Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Joseph Eisenberg]

>From the talk page:

> "Base" can have different meanings in different contexts. At some future
point we might regret having defined base=* to mean military bases. Maybe
military_base=*. --Brian de Ford (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and this can be easily fixed by changing the key to describe what
we are actually specifying: "What military service branch is using this
feature?"

So I suggest military_branch=* or military_service=* for the key.

Though this is based on my US English understanding of the military
terminology. Do they call them "military service branches" in British
English too?

This would also solve the issue of using base=army + military=office or
base=marines + military=danger_area, which would otherwise seem odd.

There are, in fact, military offices which are not within a
landuse=military area, and there are military=danger_area features which
are not in landuse=military

e.g: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/315105891,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/26165183 (danger_area)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/151330951,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/485899442 (office)

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 3:36 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:
>
> I've now incorporated all (I think?) the comments from the talk page into
the proposal, if you'd like to check the wording?
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Military_bases
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 09:32, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 08:37, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> military bases might house intelligence facilities which are known and
could be tagged.
>>
>>
>> They could, if you can identify them, but as mentioned above, should we
be?
>>
>> 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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:healthcare=vaccination_centre

[Joseph Eisenberg]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:healthcare%3Dvaccination_centre

healthcare=vaccination_centre "A healthcare facility where people are
vaccinated"

The tag healthcare=vaccination_centre is proposed to map a vaccination
centre: a healthcare facility specifically dedicated to administering
vaccinations to individuals, to provide immunisation against infectious
diseases. This tag should be used for locations which are specifically
designed or designated for vaccination, and which are not a general clinic,
hospital or doctor's office (which already have tags). These centres may be
located in permanent structures and intended for long-term use for multiple
vaccination programs, or might be semi-permanent or short-term facilities
located in tents or other mobile structures which are designed for a single
vaccination campaign.

It may be used with the recently proposed tag vaccination=* (which looks
like it will be approved this week - voting is ongoing) which can specify
the specific vaccination or vaccinations which are available at the
location, e.g. vaccination=covid-19.

Other facilities also administer specific vaccinations in addition to their
primary healthcare purpose as a hospital, clinic, doctor's office,
midwife's office, nurse post, etc. These should be tagged with the tag
appropriate for the primary feature, such as amenity=hospital,
amenity=clinic, amenity=doctors, healthcare=midwife, healthcare=nurse, etc.
- in contrast, this new tag is for dedicated vaccination centres.

Please comment on the proposal discussion page (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Tag:healthcare%3Dvaccination_centre)
or here.

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

Re: [Tagging] edit war related to tagging of a bus-only major road

[Joseph Eisenberg]

There is also a proposed tag, which is now being used, for highway=busway -

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:highway%3Dbusway

But that proposal mentions:

"The current tagging scheme for this type of roadway is highway
=service
, access
=no
, bus
=designated, sometimes using
also service =busway
."

I would support establishing this tag highway=busway for roadways which are
exclusively for the use of buses.

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 6:39 AM Michael Tsang  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I'm working with some roads in Central area in Hong Kong. Des Voeux Road
> Central is considered one of the most important roads in the area which I
> tagged it as highway=secondary, however another editor has repeatedly
> changed
> it to highway=service on the fact that that road is closed to motor
> vehicles
> except buses. An edit war has appeared.
>
> Here is the relevant changesets and ways:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/94428780#map=17/22.28199/114.15872
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/242113655#map=17/22.28168/114.15911
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/95558773
>
> According to the wiki description of highway=secondary, such road "is not
> part
> of a major route, but nevertheless forming a link in the national route
> network." Des Voeux Road Central (between Queensway and Pottinger Street)
> is
> such a highway for buses only. Tens of bus routes are using this road to
> serve
> passengers between Wan Chai to Central, while other motor vehicles must
> use
> the other highways in the region (also tagged as highway=secondary).
>
> However, a highway=service is "generally for access", and also "for access
> for
> parking, driveways and alleys". Des Voeux Road Central is definitely not
> the
> case here. It is instead a major road in the road network usable by buses.
>
> What should I do here now?
>
> Michael
> --
> Sent from KMail___
> 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] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary

[ael via Tagging]

On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 03:47:26PM -0500, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:
> >
> > We have examples in the UK, even on major roads like the A346 between
> > Marlborough and Swindon. I don't think they are tagged.

I have deleted my several dashcam videos of this area, but one of the
signs, which I think says "Blind Summit" can be seen on streetview:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4851274,-1.7148865,3a,37.5y,349.47h,74.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6UPhVs9Z98up8HFuiCls_g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

From the other direction, it is signed as "Hidden dips":
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4870872,-1.7154736,3a,75y,179.17h,94.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sA2dVccotjHlO5eWdJLnX3A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

ael


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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 23:37, Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> Kevin Kenny argued (I think convincingly) that the hazard is fallen, not
> falling, rocks.  There is a very slight risk that a rock will fall on your
> vehicle but the greater risk, by far, is that you will drive into a fallen
> rock.
>

But not always!
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_WsC1Ee0QfGg/SdqAsY6oJwI/Akg/P71eh3vrZj0/s280/rockslide+4.bmp

Editors could make both fallen and falling searchable, and identify
> the preset as "falling/fallen rocks," so we might as well make the
> value reflect the really big risk rather than the very small one.
>

While I agree with you, our signs do say "Falling"!

On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 03:30, Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> Also, in the UK, the sign for unexploded ordnance is the same as you
> have for minefields.  That symbol first appeared in UK Defence Standard
> 05-34, Marking of Service Matériel, and was called (bizarrely) "Unexploded
> explosive ordnance" (if it has exploded it would no longer be explosive,
> and if it's explosive then it must be unexploded).  In old money it
> would have been called "unexploded bomb."
>

Our UXO, or "Live bombs" sign, depending on the sign it's on, is
https://cdn-01.media-brady.com/store/stuk/media/catalog/product/cache/3/image/85e4522595efc69f496374d01ef2bf13/1563992197/d/m/dmeu_hz185ad_std.lang.all.jpg

I think that moved away from "bomb" because other things (artillery shells,
grenades, rockets etc) can all blow up & kill you?

On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 04:13, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

>
>>
>>
>>- Hidden dip
>>
>> Maybe.  There is a barely used tag hazard=dip.  Is this a permanent
> feature?  I usually see these in relation to road construction.  Note that
> speed dips are already covered under the key traffic_calming, so this would
> have to describe a permanent, signed dangerous feature that wasn't put
> there for traffic control reason.
>

Yes, they are permanent features & relatively common out here, with a
"very" complicated warning sign!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Australia_road_sign_W5-9.svg

A few more that I've just thought of:

Tilting truck: This sign warns that trucks may tip over when driving around
the curve of the road or when making a turn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Australia_W1-8_(L).svg

Emergency vehicles: give you early warning that emergency vehicles may
suddenly drive in or out of their entrance onto the road.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Australia_road_sign_W5-SA70.svg

Grid: to warn that you are approaching a cattle grid - we already have a
tag for grids, do we also need a sign to warn that they're coming up?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Australia#/media/File:Australia_road_sign_W5-16.svg

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 20:43, ael via Tagging 
wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 01:07:52PM -0500, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:
> > >
> > >- Hidden dip
> > >
> > > Maybe.  There is a barely used tag hazard=dip.  Is this a permanent
> > feature?
>
> We have examples in the UK, even on major roads like the A346 between
> Marlborough and Swindon. I don't think they are tagged. I struggle to
> see why tagging as a hazard would be useful in OSM today, but perhaps
> with sophisticated routers issuing an alarm on approach might be
> something in the future. These dips are clearly signed.
>

I would prefer a router warn me of such things at the outset, when I could
ask it for an alternative route.  Finding out when you get near may still
need extensive back-tracking.

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

>
> We have examples in the UK, even on major roads like the A346 between
> Marlborough and Swindon. I don't think they are tagged.



> with sophisticated routers issuing an alarm on approach might be
> something in the future. These dips are clearly signed.
>

You've just convinced me that this IS something that should be tagged!
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary

[ael via Tagging]

On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 01:07:52PM -0500, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:
> >
> >- Hidden dip
> >
> > Maybe.  There is a barely used tag hazard=dip.  Is this a permanent
> feature? 

We have examples in the UK, even on major roads like the A346 between
Marlborough and Swindon. I don't think they are tagged. I struggle to
see why tagging as a hazard would be useful in OSM today, but perhaps
with sophisticated routers issuing an alarm on approach might be
something in the future. These dips are clearly signed.

ael

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 20:01, Jeremy Harris  wrote:

> On 09/12/2020 19:43, Paul Allen wrote:
> >
> > For the swing bridge, it's covered.  But the text says "Opening or swing
> > bridge."
> > I have no idea what an opening in a route might be if it's not a movable
> > bridge
> > but maybe somebody else on the list does.
>
> Lift bridge.  Has a horizontal axis for the moving part, which moves
> vertically.
> Think of Tower Bridge,
>

Thanks.  I was parsing that wrong.  I was thinking "(opening) or (swing
bridge)"
not "(opening or swing) bridge."  No wonder it had me puzzled.

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary

[Jeremy Harris]

On 09/12/2020 19:43, Paul Allen wrote:

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 18:13, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:





Here are the ones that I think are worth considering:

- Opening or swing bridge ahead

This is already covered by the approved tag bridge:movable and its

various sub-keys that describe different types of movable bridges.



For the swing bridge, it's covered.  But the text says "Opening or swing
bridge."
I have no idea what an opening in a route might be if it's not a movable
bridge
but maybe somebody else on the list does.


Lift bridge.  Has a horizontal axis for the moving part, which moves vertically.
Think of Tower Bridge,

As opposed to a vertical axis so that the bridge roadbed can swivel in
the horizontal plane.  That would be a "swing bridge".

Both are "opening bridges".



- Hidden dip

Maybe.  There is a barely used tag hazard=dip.  Is this a permanent feature?




I don't know.  I don't recall ever seeing that sign.  But in my part of the
world we have old hump-backed bridges so it's conceivable we have
roads with hidden dips, too.


It's a hazard you want to know about if you are a car driver thinking
of an overtake.  "don't do it; an oncoming car might suddenly appear".

--
Cheers,
  Jeremy

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 18:13, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

>
>
>> Here are the ones that I think are worth considering:
>>
>>- Opening or swing bridge ahead
>>
>> This is already covered by the approved tag bridge:movable and its
> various sub-keys that describe different types of movable bridges.
>

For the swing bridge, it's covered.  But the text says "Opening or swing
bridge."
I have no idea what an opening in a route might be if it's not a movable
bridge
but maybe somebody else on the list does.


   - Overhead electric cable

Overhead powerline cables are already mapped, it seems that would be
> sufficient to know that there is an overhead cable.
>

Only if the height of the cable is specified, and it rarely is.  In my
country there
are minimum clearances in most cases, and only extra-tall vehicles need to
take special care.  But there are cases where the clearance is lower than
might
normally be expected.  My feeling is that if some authority thinks a cable
needs a
warning sign then it should be considered a hazard.

   - Hidden dip

Maybe.  There is a barely used tag hazard=dip.  Is this a permanent feature?
>

I don't know.  I don't recall ever seeing that sign.  But in my part of the
world we have old hump-backed bridges so it's conceivable we have
roads with hidden dips, too.

One not covered there is the warning that a route is unsuitable for long
>>
> vehicles.  There are a few minor roads near me like that.  Drive a long
>> vehicle along them and (at best) you have a long reverse or (at worst)
>> you get stuck.
>>
>
> Since we have tags to describe the width of roads, and the ways making
> them up have a geometry associated with them, it seems that this is
> something that routers could simply calculate based on existing tagging.
>

Routers could calculate it, but at what computational cost?  Maybe it's
something
they do anyway, so zero cost.  Maybe it could be derived from something they
already do, so low cost.  My guess is that they don't examine road geometry
in that much detail, if at all, and it would be expensive.

Also, think of a T junction.  A sharp, 90-degree turn.  In practise, lane
widths
give some leeway for the turn.  In practise, junction corners may be rounded
to allow long vehicles to turn.  Routers which tried to evaluate road
geometry
for long vehicles could end up incorrectly discarding T junctions.

Digging around, I found
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/schedules/made
which lists several "unsuitables": heavy goods vehicles, long vehicles, wide
vehicles, buses, caravans, trailers, articulated vehicles.  Some of those
might
be better handled by the appropriate access restriction, if we had access
restrictions for them and if this were a legal prohibition (it isn't).

>
>
>> Also, in the UK, the sign for unexploded ordnance is the same as you
>> have for minefields.  That symbol first appeared in UK Defence Standard
>> 05-34, Marking of Service Matériel, and was called (bizarrely) "Unexploded
>> explosive ordnance" (if it has exploded it would no longer be explosive,
>> and if it's explosive then it must be unexploded).  In old money it
>> would have been called "unexploded bomb."
>>
>
> Thanks!  This is not a sign I normally see on my daily commute :)
>

I did some more digging.  It's not a sign associated with minefields unless
those minefields also have unexploded ordnance that isn't mines.  There
is no standard sign for minefields, but there is a semi-standard.  See
https://studioissa.com/warning-signs-how-landmines-can-teach-us-about-project-design-and-communication/
and
https://www.mineactionstandards.org/fileadmin/MAS/documents/archives/IMAS-08-40-Ed2-Am1.pdf

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

> Here are the ones that I think are worth considering:
>
>- Opening or swing bridge ahead
>
> This is already covered by the approved tag bridge:movable and its various
sub-keys that describe different types of movable bridges.  There were no
existing usages I could find under the hazard key, and the case of a
movable bridge _ahead_ sounds like a router problem.

>
>- Steep hill
>
> Covered by the approved key "incline"

>
>- Trams crossing ahead
>- Level crossing without barrier or gate
>- Frail (or blind or disabled) pedestrians crossing
>
> These are all versions of highway=crossing.  I have deliberately not
defined any crossing hazards as I feel they belong as part of that key,
which has its own hierarchy for different types of hazards.  If
highway=crossing and hazard= should be comingled, I think that is a
separate discussion that should be had.  But, to keep this "clean", I'm
specifically excluding highway=crossing hazards from consideration in this
go.  The only almost-exception is hazard=animal_crossing which is
specifically NOT a highway=crossing.

>
>- Pedestrians in road ahead [no sidewalk]
>
>  Already covered in the proposal with hazard=pedestrians

>
>- Overhead electric cable
>
> Overhead powerline cables are already mapped, it seems that would be
sufficient to know that there is an overhead cable.  There is zero existing
usage that I can find under any tag value for indicating this type of
hazard beyond the geometry of a power line drawn over the road.  As such, I
would exclude this case from this pass as potentially
controversial/duplicative with existing tagging.

>
>- Sharp deviation of route
>
> Already covered in the proposal as a hazard=turn.  I have not added
additional tagging to describe the sharpness of the turn because that fact
is already evident in the way geometry.

>
>- Ice
>
> This is a good suggestion, and I will add hazard=ice which has a handful
of usages.  It is distinctly different from hazard=frost_heave and will
cover the various versions of "bridge freezes before roadway" and so
forth.

>
>- Hidden dip
>
> Maybe.  There is a barely used tag hazard=dip.  Is this a permanent
feature?  I usually see these in relation to road construction.  Note that
speed dips are already covered under the key traffic_calming, so this would
have to describe a permanent, signed dangerous feature that wasn't put
there for traffic control reason.


> One not covered there is the warning that a route is unsuitable for long
> vehicles.  There are a few minor roads near me like that.  Drive a long
> vehicle along them and (at best) you have a long reverse or (at worst)
> you get stuck.
>

Since we have tags to describe the width of roads, and the ways making them
up have a geometry associated with them, it seems that this is something
that routers could simply calculate based on existing tagging.  In order to
avoid tags which might be controversial or redundant with other tagging, I
would not include this -- similar to a "narrow road" hazard which I have
chosen to exclude for the same reason.  I feel that these cases are
potentially more complex and deserve a separate consideration and/or
proposal.



> Also, in the UK, the sign for unexploded ordnance is the same as you
> have for minefields.  That symbol first appeared in UK Defence Standard
> 05-34, Marking of Service Matériel, and was called (bizarrely) "Unexploded
> explosive ordnance" (if it has exploded it would no longer be explosive,
> and if it's explosive then it must be unexploded).  In old money it
> would have been called "unexploded bomb."
>

Thanks!  This is not a sign I normally see on my daily commute :)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - barrier:guard_stone

[Volker Schmidt]

My apologies, wrong link!
The corner guard stone is here:
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/USu9htX8nw95mW77kSeZ7Q

Volker

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 23:40, Alan Mackie  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 17:03, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>
>> My gard stone example  on a building corne
>> is also useful
>> for this part of the discussion. I know the place well and I know the local
>> amateur history expert, and we talked about this specific stone, and also
>> asked about its historic value.
>>
> I'm sorry, I'm having trouble spotting it at that link, is it by the gate?
>
>> It is anywhere between 100 and a couple of hundred years old. It is on a
>> building the walls of which may have many hundreds of years. So it's
>> historical and as it's the only guard stone in that part of the city, it's
>> most likely also historic, not because in itself it is historic, but it's a
>> historical marker, as we are not good at keeping historic buildings of
>> minor importance.  The next building down the road, (which BTW may well be
>> of Roman origin as it used to lead straight to the historic city center of
>> Roman Patavium) was a tavern with several hundred years of confirmed
>> history, but was torn down about ten years ago to make place for a new
>> private house. So my personal opinion is that it is historic, even though
>> most likely 99% of the locals have never noticed it.
>>
>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 15:15, Paul Allen  wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 09:56, Martin Koppenhoefer 
>>> wrote:
>>>

 I am not saying that these stones should or not get a historic tag, but
 surely it isn’t an argument that one of the OpenStreetMap based maps
 highlights things based on a wildcard selection.

>>>
>>> Not an argument, merely a piece of evidence to consider.
>>>
>>>
 If this tag would pose a problem for their rendering I am sure they
 would adjust the selection rules.

>>>
>>> Or perhaps we should not force them to adjust their selection rules by
>>> abusing
>>> "historic" to mean "old."  We have start_date=* to specify that things
>>> are old.
>>>

 Regarding “historic means historic as in the battle of Waterloo or the
 pyramids of Gizeh”, we have seen from previous discussion that this was a
 minority opinion.

>>>
>>> An explanation, by one person, of what the wiki page says and the
>>> distinction
>>> between "historic" and "historical."  Those do not mean the same thinhg,
>>> however much you wish them to.
>>>
>>> On the one hand we have the wiki page, the distinction between
>>> "historic" and "historical" and a map with the sole purpose of
>>> rendering historic, rather than historical, objects.  On the other
>>> hand we have people who insist that "historic" means "historical."
>>>
>>> Many people see historic as a keyword for objects that typically could
 be seen as historic, but then includes any objects of the class, without
 further  differentiating them by “historic value”.

>>>
>>> Many people do not read the wiki page.  Many people do not understand
>>> the distinction between "historic" and "historical."
>>>

 We do not have different tags for truly historic wayside shrines or
 crosses and others. How many charcoal piles do you expect to be of
 exceptional historic value?
 https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/historic#values

>>>
>>> I would expect a handful, at most, not the tens of thousands that have
>>> been
>>> mapped.  Those SHOULD have been mapped with a lifecycle prefix.  But
>>> people who don't understand the difference between "historic" and
>>> "historical" and don't read the wiki misuse historic=* then document it.
>>>

 For guard stones I could imagine using the man_made key as well, but
 historic would seem to work because most of these are giving testimony of
 former times.

>>>
>>> "Historic" does not mean "historical."  Those stones are historical but
>>> they are not historic.  If you want to emphasise that they are old,
>>> start_date=* is the way to go.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 16:53, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:


> I think there may be other hazard warning signs in that document for you to
>> consider.
>>
>
Many of the signs on that list are already described by other tags.
>

It's a list of all warning signs, not merely hazards.  But there are quite
a few hazard signs in there.


> Are there specific signs you feel are missing from the hazard key?
>

I didn't do a full comparison.  I was kinda hoping you would, seeing as you
probably remembered which ones you'd added to your proposal.  Some
of them are debatable as to whether or not existing tagging is
adequate.  Here are the ones that I think are worth considering:

   - Opening or swing bridge ahead
   - Steep hill
   - Trams crossing ahead
   - Level crossing without barrier or gate
   - Frail (or blind or disabled) pedestrians crossing
   - Pedestrians in road ahead [no sidewalk]
   - Overhead electric cable
   - Sharp deviation of route
   - Ice
   - Hidden dip

I wouldn't have thought the ice hazard needed mentioning, if it weren't
for the plot of a Jack Reacher novel.  Some bridges can ice over sooner
than the rest of the road even when icing doesn't seem much of a risk,
and that may be a problem other than on bridges.  Depending on climate,
such a warning may be present year-round.

One not covered there is the warning that a route is unsuitable for long
vehicles.  There are a few minor roads near me like that.  Drive a long
vehicle along them and (at best) you have a long reverse or (at worst)
you get stuck.

Also, in the UK, the sign for unexploded ordnance is the same as you
have for minefields.  That symbol first appeared in UK Defence Standard
05-34, Marking of Service Matériel, and was called (bizarrely) "Unexploded
explosive ordnance" (if it has exploded it would no longer be explosive,
and if it's explosive then it must be unexploded).  In old money it
would have been called "unexploded bomb."

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

Re: [Tagging] edit war related to tagging of a bus-only major road

[stevea]

Michael:  I suggest you explore our wiki https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:busway .

Best,
SteveA

> On Dec 9, 2020, at 6:36 AM, Michael Tsang  wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I'm working with some roads in Central area in Hong Kong. Des Voeux Road 
> Central is considered one of the most important roads in the area which I 
> tagged it as highway=secondary, however another editor has repeatedly changed 
> it to highway=service on the fact that that road is closed to motor vehicles 
> except buses. An edit war has appeared.
> 
> Here is the relevant changesets and ways:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/94428780#map=17/22.28199/114.15872
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/242113655#map=17/22.28168/114.15911
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/95558773
> 
> According to the wiki description of highway=secondary, such road "is not 
> part 
> of a major route, but nevertheless forming a link in the national route 
> network." Des Voeux Road Central (between Queensway and Pottinger Street) is 
> such a highway for buses only. Tens of bus routes are using this road to 
> serve 
> passengers between Wan Chai to Central, while other motor vehicles must use 
> the other highways in the region (also tagged as highway=secondary).
> 
> However, a highway=service is "generally for access", and also "for access 
> for 
> parking, driveways and alleys". Des Voeux Road Central is definitely not the 
> case here. It is instead a major road in the road network usable by buses.
> 
> What should I do here now?
> 
> Michael
> -- 
> Sent from KMail___
> 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] edit war related to tagging of a bus-only major road

[Jo]

Maybe you can find middle ground in highway=tertiary? highway=service is a
possibility, but I'd usually use it in bus stations or on stretches that
are exclusively used by buses, that don't even have sidewalks for example.

Polyglot

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 5:41 PM Jmapb  wrote:

> On 12/9/2020 9:36 AM, Michael Tsang wrote:
>
> > Des Voeux Road Central is considered one of the most important roads
> > in the area which I
> > tagged it as highway=secondary, however another editor has repeatedly
> > changed
> > it to highway=service on the fact that that road is closed to motor
> > vehicles
> > except buses
> >
> Hi Michael, my understanding is that this type of access restriction has
> no bearing on the correct value of the highway tag. That doesn't mean
> that a bus-only road can't be 'highway=service', but my armchair opinion
> is that this one deserves a higher classification,
> 'highway=unclassified' at minimum. Obviously a local consensus would be
> best.
>
> As far as the access tags go, from your description I imagined
> 'access=private' plus 'bus=yes', and 'foot=yes' if there's sidewalk that
> isn't mapped separately. The segment you linked to (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/242113655 ) has tags that are a bit
> more complicated; no doubt they make sense in context. It's worth
> noting, though, that it currently allows bicycle traffic.
>
> Here's a photo showing the bus-only segment and signed restrictions --
>
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=V6xCvni7pFMnBkHoXfZcIw=photo=22.2806400619=114.16016743519445=17=0.5090835219500857=0.5090768471784388
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] edit war related to tagging of a bus-only major road

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 12/9/20 08:36, Michael Tsang wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> I'm working with some roads in Central area in Hong Kong. Des Voeux Road 
> Central is considered one of the most important roads in the area which I 
> tagged it as highway=secondary, however another editor has repeatedly changed 
> it to highway=service on the fact that that road is closed to motor vehicles 
> except buses. An edit war has appeared.

It's definitely not highway=service. The access being restricted to
buses doesn't change the road classification. You have a strong
rationale for highway=secondary but it may not be quite important enough
for that classification either; I am not familiar enough with the road
network in Hong Kong to say either way.

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

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

> I'd suggest fallen_rock and low_flying_aircraft as tag values based upon
>
the common case but have the proposal mention their secondary application.
>

I actually have low_flying_aircraft in the proposal as a value, though I
just discovered that there is a more common value in use, "air_traffic" (88
usages).  However, I agree with the suggestions that low_flying_aircraft is
the better tag value and will add "air_traffic" to the deprecation list.

I will wait to see if I hear more from others about fallen vs falling
rocks, but I note your comments and Kevin's also.


> I think there may be other hazard warning signs in that document for you to
> consider.
>

Many of the signs on that list are already described by other tags.  For
example, the "yield" sign is covered by highway=give_way.  In general, I
think we have that list pretty well covered, though there may be one or two
more obscure cases.  Are there specific signs you feel are missing from the
hazard key?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] edit war related to tagging of a bus-only major road

[Jmapb]

On 12/9/2020 9:36 AM, Michael Tsang wrote:


Des Voeux Road Central is considered one of the most important roads
in the area which I
tagged it as highway=secondary, however another editor has repeatedly
changed
it to highway=service on the fact that that road is closed to motor
vehicles
except buses


Hi Michael, my understanding is that this type of access restriction has
no bearing on the correct value of the highway tag. That doesn't mean
that a bus-only road can't be 'highway=service', but my armchair opinion
is that this one deserves a higher classification,
'highway=unclassified' at minimum. Obviously a local consensus would be
best.

As far as the access tags go, from your description I imagined
'access=private' plus 'bus=yes', and 'foot=yes' if there's sidewalk that
isn't mapped separately. The segment you linked to (
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/242113655 ) has tags that are a bit
more complicated; no doubt they make sense in context. It's worth
noting, though, that it currently allows bicycle traffic.

Here's a photo showing the bus-only segment and signed restrictions --
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=V6xCvni7pFMnBkHoXfZcIw=photo=22.2806400619=114.16016743519445=17=0.5090835219500857=0.5090768471784388

Jason




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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 14:26, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

> I have found examples of both falling rock[1] and fallen rocks[2] on
> signage and it's not clear to me which is the more common.
>

The UK signage for this hazard doesn't have text.  But the explanation of
the
signage in the Highway Code says it warns of "Falling or fallen rocks."  See
https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/warning-signs-on-the-road.html
and search for "falling".

In that same document, just above the falling/fallen rocks sign is the
aircraft sign which it says warns of "Low-flying aircraft or sudden
aircraft noise".
Low-flying aircraft will often cause a sudden aircraft noise, but a
high-flying
supersonic aircraft can generate a sonic boom (but these are rare and if
they occur they are not likely to be predictable as they will usually be
the result of an emergency).

I'd suggest fallen_rock and low_flying_aircraft as tag values based upon
the common case but have the proposal mention their secondary application.

I think there may be other hazard warning signs in that document for you to
consider.

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

[Tagging] edit war related to tagging of a bus-only major road

[Michael Tsang]

Dear all,

I'm working with some roads in Central area in Hong Kong. Des Voeux Road 
Central is considered one of the most important roads in the area which I 
tagged it as highway=secondary, however another editor has repeatedly changed 
it to highway=service on the fact that that road is closed to motor vehicles 
except buses. An edit war has appeared.

Here is the relevant changesets and ways:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/94428780#map=17/22.28199/114.15872
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/242113655#map=17/22.28168/114.15911
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/95558773

According to the wiki description of highway=secondary, such road "is not part 
of a major route, but nevertheless forming a link in the national route 
network." Des Voeux Road Central (between Queensway and Pottinger Street) is 
such a highway for buses only. Tens of bus routes are using this road to serve 
passengers between Wan Chai to Central, while other motor vehicles must use 
the other highways in the region (also tagged as highway=secondary).

However, a highway=service is "generally for access", and also "for access for 
parking, driveways and alleys". Des Voeux Road Central is definitely not the 
case here. It is instead a major road in the road network usable by buses.

What should I do here now?

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

I have found examples of both falling rock[1] and fallen rocks[2] on
signage and it's not clear to me which is the more common.

There are >50 usages of hazard=falling_rocks and only 3 usages of "Fallen
rock" (with incorrect space and capitalization), so I went with what was
most commonly tagged.  I am not opposed to abandoning this minor usage of
falling_rock and replacing it with a new fallen_rock if that's the
consensus.

Are others in favor of dropping falling_rocks for fallen_rocks?

[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Falling_Rock_-_Colorado_Mountains_(44651781425).jpg
[2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NYS_NYW4-14.svg

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 8:37 AM Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 13:13, Brian M. Sperlongano 
> wrote:
>
> Add hazard=falling_rocks, landslide; deprecate rock_slide, rockfall
>>
>
> Kevin Kenny argued (I think convincingly) that the hazard is fallen, not
> falling, rocks.  There is a very slight risk that a rock will fall on your
> vehicle but the greater risk, by far, is that you will drive into a fallen
> rock.
>
> Editors could make both fallen and falling searchable, and identify
> the preset as "falling/fallen rocks," so we might as well make the
> value reflect the really big risk rather than the very small one.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 13:13, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

Add hazard=falling_rocks, landslide; deprecate rock_slide, rockfall
>

Kevin Kenny argued (I think convincingly) that the hazard is fallen, not
falling, rocks.  There is a very slight risk that a rock will fall on your
vehicle but the greater risk, by far, is that you will drive into a fallen
rock.

Editors could make both fallen and falling searchable, and identify
the preset as "falling/fallen rocks," so we might as well make the
value reflect the really big risk rather than the very small one.

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

[Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

Thanks to all who have spilled much ink and provided extensive comment on
this proposal[1] -- the feedback is deeply appreciated as it increases
confidence that the proposal reflects community consensus.  The hazard tag
has attracted an additional 2,000 usages just over the course of this RFC,
and given the attention that this has gotten, I want to make sure we get
this right.

As currently written, this proposal:

- Creates 5 new keys
- Creates 28 new values on these new keys
- Adds 2 new values to existing keys
- Deprecates 19 tag values

Given the scope and extent of the discussion and feedback, I am holding
this RFC open past the 2-week minimum period in order to allow additional
opportunity for community input.  Below the cut line is a summary of the
significant changes made to the proposal and decisions made through the
course of this RFC.

If there is additional input, please provide it!  If anyone feels that they
are a "no" vote for this proposal, I especially want to hear from you, as a
vote should be confirmation of community consensus achieved through
discussion.


 Summary of Changes since the start of RFC 

* Added:

hazard=bump (signed natural bumps, not traffic_calming=*)
hazard=frost_heave
hazard=loose_gravel
hazard=low_flying_aircraft
hazard=horse_riders (equestrians in the roadway, not highway=crossing)
hazard=pedestrians (pedestrians in the roadway, not highway=crossing)
hazard=queues_likely
hazard=slippery
hazard=unexploded_ordnance

* Changed:

Add hazard=cyclists; deprecate hazard=bicycle, bicycles
Add hazard=falling_rocks, landslide; deprecate rock_slide, rockfall

* Removed from proposal (but not deprecated):

hazard=yes
hazard=school_crossing

* Clarified that mappers should not tag subjective hazard features which
cannot be confirmed or denied even when visiting the location in person.

* Declined to add a "narrow road" hazard, as this is controversial based on
a past proposal[2] to eliminate the width=narrow tag, and is deserving of
its own proposal if a narrow road hazard is desired.


[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Narrow_width
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Drawing/painting schools

[Niels Elgaard Larsen]

Hauke Stieler:

Hi,

today I encountered a drawing/painting school [0] that offers workshops and
classes for children and adults.


I do not not consider them real schools.

I have taken inspiration from, Paint Your Style in Berlin:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4235447795

Which is tagged with a leisure=ceramic_painting tag.

Similarly:
amenity=dancing_school is strongly discouraged in favor of
leisure=dancing,dance:teaching=yes

so maybe
leisure=painting
painting:teaching=yes


There is one existing leisure=painting:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3677738107
which is https://www.paintingwithatwist.com/
And all those pictures of date nights where everyone have a glass of wine indicates 
to me that a leisure tag is correct.



Now that I look at taginfo, I see that there are 5 leisure=ceramic_painting of which 
I created 3, and one leisure=pottery_painting POI (Color Me Mine). They all look very 
similar and Color Me Mine has a lot of studios: https://www.colormemine.com/locations/


So for consistency, which one should it be: ceramic_painting or 
pottery_painting?


Is there a tag for these schools? I haven't
found any, so how about establishing amenity=painting_school (or
=drawing_school?) analogous to amenity=music_school. Any thoughts on that?

Hauke

[0] https://maldumal.de/hamburg/ (unfortunately there's no English version of
that site)



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




--
Niels Elgaard Larsen

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

Re: [Tagging] Drawing/painting schools

[Hauke Stieler]

I also think that art_school is a better value than my suggested ones, it is 
also used more often.

As Martin asked: In your opinion would art_school also include institutions to 
learn about film making, printing, graphics design and stuff like that?

Hauke

Am Mittwoch, 9. Dezember 2020, 02:30:59 CET schrieb Joseph Eisenberg:
> Yes, amenity=art_school appears to be the most common way to map places
> that offer training in the visual arts.
> 
> — Joseph Eisenberg
> 
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 4:06 PM Shawn K. Quinn  wrote:
> > On 12/8/20 16:12, Hauke Stieler wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > today I encountered a drawing/painting school [0] that offers workshops
> > 
> > and
> > 
> > > classes for children and adults. Is there a tag for these schools? I
> > 
> > haven't
> > 
> > > found any, so how about establishing amenity=painting_school (or
> > > =drawing_school?) analogous to amenity=music_school. Any thoughts on
> > 
> > that?
> > 
> > > Hauke
> > 
> > How about amenity=art_school, with another tag to indicate the specific
> > disciplines of art being taught?
> > 
> > --
> > Shawn K. Quinn 
> > http://www.rantroulette.com
> > http://www.skqrecordquest.com
> > 
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging





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