Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?
On Friday, 02 August 2019 21:32:15 HKT Markus wrote: > On Friday, August 2, 2019, yo paseopor wrote: > > The only negative point for public transport v2 scheme was the > > no-deprecation of the old scheme to avoid duplicities (surely was done > > this > > to don't uncomfort people) > > Salut i transport públic (Health and public_transport) > > yopaseopor > > IMHO the main problems are the unnecessary public_transport=stop_position, > which complicates mapping a lot, and the misnamed > public_transport=platform, which means waiting area (and may or may not > have platform), but was intended to also replace railway/highway=platform, > which means a real platform (a raised structure). I think there is a need for public_transport=stop_position. Although 99.9% of the cases the bus stops directly at the platform, there are some edge cases where the bus does not stop at the platform due to practical reasons, i.e. the passengers need to board the bus on a service road not next to the platform. The platform serves as the waiting area, is also a real platform, and also marked by the route. The example platform is this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4335709196 There are routes 8A and 8P, 8A stops directly at the way next to it, while 8P is boarded outside that way because that way is parked by 8A buses yet to be departed. Michael signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy
On Sunday, 04 August 2019 23:06:47 HKT Paul Allen wrote: > On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 15:51, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > Where do you take this assumption from? I have never heard before that > > residential may not be used for through traffic? > > Many residential roads are cul-de-sacs. Dead ends. Not classed as through > roads because > they don't lead anywhere except the houses that are on them. Others can be > used as routes > from A to B but there are other routes that are shorter/wider/faster or > some combination of those. > And then there are tertiary (or higher) roads which lead from A to B but > which also have houses > along them. > > A cul-de-sac, which many residential roads are, can never be used by > through traffic. Roads > used by through traffic can have houses on them. It is useful to make a > distinction in a way > that makes sense. In Hong Kong, there are two major roads Pok Fu Lam Road (uphill, primary) and Victoria Road (downhill, secondary), which serve as major thoroughfare between districts, which the former has much higher importance. There are two roads connecting them in Pok Fu Lam, one is called Sassoon Road, and another is in form of Y-shape with a loop at the centre called Bisney Road / Consort Rise. Sassoon Road is suitable for medium-sized vehicles to pass through and is the preferred road for traffic going up / down the hill, which is mapped as tertiary (because it isn't used for major traffic between districts, but mainly used for accessing local destinations inside Pok Fu Lam, we don't have an official system lower than trunk). There is a university along the road. Bisney Road / Consort Rise passes through a quiet neighbourhood which is steep and curved, making it unsuitable for any medium / large vehicles to pass with a legal weight limit restricted to light vehicles. Therefore it is mapped as residential. The primary purpose of that road is to access the neighbourhood, however some vehicles (including myself) also use it as a thoroughfare on a light vehicle (especially a motorcycle) because it is shorter and has less traffic than Sassoon Road, even through the speed is much slower as the road is steep and curved. The ability of through traffic passing a road does not depend on the classification. As long as it is the shortest / widest / fastest path connecting major roads, it will have through traffic even the driving experience is the same as driving into a cul-de-sac in a neighbourhood. Therefore we don't need to distinguish them in the tagging. The residential / unclassified difference should be reflected in the driving experience (you expect houses and residents on residential road which you should be careful not to disturb them, but not on an unclassified road). Michael signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy
On Sunday, 04 August 2019 16:46:26 HKT Tomas Straupis wrote: > 2019-08-04, sk, 11:32 Florian Lohoff rašė: > > For me unclassified is the same as residential. <...> > > Ok, so unclassified vs residential is regionally defined, as I wrote. > > But what about service/track? > They are not public roads - service is like an access for some specific purpose, while track is something more like "forest track" which are not roads but passable by vehicles. This definition does not deal with pavedness or not. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy
On Sunday, 04 August 2019 15:41:09 HKT Tomas Straupis wrote: > > Personally, I'd have put residential / living together above unclassified > > Interesting. Unclassified was always (more than 10 years) defined > for "through traffic" which puts it a higher in a hierarchy. From what > I understand it was always in the group of primary/secondary/tertiary > just the one which does not have an official classification - thus > "unclassified". For me residential and unclassified are the same level - the former is used for residential area, the latter is used for non-residential area. Even a road which pass through others' backyards and used for through traffic is still residential as long as it is used mostly by residents. > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US
I've been following this thread but haven't chimed in yet. I wanted to talk to someone that works in State Parks. I contact Neil Lasley with Washington State Parks and asked him his impression of the discussion and how the state view parks. Here is what he had to say. Good to hear from you! I can provide you with an explanation and some reference literature that points to WACs and RCWs to shed some more light on this. (RCW are state laws and WACs are administrative codes) In a nutshell though--tagging them as *protected areas* sounds like a good idea to me---I support it. I read Kevin Kenny’s reasoning behind wanting to do that, and like he said—while state parks may not be nature-protected areas across the board (some of them are highly developed and definitely aimed more towards public recreation opportunities, and some of them are protected for cultural/historic significance), they are all, in a sense, community-protected areas. The state’s definition of a state park is… *State Park: *Land generally greater than 10 acres in size, managed to protect and conserve significant scenic, natural and cultural features and to provide public access, facilities, or programs that through recreational, educational, and interpretive experiences connect visitors with those features. I’m probably getting out into the weeds here, but I think it’s worth mentioning that there are also *state park properties*… *State Park Properties:* Lands owned by the agency that are being held for future development (and lack any real infrastructure). A lot of mapping platforms (Google Maps) incorrectly label *State Park Properties* as full-blown *State Parks,* which confuses the public and is something we hear about often. (We’ve worked with Google several times to correct this, but they’re very slow to act). Regardless of how State Park Properties are labeled, I think tagging them as protected areas also makes sense. A couple of things jumped out at me. First that parks can have a number of uses from recreation to cultural giving possible different classifications to the park. Second, I am aware of the park holdings but had never added them to OSM. But that might be another classification. Best, Clifford -- @osm_washington www.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 15:16, Philip Barnes wrote: [Back alleys] > They have these where I used to visit my grandmother in South Wales, All over the UK, I suspect. If you're old enough to remember the early days (late 60s/ early 70s) of "Coronation Street" the houses on the street had a back alley and most still had outside toilets although many had upgraded to indoor sanitation. > called Gullies locally (excuse spelling, have never seen it written) > I'd not even heard it. And if I had I'd have spelled it completely differently. Because, after some digging, I see they're called gulleys but pronounced "goleys." In fact, that digging shows these things are all over the UK, with different names, although we can only conjecture their original purpose. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/10/the-end-of-the-alley-or-whatever-you-call-it > As you say, people use them to access garages and back in the 70s and 80s > a tipper lorry would come around every few weeks and tip a pile of coal > outside the gates of miners and retired miners. > Ah, I'd forgotten about coal deliveries. Along with an outside toilet there was often a coal house, and you wouldn't want people carrying coal or night soil through your house to/from those. Coal because it might spill. Night soil because of the smell, whether it spilled or not. That made the garages inaccessible for a few hours until the coal was moved. > Garages were an afterthought, though. You'd have moved the coal into the coal house long before morning when your outhouse was emptied. I'm not saying that was the original purpose of all the alleys we map, but if the houses are of a certain age, in a slightly-more gentrified part of a town, that was probably why they were there. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Rethinking Map Features
I probably should have used "desirable" instead of "required" (*), but even then this is not "desirable" for countries where postal code boundaries are mapped as relations. (*) please look at the video and see which text is pasted in the Wikibase definition for addr:street. On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 3:51 PM Tod Fitch wrote: > > > > > On Aug 6, 2019, at 12:56 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer > > wrote: > > > > sent from a phone > > > >> On 6. Aug 2019, at 05:33, Tod Fitch wrote: > >> > >> When I walk down a street collecting house numbers I have no indication of > >> the ZIP code of each building. If you require ZIP codes then I am forced > >> into an import situation rather than a field survey > > > > > > you might survey this by asking locals about their address, or by looking > > at addresses that businesses publish about themselves. > > > > Cheers Martin > > When I map businesses I do look to see what they publish about themselves and > the ZIP code as well as hours of operation can be easily determined. But if > you are asking me to knock on doors in residential areas or ask total > strangers who look like they might be locals what their ZIP code is as I > collect non-business addresses you are asking too much. > > In the suburban sprawl of my country I am guessing there are far more > residential addresses than business addresses. So putting postal code > requirement on my collecting house numbers means that either we will never > have a critical mass of house numbers or we will be doing it all with > imports. By critical mass, I mean a sufficient density of numbers so people > use OSM as their first choice for looking up an address to navigate to. At > least where I live, ZIP codes are not needed or normally used for when giving > an address for a navigation destination. ZIP codes are used really for just > one thing: Delivering mail. > > I can see a suggestion in the wiki that acquiring a postal/ZIP code for an > address is desirable to provide completeness. But making it a requirement? No. > > Cheers Tod. > ___ > 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] Road hierarchy
On Tuesday, 6 August 2019, Paul Allen wrote: > On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 13:31, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > I may have been misguided here, but to me any narrower pathway in a > > settlement would be suitable for the alley tag. Like those in the pictures > > here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alley > > > > I agree. But they may not have names. The one in my town are all dead > ends. So not used > by pedestrians as short cuts from A to B, therefore no need to name them. > They might be > used by the residents, or those visiting the residents, and (of course) the > night soil man > and possibly other tradespeople, but not thoroughfares. > > These are very typical for historic centres (often much older than late > > 19th century). > > > > Again, I suspect their original purpose was for the night soil man and > tradespeople (even > 60 years ago it was expected that tradespeople, charity collectors, etc. > would use the back > door of a house even if there were no back alley). And I also suspect that > the ones with > names were short cuts of one sort or another. Because "Night Soil Alley" > is not a name > anyone would want to have associated with their property, but a short cut > would get a > name, sooner or later. > They have these where I used to visit my grandmother in South Wales, called Gullies locally (excuse spelling, have never seen it written) As you say, people use them to access garages and back in the 70s and 80s a tipper lorry would come around every few weeks and tip a pile of coal outside the gates of miners and retired miners. That made the garages inaccessible for a few hours until the coal was moved. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Sailfish device ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 13:31, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I may have been misguided here, but to me any narrower pathway in a > settlement would be suitable for the alley tag. Like those in the pictures > here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alley > I agree. But they may not have names. The one in my town are all dead ends. So not used by pedestrians as short cuts from A to B, therefore no need to name them. They might be used by the residents, or those visiting the residents, and (of course) the night soil man and possibly other tradespeople, but not thoroughfares. These are very typical for historic centres (often much older than late > 19th century). > Again, I suspect their original purpose was for the night soil man and tradespeople (even 60 years ago it was expected that tradespeople, charity collectors, etc. would use the back door of a house even if there were no back alley). And I also suspect that the ones with names were short cuts of one sort or another. Because "Night Soil Alley" is not a name anyone would want to have associated with their property, but a short cut would get a name, sooner or later. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Rethinking Map Features
sent from a phone > On 6. Aug 2019, at 15:49, Tod Fitch wrote: > > But if you are asking me to knock on doors in residential areas or ask total > strangers who look like they might be locals what their ZIP code is as I > collect non-business addresses you are asking too much. I didn’t say you must do it, I wrote it was a possible way to survey ZIP code data on the ground, it is not impossible to do it. ;-) Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Rethinking Map Features
Le 06.08.19 à 15:49, Tod Fitch a écrit : > ZIP code for an address is desirable to provide completeness. But making it a > requirement? No. I agree. where is the zip code an requirement ? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Rethinking Map Features
> On Aug 6, 2019, at 12:56 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > sent from a phone > >> On 6. Aug 2019, at 05:33, Tod Fitch wrote: >> >> When I walk down a street collecting house numbers I have no indication of >> the ZIP code of each building. If you require ZIP codes then I am forced >> into an import situation rather than a field survey > > > you might survey this by asking locals about their address, or by looking at > addresses that businesses publish about themselves. > > Cheers Martin When I map businesses I do look to see what they publish about themselves and the ZIP code as well as hours of operation can be easily determined. But if you are asking me to knock on doors in residential areas or ask total strangers who look like they might be locals what their ZIP code is as I collect non-business addresses you are asking too much. In the suburban sprawl of my country I am guessing there are far more residential addresses than business addresses. So putting postal code requirement on my collecting house numbers means that either we will never have a critical mass of house numbers or we will be doing it all with imports. By critical mass, I mean a sufficient density of numbers so people use OSM as their first choice for looking up an address to navigate to. At least where I live, ZIP codes are not needed or normally used for when giving an address for a navigation destination. ZIP codes are used really for just one thing: Delivering mail. I can see a suggestion in the wiki that acquiring a postal/ZIP code for an address is desirable to provide completeness. But making it a requirement? No. Cheers Tod. signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of bullrings
On Tuesday, 6 August 2019, Warin wrote: > On 06/08/19 09:19, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > sent from a phone > > > >> On 6. Aug 2019, at 00:20, dcapillae wrote: > >> > >> Um, I don't think anyone in Spain would try to adapt a generic stadium as a > >> bullring. > > > > what I meant was that there will probably be a dedicated area for the bulls > > and their preparation (behind the curtain) and entry into the arena, so the > > stadiums will likely be specialized stadiums for bullfighting, probably a > > specific building type (or stadium subtype, according to your point of > > view) to satisfy the specific requirements. > > Most stadiums have specialised features for the sports and other events held > there. If necessary stadium=bullfighting;soccer;rugby;cricket could be used. > The spectator areas would be very similar so the easily observed features > would match from one stadium to another. > There is a huge difference between could be and it would be sensible to do so. Many stadiums are used for other events such as concerts. Whilst it not hard to switch a stadium between soccer and rugby, it happens often, stadiums are sized for the sport. A soccer or rugby stadium is too small for cricket and if you held a soccer or rugby match in a cricket stadium the fans would be so far away it would destroy the atmosphere. The old Wembley Stadium had a running track around the pitch, the new one was built without that space so as not to destroy the atmosphere. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Sailfish device ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy
sent from a phone > On 6. Aug 2019, at 11:15, Paul Allen wrote: > > Typically? In some parts of the world, maybe. In others, not so much. Of > the three I > can think of in my town, none have names. > > Side-note. Those three alleys give access to the rear gardens of the houses > either > side of the alleys. Most have a garage at the rear accessed via the alley > (with no room > at the front of the building for a garage). Given the age of most of the > buildings they serve, > the late 1800s, none of those alleys would have been intended to provide > access to > garages. I may have been misguided here, but to me any narrower pathway in a settlement would be suitable for the alley tag. Like those in the pictures here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alley These are very typical for historic centres (often much older than late 19th century). Cheers Martin (not speaking about north american alleys)___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 08:49, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > On 5. Aug 2019, at 07:06, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > > > Which of those do carry names typically? I cant see any? > > alleys > Typically? In some parts of the world, maybe. In others, not so much. Of the three I can think of in my town, none have names. Side-note. Those three alleys give access to the rear gardens of the houses either side of the alleys. Most have a garage at the rear accessed via the alley (with no room at the front of the building for a garage). Given the age of most of the buildings they serve, the late 1800s, none of those alleys would have been intended to provide access to garages. I surmise that the original purpose of the alleys was for what was known as the "night soil man" who emptied the outside toilets that were the pinnacle of sanitation at the time. If you were well-off you could afford a house with a back alley so that the night soil man didn't have to carry a bucket of unpleasantness through your house. Given the sensibilities of the time, those alleys would barely be acknowledged, let alone named. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Rethinking Map Features
sent from a phone > On 6. Aug 2019, at 05:33, Tod Fitch wrote: > > When I walk down a street collecting house numbers I have no indication of > the ZIP code of each building. If you require ZIP codes then I am forced into > an import situation rather than a field survey you might survey this by asking locals about their address, or by looking at addresses that businesses publish about themselves. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of bullrings
Hi, Martin. Yes, I agree. A bullring is a stadium, a type (or subtype) of stadium: "building=stadium". Regards, Daniel -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy
sent from a phone > On 5. Aug 2019, at 07:06, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > Which of those do carry names typically? I cant see any? alleys Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy
I agree, but it also says don't expect it to be rendered or routed, it's a fixme error. Mappers have used and will use 'unclassified' because they want rendering and routing without bothering about the classification. Fr gr Peter Elderson Op ma 5 aug. 2019 om 09:56 schreef Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > On 05/08/19 16:32, Peter Elderson wrote: > > At the moment, 'unclassified' has so many different opinions that it > > means nothing at all. Could we at least agree on the basics: > > > > A. "unclassified" means you don't know the class; > No. The tag highway=road says that the class is unknown. > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
