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

[Warin]

On 27/09/19 03:14, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



Am Do., 26. Sept. 2019 um 19:03 Uhr schrieb Markus 
mailto:selfishseaho...@gmail.com>>:


BTW, i find it very strange that there is a separte highway=* tag
for indoor "flat ways" (i.e. corridors), but not for steps. Any
reasons for that?



Not sure if we need a different tag (in both cases), but for steps 
we're missing some basic parameters to define them. There is 
"step_count" which is fine, but it lacks the steps measurements (e.g. 
18/27, which means 18cm high and 27 cm "free" to stand on (this is the 
outer measurement and does not account for the part of the step that 
is covered by the next step, if any, depending on the construction 
details).


Technically the usual stair/step basic specifications are;

'rise' vertical displacement from one step to the next step
'going' or 'run' horizontal displacement from one step to the next step

See
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/8393/2077370.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stairs#Measurements

Note: number of steps is the number of risers, not treads.

And the width of the thing (usually net width = width - handrails and 
other stuff that obstructs the steps). The height can also easily be 
calculated from the height difference and the step count.


Additional interesting properties could be: necessary steps (required 
by building code) or not, steps suitable for use during fire / with 
forced smoke outlets, etc. (important emergency information).


Stairs for use in a fire are usually fully enclosed behind doors that 
latch closed and the doors are fire rated, the enclosure is also rated 
for fire.


Building codes will change from place to place. As building codes will 
cover some area and change from time to time I don't think they need to 
go into OSM.





And of course there are many more, like surface, general geometry 
(linear / circular / ...)


The geometry would be given by the map.
OSM already has a surface tag.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

[Warin]

On 27/09/19 02:15, Paul Allen wrote:
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 16:49, Richard Fairhurst > wrote:


Paul Allen wrote:
> BTW, that's on national cycle route 82, so whether or not it
really is
> a pub would be of interest to some mappers.

Oh, has that closed?


Two or three years ago.  The Eagle nearby it closed as well, but has 
since re-opened

under a new name.

That's a shame. (I stayed in St Dogmaels a few years
ago, thought the Castle Inn looked wonderfully old-fashioned, and was
planning to go but was diverted by some other excellent pubs
nearby. Not
least the one in St Dogmaels itself which served Gwynt y Ddraig Black
Dragon. I'd hoped to return one day... ah well.)


Ummm, which pub in St Dogs?  The Teifi Netpool Inn is more of a guest 
house with a bar
than a pub with guest rooms these days.  The White Hart closed but 
there's currently an

attempt by locals to raise the money to take it over.

> Mapping it as amenity=pub + disused=yes would (if carto
> is consistent with other times I've tried disused=yes) render it
as a pub
> where disused:amenity=pub does not render it as a pub.

Sure, but OSM isn't just about rendering, let alone just osm-carto
rendering.


Yes, it's also the data.  To some it's ONLY the data. But for many of 
us it's both: getting
a useful map is why we do it and we need accurate data to get a useful 
map.  If the carto does

not meet reasonable expectations then people will either stop mapping
or will tag for the renderer, either of which will reduce the accuracy 
of the data.


If it looks like a church then OSM uses building=church.

So why not use building=pub???

Ok the renders may not presently use the information .. but it does tag 
the truth?


So .. once the tagging is done .. how would you render a building that 
is a church/pub but no longer functions as a church/pub? That is the 
problem.



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

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

[Warin]

On 27/09/19 09:37, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 02:52, Kevin Kenny > wrote:



I've also mapped things like 'disused:amenity=prison
landuse=brownfield' for a now-closed prison that the state is trying
to find a buyer to redevelop. The buildings are still standing (and I
understand are for the most part structurally sound), but what would a
buyer do with them?


Legal offices would seem the most appropriate? :-)
Don't know if I'd use landuse=brownfield. Could the buildings be 
re-purposed .. and therefore not a brownfield but a construction site?


Going back to the disused / abandoned discussion, is this a good time 
to ask about destroyed:?


A tourism establishment in our area has just been destroyed by a 
bushfire :-(


It's planned to rebuild on the same spot, so I've marked the existing 
tourism=guest_house & amenity=restaurant tags as destroyed:, together 
with a "description" note. This has removed them from the map. Is that 
the right way of doing it?


The associated camping ground wasn't damaged in any way (beyond losing 
power & telephone lines) but is also temporarily closed for "a while" 
pending road repairs & re-connection of power etc.


What's the best way of marking that?



For something that can be made functional with a little work - disused:*
I'd add  a description tag too.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 02:52, Kevin Kenny  wrote:

>
> I've also mapped things like 'disused:amenity=prison
> landuse=brownfield' for a now-closed prison that the state is trying
> to find a buyer to redevelop. The buildings are still standing (and I
> understand are for the most part structurally sound), but what would a
> buyer do with them?
>

Legal offices would seem the most appropriate? :-)

Going back to the disused / abandoned discussion, is this a good time to
ask about destroyed:?

A tourism establishment in our area has just been destroyed by a bushfire
:-(

It's planned to rebuild on the same spot, so I've marked the existing
tourism=guest_house & amenity=restaurant tags as destroyed:, together with
a "description" note. This has removed them from the map. Is that the right
way of doing it?

The associated camping ground wasn't damaged in any way (beyond losing
power & telephone lines) but is also temporarily closed for "a while"
pending road repairs & re-connection of power etc.

What's the best way of marking that?

Thanks

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

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

[Philip Barnes]

Well indoors they become stairs.

True at least in the parts of England/Wales I am from. I believe usage is 
different in Scotland.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Thursday, 26 September 2019, Markus wrote:
> BTW, i find it very strange that there is a separte highway=* tag for
> indoor "flat ways" (i.e. corridors), but not for steps. Any reasons for
> that?
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

[Philip Barnes]

I can think of at least two pubs in my stamping ground within The Shire which I 
have never set foot  in as they closed before I moved there eight years ago. 
Both still look like pubs and display their name and look like pubs from a 
distance. Set to disused:amenity=pub.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/204717378 gives local people much to moan 
about on the local Facebook group for local people.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Thursday, 26 September 2019, Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 26/09/2019 16:48, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> > Paul Allen wrote:
> >> BTW, that's on national cycle route 82, so whether or not it really is
> >> a pub would be of interest to some mappers.
> > Oh, has that closed? That's a shame. (I stayed in St Dogmaels a few years
> > ago, thought the Castle Inn looked wonderfully old-fashioned, and was
> > planning to go but was diverted by some other excellent pubs nearby. Not
> > least the one in St Dogmaels itself which served Gwynt y Ddraig Black
> > Dragon. I'd hoped to return one day... ah well.)
> >
> >> Mapping it as amenity=pub + disused=yes would (if carto
> >> is consistent with other times I've tried disused=yes) render it as a pub
> >> where disused:amenity=pub does not render it as a pub.
> > Sure, but OSM isn't just about rendering, let alone just osm-carto
> > rendering. A "find a pint of beer near me" app which does a proximity search
> > for amenity=pub won't work very well if some of those pubs... aren't pubs.
> >
> > amenity=pub means "actually a pub", not "thing that looks like a pub".
> 
> https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=20=52.0802094=-4.660442
> 
> Works for me.  I might be tempted to keep the "name" set (or perhaps 
> "old_name") if there's still a sign outside, since I think it's 
> reasonable to think of that as the building or old pub name.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - footway=indoor

[Jeremiah Rose]

This proposal has been up for three weeks, so I'm changing it to Voting status. 

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] Barrier defaults

[Florian Lohoff]

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:35:45AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> explicit access tagging for barriers is generally preferable because
> it reduces the uncertainty.
> 
> Still if there is a barrier and no access tags are set you will have
> to figure out how to deal with it. 
> 
> For bollards I agree it is likely that pedestrians can pass. For other
> barriers like gates or even ropes/chains, it will not be possible
> without access tags to understand when you can pass, even as a
> pedestrian.

I dont like rules with too many exceptions - thats the point. I agree
that bollards are a little obvious as a pedestrian will most likely 
be able to pass.

But for the sake of simplicity i would rather call for only
explicit tagging so people can process barriers whatever they are
called - No if/then/else/otherwise/maybe spaghetti in all data
consumers.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


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

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 19:17, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> >
> > One question is should they be rendered, and most
> > people seem to agree that they should.  Should the buildings be tagged
> as disused?  So
> > the wiki implies.  If they should be tagged (in some way) as disused,
> then how?
>
> you could add building:use=no
> or building=* disused=yes
>

I've used the second of those two.

disused:building doesn’t make a lot of sense


I don't think there is any meaningful semantic difference between that and
adding
disused=yes.  The building is in the disused part of its lifecycle, both
express the same
thing.  But one way (currently, on standard carto) causes the building to
render and the
other does not.

and will make the buildings disappear from many applications.


And we're back full circle.  I agree with you on that one.  Kevin Kenny put
it eloquently
that he's not lying, he's just telling the truth in a way the renderer
understands.  What
he didn't say is he was talking of how standard carto currently does things
and he, like
I, hope it will continue to do so.  If standard carto suddenly stops
rendering physical
objects with disused=yes then I will stop using that tag.  If standard
carto suddenly
starts rendering disused:amenity=pub with a pub icon then I will stop using
that tag.

But others have chimed in saying the renderer is perfectly entitled to
render a disused building
(whichever way we tag it) in any way it wants.  Which is true.  But it
would be nice if we had a
degree of coherence across OSM such that standard carto (at least) could
agree to support
certain expectations.

Standard carto COULD choose to render motorways the same colour as rivers.
If they ever
did, some mappers would tag motorways as primary highways with appropriate
lane counts
and some mappers would see it as no longer being worthwhile mapping
motorways.  We
don't have any promises from standard carto that they will never render
motorways the same
way they render rivers, we assume they wouldn't choose to do so.  In the
case of disused
objects, two ways of tagging produce two different results, each of which
is desirable in
specific circumstances, and it would be nice to have an assurance that we
could rely upon
that behaviour (or something like it achieved with different tagging) in
future.

BTW, I found a different problem with a recent change to standard carto.  I
won't say what it
is or this thread will derail further.  I can't fix it by choosing
alternative tags (valid although
perhaps discouraged).  I can't fix it by tagging for the renderer and lying
about what's really
there (not that I'd do that even if it were possible).  The only possible
way to get a satisfactory
rendering is lying about the position of a very significant feature, and I
refuse to do that.  So
I no longer map features of that type - there are plenty of other things to
map and I won't
waste my time on features that render misleadingly badly.  The data, prized
above all
else by some, won't be corrupted by me but it will be less complete than it
could have
been.

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

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 26. Sep 2019, at 19:18, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> One question is should they be rendered, and most
> people seem to agree that they should.  Should the buildings be tagged as 
> disused?  So
> the wiki implies.  If they should be tagged (in some way) as disused, then 
> how?


you could add building:use=no
or building=* disused=yes
disused:building doesn’t make a lot of sense and will make the buildings 
disappear from many applications. IMHO a building is sind to landuse=quarry as 
long as it is there, used or not, it is a building (or a quarry). 

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

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 17:53, Markus  wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Sep 2019, 18:43 Martin Koppenhoefer, 
> wrote:
>
>> an unused building remains a building, hence the building=* tag should be
>> kept.
>>
>
> All disused physical objects i can imagine remain physical objects. Are
> you saying that we shouldn't use disused: for physical objects?
>

Looking around my town...

Disused toilets.  Building still retains toilet facilities.  Local group
hopes to take control from
the county council and re-open it.  AFAIK, not used for storage or anything
else.  In reasonable
repair, although some vandalism apparent and boarded over.

Disused toilets.  Not sure who operated them.  Windows and doors boarded
over.

Disused house.  Some graffiti.  A window boarded over.  AFAIK, not used for
storage or
anything else.

Disused petrol station.  Dilapidated to the extent some would call it
abandoned.  If it's used
for storage then it's of not-worth-stealing, waterproof items because
breaking in would be
easy and the roof is lifting.  https://goo.gl/maps/Bc2fUnhAXe5VyrRt9

Disused non-residential building.  Some graffiti, paint peeling.  May be
used for storage, may not.
Not kept in good repair.

Etc.

Some of those I know are not being used for anything, not even storage.
Whatever their
original purpose, the building is disused.  One question is should they be
rendered, and most
people seem to agree that they should.  Should the buildings be tagged as
disused?  So
the wiki implies.  If they should be tagged (in some way) as disused, then
how?

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 26. Sept. 2019 um 19:03 Uhr schrieb Markus <
selfishseaho...@gmail.com>:

> BTW, i find it very strange that there is a separte highway=* tag for
> indoor "flat ways" (i.e. corridors), but not for steps. Any reasons for
> that?
>
>

Not sure if we need a different tag (in both cases), but for steps we're
missing some basic parameters to define them. There is "step_count" which
is fine, but it lacks the steps measurements (e.g. 18/27, which means 18cm
high and 27 cm "free" to stand on (this is the outer measurement and does
not account for the part of the step that is covered by the next step, if
any, depending on the construction details). And the width of the thing
(usually net width = width - handrails and other stuff that obstructs the
steps). The height can also easily be calculated from the height difference
and the step count.

Additional interesting properties could be: necessary steps (required by
building code) or not, steps suitable for use during fire / with forced
smoke outlets, etc. (important emergency information).

Andf of course there are many more, like surface, general geometry (linear
/ circular / ...)

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

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

[Kevin Kenny]

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 12:53 PM Markus  wrote:
> All disused physical objects i can imagine remain physical objects. Are you 
> saying that we shouldn't use disused: for physical objects?

It's a grey area. A disused building is still a building. An abandoned
building may be a pile of debris that's recognizable as having once
been a building. I tend to favor retaining building=yes and having
disused:amenity=toilets (or pub, or whatever), for the evil and sinful
reason that buildings render and disused:buildings don't. (It's
tagging for the renderer in the strictest sense, but I happen to think
that the worse evil is 'lying to the renderer', and here I'm telling
the truth in a particular way so that the renderer will understand
me.)
-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

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

[Markus]

BTW, i find it very strange that there is a separte highway=* tag for
indoor "flat ways" (i.e. corridors), but not for steps. Any reasons for
that?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

[Markus]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019, 18:43 Martin Koppenhoefer, 
wrote:

> an unused building remains a building, hence the building=* tag should be
> kept.
>

All disused physical objects i can imagine remain physical objects. Are you
saying that we shouldn't use disused: for physical objects?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

[Kevin Kenny]

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 12:33 PM Paul Allen  wrote:
> Makes it explicit for somebody who goes to a pub guide website (there are 
> many),
> spots this one then looks at OSM to find it.  It's not a pub any more.  
> Otherwise it's possible
> to conclude that somebody mapped the building outline but didn't know it was 
> a pub.  This makes
> it clear that whoever mapped it knew that it used to be a pub.

RIght.  I dislike disused=yes´ because the mapped object still is
_something_. It's disused for a particular purpose.  If we're limited
to disused=yes or abandoned=yes, then what would be the correct
tagging for an object that I would tag as 'abandoned:railway=rail
highway=footway', or 'abandoned:waterway=canal
abandoned:bridge=aqueduct highway=unclassified bridge=yes'? (I've used
both combinations.)  For the former, the rails aren't there, but the
grade is, and part of the official rationale for maintaining the trail
is that the right of way will be available if there's ever a reason to
lay rail again.  For the latter, the bridge is still there, from its
construction was clearly once a canal aqueduct, but today serves as a
road bridge. (Most of the rest of the canal that it served is silted
up and no longer navigable, but still very, very wet.)

I've also mapped things like 'disused:amenity=prison
landuse=brownfield' for a now-closed prison that the state is trying
to find a buyer to redevelop. The buildings are still standing (and I
understand are for the most part structurally sound), but what would a
buyer do with them?


-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 26. Sept. 2019 um 18:37 Uhr schrieb Markus <
selfishseaho...@gmail.com>:

> On Thu, 26 Sep 2019, 18:30 Andy Townsend,  wrote:
>
>> On 26/09/2019 17:09, Markus wrote:
>> >
>> > Thus, those disused toilets could be tagged:
>> >
>> > disused:building=toilets
>> >
>> No, it's still a building.
>
>
> Yes, it's still a building (a toilets hut), but it (currently) has no use.
>


an unused building remains a building, hence the building=* tag should be
kept. You could tag disused:building:use=toilets
It is not very common though, actually it is a completely disused tag
currently, but someone has used a similar combinatio, although as property
;-)

disused:building:use:office=yes

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/disused%3Abuilding%3Ause%3Aoffice

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

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

[Markus]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019, 18:30 Andy Townsend,  wrote:

> On 26/09/2019 17:09, Markus wrote:
> >
> > Thus, those disused toilets could be tagged:
> >
> > disused:building=toilets
> >
> No, it's still a building.


Yes, it's still a building (a toilets hut), but it (currently) has no use.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 17:14, Andy Townsend  wrote:

>
>
> https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=20=52.0802094=-4.660442
>
> Works for me.


That works.  Makes it explicit for somebody who goes to a pub guide website
(there are many),
spots this one then looks at OSM to find it.  It's not a pub any more.
Otherwise it's possible
to conclude that somebody mapped the building outline but didn't know it
was a pub.  This makes
it clear that whoever mapped it knew that it used to be a pub.

Actually, given my crappy eyesight and monitor, I'd make the X bigger than
the glass.  Or make
it a red diagonal line.  "THIS IS NOT a pub" rather than "This is not A
PUB."


>   I might be tempted to keep the "name" set (or perhaps
> "old_name") if there's still a sign outside, since I think it's
> reasonable to think of that as the building or old pub name.
>

As is the case with some other pubs I've mapped that have closed and been
turned into
residences, the official address retains the pub name.  That is a house
called The Castle
Inn.

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

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 26. Sept. 2019 um 18:26 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen :

> Tagging two main features on one object isn't good practice anyway (see
>> wiki page One feature, one OSM element).
>>
>>>
>> True.  It's not good practice.  But it happens.  Postel's Law, aka the
> Robustness Principle, ought
> to apply: people shouldn't do it, but handle it correctly anyway.
>
>



it is not good practice because there is no way to handle it "correctly",
it is ambiguous and you cannot tell from the data what is meant (you may
guess, but it remains just a guess).

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

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

[Andy Townsend]

On 26/09/2019 17:09, Markus wrote:


Thus, those disused toilets could be tagged:

disused:building=toilets

No, it's still a building.  "building=toilets" means that the type of 
the building was "toilets".  It doesn't say anything about whether it 
was a usable amenity or not.



and separately

was:amenity=toilets

Well, "disused:amenity=toilets" is > 10 times more popular. See 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=disused%3Aamenity%3Dtoilets 
and https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=was%3Aamenity%3Dtoilets .


Best Regards,

Andy




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

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 17:10, Markus  wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Sep 2019, 15:19 Paul Allen,  wrote:
>
>> Using disused=yes is correct and truthful.  Using disused:foo=bar is ALSO
>> correct and truthful.
>> Both are documented as valid ways of tagging disused objects.
>>
>
> Actually, the wiki page for Key:disused: says:
>
> "Use of disused as a simple tag is now discouraged (for example
> disused=yes)."
>

Discouraged but not forbidden.  You might also take a look at the wiki page
for quarry, which
says that disused quarries should get disused=yes rather than
disused:landuse=quarry
(somebody, not me, made that change after a discussion here are few weeks
ago).

>
> [...] One way would
>> be for them to render only physical objects in the disused namespace, so
>> that
>> building:disused=yes renders but disused:amenity=toilets does not get a
>> toilet symbol.
>> That leaves a problem if somebody uses building=yes + amenity=toilets +
>> disused=yes,
>> although that's still possible for a renderer to figure out. [...]
>>
>
> Tagging two main features on one object isn't good practice anyway (see
> wiki page One feature, one OSM element).
>
>>
> True.  It's not good practice.  But it happens.  Postel's Law, aka the
Robustness Principle, ought
to apply: people shouldn't do it, but handle it correctly anyway.


> [...] Mostly it seems that disused physical objects should render
>> but disused properties should not [...]
>>
>
> I think that's the point: disused physical objects can still be helpful
> (e.g. for orientation), but disused (closed) services rather aren't. Either
> renderers can make this distinction or we should make it with tagging,
>

Those are the points I was making, I'm glad at least one person agrees.
I'm not confident
enough that physical object vs property is a universal rule for whether a
disused object is
rendered or not, but I do think it's a very good approximation.  Explicit
tagging, rather than
implicit inference by the renderer, would allow us to make exceptions to
the rule.


> by using another prefix for closed services, e.g. was: or closed:, which
> are both already in use (approx. 35,000 was: vs. approx. 600 closed:).
> Using disused: for a closed service doesn't feel right anyway.
>

But it's right for a disused amenity.   And if we can't even get agreement
about the desirability
of rendering disused physical objects but not disused amenities, what hope
do we have of
getting agreement if we add another tag to the mix?

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

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 16:49, Richard Fairhurst 
wrote:

> Paul Allen wrote:
> > BTW, that's on national cycle route 82, so whether or not it really is
> > a pub would be of interest to some mappers.
>
> Oh, has that closed?


Two or three years ago.  The Eagle nearby it closed as well, but has since
re-opened
under a new name.


> That's a shame. (I stayed in St Dogmaels a few years
> ago, thought the Castle Inn looked wonderfully old-fashioned, and was
> planning to go but was diverted by some other excellent pubs nearby. Not
> least the one in St Dogmaels itself which served Gwynt y Ddraig Black
> Dragon. I'd hoped to return one day... ah well.)
>

Ummm, which pub in St Dogs?  The Teifi Netpool Inn is more of a guest house
with a bar
than a pub with guest rooms these days.  The White Hart closed but there's
currently an
attempt by locals to raise the money to take it over.


> > Mapping it as amenity=pub + disused=yes would (if carto
> > is consistent with other times I've tried disused=yes) render it as a pub
> > where disused:amenity=pub does not render it as a pub.
>
> Sure, but OSM isn't just about rendering, let alone just osm-carto
> rendering.


Yes, it's also the data.  To some it's ONLY the data.  But for many of us
it's both: getting
a useful map is why we do it and we need accurate data to get a useful
map.  If the carto does
not meet reasonable expectations then people will either stop mapping
or will tag for the renderer, either of which will reduce the accuracy of
the data.


> A "find a pint of beer near me" app which does a proximity search
> for amenity=pub won't work very well if some of those pubs... aren't pubs.
>
> amenity=pub means "actually a pub", not "thing that looks like a pub".
>

Which is why, for this one, I used disused:amenity=pub.  Which (currently,
on standard
carto) doesn't render as a pub.  It still looks like a pub because of the
sign, which they
cannot legally remove.  In another case, where I knew a pub had shut
temporarily
(because of a fire) but would eventually re-open, I tagged it as
disused:amenity=pub.
Both of those continued to show up on various pub websites as still being
pubs because
not all websites use OSM data to decide what is and isn't a pub.

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

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

[Markus]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019, 17:50 Paul Allen,  wrote:

> What is sad is that if renderers produce results that go against mappers'
> expectations,
> mappers will abuse tags to get the results they want and then the open
> data that you
> seem to feel is the most important part of the project becomes worthless.
>

That's exactly what i think.

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

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

[Andy Townsend]

On 26/09/2019 16:48, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

Paul Allen wrote:

BTW, that's on national cycle route 82, so whether or not it really is
a pub would be of interest to some mappers.

Oh, has that closed? That's a shame. (I stayed in St Dogmaels a few years
ago, thought the Castle Inn looked wonderfully old-fashioned, and was
planning to go but was diverted by some other excellent pubs nearby. Not
least the one in St Dogmaels itself which served Gwynt y Ddraig Black
Dragon. I'd hoped to return one day... ah well.)


Mapping it as amenity=pub + disused=yes would (if carto
is consistent with other times I've tried disused=yes) render it as a pub
where disused:amenity=pub does not render it as a pub.

Sure, but OSM isn't just about rendering, let alone just osm-carto
rendering. A "find a pint of beer near me" app which does a proximity search
for amenity=pub won't work very well if some of those pubs... aren't pubs.

amenity=pub means "actually a pub", not "thing that looks like a pub".


https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=20=52.0802094=-4.660442

Works for me.  I might be tempted to keep the "name" set (or perhaps 
"old_name") if there's still a sign outside, since I think it's 
reasonable to think of that as the building or old pub name.


Cheers,

Andy



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

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

[Markus]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019, 15:19 Paul Allen,  wrote:

> Using disused=yes is correct and truthful.  Using disused:foo=bar is ALSO
> correct and truthful.
> Both are documented as valid ways of tagging disused objects.
>

Actually, the wiki page for Key:disused: says:

"Use of disused as a simple tag is now discouraged (for example
disused=yes)."

>
[...] One way would
> be for them to render only physical objects in the disused namespace, so
> that
> building:disused=yes renders but disused:amenity=toilets does not get a
> toilet symbol.
> That leaves a problem if somebody uses building=yes + amenity=toilets +
> disused=yes,
> although that's still possible for a renderer to figure out. [...]
>

Tagging two main features on one object isn't good practice anyway (see
wiki page One feature, one OSM element).

>
[...] Mostly it seems that disused physical objects should render
> but disused properties should not [...]
>

I think that's the point: disused physical objects can still be helpful
(e.g. for orientation), but disused (closed) services rather aren't. Either
renderers can make this distinction or we should make it with tagging, by
using another prefix for closed services, e.g. was: or closed:, which are
both already in use (approx. 35,000 was: vs. approx. 600 closed:). Using
disused: for a closed service doesn't feel right anyway.

Thus, those disused toilets could be tagged:

disused:building=toilets

and separately

was:amenity=toilets

Regards
Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 16:18, Simon Poole  wrote:

> OpenStreetMap is a project that produces open data. "open" implies
> everybody being allowed to use the data in any way they see fit, including
> rendering disused facilities in green with pink stripes.
>
Ah, Open Anarchic Map.  Where anything could mean anything and could be
rendered in any
way whatsoever.  It is perfectly permissible for a mapper to tag a motorway
as a river and
for a renderer to show it as as a farmyard.  This is indeed what is implied
by a strict
interpretation of certain statements on the wiki.  I feel that is a less
than helpful way
of producing a useful map, or even ensuring that the data is a good
approximation to
reality, but it's certainly something one could choose to do.

> There is nothing "sad" about that.
>
What is sad is that if renderers produce results that go against mappers'
expectations,
mappers will abuse tags to get the results they want and then the open data
that you
seem to feel is the most important part of the project becomes worthless.

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

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

[Richard Fairhurst]

Paul Allen wrote:
> BTW, that's on national cycle route 82, so whether or not it really is 
> a pub would be of interest to some mappers.

Oh, has that closed? That's a shame. (I stayed in St Dogmaels a few years
ago, thought the Castle Inn looked wonderfully old-fashioned, and was
planning to go but was diverted by some other excellent pubs nearby. Not
least the one in St Dogmaels itself which served Gwynt y Ddraig Black
Dragon. I'd hoped to return one day... ah well.)

> Mapping it as amenity=pub + disused=yes would (if carto
> is consistent with other times I've tried disused=yes) render it as a pub
> where disused:amenity=pub does not render it as a pub.

Sure, but OSM isn't just about rendering, let alone just osm-carto
rendering. A "find a pint of beer near me" app which does a proximity search
for amenity=pub won't work very well if some of those pubs... aren't pubs.

amenity=pub means "actually a pub", not "thing that looks like a pub".

cheers
Richard



--
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] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

[Simon Poole]

OpenStreetMap is a project that produces open data. "open" implies
everybody being allowed to use the data in any way they see fit,
including rendering disused facilities in green with pink stripes.

There is nothing "sad" about that.

Am 26.09.2019 um 15:16 schrieb Paul Allen:
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 00:53, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> disused:*=* means it cannot presently be used for its intended
> purpose. That does not mean it does not exist.
>
>
> Correct.
>
> How renders chose to display that is up to them.
>
>
> Also correct (sadly).
>
> But the tagging is correct and truthful.
>
>
> Using disused=yes is correct and truthful.  Using disused:foo=bar is
> ALSO correct and truthful.
> Both are documented as valid ways of tagging disused objects.
>  
>
> Choosing another tag because it renders the way desired is not a
> good thing.
>
>
> Only because the behaviour is not guaranteed across renderers or even
> over time for a single
> renderer.  However, choosing one correct and truthful tag over an
> alternative correct and
> truthful tag because of how it renders in one renderer is not wrong
> (even though some may
> consider it unwise).
>
> For those who  use disused=yes because it renders .. are you
> equally happy to have amenity=toilet rendered when it has
> disused=yes on it???
> How about a pub, atm etc etc...
>
>
> You mean like the toilet near me that has been shut down because the
> council can't afford to run it
> but which a local non-profit organization hopes to take over and
> re-open?  The building still
> exists, but if i use disused:building=yes it vanishes from standard
> carto.  It's no longer being
> used as a toilet but may be in the future, but if I add disused=yes
> then the toilet symbol renders
> so people turning up there with full bladders are going to be upset.
>
> Or how about the many disused quarries near me?  They still exist. 
> They are visible.  Some
> of them pose a hazard.  If I use disused:landuse=quarry they vanish
> from standard carto.
>
> Renders need to distinguish between active features and those no
> longer in service, but
>
> still existing. That is a rendering issue not a tagging issue.
>
>
> How could renderers tell the difference unless the tagging informs
> them?  One way would
> be for them to render only physical objects in the disused namespace,
> so that
> building:disused=yes renders but disused:amenity=toilets does not get
> a toilet symbol.
> That leaves a problem if somebody uses building=yes + amenity=toilets
> + disused=yes,
> although that's still possible for a renderer to figure out.  However,
> many renderers do
> not currently make those distinctions.
>
> The other way is that renderers agree to support a tagging convention
> that disused:foo=bar
> suppresses rendering but disused=yes does not (standard carto is ahead
> of the game here).
>
> There ARE cases where disused objects should be rendered and there ARE
> cases where they
> should not.  We SHOULD have a tagging convention that at least one
> major renderer supports
> so that we can control this.  Mostly it seems that disused physical
> objects should render
> but disused properties should not, although that may not always be the
> case, so two
> ways of tagging disused objects leaves the decision up to the mapper
> rather than relying
> on a heuristic that may sometimes be wrong.
>
> Moaning that we have two tags used to do the same thing which mappers
> choose between
> because of rendering isn't helpful.  Warning that those choices may be
> incorrect in different
> renderers, or may suddenly stop behaving in the expected way in
> standard carto is better.
> A documented agreement with (at least standard) carto on expected
> behaviour that allows
> disused objects to be rendered correctly would be best of all.  Except
> this is OSM and we
> don't do joined-up thinking.
>
> -- 
> Paul
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

Re: [Tagging] [Key:phone] - Suggesting wiki page changing

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 01:25, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

In Australia most, if not all, landlines will not process SMS calls. They
> may not take video calls, etc.
>

By default, the same is true of landlines in the UK.  But BT (and possibly)
others offer text
services with landlines:
http://bt.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/9043/~/set-up-and-use-bt-text

The BT landline  offering is free to receive SMS but it costs to send them.

Most mobile (cell) phones will process SMS, photos, documents and video
> information.
>

However, the mobile in question may wish not to receive SMSs.   See, for
example,
https://www.facebook.com/pg/Porters-cabin-228628847716482/about/

The ability to identify phones that have SMS, etc capabilities may be
> desired.
>

Given that in some countries it's not possible to tell mobile from landline
just by inspecting
the number; given that some landlines can receive SMS; given that some
mobile owner
do not wish to be sent SMS; given that the wiki for phone=* casually
mentions fax=*;
then I suggest we need sms=* or phone:sms=* for when the mapper knows that
SMS
usage is acceptable on that number.

Landline numbers used to be fixed to some address. These days the number
> can be taken by the subscriber to another address (if they stay within the
> same area code, outside that the number may already be in use).
>

In the UK you can take your number AND area code with you.  Of course, it
costs money to do
so, but out-of-area numbering is fairly common.

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

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 00:53, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

disused:*=* means it cannot presently be used for its intended purpose.
> That does not mean it does not exist.
>

Correct.

How renders chose to display that is up to them.
>

Also correct (sadly).

But the tagging is correct and truthful.
>

Using disused=yes is correct and truthful.  Using disused:foo=bar is ALSO
correct and truthful.
Both are documented as valid ways of tagging disused objects.


> Choosing another tag because it renders the way desired is not a good
> thing.
>

Only because the behaviour is not guaranteed across renderers or even over
time for a single
renderer.  However, choosing one correct and truthful tag over an
alternative correct and
truthful tag because of how it renders in one renderer is not wrong (even
though some may
consider it unwise).

For those who  use disused=yes because it renders .. are you equally happy
> to have amenity=toilet rendered when it has disused=yes on it???
> How about a pub, atm etc etc...
>

You mean like the toilet near me that has been shut down because the
council can't afford to run it
but which a local non-profit organization hopes to take over and re-open?
The building still
exists, but if i use disused:building=yes it vanishes from standard carto.
It's no longer being
used as a toilet but may be in the future, but if I add disused=yes then
the toilet symbol renders
so people turning up there with full bladders are going to be upset.

Or how about the many disused quarries near me?  They still exist.  They
are visible.  Some
of them pose a hazard.  If I use disused:landuse=quarry they vanish from
standard carto.

Renders need to distinguish between active features and those no longer in
> service, but

still existing. That is a rendering issue not a tagging issue.
>

How could renderers tell the difference unless the tagging informs them?
One way would
be for them to render only physical objects in the disused namespace, so
that
building:disused=yes renders but disused:amenity=toilets does not get a
toilet symbol.
That leaves a problem if somebody uses building=yes + amenity=toilets +
disused=yes,
although that's still possible for a renderer to figure out.  However, many
renderers do
not currently make those distinctions.

The other way is that renderers agree to support a tagging convention that
disused:foo=bar
suppresses rendering but disused=yes does not (standard carto is ahead of
the game here).

There ARE cases where disused objects should be rendered and there ARE
cases where they
should not.  We SHOULD have a tagging convention that at least one major
renderer supports
so that we can control this.  Mostly it seems that disused physical objects
should render
but disused properties should not, although that may not always be the
case, so two
ways of tagging disused objects leaves the decision up to the mapper rather
than relying
on a heuristic that may sometimes be wrong.

Moaning that we have two tags used to do the same thing which mappers
choose between
because of rendering isn't helpful.  Warning that those choices may be
incorrect in different
renderers, or may suddenly stop behaving in the expected way in standard
carto is better.
A documented agreement with (at least standard) carto on expected behaviour
that allows
disused objects to be rendered correctly would be best of all.  Except this
is OSM and we
don't do joined-up thinking.

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

Re: [Tagging] Bus Routes PTv2

[Markus]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019, 13:58 Michal Fabík,  wrote:

> [...] JOSM was complaining but it's
> working fine when I display the route in OsmAnd or use it in navigation.
>

IIRC it's just a warning, because it might be an error (e.g. with
multipolygon relations).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Bus Routes PTv2

[James]

I've been adding them twice, I just wanted to make sure I was doing the
right thing before adding 200+ bus routes only to find out I was doing
it wrong

On Thu., Sep. 26, 2019, 8:00 a.m. Paul Johnson,  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 6:57 AM Michal Fabík 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> على ٢٦‏/٩‏/٢٠١٩ ‫١:٣٦ م، كتب James:
>> > If you have a bus route that doubles back on itself, do you have to
>> > add the way twice to the relation or add it once and let the router
>> > figure out that it's already in the relation?
>>
>> I added it twice on a few occasions. JOSM was complaining but it's
>> working fine when I display the route in OsmAnd or use it in navigation.
>> Not sure about other consumers. I might do some more thorough testing
>> now that you mention it.
>>
>
> I think the PT Assistant plugin updates the validator to deal with this.
> If not you can tell it to ignore that error on that relation.
> ___
> 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] Bus Routes PTv2

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 6:57 AM Michal Fabík  wrote:

>
>
> على ٢٦‏/٩‏/٢٠١٩ ‫١:٣٦ م، كتب James:
> > If you have a bus route that doubles back on itself, do you have to
> > add the way twice to the relation or add it once and let the router
> > figure out that it's already in the relation?
>
> I added it twice on a few occasions. JOSM was complaining but it's
> working fine when I display the route in OsmAnd or use it in navigation.
> Not sure about other consumers. I might do some more thorough testing
> now that you mention it.
>

I think the PT Assistant plugin updates the validator to deal with this.
If not you can tell it to ignore that error on that relation.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Bus Routes PTv2

[Michal Fabík]

على ٢٦‏/٩‏/٢٠١٩ ‫١:٣٦ م، كتب James:
If you have a bus route that doubles back on itself, do you have to 
add the way twice to the relation or add it once and let the router 
figure out that it's already in the relation?


I added it twice on a few occasions. JOSM was complaining but it's 
working fine when I display the route in OsmAnd or use it in navigation. 
Not sure about other consumers. I might do some more thorough testing 
now that you mention it.


--
Michal Fabík


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

Re: [Tagging] Bus Routes PTv2

[Markus]

Hi James,

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019, 13:38 James,  wrote:

> If you have a bus route that doubles back on itself, do you have to add
> the way twice to the relation or add it once and let the router figure out
> that it's already in the relation?
>

IMHO if the bus route uses a road section twice, that section should be
twice in the route relation, so that there's an uninterrupted way from the
start to the end of the route.

E.g. this [road section](https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/543453305]
appears twice in [this bus route](
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4163642) (and also twice in the
relation of the opposite route direction).

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

Re: [Tagging] Bus Routes PTv2

[Johnparis]

I always add it twice. The idea is to produce a relation that can be
traversed start to finish the same way the bus does.

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019, 13:37 James  wrote:

> If you have a bus route that doubles back on itself, do you have to add
> the way twice to the relation or add it once and let the router figure out
> that it's already in the relation?
> ___
> 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] Bus Routes PTv2

[James]

If you have a bus route that doubles back on itself, do you have to add the
way twice to the relation or add it once and let the router figure out that
it's already in the relation?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Barrier defaults

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 26. Sep 2019, at 10:01, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> 
> Now i discovery the contrary. Every data consumer has to make
> a long list of every barrier possible and the default settings.
> 
> Does that make sense?


explicit access tagging for barriers is generally preferable because it reduces 
the uncertainty.

Still if there is a barrier and no access tags are set you will have to figure 
out how to deal with it. 

For bollards I agree it is likely that pedestrians can pass. For other barriers 
like gates or even ropes/chains, it will not be possible without access tags to 
understand when you can pass, even as a pedestrian.

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

[Tagging] Barrier defaults

[Florian Lohoff]

Hi,
i stumbled upon a statement in

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:barrier

that barrier=bollard has implicit foot=yes bicycle=yes on it. I have
been mapping only explicit restrictions for 10 years and the English
page (where the German should be a translation from) does not
mention this specifically.

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

The Page

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dbollard

mentions this though.

I was under the impression that data consumers may ignore the
value for the barrier key as the access restrictions will alway
be explicit. 

Now i discovery the contrary. Every data consumer has to make
a long list of every barrier possible and the default settings.

Does that make sense?

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


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