Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
Some great points here. Good to hear the points of views of all of you. Look forward to hearing more feedback. Kind regards, Rob On Mon, 19 Oct 2020, 9:19 am Graeme Fitzpatrick, wrote: > > Thanks everyone - all makes sense! > > 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] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
Thanks everyone - all makes sense! Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
Hi, On 10/18/20 23:08, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > And the same applies to brains of people It appears to me that the end game in this is precisely that, to change the brains of people. OSM is just a means to and end in that quest. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
18 paź 2020, 23:00 od graemefi...@gmail.com: > > > > > On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 20:39, Rory McCann <> r...@technomancy.org> > wrote: > >> *definitely* not something one does auomatically. >> > > But would it be so impossible? (Not suggesting that it should actually be > done!) > > Couldn't a bot be set to simply find all cases of man_made=, regardless of > what it is, & change them to human_made=, similar to using Find & Replace in > a Word document? > > & no, as you can see, I don't understand the technicalities behind it all, so > please be gentle with explaining that I'm an idiot! :-) > > Thanks > > Graeme > And then whoever is using OSM data also needs to update. For obvious reasons we would not be able to run find & replace in various code used by other people that is using OSM data. And the same applies to brains of people adding OSM data using tags and developers using OSM data and so on...___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
Am So., 18. Okt. 2020 um 23:02 Uhr schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick < graemefi...@gmail.com>: > On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 20:39, Rory McCann wrote: > >> *definitely* not something one does auomatically. >> > > But would it be so impossible? (Not suggesting that it should actually be > done!) > > Couldn't a bot be set to simply find all cases of man_made=, regardless of > what it is, & change them to human_made=, similar to using Find & Replace > in a Word document? > > yes, technically it could be done with a bot or also without a bot, directly on the database, in seconds or less. And once we have done it, we could do it again and again, for all kinds of reasons. The problem is not the data at the origin, it is the system around the database. Cheers. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
Doing this would make over 3M objects have their date updated to the present, when the last meaningful change may have been over 5 years ago. It creates the illusion of data being up-to-date when all that was changed was a tag key. On Sun, 18 Oct 2020, 22:02 Graeme Fitzpatrick, wrote: > > > > On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 20:39, Rory McCann wrote: > >> *definitely* not something one does auomatically. >> > > But would it be so impossible? (Not suggesting that it should actually be > done!) > > Couldn't a bot be set to simply find all cases of man_made=, regardless of > what it is, & change them to human_made=, similar to using Find & Replace > in a Word document? > > & no, as you can see, I don't understand the technicalities behind it all, > so please be gentle with explaining that I'm an idiot! :-) > > 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] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 20:39, Rory McCann wrote: > *definitely* not something one does auomatically. > But would it be so impossible? (Not suggesting that it should actually be done!) Couldn't a bot be set to simply find all cases of man_made=, regardless of what it is, & change them to human_made=, similar to using Find & Replace in a Word document? & no, as you can see, I don't understand the technicalities behind it all, so please be gentle with explaining that I'm an idiot! :-) Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How are busways mapped, which are not guideways?
Am So., 18. Okt. 2020 um 20:25 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > Here's an example of an exclusive busway, which is only used by the Orange > Line / G Line bus service in suburban Los Angeles: > > https://media.metro.net/riding/images/LinePage_orange_line_header.jpg > > The busway is a 2-lane paved surface which is exclusively for public > transit buses. There is a parallel cycleway and footway, but no sidewalks. > Private buses and other vehicles are not permitted on the busway. It used > to be an abandoned railway line which was converted to a busway. > > Currently it is mapped as highway=service + service=busway + access=no + > bus=designated - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/443134693 > > While the current tagging is ok, it seems inconsistent that > highway=bus_guideway gets its own tag, while other busways which are > similar in function are tagged as highway=service. > are pedestrians forbidden to walk on the shoulder? Can you walk on the verges? Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
Hi Le dim. 18 oct. 2020 à 16:25, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : > > > sent from a phone > > > On 18. Oct 2020, at 12:39, Rory McCann wrote: > > > > Yeah changing this is a multi-year project, > > > generations... > Certainly, with the current tagging control plane. That would only took ~3 or 4 months with more streamed practices and appropriate communication. This point reminds us we're not able to change tagging because consumers are using it, whatever the input question was. Such an argument never was and won't ever be a legit reason for me to oppose to a change. All the best François ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How are busways mapped, which are not guideways?
Here's an example of an exclusive busway, which is only used by the Orange Line / G Line bus service in suburban Los Angeles: https://media.metro.net/riding/images/LinePage_orange_line_header.jpg The busway is a 2-lane paved surface which is exclusively for public transit buses. There is a parallel cycleway and footway, but no sidewalks. Private buses and other vehicles are not permitted on the busway. It used to be an abandoned railway line which was converted to a busway. Currently it is mapped as highway=service + service=busway + access=no + bus=designated - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/443134693 While the current tagging is ok, it seems inconsistent that highway=bus_guideway gets its own tag, while other busways which are similar in function are tagged as highway=service. - Joseph Eisenberg On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 1:38 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > Oct 18, 2020, 10:20 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > > sent from a phone > > On 18. Oct 2020, at 10:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > One more note: in some cases only specific buses are allowed (for example, > only public transport > buses operated by a municipal company, with private buses not allowed). > > In such case bus=private would be a correct tagging, right? > > > > no, the tag “bus” is for a bus acting as public transport vehicle, not for > the vehicle class of busses. > > There are cases where buses acting as public transport vehicle (travel > between cities) are > still not allowed and only city-operated public transport is allowed. > > (or is it case of regional difference of not treating privately owned > buses running scheduled > open access journeys as a public transport?) > ___ > 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] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
sent from a phone > On 18. Oct 2020, at 12:39, Rory McCann wrote: > > Yeah changing this is a multi-year project, generations... Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
Yeah changing this is a multi-year project, and *definitely* not something one does auomatically. On Sun, 18 Oct 2020, at 11:42 AM, Alan Mackie wrote: > This proposal requires the retagging of over 3 million objects, breaks > every existing rendering, editor and a huge amount of documentation in > order to replace a term already generally considered gender neutral and > easily found in dictionaries (including bilingual ones) with more > awkward phrasing that doesn't even remove the detested string. > > Please don't do this. > > On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 10:11, Rory McCann wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Oct 2020, at 2:41 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > > And all this effort achieve what? > > > > The liberation of all people from from gender roles > > > > > > ___ > > 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] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
This proposal requires the retagging of over 3 million objects, breaks every existing rendering, editor and a huge amount of documentation in order to replace a term already generally considered gender neutral and easily found in dictionaries (including bilingual ones) with more awkward phrasing that doesn't even remove the detested string. Please don't do this. On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 10:11, Rory McCann wrote: > On Thu, 15 Oct 2020, at 2:41 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > And all this effort achieve what? > > The liberation of all people from from gender roles > > > ___ > 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] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
Love this proposal! On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 5:11 PM Rory McCann wrote: > On Thu, 15 Oct 2020, at 2:41 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > And all this effort achieve what? > > The liberation of all people from from gender roles > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- *MIKKO L. TAMURA* *Lead Advocate* *Map Beks Initiative* *Externals Head* *Pilipinas Chubs X Chasers* *Volunteer Mapper* *OpenStreetMap Philippines* *Contact Number: +639173290655* ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020, at 2:41 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > And all this effort achieve what? The liberation of all people from from gender roles ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?
Oct 18, 2020, 01:53 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 17. Oct 2020, at 21:01, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >> >> Nevertheless some crossings were mapped using highway=cycleway and >> bicycle=no on crossing >> nodes, probably because it is much less fiddly to map it. >> > > > Yes I know, one possible outcome of this discussion here would be agreeing > that this representation bears some problems and that we suggest a less error > prone alternative is chosen. > I agree that splitting road is preferable. Still, highway=crossing bicycle=no is an acceptable tagging (like you can map cemeteries or parks or churches as nodes in the first pass, especially when there is no good aerial imagery available) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How are busways mapped, which are not guideways?
Oct 18, 2020, 10:20 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 18. Oct 2020, at 10:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging >> wrote: >> >> One more note: in some cases only specific buses are allowed (for example, >> only public transport >> buses operated by a municipal company, with private buses not allowed). >> >> In such case bus=private would be a correct tagging, right? >> > > > no, the tag “bus” is for a bus acting as public transport vehicle, not for > the vehicle class of busses. > There are cases where buses acting as public transport vehicle (travel between cities) are still not allowed and only city-operated public transport is allowed. (or is it case of regional difference of not treating privately owned buses running scheduled open access journeys as a public transport?) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?
Oct 18, 2020, 10:20 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > > > Imagine I would add hgv=no or motorcycle=no tags to > pedestrian crossings > Is there a case where hgv use sidewalk together with pedestrians and cross road using crossing shared with a pedestrians? Is there a case of sidewalk where hgv are allowed but on crossing with road oneis supposed to walk carrying yourvehicle? Is there some existing usage of hgv=noon crossings? >>> >>> Valid questions, but the exact same questions apply for a >>> pedestrian way crossing a secondary. On that pedestrian way >>> cyclists are not allowed so what is the use of adding bicycle=no >>> to the crossing node? >>> >>> >> I agree that adding bicycle=no on highway=crossing ispointless on >> footways with bicycle=no or >> where bicycle=no is implied >> >> It is useful solely if cyclists are allowed oncycleway/footway >> crossing road and are obligated to >> dismount if crossing road at that point >> > > It would be good if all crossings that require this special handling can > be found searching for bicycle=no + highway=crossing but that is not > possible as the overwhelming majority are cases of pointless tagging. > > It is possible to narrow them to find just ones attached to way with highway=cycleway or footways with bicycle=yes/bicycle=designated (using overpass API) > For these abnormal cases cyclist are never obliged to dismount at the > point of the crossing but from one side of the road to the other side of > the road so tagging that part of the way separately is more precise. > > > > >> (and yes, in most cases, though not all,it can be retagged as access >> tagging on way) >> > > > > > Can you give an example? > > cycleway:both=lane road with crossing for pedestrians only (I am giving this example to you for a third time) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?
Oct 18, 2020, 10:27 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > On 18/10/2020 07:46, Volker Schmidt wrote: > >> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 09:46, Martin Koppenhoefer <>> >> dieterdre...@gmail.com>> > wrote: >> >>> Generally, I would propose to only tagcrossing =* on >>> the crossing node, but refrain fromaccess like tags on >>> this node (no bicycle or foottags). The access should >>> be derived from thecrossing ways. >>> >> >> This statement is only correct if there are crossing ways using >> the crossing node. >> However, in practical terms it happens very often that in a >> first mapping of a road the foot and/or bicycle crossings, as >> they are nicely visible on aerial imaging, ar mapped, but not >> the crossing foot- and/or cycle-ways, mainly because the >> details are not visible on aerial imagery or the mapper is not >> interested, at that stage, in foot/cycling details. And the >> distinction, at least in Italy, between foot-only and combined >> foot-cycle crossing are well visable on satellite imagery. Also >> traffic-signals are often clearly visible because of the >> stop lines. Hence in that first round it is easy to map >> crossings and basic crossing types. The crossing way is then >> often added later. To me it comes natural not to remove the >> existing tagging on a crossing node when I add a crossing way >> later. >> > > But what is the use of adding bicycle=no/dismount for, let's call it a > solitary crossings? > > What you mean by "solitary crossing"? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?
On 18/10/2020 07:46, Volker Schmidt wrote: On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 09:46, Martin Koppenhoefer mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote: Generally, I would propose to only tag crossing =* on the crossing node, but refrain from access like tags on this node (no bicycle or foot tags). The access should be derived from the crossing ways. This statement is only correct if there are crossing ways using the crossing node. However, in practical terms it happens very often that in a first mapping of a road the foot and/or bicycle crossings, as they are nicely visible on aerial imaging, ar mapped, but not the crossing foot- and/or cycle-ways, mainly because the details are not visible on aerial imagery or the mapper is not interested, at that stage, in foot/cycling details. And the distinction, at least in Italy, between foot-only and combined foot-cycle crossing are well visable on satellite imagery. Also traffic-signals are often clearly visible because of the stop lines. Hence in that first round it is easy to map crossings and basic crossing types. The crossing way is then often added later. To me it comes natural not to remove the existing tagging on a crossing node when I add a crossing way later. But what is the use of adding bicycle=no/dismount for, let's call it a solitary crossings? When in a later stage the crossing way is added this information is not needed and in the first stage it does not add value to routers. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Crossing tagged on both way and node (was: What does bicycle=no on a node means?)
Oct 18, 2020, 10:17 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 16. Oct 2020, at 09:32, Richard Fairhurst wrote: >> >> generally bicycle=dismount should be used instead, reserving bicycle=no for >> those circumstances where even pushing a bike is not legal (e.g. most public >> footpaths in England & Wales). >> > > > most bicycle=no tags out there actually mean that you cannot ride a bike, not > that you cannot have a bike in your pocket or be pushing a bike or carrying a > bike in a box or on your shoulders. > > I would suggest a different tag than bicycle=no for places where you cannot > bring a bicycle, because otherwise you will never know which interpretation > of bicycle=no was used by the mapper. > +1 At this point bicycle=no means "no cycling allowed" and trying to change meaning would be quite hopeless. You would need a special tag to mark which interpretation is used and resurvey all bicycle=no cases. And at that point it is easier to have a new tag for rare "no bicycle at all in addition to forbidding cycling" At that point it is easier to simply invent a new tag for "no bicycle pushing". (bicycle_pushed=no, bicycle_pushing=no and bicycle_possession=no were proposed) And I think at every point in OSM history, as bicycle=dismount was a duplicate of bicycle=no > The wiki is unsure about the exact meaning, the bicycle=* page says it is > about restrictions for bicycles while the access page (older) says it is > about restrictions for cyclists. IMHO the most common interpretation is > legality of cycling/riding a bicycle. > "" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How are busways mapped, which are not guideways?
sent from a phone > On 18. Oct 2020, at 10:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > One more note: in some cases only specific buses are allowed (for example, > only public transport > buses operated by a municipal company, with private buses not allowed). > > In such case bus=private would be a correct tagging, right? no, the tag “bus” is for a bus acting as public transport vehicle, not for the vehicle class of busses. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?
Imagine I would add hgv=no or motorcycle=no tags to pedestrian crossings Is there a case where hgv use sidewalk together with pedestrians and cross road using crossing shared with a pedestrians? Is there a case of sidewalk where hgv are allowed but on crossing with road oneis supposed to walk carrying your vehicle? Is there some existing usage of hgv=noon crossings? Valid questions, but the exact same questions apply for a pedestrian way crossing a secondary. On that pedestrian way cyclists are not allowed so what is the use of adding bicycle=no to the crossing node? I agree that adding bicycle=no on highway=crossing is pointless on footways with bicycle=no or where bicycle=no is implied It is useful solely if cyclists are allowed on cycleway/footway crossing road and are obligated to dismount if crossing road at that point It would be good if all crossings that require this special handling can be found searching for bicycle=no + highway=crossing but that is not possible as the overwhelming majority are cases of pointless tagging. For these abnormal cases cyclist are never obliged to dismount at the point of the crossing but from one side of the road to the other side of the road so tagging that part of the way separately is more precise. (and yes, in most cases, though not all, it can be retagged as access tagging on way) Can you give an example? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How are busways mapped, which are not guideways?
Oct 18, 2020, 09:58 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > > >> On 18. Oct 2020, at 08:12, Joseph Eisenberg >> wrote: >> >> Right now the suggestion on highway=bus_guideway is that other busways might >> be mapped highway=service + bus=designated + access=no. (See >> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbus_guideway>> ) >> > > > I have been retagging these in the past in my area because the tagging > prevented pedestrians from walking on the sidewalks (depending on the > presence of sidewalks and other lanes this may be desirable or not). > If walking along them is OK then add foot=yes + sidewalk tag (or map footway as a separate line) > AFAIK dedicated bus lanes are tagged with lane tagging. > Yes, bus lanes are tagged with lane tagging. This applies to dedicated road (in my city some major roads have sidewalks, cycleways, oneway carriageway for general traffic and bus dedicated road between them - sometimes also with trams). See https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/50.04681/19.92543=N ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Crossing tagged on both way and node (was: What does bicycle=no on a node means?)
sent from a phone > On 16. Oct 2020, at 09:32, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > generally bicycle=dismount should be used instead, reserving bicycle=no for > those circumstances where even pushing a bike is not legal (e.g. most public > footpaths in England & Wales). most bicycle=no tags out there actually mean that you cannot ride a bike, not that you cannot have a bike in your pocket or be pushing a bike or carrying a bike in a box or on your shoulders. I would suggest a different tag than bicycle=no for places where you cannot bring a bicycle, because otherwise you will never know which interpretation of bicycle=no was used by the mapper. The wiki is unsure about the exact meaning, the bicycle=* page says it is about restrictions for bicycles while the access page (older) says it is about restrictions for cyclists. IMHO the most common interpretation is legality of cycling/riding a bicycle. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How are busways mapped, which are not guideways?
Oct 18, 2020, 10:01 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > > > > Oct 18, 2020, 08:08 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > >> There is an approved tag for bus guideways, where specially-designed buses >> are guided by a rail: >> >> But how should ordinary busways be mapped? Right now the suggestion on >> highway=bus_guideway is that other busways might be mapped highway=service + >> bus=designated + access=no. (See >> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbus_guideway>> ) >> > It seems a good tagging for me. > One more note: in some cases only specific buses are allowed (for example, only public transport buses operated by a municipal company, with private buses not allowed). In such case bus=private would be a correct tagging, right? >> >> There is also a somewhat common tag service=busway which has been used 2500 >> times, and can be added to highway=service >> > This also makes sense. > I created https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service%3Dbusway Image, checking, maybe expanding would be welcomed ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How are busways mapped, which are not guideways?
Oct 18, 2020, 08:08 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > There is an approved tag for bus guideways, where specially-designed buses > are guided by a rail: > > But how should ordinary busways be mapped? Right now the suggestion on > highway=bus_guideway is that other busways might be mapped highway=service + > bus=designated + access=no. (See > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbus_guideway> ) > It seems a good tagging for me. > > There is also a somewhat common tag service=busway which has been used 2500 > times, and can be added to highway=service > This also makes sense. > > Alternatively, the tag highway=busway has been used a couple of dozen times, > and there is a new draft proposal to use this tag instead of highway=service, > for standard busways: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=busway > > A new tag would require database users to adapt, but since guided busways > already have a specific tag, it seems odd that other exclusive busways are > mapped only as service roads. > > -- Joseph Eisenberg > I see no significant benefit from introducing new highway type, especially given need to support new highway value everywhere - but at least it would not cause widespread breakage as such road are of a minor importance. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Crossing tagged on both way and node (was: What does bicycle=no on a node means?)
On 16/10/2020 09:06, Richard Fairhurst wrote: It does not currently take any account of bicycle=no on a crossing, not least because bicycle=no is a very problematic tag - generally bicycle=dismount should be used instead, reserving bicycle=no for those circumstances where even pushing a bike is not legal (e.g. most public footpaths in England & Wales). Good to hear what cycle.travel does regarding with bicycle=no/dismount on a crossing, that is ignore it. Also good to hear your perspective on bicycle=dismount versus bicycle=no. It makes sense but I was not aware. On bicycle=no/dismount on highway=crossing: In >95% of the cases bicycle=no/dismount is useless because the access rights on the connecting ways suffice. My educated guess is that there are about 3000 crossings marked with bicycle=no/dismount while allowed to cycle over them using the road. brouter does take bicycle=no/dismount in node context into account, see https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265 and that gives a moderate penalty as the assumption is made on can unmount crossing the crossing node. The problem with ignoring is that "bicycle=no/dismount" on highway=crossing is that it becomes use useless tag. The main data consumers of openstreetmap data are map makers (who do not care) and routers as for others the data on crossings is not complete enough for other use. So the routing perspective is an important one. Should routers (keep) ignoring bicycle=no/dismount on a highway=crossing node? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Crossing tagged on both way and node (was: What does bicycle=no on a node means?)
Oct 18, 2020, 09:44 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > On 15/10/2020 17:36, Jmapb via Tagging wrote: > >> I've always been surprised to see a footway=crossing/cycleway=crossing >> way with the intersection node tagged as highway=crossing. There's >> only a single physical crossing, so this seems contra to the >> one-feature-one-element rule. >> >> A highway=crossing node makes sense in an area without mapped >> footways/cycleways. But if the crossing ways are mapped, routing >> software will need to examine the intersection node and scan the >> properties of all highways intersecting there. It seems to make >> tagging the node itself redundant. >> >> Are there really routers that require the node be tagged as well? >> > Routers do not need highway=crossing to detect crossings, every node > where 3 or more ways connect is a crossing. > Note that there are multiple cases where 3 or more ways connect without it being a crossing. Even after "any case where 3 or more ways connect, with at least one being a road and at least 2 being a footway/path/cycleway/footway" amendment not all of them will be crossing (footway joining terminal node of road, two footways joinining road on one side etc). Crossing may be in situation where just one footway line joins road. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How are busways mapped, which are not guideways?
sent from a phone > On 18. Oct 2020, at 08:12, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > Right now the suggestion on highway=bus_guideway is that other busways might > be mapped highway=service + bus=designated + access=no. (See > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbus_guideway) I have been retagging these in the past in my area because the tagging prevented pedestrians from walking on the sidewalks (depending on the presence of sidewalks and other lanes this may be desirable or not). AFAIK dedicated bus lanes are tagged with lane tagging. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Crossing tagged on both way and node (was: What does bicycle=no on a node means?)
sent from a phone > On 18. Oct 2020, at 09:46, Emvee via Tagging > wrote: > > Routers do not need highway=crossing to detect crossings, every node > where 3 or more ways connect is a crossing. sure, but many highway=crossings are tagged on nodes where only 2 ways (or one going through) connect. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?
sent from a phone > On 18. Oct 2020, at 07:49, Volker Schmidt wrote: > >> Generally, I would propose to only tag crossing =* on the crossing node, but >> refrain from access like tags on this node (no bicycle or foot tags). The >> access should be derived from the crossing ways. > > > This statement is only correct if there are crossing ways using the crossing > node. note that I wrote “access_like” tags, if adding more information to a crossing node is desired, an alternative like bicycle_crossing=yes could be used. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Crossing tagged on both way and node (was: What does bicycle=no on a node means?)
On 15/10/2020 17:36, Jmapb via Tagging wrote: I've always been surprised to see a footway=crossing/cycleway=crossing way with the intersection node tagged as highway=crossing. There's only a single physical crossing, so this seems contra to the one-feature-one-element rule. A highway=crossing node makes sense in an area without mapped footways/cycleways. But if the crossing ways are mapped, routing software will need to examine the intersection node and scan the properties of all highways intersecting there. It seems to make tagging the node itself redundant. Are there really routers that require the node be tagged as well? Routers do not need highway=crossing to detect crossings, every node where 3 or more ways connect is a crossing. I also do not add highway=crossing unless I also add crossing=* ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How are busways mapped, which are not guideways?
When you say busway is that just a road that only busses are allowed to use, and specifically signposted for busses? if so then the suggested you noted of highway=* + bus=designated + access=no would be correct. On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 17:12, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > There is an approved tag for bus guideways, where specially-designed buses > are guided by a rail: > > But how should ordinary busways be mapped? Right now the suggestion on > highway=bus_guideway is that other busways might be mapped highway=service > + bus=designated + access=no. (See > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbus_guideway) > > There is also a somewhat common tag service=busway which has been used > 2500 times, and can be added to highway=service > > Alternatively, the tag highway=busway has been used a couple of dozen > times, and there is a new draft proposal to use this tag instead of > highway=service, for standard busways: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=busway > > A new tag would require database users to adapt, but since guided busways > already have a specific tag, it seems odd that other exclusive busways are > mapped only as service roads. > > -- Joseph Eisenberg > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] How are busways mapped, which are not guideways?
There is an approved tag for bus guideways, where specially-designed buses are guided by a rail: But how should ordinary busways be mapped? Right now the suggestion on highway=bus_guideway is that other busways might be mapped highway=service + bus=designated + access=no. (See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbus_guideway) There is also a somewhat common tag service=busway which has been used 2500 times, and can be added to highway=service Alternatively, the tag highway=busway has been used a couple of dozen times, and there is a new draft proposal to use this tag instead of highway=service, for standard busways: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=busway A new tag would require database users to adapt, but since guided busways already have a specific tag, it seems odd that other exclusive busways are mapped only as service roads. -- Joseph Eisenberg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
