and gtfs=* but I expect somebody will
be along shortly to explain
why those are a very bad idea.

Whatever we go for, we have to cater to the fact that a particular route
may have more than one
operator (I'm not talking about super-routes here).  Around here there are
many small local operators,
and longer routes sometimes split the service between two operators (i.e.,
the route X to Y might
be split between an operator based in X and another operator based in Y).
In the cases where this
has happened one of those operators produced a timetable showing all of the
services irrespective
of the operator whilst the other operator's timetable showed only its own
services.  Since the route
was subsidized by local gov't, there was also a council timetable.
Actually, the route was between
locations in two counties, so there were probably two council timetables.
But there could have been
only two operator timetables that showed only their own services on that
route.  So maybe we need
timetable:operator=link.

Further complication if we want to add this information to bus stops as
well as routes.  An app
ought to be capable of finding the route from a query about a stop and then
getting the appropriate
timetable.  But using the query tool provided by standard carto may require
more smarts than many
data consumers have, so adding the timetable to stops would be nice.  But
stops can be used by
more than one route.  So then we'd need
timetable:route-number:operator=link.

I'm hoping somebody will come up with a better tagging scheme...

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

Re: [Tagging] New Tag "Departures" voting results.

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 3 Mar 2019 at 00:21, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 08:14, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> So a documented way of including GTFS link in routes?
>>
>
> Yep.  We could just use url=*
>

When I've been adding bus stops, I've been using timetable= linked to the
GTFS data for that stop eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6251012182
links to https://jp.translink.com.au/plan-your-journey/stops/300772, which
shows the buses for about the next hour, on both routes that service that
stop. That page (which, incidentally, we have explicit permission to use,
plus a waiver!) then also links to the full timetable for today & other
days.

When I've looked at stop info via OSMAND on my phone, the URL is there as a
clickable link so it would appear to work?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Sergio Manzi]

On 2019-03-03 00:49, Mark Wagner wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 02:05:46 +0100
> Sergio Manzi  wrote:
>
>> On 2019-03-02 01:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>> sent from a phone
>>>  
 On 1. Mar 2019, at 13:45, Mateusz Konieczny
  wrote:

 I would tag max weight, I would not tag emergency=no.  
>>> +1, it will not exclude all kinds of emergency services anyway,
>>> only those in vehicles that are too heavy, for example there could
>>> be police on bicycles who could cycle on the bridge like
>>> pedestrians can walk on it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers, Martin  
>>
>> I really-really-really like to know of a place where emergency
>> vehicles are *legally *not allowed to go...
> It's not "legally not allowed to go", but on Fairchild Air Force Base,
> civilian emergency vehicles are subject to the same "with permission
> only" restriction as everyone else.  I suspect the same is true of most
> if not all other military bases in the United States.


I also suspect guards of the US Bullion Depository at Fort Knox will not just 
open the gates to an unexpected ambulance even if it had full light flashing 
and siren wailing. Or will they? Maybe a good idea worth trying...






smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Mark Wagner]

On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 02:05:46 +0100
Sergio Manzi  wrote:

> On 2019-03-02 01:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> > sent from a phone
> >  
> >> On 1. Mar 2019, at 13:45, Mateusz Konieczny
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >> I would tag max weight, I would not tag emergency=no.  
> >
> > +1, it will not exclude all kinds of emergency services anyway,
> > only those in vehicles that are too heavy, for example there could
> > be police on bicycles who could cycle on the bridge like
> > pedestrians can walk on it.
> >
> >
> > Cheers, Martin  
> 
> 
> I really-really-really like to know of a place where emergency
> vehicles are *legally *not allowed to go...

It's not "legally not allowed to go", but on Fairchild Air Force Base,
civilian emergency vehicles are subject to the same "with permission
only" restriction as everyone else.  I suspect the same is true of most
if not all other military bases in the United States.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Fixing import

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Mar 2, 2019, 11:41 AM by matkoni...@tutanota.com:

>
>
>
> Mar 2, 2019, 10:44 AM by > skqu...@rushpost.com 
> > :
>
>> On 3/2/19 02:46, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>>
>>> Mar 2, 2019, 4:42 AM by >>> skqu...@rushpost.com 
>>> >>
>>> I'm already
>>> a bit burned out from my attempts to clean up the massive number of
>>> duplicated nodes from a botched import in 2012 that I just now found.
>>>
>>> Can you link the area? It should be fairly easy to do with JOSM
>>> (one of funnier series of edits for me was deleting thousands of nodes from
>>> botched HOT editing, all done by JOSM running in background)
>>>
>>
>> I was using JOSM, and the area is the US state of Texas, potentially
>> everything originally imported by user TexasNHD. I have already merged
>> well over 20,000 or so, no telling how many more are out there.
>>
> From what I see the main impact is on seaside - based on
> http://yosmhm.neis-one.org/?TexasNHD 
>
And following may be used to find affected areas
http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#zoom=9=28.918=-95.947=1230=1%2C2%2C3==
 


BTW, I opened 
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/17401 
 ("Fixing thousands of duplicated 
nodes scales poorly")
and
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/17403 
 ("Complain about crossing 
administrative boundary 
with road and stop offering to join administrative boundary and road due to 
duplicated nodes")
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] New Tag "Departures" voting results.

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 08:14, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> So a documented way of including GTFS link in routes?
>

Yep.  We could just use url=* but I'd prefer to keep that available for
other things.  Besides,
it would probably be a good idea to allow for a link to the operator's
timetable.  Oh, and there
may be some routes with more than one operator (this has happened around
here where a
route is split between two small local operators).

Routes only, or is there a desire to have this on stops too?
>

There are situations where people want to know the timetable info at a
particular stop.  As in
"My car broke down here, I can see a bus stop, when is the next bus?"  (not
all bus stops indicate
which bus routes they serve).

Depends how sophisticated the data consumer is.  A smart app could figure
out a stop is on one
or more routes then grab the relevant data from the route.  Somebody using
the query tool on
standard carto might have more difficulty.

I think it ought to at least be permissible on stops.   But that requires a
tagging scheme capable
of dealing with stops that serve several routes.

I would think a proposal for routes (ferry or otherwise) where GTFS is not
> freely available is also needed.
>

As others have remarked, there are GTFS servers which allow anyone to set
up a route.  I think
that if we have to add information somewhere, it is better to enter it into
GTFS than to bodge it
into OSM.  Supporting both would make things more complicated for data
consumers.  Also,
the GTFS servers that allow anyone to set up a route have provision to turn
the data over to the
operator of that route as and when that becomes sensible.

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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Sergio Manzi]

On 2019-03-02 14:15, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:

> On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 05:34, Sergio Manzi  wrote:
>> BTW, do we have a specific tag for "emergency traffic light" that are put 
>> near emergency vehicles exits to stop normal traffic when emergency vehicles 
>> are about to exit?
> Funnily enough, per
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_signals this should be
> traffic_signals=emergency

Thanks!

Sergio




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 00:49, Sergio Manzi  wrote:

What your street code says about the behaviour drivers at a crossing (with
> lights) must have when there is an incoming emergency vehicle?
>

It says they have to pull out of the way but they must still obey all
traffic regulations.  People have
been fined for crossing a red light, slowly and safely, in order to make
way for an emergency
vehicle.
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/driving-advice/fined-for-moving-out-of-the-way-of-an-ambulance/

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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Fernando Trebien]

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 9:22 PM Sergio Manzi  wrote:
>
> On 2019-03-02 00:59, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> Being picky, but (at least out here) they're not exempt, they're just allowed 
> to break them :-) eg in an emergency, an ambulance can go through a red 
> light, but if they cause an accident by doing so, the driver will be charged 
> (& they have been)
>
> Sorry, but I'm inclined to categorize the above as BS, or "fake news", if you 
> prefer, until you provide evidence (in which case I'll apologize and eat my 
> words).
>
> In every street code I know of, emergency and law enforcement vehicles with 
> alarm and light turned on HAVE PRECEDENCE on the traffic, regardless the 
> status of traffic lights, with all the legal implications that derive from 
> that.

But that's not what emergency=yes means. What that tag means is that
emergency vehicles are legally allowed to travel into/through a
particular way when handling an emergency (rescuing a patient, putting
down a fire, chasing a criminal, etc.). The precedence/priority a
vehicle gets on traffic is currently not represented by any tag in
OSM.

For example, say that a police car is parked next to the Pantheon in
Rome, and the officers are informed that a criminal needs to be chased
and is currently next to Santa Maria della Concezione. Is the police
car legally allowed to shortcut through the pedestrian via della
Maddalena without having to ask permission? Or is it legally required
to go around like other civilian vehicles [1]?

I know that so far the discussion has centered on two values,
emergency=yes/no. But there may be other possibilities, such as
emergency=destination/discouraged. For instance, emergency=discouraged
is the legal situation in Brazil on ways that are not allowed for
civilian motor vehicles. Other countries may have by default
emergency=destination (only access is allowed, shortcutting from one
end to the other is not) or emergency=yes (shortcutting is ok). I
think emergency=no is really unlikely.

emergency=discouraged would allow data consumers (routing apps) to
apply some sort of penalty, whereas emergency=destination would forbid
passage through ways from one end to the other. In this example [1],
the router might choose to go through the (troublesome) pedestrian
ways because the route is much shorter, but in other cases (example:
[2]) the shortcut wouldn't make so much sense. If
emergency=destination is used, then the emergency vehicles would be
prohibited from using the pedestrian ways in both cases, unless the
emergency target/destination was within the mesh of pedestrian ways.

[1] 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_car=41.89868%2C12.47640%3B41.90122%2C12.47645
[2] 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_car=41.90256%2C12.48817%3B41.89842%2C12.47573

-- 
Fernando Trebien

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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 05:34, Sergio Manzi  wrote:
> BTW, do we have a specific tag for "emergency traffic light" that are put 
> near emergency vehicles exits to stop normal traffic when emergency vehicles 
> are about to exit?

Funnily enough, per
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_signals this should be
traffic_signals=emergency

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

Re: [Tagging] Emergency vehicle country-specific law

[OSMDoudou]

> AFAIK emergency vehicles are exempt from limitations of traffic law 
> (including oneway roads, forbidden access roads, speed limits, red lights, 
> forbidden turns)

Belgian law requires they stop at traffic lights and exercise caution. Not only 
exercise caution, but explicitly stop. Also, they can’t go opposite direction 
of one-way streets, except motorways.

So, globally, yes, they have priority, but in the details, it’s more subtle.

French language references:
- https://leblogdumono.be/privileges-vehicules-prioritaires/
- 
http://www.policelocale.be/files/5318/files/downloads/A-propos/Prevention/VAC_2014-03.pdf
- https://www.matele.be/vehicules-prioritaires-meme-code-de-la-route-pour-tous

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

Re: [Tagging] Fixing import

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Mar 2, 2019, 10:44 AM by skqu...@rushpost.com:

> On 3/2/19 02:46, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
>> Mar 2, 2019, 4:42 AM by >> skqu...@rushpost.com 
>> >> :
>>
>>  I'm already
>>  a bit burned out from my attempts to clean up the massive number of
>>  duplicated nodes from a botched import in 2012 that I just now found.
>>
>> Can you link the area? It should be fairly easy to do with JOSM
>> (one of funnier series of edits for me was deleting thousands of nodes from
>> botched HOT editing, all done by JOSM running in background)
>>
>
> I was using JOSM, and the area is the US state of Texas, potentially
> everything originally imported by user TexasNHD. I have already merged
> well over 20,000 or so, no telling how many more are out there.
>
>From what I see the main impact is on seaside - based on
http://yosmhm.neis-one.org/?TexasNHD 

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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Sergio Manzi]

On 2019-03-02 11:20, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
>> Though in all cases when I used it I should be using emergency=designated
>> (road was signed as firefighter access road or main ambulance access at 
>> the hospital).
>
> ... and that's a different story, because this is valuable information 
> for non-emergency vehicles: "you can't go there!"
>
> Nope. Access may be designated for multiple uses or one use designated and 
> other
> allowed.

Right.

BTW, do we have a specific tag for "emergency traffic light" that are put near 
emergency vehicles exits to stop normal traffic when emergency vehicles are 
about to exit?


Sergio



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Mar 2, 2019, 11:07 AM by s...@smz.it:

> On 2019-03-02 09:49, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
>
>>
>> Mar 2, 2019, 2:05 AM by >> s...@smz.it >> :
>>
>>> Ireally-really-really like to know of a place where emergency   
>>>  vehicles are >>> legally >>> not allowed to go...
>>>  
>>>
>>> And if there isn't such a place, why do we need ""?
>>>
>>>
>>> And if we don't have such a need, why do we need  "emergency=yes"?
>>>
>>>
>>> Because a given road is >>> accessible >>> to a emergency  vehicles?
>>>
>>>
>> Apparently people like toexplicitly tag in some situations.
>>
>
>
>
>
> The problem (> as I see it...> ) is that it isn't clear at all  what they 
> are trying to explicitly tag.
>
>
Purpose of road? Explicit signage (again, emergency=designated should be used 
for that)?

>> Though in all cases when Iused it I should be using 
>> emergency=designated
>> (road was signed asfirefighter access road or main ambulance access 
>> at thehospital).
>>
>
> ... and that's a different story, because this is valuable  information 
> for non-emergency vehicles: "you can't go there!"
>
>
Nope. Access may be designated for multiple uses or one use designated and other
allowed. 

Probably the most common case:

highway=path
bicycle=designated
foot=designated
segregated=no
surface=asphalt

for mixed footway and cycleway.

In my experience such roads are often accessible also to normal vehicles, 
just parking is forbidden.

There are also cycleways (bicycle=designated explicit or implicit via 
highway=cycleway)
where some motor vehicles are allowed.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Sergio Manzi]

On 2019-03-02 09:07, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> On 2. Mar 2019, at 02:18, Sergio Manzi  wrote:
>>
>> Should I tag every street wide enough for a chair to pass with 
>> "emergency=yes"?
> no because emergency is an access key (legal access), so „wide enough“ is not 
> a criterion 
>
> Cheers, Martin 

Martin,

I was on the impression that the "/latest/" interpretation of emergency=yes was 
"physical accessibility", not "legal right" ...

Sergio



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Sergio Manzi]

On 2019-03-02 09:49, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> Mar 2, 2019, 2:05 AM by s...@smz.it:
>
> I really-really-really like to know of a place where emergency vehicles 
> are *legally *not allowed to go...
>
> And if there isn't such a place, why do we need ""?
>
> And if we don't have such a need, why do we need "emergency=yes"?
>
> Because a given road is *accessible *to a emergency vehicles?
>
> Apparently people like to explicitly tag in some situations.


The problem (/as I see it.../) is that it isn't clear at all what they are 
trying to explicitly tag.

Once a again:

  * a legal right? Absurd, as emergency vehicles always have that right.
  * physical accessibility? Absurd, as it doesn't state to which kind of 
vehicles (/small police car or humongous fire truc//k?/).

IMHO emergency=yes and emergency=no should be deprecated, as simple as that.

If there are physical restrictions (/weight, width, height/), tag that.


> Though in all cases when I used it I should be using emergency=designated
> (road was signed as firefighter access road or main ambulance access at the 
> hospital).

... and that's a different story, because this is valuable information for 
non-emergency vehicles: "you can't go there!"


Sergio


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fixing import

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 3/2/19 02:46, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Mar 2, 2019, 4:42 AM by skqu...@rushpost.com:
> 
> I'm already
> a bit burned out from my attempts to clean up the massive number of
> duplicated nodes from a botched import in 2012 that I just now found.
> 
> Can you link the area? It should be fairly easy to do with JOSM
> (one of funnier series of edits for me was deleting thousands of nodes from
> botched HOT editing, all done by JOSM running in background)

I was using JOSM, and the area is the US state of Texas, potentially
everything originally imported by user TexasNHD. I have already merged
well over 20,000 or so, no telling how many more are out there.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

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

Re: [Tagging] Emergency vehicle country-specific law

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Mar 2, 2019, 10:12 AM by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:

> Boys, this will vary by legal jurisdiction. These comments are valueless 
> unless placed in context.
> Here in NL and as far as I know also in the UK,  blue lights and sirens in 
> your mirror are also no excuse for your own driving by the way, so you must 
> not break any rules or otherwise drive dangerously to facilitate the 
> emergency vehicle. Is that the same where you are?
> In NL police have a blanket exemption for all traffic rules in the execution 
> of their duty. In the UK there is a fixed list of exemptions, and driving the 
> wrong way down a one way street is not one of them, for example. 
>
In Poland it is accepted to (carefully) break traffic laws to make space for 
the emergency vehicle.
Not sure what is the legal situation, though not making space for ambulance 
would be treated
as a criminal stupidity - even if it requires doing something inconvenient or 
breaking traffic law.

Examples that I encountered (and did) include temporary moving to and parking 
on edge 
of road, crossing red light (without moving across crossing), making otherwise 
forbidden
right turn or U-turn, blocking road for nonemergency vehicles due to stopping 
at green light,
ignoring markings that forbid changing lanes etc.

All of it done with extra care and certainly without driving dangerously.

AFAIK emergency vehicles are exempt from limitations of traffic law (including 
oneway roads,
forbidden access roads, speed limits, red lights, forbidden turns)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Colin Smale]

Boys, this will vary by legal jurisdiction. These comments are valueless unless 
placed in context.
Here in NL and as far as I know also in the UK,  blue lights and sirens in your 
mirror are also no excuse for your own driving by the way, so you must not 
break any rules or otherwise drive dangerously to facilitate the emergency 
vehicle. Is that the same where you are?
In NL police have a blanket exemption for all traffic rules in the execution of 
their duty. In the UK there is a fixed list of exemptions, and driving the 
wrong way down a one way street is not one of them, for example. 

On 2 March 2019 09:19:48 CET, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 02/03/19 11:21, Sergio Manzi wrote:
>> On 2019-03-02 00:59, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>>> Being picky, but (at least out here) they're not exempt, they're
>just 
>>> allowed to break them :-) eg in an emergency, an ambulance can go 
>>> through a red light, but if they cause an accident by doing so, the 
>>> driver will be charged (& they have been)
>>
>> Sorry, but I'm inclined to categorize the above as BS, or "fake
>news", 
>> if you prefer, until you provide evidence (in which case I'll 
>> apologize and eat my words).
>>
>> In every street code I know of, emergency and law enforcement
>vehicles 
>> with alarm and light turned on HAVE PRECEDENCE on the traffic, 
>> regardless the status of traffic lights, with all the legal 
>> implications that derive from that.
>>
>> Sure, an ambulance driver who has caused an accident will be 
>> investigated, but NOT for having burned a red traffic light (/they'll
>
>> asses if he/she was DUI and stuff like that.../)
>>
>
>If going through the red light causes an accident .. they can be 
>charged, charged for negligent driving or driving in a manner
>dangerous, 
>but they will all reference the red light as requiring caution and the 
>
>accident itself as proof.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Mar 2, 2019, 2:05 AM by s...@smz.it:

> On 2019-03-02 01:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>  
>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>>> On 1. Mar 2019, at 13:45, Mateusz Konieczny >>>  
>>> >> not tag emergency=no.
>>>
>> +1, it will not exclude all kinds of emergency services anyway, only those 
>> in vehicles that are too heavy, for example there could be police on 
>> bicycles who could cycle on the bridge like pedestrians can walk on 
>> it.Cheers, Martin
>>
>
>
>
>
> I really-really-really like to know of a place where emergency  vehicles 
> are > legally > not allowed to go...
>
>
> And if there isn't such a place, why do we need ""?
>
>
> And if we don't have such a need, why do we need "emergency=yes"?
>
>
> Because a given road is > accessible > to a emergency  vehicles?
>
>
Apparently people like to explicitly tag in some situations.

Though in all cases when I used it I should be using emergency=designated
(road was signed as firefighter access road or main ambulance access at the 
hospital).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fixing import

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Mar 2, 2019, 4:42 AM by skqu...@rushpost.com:

> I'm already
> a bit burned out from my attempts to clean up the massive number of
> duplicated nodes from a botched import in 2012 that I just now found.
>
Can you link the area? It should be fairly easy to do with JOSM
(one of funnier series of edits for me was deleting thousands of nodes from
botched HOT editing, all done by JOSM running in background)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal – Voting Results – natural=peninsual & natural=isthmus

[Markus]

Hello everyone,

The proposals for natural=peninsula and natural=isthmus have both been
approved (12 yes vs 0 no for natural=peninsula and 11 yes vs 1 no for
natural=isthmus).

See

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dpeninsula

and

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Disthmus

for the feature description pages.

Regards and have a nice weekend!

Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] New Tag "Departures" voting results.

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Mar 2, 2019, 9:12 AM by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

> The other thing picked on it keeping it 'up to date'.
> One says a route is out of date for years (why the contributor does not up 
> date it is not stated)
>
In my case: because updating it would take about half of hour, there are 
multiple ones 
outdated and updating them all would take most of a day.

And all of them will change again once
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/340398942#map=19/50.07378/19.91285 

is reopened.

Other public transport routes are probably also outdated, but I have more 
interesting things to do
than updating them.

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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Warin]

On 02/03/19 11:21, Sergio Manzi wrote:

On 2019-03-02 00:59, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
Being picky, but (at least out here) they're not exempt, they're just 
allowed to break them :-) eg in an emergency, an ambulance can go 
through a red light, but if they cause an accident by doing so, the 
driver will be charged (& they have been)


Sorry, but I'm inclined to categorize the above as BS, or "fake news", 
if you prefer, until you provide evidence (in which case I'll 
apologize and eat my words).


In every street code I know of, emergency and law enforcement vehicles 
with alarm and light turned on HAVE PRECEDENCE on the traffic, 
regardless the status of traffic lights, with all the legal 
implications that derive from that.


Sure, an ambulance driver who has caused an accident will be 
investigated, but NOT for having burned a red traffic light (/they'll 
asses if he/she was DUI and stuff like that.../)




If going through the red light causes an accident .. they can be 
charged, charged for negligent driving or driving in a manner dangerous, 
but they will all reference the red light as requiring caution and the  
accident itself as proof.


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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 2. Mar 2019, at 02:18, Sergio Manzi  wrote:
> 
> Should I tag every street wide enough for a chair to pass with 
> "emergency=yes"?


no because emergency is an access key (legal access), so „wide enough“ is not a 
criterion 


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

Re: [Tagging] New Tag "Departures" voting results.

[Warin]

On 02/03/19 10:27, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:


On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 18:02, Leif Rasmussen <354...@gmail.com> wrote:

It seems like the best way forward now is for a proposal allowing OpenStreetMap 
data to be tightly integrated with outside sources (such as GTFS) to be created 
by someone.

+1. To avoid lots of changes, perhaps only set the GTFS link on a
meta-relation where possible, like
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/18812


  This would avoid the issues of maintainability in OpenStreetMap.

There is still the concern about GTFS URL changing, which happens
sometimes, but perhaps not as often as schedules in a large city.


So a documented way of including GTFS link in routes?
Routes only, or is there a desire to have this on stops too?

Needs a proposal.




Also, if anyone is interested, I can create a new proposal for adding 
departures times to ferry routes only, and not to bus / train routes.  This 
would be easier to maintain, and as far as I am aware, no GTFS exists for 
ferries.

Just one note - it is possible to have ferry schedules in GTFS. I am
familiar with several cases of these: Berlin city transit ferries;
some ferries in Netherlands in their giant OVapi GTFS file; some
ferries in a Finland; main harbour ferry in Vancouver. You can also
produce your own GTFS for any ferry operation you like (the challenge
is getting people to use it).

It is more a matter of ferries, particularly longer routes, usually
not being operated by public transit bodies that might be more likely
to produce a GTFS feed.


I would think a proposal for routes (ferry or otherwise) where GTFS is not 
freely available is also needed.

The other thing picked on it keeping it 'up to date'.
One says a route is out of date for years (why the contributor does not up date 
it is not stated), so a time table will be even more likely to be out of date.
As these people probably have a GTFS system then a proposal for those who don't 
have GTFS should remove their objection.
But first there needs to be that GTFS link so they can be happy.


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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 2. Mar 2019, at 02:05, Sergio Manzi  wrote:
> 
> And if we don't have such a need, why do we need "emergency=yes"?


I agree we probably never needed emergency=yes/no but it may appear on 
supplemental signs eg in Germany („Einsatzfahrzeuge frei“) or there may be 
dedicated ways only for them (e.g. to access an emergency ward), or the access 
roads for firefighters (no stopping on these allowed) , that’s maybe why people 
have introduced the tag.


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