Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

[Andrew Davidson]

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 12:04 PM Jack Armstrong 
wrote:

> I’ve been told by a user, anecdotally, there’s a Slack group that decided
> this is correct. To my knowledge Slack groups do not supersede the OSM
> wiki. I assume mapping a crossing twice is incorrect?
>

I don't know if it is "correct" or not, but the footway=crossing tagging is
part of the Sidewalk as separate way proposal
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk_as_separate_way#Crossings
.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[brad]

On 6/9/20 7:27 PM, Warin wrote:

To me in OSM a 'path' has always been too narrow for a motor car (4WD or not) 
to pass.
If it is wide enough for a car then it is not a 'path' in OSM so they must be 
tagged in some other way.
Descriptions of 'path':

On 10/6/20 5:53 am, brad wrote:

"If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), and
 it is not legally signposted or otherwise only allowed for
 pedestrians, cyclists or horseriders, it is often better tagged as a
 highway =track 
  orhighway =service 
.

 "

 to this:
 "If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), it
 is often better tagged as ahighway =track 
  orhighway =service 
.

 "



Or possibly:
A path should not be wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m),for these wider ways see highway 
=track 
  orhighway =service 
.



On 10/6/20 10:29 am, Kevin Kenny wrote:

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 6:13 PM Tod Fitch  wrote:


The two major factions seem to be set in their ways: “It is only a track if it 
is used for agriculture or forestry” on one side. “It has the same physical 
characteristics as a track, so it is a track even if it is currently used for 
hiking, bicycling, riding horses, or by ATVs” on the other side.

That also spills into is it a track or a service (driveway)? Depends on if it 
goes to a barn or a house! But I can’t tell without trespassing, how can I map 
it?

First step, I think, is to be less pedantic about function on things that look 
exactly like a track. Mappers in all the areas I’ve looked at will tag a way 
that is unpaved and about the width of a four wheeled vehicle as a track 
regardless of current use. Maybe it is being used as a driveway. Maybe it is 
being used as a bicycling/hiking/equestrian trail. Maybe it accesses a field. 
Maybe it hasn’t been used for a while and just hasn’t decayed or been overgrown 
into nothing. Who knows? But it looks like a track. Saying that the way “isn’t 
for forestry or agricultural use” so it can’t be a track is worthless: Real 
world mappers have voted otherwise with their tagging.

In terms of function, 'track' and 'service' (with or without
'driveway') are practically interchangeable - at least in terms of
what they provide to the road network. They're both distinguished by
the fact that they don't 'go anywhere'. They typically serve only a
single establishment - public roads that serve multiple establishments
are typically at least 'unclassified'.



In Australia the word 'track' is used in a much broader sense than that used in 
the OSM wiki.
The OSM tagging practice in Australia uses 'track' in that same broader sense - 
so not just agriculture and forestry but also other operators/uses e.g. 
National Parks.
Some of these 'tracks' were put in to enable fire fighting - usually locally 
called 'fire trails'.
Maps generally show these in the same way as forestry trails hence the 
preference to tag them the same way in OSM as 'we' are used to seeing them 
rendered that way.

+1
In the western US, most of the rough, 4wd, or high clearance roads on 
federal land are also tagged as track.   They meet the definition in a 
loose way.    It is established practice.
We're never going to get consensus on this since many of us mappers and 
users think the definition is wrong.  It was written for some other 
locale with different conditions.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Tod Fitch]

> On Jun 9, 2020, at 2:22 PM, Mike Thompson  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 3:02 PM brad  > wrote:
> A track does have a different function, it can handle a 2 track vehicle, a 
> path can't.
> Yes, a "track" has a different function, its function is for agriculture or 
> forestry.
> 
> A wide path on the other hand has the same function as a narrow path.
> 
> 
> If functional is sacrosanct,  why do we have motorway?   A motorway could 
> just be a trunk or primary with extra tags denoting limited access.
> That is a good question.  But it was stated on this list just a couple of 
> weeks ago that the highway=* tag was a functional classification, "except for 
> motorway"
> 

In my rendering of hiking maps I currently have to look at 13 tags and their 
values to make a decision if a “path” or “footway” might be what I want to 
render. This is ridiculous. It is neither easy for the mapper nor the renderer.

On the motor vehicle side this would be the equivalent of saying all ways 
intended for cars should be mapped as highway=road and we can distinguish them 
by using surface, width, smoothness, maximum speed, etc.

I think we need some more values for the highway tag that would allow a mapper 
to easily tag:

1) A narrow rural trail where you probably want good footwear and are likely to 
take a small pack with water, snacks, etc.
2) A smooth hard surfaced walk, usually in or near urban/suburban areas) 
suitable for pushing a stroller.
3) A wide fairly smooth way (usually in or near urban/suburban areas) designed 
for getting exercise. Probably not paved, but with a natural appearing surface 
that is maintained to be fairly smooth.

In my part of the world many of those things are general purpose (mixed foot 
and bicycle use and often horses). Mappers end up using highway tag values of 
path, footway, track, and, rarely, cycleway or bridlepath. If we are lucky they 
might put a surface tag or some access tags on it. It is a mess. Hard for a 
beginning mapper to decide what tags to use. Hard for a data consumer to figure 
out what the mapper was trying to map.

The two major factions seem to be set in their ways: “It is only a track if it 
is used for agriculture or forestry” on one side. “It has the same physical 
characteristics as a track, so it is a track even if it is currently used for 
hiking, bicycling, riding horses, or by ATVs” on the other side.

That also spills into is it a track or a service (driveway)? Depends on if it 
goes to a barn or a house! But I can’t tell without trespassing, how can I map 
it?

First step, I think, is to be less pedantic about function on things that look 
exactly like a track. Mappers in all the areas I’ve looked at will tag a way 
that is unpaved and about the width of a four wheeled vehicle as a track 
regardless of current use. Maybe it is being used as a driveway. Maybe it is 
being used as a bicycling/hiking/equestrian trail. Maybe it accesses a field. 
Maybe it hasn’t been used for a while and just hasn’t decayed or been overgrown 
into nothing. Who knows? But it looks like a track. Saying that the way “isn’t 
for forestry or agricultural use” so it can’t be a track is worthless: Real 
world mappers have voted otherwise with their tagging.

Cheers!
Tod




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

[Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

[Jack Armstrong]

Apologies if this has already been discussed. I searched the tagging list, but couldn’t find it. 

Users have been adding pedestrian crossing tags on ways in addition to the street connecting nodes. In effect, a single pedestrian crossing is tagged twice. To me, this would seem contrary not only to the OSM wiki page, “Tag:highway=crossing”, but also contrary to, “One feature, one OSM element”.

Example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=86290585#map=20/39.63167/-104.89726

I’ve been told by a user, anecdotally, there’s a Slack group that decided this is correct. To my knowledge Slack groups do not supersede the OSM wiki. I assume mapping a crossing twice is incorrect?

OSM wiki: tag:highway=crossing
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcrossing- Jack Armstrong

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

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Warin]

To me in OSM a 'path' has always been too narrow for a motor car (4WD or not) 
to pass.
If it is wide enough for a car then it is not a 'path' in OSM so they must be 
tagged in some other way.

Descriptions of 'path':


On 10/6/20 5:53 am, brad wrote:

"If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), and
 it is not legally signposted or otherwise only allowed for
 pedestrians, cyclists or horseriders, it is often better tagged as a
 highway =track 
  orhighway =service 
.

 "


 to this:

 "If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), it
 is often better tagged as ahighway =track 
  orhighway =service 
.

 "



Or possibly:

A path should not be wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m),for these wider ways see highway 
=track 
  orhighway =service 
.




On 10/6/20 10:29 am, Kevin Kenny wrote:

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 6:13 PM Tod Fitch  wrote:


The two major factions seem to be set in their ways: “It is only a track if it 
is used for agriculture or forestry” on one side. “It has the same physical 
characteristics as a track, so it is a track even if it is currently used for 
hiking, bicycling, riding horses, or by ATVs” on the other side.

That also spills into is it a track or a service (driveway)? Depends on if it 
goes to a barn or a house! But I can’t tell without trespassing, how can I map 
it?

First step, I think, is to be less pedantic about function on things that look 
exactly like a track. Mappers in all the areas I’ve looked at will tag a way 
that is unpaved and about the width of a four wheeled vehicle as a track 
regardless of current use. Maybe it is being used as a driveway. Maybe it is 
being used as a bicycling/hiking/equestrian trail. Maybe it accesses a field. 
Maybe it hasn’t been used for a while and just hasn’t decayed or been overgrown 
into nothing. Who knows? But it looks like a track. Saying that the way “isn’t 
for forestry or agricultural use” so it can’t be a track is worthless: Real 
world mappers have voted otherwise with their tagging.

In terms of function, 'track' and 'service' (with or without
'driveway') are practically interchangeable - at least in terms of
what they provide to the road network. They're both distinguished by
the fact that they don't 'go anywhere'. They typically serve only a
single establishment - public roads that serve multiple establishments
are typically at least 'unclassified'.



In Australia the word 'track' is used in a much broader sense than that used in 
the OSM wiki.

The OSM tagging practice in Australia uses 'track' in that same broader sense - 
so not just agriculture and forestry but also other operators/uses e.g. 
National Parks.
Some of these 'tracks' were put in to enable fire fighting - usually locally 
called 'fire trails'.
Maps generally show these in the same way as forestry trails hence the 
preference to tag them the same way in OSM as 'we' are used to seeing them 
rendered that way.

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

Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

[Warin]

On 9/6/20 9:30 pm, Paul Allen wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 09:24, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:



But :conditional = yes @ some text does not meet the
specification of :conditional as per the wiki.


From 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Access_time_and_other_conditional_restrictions


    For a full description and more examples, please see the 
conditional restrictions page.


The page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions
isn't as clear as it could be in defining the syntax.  I went by these 
examples:


Road condition: For example, *wet*, *snow*. It is noted that the 
condition *wet* corresponds to *:wet* in e.g. maxspeed:wet 
=*. 
Using *wet* as a condition is recommended in order to streamline the 
syntax of restriction tags ("maxspeed:wet" was introduced at a time 
when no proper way of tagging conditional restrictions existed).


User group: The restriction relates to a specific user group, e.g. 
doctor, disabled, emergency, female.


From those, it appears that the condition is free-form text except for 
cases

like opening hours.



Opening_hours provides for free form text.


From https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours#Summary_syntax


*comment:* |"|text|"|

   A short comment (wrapped in |"| but not containing any |"| within)
   showing applicable restrictions or specifications, e.g. |"children
   only"|, |"limited service"|, or |"reservation by phone"|.
   This comment is intended to be displayed in applications and not to
   be interpreted automatically.



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

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 6:13 PM Tod Fitch  wrote:

> The two major factions seem to be set in their ways: “It is only a track if 
> it is used for agriculture or forestry” on one side. “It has the same 
> physical characteristics as a track, so it is a track even if it is currently 
> used for hiking, bicycling, riding horses, or by ATVs” on the other side.
>
> That also spills into is it a track or a service (driveway)? Depends on if it 
> goes to a barn or a house! But I can’t tell without trespassing, how can I 
> map it?
>
> First step, I think, is to be less pedantic about function on things that 
> look exactly like a track. Mappers in all the areas I’ve looked at will tag a 
> way that is unpaved and about the width of a four wheeled vehicle as a track 
> regardless of current use. Maybe it is being used as a driveway. Maybe it is 
> being used as a bicycling/hiking/equestrian trail. Maybe it accesses a field. 
> Maybe it hasn’t been used for a while and just hasn’t decayed or been 
> overgrown into nothing. Who knows? But it looks like a track. Saying that the 
> way “isn’t for forestry or agricultural use” so it can’t be a track is 
> worthless: Real world mappers have voted otherwise with their tagging.

In terms of function, 'track' and 'service' (with or without
'driveway') are practically interchangeable - at least in terms of
what they provide to the road network. They're both distinguished by
the fact that they don't 'go anywhere'. They typically serve only a
single establishment - public roads that serve multiple establishments
are typically at least 'unclassified'.  They typically are something
that a router should treat by default as 'access=destination'. They're
the 'leaves' of the network. The distinction makes essentially no
difference to routing, unless you are of the faction that believes
that 'track' is something that needs more than a regular car. Even
then, if your destination lies on a track, you probably are equipped
for it.  It makes a difference to rendering, well, mostly because
someone thought it ought to.

For me, If I see the ruts that indicate that double-tracked vehicles
use a way, it's at least a track.  That causes me to map some hiking
trails as tracks (because they're also snowmobile trails, or because
there's someone with an inholding who has keys to the gate, or the
park service drives on them, or whatever.  I've departed from that in
cases where the ruts are obviously not current, for instance in the
case of a logging road that's been abandoned long enough that trees
are growing in it, even though ruts and workings are clearly visible
(https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14919563634 - note that not all
the workings have held up as well:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14920137133)

I don't use 'path'  very much except that JOSM wants to use it for
'combined foot- and cycleway'.  Using JOSM, I'll typically tag a way
as a 'path' so that I get the dialog where I can quickly fill in
surface, smoothness, maybe width and incline.  Then I retag using one
of the 'footway', 'cycleway' or 'bridleway' presets depending on the
largest creature that uses it - so I've recently tagged a few
track-ish things around here as 'highway=bridleway surface=compacted
smoothness=good bicycle=designated foot=designated width=3'  There's
some evidence that motor vehicles use it occasionally, but only for
official purposes.

The locals near me seem to use 'service' or 'unclassified' if you can
drive on it in a regular car (at least in summer) and 'track' if you
are likely to need a four-wheeler or at least a high ground clearance.

This is fundamentally an American perspective. I'm sure that there's
some sort of legal difference in the UK between a service way and a
track that's extremely important.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Warin]

On 9/6/20 6:46 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 9. Jun 2020, at 03:40, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

Similar for Roamn and Saxon sites, if there is something present today, map 
it... nothing there then nothing on OSM, put it in OHM


Warin, can you give an example for something historic that is not there any 
more in reality and should be removed from OpenStreetMap? Through all the years 
I have never encountered anything like this mapped in OpenStreetMap.



Way: former Buninyong line (802945258)

Way: Buninyong Line (802945251)

Way: Ballarat - Buninyong line (168429101)


Note I put these in OHM ~2 years ago.


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

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Jun 10, 2020, 01:05 by miketh...@gmail.com:

>
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 4:13 PM Tod Fitch <> t...@fitchfamily.org> > wrote:
>
> > In my rendering of hiking maps I currently have to look at 13 tags and 
> > their values to make a decision if a “path” or “footway” might be what I 
> > want to render. This is ridiculous. It is neither easy for the mapper nor 
> > the renderer.
> >
> > On the motor vehicle side this would be the equivalent of saying all ways 
> > intended for cars should be mapped as highway=road and we can distinguish 
> > them by using surface, width, smoothness, maximum speed, etc.
> My understand is that highway=primary/secondary/unclassified/etc. is based on 
> function.  It says nothing about the physical configuration, other than it is 
> suitable for a 2-track vehicle.  See my comment below about unpaved roads in 
> many parts of the world.   
>
+1

> > The two major factions seem to be set in their ways: “It is only a track if 
> > it is used for agriculture or forestry” on one side. “It has the same 
> > physical characteristics as a track, so it is a track even if it is 
> > currently used for hiking, bicycling, riding horses, or by ATVs” on the 
> > other side.
> I am willing to change my mind, but I would like:   
> 1) Internal consistency within a definition.
>
Especially as what is supposed to be "physical characteristics as a track"?
Currently highway=track may be maintained paved asphalt track or abandoned 
barely visible
track in grass.

(and "this is unpaved" goes into surface tag, not into highway tag)

> 2) Consistency over time (from week to week, month to month, etc. obviously 
> things can evolve over time, but we don't want to "ping-pong" back and forth) 
>  I don't like having the same discussion over and over again. I asked this 
> same question about a trail in a nearby park (Natural Area) a couple of weeks 
> ago on this list and received a largely different answer from the one I am 
> receiving today.   Perhaps it is just that different people are reading this 
> list today.  
>
Probably different people (for example I participated in the previous thread 
and had no time
so far to do it with this one)

> 3) Precise. It can't be something like "a driveway is highway=service, 
> service=driveway, unless it is too long or too rough, or *seems* like a 
> track, in which case it is highway=track"  One mapper I corresponded with via 
> change set comments literally told me he mapped a driveway as a track because 
> it seemed track like to them.
>
+1

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

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Mike Thompson]

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 4:13 PM Tod Fitch  wrote:

> In my rendering of hiking maps I currently have to look at 13 tags and
their values to make a decision if a “path” or “footway” might be what I
want to render. This is ridiculous. It is neither easy for the mapper nor
the renderer.
>
> On the motor vehicle side this would be the equivalent of saying all ways
intended for cars should be mapped as highway=road and we can distinguish
them by using surface, width, smoothness, maximum speed, etc.
My understand is that highway=primary/secondary/unclassified/etc. is based
on function.  It says nothing about the physical configuration, other than
it is suitable for a 2-track vehicle.  See my comment below about unpaved
roads in many parts of the world.

> The two major factions seem to be set in their ways: “It is only a track
if it is used for agriculture or forestry” on one side. “It has the same
physical characteristics as a track, so it is a track even if it is
currently used for hiking, bicycling, riding horses, or by ATVs” on the
other side.
I am willing to change my mind, but I would like:
1) Internal consistency within a definition.
2) Consistency over time (from week to week, month to month, etc. obviously
things can evolve over time, but we don't want to "ping-pong" back and
forth)  I don't like having the same discussion over and over again. I
asked this same question about a trail in a nearby park (Natural Area) a
couple of weeks ago on this list and received a largely different answer
from the one I am receiving today.   Perhaps it is just that different
people are reading this list today.
3) Precise. It can't be something like "a driveway is highway=service,
service=driveway, unless it is too long or too rough, or *seems* like a
track, in which case it is highway=track"  One mapper I corresponded with
via change set comments literally told me he mapped a driveway as a track
because it seemed track like to them.

>
> That also spills into is it a track or a service (driveway)? Depends on
if it goes to a barn or a house! But I can’t tell without trespassing, how
can I map it?
I can generally tell the difference between a barn and a house based on
satellite imagery.

>
> First step, I think, is to be less pedantic about function on things that
look exactly like a track. Mappers in all the areas I’ve looked at will tag
a way that is unpaved and about the width of a four wheeled vehicle as a
track regardless of current use. Maybe it is being used as a driveway.
Maybe it is being used as a bicycling/hiking/equestrian trail. Maybe it
accesses a field. Maybe it hasn’t been used for a while and just hasn’t
decayed or been overgrown into nothing. Who knows? But it looks like a
track. Saying that the way “isn’t for forestry or agricultural use” so it
can’t be a track is worthless: Real world mappers have voted otherwise with
their tagging.
In many parts of the world, higher classified roads (primary, secondary,
unclassified, residential, service) are going to be unpaved and somewhat
rough.  That includes some parts of the US I am familiar with.

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

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Peter Elderson]

The dictionary doesn't help much: track:  "a path
 or rough
 road
 that is made of
soil  rather
 than having a
surface 
covered  with
stone  or other
material "

path:
a route or track between one place and another, or the direction in which
something is moving:
a garden path
a concrete path
a well-trodden path
This is the path to the cliffs.
It will be several days before snowploughs clear a path (through) to the
village.
They followed the path until they came to a gate.

So this
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.9940387923=4.707510424794445=17=photo=pV1y2lcTNq-jB7xvJNONTQ
cannot
be a track. It must be a path.

Best, Peter Elderson


Op wo 10 jun. 2020 om 00:13 schreef Tod Fitch :

>
>
> On Jun 9, 2020, at 2:22 PM, Mike Thompson  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 3:02 PM brad  wrote:
>
>> A track does have a different function, it can handle a 2 track vehicle,
>> a path can't.
>>
> Yes, a "track" has a different function, its function is for agriculture
> or forestry.
>
> A wide path on the other hand has the same function as a narrow path.
>
>
>> If functional is sacrosanct,  why do we have motorway?   A motorway could
>> just be a trunk or primary with extra tags denoting limited access.
>>
> That is a good question.  But it was stated on this list just a couple of
> weeks ago that the highway=* tag was a functional classification, "except
> for motorway"
>
>
> In my rendering of hiking maps I currently have to look at 13 tags and
> their values to make a decision if a “path” or “footway” might be what I
> want to render. This is ridiculous. It is neither easy for the mapper nor
> the renderer.
>
> On the motor vehicle side this would be the equivalent of saying all ways
> intended for cars should be mapped as highway=road and we can distinguish
> them by using surface, width, smoothness, maximum speed, etc.
>
> I think we need some more values for the highway tag that would allow a
> mapper to easily tag:
>
> 1) A narrow rural trail where you probably want good footwear and are
> likely to take a small pack with water, snacks, etc.
> 2) A smooth hard surfaced walk, usually in or near urban/suburban areas)
> suitable for pushing a stroller.
> 3) A wide fairly smooth way (usually in or near urban/suburban areas)
> designed for getting exercise. Probably not paved, but with a natural
> appearing surface that is maintained to be fairly smooth.
>
> In my part of the world many of those things are general purpose (mixed
> foot and bicycle use and often horses). Mappers end up using highway tag
> values of path, footway, track, and, rarely, cycleway or bridlepath. If we
> are lucky they might put a surface tag or some access tags on it. It is a
> mess. Hard for a beginning mapper to decide what tags to use. Hard for a
> data consumer to figure out what the mapper was trying to map.
>
> The two major factions seem to be set in their ways: “It is only a track
> if it is used for agriculture or forestry” on one side. “It has the same
> physical characteristics as a track, so it is a track even if it is
> currently used for hiking, bicycling, riding horses, or by ATVs” on the
> other side.
>
> That also spills into is it a track or a service (driveway)? Depends on if
> it goes to a barn or a house! But I can’t tell without trespassing, how can
> I map it?
>
> First step, I think, is to be less pedantic about function on things that
> look exactly like a track. Mappers in all the areas I’ve looked at will tag
> a way that is unpaved and about the width of a four wheeled vehicle as a
> track regardless of current use. Maybe it is being used as a driveway.
> Maybe it is being used as a bicycling/hiking/equestrian trail. Maybe it
> accesses a field. Maybe it hasn’t been used for a while and just hasn’t
> decayed or been overgrown into nothing. Who knows? But it looks like a
> track. Saying that the way “isn’t for forestry or agricultural use” so it
> can’t be a track is worthless: Real world mappers have voted otherwise with
> their tagging.
>
> Cheers!
> Tod
>
>
> ___
> 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] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Jun 9, 2020, 21:53 by bradha...@fastmail.com:

> It already says this:
>  "Some > highway > => track> 
>  are used for various leisure activities - hiking, cycling, or asjeep/ATV 
> trails."
>  on the track wiki.  > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack
>  
>  I propose changing the path page from this:
>  "If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), andit 
> is not legally signposted or otherwise only allowed forpedestrians, 
> cyclists or horseriders, it is often better tagged as a > highway 
> > => track 
> >  or > highway 
> > => service 
> > ."
>  
>  to this:
>  "If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), itis 
> often better tagged as a > highway 
> > => track 
> >  or > highway 
> > => service 
> > ."
>  
>  > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath
>
Many highway=path are 2m+ and not used as access to fields or for forestry use.

And if something is used as access to fields or for forestry use and car-sized 
vehicle
can fit there it already fulfills definition of a track. 

>  To clarify, we could change the track page from this:
>  "This > tag >  represents roads for 
>mostly agricultural use, forest tracks etc.; often unpaved(unsealed) 
> but may apply to paved tracks as well, that are suitablefor > two> -track 
> vehicles, such as tractors or jeeps." 
>  to this:
>  "This > tag >  represents roads for 
>agricultural use, forest tracks, > recreation> , etc.; oftenunpaved 
> (unsealed) but may apply to paved tracks as well, that aresuitable for > 
> two> -track vehicles, such as tractors or jeeps." 
>
I am not convinced that starting to tag larger cycleways as highway=track would 
be improvement.

I deeply dislike entire concept of highway=track (IMHO it is a big mistake 
together with highway=path),
but this would make it even worse.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail

[Colin Smale]

When I just checked around Gunnersbury I noticed that someone is already
retagging the London Underground to electrified=4th_rail so this
discussion is probably already irrelevant 

On 2020-06-09 23:12, Michael Reichert wrote:

> Hi Colin,
> 
> Am 09/06/2020 um 15.36 schrieb Colin Smale: 
> 
>> Great idea. Not sure about using "3rd" and "4th" though - it's a bit
>> tightly coupled to the English language and possibly prone to error.
>> Wouldn't "3rail" and "4rail" fit the bill? 
>> 
>> Actually, as electrified=rail is so widely used at present, how about
>> making that explicitly "3rd rail" and introducing a new value for the
>> 4-rail system?
> 
> I am in favour of splitting "rail" into two new values for systems with
> a 3rd and a 4th rail (no matter how it is spelled exactly in the value).
> Currently all 3rd rail and 4th rail systems are tagged as "rail", aren't
> they? If we followed your suggestion, "rail" would mean "3rd rail or 4th
> rail system" and "4th rail" would mean "guaranteed 4th rail system".
> It's a bit like "yes" is a incomplete value for electrified=* which
> should be replaced by a more precise value like contact_line if one
> knows it.

It would have the heuristic advantage of already being right in almost
all cases, thus minimising the re-tagging effort. 4-rail systems are
quite rare actually, and well-localised. 

>> How would we indicate the voltage/frequency of the two rails
>> independently? On the London Underground it's mostly +420/-210 (these
>> days +500/-250) but there are some areas where +750/0 is used
>> (Richmond-Gunnersbury for example).
> 
> Is voltage=* used on that lines as the difference between positive and
> negative, i.e. voltage = 750 = 500 - (-250)?

Yes it is at present, giving no way of distinguishing between +500/-250
and +750/0. The reason for using +750/0 is that the track is shared
between 3-rail and 4-rail trains, both operating at 750V. Normal
"Underground" track electrified at +500/-250 would only give 500V to
these trains, and the running rails are not intended to carry the return
current. The track signalling would probably get upset. So this
distinction is necessary to show (in)compatibility between sorts of
trains. 

An obvious (but probably controversial) candidate would be
voltage=500;-250 - How about voltage:outer=500, voltage:centre=-250? 

>> While we are at it, could we take the opportunity to find a way to
>> represent three-phase dual-overhead systems (Switzerland etc) as well?
> For readers being confused: Gornergratbahn in Zermatt uses it.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gornergrat_Railway

And indeed the Jungfrau. It is currently tagged as voltage=1125,
frequency=50, electrified=contact_line which is correct but incomplete. 

We are missing two characteristics here. Firstly that there are two
overhead wires instead of one, and secondly that the power supply is
3-phase instead of single-phase. 

Might I also mention that we don't have a "clean" way of tagging for
dual electrification? I know of plenty of cases of 3rd-rail DC combined
with a overhead line, sometimes for transitioning from one system to the
other, and sometimes to accommodate different stock on the same lines
such as heavy rail on overhead power and metro on 3rd rail.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Mike Thompson]

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 3:02 PM brad  wrote:

> A track does have a different function, it can handle a 2 track vehicle, a
> path can't.
>
Yes, a "track" has a different function, its function is for agriculture or
forestry.

A wide path on the other hand has the same function as a narrow path.


> If functional is sacrosanct,  why do we have motorway?   A motorway could
> just be a trunk or primary with extra tags denoting limited access.
>
That is a good question.  But it was stated on this list just a couple of
weeks ago that the highway=* tag was a functional classification, "except
for motorway"
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail

[Michael Reichert]

Hi Colin,

Am 09/06/2020 um 15.36 schrieb Colin Smale:
> Great idea. Not sure about using "3rd" and "4th" though - it's a bit
> tightly coupled to the English language and possibly prone to error.
> Wouldn't "3rail" and "4rail" fit the bill? 
> 
> Actually, as electrified=rail is so widely used at present, how about
> making that explicitly "3rd rail" and introducing a new value for the
> 4-rail system?

I am in favour of splitting "rail" into two new values for systems with
a 3rd and a 4th rail (no matter how it is spelled exactly in the value).
Currently all 3rd rail and 4th rail systems are tagged as "rail", aren't
they? If we followed your suggestion, "rail" would mean "3rd rail or 4th
rail system" and "4th rail" would mean "guaranteed 4th rail system".
It's a bit like "yes" is a incomplete value for electrified=* which
should be replaced by a more precise value like contact_line if one
knows it.

> How would we indicate the voltage/frequency of the two rails
> independently? On the London Underground it's mostly +420/-210 (these
> days +500/-250) but there are some areas where +750/0 is used
> (Richmond-Gunnersbury for example). 

Is voltage=* used on that lines as the difference between positive and
negative, i.e. voltage = 750 = 500 - (-250)?

> While we are at it, could we take the opportunity to find a way to
> represent three-phase dual-overhead systems (Switzerland etc) as well?
For readers being confused: Gornergratbahn in Zermatt uses it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gornergrat_Railway

Best regards

Michael



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

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[brad]

A track does have a different function, it can handle a 2 track vehicle, 
a path can't.


If functional is sacrosanct,  why do we have motorway?   A motorway 
could just be a trunk or primary with extra tags denoting limited access.


On 6/9/20 2:11 PM, Mike Thompson wrote:



On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 1:55 PM brad > wrote:

>
> It already says this:
> "Some highway=track are used for various leisure activities - 
hiking, cycling, or as jeep/ATV trails. "
> on the track wiki. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack
Right, there is nothing that says that a track cannot be used for 
additional purposes, only that its primary function is agricultural or 
forestry.


> I propose changing the path page from this:
> "If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), and 
it is not legally signposted or otherwise only allowed for 
pedestrians, cyclists or horseriders, it is often better tagged as a 
highway=track or highway=service. "

>
> to this:
> "If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), it 
is often better tagged as a highway=track or highway=service. "
1) So we are getting away from the whole notion of "functional 
classification"?  highway=track will only be a proxy for some 
physical/legal access characteristics?
2) If we are going to use this definition I would propose stronger 
language than "often better tagged", perhaps "should almost always be 
tagged."


Mike

___
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] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Mike Thompson]

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 1:55 PM brad  wrote:
>
> It already says this:
> "Some highway=track are used for various leisure activities - hiking,
cycling, or as jeep/ATV trails. "
> on the track wiki.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack
Right, there is nothing that says that a track cannot be used for
additional purposes, only that its primary function is agricultural or
forestry.

> I propose changing the path page from this:
> "If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), and it
is not legally signposted or otherwise only allowed for pedestrians,
cyclists or horseriders, it is often better tagged as a highway=track or
highway=service. "
>
> to this:
> "If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), it is
often better tagged as a highway=track or highway=service. "
1) So we are getting away from the whole notion of "functional
classification"?  highway=track will only be a proxy for some
physical/legal access characteristics?
2) If we are going to use this definition I would propose stronger language
than "often better tagged", perhaps "should almost always be tagged."

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

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> I propose changing the path page...

Disagree. A track is primarily used for agriculture, forestry or related
activities.

A path is primarily used by people on foot, on bicycles, or on horseback.

While most paths are narrow, because those 3 means of transportation do not
require a wide roadway, there are many paths which are 3 to 4 meters wide,
where motor vehicles can theoretically access them, but they are not
agricultural or forestry tracks, but are designed and used as multi-use
paths.

Consider that the average sidewalk is 3 meters wide in most developed
cities, which is plenty wide to drive a small car down it. That is not a
highway=track, its a sidewalk.

Most paths and footways in urban parks are more than 2 meters wide. They
are not tracks.

– Joseph Eisenberg

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 12:55 PM brad  wrote:

> It already says this:
> "Some highway =track are
> used for various leisure activities - hiking, cycling, or as jeep/ATV
> trails. "
> on the track wiki.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack
>
> I propose changing the path page from this:
> "If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), and it is
> not legally signposted or otherwise only allowed for pedestrians, cyclists
> or horseriders, it is often better tagged as a highway
> =track
>  or highway
> =service
> . "
>
> to this:
> "If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), it is
> often better tagged as a highway
> =track
>  or highway
> =service
> . "
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath
>
> To clarify, we could change the track page from this:
> "This tag  represents roads for
> mostly agricultural use, forest tracks etc.; often unpaved (unsealed) but
> may apply to paved tracks as well, that are suitable for *two*-track
> vehicles, such as tractors or jeeps."
> to this:
> "This tag  represents roads for
> agricultural use, forest tracks, *recreation*, etc.; often unpaved
> (unsealed) but may apply to paved tracks as well, that are suitable for
> *two*-track vehicles, such as tractors or jeeps. "
>
> On 6/9/20 11:52 AM, Mike Thompson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 8:43 AM Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
> >
> > If the way is used by "law enforcement, emergency, and maintenance
> staff" motor vehicles then I'd tag it highway=track and if it's designated
> for walking then foot=designated + motor_vehicle=private, since it's wide
> enough and occasionally used by vehicles, even for a path that is mostly
> used for walking.
> This is just the opposite advice I got on this list about a similar
> situation a couple of weeks ago. As a community we need to have some
> consistency.  There is another user (other than I or cosmocatalano) who is
> going around making the exact opposite changes as cosmocatalano.  If the
> community agrees with you and cosmocatalano, I will map accordingly and
> make changes in my local area along those lines, but I don't want to have
> the same conversation here two weeks from now.
>
> > you'd need to still indicate it's usable by motor vehicle
> width= +
> smoothness=very_bad/bad/intermediate/good/excellent
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 00:32, Mike Thompson  wrote:
>>
>>> I know we have had this discussion before, but perhaps some of you that
>>> are more elegant (and diplomatic) can comment on:
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/85034574
>>>
>>>
>>> These ways exist only to provide recreation to those on foot, bicycle or
>>> horseback.  One will occasionally see a park maintenance vehicle, such as a
>>> side by side ATV (I don't think one could even get a regular four wheeled
>>> vehicle back there.), but the public is not allowed to operate motor
>>> vehicles on these ways.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging 

Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

[Andy Mabbett]

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 12:14, Janko Mihelić  wrote:

> Photos of buildings are even more notable then photos of bicycle parking,
> so I'll try and take photos of a few buildings and see how that goes.
>
> I probably won't be creating a category for each building, so then I will be
> linking to those pictures with the image=* tag, right?

You might like this tool:

   https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikishootme/

which will tell you whether the buildings you photograph have an entry
in Wikidata, and whether or not that entry has an image; if not, once
you upload your image to Commons, you can also link to it from
Wikidata.

(Although it can be used as I describe above, its primary purpose is
to find, for a given location, nearby Wikidata items that lack
images.)

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[brad]

It already says this:
"Some highway =track 
are used for various leisure activities - hiking, cycling, or as 
jeep/ATV trails. "

on the track wiki. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack

I propose changing the path page from this:
"If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), and it 
is not legally signposted or otherwise only allowed for pedestrians, 
cyclists or horseriders, it is often better tagged as a highway 
=track 
 or highway 
=service 
. "


to this:
"If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), it is 
often better tagged as a highway 
=track 
 or highway 
=service 
. "


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath

To clarify, we could change the track page from this:
"This tag  represents roads for 
mostly agricultural use, forest tracks etc.; often unpaved (unsealed) 
but may apply to paved tracks as well, that are suitable for /two/-track 
vehicles, such as tractors or jeeps."

to this:
"This tag  represents roads for 
agricultural use, forest tracks, *recreation*, etc.; often unpaved 
(unsealed) but may apply to paved tracks as well, that are suitable for 
/two/-track vehicles, such as tractors or jeeps. "


On 6/9/20 11:52 AM, Mike Thompson wrote:



On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 8:43 AM Andrew Harvey > wrote:

>
> If the way is used by "law enforcement, emergency, and maintenance 
staff" motor vehicles then I'd tag it highway=track and if it's 
designated for walking then foot=designated + motor_vehicle=private, 
since it's wide enough and occasionally used by vehicles, even for a 
path that is mostly used for walking.
This is just the opposite advice I got on this list about a similar 
situation a couple of weeks ago. As a community we need to have some 
consistency.  There is another user (other than I or cosmocatalano) 
who is going around making the exact opposite changes as 
cosmocatalano.  If the community agrees with you and cosmocatalano, I 
will map accordingly and make changes in my local area along those 
lines, but I don't want to have the same conversation here two weeks 
from now.


> you'd need to still indicate it's usable by motor vehicle
width= + 
smoothness=very_bad/bad/intermediate/good/excellent





On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 00:32, Mike Thompson mailto:miketh...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I know we have had this discussion before, but perhaps some of
you that are more elegant (and diplomatic) can comment on:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/85034574


These ways exist only to provide recreation to those on foot,
bicycle or horseback.  One will occasionally see a park
maintenance vehicle, such as a side by side ATV (I don't think
one could even get a regular four wheeled vehicle back
there.), but the public is not allowed to operate motor
vehicles on these ways.

Mike

___
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

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Yves]

My own simple definition, I may be wrong but that's how I map it :
If there is two line on the ground indicating that a 4 wheel vehicle went 
trough, it's a highway=track.
Yves ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Mark Wagner]

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 11:01:30 -0600
brad  wrote:

> I think if it's wide enough for a normal motor vehicle and is open
> for that, even if only service & emergency, it should not be =path.
> track or service

In the United States, and probably in most other common-law countries,
*everything* is open to emergency vehicles.  The "emergency" tag is
really only useful in variants like "emergency=designated", since it's
legal for them to go anywhere they can physically fit.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Mike Thompson]

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 8:43 AM Andrew Harvey 
wrote:
>
> If the way is used by "law enforcement, emergency, and maintenance staff"
motor vehicles then I'd tag it highway=track and if it's designated for
walking then foot=designated + motor_vehicle=private, since it's wide
enough and occasionally used by vehicles, even for a path that is mostly
used for walking.
This is just the opposite advice I got on this list about a similar
situation a couple of weeks ago. As a community we need to have some
consistency.  There is another user (other than I or cosmocatalano) who is
going around making the exact opposite changes as cosmocatalano.  If the
community agrees with you and cosmocatalano, I will map accordingly and
make changes in my local area along those lines, but I don't want to have
the same conversation here two weeks from now.

> you'd need to still indicate it's usable by motor vehicle
width= +
smoothness=very_bad/bad/intermediate/good/excellent




On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 00:32, Mike Thompson  wrote:
>
>> I know we have had this discussion before, but perhaps some of you that
>> are more elegant (and diplomatic) can comment on:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/85034574
>>
>>
>> These ways exist only to provide recreation to those on foot, bicycle or
>> horseback.  One will occasionally see a park maintenance vehicle, such as a
>> side by side ATV (I don't think one could even get a regular four wheeled
>> vehicle back there.), but the public is not allowed to operate motor
>> vehicles on these ways.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Mike Thompson]

OnTue, Jun 9, 2020 at 11:03 AM brad  wrote:
>
> I think if it's wide enough for a normal motor vehicle and is open for
that, even if only service & emergency, it should not be =path.   track or
service
in an emergency, almost everything is open to some authority using vehicles
of some sort. Even wilderness areas, which normally prohibit all motorized
vehicles, allows their use in "life threatening situations"[0]

[0] https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd511707.pdf
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[brad]

I think if it's wide enough for a normal motor vehicle and is open for 
that, even if only service & emergency, it should not be =path.   track 
or service


On 6/9/20 8:42 AM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
If the way is used by "law enforcement, emergency, and maintenance 
staff" motor vehicles then I'd tag it highway=track and if it's 
designated for walking then foot=designated + 
motor_vehicle=private, since it's wide enough and occasionally used by 
vehicles, even for a path that is mostly used for walking. If you tag 
it as highway=path then you'd need to still indicate it's usable by 
motor vehicle with motor_vehicles=private (though that's only the 
legal use, not sure how you'd then tag the physical ability for it to 
accommodate motor vehicles).




On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 00:32, Mike Thompson > wrote:


I know we have had this discussion before, but perhaps some of you
that are more elegant (and diplomatic) can comment on:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/85034574


These ways exist only to provide recreation to those on foot,
bicycle or horseback.  One will occasionally see a park
maintenance vehicle, such as a side by side ATV (I don't think one
could even get a regular four wheeled vehicle back there.), but
the public is not allowed to operate motor vehicles on these ways.

Mike

___
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 - electric_bicycle and speed_pedelec

[Jan Michel]

On 09.06.20 17:37, Volker Schmidt wrote:

an S-pedelec is a Light Moped, [...]
mofa (which I presume is a Light Moped in OSM)


No, most speed pedelecs are more like mopeds (limited to 45 km/h)
than mofas (limited to 25 km/h).



For the Tuebingen example one could use moped:electric=yes


This misses the fact that there are also classic mopeds with
an electric motor. These are not allowed in the Tübingen tunnel
and are in many places different to speed pedelecs, e.g. they
are not sold and serviced in typical bicycle shops while speed-
pedelecs are.


Can you indicate any situation where the new tags will be used and the existing 
categories don't work?


As it is stated in the proposal, if the vehicle is treated identically
to any of the traditional vehicles (moped, bicycle, mofa), then this
traditional key should be used.
The new keys are solely for situations where the difference matters.
This can be cases with explicit traffic signs (see Tübingen), shops,
amenities and so on.
There is no conflilct with existing vehicle categories - if a road is
closed for e.g. moped, this immediately applies to speed-pedelecs as
well (at least in EU countries that have this legislature), no new tag
is needed.



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - electric_bicycle and speed_pedelec

[Volker Schmidt]

I missed the voting deadline.-my apologies.

I only today had time to look for official EU documentation and found this EU
fact sheet

that clearly supports the Wikipedia article I quoted earlier.
They use the term "electrical cycle" or "electrical bike" clearly for three
different types of vehicle and state that this is binding for all EU
countries (for a quick overview see the row of images in the upper part of
page 2.)
So, PLEASE lets reconsider this, even if already voted.

But even more generally, I fear we make a big mistake  introducing asny ny
tags for electrical bicycles. For access purpose we do not need neither of
the two new approved tags, at least in the EU, as the terms are clearly
mapped on existing categories:

   - a Pedelec is a Bicycle,
   - an S-pedelec is a Light Moped,
   - an E-bike with an accelerator grip is a Moped

We already have the keys bicycle, mofa (which I presume is a Light Moped in
OSM), and moped, so in which situations do you want to use the new tag
(apart form the naming error) highlighted above. The lawmakers have
deliberately mapped the new electrified bikes onto existing categories in
order not to have to rewrite all regulations.

Can you indicate any situation where the new tags will be used and the
existing categories don't work?

Of the examples given on the proposal page, only the the rental example may
need a new tag, even though we have already capacity:electric
For the Tuebingen example one could use moped:electric=yes
The same construction would work for the Belgium example.

By the way a similar problem must exist for motor_vehicles in general, with
the added complication that there may be more qualifiers: (fully electric,
hybrid, Diesel, petrol, and others) 

Regards

Volker

Volker


On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 at 13:56, Jan Michel  wrote:

> Voting has ended after 14 days. There were 28 votes, 27 'yes' and one
> 'abstain'.
> This means, the two keywords 'electric_bicycle' and 'speed_pedelec' have
> been approved for use and two new vehicle categories have been
> introduced. Let's see how this works out in our daily mapping tasks.
>
> There were some comments raised about the system used in some US states
> - unfortunately this wasn't mentioned during the 7 months of RFC. The
> system forsees three classes, numbered 1 to 3. To cope with this, I
> suggest to amend the 'electric_bicycle' tag with sub-categories like
> 'electric_bicycle:class2". I will leave this to a separate proposal,
> preferably written by someone more familiar with these classes.
>
> Thank you very much for your participation!
> Jan
>
>
> On 23.05.20 16:37, Jan Michel wrote:
> > The proposal for keywords for electric bicycles is now open for voting:
> >
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ElectricBicycles
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Andrew Harvey]

If the way is used by "law enforcement, emergency, and maintenance staff"
motor vehicles then I'd tag it highway=track and if it's designated for
walking then foot=designated + motor_vehicle=private, since it's wide
enough and occasionally used by vehicles, even for a path that is mostly
used for walking. If you tag it as highway=path then you'd need to still
indicate it's usable by motor vehicle with motor_vehicles=private (though
that's only the legal use, not sure how you'd then tag the physical ability
for it to accommodate motor vehicles).



On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 00:32, Mike Thompson  wrote:

> I know we have had this discussion before, but perhaps some of you that
> are more elegant (and diplomatic) can comment on:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/85034574
>
>
> These ways exist only to provide recreation to those on foot, bicycle or
> horseback.  One will occasionally see a park maintenance vehicle, such as a
> side by side ATV (I don't think one could even get a regular four wheeled
> vehicle back there.), but the public is not allowed to operate motor
> vehicles on these ways.
>
> Mike
>
> ___
> 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] Help explain the difference between path and track

[Mike Thompson]

I know we have had this discussion before, but perhaps some of you that are
more elegant (and diplomatic) can comment on:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/85034574


These ways exist only to provide recreation to those on foot, bicycle or
horseback.  One will occasionally see a park maintenance vehicle, such as a
side by side ATV (I don't think one could even get a regular four wheeled
vehicle back there.), but the public is not allowed to operate motor
vehicles on these ways.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail

[Colin Smale]

Great idea. Not sure about using "3rd" and "4th" though - it's a bit
tightly coupled to the English language and possibly prone to error.
Wouldn't "3rail" and "4rail" fit the bill? 

Actually, as electrified=rail is so widely used at present, how about
making that explicitly "3rd rail" and introducing a new value for the
4-rail system?

How would we indicate the voltage/frequency of the two rails
independently? On the London Underground it's mostly +420/-210 (these
days +500/-250) but there are some areas where +750/0 is used
(Richmond-Gunnersbury for example). 

While we are at it, could we take the opportunity to find a way to
represent three-phase dual-overhead systems (Switzerland etc) as well? 

Colin 

On 2020-06-09 10:13, Garry Keenor wrote:

> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/3rd_and_4th_rail  
> 
> Definition: A track electrified with a 4th rail system, with two additional 
> rails on insulators and two shoe pickup by the train, and traction current 
> returning via one of the insulated rails  
> 
> best regards, 
> 
> Garry 
> ___
> 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] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 13:44, Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:

>
> Could we do similar with torn-up railways?
>
> Then the parts where rails or railbed are actually remaining could be
> railway=abandoned or whatever, and parts with nothing remaining could
> be plain ways in a relation like https://osm.org/way/498608783
>

As I recall, the example Warin was complaining about was part of a
relation linking sections of defunct railway in different states
(razed, abandoned, etc.)  It would certainly be possible to deal
with portions that have been converted to roads, cycleways or
footpaths by inserting them into the relation as what they are,
rather than what they were (preferably with some tag indicating
they followed the route of the former railway).  That might
get rid of some of the objections.

That doesn't get around the problem of sections where buildings or
fields or whatever have replaced the former railway.  I doubt that
argument will be settled as easily.

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Jun 9, 2020, 14:42 by ja...@piorkowski.ca:

> On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 07:56, Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 04:08, Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:
>>
>>> Yet we wouldn't map Watling Street in OSM with a way tagged as
>>> roman_road=demolished nor roman_road=razed nor roman_road=abandoned
>>>
>>
>> Nope.  We'd map the portions that are existing ways like this:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7063236
>>
>
> Could we do similar with torn-up railways?
>
> Then the parts where rails or railbed are actually remaining could be
> railway=abandoned or whatever, and parts with nothing remaining could
> be plain ways in a relation like > https://osm.org/way/498608783
>
No. I am OK with extreme broad interpretation of what counts as
remain of railway allowing it to map.

But mapping where nothing at all is remaining is clearly out of scope of 
OSM.

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 07:56, Paul Allen  wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 04:08, Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:
>> Yet we wouldn't map Watling Street in OSM with a way tagged as
>> roman_road=demolished nor roman_road=razed nor roman_road=abandoned
>
> Nope.  We'd map the portions that are existing ways like this:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7063236

Could we do similar with torn-up railways?

Then the parts where rails or railbed are actually remaining could be
railway=abandoned or whatever, and parts with nothing remaining could
be plain ways in a relation like https://osm.org/way/498608783

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 09:16, Garry Keenor  wrote:

> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/3rd_and_4th_rail
>
> Definition: A track electrified with a 4th rail system, with two
> additional rails on insulators and two shoe pickup by the train, and
> traction current returning via one of the insulated rails
>

Discouraging electrified=yes seems too harsh.  Suggesting that more detail
be given if it is possible for the mapper to ascertain it is one thing.
Discouraging electrified=yes may result in some lines not
being mapped as electrified.  It is preferable to define it more closely
if possible, but electrified=yes is preferable to not mapping it as
being electrified because the mapper cannot ascertain which system
is in use.

Yes, a passenger ought to have the opportunity to ascertain this in
most cases, but armchair mappers do not.  They can determine
from operator web sites that the line runs electric trains but not
the type of electrification.

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 13:02, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> Jun 9, 2020, 13:55 by pla16...@gmail.com:
>
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 04:08, Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:
>
>
> Yet we wouldn't map Watling Street in OSM with a way tagged as
> roman_road=demolished nor roman_road=razed nor roman_road=abandoned
>
>
> Nope.  We'd map the portions that are existing ways like this:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7063236
>
> If it is mapping just still existing ways, why it has "conjectural=yes"
> tag?
>

That is a non-sequitur.  The ways exist and have been mapped.  The route,
which consists of those ways, has been marked as conjectural.  How
much of it is conjectural could be a very tiny fraction of it.

>
> For mapping of just still existing ways it seems to be suspiciously
> well matching modern infrastructure like for example in
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7063236#map=18/51.39839/0.45684
>

Yes, roads that have been improved tend to follow their old route.
Occasionally,
however, a road improvement (using machinery unavailable to the Romans)
includes a slight diversion.  Sometimes the diversion retains the name and
the original route is prefixed with "Old." Mainly, though, the routes of
roads
go back many centuries to days when they were little more than cart tracks.

>
> In other words, it seems to be a clear case of mapping guessed route of
> formerm
> historic no longer existing object.
>

It has as much (or as little) existence as a walking route.  It certainly
has more
existence than a walking route without signs, as there are plenty of street
signs
for it.

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Jun 9, 2020, 13:55 by pla16...@gmail.com:

> On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 04:08, Jarek Piórkowski <> ja...@piorkowski.ca> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Yet we wouldn't map Watling Street in OSM with a way tagged as
>>  roman_road=demolished nor roman_road=razed nor roman_road=abandoned
>>
>
> Nope.  We'd map the portions that are existing ways like this:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7063236
>
If it is mapping just still existing ways, why it has "conjectural=yes" tag?

For mapping of just still existing ways it seems to be suspiciously
well matching modern infrastructure like for example in
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7063236#map=18/51.39839/0.45684

In other words, it seems to be a clear case of mapping guessed route of formerm
historic no longer existing object.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 04:08, Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:

>
> Yet we wouldn't map Watling Street in OSM with a way tagged as
> roman_road=demolished nor roman_road=razed nor roman_road=abandoned
>

Nope.  We'd map the portions that are existing ways like this:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7063236

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

Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 09:24, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> But :conditional = yes @ some text does not meet the
> specification of :conditional as per the wiki.
>

From
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Access_time_and_other_conditional_restrictions

For a full description and more examples, please see the conditional
restrictions page.

The page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions
isn't as clear as it could be in defining the syntax.  I went by these
examples:

Road condition: For example, *wet*, *snow*. It is noted that the condition
*wet* corresponds to *:wet* in e.g. maxspeed:wet

=*. Using *wet* as a condition is recommended in order to streamline the
syntax of restriction tags ("maxspeed:wet" was introduced at a time when no
proper way of tagging conditional restrictions existed).

User group: The restriction relates to a specific user group, e.g. doctor,
disabled, emergency, female.

>From those, it appears that the condition is free-form text except for cases
like opening hours.

-- 
Paul


Is there anything to say :conditional will accept text entries
> and those are be used by any render?
>

I've not done any digging.  Are you aware of any conditional applying to any
tag which affects the rendering?  As far as I can see, the standard map
renders as though the condition were not met.  How would you expect the
renderer to show it?  The only options are show it as condition not met;
show it as condition met; and show it in some weird hybrid form (which
would have to be specifically coded for most possible hybrids).

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

Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

[European Water Project]

Dear Martin,

Yes.

In November/December I will start working on an image workflow which will
make Commons the image storage repository for all our and have the
OpenStreetMap object point to the corresponding wikimedia_commons tag.

Best regards,

Stuart

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 12:20, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 8. Jun 2020, at 11:53, European Water Project <
> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Which is why we seek to store user contributed images on Wikimedia
> Commons (if they will accept them) rather than on our server.
>
>
> +1, I completely agree, of all available options wikimedia commons seems a
> good choice wrt openness and supposed stability/permanence.
> Are you planning to change the image tags in OpenStreetMap after uploading
> the pictures to commons? (I have noticed that currently they are pointing
> to your server).
>
> 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] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Jun 9, 2020, 10:46 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 9. Jun 2020, at 03:40, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Similar for Roamn and Saxon sites, if there is something present today, map 
>> it... nothing there then nothing on OSM, put it in OHM
>>
>
>
> Warin, can you give an example for something historic that is not there any 
> more in reality and should be removed from OpenStreetMap? Through all the 
> years I have never encountered anything like this mapped in OpenStreetMap.
>
For example, I removed historic railway mapped where all evidence was removed 
by open pit mine.

Maybe more depending on whatever you could "old building/closed shop/dismantled 
spur railway/
closed school" as historic.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 8. Jun 2020, at 11:53, European Water Project 
>  wrote:
> 
> Which is why we seek to store user contributed images on Wikimedia Commons 
> (if they will accept them) rather than on our server. 


+1, I completely agree, of all available options wikimedia commons seems a good 
choice wrt openness and supposed stability/permanence.
Are you planning to change the image tags in OpenStreetMap after uploading the 
pictures to commons? (I have noticed that currently they are pointing to your 
server).

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[s8evq]

Here's another historic object no longer visible:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/297086978

I have to be honest, I didn't check the whole traject for possible visible 
remains.
But in the fields east and west of approximately this point 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/297086978#map=18/51.03787/3.07420) I saw 
nothing on the ground and nothing visible in the different aerial images. Not 
even in the hillshade elevation maps available there.

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 10:46:24 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer  
wrote:

> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
> > On 9. Jun 2020, at 03:40, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Similar for Roamn and Saxon sites, if there is something present today, map 
> > it... nothing there then nothing on OSM, put it in OHM
> 
> 
> Warin, can you give an example for something historic that is not there any 
> more in reality and should be removed from OpenStreetMap? Through all the 
> years I have never encountered anything like this mapped in OpenStreetMap.
> 
> 
> 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] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 8. Jun 2020, at 18:14, Alan Mackie  wrote:
> 
> Last I heard it was "mostly harmless".


the less dangerous an area is, the more the remaining dangers will be 
emphasized. Let’s tag normalized dangerousness ;-)

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9. Jun 2020, at 03:40, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Similar for Roamn and Saxon sites, if there is something present today, map 
> it... nothing there then nothing on OSM, put it in OHM


Warin, can you give an example for something historic that is not there any 
more in reality and should be removed from OpenStreetMap? Through all the years 
I have never encountered anything like this mapped in OpenStreetMap.


Cheers Martin 



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

Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

[Warin]

On 9/6/20 1:10 pm, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 22:13, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 8/6/20 10:14 pm, Paul Allen wrote:

 access=no
 access:conditional=yes @ (above water)

Conditional key does not look to have text base entry ... might be better to 
use opening hours?
opening_hours= "above water" ???

:conditional is widely used for mapping:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=conditional



But :conditional = yes @ some text does not meet the specification of 
:conditional as per the wiki.
Is there anything to say :conditional will accept text entries and 
those are be used by any render?
The key opening_hours does accept text based entries as per the wiki. I think 
some renders do accept the text entries?


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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail

[Garry Keenor]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/3rd_and_4th_rail

Definition: A track electrified with a 4th rail system, with two additional
rails on insulators and two shoe pickup by the train, and traction current
returning via one of the insulated rails

best regards,

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