Re: [Tagging] Roundtrip and closed loop in relations
sent from a phone > On 22. Dec 2019, at 16:43, Peter Elderson wrote: > > A linear walking route marked in both directions is not a roundtrip. You're > not guided to turn around at the end and return to the start. there are cases where it’s unavoidable, because there is only one way. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Company or association that organize courses
Hello, I would like to find a good tag for the case in subject. In particular I'm referring to mandatory courses that workers must to take part (like security on workplace) after they start a new job. The goal of the company is to release a certification after the subscriber reaches the minimum amount of hours and passes a small exam. Probability the tag: office=* with a value generally agreed is the best option. On the Italian ML has been suggested: office=training It is undocumented but it has some occurrence on taginfo. What do you think? Many thanks, Best regards Francesco ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Discourage use of landuse=churchyard?
The tag landuse=churchyard has been used several thousand times, but amenity=graveyard is over 10 times more common, and landuse=religious is 4 times more common. I would recommend discouraging use of this tag, because the wiki definition contradicts the plain-English meaning of churchyard, which is usually a graveyard (cemetry) or burial ground next to a church. The wiki page for landuse=churchyard claims "Used to map the area surrounding a christian church or chapel, particularly when this does not contain a graveyard" - this conflicts with the common English definition of the value. Cambridge Dictionary (UK): "an area of land around a church, where dead bodies are buried " Merriam-Webster (US): "a yard that belongs to a church and is often used as a burial ground." To avoid ambiguity, mappers can use the two well-accepted tags landuse=religious + religion=christian OR amenity=graveyard + religion=christian, depending on the situation. I would like to update the wiki page for landuse=churchyard to suggest not using the tag and changing to one of the other two tags + religion=christian instead. - Joseph Eisenberg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles - keys updated
small_electric_vehicle for segways and electric kick scooters seems confusing to me: I would imagine this including electric golf carts (already tagged golf_cart=yes/designated/no) and perhaps other things. It’s also a bit odd that electric pedal-assist bicycles with limited top speed are to be tagged electric_bicycle= but faster e-bikes would be tagged “speed_pedelec=“ - shouldn’t it be “high_speed_electric_bicycle=“ or similar? Joseph On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 11:34 PM Jan Michel wrote: > Taking the various comments and suggestions into account, > I revised some of the tags proposed and also included electric mopeds > in the proposal. > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ElectricBicyclesAndScooters > > > The current set of tags is: > > * electric_bicycle - bicycles with motor assistance > * speed_pedelec - fast electric bicycles, similar to mopeds > * kick_scooter - the 'childrens style' scooter > * small_electric_vehicle - electric scooters (similar to kick scooters), > Segway etc. These refer to a class of vehicles in European (French, > German) law > * moped:electric - slow electric motorcycles (EU: up to 25 km/h typically) > * mofa:electric -medium fast electric motorcycles (EU: up to 45 km/h > typically) > > I hope that this set of tags is able to cope with most existing and > planned regulations and is free of ambiguities. > Please let me know your opinion and further suggestions! > > Jan > > > On 10.11.19 18:05, Jan Michel wrote: > > Hi, > > up to now we don't have documented tags for small electric vehicles like > > bicycles and scooters. On the other hand, special access rules and > > amenities become more and more common. > > > > These new keys are not only necessary for access tags, but also intended > > for use with any other kind of amenity like parking, shops, service, > > charging... > > > > I wrote a proposal [1] to define common keywords for these vehicles. > > Please let me know your opinion and further suggestions! > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > [1] > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ElectricBicyclesAndScooters > > > > > > > > ___ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Roundtrip and closed loop in relations
Good point. I would say roundtrip is the service provided. But if a route
is designed for roundtrip service i.e. if you remain seated you end up at
the starting point, roundtrip becomes an attribute of the route. However,
most PT allows you to book or perform a roundtrip. Because even if you get
off and later back on, even on a different vehicle and/or by a different
route, it's still a roundtrip, no matter the layout of the routes.
(Nederand used to have roundtrip tickets, priced at 1 1/2 the cost of two
separate single way tickets. You could get roundtrip tickets ("retours")
valid on one day, or roundtrips with open return day. Now, we pay per
kilometer, so that's history. For now!).
In short, I think circular would be the better term if the route is
"circular". I would not retag, though. I am not a PT-mapper or PT datauser.
But I have to ask: is it absolutely clear what it means if a PT-route is
mapped as a roundtrip? Is this information really used?
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op zo 22 dec. 2019 om 15:34 schreef marc marc :
> 3 240 (10%) objects with rountrip=3 also have public_transport:version=*
> ex https://www.ratp.fr/plans-lignes/noctilien/n01
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1083331
>
> Le 22.12.19 à 11:57, Peter Elderson a écrit :
> > For PT, roundtrip is not an attribute of the route
> >
> >> Op 21 dec. 2019 om 15:31 heeft marc marc het volgende geschreven:
> >>
> >> I always thought that routrip=yes was an alternative when there is no
> >> start and end point to enter in from=* to=* key.
> >> Otherwise circular routes with a known start/end point can enter
> >> as from=A via=B to=A.
> ___
> 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] nomoj de internaciaj objektoj / nazwy obiektów międzynarodowych / names of international objects
PL W dniu 19-12-14 o 03:14, Warin pisze: > Jeśli tag jest w języku angielskim, powinien być również w nazwie: en > = *. Jeśli jest w innym języku, powinien być również w nazwie: język = > * gdzie język jest nazwą tego języka. > Tagi Wikipedii powinny zawierać odpowiedni język .. >> kontynentów (place=continent); >> oceanów (place=ocean); >> mórz (place=sea) Oceanu Południowego i niezamieszkanych wysp >> dookoła Antarktydy; >> biegunów. > angielskiego jako środka komunikacji. międzynarodowi żeglarze, którzy > ponownie na podstawie umowy międzynarodowej używają słowa „seaspeak”. > Seaspeak w oparciu o angielski. > Obszary te są wykorzystywane przez; międzynarodowi piloci lotniczy i > na podstawie umowy międzynarodowej używają języka angielskiego jako > środka komunikacji. międzynarodowi żeglarze, którzy ponownie na > podstawie umowy międzynarodowej używają słowa „seaspeak”. Seaspeak w > oparciu o angielski. Czy naprawdę piloci i marynarze nie wiedzą gdzie jest Morze Bałtyckie, albo Ocean Atlantycki? > >> 2. Dla mórz i zatok (oznaczanych jako place=sea) proponuję w >> znacznik „name” wprowadzić nazwy w oficjalnych językach >> sąsiadujących krajów w porządku alfabetycznym rozdzielonych >> znakiem „/” i odnośniki do Wikipedii we wszystkich wprowadzonych >> językach. >> Przykład dla Morza Kaspijskiego: „Hazar deňzi / Каспий теңізі / >> Каспийское море / Хәзәр дәнизи / دریاچه خزر”. > Nie. Ta nazwa będzie zbyt długa, aby większość ludzi mogła ją > skutecznie oddać. Dlatego programy powinny wyświetlać nazwę w języku użytkownika (name:pl). > Nazwa każdego języka powinna mieć odpowiednią nazwę: tag języka. > Następnie render może wybrać język, który lubią pokazywać. Tam, gdzie > brakuje języka, który wybrali do renderowania, wówczas domyślnie może > być tag name = *, dopóki ktoś nie zmapuje nazwy w wymaganym języku. > W przypadku miejsc, które mogą być „zastrzeżone” przez kilka języków, > mniejszym problemem może być określenie angielskiego jako > preferowanego języka (może obrażać wszystkie jednakowo, a mimo to być > postrzegany jako przydatny dla podróżujących z zagranicy). Angielski uprzywilejowuje anglików, amerykanów i kilka innych narodów; jest niesamowicie trudnym językiem dla pozostałych, jeżeli musi być coś w znaczniku „name”, proponuję Interlingwę lub Esperanto. A najlepszym rozwiązaniem byłoby usunięcie kontrowersyjnej nazwy. > ___ > 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] Roundtrip and closed loop in relations
> > If following the route marking you will get back to start... It's a circular > route. > As previously stated you could find marking on both directions and be a > single line straight and then reverse. > With old wiki definition this is Roundtrip=no... Now it is Roundtrip=yes > Seems sane to me. A linear walking route marked in both directions is not a roundtrip. You're not guided to turn around at the end and return to the start. You are free to do that and make your cross-the-alps trail a roundtrip, of course, but I have yet to encounter anyone who does that. Could become an Australian hype maybe? :) So no, I wouldn't expect linear walking routes to get tagged as roundtrip=yes. circular is fine too, as long as it can be applied to routes that are not strictly circular (closed_loop). Such as having a common approach/exit section, crossing itself one or more times, or having a common middle section between two loops. This would still qualify as roundtrip to me, because the 'service' i.e. the waymarking, brings you back to the start. bidirectional waymarking does not a roundtrip make, it just says you can choose to do the hike in both directions. At the same time, if circular just means the same as roundtrip (for walking routes), I would not change current tagging. Lots of work to achieve nothing, not my favorite. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Roundtrip and closed loop in relations
3 240 (10%) objects with rountrip=3 also have public_transport:version=* ex https://www.ratp.fr/plans-lignes/noctilien/n01 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1083331 Le 22.12.19 à 11:57, Peter Elderson a écrit : > For PT, roundtrip is not an attribute of the route > >> Op 21 dec. 2019 om 15:31 heeft marc marc het volgende geschreven: >> >> I always thought that routrip=yes was an alternative when there is no >> start and end point to enter in from=* to=* key. >> Otherwise circular routes with a known start/end point can enter >> as from=A via=B to=A. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles - keys updated
Taking the various comments and suggestions into account, I revised some of the tags proposed and also included electric mopeds in the proposal. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ElectricBicyclesAndScooters The current set of tags is: * electric_bicycle - bicycles with motor assistance * speed_pedelec - fast electric bicycles, similar to mopeds * kick_scooter - the 'childrens style' scooter * small_electric_vehicle - electric scooters (similar to kick scooters), Segway etc. These refer to a class of vehicles in European (French, German) law * moped:electric - slow electric motorcycles (EU: up to 25 km/h typically) * mofa:electric -medium fast electric motorcycles (EU: up to 45 km/h typically) I hope that this set of tags is able to cope with most existing and planned regulations and is free of ambiguities. Please let me know your opinion and further suggestions! Jan On 10.11.19 18:05, Jan Michel wrote: Hi, up to now we don't have documented tags for small electric vehicles like bicycles and scooters. On the other hand, special access rules and amenities become more and more common. These new keys are not only necessary for access tags, but also intended for use with any other kind of amenity like parking, shops, service, charging... I wrote a proposal [1] to define common keywords for these vehicles. Please let me know your opinion and further suggestions! Jan [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ElectricBicyclesAndScooters ___ 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] Roundtrip and closed loop in relations
Il dom 22 dic 2019, 11:59 Peter Elderson ha scritto: > For PT, roundtrip is not an attribute of the route, it's a type of ticket > or it's what you use the transport for. You can do a roundtrip on a > circular line, but also on non-circular lines or mostly non-circular with a > loop at the end, whatever. To express that a PT route is circular, I think > the term circular would be better than roundtrip. > Agreed. My intention was to avoid Roundtrip as sinonym of Circular. > For hiking|foot routes, exception is the rule when it comes to branches, > alternatives, excursions, approaches and shortcuts. For me roundtrip on a > walking route relation means: when you keep following the main route > markings, it takes you back to where you begun. This does not exclude any > alternatives, such as optional extra loops or a common approach/exit route > at a starting point. If following the route marking you will get back to start... It's a circular route. As previously stated you could find marking on both directions and be a single line straight and then reverse. With old wiki definition this is Roundtrip=no... Now it is Roundtrip=yes Seems sane to me. Only roundtrip=yes is needed here, if not present assume it's not a roundtrip. Note that many trails consist of a number of linear routes, together making for a roundtrip. I tag roundtrip=yes only on the parent route relation. Loop or circular would also be just fine, but I see no reason to change existing tagging here. Do you mean old definition or the new one? > Question: who wants to know if a route is a circular route/loop/roundtrip? > Is it the map user? No, (s)he can see it on the map. Don't forget OSM is a database.. a new tag that helps to classify things (without overtagging) can be useful. Can you extract easily all circular or linear routes with current scheme? Is it important for routing and navigation? I can't see how, but there are > experts on this list who know more about this. So far I know of only one > application: categorisation/filtering of trips in order to present the user > a choice between roundtrip walks or linear walks. The roundtrips were > actually meant to be daytrips, and linear walks were to be presented as " > long distance walks", but a separate category long distance roundtrips > could be deducted from the data, I guess. > > Question: who wants to know if a route is actually a closed loop without > any branches? > What do you need this information for? Personally I would only be interested in the validation part. I already wrote some rule in JOSM and Osmose... I don't currently plan to fix all existing routes, but hopefully could help to figure how to do it. So far, I know one application: if a route is tagged as a closed loop, e.g. with closed_loop=yes, and it's not complete or interrupted somewhere, you can detect that with a checking tool. It would be a sort of fixme, then. Most routes I maintain would not profit from that. > > > FrGr Peter Elderson > > > Op 21 dec. 2019 om 15:31 heeft marc marc > het volgende geschreven: > > > > I always thought that routrip=yes was an alternative when there is no > > start and end point to enter in from=* to=* key. > > Otherwise circular routes with a known start/end point can enter > > as from=A via=B to=A. > > ___ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Roundtrip and closed loop in relations
For PT, roundtrip is not an attribute of the route, it's a type of ticket or it's what you use the transport for. You can do a roundtrip on a circular line, but also on non-circular lines or mostly non-circular with a loop at the end, whatever. To express that a PT route is circular, I think the term circular would be better than roundtrip. For hiking|foot routes, exception is the rule when it comes to branches, alternatives, excursions, approaches and shortcuts. For me roundtrip on a walking route relation means: when you keep following the main route markings, it takes you back to where you begun. This does not exclude any alternatives, such as optional extra loops or a common approach/exit route at a starting point. Only roundtrip=yes is needed here, if not present assume it's not a roundtrip. Note that many trails consist of a number of linear routes, together making for a roundtrip. I tag roundtrip=yes only on the parent route relation. Loop or circular would also be just fine, but I see no reason to change existing tagging here. Question: who wants to know if a route is a circular route/loop/roundtrip? Is it the map user? No, (s)he can see it on the map. Is it important for routing and navigation? I can't see how, but there are experts on this list who know more about this. So far I know of only one application: categorisation/filtering of trips in order to present the user a choice between roundtrip walks or linear walks. The roundtrips were actually meant to be daytrips, and linear walks were to be presented as " long distance walks", but a separate category long distance roundtrips could be deducted from the data, I guess. Question: who wants to know if a route is actually a closed loop without any branches? What do you need this information for? So far, I know one application: if a route is tagged as a closed loop, e.g. with closed_loop=yes, and it's not complete or interrupted somewhere, you can detect that with a checking tool. It would be a sort of fixme, then. Most routes I maintain would not profit from that. FrGr Peter Elderson > Op 21 dec. 2019 om 15:31 heeft marc marc het > volgende geschreven: > > I always thought that routrip=yes was an alternative when there is no > start and end point to enter in from=* to=* key. > Otherwise circular routes with a known start/end point can enter > as from=A via=B to=A. > ___ > 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] [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,
sent from a phone > On 22. Dec 2019, at 01:24, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > Do highway=trunk in German always have a physical barrier such a kerb > to separate the two directions, even if they are not a dual > carriageway? road > > The English highway=trunk page says this about Germany "The > carriageways are separated physically or by road markings". the wiki is correct, road markings are sufficient > > An automated translation of the German page suggests that these > "Autobahnähnliche Straße" can be translated "expressways". from how expressways are defined in the OpenStreetMap wiki I would say they are pretty different on closer inspection > > But it's not clear how they are distinguished from highway=motorway > features in Germany. legally (motorways are signposted with start and end signs), and also consequently by access (trunks might be accessible by slower vehicles) > > I think this shows the disadvantage of determing the top-level highway > feature tag (primary, trunk) based on certain physical and legal > characteristics rather than on class in the road network: regarding the “class”, this is mostly opaque to Germans, it is quite a technical specialist matter, and people are generally only aware of the owner and maintenance entity (Bundesstraße, Landesstraße, Kreisstraße, Gemeindestraße) but not about the highway class, you can get an idea here https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richtlinien_für_integrierte_Netzgestaltung unfortunately the full text is not openly available. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
