Re: [Tagging] Tagging a site with "Luxury Lodges"

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 5:03 PM Peter Neale via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> > I'm just amused that staying in a trailer park is considered a high end
> > tourism/glamping experience in the UK instead of a cheap form of
> permanent
> > housing.  Granted, my exposure to this phenomenon is limited to this
> thread
> > and Damn Dog Games covering Furcation 2018 on YouTube.
>
> We have to remember that they were characterised as "Luxury" by the people
> trying to sell them at £190,000!  I was not proposing to tag them with
> "quality=luxury" Ha Ha!
>

I suppose if the alternative is, say, camping in my pickup truck, then
yeah, a mobile home is relatively high end luxury.  But, you know, I mean,
just a quick Google converts that to US$242,000.  For that kind of money, I
could get 2-4 single family homes that exceed local tornado building
codes.  I suppose I should be flattered that rich people consider American
poverty luxury or something, but, that's like, the weirdest possible flex
ever.  I mean, again, I was laughing a bit when Corey Coyote on Damn Dog
Games was saying they were going to a camping con, and it appears to be in
a "vacation resort" that, in America, would be probably most generously
called "a well-maintained blue-collar trailer park", and Corey's reaction
is that (at least from his UK exposure) it is.  Though I'm pretty sure my
MIL has the same floorplan, and well, it's probably generously a $20,000
trailer on a $400/mo space.  Sure, it had a community center and a pool,
but, hey, any relatively decent trailer park that isn't on a floodplain
does.


> I would like to tag them as some form of leisure facility, because they
> are supposed to be used intermittently for weekends / holidays.  However, I
> also understand the idea of "tag what you see".
>

I'd probably tag the site itself as a caravan site, especially if they let
you bring your own caravan.  The midwestern US seems to have a lot of
trailer parks that have a genuine mix of RVs (caravans) and mobile
homes/manufactured homes.  At least locally, both fall under the category
of vehicles (my MIL's place has a current license plate mounted on the back
as required by state law, even though it hasn't moved in 20 years and I'm
about 85% sure it doesn't have wheels and definitely wouldn't survive
making it to the street, much less down it)


> Out of interest, I looked up the planning permission granted for the site.
> It is for a number of "caravans", which can only be occupied for 11 months
> of the year.  Originally, this was 8 months, but it was later increased.
> One "caravan" (for the site manager) can be occupied all year, but the
> owner is now applying for permission for 9 of them to be occupied all year
> (with no real justification - IMHO)
>

Honestly if these "caravans" are mobile homes, there's no reason they can't
be occupied until they fall apart.


> It seems that the local community do not want a permanent development
> there, but the owner (selling them at £190,000 per plot, remember) wants to
> turn them from caravans into permanent bungalows.
>

I'd honestly want to see him pass a 15 panel drug test asking that much.
Especially if he's retaining rights to the land it's on (typical in the US,
you might own the mobile home but the land below it could be an entirely
different story).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table - self referencing description

[Warin]

On 25/05/19 18:58, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 25. May 2019, at 09:35, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

Key:baby_changing_table Definition: Provides a place for changing the 
nappy/diaper of babies or young children.

Pedantic hat on.

Self references:
babies ... plural  of baby
changing - repeated


the proposed key is changing_table not baby changing table, no self reference


Arr reference the wrong page ... my error. (Told you so :) )

Correct page is 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/changing_table






'Provides' not needed.
--- What I would do?
Delete Provides.
Change 'changing' to 'replacing'
delete 'babies' and add description to young children of 'very'



actually “provides” is needed here: we are not going to tag the changing table 
itself with this tag, rather we will be tagging that a feature (like a 
restaurant, a shop, a museum, a bathroom or a cafe) provides a changing table.


Then it does not need 'a place' ...

"A place for replacing the nappy/diaper of very young children."

Could become "Provides for replacing the nappy/diaper of very young children."

Chose one or the other but not both?




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

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

[Warin]

I would not be worried about excluding some things from a clarified definition 
of sport.

I would have a new key for those excluded .. say 'recreation' that can be non 
competitive, non physical.

Renders can then chose to show them the same way as 'sports' or not - their 
choice, at the moment they don't have that information.

But first .. the definition of 'sport' needs clarification ... what should be 
the OSM definition of sport?

Should it exclude non competitive things .. like riding a bicycle to 
work/shops? Or should it include leisure activities like swimming at a beach?

I would chose type B - competition and practice for competition only.


Note that sport is a sub tag for a place/area that has the infrastructure to 
support that sport, the sport tag says what sport is supported at that tagged 
place e.g. a pitch, recreation_ground, etc. As such the sport tag does not in 
it self define the place. A problem is that some sport tags are used without 
that infrastructure support tag .. probably because there is no permanent 
infrastructure support there... if those should be in OSM or not I'll leave for 
another discussion!


On 26/05/19 06:52, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 25. May 2019, at 22:40, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:

I wanted to explicitly document
that it is ok and that it does not matter
that it is not fitting some definitions
of word "sport"


it does fit the definition of sport being competitive, even if no competitions 
are held there.

Cheers, Martin




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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a site with "Luxury Lodges"

[Peter Neale via Tagging]

Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 20:42:24 -0500
From: Paul Johnson 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
    
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging a site with "Luxury Lodges"
Message-ID:
    
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 6:24 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

>> I personally would not tag a >20 foot wide manufactured home as a static
>> caravan

Agreed
> I'm just amused that staying in a trailer park is considered a high end
> tourism/glamping experience in the UK instead of a cheap form of permanent
> housing.  Granted, my exposure to this phenomenon is limited to this thread
> and Damn Dog Games covering Furcation 2018 on YouTube.

We have to remember that they were characterised as "Luxury" by the people 
trying to sell them at £190,000!  I was not proposing to tag them with 
"quality=luxury" Ha Ha!
>> I thought that building=static_caravan was meant for (single-wide)
>> trailers / “mobile homes” without permanent foundations, since these could
>> still be moved without demolishing a foundation or breaking the building
>> into pieces.
> I would tend to agree.  Or like the situation I was in for a few years in
> the middle of this decade where it's *literally* a caravan that is
> permanently parked.  I've not exactly considered them permanent enough to
> warrant tagging (even though the specific one I lived in for a few years is
> still parked in the exact same spot it was when I lived there, and I
> legitimately question whether or not the landing gear is actually capable
> of retracting or the brakes releasing if they even wanted to move it at
> this point, since I believe it's sat on the same spot all but the first two
> years after it was built).  I consider "mobile home" and "manufactured
> home" to be synonymous.

>> If a manufactured home is placed on a permanent foundation, on land that is
>> owned rather than rented, then it is just a different way of building a
>> house, no?
> I would classify a mobile/manufactured home as a permanent building,
> whether or not the owner took the wheels off and built a foundation.
> Entire multistorey buildings are only slightly less likely to ever move
> again than mobile homes, and about as likely to survive transport (based on
> Mercy Hospital Joplin being picked up and moved around 3 meters by a
> tornado a few years ago, and seeing old mobile homes being moved; in both
> cases the only real next stop is a garbage dump).

Agreed.  
>> Similarly, a fancy modern house or apartment building might be built out of
>> prefab modules or modified shipping containers.
>
>> I’d say the defining difference is whether or not there is a permanent
>> foundation
> I think that's not a bad starting place, though I'd be willing to call any
> mobile home not rigged up for immediate tow to be a permanent structure.
> See also: Portable classrooms.  The leaky, 20 year old one I went to 6th
> grade in (along with it's sister unit that was planted immediately
> adjacent, scheduled to be removed "any year now" back in the 90s) is now
> about 45 years old, basically a black mold lawsuit waiting to happen and
> still in daily use back in Portland.

I would like to tag them as some form of leisure facility, because they are 
supposed to be used intermittently for weekends / holidays.  However, I also 
understand the idea of "tag what you see".
Out of interest, I looked up the planning permission granted for the site. It 
is for a number of "caravans", which can only be occupied for 11 months of the 
year.  Originally, this was 8 months, but it was later increased.  One 
"caravan" (for the site manager) can be occupied all year, but the owner is now 
applying for permission for 9 of them to be occupied all year (with no real 
justification - IMHO) 

It seems that the local community do not want a permanent development there, 
but the owner (selling them at £190,000 per plot, remember) wants to turn them 
from caravans into permanent bungalows. 
Anyway, I have now tagged the individual structures as "bungalow"s and the site 
as "Residential".
Thanks to all who have  taken the time to contribute and assist.
Peter
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 


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

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 24. May 2019, at 23:35, Nick Bolten  wrote:
> 
> > crossing=traffic_signals – there are explicit traffic signals that tell 
> > pedestrians when to stop. There are very likely road markings, but even if 
> > not, the absence of road markings, in the presence of actual traffic 
> > signals, is irrelevant for how this crossing operates.
> 
> I think the other definitions match up with the wiki (though they are more 
> specific here than there).
> 
> What does it mean for a crossing to operate and why would ground markings be 
> irrelevant?


The zebra markings at traffic lights might be a fallback for when the lights 
are turned off or not operating regularly (e.g. blinking yellow light)


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

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 24. May 2019, at 22:10, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> OK, so let me ask this.  Do zebra stripes on their own have any legal 
> significance?  Can
> you have zebra stripes without lights or are they only ever present with 
> lights?
> 
> If you can have zebra stripes without lights that mean something different to 
> zebra stripes
> with lights, that could be a problem for the blind.


in Italy it is also common to have zebra markings at traffic light controlled 
crossings. The markings indicate the space which pedestrians can use.
Generally, zebra markings often require also vertical signs in order to be 
legally zebra crossings (e.g. in Germany always and in Italy if it is not in 
proximity of a junction).

Using a different kind of markings could eventually make a difference in case 
the traffic lights are turned off.

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

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 25. May 2019, at 22:40, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> I wanted to explicitly document
> that it is ok and that it does not matter
> that it is not fitting some definitions
> of word "sport"


it does fit the definition of sport being competitive, even if no competitions 
are held there.

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

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

[Mateusz Konieczny]

25 May 2019, 21:38 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 25. May 2019, at 20:57, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/169286212 
>> 
>> that are used solely for climbing not done as competitions
>>
>
>
> there are lots of the features with sport tags not used for any competitions. 
>
I know and I agree that it is ok tagging.

I wanted to explicitly document
that it is ok and that it does not matter
that it is not fitting some definitions
of word "sport"___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

some activities can be sport or not, depending on the context, and it will 
eventually be on the mapper to decide.

For example dancing can be practiced as a sport or for leisure, both in 
dedicated places and elsewhere. (similarly swimming may be close to bathing in 
some context). We will not be tagging any dance venue as sport=dancing (I 
think), but this doesn’t imply dancing is not a sport.

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

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 25. May 2019, at 20:57, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/169286212
> that are used solely for climbing not done as competitions


there are lots of the features with sport tags not used for any competitions. 
The sports tag (property) is even used on shops for example. The concept of 
“competitions” was introduced in the context of defining “sport”, but once 
something is accepted as sports value it doesn’t serve any purpose.  

You could see any places where a sport is practiced but no competitions are 
held, as “training” (potentially for competitions).

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

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 19:59, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

I thought about cases like
>
> (1)
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/169286212
> that are used solely for climbing not done as competitions
>

You're counting that as sport usage and I'm not disputing that.  But
climbing can also
be competitive.  So saying that you're not restricting sport=* to
competitive sports
so as not to exclude climbing, which can also be competitive, is not a
great example.
Yes, some people may only know of non-competitive climbing and think your
example
is fine.  But some will know of competitive climbing and wonder why you
chose that
example.

That said, I'm not sure that there is any sport (as you have currently
defined it) which is never
performed competitively.  Anything where there is a performance metric of
some sort can be
competitive: longer, harder, faster, more stylishly, whatever.  To bring it
back to the original
question, competitive juggling exists.

Even if competitions are rare, they may happen.  Or if competitions have
never happened in
a particular sporting activity, they could happen in the future.  Even if a
sport is never
performed competitively in one location, if it is performed competitively
at some other location then
it's still a sport even by the latest definition (I'm not complaining about
that logical conclusion).

I'm leaning towards the conclusion that it is better to just say that an
activity doesn't have to be
performed competitively to be considered a sport, but that's probably going
to open things up
too much.  It's a sport if it COULD be performed competitively?  Not much
better.  I'm not sure
we can lock this one down well enough to satisfy everyone.  It's an "I know
it when I see it" thing,
which goes against the principle of verifiability.

Maybe we just go with a sport being whatever one or more people says is a
sport, but we only
map it if there's a designated place to perform it.  Which brings back the
cycleway problem.

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

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

[Mateusz Konieczny]

25 May 2019, 20:40 by pla16...@gmail.com:

> On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 19:34, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>
>> Modified to "
>> Limit to physical activity only would exclude for example 
>> {{tag|sport|chess}}. 
>> Limiting to competitions only would exclude many cases of correctly used 
>> {{tag|sport|climbing}} that nevertheless is not done as part of competitions.
>> "
>>
>
> Sadly, neither the old nor new definition exclude synchronized swimming.
>
> More seriously, there are climbing competitions.  So not a good example to 
> use as
> a reason for not excluding non-competitive sports.  Maybe somebody can think 
> of
> a more suitable example (I can't).
>
I thought about cases like 

(1)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/169286212 

that are used solely for climbing not done as competitions

or

(2)
things like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/335392750#map=19/50.06098/19.91627
that are similar to 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kurpark_Oberlaa_63_-_climbing_wall.jpg 


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Childrens_playground_climbing_structure_built_to_resemble_rocks.jpg
 


I think that both (1) and (2) are correct usage of sport=climbing (note that
leisure=pitch sport=soccer includes not only stadiums where superstars play but
also pitches in small villages where there is not enough children to even form 
two 11
player teams, I think that such leisure=pitch sport=climbing is also OK).

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

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 19:34, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

Modified to "
> Limit to physical activity only would exclude for example
> {{tag|sport|chess}}.
> Limiting to competitions only would exclude many cases of correctly used
> {{tag|sport|climbing}} that nevertheless is not done as part of
> competitions.
> "
>

Sadly, neither the old nor new definition exclude synchronized swimming.

More seriously, there are climbing competitions.  So not a good example to
use as
a reason for not excluding non-competitive sports.  Maybe somebody can
think of
a more suitable example (I can't).

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

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

[Mateusz Konieczny]

25 May 2019, 00:20 by graemefi...@gmail.com:

> On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 02:10, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com 
> > > wrote: 
>
>> This would exclude for example {{tag|sport|chess}} or {{tag|sport|climbing}}
>> not done as part of competitions.
>>
>
> How about the World Chess Championships? > 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_2018 
> 
>
Modified to "
Limit to physical activity only would exclude for example {{tag|sport|chess}}. 
Limiting to competitions only would exclude many cases of correctly used 
{{tag|sport|climbing}} that nevertheless is not done as part of competitions.
"

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

Re: [Tagging] Constructive communication medium (was:Filter bubbles in OSM)

[Mateusz Konieczny]

25 May 2019, 17:44 by f...@zz.de:

> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 02:28:45AM +0200, Tobias Zwick wrote:
>
>>
>> 1. Thesis: Mailing lists (and to a lesser degree, classical forums) promote 
>> a culture of dissent.
>>
>
> I strongly disagree here. How can a technical form of communication
> make a "culture of dissent"?
>
Some forums, slack allow you to
add +1 to a comment in acceptable
nonspammy way without changing 
visibility of content [1]
As result with opinion that is shared
by 20 people and one opponent you may get:

On forum with upvotes enabled:

1 opposing reply
20 "xyz liked this post"

On mailing list:

1 opposing reply

For many second is much more frustrating
than the first one.
> From a sociological point i would assume that people on the mailinglist
> are by average 10 Years older than people on Slack or the Forum. Thats
> just a matter of history of technology.
>
That is probably also an 
important factor, there are likely also
other confounders.

[1] allowing upvotes/downvotes to
affect content visibility results in
other group of unwanted effects___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Constructive communication medium (was:Filter bubbles in OSM)

[Florian Lohoff]

On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 02:28:45AM +0200, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> 
> 1. Thesis: Mailing lists (and to a lesser degree, classical forums) promote a 
> culture of dissent.

I strongly disagree here. How can a technical form of communication
make a "culture of dissent"?

Can you elaborate why you think Mail as a form of communication
is different in making a compromise possible than IRC, Slack
or a Forum?

From a sociological point i would assume that people on the mailinglist
are by average 10 Years older than people on Slack or the Forum. Thats
just a matter of history of technology.

So in the end its not "Mailing lists" but age which make you believe
you have a culture of dissent? 

Flo

PS: I will not participate in a Forum. It turns the responsibilities
for around. You suddenly have the obligation to POLL on threads.
-- 
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] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

[Mateusz Konieczny]

24 May 2019, 22:25 by osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au:

>> Does any of this change in a jurisdiction where there is an implied
>> crossing at every intersection unless posted otherwise?
>>
>
> Such purely implied crossings would be crossing=unmarked, and under the "do 
> not map local legislation" rule, I would only map them if they have a 
> physical presence (e.g. lowered kerbs).
>
Or where sidewalks are mapped separately from road as highway=footway___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

[Mateusz Konieczny]

25 May 2019, 00:36 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

> I think it is way too soon to summarize  a discussion that started less 
> than 1 week ago. 
>
I am open to amending it.
Can you propose some specific changes?
(I am not fan of participating in discussions that end with noimpact 
whatsoever, without even documenting disagreement
and I try to change this)
>  If definition C is accepted then:
>  
>  Bicycle riding is an accepted 'sport'. Riding my bicycle is then a  
> 'sport', as I do it on roads and cycleways around me I can then  tag 
> these as sport=bicycle. 
>
If you feel that someone may really
make such edits in a good faith - feel free to document it that it is not how 
sport
key is used.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

[Mateusz Konieczny]

24 May 2019, 23:41 by nbol...@gmail.com:

> > What sort of feature gets tagged crossing=no? Does one draw a line or node 
> > to represent the footway that isn't there?
>
> Personally, I've tagged crossing=no on ways either when it's illegal (there's 
> a sign saying no crossing)
>
I add also access=no to such ways (as
it is illegal to enter it) and add 
crossing=no on node where it crosses
with road (or railway).

I map such objects where path with
Illegal crossing is present,
mostly to protect mistaken mapping
from aerial images.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

[Mateusz Konieczny]

24 May 2019, 23:43 by nbol...@gmail.com:

> > AFAIK once traffic lights are present markings are not changing anything 
> > (and crossing with traffic lights without markings are really rare, I 
> > suspect that almost always result of worn-out
> painting or recent surface reconstruction).
>
> Change anything for whom?
>
Legal status/right of way as far as 
pedestrians and drivers on the road 
are concerned.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

[Nick Bolten]

> Which seems to be precisely the opposite of how most people interpret it.

Which is very bad, because those people are all diametrically opposed to
the wiki definition that, for all its problems, been around for about a
decade. To me, this says that there is likely a lot of bad data out there.

I'm going to skip the remaining, "markings don't change the interaction"
claims given they've already been addressed.

> Worth mapping for the benefit of the visually impaired, but not by
redefining current usage.

It can't be mapped under current usage. "Worth mapping" implies fixing this
tag.

> So then we need
marked_and_not_controlled_by_lights and marked_but_controlled_by_lights.
Which is fine, as long as you don't redefine current usage, because that
would cause major problems if it went through (which it almost certainly
would not).

Those tag values would be redundant with and surely deprecate
traffic_signals.

> Explain how your proposal would significantly reduce errors

It's in the wiki under the proposal. I also walked through it twice in my
response.

> Aerial mapping a new crossing with
stripes is going to result in a marked crossing either way.

Nope. If it has pedestrian signals, which marked crossings clearly can, the
current schema calls for it to be described with crossing=traffic_signals,
which erases marking information. Look at imagery outside of the UK or some
of the examples posted in other threads. And if someone maps
crossing=uncontrolled from aerial imagery of a crossing based on ground
markings, the crossing tag is set, so that crossing won't be "fixed"
through usual QA or quests based on missing data.

> Currently if I edit an existing
crossing because I see stripes in aerial imagery I see from the tag list
that it's already been marked as having lights and would have to change
that to being uncontrolled, so I do further checks (has the type of
crossing changed, can light-controlled crossings have stripes in this
jurisdiction).

The example I've given is the case where a mapper is creating a new
crossing: they're armchair mapping and can identify the markings, but
signals are hard to gauge from an aerial view.

In this case, the crossing has already been mapped. If they are truly using
the schema I've proposed, they've set crossing:signals=yes. If they set
crossing=marked as well, it doesn't erase the crossing:signals tag and data
consumers have sufficient data to present appropriate information to any
user. If we're still using crossing=traffic_signals for some reason, then
that would be an argument for using crossing:markings: don't erase
information.

> Wikipedia?  > Like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian_crossing  It
makes a distinction between signalized and unsignalized crossings.

This doesn't disagree with anything I said.

> The tag values are unclear and misleading without referring to the
documentation, which is the case of many tags, but this is how most people
interpret matters (...)

Hard disagree. If we went solely by the various responses in these threads,
I would say there is no majority opinion on their use. Example: the
definitions recently endorsed by Thorsten and yourself explicitly disagree
with the wiki because they keep involving legal right of way.

> That is the current usage, and the current implication of the wiki;
redefining it would cause big problems.

Let's look at what redefinition would be: taking tags created under one
impression of the tag's meaning and then everyone else wholesale declaring
that it now means something else. This is actually what is implied by the
wide variety of definitions we've seen in these discussions. People are
redefining each others' tags all over the place, reinterpreting what
"uncontrolled" means entirely separately from the wiki.

My proposals do the opposite: they create new tags with clearer meanings
and don't touch the old data. Addressing the mass of "bad schema" data is
left to regionally-specific efforts that could range from tasked reviews
(probably a good idea in many places, given the diversity of
interpretations of the current schema) to machine edits (something I could
certainly justify for my area).

> Suppose we wanted to replace landuse=grass with landcover=grass. (...) It
would require a mass edit (...)

It wouldn't. It could be used in some cases, but is not necessary. It's not
even appropriate if the tag being fixed was ambiguous because that calls
for manual review. There are many other tools at our disposal beyond
machine edits. MapRoulette, Street complete, a variety of QA tools. I could
create an OSM tasking manager instance to split up work in a particular
area.

Data consumers that can make sense of the current schema for pedestrians
(haven't seen one yet) can keep interpreting the old data as best they can.
They can support both during a transition, because there actually isn't any
redefinition.

> On 2.5 million POIs, that's not going to happen.

Yes, it is. That number is less impressive 

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 15:29, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

In Poland crossing with traffic signals
> works in the same way no matter whether
> markings are present, and it is extremely rare
> for markings to be missing where crossing have traffic lights.
>

Thanks for the clarification.

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

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

[Nick Bolten]

> Here we seem to be in fundamental disagreement.  A crossing with traffic
signals is a crossing with traffic signals independent of road markings

These proposals are literally to tag these things independently.

> the interaction of pedestrians and traffic is
determined by the status of the lights.

I've given examples for how it isn't actually solely determined by the
lights. I'll give them again.

- The delineated area of a crossing is often protected: it dictates a place
that cars shall not stop.

- Interactions go beyond right of way and signals: marking existence,
styles and their location relative to signals impact pedestrian safety.

Other impacts that are, luckily, already in their own tags:

- Audible signals for pedestrians to cross/not cross.

- Stop lines.

> Yes, it's of interest that in some areas a crossing controlled by lights
also has road markings but, unless you can show a case that those markings
make it a different type of crossing, they're cosmetic enhancements.

I'm confused. I thought we weren't going to go argue about what "controls"
things, as that's a legal construct.

I think it's good to stop thinking of crossings as types, as this is not a
globally-relevant concept. The UK has its variously-named crossings (which
now live in crossing_ref if you want to tag that) that tie together
right-of-way, controls, markings, APSs, etc, almost all of the rest of the
world doesn't. This is, in theory, why OSM deprecated those tags so long
ago. Unfortunately, the attempted solution was deeply flawed.

> I have yet to see anyone present a case where the presence or absence of
road markings at a
crossing controlled by traffic signals requires different behaviour by
either pedestrians or
traffic.

These have been offered many times. Though, again, I thought we weren't
arguing about controls.

> Road markings alone is a more difficult.case because different
jurisdictions assign different
behaviours to them.  But an important characteristic is that there are no
traffic lights.

Great, so let's map those things in separate tags.

> Acid test: explain to a child how to cross the road.  It is going to be
along the lines of "At this type of crossing you wait for the green signal
(or whatever) before you cross."  and "At this type of crossing there are
no lights, you behave in this (country-specific) way."

The use of signaled crossings also varies by regional statute. Visitors to
the UK are often confused about how to use all of the crossings, including
pelican crossings. There are, for example, pelican crossings that make the
little green person blink as a warning to not enter the intersection. This
is not how it works in other countries. For example, in my area, a similar
warning is a flashing, "do not walk" message.

> Does the presence or absence of those road markings fundamentally change
the interaction between pedestrian and traffic?

Arguing the semantics of fundamentally is going to be even worse than
"controlled", but I've given examples of how it impacts it many times.

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

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

[Mateusz Konieczny]

25 May 2019, 14:20 by pla16...@gmail.com:
> I have yet to see anyone present a case where the presence or absence of road 
> markings at a
> crossing controlled by traffic signals requires different behaviour by either 
> pedestrians or
> traffic.  Perhaps such cases exist (Poland is a possibility, awaiting 
> clarification) but until then
> the defining characteristic is that the lights tell pedestrians and motorists 
> what to do.
>
In Poland crossing with traffic signals
works in the same way no matter whether
markings are present, and it is extremely rare
for markings to be missing where crossing have traffic lights.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 08:03, Nick Bolten  wrote:
> What do you mean by a crossing with traffic signals AND with road
markings?

>
> Status quo, per the wiki: tag with crossing=traffic_signals,
> hiding/erasing any information about markings that would be communicated in
> other values.
>
> Under the new proposals: tag with crossing=marked (or
> crossing:markings=yes if it ends up the proposal) and crossing:signals=yes.
>

Here we seem to be in fundamental disagreement.  A crossing with traffic
signals is a crossing
with traffic signals independent of road markings: the interaction of
pedestrians and traffic is
determined by the status of the lights.  At a crossing with only markings
the interaction of pedestrians
and traffic is determined by the markings.  Traffic regulations for the one
say that the behaviour
of pedestrians and traffic is controlled by the lights; traffic regulations
for the other says that the
behaviour is controlled by the road markings.

Please let's not drift off into semantic arguments about "controlled."
Ultimately it's all about
traffic regulations and ultimately laws do not control behaviour as people
can, and do, break
those laws.  Maybe we should be talking about "passive" and "active"
instead.  Or signalized
and unsignalized.

Yes, it's of interest that in some areas a crossing controlled by lights
also has road markings but,
unless you can show a case that those markings make it a different type of
crossing, they're
cosmetic enhancements.   And yes, I understand that those "cosmetic"
enhancements may be
important to those with visual impairment, and worth mapping for that
reason, but they do not
significantly change what type of crossing it is.  Don't get hung up on
"cosmetic" implying
"trivial" or "insignificant" - I'm not saying that, I'm saying they don't
change the fundamental
type of crossing or the way pedestrians and traffic are supposed to
interact in a given jurisdiction.

I have yet to see anyone present a case where the presence or absence of
road markings at a
crossing controlled by traffic signals requires different behaviour by
either pedestrians or
traffic.  Perhaps such cases exist (Poland is a possibility, awaiting
clarification) but until then
the defining characteristic is that the lights tell pedestrians and
motorists what to do.

Road markings alone is a more difficult.case because different
jurisdictions assign different
behaviours to them.  But an important characteristic is that there are no
traffic lights.  In the
UK, pedestrians have right of way at such crossings.  In other countries
they may serve purely
to warn motorists to be more cautious about pedestrians attempting to cross
there.  It is
debatable whether this should be handled as auxiliary tags
(pedestrian_right_of_way=yes/no)
or (as with many tags) it is something we don't map because we try to avoid
mapping
legislation and instead say "It's a marked (unsignalized) crossing, it's up
to you to figure out what
that means in this particular jurisdiction."

Acid test: explain to a child how to cross the road.  It is going to be
along the lines of "At this type
of crossing you wait for the green signal (or whatever) before you cross."
and "At this type of
crossing there are no lights, you behave in this (country-specific) way."
I have yet to see anyone
say that "At this type of crossing you wait for the green signal UNLESS
there are these road
markings, in which case it's completely different."  If that is the case
somewhere in the world
then we'll have to find a way of mapping it.


> > Have you ever seen a crossing with lights AND zebra stripes?  Which of
> the two takes
> precedence?
>
> Neither. They are separate properties of the crossing and can communicate
> different information. We can describe the number of lanes a street has as
> well as it's speed limit without having to decide which takes precedent,
> let's use that same idea for crossings.
>

Does the presence or absence of those road markings fundamentally change
the interaction between
pedestrian and traffic?  Can we say "This crossing with lights is of type X
because it has road
markings and that crossing with lights is of type Y because it doesn't have
road markings; the
behaviour at X and Y crossings differs in these significant ways"?

> However, if you include the zig-zag lines before and after the crossing
> (...)
>
> Maybe the proposal should be updated to be even clearer: a marked crossing
> is one where the pedestrian crossing space is, specifically, visibly
> outlined with designated markings.
>

Which seems to be precisely the opposite of how most people interpret it.
For me, at least, the
visible outlining is cosmetic because it doesn't alter the rules of
engagement between pedestrian
traffic.  Worth mapping for the benefit of the visually impaired, but not
by redefining current usage.
Current usage has marked crossings meaning "not controlled by lights."  So
then we need
marked_and_not_controlled_by_lights and 

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

[Simon Poole]

Am 25.05.2019 um 12:48 schrieb osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au:
>
> Yes, but that’s not the point.
>
>  
>
> The presence or absence of markings do not change the fundamental
> operating principle of the crossing (go only when it’s green).
>
>  
>
> The strips shown in the image you linked do not mean that pedestrians
> have priority here and can just walk across any time, no matter what
> the signal says.
>
>  
>
> The crossing would work exactly the same with and without these strips.
>
Not if the lights are not running/blinking (as is the case with the
specific example outside of rushhours iirc) then the legal semantics are
the same as if there are no lights.

>  
>
>  
>
> *From:*Simon Poole 
> *Sent:* Saturday, 25 May 2019 20:25
> *To:* tagging@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals:
> crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Am 25.05.2019 um 02:18 schrieb Paul Allen:
>
>  
>
> +1 for "mutually exclusive."  Except, perhaps, in Poland.  I'm
> still waiting for an answer on that one.
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Traffic signal controlled crossings with markings (including stripes
> of some colour) exist (not claiming that they are "common") at least
> all over central Europe (as pointed out in one of the contributions a
> couple of 100 postings back, they will typically control the vehicle
> traffic too). Random example
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/sp8962de?menu=false=photo=47.4040085=8.3944280902=15.17281376123384=true=zL2pXJc6T_RffQheFsdbYA
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM

[Silent Spike]

On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 12:39 AM Frederik Ramm 
wrote:

> There are many reasons why someone could be disappointed by this mailing
> list, or by tagging discussions in general, and decide to stop
> participating.
>


The way you write it above, however, sounds like you're assigning blame,
> in precisely the disparaging way that Andy has pointed to in his other
> message - you seem to be saying "I'm done with this lot, I don't like
> the people here".
>


It would be helpful if people could refrain from making general
> hand-wavy statements about mailing lists somehow being unworthy of their
> time.


Hey Frederik,

I have no issue with discussion on the mailing list being a challenging
process of refining proposals and ideas. I agree that the interests of
tagging development necessitate this (although I do think analysis
paralysis is very much an issue). It's just the same as any open source
development, ideas are out there for all to see and criticism is expected
and welcomed.

That's what I'm here for though, not multiple threads in a single day full
of thinly veiled personal attacks and projection. It does make me want to
unsubscribe from the mailing list and I simply intended to share my
experience in support of the points Nick had made about the atmosphere
driving users away.

Your final paragraph is interesting to me, it suggests that change isn't
possible in the vein of "if tagging discussion isn't for you, go somewhere
else". I don't believe that's quite what you intended to say, but I've
slept on it now and that's actually what I'm going to do anyway. See you
guys in the changesets! 


On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 12:39 AM Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 25.05.19 01:12, Silent Spike wrote:
> > In support of Nick's points above, reading many of the discussions on
> > this mailing list today has me just about ready to unsubscribe.
>
> There are many reasons why someone could be disappointed by this mailing
> list, or by tagging discussions in general, and decide to stop
> participating.
>
> The way you write it above, however, sounds like you're assigning blame,
> in precisely the disparaging way that Andy has pointed to in his other
> message - you seem to be saying "I'm done with this lot, I don't like
> the people here".
>
> It would be helpful if people could refrain from making general
> hand-wavy statements about mailing lists somehow being unworthy of their
> time.
>
> For example, if you have a complex idea like e.g. the "disputed
> boundaries" that we discussed a while ago, you need to bring a
> combination of skills to the table to succeed:
>
> * You need the understanding and experience in OSM to create a workable
> proposal.
>
> * You need clarity of thought and the ability to express your idea
> clearly, even to people who are not native speakers of English (or you
> might yourself not be).
>
> * You need diplomatic or political skills to find compromise, to get
> others to support your idea, and the willingness to iterate again and
> again.
>
> * and a lot of patience!
>
> This can be a demanding process and not everyone is cut out for it. Of
> 10 who attempt it, perhaps one succeeds and the others throw in the
> towel and even stop participating altogether. It would be sad, and a
> little disingenuous, if these people were then running around telling
> everyone how shite the tagging list is just because they didn't get
> their proposal through on the first attempt.
>
> And the same happens on smaller scales of course. You could be
> suggesting something and be faced with the opinions of people from the
> other side of the globe, for whom what you suggest is outlandish, or of
> people who live nearby but whose vision of OSM could not be more
> different than your own.
>
> I'm sure the communications can be improved in many ways, but even if
> everyone were super respectful, all this would still be *hard* and
> taxing and many people would leave because they just don't have the
> patience that decision making in a large, international group of
> volunteers with minimal authoritarianism takes. Ask anyone who's working
> at the EU or the UN...
>
> I think OSM on the whole should be welcoming for everyone, in that
> everyone can find a place where they can make a useful contribution. But
> I doubt that this mailing list, or any body that discusses tagging, can
> ever be built in a way that everyone feels happy to contribute.
>
> So please, if you feel your talent is better applied to other areas of
> OSM, just do it - that's great. There's no need for a "sour grapes"
> approach because you found that tagging discussions were not for you.
>
> 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 mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 25. May 2019, at 11:01, Markus  wrote:
> 
> . I think it makes more sense to tag lakes or coastlines
> accordingly if swimming is not allowed or if the water is polluted.


swimming=no (or similar ) in case it is forbidden surely makes sense.
It is also the mostly used value:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/swimming#values

adding sport=swimming to any waterbody where you might enter seems overkill, 
using it for dedicated swimming facilities or unexpected places where people 
actually do it, is at the discretion of the mapper.


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

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

[osm.tagging]

Yes, but that’s not the point.

 

The presence or absence of markings do not change the fundamental operating 
principle of the crossing (go only when it’s green).

 

The strips shown in the image you linked do not mean that pedestrians have 
priority here and can just walk across any time, no matter what the signal says.

 

The crossing would work exactly the same with and without these strips.

 

 

From: Simon Poole  
Sent: Saturday, 25 May 2019 20:25
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: 
crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

 

 

Am 25.05.2019 um 02:18 schrieb Paul Allen:

 

+1 for "mutually exclusive."  Except, perhaps, in Poland.  I'm still waiting 
for an answer on that one.

 

 

Traffic signal controlled crossings with markings (including stripes of some 
colour) exist (not claiming that they are "common") at least all over central 
Europe (as pointed out in one of the contributions a couple of 100 postings 
back, they will typically control the vehicle traffic too). Random example 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/sp8962de?menu=false 

 
=photo=47.4040085=8.3944280902=15.17281376123384=true=zL2pXJc6T_RffQheFsdbYA
 

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

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

[Silent Spike]

On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 1:27 AM Paul Allen  wrote:

>  But you stooped anyway.  Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion.


Why create a situation in which stooping is a possibility? My opinion is
exactly the opinion you've been projecting onto this mailing list at others.

If that were your objective, you could have mailed me off the list.  That
> would also have corrected
> any delusion I might have had.  Instead you let everyone else know that
> you don't like my responses
> here.  I will let you decide if that is also ironic.


You could have mailed individuals off the list in the first place. As for
why I didn't, you didn't exactly create the impression that you were a
reasonable person who would respond well to criticism. Plus I don't know
what the etiquette of mailing lists is. Generally I'm in favour of
transparent open discussion.


On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 1:27 AM Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 00:27, Silent Spike 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I find this extremely ironic after all that I've read today on this
>> mailing list. Have been internally debating calling you out on it, in some
>> sense it feels like stooping to your level.
>>
>
> But you stooped anyway.  Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion.
>
>
>> If nobody does though, you'll go on thinking everyone's in agreement with
>> you for some reason.
>>
>
> If that were your objective, you could have mailed me off the list.  That
> would also have corrected
> any delusion I might have had.  Instead you let everyone else know that
> you don't like my responses
> here.  I will let you decide if that is also ironic.
>
> --
> Paul
>
>
> ___
> 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] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

[Simon Poole]

Am 25.05.2019 um 02:18 schrieb Paul Allen:
>
> +1 for "mutually exclusive."  Except, perhaps, in Poland.  I'm still
> waiting for an answer on that one.
>
>
Traffic signal controlled crossings with markings (including stripes of
some colour) exist (not claiming that they are "common") at least all
over central Europe (as pointed out in one of the contributions a couple
of 100 postings back, they will typically control the vehicle traffic
too). Random example
https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/sp8962de?menu=false=photo=47.4040085=8.3944280902=15.17281376123384=true=zL2pXJc6T_RffQheFsdbYA



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 116, Issue 160 constructive comminucations

[St Niklaas]

Hi OSM / mappers,

I do have some remarks;

IMHO there are too much channels or Fora, from OSM to Github, to read or talk 
about or over OSM. Par example if you want to read them all, you won’t be able 
to contribute as a mapper to OSM .

I can’t admit what has been written before, but reactions tend to be emotional 
as if the writer made a personal remark as a comment on an earlier statement, a 
reason not to participate anymore, I don’t want to be one of the bunch.

Greetz

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

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

[Simon Poole]

Am 24.05.2019 um 19:37 schrieb Kevin Kenny:
> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:18 AM Christoph Hormann  wrote:
>> On Friday 24 May 2019, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>>> Unless you intend to produce further evidence (to which I would
>>> listen), I consider the insinuation that the iD developers have a
>>> financial conflict of interest to be highly inappropriate. [...]
>> Please don't put words into my mouth here - i have said what i said and
>> not what you have read into that.
> Forgive me for drawing what appeared to be an obvious inference. If
> you don't want to imply that the project enjoys some sort of unfair
> privilege, or is subject to some sort of unfair influence, by reason
> of its financial support, then why bring it up at all - particularly
> the anonymity? Lost of open-source software projects have received
> donations to support development. Some donors have wished to remain
> anonymous. Mentioning such support in the context of other unfair
> advantages that you see iD as enjoying is highly suggestive, whether
> you intended it or not.

Actually nearly all of the above is true though it is debatable if
having deeper pockets to draw upon is "unfair", but it just isn't a
"conflict of interest". The iD developers and there employers have
neither formal (as in the law) or informal (as in having committed to
any specific behaviour) obligations towards the OSMF and the OSM
community, there simply can't be a CoI if you don't have interests that
conflict.

Is the situation massively intransparent? Sure and I don't think
comparing with random other OSS projects is warranted as they typically
don't exert control over the content produced in a comparable fashion
(even comparing say to WPs visual editor where undoutably heads would
already be rolling in a similar situation).

Simon


> ___
> 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] RFC7282 on "rough consensus"

[Rory McCann]

Hi all,

As part of the wider discussion of "how to make decision", yous might 
like to know there's a RFC for how one group comes to decisions using 
"rough consensus". This puts into words a lot of how I think decisions 
should be made, and often how (I think) tagging decisions are made here.


   https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282


--
RMcC

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

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

[Markus]

On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 09:46, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But it is a physical activity, with the result of good health and has 
> dedicated infrastructure ... and therefore is a a sport under the various 
> definitions of type C.

Yes, but i think sport=* should only be added if a construction is
primarily built for sport (i.e. for physical activity that people do
to keep healthy or for enjoyment). And cycleways are primarily build
to get from one place to another.

> Beaches were not 'built'. Nor were they specifically intended for the sport 
> swimming and may not have dedicated infrastructure.

In my opinion sport=swimming should not be added to beaches. Besides
you don't swim on the beach, but in the water. And adding
sport=swimming to about every coastline and lake is absurd because
implicit. I think it makes more sense to tag lakes or coastlines
accordingly if swimming is not allowed or if the water is polluted.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table - self referencing description

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 25. May 2019, at 09:35, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Key:baby_changing_table Definition: Provides a place for changing the 
> nappy/diaper of babies or young children.
> 
> Pedantic hat on.
> 
> Self references:
> babies ... plural  of baby
> changing - repeated


the proposed key is changing_table not baby changing table, no self reference 



> 
> 'Provides' not needed.
> --- What I would do?
> Delete Provides.
> Change 'changing' to 'replacing'
> delete 'babies' and add description to young children of 'very'



actually “provides” is needed here: we are not going to tag the changing table 
itself with this tag, rather we will be tagging that a feature (like a 
restaurant, a shop, a museum, a bathroom or a cafe) provides a changing table. 

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

[Tagging] RFC for mounting_block

[Warin]

Hi,

Following the draft for the feature mounting block (traditionally used to mount 
a horse) I have moved this to a 'request for comments' stage.
I think most have had an input but here it is to meet the rules.

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

Definition: An aid to mounting a horse, usually steps.

Value:mounting_block

Key: At this stage yet to be determined - by voting! This will be the 
first vote. Then there should be another vote for the whole thing. 
Rational: exists in the data base but is inconsistent for the key and 
value used. This seeks to coordinate the tagging of these features.



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table - self referencing description

[Warin]

On 25/05/19 17:46, Valor Naram wrote:

Did it

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

"A place for replacing the nappy/diaper of very young children."


Too quick .. wait, say, a day and see if there are any other thoughts... 
I can be wrong!



 Original Message 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table - self 
referencing description

From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
CC:


On 25/05/19 17:15, Valor Naram wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> something else that needs to be discussed/improved before
starting the
> second voting?
>


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


Key:baby_changing_table Definition: Provides a place for changing the
nappy/diaper of babies or young children.

Pedantic hat on.

Self references:
babies ... plural  of baby
changing - repeated

'Provides' not needed.
--- What I would do?
Delete Provides.
Change 'changing' to 'replacing'
delete 'babies' and add description to young children of 'very'


Key:baby_changing_table Definition: A place for replacing the
nappy/diaper of very young children. ???



___
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] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table - self referencing description

[Valor Naram]

Did ithttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/changing_table"A place for replacing the nappy/diaper of very young children." Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table - self referencing descriptionFrom: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>To: tagging@openstreetmap.orgCC: On 25/05/19 17:15, Valor Naram wrote:> Hey all,>> something else that needs to be discussed/improved before starting the > second voting?>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/changing_tableKey:baby_changing_table Definition: Provides a place for changing the nappy/diaper of babies or young children.Pedantic hat on.Self references:babies ... plural  of babychanging - repeated'Provides' not needed.--- What I would do?Delete Provides.Change 'changing' to 'replacing'delete 'babies' and add description to young children of 'very'Key:baby_changing_table Definition: A place for replacing the nappy/diaper of very young children. ???___Tagging mailing listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

[Warin]

On 25/05/19 17:11, Markus wrote:

On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 01:19, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

Accepting that requirement would mean that beaches cannot be tagged with the 
sport swimming as there is no construction for the sport.
Cycleway are specifically constructed for bicycling .. so can be tagged with 
the sport tag...

Cycleways are primarily built for locomotion, not for keeping healthy
or for enjoyment (although this is a nice side effect).


But it is a physical activity, with the result of good health and has dedicated 
infrastructure ... and therefore is a a sport under the various definitions of 
type C.

Beaches were not 'built'. Nor were they specifically intended for the sport 
swimming and may not have dedicated infrastructure.



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table - self referencing description

[Warin]

On 25/05/19 17:15, Valor Naram wrote:

Hey all,

something else that needs to be discussed/improved before starting the 
second voting?





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


Key:baby_changing_table Definition: Provides a place for changing the 
nappy/diaper of babies or young children.


Pedantic hat on.

Self references:
babies ... plural  of baby
changing - repeated

'Provides' not needed.
--- What I would do?
Delete Provides.
Change 'changing' to 'replacing'
delete 'babies' and add description to young children of 'very'


Key:baby_changing_table Definition: A place for replacing the 
nappy/diaper of very young children. ???




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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table - self referencing description

[Valor Naram]

Hey all,something else that needs to be discussed/improved before starting the second voting?CheerioSören alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table - self referencing descriptionFrom: Valor Naram To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" CC: Ok. Changed itSee https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/changing_table Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table - self referencing descriptionFrom: Martin Koppenhoefer To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" CC: Am Do., 23. Mai 2019 um 10:52 Uhr schrieb Valor Naram :I have changed the description for the proposal at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/changing_table as suggested.current description reads: "Provides the infrastructure for changing the nappy/diaper of babies or young children"I think this is too inclusive, to me it would suggest that everything that is needed will be provided (like in the german drugstore example, they provide tissue, nappies, a sheet of paper underneath, disinfectant for the parents). What should be described is the minimum. IMHO this is a horizontal surface suitable to change a baby, i.e. sufficient light should be provided, wind should be shielded, possibility to wash your hands would make perfectly sense but is not always available). If this is a property, the description could be as simple as "provides a place to change a baby's nappy".Cheers,Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

[Markus]

On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 01:19, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Accepting that requirement would mean that beaches cannot be tagged with the 
> sport swimming as there is no construction for the sport.
> Cycleway are specifically constructed for bicycling .. so can be tagged with 
> the sport tag...

Cycleways are primarily built for locomotion, not for keeping healthy
or for enjoyment (although this is a nice side effect).

Regards

Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

[Nick Bolten]

> What do you mean by a crossing with traffic signals AND with road
markings?

Status quo, per the wiki: tag with crossing=traffic_signals, hiding/erasing
any information about markings that would be communicated in other values.

Under the new proposals: tag with crossing=marked (or crossing:markings=yes
if it ends up the proposal) and crossing:signals=yes.

> Have you ever seen a crossing with lights AND zebra stripes?  Which of
the two takes
precedence?

Neither. They are separate properties of the crossing and can communicate
different information. We can describe the number of lanes a street has as
well as it's speed limit without having to decide which takes precedent,
let's use that same idea for crossings.

> However, if you include the zig-zag lines before and after the crossing
(...)

Maybe the proposal should be updated to be even clearer: a marked crossing
is one where the pedestrian crossing space is, specifically, visibly
outlined with designated markings.

> then you have the dangerous situation that the map leads people to think
that a light-controlled crossing (...) is a marked crossing (like a zebra)
where pedestrians have priority.

With orthogonal crossing tags for markings and pedestrian signals, such a
crossing could and should be tagged as having signals. The situation
described appears to be a tagging error: someone said the crossing was
marked when it wasn't and also neglected to tag the pedestrian signals.
Situations like this, where signals get neglected, are actually easier
under the current schema due to markings being mappable from aerial imagery
while signals usually aren't.

> But I suspect this is Nick;s interpretation
of what a marked crossing is - there are some marks on the road (I can't
make sense of his
proposals without that interpretation).

My interpretation is the boringest one: a marked crossing is a marked
crossing. It's described roughly the same way by transit agencies,
Wikipedia, dictionaries, etc.: crossing with visual markings designating
the pedestrian space for crossing the street.

> That's why it's a bad idea to tag in a way that could lead somebody to
conclude that a crossing with signals is a marked crossing.

If the crossing is marked, it's marked. Failing to tag the existence of
traffic signals is simply a mapping error that can occur under both the
current schema and the proposed ones. It is also, as argued on the proposal
page, an error that is easier to make and persist under the current schema.
If you tagged a crossing with crossing=marked, you could still use
MapRoylette/Street complete/other QA tool to fill in crossing:signals
values.

> Should we say that light-controlled crossings are marked?  Nope.
traffic_signals and marking
are NOT orthogonal, they are mutually exclusive alternatives.  Well, in the
UK they are - it's possible there's some country where you can have
zebra-light-controlled crossings.

Pelican crossings tend to have a dotted line outlining the pedestrian space
of the crossing...

Outside the UK it's common to find pedestrian-signaled crossings with
virtually any marking style. Some are shown on the proposal page.

On Fri, May 24, 2019, 12:54 PM Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 20:06,  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> As you said, what others suggested, and what would be a welcome addition,
>> is to leave the existing tag untouched (it seems to work fine for most
>> people except you), and tag the special exception where a
>> crossing=traffic_signals doesn’t have road markings with
>> crossing:markings=no
>>
>
> I think this is the nub of the issue: what is meant by crossing markings.
> I think Nick's interpretation
> is different from that of some on this list.  However, your paragraph
> seems to conform to Nick's
> interpretation.  What do you mean by a crossing with traffic signals AND
> with road markings?
>
> Hint: crossing=unmarked is defined as being a crossing without road
> markings or traffic
> lights.  Have you ever seen a crossing with lights AND zebra stripes?
> Which of the two takes
> precedence?  Motorists have right of way if their signal is green;
> pedestrians have absolute
> right of way just by stepping on the crossing irrespective of the lights.
> Does not compute.
>
> However, if you include the zig-zag lines before and after the crossing
> that do NOT define
> the interaction of pedestrian and motorist but impose conditions on the
> motorist alone (cannot
> park, cannot wait, cannot load or unload, etc) as being
> crossing_markings=yes then you have
> the dangerous situation that the map leads people to think that a
> light-controlled crossing
> (pedestrians and motorists are controlled by the lights) is a marked
> crossing (like a zebra)
> where pedestrians have priority.  See the problem?  But I suspect this is
> Nick;s interpretation
> of what a marked crossing is - there are some marks on the road (I can't
> make sense of his
> proposals without that interpretation).
>
> I don't consider the zig-zag