Re: [Tagging] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 13. Jan 2020, at 06:51, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> 
> To come back to tagging: so people seem to have a problem with 
> amenity=recycle in case of reuse, but do not have a problem with 
> amenity=vending_machine for such a machine (that does not sell anything). Or 
> am I mistaken?


I’m having issues with both 


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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

[Marc Gemis]

I was thinking of speciality beers (which do not come in crates), but
especially of wine bottles. AFAIK, there is little to no difference in the
bottle, but it might depend on who bottled the wine. If the wine is bottled
by the supermarket itself, you can return the bottle, otherwise not. At
least that is what I think.
That why I was confused by Martin's remark "typology of container that is
accepted". I thought he meant crates vs single bottles, but he meant thin
and thick glass.

I agree with you that brand for beer and soda drinks is important on
whether they are accepted or not.

But in the end, I,, as a consumer do not know whether the bottles that I
bring back for reuse, will actually be reused. Perhaps after a few
reuse-cycles, the bottles are recycled.

To come back to tagging: so people seem to have a problem with
amenity=recycle in case of reuse, but do not have a problem with
amenity=vending_machine for such a machine (that does not sell anything).
Or am I mistaken?


regards

m.

On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 6:26 PM Jake Edmonds via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Here is the list of brands accepted at three stores near by. I also
> checked two others, one had a picture of various shapes and colours (with
> no labels) of bottles and the other lists ‘beer 0,33l, beer 0,5l) but both
> did have a list of which brands of plastic crates are accepted
>
> Fresh
>
> Fresh 2
>
> Billa
>
> Birell
>
> Birell
>
>
> Budwar
>
> Budwar
>
> Budwar
>
> Budweiser
>
> Budweiser
>
>
> Corgoň
>
> Corgoň
>
> Corgoň
>
> Heineken
>
> Heineken
>
> Heineken
>
> Kachelman
>
> Kachelman
>
> Kachelman
>
> Kelt
>
> Kelt
>
> Kelt
>
> Kozel
>
> Kozel
>
> Kozel
>
> Krušovice
>
> Krušovice
>
>
> Pilsner
>
> Pilsner
>
> Pilsner
>
> Šariš
>
> Šariš
>
> Šariš
>
> Smädný Mních
>
> Smädný Mních
>
> Smädný Mních
>
> Starobrno
>
> Starobrno
>
> Starobrno
>
> Zlatý Bažant
>
> Zlatý Bažant
>
> Zlatý Bažant
>
>
>
>
>
> Steiger
>
> Steiger
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Budiš
>
>
>
> Fatra
>
>
>
> Gambrinus
>
>
>
> Gemer
>
>
>
> Grošák
>
>
>
> Martiner
>
>
>
> Sitňan
>
>
>
> Staropramen
>
>
>
> Topvar
>
>
>
>
> 14
>
> 15
>
> 21
>
>
>
> Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone
>
> On 12 Jan 2020, at 18:15, Marc Gemis  wrote:
>
> 
>
> Is the different between recycling and reusing important for the average
> consumer who a) wants to claim their deposit and b)  doesn’t want to put
> the item into landfill?
>
>
>
> first of all it is indicating the (rough) typology of container that is
> accepted, secondly it would seem strange to tag something “recycling” when
> it’s actually much more beneficial for the environment because of reuse.
>
>
> I don't understand this "typology of container that is accepted". Some
> glass bottles I have into put a container, others I can return to a
> shop and get some money back. There is no difference in container, the
> only difference is a mark on the bottle itself.
>
> regards
>
> m.
>
> ___
> 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] Rare route=* values - route=power

[Warin]

On 13/1/20 11:36 am, François Lacombe wrote:

Hi Joseph,

Le sam. 11 janv. 2020 à 06:21, Joseph Eisenberg 
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> a écrit :


Who is using route=power?


Some electricity mappers including me.

route=power represents a circuit (metallic continuity) between two or 
more substations.



Continuity can be had by the lines sharing a node. In the same way roads 
share a node to enable routing.



It is different from a line as a physical lines can hold several of 
those circuits for a given distance (situations where you have n x 3 
cables in a 3-phases power network).



I would expect a line that has n*3 cables to be tagged cables=3;3 (for 
n=2, add more ;3 for more n). This would signify that the 3 phase 
circuits are separate.


Humm problem in identifying which of the 3 phases is connected to which 
when the line splits off.



Who uses this route relation - as in a end use? Or is this a 'build it 
and they will come' thing?





It has no documentation except for a rather confusing Proposal page

(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_routing_proposal/Tagging_similar_to_Transportation_routes)
but it's used 15,000 times.


The proposal didn't reach the requested consensus.
There are currently two options for power routing, including 
route=power but until now we didn't manage to find a single solution 
to be voted. Discussion is still open I think.


Is this feature actually useful and verifiable?


It is really useful and verifiable : follow the connected cables.
Some countries like France make open data available that describe 
those relations.


See this Overpass query to see how it's going for RTE in France : 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/yUw
We've just finished a few days ago to complete all ~1520 relations for 
400kV and 225kV.


Le sam. 11 janv. 2020 à 07:03, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> a écrit :



Is this feature actually useful and verifiable?


Not usefull.

Wow, how can you say that?

However I view them similar to roads .. there maybe a power line there .. 
but 'traffic' can be in both directions.

I see no point in having a dedicated 'route' for power.

Let us know how you can map this without a route relation :
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6194774

Given the fact this line holds two independent circuits : 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/130110647


All the best

François

___
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] recreational vs functional routes

[Warin]

On 13/1/20 10:23 am, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
Paris is the capital of France because it has all the main government 
facilities: the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and most 
ministries.


Routes that are mapped in Openstreetmap need to be signed or marked in 
a visible way. Otherwise every Stava user will add their favorite 
training loop to the map as a running route or road cycling route.



I have had one mark 'their' training loops and commuting routes in as 
cycle lanes.. where no cycle lanes exist. Given the choice between that 
and a route entry I'd chose the route.





Joseph

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 2:02 AM Florimond Berthoux 
mailto:florimond.berth...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:


Asking me how do I know that Eurovelo 3 is for tourism or bicycle
trekking is like asking me how do I know that Paris is the capital
of France.
« Is there a sign saying that Paris is the capital of France? May
be we should remove that tag, don't you think?... »

You don't need sign post to have a route, do you have a sign post
at the intersection of those routes ?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/45.1485/-4.1705
I doubt that.

This is how the Wiki define a route:
« A *route* is a customary or regular line of passage or travel,
often predetermined and publicized. Routes consist of paths taken
repeatedly by people and vehicles: a ship on the North Atlantic
route, a car on a numbered road, a bus on its route or a cyclist
on a national route. »
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route

So to paraphrase this for road biking route :
« A road bicycle *route* is a customary or regular line of passage
or travel, often predetermined and publicized as such. Road
bicycle routes consist of paths taken repeatedly by road cyclist. »

And if you don't know then don't tag it and don't manage it.

Le sam. 11 janv. 2020 à 23:35, Joseph Eisenberg
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> a
écrit :
>
> >  I am not against distinguishing more types of cycling routes,
I am all for it, as long as it's verifyable, mappable with clear
tagging, and manageable.
>
> +1
>
> I started using Openstreetmap because I wanted to add touring routes
> and recreational bike routes in RideWithGPS and then found out that
> http://ridewithgps.com uses Openstreetmap data which I could
edit. And
> I get to work and take kids to school and shop by bike - I haven't
> owned a car for 9 years.
>
> So I would love to have more information about what streets and
roads
> are best for getting from point A to B, and which ones are nice for
> training rides and which ones are fun for tours.
>
> But tags have to be verifiable: if the next mapper can't confirm
that
> a tag as right, the data in Openstreetmap will not be maintained
> properly. Subjective tags cannot work.
>
> I have seen this happen: before I mapped here, I used to try to
> improve the bike routes in Portland Oregon for Google Maps. But
since
> there was no definition of a "preferred" bicycle street, and it was
> hard to delete a preferred route once it was added, the bike
layer was
> full of disconnected segments. Some were from old city maps of bike
> routes, some were based on the personal preference of the
mapper, and
> some were actually signed or marked on the ground, but you couldn't
> tell them apart.
>
> If there is a sign or marking that specifies that a certain route is
> designed for mountain bikes or for bike racing, then sure, you
can tag
> that. But most bike routes do not have anything to specify that they
> are more for commuting or more for recreation, and in that case we
> can't tag the distinction.
>
> Fortunately, database users (like routing applications) can look at
> other Openstreetmap data, like surface=* tags on ways, and external
> data like elevation models, to determine if a route is a difficult
> single-track trail through the hills versus a flat paved path
along a
> canal, and use this to help route cyclists appropriately.
>
> - Joseph Eisenberg

-- 
Florimond Berthoux




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

Re: [Tagging] Rare route=* values - route=power

[François Lacombe]

Hi Joseph,

Le sam. 11 janv. 2020 à 06:21, Joseph Eisenberg 
a écrit :

> Who is using route=power?
>

Some electricity mappers including me.

route=power represents a circuit (metallic continuity) between two or more
substations.
It is different from a line as a physical lines can hold several of those
circuits for a given distance (situations where you have n x 3 cables in a
3-phases power network).


> It has no documentation except for a rather confusing Proposal page
> (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_routing_proposal/Tagging_similar_to_Transportation_routes
> )
> but it's used 15,000 times.
>

The proposal didn't reach the requested consensus.
There are currently two options for power routing, including route=power
but until now we didn't manage to find a single solution to be voted.
Discussion is still open I think.


> Is this feature actually useful and verifiable?
>

It is really useful and verifiable : follow the connected cables.
Some countries like France make open data available that describe those
relations.

See this Overpass query to see how it's going for RTE in France :
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/yUw
We've just finished a few days ago to complete all ~1520 relations for
400kV and 225kV.

Le sam. 11 janv. 2020 à 07:03, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit :

> Is this feature actually useful and verifiable?
>
> Not usefull.
>
> Wow, how can you say that?


> However I view them similar to roads .. there maybe a power line there .. but 
> 'traffic' can be in both directions.
>
> I see no point in having a dedicated 'route' for power.
>
> Let us know how you can map this without a route relation :
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6194774

Given the fact this line holds two independent circuits :
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/130110647

All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Paris is the capital of France because it has all the main government
facilities: the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and most
ministries.

Routes that are mapped in Openstreetmap need to be signed or marked in a
visible way. Otherwise every Stava user will add their favorite training
loop to the map as a running route or road cycling route.

Joseph

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 2:02 AM Florimond Berthoux <
florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Asking me how do I know that Eurovelo 3 is for tourism or bicycle trekking
> is like asking me how do I know that Paris is the capital of France.
> « Is there a sign saying that Paris is the capital of France? May be we
> should remove that tag, don't you think?... »
>
> You don't need sign post to have a route, do you have a sign post at the
> intersection of those routes ?
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/45.1485/-4.1705
> I doubt that.
>
> This is how the Wiki define a route:
> « A *route* is a customary or regular line of passage or travel, often
> predetermined and publicized. Routes consist of paths taken repeatedly by
> people and vehicles: a ship on the North Atlantic route, a car on a
> numbered road, a bus on its route or a cyclist on a national route. »
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route
>
> So to paraphrase this for road biking route :
> « A road bicycle *route* is a customary or regular line of passage or
> travel, often predetermined and publicized as such. Road bicycle routes
> consist of paths taken repeatedly by road cyclist. »
>
> And if you don't know then don't tag it and don't manage it.
>
> Le sam. 11 janv. 2020 à 23:35, Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >
> > >  I am not against distinguishing more types of cycling routes, I am
> all for it, as long as it's verifyable, mappable with clear tagging, and
> manageable.
> >
> > +1
> >
> > I started using Openstreetmap because I wanted to add touring routes
> > and recreational bike routes in RideWithGPS and then found out that
> > http://ridewithgps.com uses Openstreetmap data which I could edit. And
> > I get to work and take kids to school and shop by bike - I haven't
> > owned a car for 9 years.
> >
> > So I would love to have more information about what streets and roads
> > are best for getting from point A to B, and which ones are nice for
> > training rides and which ones are fun for tours.
> >
> > But tags have to be verifiable: if the next mapper can't confirm that
> > a tag as right, the data in Openstreetmap will not be maintained
> > properly. Subjective tags cannot work.
> >
> > I have seen this happen: before I mapped here, I used to try to
> > improve the bike routes in Portland Oregon for Google Maps. But since
> > there was no definition of a "preferred" bicycle street, and it was
> > hard to delete a preferred route once it was added, the bike layer was
> > full of disconnected segments. Some were from old city maps of bike
> > routes, some were based on the personal preference of the mapper, and
> > some were actually signed or marked on the ground, but you couldn't
> > tell them apart.
> >
> > If there is a sign or marking that specifies that a certain route is
> > designed for mountain bikes or for bike racing, then sure, you can tag
> > that. But most bike routes do not have anything to specify that they
> > are more for commuting or more for recreation, and in that case we
> > can't tag the distinction.
> >
> > Fortunately, database users (like routing applications) can look at
> > other Openstreetmap data, like surface=* tags on ways, and external
> > data like elevation models, to determine if a route is a difficult
> > single-track trail through the hills versus a flat paved path along a
> > canal, and use this to help route cyclists appropriately.
> >
> > - Joseph Eisenberg
>
> --
> Florimond Berthoux
> ___
> 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] POI data and Addresses on areas - Was: addresses on buildings

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 12. Jan 2020, at 22:35, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> The map can't do everything all the time - at some stage, the driver has to 
> look out the windscreen & make some of the decisions themselves!


this, and we can add all those places you mentioned so that everybody  can 
navigate to the one that they  want to.

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

Re: [Tagging] POI data and Addresses on areas - Was: addresses on buildings

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 21:40, Florian Lohoff  wrote:

>
> And this is not solvable without mapper input as a huge area like
> an Airport can not be mapped to a single "best point" on the
> routable network.
>

& I don't think it will ever be simply solvable.

Why are you driving to "the airport"? Just some of the options:

Taxi driver going to the taxi rank
Bus driver to the bus stop
5 minute drop off / pick up zone
Short term car park
Long term car park
Staff parking
Delivery driver to the loading dock
Fuel truck to the fueling point
General aviation
Domestic terminal
International terminal
Private hangar
Freight terminal
etc etc etc, all of which are a different point!

The map can't do everything all the time - at some stage, the driver has to
look out the windscreen & make some of the decisions themselves! :-)

  Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 12. Jan 2020, at 18:15, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> 
> I don't understand this "typology of container that is accepted". Some
> glass bottles I have into put a container, others I can return to a
> shop and get some money back. There is no difference in container, the
> only difference is a mark on the bottle itself.



then they’re likely recycling and not reusable bottles. 

Usually reusable bottles are thicker (both pet and glass bottles), although 
there are some very thick containers of all kind of material that is not 
reusable.

Cheers Martin 




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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

[Dave F via Tagging]

The OP clearly defines the scope of his question with "pedestrian highways"

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

Here is the list of brands accepted at three stores near by. I also checked two 
others, one had a picture of various shapes and colours (with no labels) of 
bottles and the other lists ‘beer 0,33l, beer 0,5l) but both did have a list of 
which brands of plastic crates are accepted  
Fresh
Fresh 2
Billa
Birell
Birell

Budwar
Budwar
Budwar
Budweiser
Budweiser

Corgoň
Corgoň
Corgoň
Heineken
Heineken
Heineken
Kachelman
Kachelman
Kachelman
Kelt
Kelt
Kelt
Kozel
Kozel
Kozel
Krušovice
Krušovice

Pilsner
Pilsner
Pilsner
Šariš
Šariš
Šariš
Smädný Mních
Smädný Mních
Smädný Mních
Starobrno
Starobrno
Starobrno
Zlatý Bažant
Zlatý Bažant
Zlatý Bažant




Steiger
Steiger





Budiš


Fatra


Gambrinus


Gemer


Grošák


Martiner


Sitňan


Staropramen


Topvar



14
15
21


Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone

> On 12 Jan 2020, at 18:15, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>>> Is the different between recycling and reusing important for the average 
>>> consumer who a) wants to claim their deposit and b)  doesn’t want to put 
>>> the item into landfill?
>> 
>> 
>> first of all it is indicating the (rough) typology of container that is 
>> accepted, secondly it would seem strange to tag something “recycling” when 
>> it’s actually much more beneficial for the environment because of reuse.
> 
> I don't understand this "typology of container that is accepted". Some
> glass bottles I have into put a container, others I can return to a
> shop and get some money back. There is no difference in container, the
> only difference is a mark on the bottle itself.
> 
> regards
> 
> m.
> 
> ___
> 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] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

[Marc Gemis]

> > Is the different between recycling and reusing important for the average 
> > consumer who a) wants to claim their deposit and b)  doesn’t want to put 
> > the item into landfill?
>
>
> first of all it is indicating the (rough) typology of container that is 
> accepted, secondly it would seem strange to tag something “recycling” when 
> it’s actually much more beneficial for the environment because of reuse.

I don't understand this "typology of container that is accepted". Some
glass bottles I have into put a container, others I can return to a
shop and get some money back. There is no difference in container, the
only difference is a mark on the bottle itself.

regards

m.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

[Jmapb via Tagging]

On 1/11/2020 7:13 PM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:


On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 18:18, Jmapb via Tagging
  wrote:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/97010406
- It was originally a vehicle route but was changed to pedestrian with
painted bike and foot lanes. For motor vehicles, only emergency and
specifically permitted delivery traffic is allowed.
- It was *always* one-way, and the one-way signs are still there.
Bicycles and permitted motor vehicles are required to follow the one-way
signs.
- Pedestrians can move in either direction, and this is explicitly
indicated by painted marks in the pedestrian lane. (Thus there's a
oneway:foot=no tag, and it's worth noting that OSRM respects oneway:foot
and routes pedestrians "backwards" but GraphHopper does not.)

That's a good counterexample - thanks.

I was thinking of a somewhat similar example of Stanley Park Seawall
in Vancouver, which is also one-way for cyclists, but is mapped with
separate ways for footway and cycleway. However the Seawall has a
physical separation in form of a small curb between the two modes, so
that's defensible. From Esri imagery it looks like Prospect Park ways
are separated by mode only with paint, so having separate ways for the
modes is not as elegant or arguably correct.

So it looks like we will indeed need a new tag to specify one-way-ness
for pedestrians.


Correct, the Prospect Park drives have paint separating the lanes, but
nothing physical. So mapping separate ways would be unorthodox.

Personally, I have no problem with oneway=yes having different
implications depending on the value of the highway key. In general I
would expect the oneway value to align the predominant use of the
highway in question.

More specifically:

 - I would expect a oneway=yes tag apply to foot traffic on footway.
 - I would also expect a oneway=yes tag to apply to foot traffic on
pedestrian, path, and cycleway -- unless explicitly nullified with a
oneway:foot=no tag.
 - I would not expect a oneway=yes tag to apply to foot traffic on
track, service, unclassified, residential, or any larger roadway, unless
made explicit with a oneway:foot=yes tag.

Of course I understand that from a data consumer's point of view it's
irritating when a tag has different meanings in different contexts --
especially if these differences are not formally documented.

Jason


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

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

[Florimond Berthoux]

Asking me how do I know that Eurovelo 3 is for tourism or bicycle trekking
is like asking me how do I know that Paris is the capital of France.
« Is there a sign saying that Paris is the capital of France? May be we
should remove that tag, don't you think?... »

You don't need sign post to have a route, do you have a sign post at the
intersection of those routes ?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/45.1485/-4.1705
I doubt that.

This is how the Wiki define a route:
« A *route* is a customary or regular line of passage or travel, often
predetermined and publicized. Routes consist of paths taken repeatedly by
people and vehicles: a ship on the North Atlantic route, a car on a
numbered road, a bus on its route or a cyclist on a national route. »
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route

So to paraphrase this for road biking route :
« A road bicycle *route* is a customary or regular line of passage or
travel, often predetermined and publicized as such. Road bicycle routes
consist of paths taken repeatedly by road cyclist. »

And if you don't know then don't tag it and don't manage it.

Le sam. 11 janv. 2020 à 23:35, Joseph Eisenberg 
a écrit :
>
> >  I am not against distinguishing more types of cycling routes, I am all
for it, as long as it's verifyable, mappable with clear tagging, and
manageable.
>
> +1
>
> I started using Openstreetmap because I wanted to add touring routes
> and recreational bike routes in RideWithGPS and then found out that
> http://ridewithgps.com uses Openstreetmap data which I could edit. And
> I get to work and take kids to school and shop by bike - I haven't
> owned a car for 9 years.
>
> So I would love to have more information about what streets and roads
> are best for getting from point A to B, and which ones are nice for
> training rides and which ones are fun for tours.
>
> But tags have to be verifiable: if the next mapper can't confirm that
> a tag as right, the data in Openstreetmap will not be maintained
> properly. Subjective tags cannot work.
>
> I have seen this happen: before I mapped here, I used to try to
> improve the bike routes in Portland Oregon for Google Maps. But since
> there was no definition of a "preferred" bicycle street, and it was
> hard to delete a preferred route once it was added, the bike layer was
> full of disconnected segments. Some were from old city maps of bike
> routes, some were based on the personal preference of the mapper, and
> some were actually signed or marked on the ground, but you couldn't
> tell them apart.
>
> If there is a sign or marking that specifies that a certain route is
> designed for mountain bikes or for bike racing, then sure, you can tag
> that. But most bike routes do not have anything to specify that they
> are more for commuting or more for recreation, and in that case we
> can't tag the distinction.
>
> Fortunately, database users (like routing applications) can look at
> other Openstreetmap data, like surface=* tags on ways, and external
> data like elevation models, to determine if a route is a difficult
> single-track trail through the hills versus a flat paved path along a
> canal, and use this to help route cyclists appropriately.
>
> - Joseph Eisenberg

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

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

[Peter Elderson]

Sorry, but this is not a useful classification for bicycle routes in
Nederland.

Best, Peter Elderson


Op zo 12 jan. 2020 om 17:34 schreef Florimond Berthoux <
florimond.berth...@gmail.com>:

> Le sam. 11 janv. 2020 à 22:22, Peter Elderson  a
> écrit :
> >
> >  Florimond Berthoux :
> >>
> >> So I propose to use for bicycle route
> >> bicycle:type=trekking/road_bike/commute/mtb
> >>
> >
> > I don't think commute is a type of bicycle? Trekking maybe, but here in
> Nederland they call a lot of bicycles "trekking" when they are really just
> city bikes with a few extra gears and some fancy accessories.
> > We also don't have a type "road bike". We do have "Omafiets"
> (Grandmother's bike), mainly used by schoolgirls and young women.
> Grandmothers have e-bikes, nowadays.
>
> bicycle:type describe the type of cycle activity of the route not
> precisely the type of the bicycle. (Though commuter bike is a type of
> bicycle and you have road biking in Netherland
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_National_Road_Race_Championships).
> So values should be (if my english is right):
> bicycle:type=trekking/road_biking/commuting/mtb
>
> --
> Florimond Berthoux
> ___
> 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] recreational vs functional routes

[Florimond Berthoux]

Le sam. 11 janv. 2020 à 22:22, Peter Elderson  a écrit
:
>
>  Florimond Berthoux :
>>
>> So I propose to use for bicycle route
>> bicycle:type=trekking/road_bike/commute/mtb
>>
>
> I don't think commute is a type of bicycle? Trekking maybe, but here in
Nederland they call a lot of bicycles "trekking" when they are really just
city bikes with a few extra gears and some fancy accessories.
> We also don't have a type "road bike". We do have "Omafiets"
(Grandmother's bike), mainly used by schoolgirls and young women.
Grandmothers have e-bikes, nowadays.

bicycle:type describe the type of cycle activity of the route not precisely
the type of the bicycle. (Though commuter bike is a type of bicycle and you
have road biking in Netherland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_National_Road_Race_Championships).
So values should be (if my english is right):
bicycle:type=trekking/road_biking/commuting/mtb

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

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

[Florimond Berthoux]

Le sam. 11 janv. 2020 à 21:20, marc marc  a écrit :
>
> Le 11.01.20 à 21:05, Florimond Berthoux a écrit :
> > What do you think ?
>
> avoid the word "type" in a key as it as no additional meaning.
> type can be everything (type of operator, difficulty, use, length, ...)

That's why I use bicycle:type, so it means the type of cycling the
route is used for.


-- 
Florimond Berthoux

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

Re: [Tagging] POI data and Addresses on areas - Was: addresses on buildings

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 06:38, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 09:39:44PM -0500, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> > I was thinking about this whole thing earlier. Caution, wall of text.
> >
> > At the risk of being philosophical, what is an address exactly?
> >
> > Our wiki doesn't specify which address we're talking about:
>
> Thats not the issue i am trying to solve. I am trying to solve the
> issue
>
> -> I want to go to point A - How do i get there and where is my
>best point to stop with a given mode of transport e.g. Car.
>
> If my destination point A is defined by an address or a POI or
> whatever - i dont care.
>
> And this is not solvable without mapper input as a huge area like
> an Airport can not be mapped to a single "best point" on the
> routable network.
>
> And there are tons of "corner cases" which make this impossible.
> In case of my example - there is confusing from which Street
> a House is reachable by Car.

So... waypoints, then?

Whether for an address or a POI.

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] Addition of amenity=conference_center to Map Features page

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Sorry, you are correct, the tag is amenity=conference_centre

(The American English term is "Convention Center)

On 1/12/20, Hauke Stieler  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think he misspelled it in the email. The tag page is in British
> English [0] and the American English tag "conference_center" has only
> been used 44 times.
>
> The word "conference_center" does not appear on the "2.x" branch of iD.
> However the documented British English value "conference_centre" does
> appear in the presets, which is fine in my opinion.
>
> Hauke
>
> [0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dconference_centre
>
> On 12.01.20 14:12, Jez Nicholson wrote:
>> Yes, there's a big issue with the tag, it isn't in British English, the
>> official language of OSM.
>>
>> I'd like to check that iD hasn't got it in its presets.
>>
>> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020, 04:05 Joseph Eisenberg, > > wrote:
>>
>> Another wiki user recently added amenity=conference_center to the
>> list
>> of Map Features, with the description "A large building that is
>> designed to hold a convention".
>>
>> The linked wiki page, made in January 2015, says "A conference centre
>> (convention center - American English) is a large building used to
>> hold a convention, where individuals and groups gather to promote and
>> share common interests. Convention centers typically offer sufficient
>> floor area to accommodate several thousand attendees. Some large
>> hotels include a conference center"
>>
>> This tag has been used a little over 1000 times, and it is
>> distributed
>> in a number of different countries and continents. It was already
>> used
>> 100 times back in 2011 and has slowly increased, according to
>> https://taghistory.raifer.tech.
>>
>> Is there any issue with this tag? Should it be added to Map Features?
>>
>> - Joseph Eisenberg
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Addition of amenity=conference_center to Map Features page

[Hauke Stieler]

Hi,

I think he misspelled it in the email. The tag page is in British
English [0] and the American English tag "conference_center" has only
been used 44 times.

The word "conference_center" does not appear on the "2.x" branch of iD.
However the documented British English value "conference_centre" does
appear in the presets, which is fine in my opinion.

Hauke

[0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dconference_centre

On 12.01.20 14:12, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> Yes, there's a big issue with the tag, it isn't in British English, the
> official language of OSM.
> 
> I'd like to check that iD hasn't got it in its presets.
> 
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020, 04:05 Joseph Eisenberg,  > wrote:
> 
> Another wiki user recently added amenity=conference_center to the list
> of Map Features, with the description "A large building that is
> designed to hold a convention".
> 
> The linked wiki page, made in January 2015, says "A conference centre
> (convention center - American English) is a large building used to
> hold a convention, where individuals and groups gather to promote and
> share common interests. Convention centers typically offer sufficient
> floor area to accommodate several thousand attendees. Some large
> hotels include a conference center"
> 
> This tag has been used a little over 1000 times, and it is distributed
> in a number of different countries and continents. It was already used
> 100 times back in 2011 and has slowly increased, according to
> https://taghistory.raifer.tech.
> 
> Is there any issue with this tag? Should it be added to Map Features?
> 
> - Joseph Eisenberg
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 



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

Re: [Tagging] Correct use of height with kerb

[Volker Schmidt]

And stupid selection of values, if you are not a native English speaker:

A "lowererd" kerb is just a bit raised, but a "raised" kerb is fully raised.

(I know now that  this comes from the kerb types "raised kerb" and "lowered
kerb")

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 09:40, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> Stupid me, thank you.
> Had not read the wiki page.
>
>
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 07:17, Alessandro Sarretta <
> alessandro.sarre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Volker,
>>
>> the values raised and lowered for a kerb (node) are related to the
>> vertical gap between sidewalk/crossing and not really to the direction.
>> Raised means that there is a (more or less) big transition (in the kerb
>> page [1] it says >3 cm), while lowered means a smaller transition, and
>> flush no gap at all. All of this regardless of the direction (up or down).
>>
>> Ale
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:kerb
>> On 11/01/20 11:08, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> I do have a related question, regarding the kerb values lowered|raised on
>> a node.
>> Assume you find yourself on a pedestrian crossing across a road that has
>> an adjacent sidewalk and cycleway on the same side.
>> The main carriageway is separated from the (foot-only) sidewalk by a kerb
>> and that is separated from the cycleway by another kerb. The first kerb is
>> typically raised (as the tag refers to a kerb between the road and the
>> sideway, and the latter is always higher than the road), but the second
>> kerb (let's assume that the cycle path is physically higher than the
>> footway) is it kerb=raised (a step upward from the footwalk to the
>> cycleway) or is it kerb=lowered (a step down from the cycleway to the
>> sidewalk)? I have come across a number of these in the same context that
>> Ale mentioned. I fear my conclusion is that  the values "lowered" and
>> "raised" on a node "kerb" need to be accompanied by
>> direction=forward|backward (like stop and give-way, for example) with
>> respect to the "crossing" way. I don't like my conclusion, but it seems
>> inevitable.
>> (I hope I'm wrong on this last statement)
>>
>> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 06:49, Alessandro Sarretta <
>> alessandro.sarre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I'm doing some work cleaning the edits we've done around Padova for the
>>> local plan for the elimination of architectural barriers (some references
>>> here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3370704).
>>>
>>> The height of kerbs, in this context defined as the nodes at the
>>> intersection between sidewalks and crossings, is quite an important element
>>> for the evaluation of accessibility of sidewalks and crossings. I think the
>>> agreed tagging system is:
>>>
>>> kerb=yes/lowered/raised/flush + kerb:height=
>>>
>>> as described here
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:kerb#kerb:height.3D.3Cheight.3E.3Cunit.3E
>>>
>>> Around Padova I found some inconsistencies that I'm going to correct,
>>> but I see similar ones around the world and I'd like to ask you if you
>>> think they should be corrected, when found.
>>>
>>> Here the questions:
>>>
>>>- should the tag barrier=kerb be always avoided in these cases and
>>>deleted when found? (
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dkerb#Possible_Tagging_Mistakes
>>>)
>>>- is the tag height=* to be always changed into kerb:height=* ?
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> Ale
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing 
>> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://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] Addition of amenity=conference_center to Map Features page

[Jez Nicholson]

Yes, there's a big issue with the tag, it isn't in British English, the
official language of OSM.

I'd like to check that iD hasn't got it in its presets.

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020, 04:05 Joseph Eisenberg, 
wrote:

> Another wiki user recently added amenity=conference_center to the list
> of Map Features, with the description "A large building that is
> designed to hold a convention".
>
> The linked wiki page, made in January 2015, says "A conference centre
> (convention center - American English) is a large building used to
> hold a convention, where individuals and groups gather to promote and
> share common interests. Convention centers typically offer sufficient
> floor area to accommodate several thousand attendees. Some large
> hotels include a conference center"
>
> This tag has been used a little over 1000 times, and it is distributed
> in a number of different countries and continents. It was already used
> 100 times back in 2011 and has slowly increased, according to
> https://taghistory.raifer.tech.
>
> Is there any issue with this tag? Should it be added to Map Features?
>
> - Joseph Eisenberg
>
> ___
> 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] POI data and Addresses on areas - Was: addresses on buildings

[Florian Lohoff]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 09:39:44PM -0500, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> I was thinking about this whole thing earlier. Caution, wall of text.
> 
> At the risk of being philosophical, what is an address exactly?
> 
> Our wiki doesn't specify which address we're talking about:

Thats not the issue i am trying to solve. I am trying to solve the
issue

-> I want to go to point A - How do i get there and where is my
   best point to stop with a given mode of transport e.g. Car.

If my destination point A is defined by an address or a POI or
whatever - i dont care.

And this is not solvable without mapper input as a huge area like 
an Airport can not be mapped to a single "best point" on the
routable network.

And there are tons of "corner cases" which make this impossible.
In case of my example - there is confusing from which Street
a House is reachable by Car.

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


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

Re: [Tagging] Correct use of height with kerb

[Volker Schmidt]

Stupid me, thank you.
Had not read the wiki page.


On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 07:17, Alessandro Sarretta <
alessandro.sarre...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Volker,
>
> the values raised and lowered for a kerb (node) are related to the
> vertical gap between sidewalk/crossing and not really to the direction.
> Raised means that there is a (more or less) big transition (in the kerb
> page [1] it says >3 cm), while lowered means a smaller transition, and
> flush no gap at all. All of this regardless of the direction (up or down).
>
> Ale
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:kerb
> On 11/01/20 11:08, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
> I do have a related question, regarding the kerb values lowered|raised on
> a node.
> Assume you find yourself on a pedestrian crossing across a road that has
> an adjacent sidewalk and cycleway on the same side.
> The main carriageway is separated from the (foot-only) sidewalk by a kerb
> and that is separated from the cycleway by another kerb. The first kerb is
> typically raised (as the tag refers to a kerb between the road and the
> sideway, and the latter is always higher than the road), but the second
> kerb (let's assume that the cycle path is physically higher than the
> footway) is it kerb=raised (a step upward from the footwalk to the
> cycleway) or is it kerb=lowered (a step down from the cycleway to the
> sidewalk)? I have come across a number of these in the same context that
> Ale mentioned. I fear my conclusion is that  the values "lowered" and
> "raised" on a node "kerb" need to be accompanied by
> direction=forward|backward (like stop and give-way, for example) with
> respect to the "crossing" way. I don't like my conclusion, but it seems
> inevitable.
> (I hope I'm wrong on this last statement)
>
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 06:49, Alessandro Sarretta <
> alessandro.sarre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I'm doing some work cleaning the edits we've done around Padova for the
>> local plan for the elimination of architectural barriers (some references
>> here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3370704).
>>
>> The height of kerbs, in this context defined as the nodes at the
>> intersection between sidewalks and crossings, is quite an important element
>> for the evaluation of accessibility of sidewalks and crossings. I think the
>> agreed tagging system is:
>>
>> kerb=yes/lowered/raised/flush + kerb:height=
>>
>> as described here
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:kerb#kerb:height.3D.3Cheight.3E.3Cunit.3E
>>
>> Around Padova I found some inconsistencies that I'm going to correct, but
>> I see similar ones around the world and I'd like to ask you if you think
>> they should be corrected, when found.
>>
>> Here the questions:
>>
>>- should the tag barrier=kerb be always avoided in these cases and
>>deleted when found? (
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dkerb#Possible_Tagging_Mistakes
>>)
>>- is the tag height=* to be always changed into kerb:height=* ?
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Ale
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://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