Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Green alley

[- -]

***Ops: this feature is not currently subject to a vote. Wrong subject,
sorry all. Current status is RFC.***

Thank you for your welcome.

Is it just about signposted and officially recognized places?
> Or is it supposed to be similar to tree_lined tag.
>

They are indeed signposted and officially recognized places.

How mapper is supposed to distinguish
> where it is done by local residents and one
> where it is done by city?
>

Every green alley I know have been initiated by local residents, then have
received some help by the city, but other cities have their own ways. Would
this distinction be important?

Is it possible that such green alley will not include any plants?
> If yes - name is confusing. If no - why mention this bonus equipment as
> distinguishing feature.
>

No, plants are the central aspect of a green alley, but the various
"furniture" is worth a mention, since the alley is also a kind of a
collective achievement (not sure if the phrasing is good, I mean "oeuvre
commune") where citizen fill the space with arts and furniture as they deem
relevant. Like a park: a park is also, most of the time, tree-lined, but it
can also include some public furniture that are worth mentioning if you try
to describe the idea of a park to someone who never saw one.

This concept might be new to many, but it is definitely something that is
recognized by all who live nearby one, and officially signposted and
recognized by the city in it's own maps. It would also be a useful thing to
add to OSM, as many residents or outsiders look forward to them.


Le dim. 16 août 2020 à 03:44, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> a écrit :

> Thanks for posting on mailing list!
>
> Is it just about signposted and officially recognized places?
> Or is it supposed to be similar to tree_lined tag.
>
> How mapper is supposed to distinguish
> where it is done by local residents and one
> where it is done by city?
>
> Why it is using alley=green_alley if
> it is restricted only to some green alleys?
>
> "Some are public art places, furnished with benchs,
> playgrounds for kids, tables, public bookcases or include urban gardening
> spots."
>
> Is it possible that such green alley will not include any plants?
> If yes - name is confusing. If no - why mention this bonus equipment as
> distinguishing feature.
>
> Aug 16, 2020, 00:42 by 162...@gmail.com:
>
> Hi all,
> I'd like to revive an old proposal, namely the "*Green alley*".
> Description:
> A green alley is a service alley that a group of local residents embellish
> with vegetation, such as trees, vines and flowers. This collective effort
> results in a better quality of life for residents in addition to reduce the
> phenomenon of urban heat islands.
>
> Cities with a special program can support these renaturalization efforts
> by providing tools and special materials, or by performing special roadwork
> such as digging holes for plants and trees.
>
> Link to the wiki:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/green_alley
>
> Original discussion on tagging mailing list:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-August/014514.html
>
> Cheers
>
>
> ___
> 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] Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

[Yves]

station:type is still available then.
Yves 

Le 17 août 2020 01:52:12 GMT+02:00, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 a écrit :
>
>
>sent from a phone
>
>> On 17. Aug 2020, at 00:25, Colin Smale  wrote:
>> 
>> Other attributes like the presence of the drive motors, ticket sales etc are 
>> not determinants of the "valley" vs "mountain" labels.
>
>
>I have followed this discussion, my comment was that there may well be other 
>types of these stations, not referring to valley or mountain, but to other 
>properties, and that the distinction top/mid/bottom should better not “occupy” 
>the station type key therefore.
>
>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] Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 17. Aug 2020, at 00:25, Colin Smale  wrote:
> 
> Other attributes like the presence of the drive motors, ticket sales etc are 
> not determinants of the "valley" vs "mountain" labels.


I have followed this discussion, my comment was that there may well be other 
types of these stations, not referring to valley or mountain, but to other 
properties, and that the distinction top/mid/bottom should better not “occupy” 
the station type key therefore.

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

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-08-17 00:12, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> sent from a phone 
> 
>> On 16. Aug 2020, at 15:26, dktue  wrote:
> 
>> Ok, then I'm going to edit the wiki [1] now.
>> 
>> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aerialway=station
> 
> sorry for this late comment, but maybe it would be better to use 
> station:position=top/mid (or middle) / bottom 
> 
> reasoning is that aerialway:station might be wanted for subtypes of the 
> stations (I am not an expert for aerialway station types, but sooner or later 
> someone will come along who is, and even if they decide to use "station" for 
> these potential subtypes, it would still be confusing having also an 
> aerialway:station with different meaning)

The OP's intention was to label the "valley station" and "mountain
station" in machine-readable form (a controlled vocabulary domain). The
discussions about how to distinguish them, showed that the only
significant characteristic is the altitude. Other attributes like the
presence of the drive motors, ticket sales etc are not determinants of
the "valley" vs "mountain" labels.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

>> On 16. Aug 2020, at 15:26, dktue  wrote:
>  Ok, then I'm going to edit the wiki [1] now.
> 
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aerialway=station
> 


sorry for this late comment, but maybe it would be better to use
station:position=top/mid (or middle) / bottom

reasoning is that aerialway:station might be wanted for subtypes of the 
stations (I am not an expert for aerialway station types, but sooner or later 
someone will come along who is, and even if they decide to use “station” for 
these potential subtypes, it would still be confusing having also an 
aerialway:station with different meaning)

Cheers Martin 

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

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 16. Aug 2020, at 13:55, Colin Smale  wrote:
> 
> You can't have a mid terminal, by definition.


right, this is also something that always bothered me with our way of tagging 
ferry stations.

Cheers Martin 



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

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

[dktue]

Ok, then I'm going to edit the wiki [1] now.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aerialway=station


Am 16.08.2020 um 15:07 schrieb Yves:

I derived, not copied :-)
Go on with proposed top, mid & bottom, Dktue.

I tried to be more specific and imply a meaning that is beyond 'the 
station at the top of the aerialway' because us dealing with a geo 
database, it's a bit clumsy to tag this, and I fear the proposal will 
attract some criticism, let see what happens !

Yves

Le 16 août 2020 13:53:31 GMT+02:00, Colin Smale 
 a écrit :


Nope You can't have a mid terminal, by definition. And as
"terminal" is used with similar semantics to "station" here, if
you start with aerialway:station you don't need to include
"terminal" or "station" in the value as well.

That web page doesn't refer at all to the "top station" or the
"bottom station", but it does refer to a "midstation"; I am not
sure what you actually derived from that page?


On 2020-08-15 18:25, Yves wrote:


Had a look at http://www.skilifts.org/old/glossary.htm, came up
with :

Aerialway:station=top_terminal, mid_terminal, bottom_terminal

Yves

___
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] Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

[Yves]

I derived, not copied :-)
Go on with proposed top, mid & bottom, Dktue.

I tried to be more specific and imply a meaning that is beyond 'the station at 
the top of the aerialway' because us dealing with a geo database, it's a bit 
clumsy to tag this, and I fear the proposal will attract some criticism, let 
see what happens !
Yves 

Le 16 août 2020 13:53:31 GMT+02:00, Colin Smale  a écrit 
:
>Nope You can't have a mid terminal, by definition. And as "terminal"
>is used with similar semantics to "station" here, if you start with
>aerialway:station you don't need to include "terminal" or "station" in
>the value as well. 
>
>That web page doesn't refer at all to the "top station" or the "bottom
>station", but it does refer to a "midstation"; I am not sure what you
>actually derived from that page?
>
>On 2020-08-15 18:25, Yves wrote:
>
>> Had a look at http://www.skilifts.org/old/glossary.htm, came up with :
>> 
>> Aerialway:station=top_terminal, mid_terminal, bottom_terminal
>> 
>> Yves 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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] Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

[dktue]

So that would leave us with

    aerialway:station={bottom,mid,top}?

Am 16.08.2020 um 13:53 schrieb Colin Smale:


Nope You can't have a mid terminal, by definition. And as 
"terminal" is used with similar semantics to "station" here, if you 
start with aerialway:station you don't need to include "terminal" or 
"station" in the value as well.


That web page doesn't refer at all to the "top station" or the "bottom 
station", but it does refer to a "midstation"; I am not sure what you 
actually derived from that page?


On 2020-08-15 18:25, Yves wrote:


Had a look at http://www.skilifts.org/old/glossary.htm, came up with :

Aerialway:station=top_terminal, mid_terminal, bottom_terminal

Yves

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

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

[Colin Smale]

Nope You can't have a mid terminal, by definition. And as "terminal"
is used with similar semantics to "station" here, if you start with
aerialway:station you don't need to include "terminal" or "station" in
the value as well. 

That web page doesn't refer at all to the "top station" or the "bottom
station", but it does refer to a "midstation"; I am not sure what you
actually derived from that page?

On 2020-08-15 18:25, Yves wrote:

> Had a look at http://www.skilifts.org/old/glossary.htm, came up with :
> 
> Aerialway:station=top_terminal, mid_terminal, bottom_terminal
> 
> Yves 
> 
> ___
> 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] Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

[Werner . Haag]

I agree, a good proposal and compromise,
Serves the requirement for more intuitive words about altitude (top instead
of head), and also does not use critical
geographic terms like mountain or valley station.

"dktue"  schrieb am 16.08.2020 11:11:44:

> Von: "dktue" 
> An: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Datum: 16.08.2020 11:13
> Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations
>
> Am 15.08.2020 um 18:25 schrieb Yves:
> > Had a look at http://www.skilifts.org/old/glossary.htm, came up with :
> >
> > Aerialway:station=top_terminal, mid_terminal, bottom_terminal
> I'd be totally fine with that aswell.
>
> ___
> 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] tourism=caravan_site versus tourism=camp_site: camping with a tent

[Hidde Wieringa]

Indeed. It is interesting to see that caravan_site is rendered 
conditionally in OpenCampingMap (only when further tags like tents 
tents, caravans, private, groups_only, etc. are given). Camp_sites are 
always rendered as far as I can find [1] [2].


Dalaas caravan_site is not rendered [3] [4], while the caravan_site in 
Murg [5] [6] has tents=yes and is rendered.


Trusting the knowledge behind OpenCampingMap, it would seem that unless 
a caravan_site is tagged specifically with tents=yes, it is not possible 
to camp with a tent on a caravan_site.


This observation is in line with my earlier proposal to make 
caravan_site *not* allow tents/camping by default. If tents are allowed 
("They may also have some space for tents." on the wiki), then the 
caravan_site should be tagged explicitly with tents=yes.
Are there any objections against this proposed change to the 
caravan_site wiki?


Kind regards,/
Hidde
/

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/283021236
[2] https://opencampingmap.org/#17/47.18396/9.25374/1/1/bef
[3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/129861804#map=17/47.12228/9.99663s 


[4] https://opencampingmap.org/#16/47.1235/9.9975/1/1/bef
[5] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/193412043
[6] https://opencampingmap.org/#16/47.1139/9.2110/1/1/bef

/
/

On 16-08-2020 08:16, Warin wrote:

On 15/8/20 4:49 am, Hidde Wieringa wrote:


Good day,

I am having trouble with the tourism tags caravan_site and camp_site, 
specifically for the use case of finding a place to camp with a tent 
(so not a caravan or a camper van).


My goal is to differentiate the two tags. Both tags allow tents, and 
both allow camper vans and caravans. Both tags may or may not provide 
facilities such as toilets, water, electricity, et cetera. In 
practice, the only thing that differentiates a pitch for a tent 
versus a pitch for a caravan or camper van, is the ground underneath 
(tents require some sort of soft material like grass). This 
differentiating property is not mentioned at all in the Wiki.


- The tag tents=yes/no (only listed in the camp_site Wiki) would be a 
good way to find a place to camp with a tent, but almost none of the 
caravan_site have this tag. All camp_sites in OSM I have camped on, 
allowed tents.
- Some of the caravan_site have been tagged with amenity=parking or 
even surface=asphalt and this would mean that camping with a tent is 
definitely not possible.
- I noticed that both of the tags have status 'de facto', and no 
proposals have been made for the definition of said tags. I found an 
abandoned proposal [1] that has a good discussion about camping [2].
- Some camp_sites have a 'nested' polygon with a caravan_site. This 
seems logical, and the caravan_site can be ignored, and the camp_site 
can be used for camping with a tent.


Statistics from TagInfo: camp_site has ~100,000 uses, and 
caravan_site has ~30,000 uses.


I ran a quick Overpass query for a small number of caravan sites 
(~15) [3]. Some of them note on their website that camping with a 
tent is possible, and the surface of the pitches seems to be grass. I 
am wondering if these should be re-tagged as camp_site, or if I am 
missing something.


My opinion would be that a camp_site should allow staying overnight 
with many types of vehicles/tents, indicated by the tags listed 
clearly on the wiki of camp_site. A caravan_site would allow staying 
overnight with vehicles only, and not allow camping with a tent. 
Concretely the sentence "They may also have some space for tents." on 
[4] is the problem. Replacing the sentence on the wiki with "Camping 
with a tent is not possible." would remove any ambiguity 
differentiating these tags.


Any comments are welcome. I am willing to update the wiki or draft a 
proposal for differentiating these two tags, if necessary.


Kind regards,
/Hidde Wieringa/

[1] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site
[2] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#caravan_site_separated.3F 

[3] https://tyrasd.github.io/overpass-turbo 


[4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcaravan_site



The web site https://opencampingmap.org/#10/48.6100/8.2400/0/1/bef is 
an attempt to encourage mapping of camp and caravan site attributes...




___

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Aug 15, 2020, 23:48 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 15. Aug 2020, at 17:33, Arne Johannessen  wrote:
>>
>> Therefore, the tunnel's name is the primary name for that particular way, 
>> and thus belongs into the name=* tag.
>>
>> The full name tagging for a road tunnel should usually look like this:
>>
>> name=The Tunnel
>> highway:name=The Road
>>
>
>
> I would see this as an awkward exception to the whole system if we followed 
> your reasoning and said that in the case of highway=* + a specific property 
> this property would change the semantics and the property would define the 
> feature while the highway (or waterway) would become secondary.
>
> To me it seems clear that a tunnel is often more than just the road leading 
> through it, so that the logical consequence is that the tunnel=yes is 
> interpreted as a thing being inside a tunnel (i.e. tunnel is implicit), just 
> as it is the case with bridges (man_made=bridge is the bridge, bridge=yes 
> means on a bridge).
>
+1 - highway=secondary + tunnel=yes represents road in a tunnel. You can use 
man_made=tunnel
or something similar for tunnel.


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

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

[dktue]

Am 15.08.2020 um 18:25 schrieb Yves:

Had a look at http://www.skilifts.org/old/glossary.htm, came up with :

Aerialway:station=top_terminal, mid_terminal, bottom_terminal

I'd be totally fine with that aswell.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Green alley

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Thanks for posting on mailing list!

Is it just about signposted and officially recognized places?
Or is it supposed to be similar to tree_lined tag.

How mapper is supposed to distinguish
where it is done by local residents and one
where it is done by city?

Why it is using alley=green_alley if
it is restricted only to some green alleys?

"Some are public art places, furnished with benchs,
playgrounds for kids, tables, public bookcases or include urban gardening 
spots."

Is it possible that such green alley will not include any plants?
If yes - name is confusing. If no - why mention this bonus equipment as 
distinguishing feature.

Aug 16, 2020, 00:42 by 162...@gmail.com:

> Hi all,
> I'd like to revive an old proposal, namely the "> Green alley> ".
> Description: 
> A green alley is a service alley that a group of local residents embellish 
> with vegetation, such as trees, vines and flowers. This collective effort 
> results in a better quality of life for residents in addition to reduce the 
> phenomenon of urban heat islands.
>
> Cities with a special program can support these renaturalization efforts by 
> providing tools and special materials, or by performing special roadwork such 
> as digging holes for plants and trees.
>
> Link to the wiki: > 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/green_alley
>
> Original discussion on tagging mailing list: > 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-August/014514.html
>
> Cheers
>

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

Re: [Tagging] tourism=caravan_site versus tourism=camp_site: camping with a tent

[Warin]

On 15/8/20 4:49 am, Hidde Wieringa wrote:


Good day,

I am having trouble with the tourism tags caravan_site and camp_site, 
specifically for the use case of finding a place to camp with a tent 
(so not a caravan or a camper van).


My goal is to differentiate the two tags. Both tags allow tents, and 
both allow camper vans and caravans. Both tags may or may not provide 
facilities such as toilets, water, electricity, et cetera. In 
practice, the only thing that differentiates a pitch for a tent versus 
a pitch for a caravan or camper van, is the ground underneath (tents 
require some sort of soft material like grass). This differentiating 
property is not mentioned at all in the Wiki.


- The tag tents=yes/no (only listed in the camp_site Wiki) would be a 
good way to find a place to camp with a tent, but almost none of the 
caravan_site have this tag. All camp_sites in OSM I have camped on, 
allowed tents.
- Some of the caravan_site have been tagged with amenity=parking or 
even surface=asphalt and this would mean that camping with a tent is 
definitely not possible.
- I noticed that both of the tags have status 'de facto', and no 
proposals have been made for the definition of said tags. I found an 
abandoned proposal [1] that has a good discussion about camping [2].
- Some camp_sites have a 'nested' polygon with a caravan_site. This 
seems logical, and the caravan_site can be ignored, and the camp_site 
can be used for camping with a tent.


Statistics from TagInfo: camp_site has ~100,000 uses, and caravan_site 
has ~30,000 uses.


I ran a quick Overpass query for a small number of caravan sites (~15) 
[3]. Some of them note on their website that camping with a tent is 
possible, and the surface of the pitches seems to be grass. I am 
wondering if these should be re-tagged as camp_site, or if I am 
missing something.


My opinion would be that a camp_site should allow staying overnight 
with many types of vehicles/tents, indicated by the tags listed 
clearly on the wiki of camp_site. A caravan_site would allow staying 
overnight with vehicles only, and not allow camping with a tent. 
Concretely the sentence "They may also have some space for tents." on 
[4] is the problem. Replacing the sentence on the wiki with "Camping 
with a tent is not possible." would remove any ambiguity 
differentiating these tags.


Any comments are welcome. I am willing to update the wiki or draft a 
proposal for differentiating these two tags, if necessary.


Kind regards,
/Hidde Wieringa/

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site
[2] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#caravan_site_separated.3F 

[3] https://tyrasd.github.io/overpass-turbo 


[4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcaravan_site



The web site https://opencampingmap.org/#10/48.6100/8.2400/0/1/bef is an 
attempt to encourage mapping of camp and caravan site attributes...



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