Re: [Tagging] Disputed territory mapped as a country

[Warin]

On 28/1/20 4:43 pm, Paul Johnson wrote:



On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 11:41 PM Shawn K. Quinn > wrote:


On 1/27/20 18:31, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Martin Koppenhoefer mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> writes:
>
>> Mateusz, offlist deliberately.
>
> While we're at it, could the list admins fix the BROKEN REPLY-TO?

I have working "Reply" and "Reply List" features. I don't see
what's broken.


The list is quashing whatever's in reply-to and replacing it with it's 
own value.  Reply-to is supposed to be a user-set, not machine-set, field.



Where I reply to something ... I can change the settings of "To:", "CC:" 
etc to what I desire.



 I prefer to have the "To" set to the list, anyone else can have the CC...

I have noticed several responses where I have set my reply to what I 
think it should be.


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

Re: [Tagging] Disputed territory mapped as a country

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 11:41 PM Shawn K. Quinn 
wrote:

> On 1/27/20 18:31, Greg Troxel wrote:
> > Martin Koppenhoefer  writes:
> >
> >> Mateusz, offlist deliberately.
> >
> > While we're at it, could the list admins fix the BROKEN REPLY-TO?
>
> I have working "Reply" and "Reply List" features. I don't see what's
> broken.


The list is quashing whatever's in reply-to and replacing it with it's own
value.  Reply-to is supposed to be a user-set, not machine-set, field.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Disputed territory mapped as a country

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 1/27/20 18:31, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Martin Koppenhoefer  writes:
> 
>> Mateusz, offlist deliberately.
> 
> While we're at it, could the list admins fix the BROKEN REPLY-TO?

I have working "Reply" and "Reply List" features. I don't see what's broken.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

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

Re: [Tagging] Disputed territory mapped as a country

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

28 Jan 2020, 02:31 by g...@lexort.com:

> Martin Koppenhoefer  writes:
>
>> Mateusz, offlist deliberately.
>>
>
> While we're at it, could the list admins fix the BROKEN REPLY-TO?
>
I would not consider it broken.

Offlist messages are a bit tricky, but still
possible and it is a really rare usecase.

Note "Reply-To: munging is considered a religious issue and the policies you 
set here can ignite some of the most heated 
off-topic flame wars on your mailing lists"

from 
https://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/mailman-admin/node11.html
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Disputed territory mapped as a country

[Greg Troxel]

Martin Koppenhoefer  writes:

> Mateusz, offlist deliberately.

While we're at it, could the list admins fix the BROKEN REPLY-TO?

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

Re: [Tagging] Disputed territory mapped as a country

[Phake Nick]

For disluted territory marked as country boundary, there is also
https://www.openstreetmap.org/ this big box in South China Sea.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Andrew Davidson]

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 2:37 AM Jmapb  wrote:

> Hi all, just noticed this passage on the cycleway=* wiki page (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway ):
>
> (This was added by wiki user Aaronsta last May, with no change
> description.)
>
> Does anyone know if there was a discussion, here or elsewhere, that led
> to this change?
>

Yes, no. The same user also changed the Australian tagging guidelines
without discussion, which we didn't notice till last October:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-October/013009.html

and they were reverted. Didn't notice at the time that he'd also edited the
parent page.


> My own impression over the years has been that mappers use
> highway=cycleway on anything that primarily for bicycle traffic, and add
> access keys for any other permitted traffic. Similarly for
> highway=footway. So "highway=cycleway + foot=yes" and "highway=footway +
> bicycle=designated" are quite common.


Using cycleway/footway to map primary/secondary paths is a informal but
common practice.


> Is there a general consensus that
> these are better mapped as highway=path?
>

 I had a go at summarising the case against path back in October:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-October/013017.html
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 3:16 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:
> Here is an example of a major trail in the area where I live: 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/385367054 which someone has tagged as a 
> cycleway.  I have biked, walked and ran this trail many different times over 
> the years and I have no indication that it was built for a specific purpose.  
> On a typical day I would say that non cyclists outnumber cyclist. I also just 
> visited the websites for the various entities that manage the trail, and 
> there is no indication I could find that it was built for a single purpose.  
> It is a general recreation trail.  I suspect the "cycleway" tag was used so 
> that it would show up in some cycling specific renderer... but I can't say 
> that for sure.

I wound up creating both 'bicycle' and 'hiking' route relations for
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/306742 (cycle)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5166476 (foot). It looks as if
most of the constituent ways are tagged `highway=path foot=designated
bicycle=designated`.  It's definitely multi-purpose as the
'Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail' name suggests. (I'm very familiar with
it, since a short bit of it is part of my daily commute.)

Waymarked Trails finds the foot and cycling routes, and OpenCycleMap
finds the cycling route, so at least some data consumers were able to
figure this one out, despite not having ways tagged specifically
'footway' or 'cycleway'.

If someone wants to distinguish a dirt singletrack from a paved
cycleway, I'd suggest `surface=*` and `width=*`.

I don't understand the urban-rural discussion at all.
-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Mike Thompson]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 1:32 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 2:16 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Here is an example of a major trail in the area where I live:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/385367054 which someone has tagged as a
cycleway.  I have biked, walked and ran this trail many different times
over the years and I have no indication that it was built for a specific
purpose.  On a typical day I would say that non cyclists outnumber cyclist.
I also just visited the websites for the various entities that manage the
trail, and there is no indication I could find that it was built for a
single purpose.  It is a general recreation trail.  I suspect the
"cycleway" tag was used so that it would show up in some cycling specific
renderer... but I can't say that for sure.
>
>
> Possibly old version of the way had lanes and signage, which got deleted
in a more recent rebuild?  Or just bad tagging?  Either way, looking at it
in id's default imagery I'd say that definitely looks like a path to me
now, barring any on the ground knowledge.  Though the width and turn radii
on curves tends to make me think they wanted it to be a cycleway but then
either chickened out or downgraded it at the last minute.   
There is a painted centerline if I recall, but does that necessarily mean
it is a "cycleway"?  The centerline is just as much to keep walkers from
taking up the entire trail as it is for cyclists.  Regarding the turn
radii, I would say the authorities probably intended it to be used by
cyclists as well as other users.
___

> 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] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Andy Townsend]

On 27/01/2020 17:19, Dave F via Tagging wrote:



On 27/01/2020 16:41, Mike Thompson wrote:


I have never understood the use of tags like "cycleway", "bridleway", 
and
"footway."  To me these mix two different concepts (physical form and 
legal

access) in a single tag.


These values do not indicate a way's form. That is achieved with 
secondary, adjective tags such as segregated/width/surface/smoothness 
etc.



Sure they do - by inference at least.

If a "cyclebridlefootpath"* was constructed "mainly for cycle traffic" 
than it'll tend to have a certain form.  It'll probably not have a 
surface of lumpy rocks.  Something constructed "mainly for horse 
traffic" won't have stiles (other than horse stiles) on it.  Of course, 
it absolutely makes sense to add secondary tags such as surface etc. as 
well.  It's not guaranteed that "everywhere in the world a cycleway will 
have this physical form" but if you know what the norm is for things 
constructed for cycle traffic in whatever country you're in, you've got 
an idea what to expect, even without extra tags.


Re access, in England, I'd also always add access tags where possible 
too, since unlike some other places, there's nothing like 
"allemansrätten" here, and it's quite possible for access to be 
"permissive" or "no" rather than "yes", and where access is "yes" it's 
useful to know why (here usually some other legal designation that 
confers that access).


To get back to the main question, the advice I'd give to people mapping 
cyclebridlefootpaths in their local country is "do whatever other people 
in your country do".  That might vary between "use highway=path for 
almost everything**" and "use duck tagging - pick what something most 
resembles", but if someone follows the local herd at least other people 
locally should understand what they mean.


Best Regards,

Andy

* one of any of what anyone might tag as highway=cycleway, 
highway=bridleway, highway=footway, highway=path.


** obviously highway=path with no other tags is pretty useless - there 
are no clues about either access or form there at all.




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

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 2:16 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:39 AM Kevin Kenny 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:00 PM Paul Johnson 
> wrote:
> > >  Not exactly helping is that the US tends to also confuse form and
> access, calling things "multipurpose paths" even when they are clearly
> purpose built for a specific mode and possibly even do have specific mode
> restrictions.
> >
> > True enough.  Still, there are a lot of rail-trails and the like where
> > foot, bicycle, and XC ski travel were all contemplated from the moment
> > that the trail was paved. There are also a bunch of recreational
> > trails near me that I'd be hard put to identify whether foot or MTB is
> > the 'primary' use.  And farther out in the sticks, there are a bunch
> > of old carriage roads that were redesignated footways and have
> > subsequently been opened to MTB travel as well. (Some of these are
> > grown to trees to the point where I don't feel comfortable labeling
> > them with `highway=track`.)
> Here is an example of a major trail in the area where I live:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/385367054 which someone has tagged as a
> cycleway.  I have biked, walked and ran this trail many different times
> over the years and I have no indication that it was built for a specific
> purpose.  On a typical day I would say that non cyclists outnumber cyclist.
> I also just visited the websites for the various entities that manage the
> trail, and there is no indication I could find that it was built for a
> single purpose.  It is a general recreation trail.  I suspect the
> "cycleway" tag was used so that it would show up in some cycling specific
> renderer... but I can't say that for sure.
>

Possibly old version of the way had lanes and signage, which got deleted in
a more recent rebuild?  Or just bad tagging?  Either way, looking at it in
id's default imagery I'd say that definitely looks like a path to me now,
barring any on the ground knowledge.  Though the width and turn radii on
curves tends to make me think they wanted it to be a cycleway but then
either chickened out or downgraded it at the last minute.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Disputed territory mapped as a country

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

27 Jan 2020, 20:07 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 19:02 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> 
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> >:
>
>>
>> (yes, I am aware about Crimea mess -
>> we should follow on the ground 
>> situation also in that case)
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Mateusz, offlist deliberately. Would you be willing to write to the new board 
> and ask them to re-evaluate? It seems they are more reasonable now, mostly. 
> Like you I believe the exception from the on the ground rule should be 
> reverted and the DWG decision on Crimea should be reinstated. 
>
Also, sadly the on the ground situation
is at this moment clear and seems
stable.

Though at this moment in sphere of OSM projects that
are neither mapping not development
I am focusing on the missing attribution problem. 
And in general I prefer to avoid starting new projects,
I have too many things already.
See
https://github.com/matkoniecz/illegal-use-of-OpenStreetMap
and some less visible communication
with LWG, other mappers, Mapbox
and other mentioned companies.

(Sending again (now as a public 
message, with minor expansion)
 due to mailing list address lurking in cc)___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Mike Thompson]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:39 AM Kevin Kenny 
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:00 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:
> >  Not exactly helping is that the US tends to also confuse form and
access, calling things "multipurpose paths" even when they are clearly
purpose built for a specific mode and possibly even do have specific mode
restrictions.
>
> True enough.  Still, there are a lot of rail-trails and the like where
> foot, bicycle, and XC ski travel were all contemplated from the moment
> that the trail was paved. There are also a bunch of recreational
> trails near me that I'd be hard put to identify whether foot or MTB is
> the 'primary' use.  And farther out in the sticks, there are a bunch
> of old carriage roads that were redesignated footways and have
> subsequently been opened to MTB travel as well. (Some of these are
> grown to trees to the point where I don't feel comfortable labeling
> them with `highway=track`.)
Here is an example of a major trail in the area where I live:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/385367054 which someone has tagged as a
cycleway.  I have biked, walked and ran this trail many different times
over the years and I have no indication that it was built for a specific
purpose.  On a typical day I would say that non cyclists outnumber cyclist.
I also just visited the websites for the various entities that manage the
trail, and there is no indication I could find that it was built for a
single purpose.  It is a general recreation trail.  I suspect the
"cycleway" tag was used so that it would show up in some cycling specific
renderer... but I can't say that for sure.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Mike Thompson]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:53 AM Tod Fitch  wrote:

>  But having values of footway, path, cycleway and bridal way allow a
short hand that allows the map users (and renderers) to use a set of
assumptions about the way. And it allows mappers to quickly categorize the
way. I personally would find it tedious to the point of probably not
mapping if I had to estimate surface smoothness and width (both of which
can vary wildly) along the length of a hiking trail to indicate this was a
“path” rather than a “footway”.
"path" is a quick way for me to categorize a way. Indicating that it is
something narrower than a track. As I learn more about it, I add additional
tags, most notably, access tags.  I would find it very tedious to try to
determine for what purpose most trails around where I live were built
before I mapped them.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Mark Wagner]

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 18:47:39 +1100
Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 27/1/20 6:24 pm, John Willis via Tagging wrote:
> > I agree with you that this is the scale that volcanologists use,
> > but people want to draw a distinction between something that
> > erupted recently compared sometime in the last 200 years
> >
> > Perhaps it is easier to just apply the “active” and “Frequently 
> > active” tags via this third-party data source,  
> 
> "frequently active " means what?
> 
> If it erupted last year .. but not for 200 years before that I'd not 
> call it 'frequent'.
> 
> 
> > but it would completely remove mapper’s ability to add a mountain
> > to this list via tagging.  
> 
> 
> Possibly "last_eruption=" if that is what you want???
> 

"last_eruption" isn't that useful for determining activity: the
majority of the world's volcanoes are cinder cones, which almost never
erupt twice or more.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Mark Wagner]

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 09:02:17 +1100
Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 27/1/20 1:32 am, Paul Allen wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 20:44, Kevin Kenny  > > wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:38 PM Paul Allen  > > wrote:  
> > > But "active" is too broad a term to be meaningful, I think.  
> >
> > Well, then, let's clarify the intention, narrow the definition,
> > choose a more appropriate keyword if necessary, wikify the narrowed
> > definition, and use that, rather than rejecting the idea out of
> > hand.
> >
> >
> > Good idea.  So I did some digging.  There are no
> > scientifically-agreed definitions of the terms.  It's more of a
> > folksonomy that scientists sometimes
> > use when talking to "folks."  See 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano#Volcanic_activity
> > (it's fairly representative of other definitions I've found).  It's 
> > messy.  There's a
> > "it hasn't erupted in X years so it's dormant" definition in there, 
> > but supervolcanoes
> > like Yellowstone are excluded.  Iceland's volcanoes are very 
> > interconnected.  Etc.
> >
> > About the only characteristic I've seen so far upon which there is
> > broad agreement (and is verifiable by ordinary mappers) is the
> > presence of a lava
> > lake (which many people probably think of when they see the term
> > "active volcano").  That's mappable, in my opinion.  
> 
> 
> I would suggest using a constant tag to go along with what is being
> mapped.
> 
> 
> If lava is visible then, perhaps, lava=yes... lava=visible???
> 

This isn't a very useful tag for deciding if a volcano is active: most
eruptions produce steam explosions or ash columns, not lava flows.
There are three or maybe four volcanoes in the world that have
persistent lava lakes right now (Erta Ale is a bit hazardous to
survey), and I think just one that's producing long-lived lava flows.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Jmapb]

On 1/27/2020 12:27 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 16:37 Uhr schrieb Jmapb mailto:jm...@gmx.com>>:

And also editing the
highway=path page, which currently says it's not for use in urban
situations.



this seems very strange and is likely the result of fiddling. In the
areas I am aware of, path is the standard way to map mixed mode ways
regardless of context (urban or not).


I misremembered the phrasing slightly -- the actual text on the
highway=path page is


For "urban paths" which are designated for "pedestrians only", it's
better to use highway=footway.


This was added by Geow, an experienced and active German mapper, in
2015. Reading the actual text, I guess that recommendation doesn't have
direct bearing on the question here, which is mixed-use paths not
pedestrian-only paths.

The image caption on highway=path used to say  "semi-urban path" but
this was removed last year by Geow (who left the helpful comment
"Changed incorrect and misleading image caption. Note that "path" is not
restricted to semi-urban and may be sign posted as well" -- now *that's*
how you edit a wiki, my friends!)

J

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

Re: [Tagging] Area country borders

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 19:10 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen :
Thanks for that, both of you.  Umm, are my eyes playing up or is it mapped
as
county boundary?


the German border (here a part) https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/389808670
is mapped as country border, and is used by Germany and
Rhineland-Palatinate (level 4) on the German side (plus some ballast
relations like "land mass"), and it is also part of Canton Grevenmacher
(level 6) and the municipalities (level 8) on the Luxemburgish side
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/407796

The Luxembourg border is also a country border:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/363777663
And part of the German admin level 6 and 8 entities.

i.e. the river is only part of both countries, but not of their
subdivisions. Instead, it forms the condominium:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3659532

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

Re: [Tagging] Disputed territory mapped as a country

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 19:07 Uhr schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com>:

> Mateusz, offlist deliberately.
>


this went wrong ;-)

Anyway, from my point of view, the Q for the last elections have shown
that most people now active in the board also see a problem with the
previous board cancellation of the DWG decision on Crimea and the
introduction of an arbitrary "exception to the rule", so the best would
likely be take this back in order to be consistent.

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

Re: [Tagging] Disputed territory mapped as a country

[Michael Reichert]

Hi Alexey,

Am 27/01/2020 um 17.07 schrieb Захаренков Алексей:
> Today I discovered a new country in OSM, created in 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/80105029
> with the name "Disputed territory between France and Italy" and tags 
> "type=boundary + boundary=administrative + admin_level=2+ disputed_area=yes". 
> The relation itself: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10629103
> Me and the changeset author could not come to agreement if the territory is 
> mapped correctly. Please put an end to our dispute.

Thank you for the heads-up (although the Talk list might be an
appropriate place as well).

boundary=administrative + admin_level=2 is reserved for independent
countries which sovereignty their territory. (The definition of
independence and sovereignty are a bit complicated and I do not go into
details for the sake of brevity here).

One might argue about the level of independence and sovereignty of some
countries but this are up in the mountains is just an overlap of claims
and not an own country itself.

I removed this wrong tagging and commented on Very_p's changeset.

Best regards

Michael



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

Re: [Tagging] Area country borders

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 17:58, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 18:43 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken <
> snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>:
>
>> On Mon, 2020-01-27 at 17:35 +, Paul Allen wrote:
>> > Do we have a way of mapping this?  Should we have a way of mapping
>> > this?
>>
>> From what I can tell, it was already been done.
>
>
>
> indeed, it is already done:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23578714/history#map=15/
> 
>

Thanks for that, both of you.  Umm, are my eyes playing up or is it mapped
as
county boundary?

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

Re: [Tagging] Disputed territory mapped as a country

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 19:02 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> (yes, I am aware about Crimea mess -
> we should follow on the ground
> situation also in that case)
>
>


Mateusz, offlist deliberately. Would you be willing to write to the new
board and ask them to re-evaluate? It seems they are more reasonable now,
mostly. Like you I believe the exception from the on the ground rule should
be reverted and the DWG decision on Crimea should be reinstated.

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

Re: [Tagging] Disputed territory mapped as a country

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 19:02 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> Tagging it as its own separate country
> is certainly not ok and absurd.
>
> For how it should be solved in my
> opinion:
> we should follow on the ground rule
> for tagging this.
>


reason this conflict isn't resolved is that it doesn't matter on the ground
;-)

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

Re: [Tagging] Disputed territory mapped as a country

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Tagging it as its own separate country
is certainly not ok and absurd.

For how it should be solved in my
opinion:we should follow on the ground rule
for tagging this.

(yes, I am aware about Crimea mess -
we should follow on the ground 
situation also in that case)

27 Jan 2020, 18:07 by a-z...@yandex.ru:

> Hi all.
>  
> Today I discovered a new country in OSM, created in > 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/80105029
> with the name "> Disputed territory between France and Italy" and tags "> 
> type=boundary + boundary=administrative + admin_level=2>  + 
> disputed_area=yes". > The relation itself: 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10629103
>  
> Me and the changeset author could not come to agreement if the territory is 
> mapped correctly. Please put an end to our dispute.
>  
> --
> Best regards,
> Alexey
>___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Area country borders

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 18:43 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken <
snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>:

> On Mon, 2020-01-27 at 17:35 +, Paul Allen wrote:
> > Do we have a way of mapping this?  Should we have a way of mapping
> > this?
>
> From what I can tell, it was already been done.



indeed, it is already done:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23578714/history#map=15/49.5616/6.3758

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Tod Fitch]

Grabbing some random images off the Internet, here are some highway=* and how 
I’d tag them:

highway=path [1]
This may or may not allow horses or bicycles depends on local signage and 
regulations.

highway=footway [2]
This may or may not allow bicycles, depends on local signage. My decision point 
between path and footway is if a wheelchair or baby stroller could be easily 
pushed along the way.

highway=cycleway [3]
This may or may not allow foot traffic (usually allowed but maybe not if there 
is a parallel footway).

Maybe it is just me, but the character of these are quite different to me. 
Major point being a path is not a footway and is not likely to be found in an 
urban or suburban environment in my part of the world.

If one were to say they are all “paths” and they are distinguished by things 
like surface, width, designated or allow modes of transportation then we could 
also dispense with motorway, trunk, primary, secondary, etc. highways and 
simply distinguish them by things like surface, width, direction of travel, 
allowed modes of transportation, maximum speeds, etc. too. But having values of 
footway, path, cycleway and bridal way allow a short hand that allows the map 
users (and renderers) to use a set of assumptions about the way. And it allows 
mappers to quickly categorize the way. I personally would find it tedious to 
the point of probably not mapping if I had to estimate surface smoothness and 
width (both of which can vary wildly) along the length of a hiking trail to 
indicate this was a “path” rather than a “footway”.

Cheers,
Tod

[1] 
https://www.christopherplace.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/smoky-mountain-hiking-trails-romantic-.jpg
[2] 
https://houstonconcreteraising.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/GettyImages-157284009.jpg
[3] 
https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/085c322bafe51f2640815fb843bd5dafc8d72095/c=36-0-623-440=x404=534x401/local/-/media/2016/07/27/Milwaukee/mjs-hikebike23_-nws_-sears_b.jpg



> On Jan 27, 2020, at 9:27 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 16:37 Uhr schrieb Jmapb  >:
> And also editing the
> highway=path page, which currently says it's not for use in urban
> situations.
> 
> 
> 
> this seems very strange and is likely the result of fiddling. In the areas I 
> am aware of, path is the standard way to map mixed mode ways regardless of 
> context (urban or not).
> 
> Cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - drinking_water:refill_scheme

[European Water Project]

Hi Martin,

If it is clear that there is drinking water available for refill for
everyone there is no need to be part of a scheme.

Best regards,

Stuart

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 18:40, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 16:58 Uhr schrieb European Water Project <
> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>:
>
>> I think they do need a sign or it is impossible to objectively map
>> whether a bar will refill a bottle of water for free for anyone (ie paying
>> or non-paying customer).
>>
>
>
> I think if they provide a water tap in the customer area with a "drinking
> water" sign, it is perfectly ok and does not need more explanation.
> Like in the linked photo above:
> https://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g187791-d1023845-i49797540-Palazzo_del_Freddo_Giovanni_Fassi-Rome_Lazio.html
>
> Cheers
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Area country borders

[Snusmumriken]

On Mon, 2020-01-27 at 17:35 +, Paul Allen wrote:
> I just encountered this video 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw44wHG4KOc explaining that the
> border between Germany and Luxembourg, along the Moselle river, is
> not a line in the centre of the river but is the entire width of the
> river.  If you're in a boat on the river, or on the bridge crossing
> it, you're legally in two countries simultaneously.
> 
> Do we have a way of mapping this?  Should we have a way of mapping
> this? 

From what I can tell, it was already been done.


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - drinking_water:refill_scheme

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 16:58 Uhr schrieb European Water Project <
europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>:

> I think they do need a sign or it is impossible to objectively map whether
> a bar will refill a bottle of water for free for anyone (ie paying or
> non-paying customer).
>


I think if they provide a water tap in the customer area with a "drinking
water" sign, it is perfectly ok and does not need more explanation.
Like in the linked photo above:
https://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g187791-d1023845-i49797540-Palazzo_del_Freddo_Giovanni_Fassi-Rome_Lazio.html

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:00 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>  Not exactly helping is that the US tends to also confuse form and access, 
> calling things "multipurpose paths" even when they are clearly purpose built 
> for a specific mode and possibly even do have specific mode restrictions.

True enough.  Still, there are a lot of rail-trails and the like where
foot, bicycle, and XC ski travel were all contemplated from the moment
that the trail was paved. There are also a bunch of recreational
trails near me that I'd be hard put to identify whether foot or MTB is
the 'primary' use.  And farther out in the sticks, there are a bunch
of old carriage roads that were redesignated footways and have
subsequently been opened to MTB travel as well. (Some of these are
grown to trees to the point where I don't feel comfortable labeling
them with `highway=track`.)

Martin Koppenhoefer:
> this seems very strange and is likely the result of fiddling. In the areas I 
> am aware of, path is the standard way to map mixed mode ways regardless of 
> context (urban or not).

I did that with combined foot/MTB trails near me, and consistently
other mappers retagged them as `highway=footway bicycle=designated`
for the unpaved ones and `highway=cycleway foot=designated` for the
paved ones.  When I saw that this was happening consistently, I
decided to avoid `path`.  (This was quite a long time ago. It may have
been NE2's bot that did the retagging.)
-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - drinking_water:refill_scheme

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 14:59 Uhr schrieb European Water Project <
europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>:

> Hello Martin,
>
> A refill scheme is a cafe, bar, restaurant, club, hotel participating in
> one of the many refill schemes where they agree to fill up anybody's water
> bottle for free without any requirement to consume on the premises.Self
> serve is not a requirement.  A sticker or sign must be shown for an
> establishment to be tagged as part of the refill scheme and just because a
> barman fills up your bottle, one shouldn't tag a bar as part of a refill
> scheme. Nor should an establishment be tagged as part of a refill scheme if
> you need to fill your bottle up in the bathroom.
>


I see. Then I am not enthusiastic about the proposed tag, because it
requires from any business to be part of a scheme in order to be mappable
as providing free water bottle refills. Someone who simply provides it,
could not be tagged, right?

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

[Tagging] Area country borders

[Paul Allen]

I just encountered this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw44wHG4KOc
explaining that the border between Germany and Luxembourg, along the
Moselle river, is not a line in the centre of the river but is the entire
width of the river.  If you're in a boat on the river, or on the bridge
crossing it, you're legally in two countries simultaneously.

Do we have a way of mapping this?  Should we have a way of mapping this? Or
should we just pretend the border is a line?

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 16:37 Uhr schrieb Jmapb :

> And also editing the
> highway=path page, which currently says it's not for use in urban
> situations.




this seems very strange and is likely the result of fiddling. In the areas
I am aware of, path is the standard way to map mixed mode ways regardless
of context (urban or not).

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Dave F via Tagging]

On 27/01/2020 16:41, Mike Thompson wrote:


I have never understood the use of tags like "cycleway", "bridleway", and
"footway."  To me these mix two different concepts (physical form and legal
access) in a single tag.


These values do not indicate a way's form. That is achieved with 
secondary, adjective tags such as segregated/width/surface/smoothness etc.



   Also, in the parts of the US where I have lived
there have generally only been "multipurpose" paths/trails (a few
exceptions).


These should be tagged with horse/bicycle/foot = designated/yes/no.

DaveF

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

Re: [Tagging] Disputed territory mapped as a country

[marc marc]

Le 27.01.20 à 17:07, Захаренков Алексей a écrit :
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10629103
> Me and the changeset author could not come to agreement 

nobody ca have an agreement with him.
that isn't a country there. if p_v doesn't stop,
ask DWG for a ban
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:41 AM Mike Thompson  wrote:

> Also, in the parts of the US where I have lived there have generally only
> been "multipurpose" paths/trails (a few exceptions).
>

 Not exactly helping is that the US tends to also confuse form and access,
calling things "multipurpose paths" even when they are *clearly* purpose
built for a specific mode and possibly even do have specific mode
restrictions.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Dave F via Tagging]

On 27/01/2020 15:36, Jmapb wrote:

My own impression over the years has been that mappers use
highway=cycleway on anything that primarily for bicycle traffic, and add
access keys for any other permitted traffic. Similarly for
highway=footway. So "highway=cycleway + foot=yes" and "highway=footway +
bicycle=designated" are quite common. Is there a general consensus that
these are better mapped as highway=path?



I tag any path which is designated for bicycle usage as 
highway=cycleway. I then add foot=designated, segregated=* if it is a 
shared use path (The vast majority of cases in the UK)


There's a misconception by some in OSM the highway=cycleway interprets 
as bicycles bicycle riders as having priority. This is not the case. I 
believe this misconception led to the path tag being created. AFAIK no 
major renderers distinguish the path tag. Some have actively discouraged 
it. I agree with them


DaveF

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Mike Thompson]

>> My own impression over the years has been that mappers use
>> highway=cycleway on anything that primarily for bicycle traffic, and add
>> access keys for any other permitted
traffic.___
I have never understood the use of tags like "cycleway", "bridleway", and
"footway."  To me these mix two different concepts (physical form and legal
access) in a single tag.  Also, in the parts of the US where I have lived
there have generally only been "multipurpose" paths/trails (a few
exceptions).  There are sometimes restrictions on a certain mode of travel
(which the land manager can change from time to time), but the trail is
really constructed for a variety of different uses.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:37 AM Jmapb  wrote:

> Hi all, just noticed this passage on the cycleway=* wiki page (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway ):
>
> > For mapping a separate path (on a separate way) dedicated to cycling
> > traffic use highway=cycleway. Foot traffic is restricted on these paths.
> >
> >   *  Do not use highway=cycleway on paths for both cyclist and foot
> > traffic (such as shared paths). Instead use highway=path with
> > bicycle=designated and foot=designated. Add also segregated=yes or
> > segregated=no) as applicable.
> >* For paths where cycling is not permissible use highway=footway.
> > If cycling is permissible even if it is not signed but legally
> > permissible on a path, use highway=path (and a combination of the
> > segregated key and designated tag as applicable) and not highway=footway.
>
> (This was added by wiki user Aaronsta last May, with no change
> description.)
>
> Does anyone know if there was a discussion, here or elsewhere, that led
> to this change?
>
> My own impression over the years has been that mappers use
> highway=cycleway on anything that primarily for bicycle traffic, and add
> access keys for any other permitted traffic. Similarly for
> highway=footway. So "highway=cycleway + foot=yes" and "highway=footway +
> bicycle=designated" are quite common. Is there a general consensus that
> these are better mapped as highway=path?
>

No, this is also my take.  In North America, I'm generally inclined to go
with highway=cycleway if it has formally marked lanes and highway=path if
it doesn't, and explicitly tag access on both.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Greg Troxel]

Jmapb  writes:

> Hi all, just noticed this passage on the cycleway=* wiki page (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway ):
>
>> For mapping a separate path (on a separate way) dedicated to cycling
>> traffic use highway=cycleway. Foot traffic is restricted on these paths.
>>
>>   *  Do not use highway=cycleway on paths for both cyclist and foot
>> traffic (such as shared paths). Instead use highway=path with
>> bicycle=designated and foot=designated. Add also segregated=yes or
>> segregated=no) as applicable.
>>    * For paths where cycling is not permissible use highway=footway.
>> If cycling is permissible even if it is not signed but legally
>> permissible on a path, use highway=path (and a combination of the
>> segregated key and designated tag as applicable) and not highway=footway.
>
> (This was added by wiki user Aaronsta last May, with no change description.)
>
> Does anyone know if there was a discussion, here or elsewhere, that led
> to this change?

This smells like wikifiddling.

> My own impression over the years has been that mappers use
> highway=cycleway on anything that primarily for bicycle traffic, and add
> access keys for any other permitted traffic. Similarly for
> highway=footway. So "highway=cycleway + foot=yes" and "highway=footway +
> bicycle=designated" are quite common. Is there a general consensus that
> these are better mapped as highway=path?

Overall, I have come to believe that

  highway=cycleway

is *exactly* the same as

  highway=path bicycle=designated

and that any renderer or router that treats them differently is wrong.

However there is the messy issue of default surface values, avoidable by
tagging the surface.

> If so, we might want to consider standardizing the highway=cycleway and
> highway=footway wiki pages with this same rule. And also editing the
> highway=path page, which currently says it's not for use in urban
> situations.

The notion of urban vs not is messy.  I agree that's been part of the
evolving not-really-consensus over the last 10 years.

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

[Tagging] Disputed territory mapped as a country

[Захаренков Алексей]

Hi all. Today I discovered a new country in OSM, created in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/80105029with the name "Disputed territory between France and Italy" and tags "type=boundary + boundary=administrative + admin_level=2 + disputed_area=yes". The relation itself: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10629103 Me and the changeset author could not come to agreement if the territory is mapped correctly. Please put an end to our dispute. --Best regards,Alexey___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - drinking_water:refill_scheme

[Philip Barnes]

On Monday, 27 January 2020, Thibault Molleman wrote:
> " A restaurant where the server fills up your bottle based on his or her
> humor should not be tagged as part of the refill scheme. "
> Maybe add a line to clarify that the sign requirement is specifically
> regarding schemes. A place doesn't need a sign just to have the
> "drinking_water:refill=yes" tag.
> (just so it's more clear on the page)

It needs a sign to indicate, so that it is verifiable. Schemes provide a sign, 
or a business can make its own 

Its not something that can be mapped by asking. They may say yes to you but no 
to someone else, or a different member of staff may not be so helpful.

Phil (trigpoint)
> 
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 16:50, European Water Project <
> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > Thank you for your suggestion.
> >
> > I have added links in a separate section and made the criteria in the
> > proposal section stand out more clearly.
> >
> > best regards,
> >
> > Stuart
> >
> > On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 16:34, Paul Allen  wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 15:27, European Water Project <
> >> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Andy suggests :
> >>>
> >>> "drinking_water:refill=yes" and
> >>> "drinking_water:refill_scheme=[scheme-name]"
> >>>
> >>> As long as two of the options for "scheme-name" can be "multiple" or
> >>> "yes", this alternative two tagging method seems more KISS than the one
> >>> being currently voted on-
> >>>
> >>
> >> It's better because it allows mapping places offering free refills that
> >> aren't part of
> >> a scheme (as long as the place has a sign stating it offers free refills).
> >>
> >> If you're rejigging the proposal anyway, how about providing links to the
> >> schemes
> >> you mention and also criteria for mapping (the main one being that there
> >> is a sign)?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >>
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - drinking_water:refill_scheme

[European Water Project]

Dear Thibault,

I think they do need a sign or it is impossible to objectively map whether
a bar will refill a bottle of water for free for anyone (ie paying or
non-paying customer).

*Best regards,*

*Stuart *

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 16:52, Thibault Molleman 
wrote:

> " A restaurant where the server fills up your bottle based on his or her
> humor should not be tagged as part of the refill scheme. "
> Maybe add a line to clarify that the sign requirement is specifically
> regarding schemes. A place doesn't need a sign just to have the
> "drinking_water:refill=yes" tag.
> (just so it's more clear on the page)
>
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 16:50, European Water Project <
> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> Thank you for your suggestion.
>>
>> I have added links in a separate section and made the criteria in the
>> proposal section stand out more clearly.
>>
>> best regards,
>>
>> Stuart
>>
>> On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 16:34, Paul Allen  wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 15:27, European Water Project <
>>> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>

 Andy suggests :

 "drinking_water:refill=yes" and
 "drinking_water:refill_scheme=[scheme-name]"

 As long as two of the options for "scheme-name" can be "multiple" or
 "yes", this alternative two tagging method seems more KISS than the one
 being currently voted on-

>>>
>>> It's better because it allows mapping places offering free refills that
>>> aren't part of
>>> a scheme (as long as the place has a sign stating it offers free
>>> refills).
>>>
>>> If you're rejigging the proposal anyway, how about providing links to
>>> the schemes
>>> you mention and also criteria for mapping (the main one being that there
>>> is a sign)?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - name:Zsye

[ferdi98701]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/name:Zsye#TaggingThis is what was recently the Emoji names proposal.I would like to hear everyones feedback. Ferdinand0101

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Fernando Trebien]

At first glance, the new text seems to contradict some patterns
presented in this article: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle

I've been using these patterns in my mappings.

On the other hand, the new text agrees with this:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sidewalks#Cycleway_and_footway_on_sidewalk

I know that highway=path should only be used only when it is
impossible to assign a main function to the path, therefore, when the
main function is not clear or when there are several functions and
none of them can be considered the main one. So, what I got in the
first article is that it is assumed that the path formed by a sidewalk
a a parallel cycle path would be meant mainly for cycling and has
walking as a valid, but lesser function.

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 1:37 PM Jmapb  wrote:
>
> Hi all, just noticed this passage on the cycleway=* wiki page (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway ):
>
> > For mapping a separate path (on a separate way) dedicated to cycling
> > traffic use highway=cycleway. Foot traffic is restricted on these paths.
> >
> >   *  Do not use highway=cycleway on paths for both cyclist and foot
> > traffic (such as shared paths). Instead use highway=path with
> > bicycle=designated and foot=designated. Add also segregated=yes or
> > segregated=no) as applicable.
> >* For paths where cycling is not permissible use highway=footway.
> > If cycling is permissible even if it is not signed but legally
> > permissible on a path, use highway=path (and a combination of the
> > segregated key and designated tag as applicable) and not highway=footway.
>
> (This was added by wiki user Aaronsta last May, with no change description.)
>
> Does anyone know if there was a discussion, here or elsewhere, that led
> to this change?
>
> My own impression over the years has been that mappers use
> highway=cycleway on anything that primarily for bicycle traffic, and add
> access keys for any other permitted traffic. Similarly for
> highway=footway. So "highway=cycleway + foot=yes" and "highway=footway +
> bicycle=designated" are quite common. Is there a general consensus that
> these are better mapped as highway=path?
>
> If so, we might want to consider standardizing the highway=cycleway and
> highway=footway wiki pages with this same rule. And also editing the
> highway=path page, which currently says it's not for use in urban
> situations.
>
> Thanks, Jason
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



-- 
Fernando Trebien

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - drinking_water:refill_scheme

[Thibault Molleman]

" A restaurant where the server fills up your bottle based on his or her
humor should not be tagged as part of the refill scheme. "
Maybe add a line to clarify that the sign requirement is specifically
regarding schemes. A place doesn't need a sign just to have the
"drinking_water:refill=yes" tag.
(just so it's more clear on the page)

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 16:50, European Water Project <
europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
> Thank you for your suggestion.
>
> I have added links in a separate section and made the criteria in the
> proposal section stand out more clearly.
>
> best regards,
>
> Stuart
>
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 16:34, Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 15:27, European Water Project <
>> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Andy suggests :
>>>
>>> "drinking_water:refill=yes" and
>>> "drinking_water:refill_scheme=[scheme-name]"
>>>
>>> As long as two of the options for "scheme-name" can be "multiple" or
>>> "yes", this alternative two tagging method seems more KISS than the one
>>> being currently voted on-
>>>
>>
>> It's better because it allows mapping places offering free refills that
>> aren't part of
>> a scheme (as long as the place has a sign stating it offers free refills).
>>
>> If you're rejigging the proposal anyway, how about providing links to the
>> schemes
>> you mention and also criteria for mapping (the main one being that there
>> is a sign)?
>>
>> --
>> Paul
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Feature Proposal - Voting - drinking_water:refill_scheme

[European Water Project]

Hi Paul,

Thank you for your suggestion.

I have added links in a separate section and made the criteria in the
proposal section stand out more clearly.

best regards,

Stuart

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 16:34, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 15:27, European Water Project <
> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Andy suggests :
>>
>> "drinking_water:refill=yes" and
>> "drinking_water:refill_scheme=[scheme-name]"
>>
>> As long as two of the options for "scheme-name" can be "multiple" or
>> "yes", this alternative two tagging method seems more KISS than the one
>> being currently voted on-
>>
>
> It's better because it allows mapping places offering free refills that
> aren't part of
> a scheme (as long as the place has a sign stating it offers free refills).
>
> If you're rejigging the proposal anyway, how about providing links to the
> schemes
> you mention and also criteria for mapping (the main one being that there
> is a sign)?
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> 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] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Jmapb]

Hi all, just noticed this passage on the cycleway=* wiki page (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway ):


For mapping a separate path (on a separate way) dedicated to cycling
traffic use highway=cycleway. Foot traffic is restricted on these paths.

  *  Do not use highway=cycleway on paths for both cyclist and foot
traffic (such as shared paths). Instead use highway=path with
bicycle=designated and foot=designated. Add also segregated=yes or
segregated=no) as applicable.
   * For paths where cycling is not permissible use highway=footway.
If cycling is permissible even if it is not signed but legally
permissible on a path, use highway=path (and a combination of the
segregated key and designated tag as applicable) and not highway=footway.


(This was added by wiki user Aaronsta last May, with no change description.)

Does anyone know if there was a discussion, here or elsewhere, that led
to this change?

My own impression over the years has been that mappers use
highway=cycleway on anything that primarily for bicycle traffic, and add
access keys for any other permitted traffic. Similarly for
highway=footway. So "highway=cycleway + foot=yes" and "highway=footway +
bicycle=designated" are quite common. Is there a general consensus that
these are better mapped as highway=path?

If so, we might want to consider standardizing the highway=cycleway and
highway=footway wiki pages with this same rule. And also editing the
highway=path page, which currently says it's not for use in urban
situations.

Thanks, Jason


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - drinking_water:refill_scheme

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 15:27, European Water Project <
europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Andy suggests :
>
> "drinking_water:refill=yes" and
> "drinking_water:refill_scheme=[scheme-name]"
>
> As long as two of the options for "scheme-name" can be "multiple" or
> "yes", this alternative two tagging method seems more KISS than the one
> being currently voted on-
>

It's better because it allows mapping places offering free refills that
aren't part of
a scheme (as long as the place has a sign stating it offers free refills).

If you're rejigging the proposal anyway, how about providing links to the
schemes
you mention and also criteria for mapping (the main one being that there is
a sign)?

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - drinking_water:refill_scheme

[European Water Project]

Dear All,

A comment by Andy Mabbett
 was made that it
would be cleaner and less confusing to have a simpler main tag. I think he
is right.

I know we just started voting, but given this suggestion which I prefer to
the one we are voting on currently, I have put the proposal back to the RFC
stage for another week.

Andy suggests :

"drinking_water:refill=yes" and "drinking_water:refill_scheme=[scheme-name]"


As long as two of the options for "scheme-name" can be "multiple" or "yes",
this alternative two tagging method seems more KISS than the one being
currently voted on-

Best regards,

Stuart



On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 14:57, European Water Project <
europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Martin,
>
> A refill scheme is a cafe, bar, restaurant, club, hotel participating in
> one of the many refill schemes where they agree to fill up anybody's water
> bottle for free without any requirement to consume on the premises.Self
> serve is not a requirement.  A sticker or sign must be shown for an
> establishment to be tagged as part of the refill scheme and just because a
> barman fills up your bottle, one shouldn't tag a bar as part of a refill
> scheme. Nor should an establishment be tagged as part of a refill scheme if
> you need to fill your bottle up in the bathroom.
>
>   There are  more small ones in the US and in specific European cities,
> like Lucerne, Lausanne, and Berkeley. European Water Project will be
> contributing to the creation of a 100% open data collaborative database of
> establishments participating in the refill revolution.
>
> best regards,
>
> Stuart
>
> Here is a list of some of the participating schemes globally.
>
>
>- Australia – ChooseTap 
>- Bulgaria – Zero Waste Sofia 
>- Cambodia – Refill Asia  / RefillMyBottle
>
>- Canada – BlueW.org ; Tap
>
>- Chile – Refill  (Santiago de Chile only)
>- Europe (public fountains) – Mapy.cz
>
> 
>- France – Refill  / EU Touring
>(Paris
>only)
>- Germany – Refill Deutschland 
>- Greece –Refill 
>- Hongkong – Water for Free 
>- India – BluHop  
>- Indonesia – Refill Asia  / RefillMyBottle
>
>- Ireland – Refill Ireland
>
> 
>- Italy – Refill  / Refill Elba
>
> 
>  (Elba
>island only)
>- Japan – MyMizu 
>- Laos – Refill Asia  / RefillMyBottle
>
>- Luxemborg –Refill 
>- Switzerland – FILL IT UP
>
> 
>- The Netherlands – Refill  / Drinkwaterkaart
> / Publiek Water
>
>- New Zealand – RefillNZ 
>- Thailand – Refill Asia  / RefillMyBottle
>
>- U.K. – Refill 
>- United States – Tap 
>- Vietnam – Refill Asia  / RefillMyBottle
>
>- Worldwide – Closca 
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 12:40, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 11:41 Uhr schrieb European Water Project <
>> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Dear Warin,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your email, I have added a voting section and put my vote
>>> in :)  I appreciate your advice.
>>>
>>> We debated for a week before I wrote the RFC proposal and I have
>>> received 2 positive thumbs up via email, so I therefore have just extended
>>> the voting period.  ..  but of course, I will extend the RFC period if
>>> needed if alternatives are proposed.
>>>
>>> Here is the link to the overal proposal :
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Free_Water
>>>
>>>
>>> And an amended link with a link directly to the voting section :
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Free_Water=edit=10#Voting
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you all for your consideration,
>>>
>>

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - drinking_water:refill_scheme

[European Water Project]

Hello Martin,

A refill scheme is a cafe, bar, restaurant, club, hotel participating in
one of the many refill schemes where they agree to fill up anybody's water
bottle for free without any requirement to consume on the premises.Self
serve is not a requirement.  A sticker or sign must be shown for an
establishment to be tagged as part of the refill scheme and just because a
barman fills up your bottle, one shouldn't tag a bar as part of a refill
scheme. Nor should an establishment be tagged as part of a refill scheme if
you need to fill your bottle up in the bathroom.

  There are  more small ones in the US and in specific European cities,
like Lucerne, Lausanne, and Berkeley. European Water Project will be
contributing to the creation of a 100% open data collaborative database of
establishments participating in the refill revolution.

best regards,

Stuart

Here is a list of some of the participating schemes globally.


   - Australia – ChooseTap 
   - Bulgaria – Zero Waste Sofia 
   - Cambodia – Refill Asia  / RefillMyBottle
   
   - Canada – BlueW.org ; Tap 
   - Chile – Refill  (Santiago de Chile only)
   - Europe (public fountains) – Mapy.cz
   

   - France – Refill  / EU Touring
   (Paris
   only)
   - Germany – Refill Deutschland 
   - Greece –Refill 
   - Hongkong – Water for Free 
   - India – BluHop  
   - Indonesia – Refill Asia  / RefillMyBottle
   
   - Ireland – Refill Ireland
   

   - Italy – Refill  / Refill Elba
   

(Elba
   island only)
   - Japan – MyMizu 
   - Laos – Refill Asia  / RefillMyBottle
   
   - Luxemborg –Refill 
   - Switzerland – FILL IT UP
   

   - The Netherlands – Refill  / Drinkwaterkaart
    / Publiek Water
   
   - New Zealand – RefillNZ 
   - Thailand – Refill Asia  / RefillMyBottle
   
   - U.K. – Refill 
   - United States – Tap 
   - Vietnam – Refill Asia  / RefillMyBottle
   
   - Worldwide – Closca 


On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 12:40, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 11:41 Uhr schrieb European Water Project <
> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Dear Warin,
>>
>> Thank you for your email, I have added a voting section and put my vote
>> in :)  I appreciate your advice.
>>
>> We debated for a week before I wrote the RFC proposal and I have received
>> 2 positive thumbs up via email, so I therefore have just extended the
>> voting period.  ..  but of course, I will extend the RFC period if
>> needed if alternatives are proposed.
>>
>> Here is the link to the overal proposal :
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Free_Water
>>
>>
>> And an amended link with a link directly to the voting section :
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Free_Water=edit=10#Voting
>>
>>
>> Thank you all for your consideration,
>>
>
>
> I am not a native speaker and not completely sure about the meaning of the
> term "refill scheme". Would you say it applies to an icecream parlour (self
> service, seats and takeaway) that has a water tap at a pillar in the middle
> of the room, publicly accessible for everyone (supposedly while the
> intention is probably mainly for customers, realistically I would say
> "permissive")?
>
> Here's a picture:
> https://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g187791-d1023845-i49797540-Palazzo_del_Freddo_Giovanni_Fassi-Rome_Lazio.html
>
> Cheers
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 04:59, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> As they say, it's hard to point at a volcano & say it's active or not!
>

Yup.  Worse, public perception of "active" differs from that list.  Public
perception of "active" is more like "really, really active" (which isn't a
category on that list).

However, the second of those links does give some meaningful, mappable
distinctions: stratovolcano, shield, lava dome, caldera, lava cone, etc.

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

Re: [Tagging] admin_level on ways

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-01-27 13:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 13:11 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale 
> : 
> 
>> OSM clearly associates coastline with high water: 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Coastline 
>> 
>> If the admin boundaries are very close, or even coincident with high water, 
>> I would expect two ways in OSM, possibly overlaying each other, possibly 
>> sharing nodes. Whether they should actually share nodes is another 
>> discussion; the coincidence of coastline and admin boundary is not by 
>> design, but a consequence of our lack of accurate data. That would suggest 
>> they should not share nodes, so they can be updated independent of each 
>> other.
> 
>> What does Italian law say about local government jurisdiction over the 
>> foreshore, between high water and low water? What about around estuaries, 
>> does the admin boundary follow the coastline up to the tidal limit? Do 
>> planning laws apply, for example? I understand the largest tides in the Med 
>> are on the African side, up to 2m. Depending on the slope of the shore, that 
>> could give a substantial area of foreshore.
> 
> Actually I have just found a text which states that in the part of the land 
> closest to the sea the municipalities are now "having important 
> administrative functions", while until some years ago this area was 
> exclusively under national control. So with the "recent" reforms, while this 
> area (including beaches and beach resorts, marinas), still belongs to the 
> state (ownership), it is now managed by the municipalities. The division 
> between national property and other (public and private) property can be seen 
> in the IT system S.I.D. ;-) 
> The competence of the Municipality extends also on the territorial sea (12Nm) 
> when there aren't primary national interests standing against it. 
> 
> Basically, if I have understood it correctly, the state has given competences 
> to the Regions, which have mostly transfered them to the Municipalities and 
> some to the Provinces, but reserve some planning and controlling competences. 
> 
> The Provinces may depend on the legislation of the Regions, e.g. in Toscana 
> they have to plan, realize and maintain structures to protect the coast and 
> the coastal population. 
> They may also authorize earthworks in the coastal area and placement of 
> cables and ducts in the sea. 
> 
> taken from a municipal webpage: 
> http://www.comune.livorno.it/urbanistica-territorio/demanio/demanio-marittimo 
> http://www.comune.livorno.it/demanio-marittimo/riparto-delle-competenze-stato-ed-enti-locali/competenze-dello-stato
>  
> http://www.comune.livorno.it/demanio-marittimo/riparto-delle-competenze-stato-ed-enti-locali/demanio-marittimo-pianificazione
>  
> 
> You should find other relevant information also here 
> Titolo II, Capo 1, del Codice della Navigazione (R.D. 30.3.1942 n° 327) and 
> the connected 
> Regolamento di Esecuzione (D.P.R. 15.2.1952 n° 328). 
> legge  n° 494/'93 art. 6   about "piani di utilizzo del demanio marittimo" 
> 
> TL;DR; 
> It seems, ownership (domain) remains at the national level, but there are 
> come competences given to regions, provinces and municipalities, which seem 
> to extend into the 12Nm territorial waters. 
> 
> I am sending this now because I cannot invest more time, but I am aware it is 
> not in a complete state ;-)

Thanks, it's already a mine of information! Which supports the premise
that the admin boundaries do not (blindly) follow the coastline / high
water mark.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] admin_level on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 13:11 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale <
colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>:

> OSM clearly associates coastline with high water:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Coastline
>
> If the admin boundaries are very close, or even coincident with high
> water, I would expect two ways in OSM, possibly overlaying each other,
> possibly sharing nodes. Whether they should actually share nodes is another
> discussion; the coincidence of coastline and admin boundary is not by
> design, but a consequence of our lack of accurate data. That would suggest
> they should not share nodes, so they can be updated independent of each
> other.
>








>
> What does Italian law say about local government jurisdiction over the
> foreshore, between high water and low water? What about around estuaries,
> does the admin boundary follow the coastline up to the tidal limit? Do
> planning laws apply, for example? I understand the largest tides in the Med
> are on the African side, up to 2m. Depending on the slope of the shore,
> that could give a substantial area of foreshore.
>


Actually I have just found a text which states that in the part of the land
closest to the sea the municipalities are now "having important
administrative functions", while until some years ago this area was
exclusively under national control. So with the "recent" reforms, while
this area (including beaches and beach resorts, marinas), still belongs to
the state (ownership), it is now managed by the municipalities. The
division between national property and other (public and private) property
can be seen in the IT system S.I.D. ;-)
The competence of the Municipality extends also on the territorial sea
(12Nm) when there aren't primary national interests standing against it.

Basically, if I have understood it correctly, the state has given
competences to the Regions, which have mostly transfered them to the
Municipalities and some to the Provinces, but reserve some planning and
controlling competences.

The Provinces may depend on the legislation of the Regions, e.g. in Toscana
they have to plan, realize and maintain structures to protect the coast and
the coastal population.
They may also authorize earthworks in the coastal area and placement of
cables and ducts in the sea.

taken from a municipal webpage:
http://www.comune.livorno.it/urbanistica-territorio/demanio/demanio-marittimo
http://www.comune.livorno.it/demanio-marittimo/riparto-delle-competenze-stato-ed-enti-locali/competenze-dello-stato
http://www.comune.livorno.it/demanio-marittimo/riparto-delle-competenze-stato-ed-enti-locali/demanio-marittimo-pianificazione

You should find other relevant information also here
Titolo II, Capo 1, del Codice della Navigazione (R.D. 30.3.1942 n° 327) and
the connected
Regolamento di Esecuzione (D.P.R. 15.2.1952 n° 328).
legge  n° 494/'93 art. 6   about "piani di utilizzo del demanio marittimo"

TL;DR;
It seems, ownership (domain) remains at the national level, but there are
come competences given to regions, provinces and municipalities, which seem
to extend into the 12Nm territorial waters.


I am sending this now because I cannot invest more time, but I am aware it
is not in a complete state ;-)

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

Re: [Tagging] key, name, long or a partial abbreviation?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> mt_motor_vehicle  - partial abbriviation, “mt” stands for multi_tracked
> Does this express the category well enough?
> Do people understand that?

No, I would not understand this as a native English speaker, because
"MT" is not a common abbreviation for "multi-tracked".

I would only use an abbreviation if it is very commonly used and
widely know, since it will need to be understandable to speakers of
other languages as well.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 1/27/20, Allroads  wrote:
> This is a question only about how to choose a new keyname.
>
> Is it possible to use a partial abbriviation?
>
> For example:
>
> There is motor_vehicle, with one underscore.
> to express a categrory with a more then one track or more then 2 wheels.
> We can choose for:
> multi_tracked_motor_vehicle, with 3 underscore, quite a long name to type
> in, must that be avoided?
>
> Avoid long names with multiple underscore.
> Which weighs heavier when considering a name.
>
>
> Is it allowed to choose for?
> mt_motor_vehicle
> partial abbriviation, “mt” stands for multi_tracked
> Does this express the category well enough?
> Do people understand that?
>
> When there is a mt_motor_vehicle, there is “st” partial abbriviation,
> single_tracked_motor_vehicle.
>
> Is it a “do” or is it a “don’t”.
>
> Give me your opinion.
>
>
>

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

Re: [Tagging] key, name, long or a partial abbreviation?

[Georg Feddern]

Don't

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

Re: [Tagging] admin_level on ways

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-01-27 12:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 11:21 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale 
> :
> 
>> However, practically this leeds to ambiguous situations, where for example 
>> admin_level=4 is added to islands and might be misinterpreted as 
>> administrative "standalone" level 4 entities (with the island name etc.). 
>> While a clear separation of administration and coastline could solve this, 
>> it would still mean continuous additional maintenance effort due to 
>> duplication of already present information.
> 
> I would like to take this opportunity to point out that admin boundaries and 
> coastline are conceptually and geographically distinct, and should almost 
> never coincide. Admin boundaries are typically at the low-water mark, and 
> sometimes miles off shore, whereas the coastline is defined as the high-water 
> line. 
> 
> While I am aware of this, it is not something that is actually reflected in 
> OSM (at least in my area) and is not something I believe we can realistically 
> distinguish (it may be different where high and low tide are significantly 
> different, but if they are very close, as is the case in the mediterranean, 
> it is hard to map). I would not want to request to be able to distinguish 
> high and low water in order to be able to map administrative boundaries 
> (although if you do use different geometry, it is of course fine).

OSM clearly associates coastline with high water:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Coastline 

If the admin boundaries are very close, or even coincident with high
water, I would expect two ways in OSM, possibly overlaying each other,
possibly sharing nodes. Whether they should actually share nodes is
another discussion; the coincidence of coastline and admin boundary is
not by design, but a consequence of our lack of accurate data. That
would suggest they should not share nodes, so they can be updated
independent of each other. 

What does Italian law say about local government jurisdiction over the
foreshore, between high water and low water? What about around
estuaries, does the admin boundary follow the coastline up to the tidal
limit? Do planning laws apply, for example? I understand the largest
tides in the Med are on the African side, up to 2m. Depending on the
slope of the shore, that could give a substantial area of foreshore.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] admin_level on ways

[Joseph Eisenberg]

>  I would not want to request to be able to distinguish high and low water in 
> order to be able to map administrative boundaries

But since the administrative boundary is defined by the "Baseline" or
low water springs tide line, that's what should be mapped. Certainly
it is incorrect to add the administrative boundary tags to the same
way as the coastline (or add these ways to a boundary relation) if the
administrative boundary is defined differently - and it almost always
is.

If mappers do not have a good source for administrative boundaries,
they should not be mapped. Usually these need to be imported from an
official source, since they are politically-defined, not based on the
actual, physical shoreline.

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

Re: [Tagging] admin_level on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 11:21 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale <
colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>:

However, practically this leeds to ambiguous situations, where for example
admin_level=4 is added to islands and might be misinterpreted as
administrative "standalone" level 4 entities (with the island name etc.).
While a clear separation of administration and coastline could solve this,
it would still mean continuous additional maintenance effort due to
duplication of already present information.


I would like to take this opportunity to point out that admin boundaries
and coastline are conceptually and geographically distinct, and should
almost never coincide. Admin boundaries are typically at the low-water
mark, and sometimes miles off shore, whereas the coastline is defined as
the high-water line.


While I am aware of this, it is not something that is actually reflected in
OSM (at least in my area) and is not something I believe we can
realistically distinguish (it may be different where high and low tide are
significantly different, but if they are very close, as is the case in the
mediterranean, it is hard to map). I would not want to request to be able
to distinguish high and low water in order to be able to map administrative
boundaries (although if you do use different geometry, it is of course
fine).

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - drinking_water:refill_scheme

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 11:41 Uhr schrieb European Water Project <
europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>:

> Dear Warin,
>
> Thank you for your email, I have added a voting section and put my vote in
> :)  I appreciate your advice.
>
> We debated for a week before I wrote the RFC proposal and I have received
> 2 positive thumbs up via email, so I therefore have just extended the
> voting period.  ..  but of course, I will extend the RFC period if
> needed if alternatives are proposed.
>
> Here is the link to the overal proposal :
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Free_Water
>
>
> And an amended link with a link directly to the voting section :
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Free_Water=edit=10#Voting
>
>
> Thank you all for your consideration,
>


I am not a native speaker and not completely sure about the meaning of the
term "refill scheme". Would you say it applies to an icecream parlour (self
service, seats and takeaway) that has a water tap at a pillar in the middle
of the room, publicly accessible for everyone (supposedly while the
intention is probably mainly for customers, realistically I would say
"permissive")?

Here's a picture:
https://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g187791-d1023845-i49797540-Palazzo_del_Freddo_Giovanni_Fassi-Rome_Lazio.html

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

Re: [Tagging] admin_level on ways

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

27 Jan 2020, 11:43 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

> I wonder what is the current state of admin_level on ways
>
Personally I consider this to be a
pointless duplication of data.

I am not fan of requesting from mappers
doing work that is easy to automate.
> in particular with respect to osm-carto. 
>
It is using adminstrative relations for 
rendering.
> Is there still a serious risk of immature applications that allow removal of 
> ways without taking into account relations memberships? 
>
Yes, as long as duplicate tagging on
ways is common.
> Will the borders vanish from osm-carto if we rely only on relations?
>
No___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] key, name, long or a partial abbreviation?

[Allroads]

This is a question only about how to choose a new keyname.

Is it possible to use a partial abbriviation?

For example:

There is motor_vehicle, with one underscore.
to express a categrory with a more then one track or more then 2 wheels.
We can choose for:
multi_tracked_motor_vehicle, with 3 underscore, quite a long name to type in, 
must that be avoided?

Avoid long names with multiple underscore.
Which weighs heavier when considering a name.


Is it allowed to choose for?
mt_motor_vehicle 
partial abbriviation, “mt” stands for multi_tracked
Does this express the category well enough?
Do people understand that?

When there is a mt_motor_vehicle, there is “st” partial abbriviation, 
single_tracked_motor_vehicle.

Is it a “do” or is it a “don’t”.

Give me your opinion.


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - drinking_water:refill_scheme

[European Water Project]

Dear Warin,

Thank you for your email, I have added a voting section and put my vote in
:)  I appreciate your advice.

We debated for a week before I wrote the RFC proposal and I have received 2
positive thumbs up via email, so I therefore have just extended the voting
period.  ..  but of course, I will extend the RFC period if needed if
alternatives are proposed.

Here is the link to the overal proposal :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Free_Water


And an amended link with a link directly to the voting section :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Free_Water=edit=10#Voting


Thank you all for your consideration,

Stuart


On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 09:35, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The minimum time for comments is 2 weeks that is 14 days, not the 10 given
> so far. Suggest you wait a little longer.
>
> The minimum time for voting is 2 weeks that is 14 days,you may run voting
> longer than that if you desire.
>
> The link is wrong.
> Most use
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Free_Water
>
> so they can read the present proposal. then they go to ?? There is no
> voting section presently ...
> You need to do a tidy up?
>
>
>
> On 27/1/20 6:48 pm, European Water Project wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> We have actively debated over the past 11 days the best manner to tag an
> establishment which offers free water bottle refills as part of an
> established scheme.
>
> Thank you all for your comments and input during this tumultuous process.
>
> After much deliberation, the latest proposal
> "drinking_water:refill_scheme = " seems to have enough support to
> merit being put to a vote.
>
> Please find below the proposal for drinking_water:refill_scheme being
> which is being put to vote.
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Free_Water=edit
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Stuart
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 15:29, Markus Peloso  wrote:
>
>> Thanks for that. Now it's clear for me.
>>
>>
>>
>> +1 from me for drinking_water:refill_scheme
>>
>>
>>
>> I found three national programs (with maps) that I think are related to
>> this tag.
>>
>> - https://refill.org.uk/refill-schemes/
>>
>> - https://refill-deutschland.de/
>>
>> - http://www.fillitup.ch/karte.html
>>
>>
>>
>> *Von: *European Water Project 
>> *Gesendet: *Donnerstag, 23. Januar 2020 08:02
>> *An: *Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
>> 
>> *Betreff: *Re: [Tagging] RFC free_water
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>>
>>
>> I have amended the proposal with the tag and a simplified example.
>>
>>
>>
>> The proposal is definitely more KISS.
>>
>>
>>
>> drinking_water:refill_scheme = 
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Stuart
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 14:21, Philip Barnes  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, 22 January 2020, European Water Project wrote:
>> > Hi Paul et. al,
>> >
>> > I would also be very supportive of this straightforward approach which
>> > would address many of the concerns regarding an over complicated tagging
>> > scheme covering cases that are often mandated by local legislation.
>> >
>> > One clean solution could be the following or something similar.
>> >
>> > drinking_water:refill_scheme=
>> >
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Paul's response did clear up my reservations on the idea.
>>
>> The webpage makes it clear there is a sticker that is verifiable without
>> going in a asking. Not sure if that was mentioned before or if I had simply
>> missed it.
>>
>> This meets the gold osm standard of Verifable.
>>
>> Now I know there is something to look out for I can start looking when
>> I'm out.
>>
>> Its a shame the website doesn't have location, I do not use Google play,
>> but I guess thats why you want to put them into OSM.
>>
>> As its a UK scheme, discussion on the talk-gb list would be more focussed
>> and you will reach more mappers who are able to survey and contribute.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Phil  (trigpoint)
>>
>> --
>> Sent from my Sailfish device
>>
>
> ___
> 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] admin_level on ways

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-01-27 10:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> I wonder what is the current state of admin_level on ways, in particular with 
> respect to osm-carto. Historically, the recommendation was to add the lowest 
> admin_level additionally to the ways that are part of admin relations (to 
> help applications that render boundaries based on ways, for examples 
> eliminates the need of "flattening" overlapping boundaries in case you would 
> want to use non-continuous line styles).

Another related issue is the hierarchy or precedence of types of
boundaries; where an admin boundary is also the boundary of a national
park, or a political area for example. What do you put in boundary=* on
the way? I always put something in there, so my usual editor for
boundary stuff (Potlatch2!!!) shows a distinctive line, instead of a
narrow black line which is also used for millions of other types of way
like barrier=*. Admin_level is only defined for boundary=administrative,
so if the way was tagged as boundary=political then admin_level=* might
be flagged as a potential error. Hence I give boundary=administrative
the highest priority on the ways. 

> However, practically this leeds to ambiguous situations, where for example 
> admin_level=4 is added to islands and might be misinterpreted as 
> administrative "standalone" level 4 entities (with the island name etc.). 
> While a clear separation of administration and coastline could solve this, it 
> would still mean continuous additional maintenance effort due to duplication 
> of already present information.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that admin boundaries
and coastline are conceptually and geographically distinct, and should
almost never coincide. Admin boundaries are typically at the low-water
mark, and sometimes miles off shore, whereas the coastline is defined as
the high-water line. I know there are different variants of "high water"
and "low water", but they are irrelevant here. The admin boundary will
coincide with the coastline where there is a vertical wall or cliff. The
island name should I guess be on the coastline; this mostly also be a
multipolygon relation for that island, so in that case the name should
be on that relation.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] admin_level on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

I wonder what is the current state of admin_level on ways, in particular
with respect to osm-carto. Historically, the recommendation was to add the
lowest admin_level additionally to the ways that are part of admin
relations (to help applications that render boundaries based on ways, for
examples eliminates the need of "flattening" overlapping boundaries in case
you would want to use non-continuous line styles).

However, practically this leeds to ambiguous situations, where for example
admin_level=4 is added to islands and might be misinterpreted as
administrative "standalone" level 4 entities (with the island name etc.).
While a clear separation of administration and coastline could solve this,
it would still mean continuous additional maintenance effort due to
duplication of already present information.

Is there still a serious risk of immature applications that allow removal
of ways without taking into account relations memberships? Will the borders
vanish from osm-carto if we rely only on relations? Does iD require admin
tags on ways?

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - drinking_water:refill_scheme

[Warin]

The minimum time for comments is 2 weeks that is 14 days, not the 10 
given so far. Suggest you wait a little longer.


The minimum time for voting is 2 weeks that is 14 days,you may run 
voting longer than that if you desire.


The link is wrong.
Most use
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Free_Water

so they can read the present proposal. then they go to ?? There is no 
voting section presently ...

You need to do a tidy up?



On 27/1/20 6:48 pm, European Water Project wrote:

Dear All,

We have actively debated over the past 11 days the best manner to tag 
an establishment which offers free water bottle refills as part of an 
established scheme.


Thank you all for your comments and input during this tumultuous process.

After much deliberation, the latest proposal 
"drinking_water:refill_scheme = " seems to have enough support 
to merit being put to a vote.


Please find below the proposal for drinking_water:refill_scheme being 
which is being put to vote.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Free_Water=edit 




Best regards,

Stuart





On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 15:29, Markus Peloso > wrote:


Thanks for that. Now it's clear for me.

+1 from me for drinking_water:refill_scheme

I found three national programs (with maps) that I think are
related to this tag.

- https://refill.org.uk/refill-schemes/

- https://refill-deutschland.de/

- http://www.fillitup.ch/karte.html

*Von: *European Water Project 
*Gesendet: *Donnerstag, 23. Januar 2020 08:02
*An: *Tag discussion, strategy and related tools

*Betreff: *Re: [Tagging] RFC free_water

Dear All,

I have amended the proposal with the tag and a simplified example.

The proposal is definitely more KISS.

drinking_water:refill_scheme = 

Best regards,

Stuart

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 14:21, Philip Barnes mailto:p...@trigpoint.me.uk>> wrote:



On Wednesday, 22 January 2020, European Water Project wrote:
> Hi Paul et. al,
>
> I would also be very supportive of this straightforward approach
which
> would address many of the concerns regarding an over complicated
tagging
> scheme covering cases that are often mandated by local legislation.
>
> One clean solution could be the following or something similar.
>
> drinking_water:refill_scheme=
>

Thank you.

Paul's response did clear up my reservations on the idea.

The webpage makes it clear there is a sticker that is verifiable
without going in a asking. Not sure if that was mentioned before
or if I had simply missed it.

This meets the gold osm standard of Verifable.

Now I know there is something to look out for I can start looking
when I'm out.

Its a shame the website doesn't have location, I do not use Google
play, but I guess thats why you want to put them into OSM.

As its a UK scheme, discussion on the talk-gb list would be more
focussed and you will reach more mappers who are able to survey
and contribute.

Cheers
Phil  (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device




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