Re: [Tagging] New tag proposal: 'add=milestone'

[Agustin Rissoli]

>
> this implies road markers must be present, right? Isn’t this mainly about the 
> distance from some zero point, even in the absence of road distance markers?
>
> No, many times there are no marks, for me it does not have to be implicit

I would not invent myself these numbers, I would copy them from
> the gate where they have been put by the owner or municipality (regardless
> of actual distances or even if they are in slight contradiction with nearby
> road markers, as I have seen occur). If nothing is signposted, I would
> rather map the road markers nearby (if any).
>
> agree, many times these addresses are calculated by the same owner

Somebody remarked earlier in the thread that there are places in the US
> where the distances are
> used as house numbers.  I think the duck test applies.  It doesn't matter
> if a house number is
> assigned sequentially, or is based upon distance from some specified point,
> or is based upon
> some mad king throwing darts at a map: if it looks like a house number, is
> treated like a house
> number, and appears on the house/gate/whatever as a house number, then it's
> a house number.
> House numbers don't have to be sequential or monotonic, I can think of a
> couple of roads in my
> town where the house numbers are counter-intuitive.  So it doesn't matter
> if those house numbers
> were assigned based on a distance along a road, and that subsequent road
> remodelling has
> resulted in them all being inaccurate without a milepost equation: if it
> quacks like a house
> number then it's a house number.
>
> If they're not house numbers marked somewhere on the property, and if there
> are sometimes
> (as the OP has stated) missing markers, and if road remodelling has
> rendered the distances
> incorrect, then what good is addr:road_marker in those particular
> circumstances?
>
> It appears addr:road_marker is only really applicable where all of the
> following apply:
>
> 1: The number is not marked on the property (otherwise it's a house number,
> however
> derived).
>
> 2) Road remodelling has not significantly changed the distances between the
> property
> and the two nearest road markers (so you know it's somewhere between marker
> X and
> marker Y).
>
> 3) Road markers have not been recalibrated following extensive road
> remodelling.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> In Argentina it is common to have addresses with house number, street
name, and also address per km., For example Avenida San Martín 5440, Ruta 9
km 60.5
It is often used on routes that cross small towns and suburban areas. I
also saw the same thing in Uruguay, where I got to see addresses with
street name, lot number, km number of the route without house number (the
number of km belongs to the route and not the street numbering )

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

Re: [Tagging] New tag proposal: 'add=milestone'

[François Lacombe]

Hi,

I just want to bring to your attention the work currently done to propose
marker=* key with existing value marker=stone.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Utility_markers_proposal#Tagging

This is mainly intended for utility networks but may be useful for highways
milestones.
It starts with the deprecation of pipeline=marker to use marker as a more
general placeholder for marker definition in combination with utility=*

Do you find highway=**_marker desirable?
Will you consider things like highway=marker + marker=plate + ref=*... ?

This is an opportunity to make things to converge towards a common
framework for many kind of markers here

All the best

François

Le mer. 9 oct. 2019 à 22:03, Martin Koppenhoefer  a
écrit :

> Am Mi., 9. Okt. 2019 um 15:11 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen :
>
>> ...some mad king throwing darts at a map: if it looks like a house
>> number, is treated like a house
>> number, and appears on the house/gate/whatever as a house number, then
>> it's a house number.
>> House numbers don't have to be sequential or monotonic, I can think of a
>> couple of roads in my
>> town where the house numbers are counter-intuitive.  So it doesn't matter
>> if those house numbers
>> were assigned based on a distance along a road, and that subsequent road
>> remodelling has
>> resulted in them all being inaccurate without a milepost equation: if it
>> quacks like a house
>> number then it's a house number.
>>
>
>
> there is some sense in understanding the system (if there is), e.g. if not
> all numbers are recorded it allows you to estimate where the one you are
> looking for might be, how far it possibly is etc.. This is a typical use
> case: you have an address and are looking for it on the ground.
>
>
>
>> If they're not house numbers marked somewhere on the property, and if
>> there are sometimes
>> (as the OP has stated) missing markers, and if road remodelling has
>> rendered the distances
>> incorrect, then what good is addr:road_marker in those particular
>> circumstances?
>>
>> It appears addr:road_marker is only really applicable where all of the
>> following apply:
>>
>> 1: The number is not marked on the property (otherwise it's a house
>> number, however
>> derived).
>>
>
>
> there could be 2 numbers, a distance based on and a recently assigned,
> actual housenumber.
> You could also be interested in comparing an official register to the OSM
> data, e.g. to find missing spots, check for completeness etc.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> 3) Road markers have not been recalibrated following extensive road
>> remodelling.
>>
>>
>
> good luck with this. In regions with lacking housenumbers I wouldn't put
> too much confidence in the road markers...
>
> 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] railway crossings with cycleways

[Warin]

On 10/10/19 01:07, Vɑdɪm wrote:

On the other hand the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic mentions crossings
for cyclists separately
(https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/conventn/Conv_road_traffic_EN.pdf):


3. (a) The standing or parking of a vehicle on the carriageway shall be
prohibited:
(i) On pedestrian crossings, on *crossings for cyclists*, and on
level-crossings;




I note they have not considered a bridleway.

Most countries consider bicycles to be vehicles so they can enforce things like 
road rules on them (stopping for red lights, giving way etc).

Where a pedestrian shares a crossing with vehicles the simples tag is to use a 
single node as a level crossing and have both footway and road through that 
point.

As bicycles are considered to be vehicles in a legal sense then I would use the 
tag for a level crossing - even if there are no motor vehicle and even if 
shared with pedestrians.




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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

[Warin]

On 09/10/19 21:55, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am Mi., 9. Okt. 2019 um 12:46 Uhr schrieb Vɑdɪm >:


 Otherwise, as
pointed out earlier by some people, in some contexts you'd sunbath
nearly everywhere.

...

In this picture you'd see 2 different bathing establishments
(stabilimenti balneari). One of them which is at the foreground also
has a bar, probably some sanitary facilities, etc.




what about places where sunbathing is mandatory? Situations in France 
from 3 years ago come to mind, where burkas and burkinis have been 
banned from public beaches.
Could this be tagged as "sunbathing=mandatory"? Or should the tags 
refer to dress code?


That is a dress code. Does not ban a rashy, a wetsuit, a wedding gown or 
a 3 piece suit.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging forest parcels

[Warin]

Similar problems with other features.

Possibly use a site relation?

Map each individual parcel as a simple way with the reference.

Then place each parcel into a site relation and then the common tags on 
the site relation.


Something like that, look up the site relation on the wiki for details, 
masy only be a proposal.



On 10/10/19 07:04, Leif Rasmussen wrote:
I'd go with landuse=forestry on the property, a tag that was suggested 
here a while back.  This isn't official or anything, but moving 
towards tagging forest parcels differently from the trees seems important.


On Wed, Oct 9, 2019, 3:32 PM Mateusz Konieczny 
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> wrote:





9 Oct 2019, 18:11 by pene...@live.fr :

Hello, there.

My question is simple: how do we tag such things? The
boundary=forest_compartment relation is not rendered, and what
is rendered is tagging as landuse=forest both the forest and
its parcels, which leads to rendering it twice, as you can see
here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6086515 Besides,
such forest are often mistagged for the renderer: as the
contributor wants the parcel number rendered, he puts it in
the name tag, not in the ref tag, to which I assume it should
belong.

So, is there an "official"/recommended/widespread way to tag
forest parcels, their number and them belonging to a forest?

boundary=forest_compartment?

Is there anything wrong with this tagging
scheme (except that mapping this
kind of info seems a bit dubious to me).

All problems that you mention are
about tagging for renderer.




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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 00:30, Vɑdɪm  wrote:

>
> As for sunshades (or parasoles), they are used by sunbathers en masse, in
> particular to cast a shadow on the face.
>

Maybe at the places that you sunbathe, but certainly not everywhere!

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-25/crowds-flock-to-bondi-beach-in-sydney/9686958

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sunbathing_on_a_beach_in_Australia-1Jan2004.jpg

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Junction=Approach

[Mateusz Konieczny]

9 Oct 2019, 11:57 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:
> Any advice on how I can deal with these?  
>
I would consider checking history of some
cases and contact whoever added this.

Probably via changeset comments,
skipping ones who are no longer active.

But for me it sounds like tag that can be
removed.

BTW, that is why documenting tags on
wiki is useful.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging forest parcels

[Leif Rasmussen]

I'd go with landuse=forestry on the property, a tag that was suggested here
a while back.  This isn't official or anything, but moving towards tagging
forest parcels differently from the trees seems important.

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019, 3:32 PM Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

>
>
>
> 9 Oct 2019, 18:11 by pene...@live.fr:
>
> Hello, there.
>
> My question is simple: how do we tag such things? The
> boundary=forest_compartment relation is not rendered, and what is rendered
> is tagging as landuse=forest both the forest and its parcels, which leads
> to rendering it twice, as you can see here:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6086515 Besides, such forest are
> often mistagged for the renderer: as the contributor wants the parcel
> number rendered, he puts it in the name tag, not in the ref tag, to which I
> assume it should belong.
>
> So, is there an "official"/recommended/widespread way to tag forest
> parcels, their number and them belonging to a forest?
>
> boundary=forest_compartment?
>
> Is there anything wrong with this tagging
> scheme (except that mapping this
> kind of info seems a bit dubious to me).
>
> All problems that you mention are
> about tagging for renderer.
>
>
> ___
> 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] New tag proposal: 'add=milestone'

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mi., 9. Okt. 2019 um 15:11 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen :

> ...some mad king throwing darts at a map: if it looks like a house number,
> is treated like a house
> number, and appears on the house/gate/whatever as a house number, then
> it's a house number.
> House numbers don't have to be sequential or monotonic, I can think of a
> couple of roads in my
> town where the house numbers are counter-intuitive.  So it doesn't matter
> if those house numbers
> were assigned based on a distance along a road, and that subsequent road
> remodelling has
> resulted in them all being inaccurate without a milepost equation: if it
> quacks like a house
> number then it's a house number.
>


there is some sense in understanding the system (if there is), e.g. if not
all numbers are recorded it allows you to estimate where the one you are
looking for might be, how far it possibly is etc.. This is a typical use
case: you have an address and are looking for it on the ground.



> If they're not house numbers marked somewhere on the property, and if
> there are sometimes
> (as the OP has stated) missing markers, and if road remodelling has
> rendered the distances
> incorrect, then what good is addr:road_marker in those particular
> circumstances?
>
> It appears addr:road_marker is only really applicable where all of the
> following apply:
>
> 1: The number is not marked on the property (otherwise it's a house
> number, however
> derived).
>


there could be 2 numbers, a distance based on and a recently assigned,
actual housenumber.
You could also be interested in comparing an official register to the OSM
data, e.g. to find missing spots, check for completeness etc.



>
>
> 3) Road markers have not been recalibrated following extensive road
> remodelling.
>
>

good luck with this. In regions with lacking housenumbers I wouldn't put
too much confidence in the road markers...

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging forest parcels

[Mateusz Konieczny]

9 Oct 2019, 18:11 by pene...@live.fr:

> Hello, there.
>
> My question is simple: how do we tag such things? The 
> boundary=forest_compartment relation is not rendered, and what is rendered is 
> tagging as landuse=forest both the forest and its parcels, which leads to 
> rendering it twice, as you can see here: 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6086515 Besides, such forest are often 
> mistagged for the renderer: as the contributor wants the parcel number 
> rendered, he puts it in the name tag, not in the ref tag, to which I assume 
> it should belong.
>
> So, is there an "official"/recommended/widespread way to tag forest parcels, 
> their number and them belonging to a forest?
>
boundary=forest_compartment?

Is there anything wrong with this tagging
scheme (except that mapping this
kind of info seems a bit dubious to me).
All problems that you mention are
about tagging for renderer.


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

[Peter Neale via Tagging]

Our local Primary School (ages 4 - 11 years, just in case there is any doubt) 
has shade sails over part of the playground to protect the little darlings from 
the sun whilst playing outside. 
You would not get as very warm welcome, if you turned up there in your bikini, 
or budgie smugglers, asking to use the designated sunbathing area that was 
shown on your map!
Peter
>Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 13:39:44 +0100
>From: Paul Allen 
>To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
 >   
>Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing
>Message-ID:
 >   
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8">>On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 11:40, Warin 
><61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>In Australia sunshades are to keep people out of the sun, not for
>> 'sunbathing'.
>>
>>+1
>>Actually, it's true of the rest of the world, too.  You cannot sunbathe
>under a sunshade.
>Therefore sunshades are NOT indicative that an area is for sunbathing.
>Maybe, just
>maybe, an area designated for sunbathing may have some sunshades for people
>who need a little respite.  But an area might have sunshades because it's
>for people
>who wish to sit in the shade in a hot climate.
>>-- 
>Paul
>-- next part ------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL: 
><http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20191009/47822684/attachment-0001.html>
>--

>Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 06:15:41 -0700 (MST)
>From: Vɑdɪm 
>To: Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing
>Message-ID: <1570626941466-0.p...@n8.nabble.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>>On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 15:40, Paul Allen [via GIS]
> wrote:
>>
>>Actually, it's true of the rest of the world, too.  You cannot sunbathe
>>under a sunshade.
>>Therefore sunshades are NOT indicative that an area is for sunbathing.
>> Maybe, just
>>maybe, an area designated for sunbathing may have some sunshades for
>>people
>>who need a little respite.  But an area might have sunshades because it's
>>for people
>> who wish to sit in the shade in a hot climate.
>>There is no any requirement for sunshades in the proposal. Albeit I think
>they could be used as one of the indicators. Please have a look at the
>examples.



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

Re: [Tagging] Pedestrian and highway crossings of tramways

[Markus]

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 18:37, Markus  wrote:
>
> The problem here is that pedestrians are routed along the highway=*
> way and, as you wrote, tram tracks are usually (unfortunately) mapped
> as separate ways. Consequently, the railway=crossing node is
> disconnected from the highway=* way with the highway=crossing node
> (that is, on another way). Therefore a router doesn't know that trams
> also pass this pedestrian crossing (except if pavements and pedestrian
> crossings are mapped as separate ways, which, however, has other
> drawbacks).

I just realised that this problem can be solved by adding a
embedded_rails=tram [1] tag to the highway=* way. So it seems that
there's no need for a new crossing:tram=yes tag.

[1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:embedded_rails

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

Re: [Tagging] Pedestrian and highway crossings of tramways

[Markus]

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 14:58, Vɑdɪm  wrote:
>
> You're assuming here some default features of a crossing which is not
> railway=crossing is about. It's a mere indication that a crossing exists at
> a specific location along the railway=* way. [...]

You're right. In that case, it probably makes most sense to use only
railway=crossing and drop the others (as Richard suggested).

> The thing is that if even if tramway track is embedded into a roadbed and it
> looks obvious at the Mapnik in the OSM they are usually mapped as separate
> ways. Crossing of each of them are separate nodes: one at the
> highway=something another one at the railway=something.

The problem here is that pedestrians are routed along the highway=*
way and, as you wrote, tram tracks are usually (unfortunately) mapped
as separate ways. Consequently, the railway=crossing node is
disconnected from the highway=* way with the highway=crossing node
(that is, on another way). Therefore a router doesn't know that trams
also pass this pedestrian crossing (except if pavements and pedestrian
crossings are mapped as separate ways, which, however, has other
drawbacks).

Regards
Markus

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

[Tagging] Tagging forest parcels

[David Marchal]

Hello, there.

My question is simple: how do we tag such things? The 
boundary=forest_compartment relation is not rendered, and what is rendered is 
tagging as landuse=forest both the forest and its parcels, which leads to 
rendering it twice, as you can see here: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6086515 Besides, such forest are often 
mistagged for the renderer: as the contributor wants the parcel number 
rendered, he puts it in the name tag, not in the ref tag, to which I assume it 
should belong.

So, is there an "official"/recommended/widespread way to tag forest parcels, 
their number and them belonging to a forest?

Awaiting your answers,

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

Re: [Tagging] How to map Irish pubs?

[Richard Fairhurst]

ebel wrote:
> I've used `theme=irish` once or twice. But I don't think anyone 
> else does, and it's not supported.

I asked about cycle cafés a while back (e.g. https://www.cafe-ventoux.cc)
and the consensus was also to use theme:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-September/026494.html

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] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

[Vɑdɪm]

Paul Allen wrote
> On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 14:16, Vɑdɪm 

> vadp.devl@

>  wrote:
>  I'm not convinced your
> proposal is
> useful anyway, so would probably abstain, but if your proposal says that
> sunshades
> are indicative of sunbathing areas I will definitely vote against it.

Please help yourself, read the proposal.

As for sunshades (or parasoles), they are used by sunbathers en masse, in
particular to cast a shadow on the face.




--
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] railway crossings with cycleways

[Vɑdɪm]

On the other hand the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic mentions crossings
for cyclists separately
(https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/conventn/Conv_road_traffic_EN.pdf):

> 3. (a) The standing or parking of a vehicle on the carriageway shall be
> prohibited:
> (i) On pedestrian crossings, on *crossings for cyclists*, and on
> level-crossings;





--
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] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 14:16, Vɑdɪm  wrote:

>
> There is no any requirement for sunshades in the proposal.


Good.


> Albeit I think they could be used as one of the indicators.
>

Yeah, in the same way that a building is an indicator of an outdoor running
track and
a railway line is an indicator of a footpath.  My whole point is that
sunshades are NOT
indicators of sunbathing areas because sunshades can often be found in
areas that
are not for sunbathing.  If your proposal stated that sunbathing areas may
also have
some sunshades that would be OK; if your proposal states that sunshades
indicate
a sunbathing area that would be nonsensical.  I'm not convinced your
proposal is
useful anyway, so would probably abstain, but if your proposal says that
sunshades
are indicative of sunbathing areas I will definitely vote against it.

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

Re: [Tagging] railway crossings with cycleways

[Vɑdɪm]

Paul Johnson-3 wrote
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 7:58 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 

> dieterdreist@

> 
> wrote:
> 
> I'm strongly inclined to consider a cycleway a road, not a footway.  

How is about a shared way for pedestrians and bicyclists ?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Zeichen_240_-_Gemeinsamer_Fuß-_und_Radweg,_StVO_1992.svg



--
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] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

[Vɑdɪm]

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 15:40, Paul Allen [via GIS]
 wrote:
>
> Actually, it's true of the rest of the world, too.  You cannot sunbathe
> under a sunshade.
> Therefore sunshades are NOT indicative that an area is for sunbathing.
>  Maybe, just
> maybe, an area designated for sunbathing may have some sunshades for
> people
> who need a little respite.  But an area might have sunshades because it's
> for people
> who wish to sit in the shade in a hot climate.

There is no any requirement for sunshades in the proposal. Albeit I think
they could be used as one of the indicators. Please have a look at the
examples.




--
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] New tag proposal: 'add=milestone'

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 09:39, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> Funfact, in Rome there is one road, "Via Trionfale",
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via_Trionfale which has housenumbers
> (contrary to the rest of the city) that indicate the distance from the
> capitol hill measured at the axxis of the street, so the highest
> housenumber reaches 14500.
> Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3393609605
>

Somebody remarked earlier in the thread that there are places in the US
where the distances are
used as house numbers.  I think the duck test applies.  It doesn't matter
if a house number is
assigned sequentially, or is based upon distance from some specified point,
or is based upon
some mad king throwing darts at a map: if it looks like a house number, is
treated like a house
number, and appears on the house/gate/whatever as a house number, then it's
a house number.
House numbers don't have to be sequential or monotonic, I can think of a
couple of roads in my
town where the house numbers are counter-intuitive.  So it doesn't matter
if those house numbers
were assigned based on a distance along a road, and that subsequent road
remodelling has
resulted in them all being inaccurate without a milepost equation: if it
quacks like a house
number then it's a house number.

If they're not house numbers marked somewhere on the property, and if there
are sometimes
(as the OP has stated) missing markers, and if road remodelling has
rendered the distances
incorrect, then what good is addr:road_marker in those particular
circumstances?

It appears addr:road_marker is only really applicable where all of the
following apply:

1: The number is not marked on the property (otherwise it's a house number,
however
derived).

2) Road remodelling has not significantly changed the distances between the
property
and the two nearest road markers (so you know it's somewhere between marker
X and
marker Y).

3) Road markers have not been recalibrated following extensive road
remodelling.

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

Re: [Tagging] Pedestrian and highway crossings of tramways

[Vɑdɪm]

Hi Markus-5,

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 20:14, Markus-5 [via GIS]
 wrote:
>
> I don't know the situation in other countries, but in Switzerland,
> pedestrian train crossing are signalised (example [1]), while
> pedestrian tram crossings usually aren't (example [2]), even if the
> tram runs on a reserved track (i.e. separated form the road). Thus i
> think it may make sense to use a different tag for pedestrian tram
> crossings.

You're assuming here some default features of a crossing which is not
railway=crossing is about. It's a mere indication that a crossing exists at
a specific location along the railway=* way. To describe some features of a
crossing you'd use crossing=* tag, like crossing=traffic_signals or
crossing=uncontrolled for examples [1] and [2] respectively. That's how it's
suggested at the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing anyway.

Consider also highway=crossing which doesn't describe any features of a
crossing, while a crossing of a highway=trunk could be dramatically
different from a crossing of a highway=unclassified. You don't though tag
the 1st one as crossing:trunk=yes and crossing:unclassified=yes. Instead
you'd probably put something like crossing=traffic_signals + crossing=island
for the 1st one and crossing=uncontrolled for the 2nd one.

> Besides, most pedestrian tram crossing where the tram runs on the road
> aren't exclusively pedestrians + trams crossings, but pedestrians +
> road traffic + trams crossings, and are already tagged
> highway=crossing. I think these tram crossings are best tagged as a
> property on the highway=crossing node (and, if mapped, on the
> footway=crossing way), e.g. crossing:tram=yes (using the already used
> crossing: prefix).

The thing is that if even if tramway track is embedded into a roadbed and it
looks obvious at the Mapnik in the OSM they are usually mapped as separate
ways. Crossing of each of them are separate nodes: one at the
highway=something another one at the railway=something.

As a matter of fact there are plenty of tramway crossings in Switzerland
which are marked with railway=crossing: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MY1



--
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] How to map Irish pubs?

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 11:10, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> In Italy the only places that get the amenity=pub tags, are Irish or
> British pubs (i.e. places that call themselves with English names and
> usually carrying "pub" in the name, and typically selling British/Irish
> beer and burgers / chips), so there is no big need to make distinctions
> within the group of objects with this tag (well, unless you care for/can
> define the distinction between Irish and British pubs)
>

It may be the case in Italy that there is no discernible difference between
British and Irish pubs,
but that is not the case in the UK.  It's not just a matter of the brands
of beer that are sold
(a British pub might not have draught Guinness or Murphy's but it would be
unusual for an
Irish pub not t have at least one of those on draught).  An Irish pub is
very likely to have formal
or informal folk singing accompanied by bodhrans (traditional Irish hand
drums).  Less likely
than in years gone by, regulars of an Irish pub in England might be hostile
to English people.
The cultural differences are significant; it's more than just a fake veneer
of fad-of-the-month
cultural appropriation.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 11:40, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

In Australia sunshades are to keep people out of the sun, not for
> 'sunbathing'.
>

+1

Actually, it's true of the rest of the world, too.  You cannot sunbathe
under a sunshade.
Therefore sunshades are NOT indicative that an area is for sunbathing.
Maybe, just
maybe, an area designated for sunbathing may have some sunshades for people
who need a little respite.  But an area might have sunshades because it's
for people
who wish to sit in the shade in a hot climate.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

[Philip Barnes]

We also map the phone number of phoneboxes using phone=.

We do not generally contact phoneboxes.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
> > On 8. Oct 2019, at 15:40, Colin Smale via Tagging 
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > In that case it makes perfect sense to consolidate onto one or the other. 
> > But if there are any perceived semantic differences, however subtle, then 
> > either we find some way to represent that using other tagging, or we accept 
> > that a certain nuance will be lost.
> > 
> 
> there could be phone numbers with automatic announcements, so “phone” will 
> still be valid, but contact:phone would not suit well. To give an example. It 
> cannot be seen from the “phone”-key that this is the case though. I’m happy 
> with loosing the subtle differences that may make  “contact:”-prefixed tags 
> slightly more specific, in exchange for more universally usable 
> “almost-equal” more generic tags without the prefix.
> 
> Cheers Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mi., 9. Okt. 2019 um 12:46 Uhr schrieb Vɑdɪm :

>  Otherwise, as
> pointed out earlier by some people, in some contexts you'd sunbath
> nearly everywhere.
>
...


> In this picture you'd see 2 different bathing establishments
> (stabilimenti balneari). One of them which is at the foreground also
> has a bar, probably some sanitary facilities, etc.




what about places where sunbathing is mandatory? Situations in France from
3 years ago come to mind, where burkas and burkinis have been banned from
public beaches.
Could this be tagged as "sunbathing=mandatory"? Or should the tags refer to
dress code?

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

[Vɑdɪm]

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 13:39, Warin [via GIS] wrote:

> In Australia sunshades are to keep people out of the sun, not for
> 'sunbathing'.
>
> Poolsides and beaches are used for sunbathing... but have no official
> 'designation' for sunbathing.
>
> The only designated sunbathing I can find on the web are for nude or top
> less sunbathing.

This case is simple one: if there is no place designated for sunbathing then
there in no need to tag it. That's the point.

On the other hand they could install sunshades somewhere even if it's
designated for sunbathing. I've seen some of them.



--
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] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

[Vɑdɪm]

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 12:21, Marc Gemis [via GIS] wrote:
>
> Does this include places like the one see in the images here [1]
> Those depict what we call ligweide or zonneweide in Dutch. Those are
> grass areas typically next to a open-air swimming pool.
>
>
> [1]
> https://www.google.com/search?q=ligweide=isch=univ=X=2ahUKEwjytMDY647lAhWSKFAKHQGFDKoQsAR6BAgJEAE=2438=1256=2

It depends if they are really designated for sunbathing by some
authority: the establishment owner, the park, etc. Otherwise, as
pointed out earlier by some people, in some contexts you'd sunbath
nearly everywhere.

It needs to be verifiable somehow. Some sunshades installed, etc.
would be a good sign.

From your link I see a couple of distinctive examples:
https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/08/1c/b5/60/ligweide-tussen-de-2.jpg
https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/0a/b3/42/e5/ligweide-bij-het-strand.jpg

Perhaps it also could be places like at the
http://www.peschici.it/contatore/strutture/output/Foto/5996_9671_189120-20190115-112302.jpg
where leisure=sunbathing would be a part of the leisure=beach_resort.
In this picture you'd see 2 different bathing establishments
(stabilimenti balneari). One of them which is at the foreground also
has a bar, probably some sanitary facilities, etc.



--
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] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

[Warin]

On 09/10/19 20:58, Vɑdɪm wrote:

Warin wrote

Humm.. don't think any place here is 'designated' for sunbathing.

Who has done this 'designation' for sunbathing?

Actually there are some. Please have a look at the
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/sunbathing#Examples,
specifically at the 1st couple of them (more to come).

If you see there some equipment -- sunshades, etc installed by the park
authority, bathing establishment, et al. then you'd guess it's an area
designated to sunbathing. Probably at some places you'd even find a signpost
or similar.



In Australia sunshades are to keep people out of the sun, not for 'sunbathing'.

Poolsides and beaches are used for sunbathing... but have no official 
'designation' for sunbathing.

The only designated sunbathing I can find on the web are for nude or top less 
sunbathing.


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

Re: [Tagging] How to map Irish pubs?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mi., 9. Okt. 2019 um 01:50 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen :

> On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 00:36, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> the way we are dealing with these distinctions of eating and drinking
>> places is mostly main tags, and subtags only for subtleties. A tiki bar
>> could get amenity=bar, or maybe I’m misguided (I’m not familiar with the
>> kind of place)?
>>
>
>  It serves elaborate cocktails and is themed around Polynesian culture.
>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiki_bar
>
> It's a bar, just as an Irish pub is a pub, and a Cowboy bar is a bar...
> We're into subtleties,
> not main tags.  Possibly worth mapping so people can decide if they are
> desperate enough
> for alcohol to go there.  Probably not worth mapping because most pub
> themes, with the
> possible exception of Irish bars, tend to change themes every few years
> because people
> get bored with them.
>



I'm fine with using theme for subtagging and subtleties, I was writing
because I had understood that someone wanted to subtag tiki bars as kind of
pubs, while the name and some pictures I looked at, clearly indicated the
bar tag.

If we have to change these themes "every few years" it is likely long
enough to be considered mappable in principle.

In Italy the only places that get the amenity=pub tags, are Irish or
British pubs (i.e. places that call themselves with English names and
usually carrying "pub" in the name, and typically selling British/Irish
beer and burgers / chips), so there is no big need to make distinctions
within the group of objects with this tag (well, unless you care for/can
define the distinction between Irish and British pubs), but for example in
Germany, where there is a local culture of similar places, and the
community has agreed on using amenity=pub for them, it would seem more
interesting to distinguish the style/theme.

Generally, I believe it could make sense to have a standardized way, to
refer to cultures (maybe language-ISO codes?) or (unambiguos to tag and
suitable for e.g. Irish/British-differentiation) countries (ISO codes) if
it plays a role in the appearance / kind of things they serve, of the
place. On the other hand, similarities may be much more regional than
national (e.g. Austrian and Bavarian could be seen as more similar than
Bavarian and Prussian). Somehow there is already "cuisine" which does this
job (but is focused on food, and has the problem that is one tag for many
things, e.g. "italian", "pizza", "seafood", aren't mutually exclusive
terms, how would you tag a French fish restaurant in Germany with just
cuisine, etc. ). So while it may not be universally useful, I can see a
series of cases where it would provide useful information.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

[Vɑdɪm]

Warin wrote
> Humm.. don't think any place here is 'designated' for sunbathing.
> 
> Who has done this 'designation' for sunbathing?

Actually there are some. Please have a look at the
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/sunbathing#Examples,
specifically at the 1st couple of them (more to come).

If you see there some equipment -- sunshades, etc installed by the park
authority, bathing establishment, et al. then you'd guess it's an area
designated to sunbathing. Probably at some places you'd even find a signpost
or similar.



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

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

[Tagging] Junction=Approach

[Peter Neale via Tagging]

Help, please.
I have been wandering around my local area in OSM (from my armchair), looking 
for things that need fixing, which I either know about from going past them 
every day, or can easily visit.
Using the iD editor and clicking on "issues" shows a large number of instances 
of: 
' should be a closed area based on the tag "junction=approach"'
All those that I have looked at are the final section of road approaching (or 
leaving) a roundabout.  https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/204279022   is 
typical.
I can find no documentation on "junction-approach" in the Wiki, but I think I 
can just delete the tag, as it seems to add nothing.
Overpass turbo (I am NOT an expert user of this tool) shows 1249 ways with this 
tag in the UK.

Any advice on how I can deal with these?  

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

Re: [Tagging] Pedestrian and highway crossings of tramways

[Richard Fairhurst]

Vɑdɪm wrote:
> The #2 gives railway=tram + railway=tram_crossing which seems to 
> be a needless repetition -- a tautology. It's easy to deduce that a 
> crossing on the tramway track is a crossing of the tramway track, 
> isn't it?

This is ultimately the same issue as the one raised by Martin the other day:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-October/048533.html

There is no need to have railway=crossing, railway=level_crossing,
railway=tram_crossing and railway=tram_level_crossing. They are semantically
identical. The type of ways (tram or heavy rail, footpath or road) is
already expressed in the way tags and doesn't need to be duplicated in the
node tags.

Let's just standardise on the simplest tag, railway=crossing, and nuke the
others.

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] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

[Marc Gemis]

Does this include places like the one see in the images here [1]
Those depict what we call ligweide or zonneweide in Dutch. Those are
grass areas typically next to a open-air swimming pool.


[1] 
https://www.google.com/search?q=ligweide=isch=univ=X=2ahUKEwjytMDY647lAhWSKFAKHQGFDKoQsAR6BAgJEAE=2438=1256=2

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 3:15 PM Vadim Shlyakhov  wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm proposing to use leisure=sunbathing to tag an outdoor location
> where people can sunbathe:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/sunbathing
>
> Rationale:
>
> There is no currently a standard way to tag an outdoor location
> (probably designated) where people can practice sunbathing. Swimming
> and bathing suggests using landuse=grass to tag a lawn for sunbathing
> which is actually more suitable for a lawn in general than for a
> sunbathing area specifically.
>
> Such locations can be usually found next to swimming and bathing areas
> like beaches and swimming pools, for example at a
> leisure=beach_resort. But they can also be located somewhere else
> there is no accessible beach or even access to the water available.
>
> Regards,
> Vadim
>
> ___
> 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] New tag proposal: 'add=milestone'

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mi., 9. Okt. 2019 um 09:00 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale :

> I would just like to make a point about mileages/kilometrages. Physically
> marked positions (e.g. a milestone or a sign with an address) can not be
> replaced by, or derived from, the actual distance along the road.
>
> These distances are not constant. Roads get diverted, split, recombined
> etc which can change the distance AND the zero-point. If you follow the
> hectometer (100m) markers on motorways in the Netherlands you will see
> loads of discontinuities caused by changes through the years. Occasionally,
> where a change makes a road longer, a whole segment is "recalibrated" to
> avoid duplicate markers or gaps. Where a road is made shorter, a "jump" in
> the values is used.
>


Agreed, I was proposing a term, not referring to the way it is surveyed /
determined. I would not invent myself these numbers, I would copy them from
the gate where they have been put by the owner or municipality (regardless
of actual distances or even if they are in slight contradiction with nearby
road markers, as I have seen occur). If nothing is signposted, I would
rather map the road markers nearby (if any).

Funfact, in Rome there is one road, "Via Trionfale",
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via_Trionfale which has housenumbers
(contrary to the rest of the city) that indicate the distance from the
capitol hill measured at the axxis of the street, so the highest
housenumber reaches 14500.
Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3393609605

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

Re: [Tagging] New tag proposal: 'add=milestone'

[Colin Smale]

I would just like to make a point about mileages/kilometrages.
Physically marked positions (e.g. a milestone or a sign with an address)
can not be replaced by, or derived from, the actual distance along the
road. 

These distances are not constant. Roads get diverted, split, recombined
etc which can change the distance AND the zero-point. If you follow the
hectometer (100m) markers on motorways in the Netherlands you will see
loads of discontinuities caused by changes through the years.
Occasionally, where a change makes a road longer, a whole segment is
"recalibrated" to avoid duplicate markers or gaps. Where a road is made
shorter, a "jump" in the values is used. 

On 2019-10-09 08:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> sent from a phone
> 
>> On 9. Oct 2019, at 03:24, Jorge Aguirre  wrote:
>> 
>> After reading all the responses and comments made regarding this issue I 
>> would like to modify the originally proposed tag name ('addr=milestone') to 
>> a new proposal to name it:  'addr=road_marker' - which works for both the 
>> kilometer and mile highway location markers.
> 
> this implies road markers must be present, right? Isn't this mainly about the 
> distance from some zero point, even in the absence of road distance markers? 
> It could be addr:kilometrage to refer specifically to this distance, but I 
> agree on the other hand this would have a reference to kilometers in the tag, 
> which isn't universally working well on a global level 
> 
> 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] New tag proposal: 'add=milestone'

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9. Oct 2019, at 03:24, Jorge Aguirre  wrote:
> 
> After reading all the responses and comments made regarding this issue I 
> would like to modify the originally proposed tag name ('addr=milestone’) to a 
> new proposal to name it:  ‘addr=road_marker’ - which works for both the 
> kilometer and mile highway location markers.


this implies road markers must be present, right? Isn’t this mainly about the 
distance from some zero point, even in the absence of road distance markers? 
It could be addr:kilometrage to refer specifically to this distance, but I 
agree on the other hand this would have a reference to kilometers in the tag, 
which isn’t universally working well on a global level 

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