Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[Warin]

On 03/07/19 11:10, brad wrote:

A pretty standard nomenclature on maps in the US for unpaved roads is
Improved Road
Unsurfaced Road (High Clearance)
Four Wheel Drive
Other variations exist , but not too dissimilar.
Pretty simple and anyone who spends time in the mountains or forest 
gets a feel for what it means and has an idea what to expect.   OSM is 
a mess in this regards.   The inconsistency make it difficult if not 
impossible to render a good map.


As I read the OSM wiki,  smoothness=* is the relevant tag to 
distinguish between a 2wd road, a high clearance road, and a 4 wheel 
drive road.    Surface is important too, but isn't sufficient if it's 
dirt/unpaved/ground.


There is use of 4wd_only=yes/no see 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:4wd_only


And yes the wiki/osm is a bit of a mess.

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

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[Tomas Straupis]

2019-07-03, tr, 08:04 Mateusz Konieczny rašė:
> 2) Take the leading sentence mentioning Solid/Soft out of the tracktype 
> description (or de-emphasize it)
> I am dubious about redefining extremely
> popular tags. <...>

  How come? You are pushing the changing of entire water tagging schema!

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

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[Mateusz Konieczny]

3 lip 2019, 03:10 od bradha...@fastmail.com:
>  1) Change the wiki for highway so it mentions Smoothness=*, and
> de-emphasize  tracktype=*
>
Mentioning also smoothness tag is
perfectly fine and such edits can be
fine without notification mail.

Usually such mails are necessary only
in cases where there is some conflict
on Wiki when both sides consider
differing opinions as a clear consensus.

>  2) Take the leading sentence mentioning Solid/Soft out of thetracktype 
> description (or de-emphasize it)
>
I am dubious about redefining extremely
popular tags. For start - can you link
some photos of places where current 
definition is a problem?

The best would be photos on licenses
allowing upload to OSM Wiki or
Wikimedia Commons.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[brad]

A pretty standard nomenclature on maps in the US for unpaved roads is
Improved Road
Unsurfaced Road (High Clearance)
Four Wheel Drive
Other variations exist , but not too dissimilar.
Pretty simple and anyone who spends time in the mountains or forest gets 
a feel for what it means and has an idea what to expect.   OSM is a mess 
in this regards.   The inconsistency make it difficult if not impossible 
to render a good map.


As I read the OSM wiki,  smoothness=* is the relevant tag to distinguish 
between a 2wd road, a high clearance road, and a 4 wheel drive road.    
Surface is important too, but isn't sufficient if it's dirt/unpaved/ground.


Unfortunately, the wiki for highway, in the section for track says: " To 
describe the quality of a track, see tracktype 
=*. "
But, as described in the wiki,  tracktype is not very relevant to the 
western US, since the first sentence of the description is 
Solid/Mostly*/Soft.  Perhaps relevant to the English countryside, but 
the roads around here are usually Solid, but could be 
smoothness:very_horrible.   It seems redundant with surface=* also.
It looks like the common usage is to just use tracktype intuitively 
(grade5 is 4wd even if it's Solid), and ignore the wiki & the smoothness 
tag.  Unfortunately its usage is inconsistent.  I see roads that are 
clearly (by onsite inspection) 4wd, tagged as grade2 and some graded 
gravel roads tagged as grade2.
Tracktype could be sufficient if clarified, and if we were starting from 
scratch that's what I would prefer.


As I see it, two paths forward to improve this situation.
1) Change the wiki for highway so it mentions Smoothness=*, and 
de-emphasize  tracktype=*
2) Take the leading sentence mentioning Solid/Soft out of the tracktype 
description (or de-emphasize it), and add more verbage about high 
clearance or 4 wheel drive.    There is some discussion on the 
key:tracktype discussion page about adding grade6+.
3) Ignore the wiki, and just use tracktype.   I see in the discussion 
page that is what many are doing.


Thoughts?





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

[Tagging] Maxtents= or capacity:tents= for campsites?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Some users specify the number of tents or caravans allowed at a
campsite or camp pitch with tents= and caravans=, but
more frequently these are specified with capacity:caravans=,
capacity:tents= or maxtents=

Currently maxtents=* is used most frequently and it's the shortest
key, but there is no equivalent tag for carvans other than
capacity:caravans=* - and also, the majority of maxtents= tags are
"maxtents=yes" - and I don't understand what this could mean.

So I'm thinking that capacity:tents=# and capacity:caravans=# would be
the least ambiguous option, along with tents=yes/no and
caravans=yes/no?

These tags could be used with tourism=camp_pitch, tourism=camp_site
and tourism=caravan_site, and perhaps with other accommodation
features which also offer tent or caravan (RV/Motorhome) sites.

-Joseph

(Sorry for all the questions, but I would like to develop a full
proposal for additional property tags to be used with this feature and
with camp_site / caravan_Site)

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

Re: [Tagging] New description of waterway=pressurised

[Richard]

On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 10:30:38PM +, marc marc wrote:
> Le 09.06.19 à 01:12, Richard a écrit :
> > The water level drops a few inches and
> > suddenly the "pipe" is no longer water filled
> 
> intermittent=yes/no

that says that sometimes there is no water at all. But not that sometimes
it is "pressurised" and sometimes not pressurised.

> some industrial installations (I am thinking of an waterway between 
> retention basins at the Grande-Dixence Dam, part of which is natural) 
> have been under water since before I was born.
> to say that this can no longer be a waterway=pressurised is to say that 
> it should be divided into 2, a waterway=pressurised-in-a-mandmade-stuff 
> and a waterway=pressurised-in-a-cave, this kind of micro-mapping
> has its place in a subkey, not as a top-level value.

my objection is against mapping natural caves with pressurised. If the cave
becomes part of an engineered project it is somewhat different. I would be
curious about more details and if this is a one in the world situation.

Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

[Richard]

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 12:59:27PM +1000, Warin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
> There are a few uses of lanes=0... I would think these are errors. Even if
> unmarked a road would have at least one lane otherwise it is not really a
> road.
> 
> 
> But looking at tag info there are a fair few uses fo it in various
> locations. So ... what is it used for?

this might also be something like an attempt at oneway=reversible 

Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] Reservation= or booking= for campsites etc?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 at 21:37, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

>
> Is there any reason to prefer "booking=*" instead of "reservation=*"?
> I'm inclined to think of "booking=*" as a synonym that should be
> deprecated, unless it is preferred in British English for certain
> features?
>

>From an Aussie English point of view, it's another either / or.

Some places refer to bookings, others refer to reservations.

Reservation is used ~10 times more (3000 v a few hundred) so booking could
possible be deprecated?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Use bbq=yes/no or barbecue_grill=yes/no with campsites?

[marc marc]

Le 02.07.19 à 13:38, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
> The similar feature tag is amenity=bbq
> 
> Is there a reason to pick one of these two tags over the other?

I like having the same string between the main tag for the device
and the key for the caracteristic of a site having this device.
so imho bbq=yes is better
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reservation= or booking= for campsites etc?

[marc marc]

Le 02.07.19 à 13:34, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
> "booking=*" is recommended to be used with tourism=camp_site, but the
> similar tag "reservation=*" has been used
booking=* already has 14 conflicts with the url of the site.
it seems preferable to migrate the 
reservation=yes/no/recommended/mandatory information without deprecated 
booking=* because I see no reason to prohibit booking=url even if I have 
never used it myself.

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

Re: [Tagging] Use bbq=yes/no or barbecue_grill=yes/no with campsites?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 2. Jul 2019, at 13:38, Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:
> 
> Is there a reason to pick one of these two tags over the other? I'd
> like to know what to suggest for use with tourism=camp_pitch


I would prefer „bbq“ because it is the analogous key for the established 
amenity=bbq (despite it being an abbreviation)


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

[Tagging] Use bbq=yes/no or barbecue_grill=yes/no with campsites?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

There are two similar property tags that describe the presence of a
barbecue (BBQ) grill at another feature such as a campsite or picnic
site.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bbq

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:barbecue_grill

If you check taghistory.raifer.tech it's clear that
barbecue_grill=yes/no is older and still slightly more common, but
bbq=yes/no is becoming more common in the past 2 years.

The similar feature tag is amenity=bbq

Is there a reason to pick one of these two tags over the other? I'd
like to know what to suggest for use with tourism=camp_pitch

-Joseph

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

[Tagging] Reservation= or booking= for campsites etc?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

While making the new page for tourism=camp_pitch, I noticed that
"booking=*" is recommended to be used with tourism=camp_site, but the
similar tag "reservation=*" has been used for many more years and
several times more frequently. Both are not very common yet.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:booking
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:reservation

Is there any reason to prefer "booking=*" instead of "reservation=*"?
I'm inclined to think of "booking=*" as a synonym that should be
deprecated, unless it is preferred in British English for certain
features?

-Joseph

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