Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

[Mark Wagner]

On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 16:13:49 -0500
Jmapb via Tagging  wrote:

> On 11/7/2019 2:09 PM, Mark Wagner wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 10:26:14 +
> > marc marc  wrote:
> >  
> >> ere possession of a bicycle is forbidden
> >> can you share the a picture of this traffic sign ?
> >>  
> > It's a sign for a state natural area rather than a federal
> > wilderness area, and the situation is a little fuzzy on walking
> > bicycles (it depends on what "operate" means), but the sign, if
> > present, might look something like this: https://imgur.com/4qOuNmf
> >
> > It's also possible that the sign would simply be something like
> > "entering Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness" with a standard "no bicycles"
> > symbol, with "no bicycles" being understood to mean "no possession
> > of bicycles" rather than "no riding bicycles".  
> 
> This is a typical US wilderness area
> sign:https://i.imgur.com/7YQOhgIl.jpg
> 
> 
> Here's a pictographic variation: https://i.imgur.com/K5afLpOl.jpg
> 
> In neither case is the ride/push distinction called out. But if forest
> rangers see me with a bike, telling them "I was just pushing it" isn't
> going to prevent a hefty fine.

The sign in your first example is a summarized version of 16 USC 1133.
The actual text of the law specifies "...no use of motor vehicles,
motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other
form of mechanical transport,..."  That "other form of mechanical
transport" clause has been interpreted to cover anything with wheels.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] the nature of large-scale paid edits (was Re: Service road)

[Warin]

On 08/11/19 08:58, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:



On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 07:34, Clifford Snow > wrote:


Every time I've contacted one of the Amazon's team, they have
responded and taken responsibility to update their edits. We
should first try to contact them before going through DWG.


I certainly didn't mean to come on heavy, just a friendly "Hi, this 
has been happening - do you have guidelines for your staff? If so, 
could you please share them with us"


This thread shows the number of opinions on how to map service roads.


I've just been having a conversation with someone who thought that 
named streets in an industrial estate should be service roads as they 
wouldn't usually be used by the general public. That's a discussion 
for a separate thread though!


BTW my driveway is a shared driveway. I've mapped it as a driveway.


On the subject of mapping driveways - do people only map up to the 
front fence (especially in suburban areas), or all the way to the 
garage / house ie everything visible on aerial imagery?


There is simply too much other stuff to do that be worried by every 
driveway. So I only map them where they are of some interest to other 
than the resident.


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

Re: [Tagging] Changeset 62867521

[Andrew Harvey]

I just added my thoughts to the changeset comment. I agree that name should
be the proper name only and all other information can go in other tags or
the description field.

Generally an "official" (I use the term loosely) trail will be signposted
and potentially part of a hiking route, and an "informal" route won't be
signposted an not part of a hiking route, is that your view too? In that
case for the "official" one I'd use foot=designated and make it part of the
route=hiking relation, and foot=yes for the informal one. This matches the
definitions of =yes and =designated at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking_Maps lists a range of hiking
maps many do show more information than the default OSM rendered.

I agree it's best to use a barrier=* tag on the node instead of
disconnecting the ways, as that barrier might only block motor_vehicles,
not foot access, which the barrier can be tagged as such.

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 12:30, Mike Thompson  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> User dvdhns are having a friendly discussion regarding this changeset:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/62867521#map=16/40.3021/-105.6436
>
> They have some good reasons for adding "(off trail)" to the end of the
> name to the "Fire Trail", but I don't think they override the rule that we
> should only use the name tag for the name [0].  Note that in any event, it
> is not really "off trail", it is a well defined trail, but is not an
> official trail according to the Park Service, thus in OSM tagging it is
> "informal" [1].  Perhaps some others in the community could weigh in on
> this issue.
>
> dvdhns also disconnected the Fire Trail from the nearby official trail,
> even though they are connected, albeit with a small barrier of rocks and
> logs (according to their comment, the last time I was at this location,
> there was no barrier).  I suggest mapping the barrier separately, and
> perhaps indicating that the first few meters of the fire trail are
> "trail_visibility=intermediate."
>
> Mike
>
> [0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:informal
> ___
> 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] Changeset 62867521

[Mike Thompson]

Hello,

User dvdhns are having a friendly discussion regarding this changeset:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/62867521#map=16/40.3021/-105.6436

They have some good reasons for adding "(off trail)" to the end of the name
to the "Fire Trail", but I don't think they override the rule that we
should only use the name tag for the name [0].  Note that in any event, it
is not really "off trail", it is a well defined trail, but is not an
official trail according to the Park Service, thus in OSM tagging it is
"informal" [1].  Perhaps some others in the community could weigh in on
this issue.

dvdhns also disconnected the Fire Trail from the nearby official trail,
even though they are connected, albeit with a small barrier of rocks and
logs (according to their comment, the last time I was at this location,
there was no barrier).  I suggest mapping the barrier separately, and
perhaps indicating that the first few meters of the fire trail are
"trail_visibility=intermediate."

Mike

[0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:informal
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] the nature of large-scale paid edits (was Re: Service road)

[Clifford Snow]

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 1:59 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> On the subject of mapping driveways - do people only map up to the front
> fence (especially in suburban areas), or all the way to the garage / house
> ie everything visible on aerial imagery?
>
> I map to the garage to or in the case of a farmyard, to the general
parking area since it's hard to tell which structure might the garage. I
also don't map too many driveways, only when I feel like getting to the
house a user might not know which service road to take.

Where I've lived there are not that many fenced yards. But if I discovered
a fence with a gate, I would most likely add the gate and extend the
driveway to the garage.

In both cases I'm thinking about emergency services like fire and
ambulances. I'm happy that amazon is adding so many. Maybe one day our
emergency services will consider using OSM.

-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] the nature of large-scale paid edits (was Re: Service road)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 7. Nov 2019, at 23:00, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> On the subject of mapping driveways - do people only map up to the front 
> fence (especially in suburban areas), or all the way to the garage / house ie 
> everything visible on aerial imagery?


I’m doing it occasionally, in theory I would expect these ways should be 
mapped, as they are there, depict the structure of the area, etc. but there are 
just so many that whatever I’ve done in this direction is still very few with 
respect to all that would have to be done. There are situations where I think 
it is more important (both, in dense urban areas the shared (among the 
residents) driveways to internal parkings and backyards and in the countryside 
longer driveways to places that are not directly on the road). The least 
interesting are those short ones from the garage to the street in single family 
detached housing estates, but still they create crossings with the sidewalk so 
there is some kind of relevance.


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

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

[Richard Fairhurst]

Jmapb wrote:
> Maybe I'm missing something here but I don't see any reason why 
> data consumers, including the bicycle modes of routing engines, 
> should ever interpret bicycle=no in a way that permits walking 
> bicycles. This is exactly why we have a bicycle=dismount tag.

Because mapping is imperfect. I don't see any theoretical reason why data
consumers should ever interpret highway=residential in a developed country
as anything other than a paved road, but hey, you try bike routing across
the US with that assumption and see where it gets you. (Probably: dehydrated
and dead in a ditch in New Mexico.)

People often tag bicycle=no when the reality is =dismount. People also tag
bicycle=no when the rules say =no but in real life =dismount is tolerated.
I'm not going to send someone on a 3-mile detour when they could push their
bike for 30m instead, even though a never-enforced sign says thou shalt not.

Richard
cycle.travel



--
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] the nature of large-scale paid edits (was Re: Service road)

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 07:34, Clifford Snow  wrote:

> Every time I've contacted one of the Amazon's team, they have responded
> and taken responsibility to update their edits. We should first try to
> contact them before going through DWG.
>

I certainly didn't mean to come on heavy, just a friendly "Hi, this has
been happening - do you have guidelines for your staff? If so, could you
please share them with us"

This thread shows the number of opinions on how to map service roads.
>

I've just been having a conversation with someone who thought that named
streets in an industrial estate should be service roads as they wouldn't
usually be used by the general public. That's a discussion for a separate
thread though!


> BTW my driveway is a shared driveway. I've mapped it as a driveway.
>

On the subject of mapping driveways - do people only map up to the front
fence (especially in suburban areas), or all the way to the garage / house
ie everything visible on aerial imagery?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] the nature of large-scale paid edits (was Re: Service road)

[Clifford Snow]

Every time I've contacted one of the Amazon's team, they have responded and
taken responsibility to update their edits. We should first try to contact
them before going through DWG.

This thread shows the number of opinions on how to map service roads. BTW
my driveway is a shared driveway. I've mapped it as a driveway.

Best,
Clifford

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 1:17 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 03:21, Greg Troxel  wrote:
>
>> I am not aware of them publishing their guidelines; perhaps someone in
>> Amazon management will
>> speak up in this thread and point to where that is published.
>>
>
> Or possibly someone from the DWG (?) could contact them?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] the nature of large-scale paid edits (was Re: Service road)

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 03:21, Greg Troxel  wrote:

> I am not aware of them publishing their guidelines; perhaps someone in
> Amazon management will
> speak up in this thread and point to where that is published.
>

Or possibly someone from the DWG (?) could contact them?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

[Jmapb via Tagging]

On 11/7/2019 2:09 PM, Mark Wagner wrote:

On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 10:26:14 +
marc marc  wrote:


ere possession of a bicycle is forbidden
can you share the a picture of this traffic sign ?


It's a sign for a state natural area rather than a federal wilderness
area, and the situation is a little fuzzy on walking bicycles (it
depends on what "operate" means), but the sign, if present, might
look something like this: https://imgur.com/4qOuNmf

It's also possible that the sign would simply be something like
"entering Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness" with a standard "no bicycles"
symbol, with "no bicycles" being understood to mean "no possession of
bicycles" rather than "no riding bicycles".


This is a typical US wilderness area
sign:https://i.imgur.com/7YQOhgIl.jpg 

Here's a pictographic variation: https://i.imgur.com/K5afLpOl.jpg

In neither case is the ride/push distinction called out. But if forest
rangers see me with a bike, telling them "I was just pushing it" isn't
going to prevent a hefty fine.

Depending on where you enter a park or wilderness area, you may or may
not pass an info board like this, with more explicit details about
regulations: https://i.imgur.com/uYQg0DPl.jpg

Possibly there would be a specific prohibition of
pushing/carrying/possession of bicycles somewhere in there. But even
without these detailed rules, if I saw any kind of "no bicycle" rule or
sign, I would infer that dismounted pushing was also prohibited.

J

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

Re: [Tagging] the nature of large-scale paid edits (was Re: Service road)

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 11/7/19 18:19, Greg Troxel wrote:
> My point is that we have a lot of mappers and a set of norms (which are
> pretty fuzzy and/or a bit contradictory).  We have rules about
> mechanical edits (including imports), since they change things in a
> large-scale systematic way.

Yes. If you are a programmer and instruct your code to change all A's to
B's in OSM then it's a mechanical edit and rules apply (because much can
go wrong, aka "with great power comes great responsibility" etc).

And if you are a boss and instruct your 5000 employees to change all A's
to B's that should be treated similarly. That's why we have the
organised editing guidelines:
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines

> So I'm not opposed to large-scale paid editing; i just think it needs
> some caution and that the guidance to paid mapeprs needs to be
> published to the OSM community.

The guidelines request that, among other things, "if participants will
receive training material or written instructions, a copy of, or link
to, these materials" should be published.

Generally, if an organisation does not follow the guidelines and this
leads to problems, they should be held accountable & their edits are
liable to being reverted. Of course one would start with a friendly
pointer...

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

[Mark Wagner]

On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 10:26:14 +
marc marc  wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Le 06.11.19 à 19:55, Mark Wagner a écrit :
> > There are places like federal Wilderness Areas in the United States
> > where possession of a bicycle is forbidden  
> 
> can you share the a picture of this traffic sign ?
> 

It's a sign for a state natural area rather than a federal wilderness
area, and the situation is a little fuzzy on walking bicycles (it
depends on what "operate" means), but the sign, if present, might
look something like this: https://imgur.com/4qOuNmf

It's also possible that the sign would simply be something like
"entering Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness" with a standard "no bicycles"
symbol, with "no bicycles" being understood to mean "no possession of
bicycles" rather than "no riding bicycles".

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

[Jmapb via Tagging]

On 11/6/2019 3:08 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

bicycle_pushed=no?

bicycle_pushed is more clear for someone encountering it
for the first time - bicycle=total_ban is a bit confusing

Especially as in some places access for bicycles
may be "never" (explicit "no bicycle" signs)
or "only during extreme weather" (one of cases
when it is legal to cycle on sidewalks in Poland).
First case should be tagged as bicycle=no, not bicycle=total_ban.

Also, it may be OK to carry bicycle in a box and not OK
to push (not road access, but in some train you are not allowed to
enter with bicycle,
bit once bicycle is in a box this is considered as entirely fine)


Maybe I'm missing something here but I don't see any reason why data
consumers, including the bicycle modes of routing engines, should ever
interpret bicycle=no in a way that permits walking bicycles. This is
exactly why we have a bicycle=dismount tag.

Carrying a bicycle is an edge case that might deserve its own value --
bicycle=carried works for me. And if we need further refined values to
explicitly permit a folding bike or bike-in-a-box, no problem:
bicycle=folded, bicycle=boxed.

(Special permission for extreme weather should be encoded with some
variation of the conditional access tag scheme.)

Jason


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

[Tagging] the nature of large-scale paid edits (was Re: Service road)

[Greg Troxel]

Dave F via Tagging  writes:

> On 06/11/2019 18:04, Greg Troxel wrote:
>>
>> I think a shared driveway is still a driveway.
>
> This is the crux. The only distinguishing attribute from what we'd all
> tag as a driveway is that's it's shared.
> A driveway is designated as privately owned rather than by the local
> authority. It isn't defined by how many own it.
>
> As Greg pointed out no one gave it a specific name in this thread. All
> references were to it being a 'shared driveway'.

And I guess, if it's not service=driveway, how does one claim it it is
still highway=service?

>> If other people had tagged in driveway, and amazon removed it as part
>> of a large-scale paid edit, I think that's totally not ok.
>
> I'm unsure if this is a blanket policy of Amazon, I think it maybe
> just this one editor.

If it's just one editor, that's not a big deal.

>> I see large-scale paid edits as part way to mechanical edits, and think
>> they have to be more deferential than normal mappers.
>
> I really think OSM as a whole needs to steer away from considering
> edits based purely on their size as something to be fearful of. As
> long as the data is accurate & improves OSM's database quality then it
> should be welcomed.

Certainly; I didn't mean to suggest that edits that meet OSM's norms
should be unwelcome.

My point is that we have a lot of mappers and a set of norms (which are
pretty fuzzy and/or a bit contradictory).  We have rules about
mechanical edits (including imports), since they change things in a
large-scale systematic way.

When we have a very large set of edits that are under the common policy
direction of one entity, then that starts to have some of the
characteristics of mechanical edits.

We have had problems in Massachusetts with Amazon mappers removing
landuse=conservation (which has been deprecated world-wide by the
boundary=protected_area fans -- who *wrongly* think it has the same
semantics -- but landuse=conservation is very much in use in
Massachusetts, whose people are not vigorous wiki fiddlers).

So what I meant is that adding driveways that are actually there (which
by all accounts is what they are doing), tagging them as driveways, and
access=private, is all 100% great.

But, any removal of service=driveway from shared driveways, if under the
guidance of the organization, is not ok.  I am not aware of them
publishing their guidelines; perhaps someone in Amazon management will
speak up in this thread and point to where that is published.

> With Amazon specifically, the data is coming from their GPS recordings
> & is being gradually added. (Unsure whether the contributors being
> paid makes any difference). Overall I'd say their edits contain the
> same amount of errors as the average OSM contributor.

Being paid makes a difference because paid people do what they are told
by the people paying them.  So an edit with 1000 paid mappers has a very
significant aspect of a mecchanical edit.

When the the guidance is "add driveways that we know exist from GPS, and
tag them highway=service service=driveway access=private", then
everything is fvine, because that's what a normal mapper who had the GPS
data and the inclination to spend time on it would do.

So I'm not opposed to large-scale paid editing; i just think it needs
some caution and that the guidance to paid mapeprs needs to be
published to the OSM community.

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

Re: [Tagging] Traffic Signs "pushing bicycle not allowed here"

[Andy Townsend]

On 07/11/2019 13:39, marc marc wrote:

Le 07.11.19 à 14:01, Andy Townsend a écrit :

you won't see a unique sign that identifies "you can't cycle here"

an good practice rule is "don't map the legislation", isn't it ??


If you can infer defaults from legislation, sure, but as has previously 
been said you explicitly can't do that here.




no sign ? thus no tag on the way


Er, no.  As I was trying to say, you can't rely on (official) traffic 
signs  everywhere in the world.  Sometimes you need to infer access 
rules.  If I see a locked gate and a picture of a rottweiler, I'll map 
the driveway behind it as "access=private". You may disagree, but I'll 
let you deal with the rottweiler.




at most a default value in the wiki or on the boundary.


That may be technically correct in some cases, but isn't always a good 
idea.  To take an example I recently mapped, strictly speaking the 
access tags on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/263486696 really apply 
to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/738985023 (the full extent of which 
remains unmapped), but having access tags on a surrounding area isn't 
where any data consumer is going to expect to find them.  They do of 
course apply to the track (so what is mapped is not wrong - just not 
complete).


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Tagging] Traffic Signs "pushing bicycle not allowed here"

[marc marc]

Le 07.11.19 à 14:01, Andy Townsend a écrit :
> you won't see a unique sign that identifies "you can't cycle here"

an good pratice rule is "don't map the legislation", isn't it ??
no sign ? thus no tag on the way
at most a default value in the wiki or on the boundary.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

[ael]

On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 12:53:16PM +0100, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> Ok, Steve. It's not a turnstile, but a kissing gate, and there is no
> Christchurch College Park, but the gate is behind Christchurch in Merton
> Field.
> But it is impossible to get through if you carry any large object (or if
> you are large yourself). Here it is on the map,
> 
> here is a foto
> .

I am almost certain that is a private gate for members of Corpus and
possibly also of Christ Church. I will try to remember to check
sometime. The "College Park" is, of course, "Christ Church Meadow".

ael


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

[Tagging] Traffic Signs (was: Re: Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?)

[Andy Townsend]

On 07/11/2019 10:26, marc marc wrote:

Hello,

Le 06.11.19 à 19:55, Mark Wagner a écrit :

There are places like federal Wilderness Areas in the United States
where possession of a bicycle is forbidden

can you share the a picture of this traffic sign ?

As an aside, it's worth mentioning that the idea that you can uniquely 
identify a type of access by the traffic sign for it is something that 
isn't universal outside continental Europe.  For example, in the case 
that Richard referred to earlier in England and Wales where a local 
council has an interpretation of the legal rules on public footpaths, 
you won't see a unique sign that identifies "you can't cycle here".  You 
will usually see signage of the legal "public footpath" status (but not 
always, and what there is varies around the country) and you also do 
have paths around the country with that legal status where it is 
positively encouraged to ride a bike.


Essentially, there may be a sign, but you can't infer that cycling is 
prohibited there, you can only infer that you can't assume that it is 
legal.


My experience of the US is much less, but what I would say is that 
signage there is more likely to be just text, and that text may be 
complicated.  Parking signs are an example of this (and a bit of a trope 
there - see e.g. 
http://www.mikeontraffic.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/parking_regs.gif ).


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

[Volker Schmidt]

Ok, Steve. It's not a turnstile, but a kissing gate, and there is no
Christchurch College Park, but the gate is behind Christchurch in Merton
Field.
But it is impossible to get through if you carry any large object (or if
you are large yourself). Here it is on the map,

here is a foto
.



On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 00:29, Steve Doerr  wrote:

> On 06/11/2019 23:13, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> > Just to add another aspect: There is a full-hight turnstile in
> > Christchurch College Park in Oxford where bicycles and pushchairs do
> > physically not pass.
>
> There is no such place as Christchurch College Park in Oxford.
>
> --
> Steve
>
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> ___
> 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] Service road - Can it be a driveway if serving multiple houses?

[Dave F via Tagging]

On 06/11/2019 18:04, Greg Troxel wrote:


I think a shared driveway is still a driveway.


This is the crux. The only distinguishing attribute from what we'd all 
tag as a driveway is that's it's shared.
A driveway is designated as privately owned rather than by the local 
authority. It isn't defined by how many own it.


As Greg pointed out no one gave it a specific name in this thread. All 
references were to it being a 'shared driveway'.




If other people had tagged in driveway, and amazon removed it as part
of a large-scale paid edit, I think that's totally not ok.


I'm unsure if this is a blanket policy of Amazon, I think it maybe just 
this one editor.



I see large-scale paid edits as part way to mechanical edits, and think
they have to be more deferential than normal mappers.


I really think OSM as a whole needs to steer away from considering edits 
based purely on their size as something to be fearful of. As long as the 
data is accurate & improves OSM's database quality then it should be 
welcomed.


With Amazon specifically, the data is coming from their GPS recordings & 
is being gradually added. (Unsure whether the contributors being paid 
makes any difference). Overall I'd say their edits contain the same 
amount of errors as the average OSM contributor.


DaveF

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

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 7. Nov. 2019 um 11:31 Uhr schrieb marc marc <
marc_marc_...@hotmail.com>:

> Hello,
>
> Le 06.11.19 à 19:55, Mark Wagner a écrit :
> > There are places like federal Wilderness Areas in the United States
> > where possession of a bicycle is forbidden
>
> can you share the a picture of this traffic sign ?



it's a bit lame, while not permitting bikes, wearing shoes is consented...

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

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

[marc marc]

Hello,

Le 06.11.19 à 19:55, Mark Wagner a écrit :
> There are places like federal Wilderness Areas in the United States
> where possession of a bicycle is forbidden

can you share the a picture of this traffic sign ?

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