Re: [Tagging] Bus rapid transit: service=bus vs service=busway vs no service tag

[Agustin Rissoli]

Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 07:29:30 -0300
From: Fernando Trebien 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: [Tagging] Bus rapid transit: service=bus vs service=busway vs
no service tag
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hello,

I find it strange to use highway=service without being able to add a
service=* to specify the type of service way, but that's how most BRTs
[1] are currently mapped, for example, TransJakarta, Bogota's
TransMilenio, and the Metrobus systems of Mexicy City and Buenos
Aires.

I've seen service=busway applied to the ways of some BRTs [1], such as
in Los Angeles' Orange Line and Nantes' Line 4, and its usage has been
growing slowly, but it is not documented. On the other hand,
service=bus is much more common, but the wiki discourages its use [2]
since 2017, although I could not find any discussion supporting this
change. It seems service=bus was used to compensate for "issues with a
routing engine" [2], but no other applications seem to support this
value, and maybe those app-related issues no longer exist.

As of 2019, what do you think is the ideal/correct way of mapping
these bus corridors? Should service=* be avoided on them? Should
service=busway be documented? Should service=bus be replaced with
service=busway?

Regards,

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit
[2] Currently, the warning message is not displayed on mobile
browsers: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service%3Dbus

-- 
Fernando Trebien



--

Subject: Digest Footer

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


---

In the wiki of bus lanes say:
For dedicated, separate bus tracks, use highway
=service
, access
=no
, psv
=designated
 (or psv
=yes
).
I think it's correct
I usually use bus=designated in my area since taxis are not allowed, I also
add emergency=yes
Saludos, Agustín.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] shop=plumber vs shop=plumbing vs shop=plumbing_supplies

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 21:32, ael via Tagging 
wrote:

>
> The only term that crossed my mind was specialisation but that
> doesn't really fit.


Good thought, but I'd agree no, not quite right.


> I invented the shop=trade after a suggestion on this list to consider
> subtags.


I was thinking about it & wondered about changing shop=trade to
shop=trade_supply (which may be a more accurate description anyway?)

The sub-tag could then also become trade_supply= or stay as trade=


> Hence my concern that the re-use of trade might be confusing.


I'm wondering if it would be?

We'd have shop=trade_supply + trade=electrical for the wholesale outlet,
with trade=electrician on the factory unit / shed / yard / house that they
work from. Do they even have to be different words? Could both places be
the same eg trade=electrical for the actual tradie or trade=electrician for
the wholesaler?

But perhaps business=plumbing could work and would be simpler?
> I have always thought it odd that "business" was not used much as a tag.
> Many of the uses of "office" seem to me to really mean "business".
>

That's not a bad thought either!


> That could even be
>   business=trade   trade=plumbing
> if people think that business alone is to all encompassing. But it is
> probably best to keep it simple.
>

Could be done either way.

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Bus rapid transit: service=bus vs service=busway vs no service tag

[Fernando Trebien]

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 9:03 AM marc marc  wrote:
> I agree. in addition, the description is very strange.
> "Dedicated bus service lane or road <...>"
> a road with several lanes must not be splitted in several one-lane-way.
> so this tag mix access and lane description.

That is correct. I suppose the original writer confused "lane" and
"track", as there would (typically) be no reason to split a lane from
the main track. (I know one exception though. [1])

> for the road going to a bus station, maybe service=driveway fit.

It depends on what is meant by "going to". In BRTs, the bus tracks run
through very long distances, not just in bus stations. They of course
"go to" bus stations, but I don't think it was intended for usage only
in/near bus stations.

[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-March/022360.html

-- 
Fernando Trebien

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

Re: [Tagging] Bus rapid transit: service=bus vs service=busway vs no service tag

[Fernando Trebien]

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 8:32 AM Mateusz Konieczny
 wrote:
> service=busway/bus seems OK to me (note, I am not a native speaker),
> but I am not convinced that it would be very useful.

Perhaps we should recommend service=bus because it is already
documented and more common, service=busway is neither documented nor
as common.

> I would just set appropriate access tags.
>
> I found also
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/368500255#map=19/50.04798/19.92933
> with
>
> bus:lanes:backward  = designated
> bus:lanes:forward = designated
> psv:lanes:backward = designated
> psv:lanes:forward = designated
>
> I am not sure is it an optimal lane tagging, but in general lane tagging may 
> be
> useful here, maybe more than a new service tag (or in addition to).

I'm not sure. These bus rapid transit systems are segregated tracks
that only contain bus lanes, with no public lanes (so no cars, no
trucks, and no motorcycles). They typically run parallel to the public
tracks. In some cities, taxis are allowed, and sometimes this changes
over time as city law changes, but still no public traffic.

-- 
Fernando Trebien

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

Re: [Tagging] Intermittently unprotected cycle track

[Volker Schmidt]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2019, 16:14 althio,  wrote:

> Route relation membership cannot be clearly and separately applied
> with namespacing, it requires a separate objet [1].
>

I do not see any problem with that. I have been including roads with
cycleway=lane routinely in bicycle routes.

>
>
> ... or ...
> ... maybe ...
> ... I don't know if I should ...
> Apparently highway=cycleway + cycleway=lane is already in use
> 1500 uses in
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway=lane#combinations
> So either some people are mistagging, or the wiki needs to be updated
> to the practice
>
This looks very wrong to me. It indicates a cycling lane on a cycleway.
When I encounter this tagging I change it.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Intermittently unprotected cycle track

[althio]

> This is correctish in terms of tagging but not in terms of geometry.
> [...] Breaking geometry to enable tagging is bad in itself, misleading on 
> renderings, and unsurprisingly confuses the heck out of routers.

Indeed. Either as cycleway=track/lane on car road (all along) or as a
separate way (all along), both not like this.

For me, adding geometry gives additional information and accuracy,
more clarity + "easily apply tagging that applies distinctly to the
cycleway (surface, route relation membership, etc.)"
Route relation membership cannot be clearly and separately applied
with namespacing, it requires a separate objet [1].
My preference would be to keep the geometry, map it as a continuous
highway=cycleway.

For the bits without divider, I don't like protected=no however.
I would go with no additional tagging, and more geometry (as you said:
crossings and junctions), and let the geometry speaks.

... or ...
... maybe ...
... I don't know if I should ...
Apparently highway=cycleway + cycleway=lane is already in use
1500 uses in https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway=lane#combinations
So either some people are mistagging, or the wiki needs to be updated
to the practice.

-- althio

[1]: if I am somehow wrong and it is indeed (remotely) possible to
apply route relation membership with namespacing, I beg, please leave
me ignorant.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - leisure=inflatable_park

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Is something like

leisure=playground
fee=yes
playground=inflatable_park

fitting?

It would allow to both tag detail and do not require special support to process 
it
and seems correct to me.

Mar 27, 2019, 2:00 PM by silentspike...@gmail.com:

> I couldn't find any good images of the facilities I'm talking about on 
> commons, but they're definitely different from the kind of individual 
> slides/castles described by Martin.
>
> See the likes of > https://airparx.com >  and > 
> https://www.airspacesolutions.com/airx-inflatable-theme-parks 
> >  who design 
> these contiguous inflatable structures.
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 12:53 PM Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>> Can you link or upload some images? Preferably from/to Wikimedia Commons?
>>
>> It sounds like sub type of a playground.
>>
>> Mar 27, 2019, 12:21 PM by >> silentspike...@gmail.com 
>> >> :
>>
>>> My first tagging proposal, came across a few of these facilities and 
>>> figured it is best to establish a tagging for them as they're growing in 
>>> popularity:
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/inflatable_park 
>>> 
>>>
>>> I feel like this is a relatively self explanatory proposal and hopefully 
>>> uncontroversial. However, totally open to criticism and suggestions if 
>>> there's something I'm overlooking.
>>>
>>> One thing I did notice while searching around is that there are locations 
>>> which mix trampoline and inflatable parks together. This proposal doesn't 
>>> address those and that's perhaps something someone more experienced could 
>>> weigh in on.
>>>
>>> Kind Regards
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>>  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] Feature Proposal - RFC - leisure=inflatable_park

[Silent Spike]

I couldn't find any good images of the facilities I'm talking about on
commons, but they're definitely different from the kind of individual
slides/castles described by Martin.

See the likes of https://airparx.com and
https://www.airspacesolutions.com/airx-inflatable-theme-parks who design
these contiguous inflatable structures.

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 12:53 PM Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> Can you link or upload some images? Preferably from/to Wikimedia Commons?
>
> It sounds like sub type of a playground.
>
> Mar 27, 2019, 12:21 PM by silentspike...@gmail.com:
>
> My first tagging proposal, came across a few of these facilities and
> figured it is best to establish a tagging for them as they're growing in
> popularity:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/inflatable_park
>
> I feel like this is a relatively self explanatory proposal and hopefully
> uncontroversial. However, totally open to criticism and suggestions if
> there's something I'm overlooking.
>
> One thing I did notice while searching around is that there are locations
> which mix trampoline and inflatable parks together. This proposal doesn't
> address those and that's perhaps something someone more experienced could
> weigh in on.
>
> Kind Regards
>
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - leisure=inflatable_park

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Can you link or upload some images? Preferably from/to Wikimedia Commons?

It sounds like sub type of a playground.

Mar 27, 2019, 12:21 PM by silentspike...@gmail.com:

> My first tagging proposal, came across a few of these facilities and figured 
> it is best to establish a tagging for them as they're growing in popularity:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/inflatable_park 
> 
>
> I feel like this is a relatively self explanatory proposal and hopefully 
> uncontroversial. However, totally open to criticism and suggestions if 
> there's something I'm overlooking.
>
> One thing I did notice while searching around is that there are locations 
> which mix trampoline and inflatable parks together. This proposal doesn't 
> address those and that's perhaps something someone more experienced could 
> weigh in on.
>
> Kind Regards
>
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Bus rapid transit: service=bus vs service=busway vs no service tag

[marc marc]

Le 27.03.19 à 12:30, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
> Mar 27, 2019, 11:29 AM by fernando.treb...@gmail.com:
>> service=bus is much more common, but the wiki discourages its use [2]
>> since 2017, although I could not find any discussion supporting this
>> change.
> 
> Given that warning was reaction to page claiming that this tag must be
> added because unspecified renderer is broken I think that
> no discussion was necessary to add the warning.

I agree. in addition, the description is very strange.
"Dedicated bus service lane or road <...>"
a road with several lanes must not be splitted in several one-lane-way.
so this tag mix access and lane description.

for the road going to a bus station, maybe service=driveway fit.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dservice say :
A driveway is a service road leading to a <...> place of business
+ access tag if needed (it's not always restricted to bus only)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Intermittently unprotected cycle track

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mi., 27. März 2019 um 12:39 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt :

> Tagging of properties of the track should be no problem:
> cycleway:left=track
> cycleway:left:width=3
> cycleway:left:surface=asphalt
> ...
>



if the cycleway is a track it can become a problem, because tracks tend to
have different properties than the road, and now you will have to split the
road also for every change of every property of a different carriageway
(the cycleway), which doesn't seem right and which makes maintenance
harder. It isn't a big problem as long as you do not map many details or
accurately map changes in properties, or if they do not vary.
It also makes it harder to understand how the position of other objects
relates to the cycleway and to the road (are they between the road and the
cycleway or further than the cycleway? etc.) and it makes it impossible to
map geometric shapes and transitions of the cycleway which are different
from the road.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - leisure=inflatable_park

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mi., 27. März 2019 um 12:24 Uhr schrieb Silent Spike <
silentspike...@gmail.com>:

> My first tagging proposal, came across a few of these facilities and
> figured it is best to establish a tagging for them as they're growing in
> popularity:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/inflatable_park
>
> I feel like this is a relatively self explanatory proposal and hopefully
> uncontroversial. However, totally open to criticism and suggestions if
> there's something I'm overlooking.
>
> One thing I did notice while searching around is that there are locations
> which mix trampoline and inflatable parks together. This proposal doesn't
> address those and that's perhaps something someone more experienced could
> weigh in on.
>



I would see the "park" as an indoor playground, for which we already cater
with leisure=playground indoor=yes, fee=yes. At least these are documented
tags on the feature page, they do not appear in taginfos list of common
combinations though:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aleisure%3Dplayground

The "inflatable" objects usually are located within a bigger structure,
which may for instance be a "amusement park" or also a regular park.
They could be tagged with a value under the "attraction" key:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:attraction

E.g. "inflatable_slide" or whatever seems appropriate.

So my recommendation would be to map the inflatable objects inside the
playground, or propose a subtag for this kind of playground, or if they are
huge, you might see them as theme parks.
But maybe I just haven't encountered any specialized huge inflatable park
yet, while these inflatable slides and castles are very common around here
for "mini theme parks" / playgrounds.


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

Re: [Tagging] Intermittently unprotected cycle track

[Volker Schmidt]

Tagging of properties of the track should be no problem:
cycleway:left=track
cycleway:left:width=3
cycleway:left:surface=asphalt
...


On Wed, 27 Mar 2019, 12:01 Tobias Zwick,  wrote:

> Hi Richard
>
> I'd tag this situation with cycleway=track/lane/shared_lane on the road
> itself. I don't see the namespacing as an issue here.
>
> The rule of thumb I (we?) use to decide whether a cycleway shall better be
> tagged as a separate way is to look if the cycleway is segregated from the
> road by more than a curb, such as scrub or a tree row. In other words, so
> that bicyclists can not simply cross onto the street at any point without a
> dedicated crossing.
>
> Tobias
>
> Am 27. März 2019 11:31:18 MEZ schrieb Richard Fairhurst
> :
> >Hi all,
> >
> >Let me introduce you to one of London's better cycleways:
> >
> >https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.53397/-0.00715
> >https://cycle.travel/map?lat=51.5254=-0.0335=17
> >
> >You might look at this and think "that doesn't look like 'better' to
> >me,
> >it's full of 45-degree bends". And based on OSM you would of course be
> >right.
> >
> >In reality it isn't full of 45-degree bends. It's a continuous straight
> >
> >route. But although it's mostly protected (i.e. concrete barrier
> >separating it from the car lanes), the protection gives out at
> >junctions
> >and crossings, so turning traffic can cross. Here's an example
> >(apologies for Google link):
> >
> >https://goo.gl/maps/rFHNHdCxMCp
> >
> >Currently, it's mapped in OSM as a highway=cycleway for the segregated
> >bits, and then it rejoins the highway=primary road (with cycleway=lane)
> >
> >where the barrier gives out.
> >
> >This is correctish in terms of tagging but not in terms of geometry.
> >The
> >current mapping implies 45-degree turns which the cyclist doesn't have
> >to take - they just continue straight on. Breaking geometry to enable
> >tagging is bad in itself, misleading on renderings, and unsurprisingly
> >confuses the heck out of routers.
> >
> >How should we represent this?
> >
> >My gut feeling is that it would be better to map it as a continuous
> >highway=cycleway but with 'protected=no' for the bits where the
> >concrete
> >divider isn't there.
> >
> >Another alternative might include deleting the cycleway completely and
> >just using cycleway=track on the car road, but this seems suboptimal as
> >
> >you can't then easily apply tagging that applies distinctly to the
> >cycleway (surface, route relation membership, etc.) without lots of
> >namespacing.
> >
> >Or we could just go with highway=cycleway and no additional tagging, on
> >
> >the basis that 'unprotected' is implied by the pedestrian-crossing tags
> >
> >and the junction geometry - i.e. obviously there's no protection there
> >because we have a junction which cars can turn across.
> >
> >Any preferences?
> >
> >cheers
> >Richard
> >
> >___
> >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] Bus rapid transit: service=bus vs service=busway vs no service tag

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Mar 27, 2019, 11:29 AM by fernando.treb...@gmail.com:

> Hello,
>
> I find it strange to use highway=service without being able to add a
> service=* to specify the type of service way, but that's how most BRTs
> [1] are currently mapped, for example, TransJakarta, Bogota's
> TransMilenio, and the Metrobus systems of Mexicy City and Buenos
> Aires.
>
> I've seen service=busway applied to the ways of some BRTs [1], such as
> in Los Angeles' Orange Line and Nantes' Line 4, and its usage has been
> growing slowly, but it is not documented. On the other hand,
> service=bus is much more common, but the wiki discourages its use [2]
> since 2017, although I could not find any discussion supporting this
> change. 
>
Given that warning was reaction to page claiming that this tag must be 
added because unspecified renderer is broken I think that
no discussion was necessary to add the warning.

I edited the page now a bit.

> It seems service=bus was used to compensate for "issues with a
> routing engine" [2], but no other applications seem to support this
> value, and maybe those app-related issues no longer exist.
>
> As of 2019, what do you think is the ideal/correct way of mapping
> these bus corridors? Should service=* be avoided on them? Should
> service=busway be documented? Should service=bus be replaced with
> service=busway?
>
service=busway/bus seems OK to me (note, I am not a native speaker),
but I am not convinced that it would be very useful.

I would just set appropriate access tags.

I found also
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/368500255#map=19/50.04798/19.92933 

with

bus:lanes:backward  = designated
bus:lanes:forward = designated
psv:lanes:backward = designated
psv:lanes:forward = designated
I am not sure is it an optimal lane tagging, but in general lane tagging may be
useful here, maybe more than a new service tag (or in addition to).

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

Re: [Tagging] shop=plumber vs shop=plumbing vs shop=plumbing_supplies

[ael via Tagging]

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 09:18:52AM +1000, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > I fear confusion if it uses exactly the same tag. But maybe it could work.
> Open for any thoughts or suggestions of a better word!

The only term that crossed my mind was specialisation but that
doesn't really fit. I invented the shop=trade after a suggestion on this
list to consider subtags. Hence my concern that the re-use of trade
might be confusing. But something like
 business=trade, trade=plumbing
might work. As long as data consumers have no problems parsing that.

But perhaps business=plumbing could work and would be simpler?
I have always thought it odd that "business" was not used much as a tag.
Many of the uses of "office" seem to me to really mean "business".

That could even be 
  business=trade   trade=plumbing
if people think that business alone is to all encompassing. But it is
probably best to keep it simple.

ael


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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - leisure=inflatable_park

[Silent Spike]

My first tagging proposal, came across a few of these facilities and
figured it is best to establish a tagging for them as they're growing in
popularity:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/inflatable_park

I feel like this is a relatively self explanatory proposal and hopefully
uncontroversial. However, totally open to criticism and suggestions if
there's something I'm overlooking.

One thing I did notice while searching around is that there are locations
which mix trampoline and inflatable parks together. This proposal doesn't
address those and that's perhaps something someone more experienced could
weigh in on.

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

Re: [Tagging] Intermittently unprotected cycle track

[Tobias Zwick]

Hi Richard

I'd tag this situation with cycleway=track/lane/shared_lane on the road itself. 
I don't see the namespacing as an issue here.

The rule of thumb I (we?) use to decide whether a cycleway shall better be 
tagged as a separate way is to look if the cycleway is segregated from the road 
by more than a curb, such as scrub or a tree row. In other words, so that 
bicyclists can not simply cross onto the street at any point without a 
dedicated crossing.

Tobias 

Am 27. März 2019 11:31:18 MEZ schrieb Richard Fairhurst :
>Hi all,
>
>Let me introduce you to one of London's better cycleways:
>
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.53397/-0.00715
>https://cycle.travel/map?lat=51.5254=-0.0335=17
>
>You might look at this and think "that doesn't look like 'better' to
>me, 
>it's full of 45-degree bends". And based on OSM you would of course be 
>right.
>
>In reality it isn't full of 45-degree bends. It's a continuous straight
>
>route. But although it's mostly protected (i.e. concrete barrier 
>separating it from the car lanes), the protection gives out at
>junctions 
>and crossings, so turning traffic can cross. Here's an example 
>(apologies for Google link):
>
>https://goo.gl/maps/rFHNHdCxMCp
>
>Currently, it's mapped in OSM as a highway=cycleway for the segregated 
>bits, and then it rejoins the highway=primary road (with cycleway=lane)
>
>where the barrier gives out.
>
>This is correctish in terms of tagging but not in terms of geometry.
>The 
>current mapping implies 45-degree turns which the cyclist doesn't have 
>to take - they just continue straight on. Breaking geometry to enable 
>tagging is bad in itself, misleading on renderings, and unsurprisingly 
>confuses the heck out of routers.
>
>How should we represent this?
>
>My gut feeling is that it would be better to map it as a continuous 
>highway=cycleway but with 'protected=no' for the bits where the
>concrete 
>divider isn't there.
>
>Another alternative might include deleting the cycleway completely and 
>just using cycleway=track on the car road, but this seems suboptimal as
>
>you can't then easily apply tagging that applies distinctly to the 
>cycleway (surface, route relation membership, etc.) without lots of 
>namespacing.
>
>Or we could just go with highway=cycleway and no additional tagging, on
>
>the basis that 'unprotected' is implied by the pedestrian-crossing tags
>
>and the junction geometry - i.e. obviously there's no protection there 
>because we have a junction which cars can turn across.
>
>Any preferences?
>
>cheers
>Richard
>
>___
>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] Intermittently unprotected cycle track

[Richard Fairhurst]

Hi all,

Let me introduce you to one of London's better cycleways:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.53397/-0.00715
https://cycle.travel/map?lat=51.5254=-0.0335=17

You might look at this and think "that doesn't look like 'better' to me, 
it's full of 45-degree bends". And based on OSM you would of course be 
right.


In reality it isn't full of 45-degree bends. It's a continuous straight 
route. But although it's mostly protected (i.e. concrete barrier 
separating it from the car lanes), the protection gives out at junctions 
and crossings, so turning traffic can cross. Here's an example 
(apologies for Google link):


https://goo.gl/maps/rFHNHdCxMCp

Currently, it's mapped in OSM as a highway=cycleway for the segregated 
bits, and then it rejoins the highway=primary road (with cycleway=lane) 
where the barrier gives out.


This is correctish in terms of tagging but not in terms of geometry. The 
current mapping implies 45-degree turns which the cyclist doesn't have 
to take - they just continue straight on. Breaking geometry to enable 
tagging is bad in itself, misleading on renderings, and unsurprisingly 
confuses the heck out of routers.


How should we represent this?

My gut feeling is that it would be better to map it as a continuous 
highway=cycleway but with 'protected=no' for the bits where the concrete 
divider isn't there.


Another alternative might include deleting the cycleway completely and 
just using cycleway=track on the car road, but this seems suboptimal as 
you can't then easily apply tagging that applies distinctly to the 
cycleway (surface, route relation membership, etc.) without lots of 
namespacing.


Or we could just go with highway=cycleway and no additional tagging, on 
the basis that 'unprotected' is implied by the pedestrian-crossing tags 
and the junction geometry - i.e. obviously there's no protection there 
because we have a junction which cars can turn across.


Any preferences?

cheers
Richard

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

[Tagging] Bus rapid transit: service=bus vs service=busway vs no service tag

[Fernando Trebien]

Hello,

I find it strange to use highway=service without being able to add a
service=* to specify the type of service way, but that's how most BRTs
[1] are currently mapped, for example, TransJakarta, Bogota's
TransMilenio, and the Metrobus systems of Mexicy City and Buenos
Aires.

I've seen service=busway applied to the ways of some BRTs [1], such as
in Los Angeles' Orange Line and Nantes' Line 4, and its usage has been
growing slowly, but it is not documented. On the other hand,
service=bus is much more common, but the wiki discourages its use [2]
since 2017, although I could not find any discussion supporting this
change. It seems service=bus was used to compensate for "issues with a
routing engine" [2], but no other applications seem to support this
value, and maybe those app-related issues no longer exist.

As of 2019, what do you think is the ideal/correct way of mapping
these bus corridors? Should service=* be avoided on them? Should
service=busway be documented? Should service=bus be replaced with
service=busway?

Regards,

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit
[2] Currently, the warning message is not displayed on mobile
browsers: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service%3Dbus

-- 
Fernando Trebien

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

Re: [Tagging] Horse mounting steps

[Hufkratzer]

On 27.03.2019 07:37, Warin wrote:

[...]
I'd still call it a 'mounting block' ... no steps in the name so it 
can be a ramp or, in your case, a platform. Add wheelchair=yes and a 
description=* tag ???


+1, in wikipedia it's also called 'mounting block', see 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mounting_block.


But isn't it too primitive to be an amenity? What about 
animal=mounting_block? We have animal=horse_walker.


I assume only stationary (fixed, heavy) mountoing blocks should be 
tagged. Many other objects (e.g. old tractor tires) can be used to mount 
a horse and could otherwise be tagged as a mounting block. AFAIK most 
mounting blocks/steps used in riding centres are light and movable and 
therefore not relevant here.


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

Re: [Tagging] Horse mounting steps

[Warin]

On 27/03/19 08:36, Kevin Kenny wrote:

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 4:37 PM Dave F via Tagging
 wrote:

Hi
https://snag.gy/3jSyt7.jpgSteps provided so that a rider can climb back on. Any 
ideas?  Could find anything in Taginfo or wiki
https://snag.gy/mwYNd6.jpghttps://snag.gy/mwYNd6.jpgamenity/leisure=horse_mount,
 maybe.

https://snag.gy/mwYNd6.jpg

This example is provided at a road/bridleway crossing where the rider can 
dismount if required.

I have the same question - here's one on a mountaintop, which is set
up so that persons with moderate to severe mobility impairments can
mount a horse from a wheelchair and visit that mountain.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/8021783729/

Without the platforms and bridle path, it's inaccessible to anyone
other than relatively fit hikers. (It's about a 13 km hike, with maybe
700 m of elevation gain.)

I don't think I'd label this a 'mounting block' but I have no idea
what to call it.


I'd still call it a 'mounting block' ... no steps in the name so it can be a 
ramp or, in your case, a platform. Add wheelchair=yes and a description=* tag 
???



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