Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges

[Thibault Molleman]

I think the old building at that location used to be split in 2 (thus the 2
housenumbers).
So Kasteelstraat 12 does not exist anymore.

I only just now realized I mapped this wrong (was one of my first things I
mapped a couple years ago).

By your photo, it looks like you could even put a building name in as
well "*Den
> Oude Post*"!

yeah, also something I didn't realize back then

Cheers,

On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 00:43, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 05:55, Thibault Molleman <
> thibaultmolle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is a simple example: https://photos.app.goo.gl/wEQiB4X6BA3doK7T7
>> one building, one unit/flat on each floor.
>> mailbox at the front for all 3 units.
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/675768351
>>
>> currently mapped as:
>> addr:housenumber=1A;2A;3A
>> addr:street=Kasteelstraat
>>
>
> But looking at the street, & the way it's numbered, it shows as 2, 4, 6,
> 8, 10, this place, 16, 18, 20, 22 ...
>
> Assuming all those numbers actually appear?, personally, I would have
> mapped it as
> addr:unit / flats (whatever the default is in Belgium?)=1A;2A;3A
> addr:housenumber=12-14
> addr:street=Kasteelstraat
>
> By your photo, it looks like you could even put a building name in as well
> "*Den Oude Post*"!
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> ___
> 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] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 08:13, Clifford Snow  wrote:

> osmcha.org picks up the review request. Their interface makes it easy to
> view and post a comment back to the user.
>

Thanks!

Not exactly a very user-friendly system though, especially if you're only
trying to review requested changes?

& with somewhere between 300k - 600k changes sitting there to look at, I
don't think the chances are all that high that somebody will spot any
errors!

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)

[pangoSE]

Hi

"Jarek Piórkowski"  skrev: (23 augusti 2020 00:41:40 CEST)
>On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 18:12, Clifford Snow 
>wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 3:06 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
> wrote:
>>> Reading through it though, I noticed though that he used iD, &
>ticked the box "I would like someone to review my edits", which
>apparently didn't happen at the time?
>>>
>>> Question though - if an iD mapper asks for someone to review their
>edits, where does that appear?
>>>
>>> Does it just sit on the map like a Note or a Fix Me, or is there a
>report of some sort sitting somewhere to be processed?
>>
>> osmcha.org picks up the review request. Their interface makes it easy
>to view and post a comment back to the user.
>
>Having said that, it is my impression that realistically a big
>majority of review_requested=yes changesets never get a review. I
>remember checking it on several of my changesets and never heard
>anything.

And we have no statistics or functionality to mark a changeser as revieed so 
nobody knows how many reviews are done and how many falls through the cracks. 
We could make a tool that lists all changesets with a review request and no 
comments.

I also tested it and never heard anything. I dislike it because it gives a new 
user the impression we review and have a good follow up process which we 
generally don't (in Sweden).

>
>This might depend on the location of the edit too, similarly to how
>OSM.org Notes have different resolution rates worldwide.
>
>(Not picking on anyone, I've also never done a review)

I have done a lot of reviews for new swedish edits during some time. It was 
very rewarding to contact new mappers in the area and offer them a helping hand 
actually.

I found the edits via thia external tool: 
http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious#0/7/21
I'm  not recommending we use it though and I'm hesitant to sharing it here 
because it is not free software. If some of you know the author please contact 
him and ask him to release the source.


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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 22. Aug 2020, at 23:22, Arne Johannessen  wrote:
> 
> That's not what I'm saying at all. In fact, I'm only applying *exactly* 
> what's currently documented on the wiki's name=* page, which considers 
> pragmatics instead of semantics.
> 
> In other words, instead of focusing on the objective meaning of tags, it 
> focuses on their meaning in context of real-world usage.
> 
> In particular, as documented, name=* should contain the "common default name" 
> of an element, whatever it may be. This means that for any particular element 
> which e. g. has the two names Foo and Bar, but which is most commonly 
> referred to by locals only as Bar, the Bar name should go into name=* and the 
> Foo name into another appropriate name tag (alt_name=*, xyz:name=*, whatever 
> fits).


I would see it like this: if someone refers colloquially to a road in a tunnel, 
they will use the name of the tunnel because what they actually do is refer to 
the tunnel, not specifically the road in the tunnel. This does not have 
implications for our tagging such as you have proposed. It is not deductible 
from the „common default name“ definition, IMHO.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - kerb=regular

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 22. Aug 2020, at 13:06, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Would that be acceptable?


words are better IMHO, easier to remember and faster to type...


Cheers Martin 

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

Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 05:55, Thibault Molleman 
wrote:

> This is a simple example: https://photos.app.goo.gl/wEQiB4X6BA3doK7T7
> one building, one unit/flat on each floor.
> mailbox at the front for all 3 units.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/675768351
>
> currently mapped as:
> addr:housenumber=1A;2A;3A
> addr:street=Kasteelstraat
>

But looking at the street, & the way it's numbered, it shows as 2, 4, 6, 8,
10, this place, 16, 18, 20, 22 ...

Assuming all those numbers actually appear?, personally, I would have
mapped it as
addr:unit / flats (whatever the default is in Belgium?)=1A;2A;3A
addr:housenumber=12-14
addr:street=Kasteelstraat

By your photo, it looks like you could even put a building name in as
well "*Den
Oude Post*"!

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 18:12, Clifford Snow  wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 3:06 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick  
> wrote:
>> Reading through it though, I noticed though that he used iD, & ticked the 
>> box "I would like someone to review my edits", which apparently didn't 
>> happen at the time?
>>
>> Question though - if an iD mapper asks for someone to review their edits, 
>> where does that appear?
>>
>> Does it just sit on the map like a Note or a Fix Me, or is there a report of 
>> some sort sitting somewhere to be processed?
>
> osmcha.org picks up the review request. Their interface makes it easy to view 
> and post a comment back to the user.

Having said that, it is my impression that realistically a big
majority of review_requested=yes changesets never get a review. I
remember checking it on several of my changesets and never heard
anything.

This might depend on the location of the edit too, similarly to how
OSM.org Notes have different resolution rates worldwide.

(Not picking on anyone, I've also never done a review)

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] Network-tag needs extension

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 22. Aug 2020, at 11:05, Michael Schmidt via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> But I prefer the short version and am tagging it..


the general rule is “no abbreviations” and shortenings will make collisions 
much more probable...

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

Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)

[Clifford Snow]

osmcha.org picks up the review request. Their interface makes it easy to
view and post a comment back to the user.

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 3:06 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 18:53, Cj Malone <
> me-osm-tagg...@keepawayfromfire.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> 1 - It was introduced by a novice mapper, presumably as a typeo.
>>
>
> Not picking on Nathan, as we've all had the occasional ooops!
>
> Reading through it though, I noticed though that he used iD, & ticked the
> box "I would like someone to review my edits", which apparently didn't
> happen at the time?
>
> Question though - if an iD mapper asks for someone to review their edits,
> where does that appear?
>
> Does it just sit on the map like a Note or a Fix Me, or is there a report
> of some sort sitting somewhere to be processed?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 18:53, Cj Malone <
me-osm-tagg...@keepawayfromfire.co.uk> wrote:

> 1 - It was introduced by a novice mapper, presumably as a typeo.
>

Not picking on Nathan, as we've all had the occasional ooops!

Reading through it though, I noticed though that he used iD, & ticked the
box "I would like someone to review my edits", which apparently didn't
happen at the time?

Question though - if an iD mapper asks for someone to review their edits,
where does that appear?

Does it just sit on the map like a Note or a Fix Me, or is there a report
of some sort sitting somewhere to be processed?

Thanks

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

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

[Arne Johannessen]

Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote on 15 August:
> 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.


That's not what I'm saying at all. In fact, I'm only applying *exactly* what's 
currently documented on the wiki's name=* page, which considers pragmatics 
instead of semantics.

In other words, instead of focusing on the objective meaning of tags, it 
focuses on their meaning in context of real-world usage.

In particular, as documented, name=* should contain the "common default name" 
of an element, whatever it may be. This means that for any particular element 
which e. g. has the two names Foo and Bar, but which is most commonly referred 
to by locals only as Bar, the Bar name should go into name=* and the Foo name 
into another appropriate name tag (alt_name=*, xyz:name=*, whatever fits).

That's not an "awkward exception" – it's the current system of the name tags.

You seem to suggest there is a restriction for name=* to only apply to the 
primary tag key ("highway" etc.). However, such a restriction doesn't currently 
exist.


> 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).

You know what, your use of "implicit" might be tripping me up here.

Please consider .

In your view, is the actual tunnel "Lærdalstunnelen" itself (as opposed to the 
E16 road) currently included in OSM data – yes or no?



> Also note that highway:name is objectively an unused tag with only 188 
> occurrences for a total of 178 million highway objects, […]
> Also compare this to 12815 occurrences of tunnel:name.

Those numbers don't appear to be meaningful in this discussion. But they piqued 
my curiosity, and I looked into current practises for road tunnel naming in 
OSM. Anyone overly interested will find the results here:


The primary conclusions are:
- Both tagging variants (tunnel name in name=* vs. tunnel:name=*) are very 
common.
- There are significant regional differences in the use of these variants.

Consequently, neither variant should be dismissed out of hand.


> I see your interpretation as a change in paradigm and would invite you to 
> formally propose it with the proposal process in order to check the support 
> of the community, if you really believe this definition would be beneficial.

Neither stated OSM policy nor actual tagging practise bears out the position 
that using name=* for tunnel names is somehow a "change of paradigm".


-- 
Arne Johannessen



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

Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges

[Thibault Molleman]

This is a simple example: https://photos.app.goo.gl/wEQiB4X6BA3doK7T7
one building, one unit/flat on each floor.
mailbox at the front for all 3 units.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/675768351

currently mapped as:
addr:housenumber=1A;2A;3A
addr:street=Kasteelstraat

On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 19:13, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 22. Aug 2020, at 09:25, Thibault Molleman 
> wrote:
> >
> > So what's the consensus on an apartment building (way) that has
> mailboxes for each person who has an apartment there.
> > I've just been tagging those as:
> > addr:housenumber = A1;A2;A3;A4;A5;A6;A7;A8;A9;A10;A11
>
>
> are these housenumbers or unit/flat numbers?
> What does a specific address look like (addr:street? addr:housename?
> addr:place?)
>
> 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] [Talk-transit] [OSM-talk] Call for verification (Was: Re: VANDALISM !)

[Clay Smalley]

Everyone knows who you're talking about at this point, and nobody cares.
Use the remaining day or so of your temporary ban to work on some hobbies
outside of OpenStreetMap.

And be careful about who you say isn't local. I'm moving to Northern
Indiana next week and I'll certainly get the chance to survey many of the
estimated stop positions I remotely mapped. I hope to see you around as we
continue working on the same things.

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 12:21 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-transit <
talk-tran...@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> it was one person in CA adding 400 unverified tags to rail service in
> chicago.
>
> one just 818 m, away from my home.
>
>
> SATURDAY, August 22, 2020 12:32 PM -05:00 from Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com >:
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 22. Aug 2020, at 10:15, pangoSE  wrote:
> >
> > Here is yet another example of bad data in our database:
>
> fix it ;-)
>
> Of course OpenStreetMap contains errors, just like any other source, and
> probably more, given that most contributors are laymen and have very few
> experience (few total edits, often just 1).
>
> On the other hand, we may be very fast when something changes, very
> flexible in emergencies (think Haiti), and have interesting niche data that
> commercial and public data providers don’t care for.
>
> It all depends on the local community in the end. If you have reached a
> critical mass to have locals everywhere, it will work great and bugs will
> wash out. Otherwise the data might get stale just like any other data. Also
> using the data is essential to find the problems, for example the 212 story
> garage is likely fixed now ;-)
>
> I tend to agree with Steve A.
>
> Cheers Martin
> ___
> talk mailing list
> t...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-transit mailing list
> talk-tran...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Call for verification (Was: Re: VANDALISM !)

[80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging]

>it was one person in CA adding 400 unverified tags to rail service in chicago.
> 
>one just 818 m, away from my home.
> 
>>Saturday, August 22, 2020 12:32 PM -05:00 from Martin Koppenhoefer < 
>>dieterdre...@gmail.com >:
>>
>>sent from a phone
>> 
>>> On 22. Aug 2020, at 10:15, pangoSE < pang...@riseup.net > wrote:
>>>
>>> Here is yet another example of bad data in our database:
>>fix it ;-)
>>
>>Of course OpenStreetMap contains errors, just like any other source, and 
>>probably more, given that most contributors are laymen and have very few 
>>experience (few total edits, often just 1).
>>
>>On the other hand, we may be very fast when something changes, very flexible 
>>in emergencies (think Haiti), and have interesting niche data that commercial 
>>and public data providers don’t care for.
>>
>>It all depends on the local community in the end. If you have reached a 
>>critical mass to have locals everywhere, it will work great and bugs will 
>>wash out. Otherwise the data might get stale just like any other data. Also 
>>using the data is essential to find the problems, for example the 212 story 
>>garage is likely fixed now ;-)
>>
>>I tend to agree with Steve A.
>>
>>Cheers Martin
>>___
>>talk mailing list
>>t...@openstreetmap.org
>>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk 
> 
> 
> 
>  
 
 
 
 ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Canopy Walkways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 22. Aug 2020, at 13:18, Alan Mackie  wrote:
> 
> There seems to be some overlap with the values of the bridge key. 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge


this is because the bridge:structure key was introduced later on, before we 
lumped everything into “bridge”.

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

Re: [Tagging] Canopy Walkways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 22. Aug 2020, at 12:11, Jake Edmonds via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> Doesn’t bridge:structure refer to the design of the supports?


I would say bridge:structure refers to the structural system of the bridge 
(e.g. arch, beam, pylon with ropes, etc.) so I agree that it is not a suitable 
key for the location of the bridge in its environment or the purpose of the 
bridge.

For me, the interesting feature is a specific kind of footway here (because it 
is purposefully designed to pass inside the canopy, so you can enjoy a 
different perspective and enter in middle of the trees). If happens to be a 
bridge like structure, as it is raised, but the specific kind of bridge is 
probably secondary for all but architects and structural engineers.

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

Re: [Tagging] ref on roundabout

[Volker Schmidt]

That's the approach anyway for bicycle and bus route relations on
roundabouts.
Yes, it causes additional work, because you need to split the roundabout
way,
but I do not see a way to avoid that.

Volker


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 19:14, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 22. Aug 2020, at 12:11, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> >
> > I would expect roundabout to be split in parts where
> > ref is applying and parts where it is not applying, in other words
> > without any special handling and tag it as usual.
>
>
> +1
>
> 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] ref on roundabout

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 22. Aug 2020, at 12:18, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> 
> Adding all refs of all streets PLUS that of the roundabout would
> make it even worse as you couldnt distinguish which of the refs
> references the Roundabout and which of the refs is that of the streets.


typically the ref on highway ways is for the route leading on it (multiple 
values possible). You are maybe asking for a different kind of ref, if a single 
roundabout can have its own ref? Can you give an example where you get this 
specific ref from?


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

Re: [Tagging] ref on roundabout

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 22. Aug 2020, at 12:11, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> I would expect roundabout to be split in parts where
> ref is applying and parts where it is not applying, in other words
> without any special handling and tag it as usual.


+1

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

Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 22. Aug 2020, at 09:25, Thibault Molleman  
> wrote:
> 
> So what's the consensus on an apartment building (way) that has mailboxes for 
> each person who has an apartment there.
> I've just been tagging those as:
> addr:housenumber = A1;A2;A3;A4;A5;A6;A7;A8;A9;A10;A11


are these housenumbers or unit/flat numbers? 
What does a specific address look like (addr:street? addr:housename? 
addr:place?)

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

Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges

[Thibault Molleman]

A lot of those types of apartment buildings in my area (and i assume other
places in Belgium as well) don't have a "building housenumber", only the
individual flat housenumbers.

Making a node for every single flat just looks bad on the map. And I agree
that it just makes more sense to put it on the one node/way.



On Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 11:53 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> Aug 22, 2020, 11:43 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com:
>
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 17:25, Thibault Molleman <
> thibaultmolle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So what's the consensus on an apartment building (way) that has mailboxes
> for each person who has an apartment there.
> I've just been tagging those as:
> addr:housenumber = A1;A2;A3;A4;A5;A6;A7;A8;A9;A10;A11
>
>
> Could you use https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:flats? Leaving
> unit/apartment/flat numbers out of the addr:housenumber.
>
> It depends - are there actually separate house numbers assigned to each
> apartment?
> (yes, it happens -  similarly to some places that assigned house numbers
> to every single
> house, shed and separate address for every single door of a garage)
>
> Or is there a house number (assigned to building or building complex) and
> separate
> unit/apartment/flat number? In such case addr:housenumber =
> A1;A2;A3;A4;A5;A6;A7;A8;A9;A10;A11
> would be misuse of the tag.
> ___
> 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] ref on roundabout

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Aug 22, 2020, 12:17 by f...@zz.de:

> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 12:09:14PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>
>> I would expect roundabout to be split in parts where
>> ref is applying and parts where it is not applying, in other words
>> without any special handling and tag it as usual.
>>
>
> But the point is that on a roundabout the "name" references the name
> of the _roundabout_ not one of the streets connected to it. 
>
Yes

> Same should apply to ref as it will reference the Roundabout
>
why?

>  e.g.
> otherwise there would be no way to e.g. say tag a roundabout
> with "East 1" or "No 1" because the Ref is taken by one or all
> of the streets. 
>
So it is about case where road has its own reference number
and junction has its own reference number, separate from
reference number of road routes?

> Adding all refs of all streets PLUS that of the roundabout would
> make it even worse as you couldnt distinguish which of the refs
> references the Roundabout and which of the refs is that of the streets.
>
> So i simply say when the logic is that the way with
> "junction=roundabout" is not part of the streets and has a life of
> its own with e.g. established with the name tag - same should and must
> apply to the ref.  This does not prohibit adding the roundabout to some
> kind of relation containing all parts of a road in a road network.
>
In Poland road route continues through roaundabout and roaundabout way
is part of such route.

See https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2343885#map=19/50.08485/19.80751
(here parts of roundabout may be argued to not belong into 774 relation, but...)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2313869#map=16/50.0861/20.0234
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37828106 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/148978816
(may not be roundabout strictly speaking, but it is not changing anything 
important)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2313869#map=19/50.07961/20.02769
(roundabout plan but with traffic signs)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Canopy Walkways

[Alan Mackie]

On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 11:11, Jake Edmonds via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Doesn’t bridge:structure refer to the design of the supports? A canopy
> walkway could use of mix of simple-suspension, beam and others not
> currently explained in the wiki (I.e some sort of attachment to trees)
>
Yes, according to the wiki, this is the general configuration of the
structural members.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge:structure

There seems to be some overlap with the values of the bridge key.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge


>
Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone
>
> On 22 Aug 2020, at 11:36, Peter Elderson  wrote:
>
> 
> I would say the feature is a kind of highway.
> The construction is bridge, so bridge=yes on the highway.
> The highway is a footway, and this kind of footway is called a canopy
> walkway.
>
> The footway part is kind of redundant, which is probably nice if you
> render all footways, but unnecessary when you render canopy_walkways
> specifically.
>
>
> Best Peter Elderson
>
>
> Op za 22 aug. 2020 om 11:16 schreef Jake Edmonds via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
>
>> Should the key be bridge?
>> I feel like canopy walkways are more like bridges than boardwalks.
>>
>> Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone
>>
>> On 22 Aug 2020, at 11:08, Alan Mackie  wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2020, 21:46 Martin Koppenhoefer, 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> sent from a phone
>>>
>>> > On 21. Aug 2020, at 22:25, Andy Mabbett 
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > "public building" and "trunk highway" are also common terms.
>>> >
>>> > Do we tag
>>> >
>>> >building=public_building
>>> >
>>> > or
>>> >
>>> >highway=trunk_hghway
>>>
>>>
>>> these are different because it would be a literal repetition. What we do
>>> is footway=sidewalk rather than „side“
>>>
>>> If general opinion is towards footway=canopy I could live with it, but
>>> my preference goes to canopy_walkway
>>> I’m not expecting so many that the extra characters will be significant
>>> ;-)
>>>
>>
>> I have had to remind myself several times as this thread has developed
>> that this is not intended as a synonym for breezeway or other covered=yes
>> footways.
>>
>> If the previously suggested =treetop isn't accurate perhaps a more
>> explicit =forest_canopy ?
>>
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Feature Proposal - Voting - kerb=regular

[Warin]

On 22/8/20 12:56 am, Supaplex wrote:


I see that I have probably chosen an unfavorable solution to solve the 
problem described. Many seem to accept the basic problem: There is 
only one qualitative category for all kerbs with a height of over ~3 
cm, although in reality there is a significant difference.


I see two alternatives to the proposed solution:

a) (as suggested in the vote section) Deprecate the category "raised" 
and introduce two /new/ values ​​to differentiate it (eg "heightened" 
vs. "regular" or "medium" if there is sematic criticism of "regular")
b) Keep the existing categories, accept that the term "raised" has so 
far included both normal and raised kerbs and merely introduce an 
explicit tag to distinguish /actually/ raised kerbs (e.g. "heightened").


What do you think? Any other or further suggestions?



Rather than use words that are relative to personal perceptions .. why 
not use numbers to say what you mean?



 curb:height=under_3_cm

curb:height=over_3_cm

 curb:height=3_cm_to_10_cm

curb:height=8_cm_to_15_cm


Would that be acceptable? It avoids the words and is readily understood. 
It could lead to people inserting new values... but that is always the 
case, at least with the numbers the new values would be understood.



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

Re: [Tagging] ref on roundabout

[Florian Lohoff]

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 12:09:14PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> I would expect roundabout to be split in parts where
> ref is applying and parts where it is not applying, in other words
> without any special handling and tag it as usual.

But the point is that on a roundabout the "name" references the name
of the _roundabout_ not one of the streets connected to it. 

Same should apply to ref as it will reference the Roundabout e.g.
otherwise there would be no way to e.g. say tag a roundabout
with "East 1" or "No 1" because the Ref is taken by one or all
of the streets. 

Adding all refs of all streets PLUS that of the roundabout would
make it even worse as you couldnt distinguish which of the refs
references the Roundabout and which of the refs is that of the streets.

So i simply say when the logic is that the way with
"junction=roundabout" is not part of the streets and has a life of
its own with e.g. established with the name tag - same should and must
apply to the ref.  This does not prohibit adding the roundabout to some
kind of relation containing all parts of a road in a road network.

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


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

Re: [Tagging] Canopy Walkways

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

Doesn’t bridge:structure refer to the design of the supports? A canopy walkway 
could use of mix of simple-suspension, beam and others not currently explained 
in the wiki (I.e some sort of attachment to trees)

Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone

> On 22 Aug 2020, at 11:36, Peter Elderson  wrote:
> 
> 
> I would say the feature is a kind of highway. 
> The construction is bridge, so bridge=yes on the highway.
> The highway is a footway, and this kind of footway is called a canopy walkway.
> 
> The footway part is kind of redundant, which is probably nice if you render 
> all footways, but unnecessary when you render canopy_walkways specifically.
> 
> 
> Best Peter Elderson
> 
> 
> Op za 22 aug. 2020 om 11:16 schreef Jake Edmonds via Tagging 
> :
>> Should the key be bridge? 
>> I feel like canopy walkways are more like bridges than boardwalks. 
>> 
>> Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone
>> 
 On 22 Aug 2020, at 11:08, Alan Mackie  wrote:
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On Fri, 21 Aug 2020, 21:46 Martin Koppenhoefer,  
 wrote:
 
 
 sent from a phone
 
 > On 21. Aug 2020, at 22:25, Andy Mabbett  
 > wrote:
 > 
 > "public building" and "trunk highway" are also common terms.
 > 
 > Do we tag
 > 
 >building=public_building
 > 
 > or
 > 
 >highway=trunk_hghway
 
 
 these are different because it would be a literal repetition. What we do 
 is footway=sidewalk rather than „side“
 
 If general opinion is towards footway=canopy I could live with it, but my 
 preference goes to canopy_walkway
 I’m not expecting so many that the extra characters will be significant ;-)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I have had to remind myself several times as this thread has developed that 
>>> this is not intended as a synonym for breezeway or other covered=yes 
>>> footways. 
>>> 
>>> If the previously suggested =treetop isn't accurate perhaps a more explicit 
>>> =forest_canopy ?
>>> 
 
 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
>> ___
>> 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] ref on roundabout

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

I would expect roundabout to be split in parts where
ref is applying and parts where it is not applying, in other words
without any special handling and tag it as usual.


Aug 22, 2020, 12:06 by f...@zz.de:

>
> Hi,
> there is a little Discussion in the German forum concerning ref
> tagging on Roundabouts. After looking at the Wiki again somebody
> added (In April 2019) a section saying refs of the roads should 
> continue on the ways with "junction=roundabout":
>
>  "[[File:Roundabout_Ref_Consistency.png|thumb|Roundabout with ref tagging
>  consistent with connecting roads]] For roundabouts that have ways either
>  continuing through, or ending at the roundabout, {{Tag|ref}} and
>  {{Tag|int_ref}} tags from those ways should be added to that roundabout.
>  This allows routing to navigate through the roundabout more fluidly."
>
> Has this been discussed somewhere? This is highly inconsistant with
> the name meaning the roundabout and the ref not meaning the roundabout.
>
> I strongly disagree with this section and i doubt there has been some 
> concensus about this so i would like to revert this.
>
> Flo
> -- 
> Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
>  UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away
>

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

[Tagging] ref on roundabout

[Florian Lohoff]

Hi,
there is a little Discussion in the German forum concerning ref
tagging on Roundabouts. After looking at the Wiki again somebody
added (In April 2019) a section saying refs of the roads should 
continue on the ways with "junction=roundabout":

"[[File:Roundabout_Ref_Consistency.png|thumb|Roundabout with ref tagging
consistent with connecting roads]] For roundabouts that have ways either
continuing through, or ending at the roundabout, {{Tag|ref}} and
{{Tag|int_ref}} tags from those ways should be added to that roundabout.
This allows routing to navigate through the roundabout more fluidly."

Has this been discussed somewhere? This is highly inconsistant with
the name meaning the roundabout and the ref not meaning the roundabout.

I strongly disagree with this section and i doubt there has been some 
concensus about this so i would like to revert this.

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


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

Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Aug 22, 2020, 11:43 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com:

> On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 17:25, Thibault Molleman <> 
> thibaultmolle...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>
>> So what's the consensus on an apartment building (way) that has mailboxes 
>> for each person who has an apartment there.
>> I've just been tagging those as:
>> addr:housenumber = A1;A2;A3;A4;A5;A6;A7;A8;A9;A10;A11
>>
>
> Could you use > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:flats> ? Leaving 
> unit/apartment/flat numbers out of the addr:housenumber.
>
It depends - are there actually separate house numbers assigned to each 
apartment?
(yes, it happens -  similarly to some places that assigned house numbers to 
every single
house, shed and separate address for every single door of a garage)

Or is there a house number (assigned to building or building complex) and 
separate 
unit/apartment/flat number? In such case addr:housenumber = 
A1;A2;A3;A4;A5;A6;A7;A8;A9;A10;A11
would be misuse of the tag.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

I would say that such tagging is 100% fine and I would
consider it superior to addr:housenumber = A1-A11.

It would be probably nicer to map individual apartments in such case with
their own addr:housenumber (what may require asking people living there),
but in many cases it is probably not viable. And may be outright impossible
in some places.

Aug 22, 2020, 09:23 by thibaultmolle...@gmail.com:

> So what's the consensus on an apartment building (way) that has mailboxes for 
> each person who has an apartment there.
> I've just been tagging those as:
> addr:housenumber = A1;A2;A3;A4;A5;A6;A7;A8;A9;A10;A11
>
> (Semicolon, because that's what the wiki recommends for multiple values iirc)
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 21:36 Topographe Fou <> letopographe...@gmail.com> > 
> wrote:
>
>> then why not using addr:interpolation=no to state that the hyphen in 
>> addr:housenumber does not define a range ? I think everyone would be happy 
>> and it will not break current tagging schema. QA tools would raise a warning 
>> if there is an hyphen and no addr:interpolation tag. Default rule might be 
>> that an hyphen denotes (or not... Or both... I don't care) a range.
>>
>> LeTopographeFou
>> De:>>  >> tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> Envoyé:>>  20 août 2020 6:35 PM
>> À:>>  >> andrew.harv...@gmail.com
>> Répondre à:>>  >> tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> Cc:>>  >> matkoni...@tutanota.com>> ; >> tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> Objet:>>  Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Aug 20, 2020, 15:50 by >> andrew.harv...@gmail.com>> :
>>
>
>
 And it may be useful to have tag to mark "yes this is actually a single 
 housenumber despite
 that includes hyphen or something else that suggests range"  

>>>
>>> I would assume that to be the default, when there are multiple addresses 
>>> best to mark them all out individually or use a linear way with the address 
>>> at the start and end nodes and addr:interpolation on the line (as a first 
>>> pass before mapping them out individually) 
>>>
>> But given that addr:housenumber=1-3  may represent either case it would be 
>> nice to be able to state this.
>> ___
>>  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] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)

[pangoSE]

Hi Mateusz

Thanks for the link.
I agree that forcing someone to map is a bad idea.


Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging  skrev: (22 augusti 
2020 10:54:57 CEST)
>Also, his was poorly organized Organised Editing and  this person was
>forced
>to map in OSM by badly designed university assigment.
>
>If anything that is proof that forcing people to map in OSM is even
>less useful
>than expected.
>
>( according to
>https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2020/08/we-tracked-down-the-person-responsible-for-the-flight-simulator-melbourne-monolith/
>)
>
>
>Aug 22, 2020, 10:51 by me-osm-tagg...@keepawayfromfire.co.uk:
>
>> On Sat, 2020-08-22 at 09:32 +0200, pangoSE wrote:
>>
>>> Building upon it can lead to strange things. E.g. 
>>>
>https://www.nyteknik.se/popularteknik/mystisk-jatteskrapa-dok-upp-i-flygsimulator-6999771
>>>  (building:levels=212 was entered erroneously and committed to the
>>> database without any kind of QA follow-up. If someone knows the
>>> osmid I would like to know how long this error was present in OSM)
>>>
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/712475718/history
>>
>> 1 - It was introduced by a novice mapper, presumably as a typeo.
>>
>> 2 - Nikolas von Randow fixed it about 9 months later, presumably with
>> some kind of QA tool (maybe just a overpass query).
>>
>> 3 - Another local novice mapper also edited it, and fixed another
>issue
>> at the same time. Presumably noticed via a rendered map.
>>
>>
>> Before criticising the mapper, it should be noted that it was a
>novice
>> mapper and the existing building data in the area isn't of great
>> quality anyway. This wasn't a regression. And accidents happen
>anyway,
>> I've done a similar thing via StreetComplete where I entered the
>house
>> number in the building levels quest.
>>
>> The big companies doing QA on OSM data (Mapbox and Facebook) have a
>> high focus on vandalism. They are trying to stop "Jewtropolis" from
>> ever happening again.
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges

[Andrew Harvey]

On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 17:25, Thibault Molleman 
wrote:

> So what's the consensus on an apartment building (way) that has mailboxes
> for each person who has an apartment there.
> I've just been tagging those as:
> addr:housenumber = A1;A2;A3;A4;A5;A6;A7;A8;A9;A10;A11
>

Could you use https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:flats? Leaving
unit/apartment/flat numbers out of the addr:housenumber.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Canopy Walkways

[Peter Elderson]

I would say the feature is a kind of highway.
The construction is bridge, so bridge=yes on the highway.
The highway is a footway, and this kind of footway is called a canopy
walkway.

The footway part is kind of redundant, which is probably nice if you render
all footways, but unnecessary when you render canopy_walkways specifically.


Best Peter Elderson


Op za 22 aug. 2020 om 11:16 schreef Jake Edmonds via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> Should the key be bridge?
> I feel like canopy walkways are more like bridges than boardwalks.
>
> Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone
>
> On 22 Aug 2020, at 11:08, Alan Mackie  wrote:
>
> 
>
>
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2020, 21:46 Martin Koppenhoefer, 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>> > On 21. Aug 2020, at 22:25, Andy Mabbett 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > "public building" and "trunk highway" are also common terms.
>> >
>> > Do we tag
>> >
>> >building=public_building
>> >
>> > or
>> >
>> >highway=trunk_hghway
>>
>>
>> these are different because it would be a literal repetition. What we do
>> is footway=sidewalk rather than „side“
>>
>> If general opinion is towards footway=canopy I could live with it, but my
>> preference goes to canopy_walkway
>> I’m not expecting so many that the extra characters will be significant
>> ;-)
>>
>
> I have had to remind myself several times as this thread has developed
> that this is not intended as a synonym for breezeway or other covered=yes
> footways.
>
> If the previously suggested =treetop isn't accurate perhaps a more
> explicit =forest_canopy ?
>
>
>> 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
>
> ___
> 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] Canopy Walkways

[Volker Schmidt]

What about
highway=footway
bridge=yes
layer=*
bridge:structure=canopy_walkway
?



Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#m_-1065115381681509086_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 23:50, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 20. Aug 2020, at 23:18, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> >
> > What's wrong with "bridge" ?
>
>
> it’s ok, but not sufficient when you want to search them.
> Maybe something like leisure=canopy_walkway or tourism=canopy_walkway (in
> addition)?
> Or maybe footway=canopy_walkway? highway= Footway and bridge=yes seem
> essential for a basic description.
>
> Cheers Martin
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Canopy Walkways

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

Should the key be bridge? 
I feel like canopy walkways are more like bridges than boardwalks. 

Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone

> On 22 Aug 2020, at 11:08, Alan Mackie  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2020, 21:46 Martin Koppenhoefer,  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> sent from a phone
>> 
>> > On 21. Aug 2020, at 22:25, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
>> > 
>> > "public building" and "trunk highway" are also common terms.
>> > 
>> > Do we tag
>> > 
>> >building=public_building
>> > 
>> > or
>> > 
>> >highway=trunk_hghway
>> 
>> 
>> these are different because it would be a literal repetition. What we do is 
>> footway=sidewalk rather than „side“
>> 
>> If general opinion is towards footway=canopy I could live with it, but my 
>> preference goes to canopy_walkway
>> I’m not expecting so many that the extra characters will be significant ;-)
> 
> 
> I have had to remind myself several times as this thread has developed that 
> this is not intended as a synonym for breezeway or other covered=yes 
> footways. 
> 
> If the previously suggested =treetop isn't accurate perhaps a more explicit 
> =forest_canopy ?
> 
>> 
>> 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
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)

[pangoSE]

Thanks for sharing. I have no intention of contacting the user in question. It 
was just an illustrative example.

I don't know why this was posted to the tagging list. I intend to keep this 
discussion on the talk list so please respond there to keep the discussion 
together.


Cj Malone  skrev: (22 augusti 2020 
10:51:10 CEST)
>On Sat, 2020-08-22 at 09:32 +0200, pangoSE wrote:
>> Building upon it can lead to strange things. E.g. 
>>
>https://www.nyteknik.se/popularteknik/mystisk-jatteskrapa-dok-upp-i-flygsimulator-6999771
>>  (building:levels=212 was entered erroneously and committed to the
>> database without any kind of QA follow-up. If someone knows the
>> osmid I would like to know how long this error was present in OSM)
>
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/712475718/history
>
>1 - It was introduced by a novice mapper, presumably as a typeo.
>
>2 - Nikolas von Randow fixed it about 9 months later, presumably with
>some kind of QA tool (maybe just a overpass query).
>
>3 - Another local novice mapper also edited it, and fixed another issue
>at the same time. Presumably noticed via a rendered map.
>
>
>Before criticising the mapper, it should be noted that it was a novice
>mapper and the existing building data in the area isn't of great
>quality anyway. This wasn't a regression. And accidents happen anyway,
>I've done a similar thing via StreetComplete where I entered the house
>number in the building levels quest.
>
>The big companies doing QA on OSM data (Mapbox and Facebook) have a
>high focus on vandalism. They are trying to stop "Jewtropolis" from
>ever happening again.
>
>
>
>___
>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] Canopy Walkways

[Alan Mackie]

On Fri, 21 Aug 2020, 21:46 Martin Koppenhoefer, 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 21. Aug 2020, at 22:25, Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
> >
> > "public building" and "trunk highway" are also common terms.
> >
> > Do we tag
> >
> >building=public_building
> >
> > or
> >
> >highway=trunk_hghway
>
>
> these are different because it would be a literal repetition. What we do
> is footway=sidewalk rather than „side“
>
> If general opinion is towards footway=canopy I could live with it, but my
> preference goes to canopy_walkway
> I’m not expecting so many that the extra characters will be significant ;-)
>

I have had to remind myself several times as this thread has developed that
this is not intended as a synonym for breezeway or other covered=yes
footways.

If the previously suggested =treetop isn't accurate perhaps a more explicit
=forest_canopy ?


> 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] Network-tag needs extension

[Michael Schmidt via Tagging]

Ok, if that's the popular opinion, I will concur.
But I prefer the short version and am tagging it..

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

Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Also, his was poorly organized Organised Editing and  this person was forced
to map in OSM by badly designed university assigment.

If anything that is proof that forcing people to map in OSM is even less useful
than expected.

( according to
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2020/08/we-tracked-down-the-person-responsible-for-the-flight-simulator-melbourne-monolith/
 )


Aug 22, 2020, 10:51 by me-osm-tagg...@keepawayfromfire.co.uk:

> On Sat, 2020-08-22 at 09:32 +0200, pangoSE wrote:
>
>> Building upon it can lead to strange things. E.g. 
>> https://www.nyteknik.se/popularteknik/mystisk-jatteskrapa-dok-upp-i-flygsimulator-6999771
>>  (building:levels=212 was entered erroneously and committed to the
>> database without any kind of QA follow-up. If someone knows the
>> osmid I would like to know how long this error was present in OSM)
>>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/712475718/history
>
> 1 - It was introduced by a novice mapper, presumably as a typeo.
>
> 2 - Nikolas von Randow fixed it about 9 months later, presumably with
> some kind of QA tool (maybe just a overpass query).
>
> 3 - Another local novice mapper also edited it, and fixed another issue
> at the same time. Presumably noticed via a rendered map.
>
>
> Before criticising the mapper, it should be noted that it was a novice
> mapper and the existing building data in the area isn't of great
> quality anyway. This wasn't a regression. And accidents happen anyway,
> I've done a similar thing via StreetComplete where I entered the house
> number in the building levels quest.
>
> The big companies doing QA on OSM data (Mapbox and Facebook) have a
> high focus on vandalism. They are trying to stop "Jewtropolis" from
> ever happening again.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)

[Cj Malone]

On Sat, 2020-08-22 at 09:32 +0200, pangoSE wrote:
> Building upon it can lead to strange things. E.g. 
> https://www.nyteknik.se/popularteknik/mystisk-jatteskrapa-dok-upp-i-flygsimulator-6999771
>  (building:levels=212 was entered erroneously and committed to the
> database without any kind of QA follow-up. If someone knows the
> osmid I would like to know how long this error was present in OSM)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/712475718/history

1 - It was introduced by a novice mapper, presumably as a typeo.

2 - Nikolas von Randow fixed it about 9 months later, presumably with
some kind of QA tool (maybe just a overpass query).

3 - Another local novice mapper also edited it, and fixed another issue
at the same time. Presumably noticed via a rendered map.


Before criticising the mapper, it should be noted that it was a novice
mapper and the existing building data in the area isn't of great
quality anyway. This wasn't a regression. And accidents happen anyway,
I've done a similar thing via StreetComplete where I entered the house
number in the building levels quest.

The big companies doing QA on OSM data (Mapbox and Facebook) have a
high focus on vandalism. They are trying to stop "Jewtropolis" from
ever happening again.



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

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] VANDALISM !

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Thanks to DWG for taking this action.

Aug 22, 2020, 03:35 by claysmal...@gmail.com:

> For those who aren't following, the DWG recently decided on a two-day ban for 
> the person who posted this, for the exact behavior they're exhibiting right 
> now: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3850
>
> jdd 3, please take a break. You have better things to do.
>
> I look forward to when you demonstrate the ability to communicate 
> collaboratively.
>
> Best,
> Clay
>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:08 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <> 
> talk...@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>> FYI;
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism
>>  
>> Purposeful removal or degradation of data that are known to be correct,
>>  
>> Deliberate adding incorrect data;
>>  
>> People who revert other people's work should expect to be able to 
>> demonstrate that the reversion was well reasoned and proportionate to the 
>> issue.
>>  
>> Not There;
>> Unverified>>  >>  >> if someone puts in 400 + >>  unverified >> tags in one 
>> edit,
>>  
>> If someone reverts, 400 + edits,  in one edit, done on good faith by others 
>> over the years to conform to there way of thinking,
>>  
>> If someone deletes, 400 + edits,  in one edit, done on good faith by others 
>> over the years to conform to there way of thinking,
>>  
>> If someone refuses to let others, edit because they have taken over that 
>> type edit, all bus stops in the same area,
>> all train stations in the same area, all boundaries in the same area.
>>  
>> Edits that do not conform to the subject wiki. 
>>  
>> if someone downloads data that will create one mulitipolygon, against all 
>> wikis
>>  
>> Also there is no wiki on unverified edits.
>>  
>>  
>> ___
>>  Talk-us mailing list
>>  >> talk...@openstreetmap.org
>>  >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Call for verification (Was: Re: VANDALISM !)

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

"It a playground with half-ass quality more than an authoritative and verified 
source of information (like e.g. Wikipedia)"

I am not sure whatever you claim that
Wikipedia is
"playground with half-ass quality" or
"authoritative and verified source of information".

Though any of this claims would demonstrate that
you are wrong and uninformed.

Like with your "deprecate name tag"
there are so many wrong things here.
OSM would benefit from better verification
tools and so on but insult-laden post
filed with misunderstandings will not
lead towards them.
22 Aug 2020, 09:32 by pang...@riseup.net:

> Hi
>
> 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk  skrev: (22 augusti 2020 
> 03:06:37 CEST)
>
> > 
> >Also there is no wiki on unverified edits.
> > 
>
> In OSM we don't yet have an established system for verification or accurate 
> machine readable references for the data to my knowledge.
>
> This means the whole database is basically just a mess of biased data that 
> one of our millions of editors thought should be included. Most objects have 
> very few revisions and we have no idea about the overall quality or 
> correctness. It a playground with half-ass quality more than an authoritative 
> and verified source of information (like e.g. Wikipedia). Building upon it 
> can lead to strange things. E.g. 
> https://www.nyteknik.se/popularteknik/mystisk-jatteskrapa-dok-upp-i-flygsimulator-6999771
>  (building:levels=212 was entered erroneously and committed to the database 
> without any kind of QA follow-up. If someone knows the osmid I would like to 
> know how long this error was present in OSM)
>
> We should really fix this and start a verification effort after implementing 
> a sane verification model.
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> t...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>

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

[Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)

[pangoSE]

Hi

80hnhtv4agou--- via talk  skrev: (22 augusti 2020 
03:06:37 CEST)

> 
>Also there is no wiki on unverified edits.
> 

In OSM we don't yet have an established system for verification or accurate 
machine readable references for the data to my knowledge.

This means the whole database is basically just a mess of biased data that one 
of our millions of editors thought should be included. Most objects have very 
few revisions and we have no idea about the overall quality or correctness. It 
a playground with half-ass quality more than an authoritative and verified 
source of information (like e.g. Wikipedia). Building upon it can lead to 
strange things. E.g. 
https://www.nyteknik.se/popularteknik/mystisk-jatteskrapa-dok-upp-i-flygsimulator-6999771
 (building:levels=212 was entered erroneously and committed to the database 
without any kind of QA follow-up. If someone knows the osmid I would like to 
know how long this error was present in OSM)

We should really fix this and start a verification effort after implementing a 
sane verification model.

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

Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges

[Thibault Molleman]

So what's the consensus on an apartment building (way) that has mailboxes
for each person who has an apartment there.
I've just been tagging those as:
addr:housenumber = A1;A2;A3;A4;A5;A6;A7;A8;A9;A10;A11

(Semicolon, because that's what the wiki recommends for multiple values
iirc)

On Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 21:36 Topographe Fou 
wrote:

> then why not using addr:interpolation=no to state that the hyphen in
> addr:housenumber does not define a range ? I think everyone would be happy
> and it will not break current tagging schema. QA tools would raise a
> warning if there is an hyphen and no addr:interpolation tag. Default rule
> might be that an hyphen denotes (or not... Or both... I don't care) a range.
>
> LeTopographeFou
> *De:* tagging@openstreetmap.org
> *Envoyé:* 20 août 2020 6:35 PM
> *À:* andrew.harv...@gmail.com
> *Répondre à:* tagging@openstreetmap.org
> *Cc:* matkoni...@tutanota.com; tagging@openstreetmap.org
> *Objet:* Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address
> ranges
>
>
>
>
> Aug 20, 2020, 15:50 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com:
>
>
> And it may be useful to have tag to mark "yes this is actually a single
> housenumber despite
> that includes hyphen or something else that suggests range"
>
>
> I would assume that to be the default, when there are multiple addresses
> best to mark them all out individually or use a linear way with the address
> at the start and end nodes and addr:interpolation on the line (as a first
> pass before mapping them out individually)
>
> But given that addr:housenumber=1-3  may represent either case it would be
> nice to be able to state this.
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging