Re: [Tagging] Proposed features / landuse=open_defecation

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Thanks for working on this, Bob,

Check out the page "Proposal_process" and in particular
Proposal_process#Creating_a_proposal_page to help improve the
formatting and make sure you've included important information.

Please clarify exactly what should be mapped with this new tag. Is
going to be added to whole villages, as suggested in the section about
"open_defecation=yes?

"It would have its own sign and could be used as a node or area.
Although it may be added to small villages to indicate if it is their
primary source of human waste disposal."

This would not be a good idea, since it's not possible for mappers to
confirm that every house or a majority of houses in a village lack
latrines or toilet. But the rest of the page suggests that this tag is
supposed to be applied to areas where there are visible signs, in
other words, there's human feces exposed on the ground?

There are a couple of problems with the proposed subtags. It's not
best practice to use abbreviations or uppercase letters in tags, so
instead of "ODA_" it should be "open_defecation_" or
"open_defecation:", if need.

"ODA_Radius_.." "ODA_area_size..." - The first two subtags are not
needed - the area can be mapped instead, and this provides the shape
and size just from the position of the nodes in the database.

"ODA_survey_date=" - there is already a tag for this, survey:date=* or
source:date=* , but it is recommended to add such information to the
changeset rather than to individual OSM objects.

"ODA_responsibility=" is unclear. What would this mean, and how would
a local mapper in confirm this information?

"ODA_proposed_solution=" - Unfortunately, this is not appropriate for
Openstreetmap. We map real, current features, not opinions, reviews or
suggestions, because such information is too subjective for individual
mappers to maintain.

"ODA_abandoned=yes/no" - generally features in Openstreetmap should be
current, so if an area that was used for open defecation in the past
has now been abandoned, and there are no signs "on the ground", then
it should be removed from the database. Some mappers use a prefix
"abandoned:" like "abandoned:landuse=open_defecation".

However, if the area is "disused" - not currently in use, but there
are still signs that it was recently used, and perhaps it's still a
health hazard because of the presence of decomposing human waste, this
could be tagged with "disused=yes".

ODA_survey_hazardous materials_data_weblink= - I'm not sure what is
intended by this tag. Perhaps the existing tag url=* would be
sufficient?

(I've also left these comments on the Talk page of the proposal, so we
can continue discussion there)

-Joseph Eisenberg

On 9/12/19, Bob Kerr via Tagging  wrote:
> I have created a proposal page for landuse=open defecation.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dopen_defecation
>
> Please review it, my wiki page editing skills have suffered from lack of use
> so it could do with a little tidy if anyone wants to.
>
> Please discuss your thoughts here. The most controversial area is I am using
> the landuse tag rather than open_defication = yes. Please let me know which
> you would prefer.
>
> All the best
>
> Bob

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

Re: [Tagging] mesh bicycle network

[Hubert87 via Tagging]

Am 12.09.2019 um 23:24 schrieb Peter Elderson:

In NL node networks all node2node routes are route relations.

Then all the relations and the nodes are added to the network
relation, where the network:type (i.e. the setup/system/rules), the
network name, operator, website etc are tagged. Currently, the network
relation for node networks is used only for maintenance en checking
network integrity.

Oh, thank you for clarifying.

I think the network in Bremen is a preference route system.

Sounds about right.

Yours
Hubert87


Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op do 12 sep. 2019 om 22:49 schreef Hubert87 via Tagging
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>>:

To summarize:
- (highway) Use lcn=yes on the highway; (my Idea) maybe with some more
Information about the network like lcn:operator=*, lcn:ref=* or
similar.
- (route-relation) split up the network into smaller relations going
from guidepost to guidepost. Seems very complicated, also to query/get
the entire network.
- (network-relation) get a new value for network:type=* , maybe
guidepost_network.

I still have a slight preference toward the network-relation. It seems
very similar to the node-network from NL and imho should be tagged
comparably.

However, most import to me is to keep the information about the
network
character somehow. A simple lcn=yes won't do that.

Yours
Hubert87


___
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] mesh bicycle network

[Peter Elderson]

In NL node networks all node2node routes are route relations.

Then all the relations and the nodes are added to the network relation,
where the network:type (i.e. the setup/system/rules), the network name,
operator, website etc are tagged. Currently, the network relation for node
networks is used only for maintenance en checking network integrity.

I think the network in Bremen is a preference route system.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op do 12 sep. 2019 om 22:49 schreef Hubert87 via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> To summarize:
> - (highway) Use lcn=yes on the highway; (my Idea) maybe with some more
> Information about the network like lcn:operator=*, lcn:ref=* or similar.
> - (route-relation) split up the network into smaller relations going
> from guidepost to guidepost. Seems very complicated, also to query/get
> the entire network.
> - (network-relation) get a new value for network:type=* , maybe
> guidepost_network.
>
> I still have a slight preference toward the network-relation. It seems
> very similar to the node-network from NL and imho should be tagged
> comparably.
>
> However, most import to me is to keep the information about the network
> character somehow. A simple lcn=yes won't do that.
>
> Yours
> Hubert87
>
>
> ___
> 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] mesh bicycle network

[Hubert87 via Tagging]

To summarize:
- (highway) Use lcn=yes on the highway; (my Idea) maybe with some more
Information about the network like lcn:operator=*, lcn:ref=* or similar.
- (route-relation) split up the network into smaller relations going
from guidepost to guidepost. Seems very complicated, also to query/get
the entire network.
- (network-relation) get a new value for network:type=* , maybe
guidepost_network.

I still have a slight preference toward the network-relation. It seems
very similar to the node-network from NL and imho should be tagged
comparably.

However, most import to me is to keep the information about the network
character somehow. A simple lcn=yes won't do that.

Yours
Hubert87


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=indoor

[Jeremiah Rose]

I've updated this RFC with some of the comments received over the last week.

footway=indoor: indoor pedestrian route
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/footway%3Dindoor

Thanks,
Jeremiah Rose

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

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Mateusz Konieczny]

12 Sep 2019, 11:43 by jan...@gmail.com:

> One problem
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 06:53 Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>>
>> I still see no benefit in using part:wikipedia
>> or part:wikidata over current version.
>>
>
> One problem with the current system is that if you click one of those dwarfs 
> in OSM, and see it's linked to an object in wikidata, you have no way of 
> seeing if that is the whole wikidata object, or just a part of that object, 
> unless you download the whole OSM database.
>
You can download from taginfo 
distribution of wikidata values.

This is very easy to do and significantly
easier than processing full planet.

(I do this to detect and cleanup
invalid wikipedia and wikidata tags)___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reusable packaging

[marc marc]

Le 12.09.19 à 13:52, Frederik Ramm a écrit :
> A supermarket chain can introduce paper bags today, discontinue them 
> next week, and re-introduce plastic bags next month.

in theory yes.
in practice logistics chains probably change less quickly
than the urbanization of agricultural land.
if we think we can maintain the landuses (I am not sure when I see the 
catastrophic state of them in some countries with many contributors), 
then we can probably keep up to date a logistical change by decade.

> Do we even have a remote hope of achieving a
> level of completeness and timeliness that makes this usable?

no more or no less than for landuses.
in places where there are contributors interested in the subject, 
applications/sites using osm are the best ones.
where no osm contributors but contributors to proprietary databases, 
those are the best.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reusable packaging

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

I am generally skeptical of us becoming more and more a business directory.

I think that objects in the real world have some real-world, observable
properties, like a house that has a certain form and height, or a sign
that has been put up, or a bench, and while these properties can change,
it will usually involve some construction and not happen willy-nilly. I
am in favour of mapping such things.

On the other hand, there are commercial and policy things, like: Does
this shop accept credit cards, does this shop sell vegan food, or how
many varieties of chocolate bars does this shop stock, and does this
museum open on Sundays? While I can see that this information is
interesting in some situations, these properties can change on a whim. A
supermarket chain can introduce paper bags today, discontinue them next
week, and re-introduce plastic bags next month. Do we really want to go
into that effort of trying to actively represent what products are sold
and under what conditions? Do we even have a remote hope of achieving a
level of completeness and timeliness that makes this usable? Where does
it stop?

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] Proposed features / landuse=open_defecation

[Bob Kerr via Tagging]

I have created a proposal page for landuse=open defecation.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dopen_defecation

Please review it, my wiki page editing skills have suffered from lack of use so 
it could do with a little tidy if anyone wants to.

Please discuss your thoughts here. The most controversial area is I am using 
the landuse tag rather than open_defication = yes. Please let me know which you 
would prefer.

All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reusable packaging

[marc marc]

well in this case, this shop isn't a bulk_purchase=yes shop
bulk_purchase=* in osm mean that you can BUY item in bulk
not that the shop has a stock of product that he packs for you on site.
bulk_purchase informs how the customer can have the product and not in 
what form the stock in the shop is kept

PS: I think your butcher is outdated, I haven't seen any refusals
for at least 2 years :) including in Carrefour-like shop

Le 12.09.19 à 12:54, Antoine Jaury via Tagging a écrit :
> And sorry Marc but I don't have an article explaining the use of one-use 
> only bag proposed by bulk purchase shops.
> 
> In my case, I buy only bulk purchase products and it often happen in 
> supermarket for example that you can only use the supermarket's paper 
> bags with a plastic window on the bag to see what is inside. I tried 
> once to use in an "Carrefour shop" a paper bag I reused from another 
> shop and one of the sell men explained to me that I couldn't do that 
> because they need to see what is inside the bag without opening it and 
> for hygienic reasons we can't reuse a bag multiple times.
> 
> As explained also in my previous message: butchers, backery, pastry 
> shops ... are the perfect example of shops with bulk products that will 
> not automatically accept reusable packaging. It's difficult for instance 
> to find a butcher that will accept that you use your glass jar to buy 
> some meat. Most of them will say that they have to use one-use only bags 
> for hygienic reasons.
> 
> 
> On 12/09/2019 12:29, marc marc wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Le 12.09.19 à 12:20, Antoine Jaury via Tagging a écrit :
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/reusable_packaging
>>> Definition: Describes a shop accepting reusable containers from their
>>> customers and/or proposing some
>> it'sn't the same as 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bulk_purchase ?
>> you said "Some shops selling bulk products will only accept that their
>> customers use the one-use only bags proposed by the shop. "
>> bulk product in one-use packaging provided by the store ? I have never
>> heard such a contradiction. do you have a link to an article on this
>> subject?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reusable packaging

[Antoine Jaury via Tagging]

And sorry Marc but I don't have an article explaining the use of one-use 
only bag proposed by bulk purchase shops.


In my case, I buy only bulk purchase products and it often happen in 
supermarket for example that you can only use the supermarket's paper 
bags with a plastic window on the bag to see what is inside. I tried 
once to use in an "Carrefour shop" a paper bag I reused from another 
shop and one of the sell men explained to me that I couldn't do that 
because they need to see what is inside the bag without opening it and 
for hygienic reasons we can't reuse a bag multiple times.


As explained also in my previous message: butchers, backery, pastry 
shops ... are the perfect example of shops with bulk products that will 
not automatically accept reusable packaging. It's difficult for instance 
to find a butcher that will accept that you use your glass jar to buy 
some meat. Most of them will say that they have to use one-use only bags 
for hygienic reasons.



On 12/09/2019 12:29, marc marc wrote:

Hello,

Le 12.09.19 à 12:20, Antoine Jaury via Tagging a écrit :

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/reusable_packaging
Definition: Describes a shop accepting reusable containers from their
customers and/or proposing some

it'sn't the same as https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bulk_purchase ?
you said "Some shops selling bulk products will only accept that their
customers use the one-use only bags proposed by the shop. "
bulk product in one-use packaging provided by the store ? I have never
heard such a contradiction. do you have a link to an article on this
subject?
___
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] Open Defecation Areas

[Bob Kerr via Tagging]

Hi,

Mapping areas for Open Defecation may be a little tricky in the web editor but 
no problem in JOSM. In many slums Open Defecation Areas(ODA) can be a lot 
bigger than the size of a house. Individual nodes would be used in places like 
between houses or dead ends. Some areas are so big they have become permanent. 
This is why I think the landuse tag is relevant to this situation. I can 
understand referencing google maps but their mapping in areas where they don’t 
get revenue is not that great.

Cheers

Bob

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reusable packaging

[Antoine Jaury via Tagging]

Hello,

It's not the same as the key bulk_purchase.

As explained:

   " OpenStreetMap allows to identify bulk purchase shops
    and it
   exists some applications like https://cartovrac.fr for people who
   just want a render of these data.

   Shops accepting reusable containers are not necessarily shops who
   sell "bulk products". It could be any shop that accepts that people
   bring their own containers to buy a food product, soap, detergent
   ... A shop that has bulk products, as described in the OpenStreetMap
   wiki , is not
   necessarily a shop who accepts reusable containers. Some shops
   selling bulk products will only accept that their customers use the
   one-use only bags proposed by the shop."

A shop that has bulk product doesn't necessarily sell its product with 
reusable packaging. Some shops use plastic bags to sell bulk products.


Also, a butcher, a bakery, a pastry shops are not considered as 
bulk_purchase shops but they can sell their product using reusable 
packaging.



On 12/09/2019 12:29, marc marc wrote:

Hello,

Le 12.09.19 à 12:20, Antoine Jaury via Tagging a écrit :

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/reusable_packaging
Definition: Describes a shop accepting reusable containers from their
customers and/or proposing some

it'sn't the same as https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bulk_purchase ?
you said "Some shops selling bulk products will only accept that their
customers use the one-use only bags proposed by the shop. "
bulk product in one-use packaging provided by the store ? I have never
heard such a contradiction. do you have a link to an article on this
subject?
___
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] mesh bicycle network

[Peter Elderson]

I think it makes sense to map preference routes as route relations, same as
node2node routes within node networks.
I am not a fan of network relations if they are just collections of
elements, but if the information about how they are organised and used is
also present and verifiable by survey (which is the case in the
present example) it's not wrong and could be useful for maps, planners and
routers.
How to use the elements in a network can be tagged by a suitable value of
network:type. Currently, network_type=node_network is used, the system is
increasingly adopted for all recreational transport modes. If many cities
use verifiable preferential route networks, a suitable value for
network:type could be added, making the route relations and network
relations a system reflecting actual use rather than just collections.

A network relation without the node2node or signpost2signpost relations
makes no sense to me. The signposts and arrows denote actual routes, that
is the basis of the system.

Just adding lcn=yes to the ways loses the information about the
routing/network system(s) they are part of. If that's fine, no problem. If
people want to map the routes and maybe the network, I think it's OK too.
We have the means.

Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op do 12 sep. 2019 om 12:01 schreef Volker Schmidt :

> I see similarities of this approach with the hiking paths of the alpine
> clubs, but with the important difference that the routes do not have a
> reference.
> And it's very similar to a node network, except that the nodes are not
> numbered.
> It's a 1:1 copy of the road network signposting (and please allow the
> comment, has the same drawback in the sense that is not helpful to people
> who are not familiar with the area and don't know the names of the places
> and their relative positions)
>
> I fear the only sensible thing to do is to put the lcn and REF on each
> way, but no relation, and map the signposts (even if there is no routing
> software at the moment that makes use of this information, as far as I
> know).
> Not the best solution, but the signposting in this way does not work well
> either for the end user (talking from experience).
>
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 11:21, Janko Mihelić  wrote:
>
>> I don't think this is good mapping. Firstly, this is not a route. A route
>> is something that gets you from one place to another. This is a network of
>> routes, and there is a tag for it, type=network[1] But this type of a
>> relation breaks the "Relations are not Categories" rule [2]. That's why I
>> think this network relation should be broken up into route relations with
>> the appropriate network tag.
>>
>> If this is allowed, then what stops someone from making a "Bicycle routes
>> in Germany" relation ?
>>
>>
>> [1] - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:network
>> [2] -
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories
>>
>> čet, 12. ruj 2019. u 11:05 Martin Koppenhoefer 
>> napisao je:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> sent from a phone
>>>
>>> > On 12. Sep 2019, at 10:49, Peter Elderson  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > If there is agreement that this actually is something worth mapping, I
>>> don't see a problem there.
>>>
>>>
>>> this is how wikipedia works, in OpenStreetMap you do not need approval
>>> of others that something is “worth” mapping, the osm question is whether
>>> something is verifiable.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers Martin
>>> ___
>>> 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
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reusable packaging

[marc marc]

Hello,

Le 12.09.19 à 12:20, Antoine Jaury via Tagging a écrit :
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/reusable_packaging
> Definition: Describes a shop accepting reusable containers from their 
> customers and/or proposing some

it'sn't the same as https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bulk_purchase ?
you said "Some shops selling bulk products will only accept that their 
customers use the one-use only bags proposed by the shop. "
bulk product in one-use packaging provided by the store ? I have never 
heard such a contradiction. do you have a link to an article on this 
subject?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reusable packaging

[Antoine Jaury via Tagging]

Hi,

I would like to propose the following feature for comments:

Link: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/reusable_packaging


Definition: Describes a shop accepting reusable containers from their 
customers and/or proposing some


Thank you all for your kindly comments and have a nice day,

Ajojo.


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

Re: [Tagging] mesh bicycle network

[Volker Schmidt]

I see similarities of this approach with the hiking paths of the alpine
clubs, but with the important difference that the routes do not have a
reference.
And it's very similar to a node network, except that the nodes are not
numbered.
It's a 1:1 copy of the road network signposting (and please allow the
comment, has the same drawback in the sense that is not helpful to people
who are not familiar with the area and don't know the names of the places
and their relative positions)

I fear the only sensible thing to do is to put the lcn and REF on each way,
but no relation, and map the signposts (even if there is no routing
software at the moment that makes use of this information, as far as I
know).
Not the best solution, but the signposting in this way does not work well
either for the end user (talking from experience).

On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 11:21, Janko Mihelić  wrote:

> I don't think this is good mapping. Firstly, this is not a route. A route
> is something that gets you from one place to another. This is a network of
> routes, and there is a tag for it, type=network[1] But this type of a
> relation breaks the "Relations are not Categories" rule [2]. That's why I
> think this network relation should be broken up into route relations with
> the appropriate network tag.
>
> If this is allowed, then what stops someone from making a "Bicycle routes
> in Germany" relation ?
>
>
> [1] - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:network
> [2] -
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories
>
> čet, 12. ruj 2019. u 11:05 Martin Koppenhoefer 
> napisao je:
>
>>
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>> > On 12. Sep 2019, at 10:49, Peter Elderson  wrote:
>> >
>> > If there is agreement that this actually is something worth mapping, I
>> don't see a problem there.
>>
>>
>> this is how wikipedia works, in OpenStreetMap you do not need approval of
>> others that something is “worth” mapping, the osm question is whether
>> something is verifiable.
>>
>>
>> Cheers Martin
>> ___
>> 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] mesh bicycle network

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 12. Sep 2019, at 11:18, Janko Mihelić  wrote:
> 
> I don't think this is good mapping.


agreed, I didn’t imply it was good mapping, what I said was that it can be 
mapped without question, because it is there, visible a verifiable.
No need for a relation at all, and I agree that it isn’t well tagged (this is 
not a route). A simple lcn=yes on the highways should be sufficient.

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

Re: [Tagging] mesh bicycle network

[Janko Mihelić]

I don't think this is good mapping. Firstly, this is not a route. A route
is something that gets you from one place to another. This is a network of
routes, and there is a tag for it, type=network[1] But this type of a
relation breaks the "Relations are not Categories" rule [2]. That's why I
think this network relation should be broken up into route relations with
the appropriate network tag.

If this is allowed, then what stops someone from making a "Bicycle routes
in Germany" relation ?


[1] - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:network
[2] -
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories

čet, 12. ruj 2019. u 11:05 Martin Koppenhoefer 
napisao je:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 12. Sep 2019, at 10:49, Peter Elderson  wrote:
> >
> > If there is agreement that this actually is something worth mapping, I
> don't see a problem there.
>
>
> this is how wikipedia works, in OpenStreetMap you do not need approval of
> others that something is “worth” mapping, the osm question is whether
> something is verifiable.
>
>
> Cheers Martin
> ___
> 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] Tourist bus stop

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 12. Sep 2019, at 02:44, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> The Key:bus has this definition currently
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bus):
> 
> "A bus is a large motor vehicle used for public transport of passengers


that’s a brand new page you have created by copying content from the bus=yes 
page. 

The long-standing definition as an access class is “
 bus=* (a heavy bus acting as a public service vehicle)”



and can be found on the access page. The bus key page used to redirect to it.

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

Re: [Tagging] mesh bicycle network

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 12. Sep 2019, at 10:49, Peter Elderson  wrote:
> 
> If there is agreement that this actually is something worth mapping, I don't 
> see a problem there. 


this is how wikipedia works, in OpenStreetMap you do not need approval of 
others that something is “worth” mapping, the osm question is whether something 
is verifiable. 


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

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 12. Sep 2019, at 00:03, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> I'll just
> go and look at wikidata for stolperstein...  It's not identified as a 
> category, but it clearly is one.  It's
> a sub-class of commemorative plaque.  It makes no more sense to apply 
> Q26703203 to every
> stolperstein than it does to apply Q532 to every village.


I would see the Stolpersteine as a single, distributed artwork rather than many 
disconnected commemorative plaques of the same kind.
The way you see it determines how to represent it.

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

Re: [Tagging] mesh bicycle network

[Peter Elderson]

I would say it is a system of preferential cycleroutes to different
destinations. It resembles the system of preferential truck routes in
Amsterdam.

It is a system, and it's visible on the ground. The arrow signs create a
route to the next signpost in the chosen direction. If there is agreement
that this actually is something worth mapping, I don't see a problem there.

The network:type=* tag creates the option to add network-systems for all
transport modes. If a clear value for this network:type can be agreed upon,
I see no problem there either.

That's my own opinion. Since the Dutch route mappers came up with the
network:type tag to explicitly map network systems (i.c. node_network), and
since we have discussed how to tag a preference route system for trucks in
Amsterdam last year, I will ask on the Dutch OSM forum how they feel about
this idea.

Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op do 12 sep. 2019 om 00:04 schreef Hubert87 :

> Hi,
>
> i have stumbled over the post about rcn and cycling node networks and
> was wondering if you guys might have a proposal for primary bicycle
> route mesh network relation(s) like this one
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3585265, which is in Bremen,
> Germany.
>
> It is neither a cycling node network nor a classical bicycle route but a
> set of
> guideposts(https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/AlXYW3arx59dkSlruUsWjg)
> showing poi destinations and distances completed with addition smaller
> signs (https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/9pqoiH4eH4o7Ieh6IXRnfg) in
> between guideposts pointing in the right direction.
>
> All classical bicycle routes seem to be part of this network, but it
> contains more routes. Additionally these routes do not have a beginning
> or end or a closed loops, but are more a kind of mesh like the node
> network; except for the nodes.
>
> Also, as far a I can tell, the main guidepost are sorted into 5 regions
> (Nord, Süd, Ost, West, Mitte), which is coded in the small print
> (mi=mitte) on the guideposts, as can be seen in the first example picture.
>
> There is a discussion in the german forum
> (https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=762131) about
> deleting these relations and just tagging its highways with lcn=yes.
> But I'd really looking for a different solution.
> Can someone point me to a possible solution?
>
> Yours
> Hubert87
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 11. Sep 2019, at 23:24, Janko Mihelić  wrote:
> 
> Art or memorial installations like Stolperstein[1], which are distributed, 
> but have one wikidata item. It's hard to imagine every Stolperstein will get 
> its own article. And a relation with all these nodes makes no sense.


every Stolperstein (or spot of Stolpersteine) could get a wikidata item. You 
don’t need an article for a wikidata item. Then they could be grouped in 
wikidata. And in OpenStreetMap you would link the individual wikidata items.

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

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Janko Mihelić]

One problem

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 06:53 Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

>
> I still see no benefit in using part:wikipedia
> or part:wikidata over current version.
>

One problem with the current system is that if you click one of those
dwarfs in OSM, and see it's linked to an object in wikidata, you have no
way of seeing if that is the whole wikidata object, or just a part of that
object, unless you download the whole OSM database. Or if you are a human,
and you look at the wikipedia article, and see there should be a whole
bunch of dwarfs. But that example doesn't seem as important.

Currently, the second most numerous wikidata tag in OSM is
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2961670, an item that describes all the
roman roads in historic Gaul in France. All those ways, close to 500 of
them, have wikidata=Q296167. That is obviously not good tagging. But how do
you differentiate good wikidata tagging from bad tagging? I think this rule
and part:wikidata are the way to clean this up. I would give all these
roads part:wikidata=Q29616, and than that looks much closer to reality.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 11. Sep 2019, at 20:23, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> Where wikipedia articles in a language do not match the wikidata then the 
> article or the wikidata
> is incorrect. 


the problem is not black and white, things can match in wikipedia, partially. 
And several wikipedia articles can match to the same wikidata object (which 
then will be more or less duplicated, because every article has a wikidata 
object). That’s what I tried to say: there is various overlap, and it can be 
different in different languages. Unless articles are translations, it is clear 
that they will likely have different coverage / breadth in different languages. 
I am reading a lot of wikipedia in three languages, and inter language is often 
not matching nicely or has different coverage and structure, but isn’t easy to 
fix either. You may not notice if you only follow the language links, but 
you’ll see when you do a search for the same topics in the other language and 
find similar pages.

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

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 11. Sep 2019, at 20:23, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> The
> question I'd consider important is have you mapped those two things as 
> distinct OSM objects?


with the current state I am not sure what wikidata is describing here, or if 
these are maybe duplicates. At some point in the past I was able to assign one 
to the place entity (a node) and the other to the administrative boundary 
(taking into account also the content of the related wikipedia article), but as 
it is now it doesn’t seem to be consistent anymore.

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