Re: [Tagging] bear box in campground ?

[Rob Savoye]

On 8/21/19 7:27 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:

> For someone who is not familiar with the term 'bear box' it may
> sound like bears are stored in there.
> "Food storage box" might be better?

  Actually something like that is probably a better term. I think 'bear
box' only because that's the term I'm familiar with. 'Big Metal Box'
would be accurate too, but confusing.

  There's also bear proof trash cans, but I don't think that needs a tag.

- rob -

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Campsite properties

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Please comment on this proposal for additional properties and features
to be used in campsite, caravan site and camp pitch areas:

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

Main changes:

Deprecate booking=* (use reservation=* instead)
Deprecate bbq=* (use barbecue_grill=* instead).

The main issues:

reservation=* vs Booking=* - both tags have been used, but the tag
reservation=* is much more common and is a better known term in
English.

bbq=yes vs barbecue_grill=yes - the tag bbq=yes/no matches the common
tag amenity=bbq, but it is somewhat ambiguous: does it mean there is a
grill there, or that you can bring your own? Both tags are about
equally common currently.

tents= vs maxtents=* vs capacity:tents=* - there are 3 ways to
tag how many tents are permitted at a campground or camp pitch. The
last one is picked because it is the most widely used, and least
ambiguous, and it allows tents=yes/no to be simpler, without numbers
included as values.

amenity=dryer vs amenity=clothes_dryer - the first is more common, the
later appears to have been proposed for a clothes-line like outdoor
structure, rather than a mechanical dryer, in Russia:
RU:Tag:amenity=clothes_dryer

This is the list of new wiki pages that would be created:

amenity=greywater_drain
amenity=power_supply
amenity=bear_box
scout=yes/no
waste_disposal=yes/no
bear_box=yes/no
greywater_drain=yes/no

And these pages would get new values
Key:parking - add parking=yes/no
capacity:tents/caravans/static_caravans would be mentioned on Key:capacity=*

- Joseph

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

Re: [Tagging] bear box in campground ?

[Rob Savoye]

On 8/21/19 5:17 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> I agree with Martin. It's not good practice to use semicolons in the
> value of the main feature tag, like amenity=bbq;bear_box, because this
> is hard for database users to interpret with a simple algorithm.

  Actually I've found the opposite. Importing into Postgresql doesn't
support multiple tags of the same name. At least not when importing
using ogr. I do produce maps from Postgresql, and have no problem with
semi-colons. Course I'm using my own software for SQL queries. I'd be
curious what OsmAnd does when displaying 'tourism' POIs.

> At the proposal
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Campsite_properties)
> there are a list of property tags which are already approved or "de
> facto" in common use on camp_site (and camp_pitch) features, like
> this:

  I saw that, but they're proposed, so I've been trying to stick to
what's approved. I already do use many of the existing properties.

> Note that there are also feature tags for almost all of these, like:
> amenity=drinking_water
> amenity=recycling
> amenity=sanitary_dump_station
> amenity=toilets

  Using properties works fine for my purpose, and if it's ok to create a
new property 'bear_box=(yes,no)', I can do it that way. I'm not in a
hurry, so can also wait for the proposal to hopefully get approved.

> Hence: amenity=bear_box on it's own node, right at the location of the
> box. Or if you don't have that info or just want to say that "there is
> a bear box at this campground", you can add bear_box=yes/no to the
> tourism=camp_site

  So now it seems it'd be "bbq=yes', 'picnic_table=yes', 'bear_box'yes'.

- rob -

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

Re: [Tagging] bear box in campground ?

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 7:53 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 22/08/19 10:25, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 7:23 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is there a requirement to tag these 'animal resistant boxes'? Would a
>> more universal tag be better?
>>
>
> I've generally heard these referred to as "bear boxes" regardless of the
> species they're intended to guard against.  Granted, my exposure to such
> facilities is limited and I am bear-biased.
>
>
> American English? Fortunately the UK does not seem to suffer from this
> issue, so there is no British English example we can use.
>

Well, of course, they hunted their bears to extinction and turned 'em into
hats.  I think Canadian trappers are now the current source.


> For someone who is not familiar with the term 'bear box' it may sound like
> bears are stored in there.
> "Food storage box" might be better?
>

Fair point.  Food storage box would just mean any kind of camp staple box
at a semipermanent encampment, though, and most staple boxes are just
basically resistance against weather and vermin, typically raised off the
ground about waist high on the low side with a lid that flips out as a food
preparation surface, but wouldn't survive initial contact with a bear
interested in its contents.  Common at locations where backpackers
typically travel in groups of around half a dozen and stay encamped for
several days at a shot in order to facilitate a single common kitchen.

Quick Google search suggests "staple box" is not particularly known outside
of Parks Canada, Scouts Canada and Scouts BSA circles, though, with kitchen
box being slightly more common in North America and "chuck box uk" actually
being the first autocomplete when you start typing "chuck box" in Google.
Chuck box seems to also be the most unambiguous and british term available.

So, for any such box, perhaps amenity=chuck_box and if it's purpose built
against some kind of specific threat to its contents, then hardened=yes?

I'm not married to the terminology, but I am ready to buy in.

> I am surprised raccoons are not a problem in northern America.
>>
>
> They are, but unlike bears (especially black bears), raccoons haven't
> figured out how to open car doors from the outside yet.  Probably owing to
> their rather short stature being unable to reach the door handle.
>
>
> If they team together they can form a pyramid for the reach, only need to
> figure out the handle then.
> Can they do zippers? Raiding tents and backpacks then becomes possible.
>

Can confirm that raccoons don't bother with zippers, they just go through.
Learned the hard way at Cape Foulweather State Park to tree packs with food
when my pack got raided the first campout I had in the Scouts.  Only had to
ruin my grandfather's US Army pack he brought back from World War II, which
had additionally survived an extended backpacking trip across Afghanistan
my mother took when it was under Soviet control in the process (I learned
how to restore it after that, and ended up getting a more modern pack
better suited for backpacking).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bear box in campground ?

[Warin]

On 22/08/19 10:25, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 7:23 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


Is there a requirement to tag these 'animal resistant boxes'?
Would a more universal tag be better?


I've generally heard these referred to as "bear boxes" regardless of 
the species they're intended to guard against.  Granted, my exposure 
to such facilities is limited and I am bear-biased.


American English? Fortunately the UK does not seem to suffer from this 
issue, so there is no British English example we can use.


For someone who is not familiar with the term 'bear box' it may sound 
like bears are stored in there.

"Food storage box" might be better?



I am surprised raccoons are not a problem in northern America.


They are, but unlike bears (especially black bears), raccoons haven't 
figured out how to open car doors from the outside yet.  Probably 
owing to their rather short stature being unable to reach the door 
handle.


If they team together they can form a pyramid for the reach, only need 
to figure out the handle then.

Can they do zippers? Raiding tents and backpacks then becomes possible.




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

Re: [Tagging] Cash_withdrawal draft

[Warin]

On 22/08/19 07:41, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

Commenting in both places

Not a bad idea as it would be handy to know that you can get cash out 
"here".


Some potential issues I can see though.

How much can I get out ($100 max)? A supermarket cashier may be able 
to give me $500, but a corner milk-bar may be only $50.


Do you need to specify which currency? eg Can I ask for € in the UK, 
or US$, or is it expected that you can only withdraw the local currency?


"To tag whether there is cash withdrawal and with what banks/brands use:

cash_withdrawal 
=no// for 
example: cash_withdrawal 
=migros_bank 
;postfinance_card 
;bank_of_america 
"


By the time you add in all the possible banks / cards, that will 
become very unwieldy & hard to read, & there is also a character limit 
that will apply.


"Basically to everything where you can get cash with the help from 
personnel. If you can get the money yourself atm 
=yes or amenity 
=atm 
 should be 
used. The new tagging should for example be used at: 
supermarket,convenience,bar,cafe,kiosk"


Here in Australia, at least the 2 biggest supermarket chains have 
self-serve checkouts that allow you to put your groceries through 
yourself, but also allow you to withdraw cash. It is also possible to 
use these checkouts to only withdraw cash without actually buying 
anything. How would these be tagged?


"Rendering

None."


Would probably actually be good idea to render them with the standard 
ATM symbol, so that if you look at a map, you can see that you can get 
cash out here, here or there!




'Cash out' is normally a "payment option" so possibly it should be part 
of the payment tagging?

Is payment tagging rendered? I think not.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bear box in campground ?

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 7:23 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is there a requirement to tag these 'animal resistant boxes'? Would a more
> universal tag be better?
>

I've generally heard these referred to as "bear boxes" regardless of the
species they're intended to guard against.  Granted, my exposure to such
facilities is limited and I am bear-biased.


> I am surprised raccoons are not a problem in northern America.
>

They are, but unlike bears (especially black bears), raccoons haven't
figured out how to open car doors from the outside yet.  Probably owing to
their rather short stature being unable to reach the door handle.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bear box in campground ?

[Warin]

On 22/08/19 07:03, Tom Pfeifer wrote:

On 21.08.2019 19:44, Rob Savoye wrote:

   Many western state campgrounds have metal bear proof food storage
boxes in each campsite, but not all of them. At certain times of the
year this can be important. :-) Around here the bears will destroy your
car if there is food left inside. I see zero instances of this type of
data, at least not in Colorado. My guess would 'amenity='bear_box' ?
(looking at amenity=bbq as an example)


The question remains if tagging the boxes would give bears an 
advantage as they could exploit the knowledge and focus on sites 
without such boxes?


Bears are smater than the average human - they don't need maps.


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

Re: [Tagging] bear box in campground ?

[Warin]

On 22/08/19 08:16, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:



On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 08:02, Rob Savoye > wrote:



> We should probably add both of these to the proposed list of
> campsite property tags at

  That's be a good idea, as bear boxes are becoming more and more
common
in western US campgrounds.


We don't have that problem!,


'We' have problems with possums, mice and rats (native, not the other 
kind yet).
They have been known to eat through expensive tents and backpacks even 
where the 'food' inside is simply a unwashed stain.


Boxes have been provided in a few locations.
At other locations hanging food (and rubbish) is required unless you 
want it eaten and scattered around.


Dingoes are also a problem, but they usually just steel, they don't open 
tents or eat into them.
At a few places currawong have learnt how to undo zippers and access 
food inside backpacks.


https://tasmaniangeographic.com/food-raiders-of-the-overland-track/

Is there a requirement to tag these 'animal resistant boxes'? Would a 
more universal tag be better?


I am surprised raccoons are not a problem in northern America.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bear box in campground ?

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 5:20 PM Rob Savoye  wrote:

> On 8/21/19 4:16 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> > We don't have that problem!, but are the bear boxes at each individual
> > site / pitch, or is there one / "x" for the entire campground?
>
>   Bear boxes are in every campsite, and hold about a week's worth of
> food. They're big enough you can put in a decent size cooler plus
> supplies A campground sized one would be huge!


They're not always every campsite, they're sometimes entire campgrounds or
sections of a campground, to ensure the food is far enough away from all
campers that any bears willing to take on the challenge are not going to be
an immediate threat to humans and vice versa.  Yellowstone National Park
and Banff National Park come to mind as having campgrounds with banks of
bear boxes.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bear box in campground ?

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 4:04 PM Tom Pfeifer  wrote:

> On 21.08.2019 19:44, Rob Savoye wrote:
> >Many western state campgrounds have metal bear proof food storage
> > boxes in each campsite, but not all of them. At certain times of the
> > year this can be important. :-) Around here the bears will destroy your
> > car if there is food left inside. I see zero instances of this type of
> > data, at least not in Colorado. My guess would 'amenity='bear_box' ?
> > (looking at amenity=bbq as an example)
>
> The question remains if tagging the boxes would give bears an advantage as
> they could exploit the
> knowledge and focus on sites without such boxes?
>

Probably not.  I'm not a bear but I play one now and then!
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 22. Aug 2019, at 01:37, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> OK, so there were 2 people in favor of capacity:tents=


I would prefer this. Although I would expect you could always add another tent 
somehow. Or is this about legal regulations (e.g. to protect a vulnerable site, 
or for security reasons like fire protection, etc.)? In this case a maxtent tag 
might be more in line with established tagging.

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

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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

OK, so there were 2 people in favor of capacity:tents= (+
tents=yes/no) and 2 in favor of using tents=yes/ alone. Any
other thoughts on this?

On 7/4/19, Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:
> These are mainly meant to be used with tourism=camp_site and
> tourism=caravan_site to show the total capacity of the facility, which
> might be important for groups. For tourism=camp_pitch it could be used
> for large "pitches" that are intended for a group, such as an extended
> family. I've seen these where a half-dozen or dozen tents are allowed.
>
> I don't camp by caravan myself, but I think there are occasionally
> sites that can be reserved or booked as one location for a group of
> several caravans at a national park, so caravans=4 or
> capacity:caravans=3 might occasionally be useful even with
> tourism=camp_pitch.
>
> Joseph
>
> On 7/4/19, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 04/07/19 11:47, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 10:06, Joseph Eisenberg
>>> mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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=
>>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>>
>>> I've never seen an individual caravan site / pitch that will handle
>>> more than 1 caravan at a time, so I'm not sure if there's any need for
>>> that one?
>>>
>>> With regard to the number of tents on an individual site, you then get
>>> the potential problem of the size of the tent.
>>>
>>> Let's say that your tent site is 5m x 5m - you can get tents that are
>>> that size (& bigger!) so only 1 will fit, or, if a group of people are
>>> using 1-man pup tents / swags, they could probably fit 10 tents in
>>> that same area!
>>>
>>> Maybe just leave it as tent & caravan = yes / no, without the numbers
>>> / capacity fields?
>>>
>>
>> You have never been camping in Germany. Some camp sites are regimented,
>> you are allocated a site/pitch on registering, yes for a tent!
>>
>> Adels Grove in Queensland also dictates a site... and so does Lawn Hill
>> NP site. And there are NP sites in Tassie that do the same, booked sites
>> for tents.
>>
>> So capacity:tents=# and capacity:caravans=# are valid things for camp
>> sites.
>>
>> Camp pitches of larger size, with smaller tents ??? I'd leave it to the
>> mapper, if they want they can add the tag.
>>
>>
>>
>

___
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?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

OK, reopening this thread: previously there were 2 or 3 people
initially in favor of using bbq=yes (already used about 200 times) to
specify that "there is a permanently installed barbecue grill at this
feature", for use on picnic sites and campsites.

However, later there were 2 people who preferred the tag
barbecue_grill=yes (slightly more common still), because it was
clearer that this is the presence of a grill, not permission to bring
your own grill.

It was noted that amenity=bbq has sometimes been used in both ways:
usually to specify that there is a bbq grill at the location, but also
sometimes for places where you are allowed to bbq with your own grill.

Any more opinions on this? I would like to be able to propose a tag as
part of 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Campsite_properties
- or perhaps it should be a separate proposale, since this is one of
the tags that does not yet have a clear consensus?

Joseph

On 7/6/19, Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:
> Re: > basic picnic tables where you can provide your own mini grill
>
> It looks like we can propose "bring_own_bbq=yes" for that situation
>
> Re: > some fixed on a post grills
>
> Do you think this should be "bbq=yes" or "barbecue_grill=yes"?
>
> -Joseph
>
> On 7/6/19, Nita S.  wrote:
>> One caravan park I am familiar with has three types: basic picnic tables
>> where you can provide your own mini grill, some fixed on a post grills,
>> and
>> a single large motorized rotating spit type grill.
>

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

Re: [Tagging] bear box in campground ?

[Evan Derickson]

Bear boxes can be shared among multiple campsites, especially in
backcountry campgrounds. We should also consider that there are other forms
of food protection, such as bear wires and bear poles, that are used in
some campsites. What about tagging with something like
'wildlife_food_protection=yes/no/bear_box/bear_wire/bear_pole'?

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 3:21 PM Rob Savoye  wrote:

> On 8/21/19 4:16 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> > We don't have that problem!, but are the bear boxes at each individual
> > site / pitch, or is there one / "x" for the entire campground?
>
>   Bear boxes are in every campsite, and hold about a week's worth of
> food. They're big enough you can put in a decent size cooler plus
> supplies A campground sized one would be huge!
>
> - rob -
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Evan Derickson
derickso...@gmail.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bear box in campground ?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I agree with Martin. It's not good practice to use semicolons in the
value of the main feature tag, like amenity=bbq;bear_box, because this
is hard for database users to interpret with a simple algorithm.

At the proposal
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Campsite_properties)
there are a list of property tags which are already approved or "de
facto" in common use on camp_site (and camp_pitch) features, like
this:

drinking_water=yes/no availability of drinking water at the feature
internet_access=yes/no/wlan - availability of internet access, use
wlan for WiFi.
recycling=yes/no Availability of containers for recycling.
sanitary_dump_station=yes/no/customers - availability of a santitary
dump station for emptying caravan toilet holding tanks
toilets=yes/no Availability of toilets at the site

Note that there are also feature tags for almost all of these, like:
amenity=drinking_water
amenity=recycling
amenity=sanitary_dump_station
amenity=toilets
etc.

So it's very common to use  separate tag for a feature and for a
property of a feature. This helps with keeping to "One Feature, One
OSM Element".

Hence: amenity=bear_box on it's own node, right at the location of the
box. Or if you don't have that info or just want to say that "there is
a bear box at this campground", you can add bear_box=yes/no to the
tourism=camp_site

- Joseph


On 8/22/19, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 22. Aug 2019, at 00:01, Rob Savoye  wrote:
>>
>>  Yeah, I'd add this to a 'tourism=camp_pitch' node. Where I was
>> yesterday works out to something like 'amenity=bbq;bear_box;parking'
>> plus 'leisure=firepit'.
>
>
> a more common mapping method would be individual objects for each feature (a
> node for each feature, inside a tourism=camp_site polygon) or properties
> (bbq=yes bear_box=yes etc.) on a “main” feature (camp site object). We
> usually don’t do amenity =foo;bar
>
> Cheers Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] bear box in campground ?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 22. Aug 2019, at 00:01, Rob Savoye  wrote:
> 
>  Yeah, I'd add this to a 'tourism=camp_pitch' node. Where I was
> yesterday works out to something like 'amenity=bbq;bear_box;parking'
> plus 'leisure=firepit'.


a more common mapping method would be individual objects for each feature (a 
node for each feature, inside a tourism=camp_site polygon) or properties 
(bbq=yes bear_box=yes etc.) on a “main” feature (camp site object). We usually 
don’t do amenity =foo;bar

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

Re: [Tagging] bear box in campground ?

[Rob Savoye]

On 8/21/19 4:16 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

> We don't have that problem!, but are the bear boxes at each individual
> site / pitch, or is there one / "x" for the entire campground?

  Bear boxes are in every campsite, and hold about a week's worth of
food. They're big enough you can put in a decent size cooler plus
supplies A campground sized one would be huge!

- rob -

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

Re: [Tagging] bear box in campground ?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 08:02, Rob Savoye  wrote:

>
> > We should probably add both of these to the proposed list of
> > campsite property tags at
>
>   That's be a good idea, as bear boxes are becoming more and more common
> in western US campgrounds.
>

We don't have that problem!, but are the bear boxes at each individual site
/ pitch, or is there one / "x" for the entire campground?

That would have to change the way they're mapped.

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Garmin waypoints and routes (was: "Roles of route members" and before that "Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking")

[Peter Elderson]

I'll say it again: at the moment, regular people can not get a decent gpx
track of a trail out of osm unless it is pre-ordered. Single chain, sorted,
no branches, hooks or major gaps. These gpx-s are needed for navigating
apps and devices, so you can have them guide you exactly along the trail.
Nederland has numerous fixed foot trails and an ever increasing crowd walks
these trails. They are adopting the digital version of a trail guide very
rapidly, comparable to the way car navigation conquered the world.

Please have a look at Nederland on the hiking map of waymarkedtrails to get
an impression of the density of the walking trail system in the Netherlands.

Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op wo 21 aug. 2019 om 23:34 schreef Volker Schmidt :

>
>
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 20:48, Peter Elderson  wrote:
>
>> I have to correct myself: I thought OsmAnd really performed routing when
>> navigating using a gpx trail. It doesn't, I tested it today. It translates
>> turns in the track into screen messgaes and spoken text messages, without
>> doing anything with the map. So it will send you into a ravine if your
>> track goes there.
>>
> I knew that. Already the original Garmin etrex of before 2010 was able to
> do soemthing similar (no voice, but visible signal of approach to a bend n
> the track)
>
>> But it can route you to the start of your track, and when you go
>> off-track, it routes you back on track.
>>
>> All the more reason why the gpx should be a correctly ordered single
>> chain.
>>
> This is a Non sequitur, as I have tried to explain before.
> Volker
>
>
> ___
> 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] bear box in campground ?

[Rob Savoye]

On 8/21/19 3:54 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> This suggests that you could also use bear_box=yes/no with a 
> tourism=camp_site or tourism=camp_pitch feature to specify whether
> or not their is a bear box somewhere at the location.

  Yeah, I'd add this to a 'tourism=camp_pitch' node. Where I was
yesterday works out to something like 'amenity=bbq;bear_box;parking'
plus 'leisure=firepit'.

> We should probably add both of these to the proposed list of
> campsite property tags at

  That's be a good idea, as bear boxes are becoming more and more common
in western US campgrounds.

- rob -


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

Re: [Tagging] bear box in campground ?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Good idea! I agree that amenity=bear_box would be a good way to map
this feature, probably on a node.

This suggests that you could also use bear_box=yes/no with a
tourism=camp_site or tourism=camp_pitch feature to specify whether or
not their is a bear box somewhere at the location.

We should probably add both of these to the proposed list of campsite
property tags at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Campsite_properties

Joseph

On 8/22/19, Andy Townsend  wrote:
> On 21/08/2019 19:03, Mark Wagner wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 11:44:41 -0600
>> Rob Savoye  wrote:
>>
>>>Many western state campgrounds have metal bear proof food storage
>>> boxes in each campsite, but not all of them. At certain times of the
>>> year this can be important. :-) Around here the bears will destroy
>>> your car if there is food left inside. I see zero instances of this
>>> type of data, at least not in Colorado. My guess would
>>> 'amenity='bear_box' ? (looking at amenity=bbq as an example)
>> That's how I've mapped the five I've added to the map.
>
> A quick search of taginfo suggests that as the best option - try
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/amenity=bear_box and variations.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Cash_withdrawal draft

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Commenting in both places

Not a bad idea as it would be handy to know that you can get cash out
"here".

Some potential issues I can see though.

How much can I get out ($100 max)? A supermarket cashier may be able to
give me $500, but a corner milk-bar may be only $50.

Do you need to specify which currency? eg Can I ask for € in the UK, or
US$, or is it expected that you can only withdraw the local currency?

"To tag whether there is cash withdrawal and with what banks/brands use:

cash_withdrawal

=no/**/** for example: cash_withdrawal

=migros_bank

;postfinance_card

;bank_of_america

"
By the time you add in all the possible banks / cards, that will become
very unwieldy & hard to read, & there is also a character limit that will
apply.

"Basically to everything where you can get cash with the help from
personnel. If you can get the money yourself atm
=yes or amenity
=atm
 should be used. The
new tagging should for example be used at:
supermarket,convenience,bar,cafe,kiosk"

Here in Australia, at least the 2 biggest supermarket chains have
self-serve checkouts that allow you to put your groceries through yourself,
but also allow you to withdraw cash. It is also possible to use these
checkouts to only withdraw cash without actually buying anything. How would
these be tagged?

"Rendering

None."


Would probably actually be good idea to render them with the standard ATM
symbol, so that if you look at a map, you can see that you can get cash out
here, here or there!
Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Garmin waypoints and routes (was: "Roles of route members" and before that "Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking")

[Volker Schmidt]

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 20:48, Peter Elderson  wrote:

> I have to correct myself: I thought OsmAnd really performed routing when
> navigating using a gpx trail. It doesn't, I tested it today. It translates
> turns in the track into screen messgaes and spoken text messages, without
> doing anything with the map. So it will send you into a ravine if your
> track goes there.
>
I knew that. Already the original Garmin etrex of before 2010 was able to
do soemthing similar (no voice, but visible signal of approach to a bend n
the track)

> But it can route you to the start of your track, and when you go
> off-track, it routes you back on track.
>
> All the more reason why the gpx should be a correctly ordered single
> chain.
>
This is a Non sequitur, as I have tried to explain before.
Volker
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bear box in campground ?

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 22:05, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:

>
> The question remains if tagging the boxes would give bears an advantage as
> they could exploit the
> knowledge and focus on sites without such boxes?
>

+1

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

Re: [Tagging] bear box in campground ?

[Tom Pfeifer]

On 21.08.2019 19:44, Rob Savoye wrote:

   Many western state campgrounds have metal bear proof food storage
boxes in each campsite, but not all of them. At certain times of the
year this can be important. :-) Around here the bears will destroy your
car if there is food left inside. I see zero instances of this type of
data, at least not in Colorado. My guess would 'amenity='bear_box' ?
(looking at amenity=bbq as an example)


The question remains if tagging the boxes would give bears an advantage as they could exploit the 
knowledge and focus on sites without such boxes?


tom

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

[Tagging] Cash_withdrawal draft

[amilopowers]

Hello

I filed a draft for a new tag called "cash_withdrawal".

Please comment in the wiki. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Cash_withdrawal

With my best regards
Ueli aka amilopowers


Sent from ProtonMail, encrypted email based in Switzerland.

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

Re: [Tagging] Garmin waypoints and routes (was: "Roles of route members" and before that "Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking")

[Peter Elderson]

I have to correct myself: I thought OsmAnd really performed routing when
navigating using a gpx trail. It doesn't, I tested it today. It translates
turns in the track into screen messgaes and spoken text messages, without
doing anything with the map. So it will send you into a ravine if your
track goes there.
But it can route you to the start of your track, and when you go off-track,
it routes you back on track.

All the more reason why the gpx should be a correctly ordered single chain.

Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op di 20 aug. 2019 om 16:57 schreef Peter Elderson :

> Andy Townsend :
>
> On 19/08/2019 19:04, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
>
> Ok, I accept I just don't know how it's done. So how is that done? How do
> I tell my Garmin to guide me along, say, the Limes trail through the
> Netherlands?
>
> Essentially, you'd just look at the screen and follow that!  I tend to use
> waypoints for an idea of things like "how long will it be until I get to
> where I'm going to stop for lunch", not for "turn left here because route
> XYZ turns left here", because you can see on the screen that route XYZ
> "turns left here".
>
>
> So it’s not done. The osm route is not used to route. You can see it and
> keep yor dot on the line, but the navigating device does not navigate along
> the route. It can navigate, it has the route, but it does not do it unless
> I create gpx from the route, send that to the device, which then recreates
> the route from the gpx.
>
> If you want to add a series of waypoints and route along those then you
> can, but want you can't typically do with one of the hiking-oriented
> Garmins is follow a particular feature.  You could create an OSM-based
> Garmin map that forced a device to route along a trail at the expense of
> any other paths, but I certainly wouldn't want to do that as it would stop
> me from leaving the trail to eat in a nearby town.
>
>
> Nothing stops you from leaving the route, and I expect the device to route
> me back to the track afterwards. And it does, and so does OsmAnd.
>
> Creating a Garmin route from a GPX file is possible, but probably
> impractical, as you'd need to restrict the number of points.  Apparently my
> GPSMap 64 supports 200 routes with 250 points per route, and up to 5000
> waypoints in total.
>
> If only there were a way to store permanent routes in, say, a mapping
> database, which could be used to determine what ways to follow...
>
> You only need to load the section(s) for the next day or a few days.
> Afterwards, just remove them. No problem. I have had no problems to load
> the via degli dei as 7 sections, each a day’s walk. No restrictions
> necessary.
>
> I also loaded these in OsmAnd and had it guide me all the way
> voice-in-ear, ie not having to look at the screen at all.
>
> Where Garmin on-device routing is really useful is for when you need to
> get to somewhere but don't have an on-screen route to follow - for example
> if the weather's turned and you need to abort a previously planned route
> and get another route to your destination from where you currently are.
> It's also useful where there are natural obstacles like rivers, where the
> distance on foot may be significantly more than the as-the-crow-flies
> distance.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
> ___
> 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] bear box in campground ?

[Andy Townsend]

On 21/08/2019 19:03, Mark Wagner wrote:

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 11:44:41 -0600
Rob Savoye  wrote:


   Many western state campgrounds have metal bear proof food storage
boxes in each campsite, but not all of them. At certain times of the
year this can be important. :-) Around here the bears will destroy
your car if there is food left inside. I see zero instances of this
type of data, at least not in Colorado. My guess would
'amenity='bear_box' ? (looking at amenity=bbq as an example)

That's how I've mapped the five I've added to the map.


A quick search of taginfo suggests that as the best option - try 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/amenity=bear_box and variations.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Tagging] bear box in campground ?

[Mark Wagner]

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 11:44:41 -0600
Rob Savoye  wrote:

>   Many western state campgrounds have metal bear proof food storage
> boxes in each campsite, but not all of them. At certain times of the
> year this can be important. :-) Around here the bears will destroy
> your car if there is food left inside. I see zero instances of this
> type of data, at least not in Colorado. My guess would
> 'amenity='bear_box' ? (looking at amenity=bbq as an example)

That's how I've mapped the five I've added to the map.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

[Markus]

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 10:11, marc marc  wrote:
>
> Le 21.08.19 à 09:58, Markus a écrit :
> > Otherwise, we need a new relation (maybe type=stop_position?) to
> > connect the stop position to the waiting area
>
> imho that's why stop_area relation exist

According to the wiki, public_transport=stop_area is used "to identify
all of the features associated with a public transport interchange or
part of one. A stop area for a simple bus stop with buses in both
directions would consist of two waiting areas or shelters [...] and
two stop positions [...]. More complex stop areas may include multiple
platforms and stop positions and many associated elements."

In contrast, the relation i had in mind would only include one
highway=bus_stop and one public_transport=stop_position. The relation
and the public_transport=stop_position node would only be used for the
rare cases where the stop position cannot be calculated by projecting
the highway=bus_stop node to the highway=* way.

Markus

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

[Tagging] bear box in campground ?

[Rob Savoye]

  Many western state campgrounds have metal bear proof food storage
boxes in each campsite, but not all of them. At certain times of the
year this can be important. :-) Around here the bears will destroy your
car if there is food left inside. I see zero instances of this type of
data, at least not in Colorado. My guess would 'amenity='bear_box' ?
(looking at amenity=bbq as an example)

- rob -

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

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

[Peter Elderson]

typo: references -> Preferences.
Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op wo 21 aug. 2019 om 11:13 schreef Peter Elderson :

> I have now seen PT stop discussions a gazillion times. The references and
> differences reflect the different usages people have in mind, from: I just
> want to map what's visible on the ground, to Support every thinkable way of
> linking, routing, planning and navigating.
>
> Just saying.
> Fr gr Peter Elderson
>
>
> Op wo 21 aug. 2019 om 10:11 schreef marc marc :
>
>> Le 21.08.19 à 09:58, Markus a écrit :
>> > Otherwise, we need a new relation (maybe type=stop_position?) to
>> > connect the stop position to the waiting area
>>
>> imho that's why stop_area relation exist
>> ___
>> 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] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

[Peter Elderson]

I have now seen PT stop discussions a gazillion times. The references and
differences reflect the different usages people have in mind, from: I just
want to map what's visible on the ground, to Support every thinkable way of
linking, routing, planning and navigating.

Just saying.
Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op wo 21 aug. 2019 om 10:11 schreef marc marc :

> Le 21.08.19 à 09:58, Markus a écrit :
> > Otherwise, we need a new relation (maybe type=stop_position?) to
> > connect the stop position to the waiting area
>
> imho that's why stop_area relation exist
> ___
> 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] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

[Jo]

Indeed, but I don't think it makes sense to use them for each and every stop

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 10:11 marc marc  wrote:

> Le 21.08.19 à 09:58, Markus a écrit :
> > Otherwise, we need a new relation (maybe type=stop_position?) to
> > connect the stop position to the waiting area
>
> imho that's why stop_area relation exist
> ___
> 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] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

[marc marc]

Le 21.08.19 à 09:58, Markus a écrit :
> Otherwise, we need a new relation (maybe type=stop_position?) to
> connect the stop position to the waiting area

imho that's why stop_area relation exist
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

[Markus]

On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 05:55, Michael Tsang  wrote:
>
> 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.

Maybe highway=bus_stop could be placed where passengers board the bus?
Otherwise, we need a new relation (maybe type=stop_position?) to
connect the stop position to the waiting area, as the route relations
would only include one element (highway=bus_stop). Keeping the PTv2
route relations with platform and stop members just for these rare
cases doesn't make sense IMO.

Regards
Markus

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