Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Key:designation)
On 03/02/2011 05:01 PM, Richard Mann wrote: I reckon the voting is running at about 24000 a handful for, and a handful against. Oh, come on. If you’re going to count every element tagged with designation=* as a “vote for” you really ought to count every element *not* tagged with designation=* as a vote against. Both cases are obviously silly. At best you could count the number of users who have applied this tag using the values described on the page, which is guaranteed to be less than 24000. Comments alongside the votes are more useful than the votes, really. I wonder if we might do well to move from a voting system to a “veto-based” system like the one which seems to do well for Musicbrainz. [1] Since it requires a (subjective) good reason for a veto, it might be better than the simple yes/no. On the negative, it allows anyone to hold up forever any idea that they don’t like. —Alex Mauer “hawke” 1. http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Request_For_Veto#Process_for_Idea_Champions ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Key:designation)
On 03/01/2011 11:30 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: do we really need a duplication in designation? Or is there some details that I don't get? As I understand it, while there is some overlap (especially in Germany) it’s not exactly a duplicate of the access=designated tag. Designation=* is used to describe the official classification of certain routes (which might be roads or paths). While access=designated is used to say “this route is officially designated for [xxx] type of traffic”. For better or worse, in Germany it looks like they’re one and the same thing: a route’s official classification is basically “officially designated for [xxx] traffic”. There’s nothing like the UK’s “Restricted Byway” classification. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Key:designation)
On 03/01/2011 03:14 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: Appropriate majority on the wiki of how many votes? With the tagging numbers being in their thousands, how will you decide on an appropriate number? Well, the wiki says “8 unanimous approval votes or 15 total votes with a majority approval” But to those who don’t care for the voting system, no number is high enough (or relevant). —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] designated bike lane
On 12/31/2010 04:27 PM, Anthony wrote: Any suggestions how to tag this? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:IMG_7491.JPG cycleway=lane + hazard=narrow_bridge? I know signs for “narrow bridge” [1] are common around here. A google search [2] shows several variants. I’m not sure that “hazard=narrow_bridge” would be the right way to tag such a sign, or if it would be completely correct to tag here since there is no sign. In any case, it seems obvious that a narrow bridge would require extra caution for cyclists even if there are cycle lanes. —Alex Mauer “hawke” 1. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Narrow_Bridge_sign.svg/600px-Narrow_Bridge_sign.svg.png 2. http://www.google.com/images?client=ubuntuchannel=csq=narrow%20bridge%20signum=1ie=UTF-8source=ogsa=Nhl=entab=wibiw=1280bih=663 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/26/2010 05:32 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: you _are_ to use this tag, go ahead ;-) Thanks, but it’s not that I feel restricted from using this tag. I just don’t feel the need to tag paths as being informal; highway=path is quite enough for my purposes. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] how to tag US townships?
On 10/22/2010 08:08 PM, Anthony wrote: On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Peter Budnypet...@gatech.edu wrote: It looks like Richmond, Indiana and Wayne Township are an example. Richmond is not part of any county. Like all Virginia municipalities incorporated as cities, it is an independent city and not part of any county. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond,_Virginia) OK, but you might want to look at Richmond, Indiana: “Richmond (pronounced /ˈrɪtʃmənd/) is a city largely within Wayne Township, Wayne County, in east central Indiana…” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond,_Indiana It’s not the same place as Richmond, VA. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/23/2010 08:45 AM, Ralf Kleineisel wrote: On 10/22/2010 09:50 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: That’s not what the wiki says. It says “If a path is wide enough for four-wheel-vehicles […] it is often better tagged as a highway=track.” That doesn’t mean that that is the only criterion. Then what do you think is the difference between path and track grade5? I think only the width. A track is for motor vehicles, a path is not. One example: There is a dog park in my town which is mostly long grass, but has wide paths mown through it. No maintenance or preparation has been done aside from mowing the grass down. However, as it’s a dog park, entirely fenced in (there is a gate to allow mowers and other maintenance vehicles in), those routes are clearly intended for walking and allowing dogs to run freely. Not for motor vehicles. As such they would be highway=path. (I’m not likely to map them as I believe they will be changed regularly to prevent erosion and so are too ephemeral for OSM—but if someone were to map them, they should be highway=path.) Similarly, a track through an open field is likely to be close to 60 inches (1.5m) wide in the US because that is a common track width of US cars [1]. This even though anything up to the width of the field could theoretically pass across it without a problem. So in the edge cases it really comes down to the intended usage. If it’s labelled “No Motor Vehicles” it’s pretty clearly a path (or possibly highway=pedestrian depending on context). If it has bollards across it preventing 4 wheel vehicles from entering, it’s probably a path. If it not signed and has car tire tracks in the ruts, it’s probably a track. If you can’t tell because it’s paved with gravel and the gravel is too smooth, it’s up to your discretion to decide how to tag it. —Alex Mauer “hawke” 1. http://www.crankshaftcoalition.com/wiki/Wheelbase,_track_width,_and_differential_measurements ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] atms with names?
On 10/23/2010 04:00 AM, Peter Wendorff wrote: Relations are to relate things to each other. Therefore the role is the interesting part of the relation concept. A group of things, where none of them has a specific role is not a relation, it's a collection or category. That would apply to the route relation as well as the more simple boundary relations (ones that don’t have any enclaves or exclaves) and multipolygons (again, where they’re used to simply group multiple ways) —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/24/2010 04:30 AM, M[measured angle :-p]rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: I inform you that I am using informal=yes for ways that are not constructed and not maintained or signposted but are only there for the fact that someone uses them. That sounds to me like a good way to handle it. It would probably apply to many highway=track ways as well. —Alex Mauer “hawke”' ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/25/2010 04:36 PM, Felix Hartmann wrote: Most people underestimate that for many informal looking trails, there are actually people caring to keep them in shape. Be it paid trailbuilders, hunters, forestry staff or simply residents that want to have a trail for unknown reason. There is nothing that makes a trail formal. I wouldn’t consider simply walking on it and wearing a rut to be “formal” or “trailbuilding”. Consider http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Path-footyesbicycleno.jpg http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:06072009(045).jpg I would consider those to be informal=yes, were I to use this tag. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] how to tag US townships?
On 10/21/2010 06:18 PM, Ant The Limey wrote: Couple of thoughts B) i don't feel that any particular tag should necessarily have a global level of consistency. As a geographer, i instinctively grasp that location itself is context added to any fact - as one of the five fundamental questions of real it (what, where, when, why, how). So why must something that is context define itself as global? IMO: It should be possible to make a map that looks the same for the entire world. I don’t really want to have to know that by convention the UK colors its motorways blue, while the US tends to go for pink. I’d rather have a globally-consistent map so I can look at the UK on it and think “OK, those things that look like freeways on the map in my area must be the equivalents of freeways over there“. They may use different shields and numbering systems, but at least it’ll look the same. I don’t want to have to memorize the mapping conventions of every country to know what I’m looking at when I look at a map, or to shift my mode of thinking as I move around the map. OSM is a map of the world, so that’s the “locational context” in which we (OK, I) am looking. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/22/2010 11:43 AM, SURLY_ru wrote: highway=path is indeed what would currently be used for informal footpaths. But it can also be used to describe intentionally built, well maintained and paved ways. Intentionally built way, too narrow for 4-wheel vehicles, is highway=footway. Incorrect, unless it happens to be…a footway. We went over this when path was proposed. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/22/2010 11:28 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote: John Smith wrote: Isn't this what highway=path or highway=track is for? highway=track is for ways that are wide enough for two-tracked vehicles. highway=path is indeed what would currently be used for informal footpaths. But it can also be used to describe intentionally built, well maintained and paved ways. Because the difference between ways that would currently be tagged as a path can be very significant, it makes sense to split small informal footpaths into their own highway category. I like the idea, but I don’t think splitting it into a separate highway=* value will work out very well. I especially think that coming up with a clear definition of a trail is going to be difficult, even if the difference among such ways is large. I think a combination of surface=*, width=*, and smoothness=* [ducking for cover] is more appropriate to show this, unless you’re able to come up with a good definition. If you can come up with a good definition I’d certainly support it on a separate tag (path:type=trail?) —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/22/2010 12:09 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: Well, beside this little detail, that some paths are formal (they are intended, sign posted, maintained, have maybe names, etc.) and others are informal, usually shortcuts, usually not very long, shall not be maintained, etc. OK, but take this example: http://www.trailville.com/wiki/Image:Photo_WI_Kettle_Moraine_Ice_Age_Trail_01.jpg http://www.trailville.com/wiki/Image:Photo_WI_Kettle_Moraine_Ice_Age_Trail_02.jpg Looking at those images, it’s pretty clear to me that this is what you mean by “trail”. And yet it’s a “formal”, sign posted, maintained, named trail: http://www.trailville.com/wiki/WI_Kettle_Moraine_State_Forest_Ice_Age_Trail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Age_Trail —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/22/2010 02:18 PM, Ralf Kleineisel wrote: On 10/22/2010 06:42 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: Yes, and it could become a little clearer when there is different tags for a 3 m wide and paved path and a 0.3 m wide and unpaved and unmaintained path. If it is 3 m wide it is a track. If it's paved it's grade1, if it's worse its a lower grade. No. Width is not a sufficient criterion to determine whether it’s a track. There is a rails-to-trails conversions around here that don’t have anything physically preventing cars from driving down it (and in fact they’re driven on by county park vehicles for maintenance and catching people using them without a trail pass.) That does not make it a highway=track. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/22/2010 02:13 PM, Ralf Kleineisel wrote: On 10/22/2010 06:11 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: Looking at a dictionary I found trail (for german Trampelpfad), and helas: there is already a tag-page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrail It isn't very clear though and from the picture I'd say that is highway=path. I think path is clear enough. A path is - according to the wiki - too narrow for a car to drive on. That’s not what the wiki says. It says “If a path is wide enough for four-wheel-vehicles […] it is often better tagged as a highway=track.” That doesn’t mean that that is the only criterion. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] how to tag US townships?
On 10/21/2010 08:06 AM, Anthony wrote: On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Greg Troxelg...@ir.bbn.com wrote: So if we have whole-multiple-counties=5 (eg NYC) county=6 township=7 city/town=8 then it would make sense everywhere. What would be an example of a township that would be at admin_level=7? So...if they don't do that much, should they be mapped as admin_level? I was told that school districts don't count, because they don't do enough, which has me totally confused as to what it is we're supposed to be mapping. It’s not about whether they do that much; it’s about whether they’re administered by a government. School boards are a part of the government yes, but they’re don’t govern the districts that they cover. Compare to postal codes…yes, it’s from an agency of the government but a post office does not govern the area that it serves. Is there anyone else who, in the United States, uses the notion of admin_level? In other words, the notion that administrative districts across the entire country can be ranked from 1-9 (or 1 to whatever)? The big problem is that that administrative districts in the US aren't really hierarchical, or, at least, many of them are not. The point of admin_level is *not* primarily to record which governments are above another. It’s to indicate which governments across different countries and states are (approximately) equivalent. e.g. in the US, counties are counties are counties are Louisiana parishes are Alaska Boroughs are Virginia counties and cities and are at the same level as municipalities in Mexico, /powiaty/ in Poland, districts in Turkey, etc. It doesn’t matter whether that “thing” is higher or lower than townships or states or provinces or what-have-you. It just matters that they’re pretty much equivalents among countries. The details may differ, but they’re close to the same thing. It’s useful for making a map that looks consistent everywhere without having to have rules based on every single possible name for every administrative area across all sorts of countries, states, and other levels of bureaucracy. There’s a nice list of names for things if you want to see the huge mass of possibilities [1]. If you want to give the name of the administrative entity, use border_type [2]. —Alex Mauer “hawke”. 1. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:admin_level#admin_level 2. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:border_type ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] how to tag US townships?
On 10/21/2010 08:15 AM, Bill Ricker wrote: Maine still has unincorporated cartesian townships with names like Township 7 Range 4. This is timber country with few permanent settlements. A few have recieved names, likely by incorporation (idk). From my quick understanding, those would be “unorganized territory” [1]. I think they may be survey townships, which are not part of OSM’s admin_level because they are not administrative boundaries. 1. http://www.maine.gov/revenue/propertytax/unorganizedterritory/unorganized.htm ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] how to tag US townships?
On 10/20/2010 11:35 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:27 PM, Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com wrote: From the place page: In most Western countries, the status of a location (whether it is a city/town/etc.), is decided by the government, and is not a function of size. ***But most OSM communities of those countries have made a convention to use the population to decide which place tag to use, to ensure a more common way of tagging across the globe, and not to end up with cities of 1000 residents for example.*** I looked for and couldn't find anything stating that this was the US convention. It’s an OSM convention. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place Is there some reason it would need to be repeated over and over for every country? I recognize the idea of American exceptionalism, but come on! —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] how to tag US townships?
On 10/20/2010 11:53 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote: Well, additional reasons for the density of place names in some regions, and the sparcity in other regions, are: (1) not all of the US uses the same hierarchy of administrative units; (2) some parts of the US are much more densely occupied than others; and (3) the administrative units in the western US tend to be much larger than in the eastern US. (4) some people incorrectly use the place=* tag to reflect the government of a place rather than the population because they didn’t RTFM. (5) Some of the OSM data is incorrect. (6) OSM’s displayed label sizes and the level at which they’re shown are just stupidly high. (i.e. you have to zoom in ridiculously far before you can see anything.) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] how to tag US townships?
On 10/20/2010 12:16 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: On 10/20/2010 11:53 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote: Well, additional reasons for the density of place names in some regions, and the sparsity in other regions, are: (1) not all of the US uses the same hierarchy of administrative units; (2) some parts of the US are much more densely occupied than others; and (3) the administrative units in the western US tend to be much larger than in the eastern US. (4) some people incorrectly use the place=* tag to reflect the government of a place rather than the population because they didn’t RTFM. (5) Some of the OSM data is incorrect. (6) OSM’s displayed label sizes and the level at which they’re shown are just stupidly high. (i.e. you have to zoom in ridiculously far before you can see anything.) (7) Neither Mapnik nor Osmarender can handle labeling cities which are stored as multipolygons. They only know how to deal with nodes. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] how to tag US townships?
On 10/20/2010 12:57 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Alex Mauerha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: (4) some people correctly use the place=* tag to reflect the government of a place rather than the population because they put the population in the population=* tag. Fixed for you. Sorry, but no. Please RTFM as I suggested [1]. The definitions are well-established. Deal with it. If you want to change them, go ahead and try but I’m sure there’ll be a lot of pushback from the community. If you want to record the government of a place, I recommend something like municipality:government or place:government_type. Or just tag incorrectly and don’t be surprised when the map looks like crap and reflects poorly on the project as a whole. —Alex Mauer “hawke” 1. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] how to tag US townships?
On 10/20/2010 01:06 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/10/20 Alex Mauerha...@hawkesnest.net: Is there some reason it would need to be repeated over and over for every country? I recognize the idea of American exceptionalism, but come on! actually this never worked well, and in Germany and Italy people are not following these definitions strictly (but often they happen to be inside the range). It is clear that there can't be the same numbers (if numbers is the approach to go anyway) in the whole world, as Asian cities happen to be far bigger then European ones, and defining the limit by 10 can't work there, it's obvious. IMO that just means that rendering needs to be based purely and directly on population numbers, or we need some higher numbers (1 000 000 = metropolis[1] 10 000 000 = megacity[2]? ) It might be useful to use a relation to group separate legal-cities with their core city into a metropolis, but that might be overcomplicating things.) It doesn’t mean that the place=* values should be hijacked for some other purpose. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megacity ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] how to tag US townships?
On 10/20/2010 01:08 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: I did and saw no guidelines for the US. I looked at existing tagging and there was no standard (population-based for nodes but type of government-based for areas). You saw guidelines for OSM, and apparently took it upon yourself to ignore them because you’re interested in the US. Just because the TIGER city boundary import screwed up on the place=* tags doesn’t mean they’ve magically been redefined. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] how to tag US townships?
On 10/20/2010 01:24 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/10/20 Alex Mauerha...@hawkesnest.net: The definitions are well-established. but they are not reflected in the (international/main part of) the wiki for key=place. Oh? Every language version of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place says approximately the same thing. The numbers differ slightly, but they’re all based upon population. Germany lowers the village max size to 2000 and hamlet to 200. France uses the normal definitions, but lowers hamlet to 100. Italy uses the normal definitions for city and town, but their own for village/hamlet/isolated_dwelling. Russia uses the normal definitions. I can’t read the Ukrainian one at all, but it looks like they use the normal definition for city, and their own for everything else. No clue on the Chinese one, but I’d guess that at least city is the same, based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City#China_.28People.27s_Republic_of_China.29 I don't know if the British do tag strictly according to the place description, but I know that Italians and Germans don't. In Europe a town can be quite small, but will still be a town and a village can nowadays be quite big and still remain a village. Sure, but place=* is not the place to record the type of government. In the US I am not sure what are your criteria, what about density, I am also not sure how to tag downtowns (the space where your cities were until they were torn down in the 60ies and 70ies due to fear of riots (scnr, sorry, that's maybe not true for all of them) etc. Why would the downtown portion of a city be tagged separately from the rest of the city? Maybe a boundary=administrative and admin_level=10. Otherwise I can’t see a need. —Alex Mauer “hawke”. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] how to tag US townships?
On 10/20/2010 01:43 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: I guess that Tübingen is more known to the average German then Reutlingen, but that's just a guess. As written before, traditionally cartographers gave more importance to Tübingen, while in current automated internet cartography Tübingen looses almost always against Reutlingen. Maybe this is a reflection of a changed interpretation of importance but I fear it is simply a loss in quality... Probably a bit of both. Some more complicated set of heuristics for scoring the prominence of a place would definitely be useful here (and everywhere). It all depends upon what one wants to emphasise on a map. One possible course of action would be to update the renderers to use population (or a more complicated system) and then deprecate the place=* tag for municipalities. (place=island and place=islet obviously aren’t relevant to this discussion). Perhaps we need to shift the discussion to actually figuring out a better replacement for place=*? —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] how to tag US townships?
On 10/20/2010 03:01 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: Townships are at the same level as cities/towns/villages/other municipalities[1], [2]. I’m sure someone correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is you won’t find a chunk of land that is both “city|village|etc.” and “township” simultaneously; cities et al. can annex portions of townships easily, but they then are no longer part of that township. Scratch that. Eleven states allow overlap[1]: Indiana, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and Vermont admin_level=7 it is. 1. http://www.census.gov/govs/go/municipal_township_govs.html —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] how to tag US townships?
On 10/20/2010 03:14 PM, Anthony wrote: Only in those 11 states, right? I'm surprised admin level isn't already handled defined on a state by state level. Why treat it differently depending on the state? —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] how to tag US townships?
On 10/20/2010 03:21 PM, Anthony wrote: On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Peter Budnypet...@gatech.edu wrote: So that would give us County - admin_level=6 Township (if they exist) - admin_level=7 City/municipality/town/village boundary - admin_level=8 New Jersey and Pennsylvania townships should be at the same admin_level as cities and boroughs. As for municipality, in NJ and PA, that means city, borough, or township (or, in NJ, town or village). I’ve updated the wiki to reflect this. Other states would potentially be different. In Florida, towns, cities, and villages (which are all just different terms for the same thing, municipality)would all be admin_level=8, because they're all the same thing. They’re actually not the same thing, but they are all municipalities. But Florida is not fully incorporated, so not all areas of Florida would exist within an admin_level=8. Florida doesn’t use townships anyway, so it’s not really relevant. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] how to tag US townships?
On 10/20/2010 03:23 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: admin_level=7 it is. Only in those states, of course. In Pennsylvania and New Jersey (and apparently the Dakotas?) it should remain admin_level=8. Why the Dakotas? —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] how to tag US townships?
On 10/20/2010 04:12 PM, Anthony wrote: On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Anthonyo...@inbox.org wrote: Okay, here's another wrench to throw in: In Pennsylvania: School districts can comprise of one single municipality, like the School District of Philadelphia or can comprise of multiple municipalities. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government_in_Pennsylvania) So, are Pennsylvania school districts admin_level=7? Are school districts administrative boundaries in the first place? By the common definition, yes. For the purposes of OSM? I don't know, that's my question. And the answer is “no” they’re not. Much like postal codes, electoral districts, etc. Admin_level is not a placeholder for every possible boundary. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] how to tag US townships?
On 10/20/2010 04:07 PM, Brad Neuhauser wrote: Only in those states, of course. In Pennsylvania and New Jersey (and apparently the Dakotas?) it should remain admin_level=8. FYI, it's the same with Minnesota: cities and townships are legally different forms of municipalities (one incorporated, one unincorporated). No, that’s a contradiction in terms. “unincorporated” basically means “outside of a municipality”. Hence people talking about New Jersey being “fully incorporated” while Minnesota is not: Every place in NJ is part of a municipality. Minnesota also has unorganized areas, which are legally under the jurisdiction of the county, but which may have clusters of population that would warrant a place in OSM (call them what you will--village, hamlet whatever) Unsurprisingly, Wisconsin is similar. place=hamlet is the thing to use for these, but it’s irrelevant to the admin_level as there is no administrative boundary for unincorporated communities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unincorporated_area discusses both of these topics. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Paper streets?
On 10/19/2010 11:02 AM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote: We do have highway=proposed/construction. Most of which I assume would be usable for travel, at least by construction vehicles. If highway=proposed is being used for something which is completely invisible, I think that's inappropriate. How so? highway=proposed sounds like the very definition of a “paper street”. Until construction has been started (highway=construction) there will be no physical evidence of it. Whether or not we’re interested in documenting what’s not on the ground is an entirely different question, but if we’re going to map proposed/paper streets at all, highway=proposed sounds entirely appropriate. Of course, at some point a proposal may die and there’s no need to indicate on the map where a road is *no longer* proposed. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Paper streets?
On 10/19/2010 02:25 PM, Richard Welty wrote: mapping proposals is pretty dicey. lots of proposals fail, and it's pretty damned hard to clean up unless someone is making it their special job to track them down and clean them up. Totally agree. For this reason, plus the reason that they’re not “on the ground”, I would never map a highway=proposed. But I’m not going to tell others how to map; if they want to do the work to keep track of live/dead proposals, that’s their problem, not mine. tiger seems to have spots where there are streets that developers planned but never built. i see them from time to time. Same here. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Paper streets?
On 10/19/2010 02:14 PM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Alex Mauerha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: How so? It's not a highway. Neither is a highway which is under construction. Neither is a stop sign. Neither is a What’s your point? Of course, at some point a proposal may die and there’s no need to indicate on the map where a road is *no longer* proposed. Following the concept of highway=proposed, maybe you could do highway=proposed, proposed=no_longer./sarcasm I was just giving my opinion. If someone *wants* to map the roads which have been proposed but aren’t any more, I don’t see a problem with that. /no-sarcasm I’m glad you’re not the dictator of what things people are “allowed” to map. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag an unsigned bike lane?
On 08/23/2010 09:35 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: btw.: this is not what we call lane in OSM, it is a (cycleway?)=track. I would actually consider to map it separately (with its own way) and not just attached with tags on the street, because it is physically divided from the road (basically the same rules apply as for dual carriageways). He’s not talking about the sidewalk. He’s talking about the “cycle” lane. I think this link may work to show it explicitly: http://maps.google.com/maps?t=klayer=ccbll=28.332797,-81.491264panoid=s34bEpDWqe-ThdTF0X38uQcbp=12,132,,2,18.46ie=UTF8hq=ll=28.332798,-81.491435spn=0.001171,0.002411z=19 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag an unsigned bike lane?
On 08/23/2010 01:46 PM, Dave F. wrote: I think I'm with Martin here; especially since the right filter lane crosses over it. Seems downright dangerous. Is this a typical scenario? Yes. At least in my town, all the right-turn lanes are to the right of the cycle lane. Otherwise you'd have people turning right in front of cyclists who are going straight. (Cyclists turning right should be using the right-turn lane) —Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging for streets with sharrows?
On 08/16/2010 04:06 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:27:30 -0400, Anthony wrote: But it's not effectively the same thing. If it were, sharrows wouldn't have ever been invented. Not true, the old-style BIKE ROUTE signs no longer appear in the current MUTCD (thus are being phased out nationwide). Oh really? http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part9/part9b.htm#figure9B04 suggests otherwise. It’s described there as a “Bike Route Guide” sign, D11-1. Sharrows and bicycle guidance signs giving destinations of routes replace the old style signs. Otherwise, there is no difference between the old Bike Route signs and the new pavement and signage markings. [citation needed] —Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging for streets with sharrows?
On 08/12/2010 09:00 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 5:35 AM, Paul Johnson baloo-PVOPTusIyP/sroww+9z...@public.gmane.org wrote: bicycle=designated is all a sharrow means in OSM terms. No, there are other kinds of designation covered by bicycle=designated. He wasn’t saying that bicycle=designated is always a sharrow, but that a sharrow is effectively the same thing as a sign saying “bike route”. They’re both ways of marking something as a designated route for bicycles. —Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] 'name' variation tags standardisation
On 06/25/2010 10:24 AM, Craig Wallace wrote: But how do you know whether the part after the colon is a language code or a type of name? eg alt is the ISO 639-2 code for Southern Altai. Does openstreetmap use the ISO 639-2 codes? It looks to me like it uses ISO 639-1. –Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] 'name' variation tags standardisation
On 06/25/2010 10:41 AM, Craig Wallace wrote: From the multilingual names page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multilingual_names People seem to generally agree on using name:code=* where code is a language's ISO 639-1 code, or ISO 639-2 if an ISO 639-1 code doesn't exist. Ah, thanks. I was looking at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name –Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-newbies] compass rose or wind rose?
On 04/28/2010 03:53 PM, Liz wrote: Compass Rose and Wind Rose are not synonyms. The Compass Rose is drawn on the map for the artistic representation of North A Wind Rose is a data representation showing you prevailing winds. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/wind/wind_rose.shtml I'm not subscribed to newbies, could someone copy this to there? Wikipedia suggests[1] that the compass rose is sometimes also called a wind rose. “Early forms of the compass rose were known as wind roses, since no differentiation was made between a cardinal direction and the wind which emanated from that direction.” 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compass_rose -Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Is highway=service, service=drive_thru a good idea?
On 04/12/2010 03:13 PM, Anthony wrote: And I still don't like access=destination. If access=destination means a privately owned road which should only be used for access to a building, motorway service station, beach, campsite, industrial estate, business park, etc then access=destination is already implied by highway=service. It doesn’t. It means, “The public has right of access only if this is the only road to your destination.” -Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Is highway=service, service=drive_thru a good idea?
On 04/12/2010 12:48 PM, Anthony wrote: Yeah, that's what I was quoting above. However, with drive-thrus (at least here in Florida), the public does not have any right of access whatsoever. Really? So you can’t actually use a drive-thru in Florida? That seems kind of silly. Why would anyone bother building one if no one is allowed to use it? -Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Easy question: _link tags for U turn/cut throughs?
On 01/07/2010 09:59 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: When a divided motorway/trunk/primary/... has a spot for turning or u-turning, should that be marked as primary or primary_link? The wiki isn't clear. If it’s for service/emergency vehicles only, I’d use highway=service. Otherwise, *_link. -Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
On 01/06/2010 07:10 AM, Nop wrote: No it does not. This equality was originally intended in the path proposal, but there is also a large fraction of mappers who use it differently. Their argumentation is like this: - designated means there is a sign - in my country, when there is a sign, the way is exclusive for cycles - cycleway means pedestrains are allowed, but if there is a sign, they are not, so it cannot be the same So they should use access=no in addition to bicycle=designated. Seems simple enough to me. This is also why access=official was created, even though it’s redundant. -Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
On 01/05/2010 06:29 AM, Nop wrote: The motorway example was of your making and yes, it is bad. :-) My point is: There is an important difference between - a real, official cycleway (prohibited by law for others) - some way that looks like it was pretty much suitable for cycling But is it a physical difference, a legal difference, or something else? IMO: If it’s a physical difference it should be a different highway tag. If it’s a legal/signage difference, it probably belongs in the access=* series of tags. Otherwise, it should probably be a totally separate tag. Note that in some (possibly most) jurisdictions, a “real, official cycleway” is not prohibited by law for others. I would suggest that the difference between tagging for your two examples is most likely legal, and therefore: highway=path+access=no+bicycle=designated for the former and highway=path+bicycle=yes for the latter. -Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Using relations to group highways
On 01/05/2010 01:32 PM, John Smith wrote: Currently there is discussion on using relations to group segments of a highway occurring: http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2599 In that ticket, you wrote: “we think administrative polygons should be used for custom highway shields, instead of trying to tell the rendering software explicitly which shield to use” How might this work? Presumably there’s some idea of linking primary/secondary/tertiary each with an administrative level, using that to determine which of the administrative polygons applies to the route in question, and then deciding from there which shield to use. Do I have it right? You also wrote, “we have documented our usage of it, although it's mixed in with a lot of other aussie info and could possibly do well to stand on it's own.“ Can you point to this, even if it is mixed in with other stuff? Thanks -Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
On 01/05/2010 03:05 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Alex Mauer hawke-jojdulvogomqvbxzion...@public.gmane.org wrote: My point is: There is an important difference between - a real, official cycleway (prohibited by law for others) - some way that looks like it was pretty much suitable for cycling ... I would suggest that the difference between tagging for your two examples is most likely legal, and therefore: highway=path+access=no+bicycle=designated for the former and highway=path+bicycle=yes for the latter. Close - but bicycle=yes just means bicycles are legal (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access). For suitability (whatever that means), I'd suggest bicycle=yes + bicycle:suitable=yes. In point of fact I would do neither, because I don’t see the need to point out particularly suitable biking routes that aren’t officially designated bike routes. Any way of doing so would be far too subjective for my tastes. But if I really felt a strong need to apply a tag for some reason, it would be bicycle=yes. -Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Using relations to group highways
On 01/05/2010 03:45 PM, Matthias Julius wrote: Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net writes: On 01/05/2010 01:32 PM, John Smith wrote: Currently there is discussion on using relations to group segments of a highway occurring: http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2599 In that ticket, you wrote: “we think administrative polygons should be used for custom highway shields, instead of trying to tell the rendering software explicitly which shield to use” How might this work? Presumably there’s some idea of linking primary/secondary/tertiary each with an administrative level, using that to determine which of the administrative polygons applies to the route in question, and then deciding from there which shield to use. Do I have it right? This could be derived from the ref tag and administrative boundary. A 2 should get a different shield in Germany than in the UK. Same goes for M 5 in Michigan or UK. That seems like a sensible thing to do, but as far as I can tell, John considers that to be “trying to tell the rendering software explicitly which shield to use.” (The process you describe is roughly the plan for the US as far as I know, and thus must not be what he’s talking about) Hence the request for clarification. -Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways
On 01/05/2010 06:26 PM, Nick Austin wrote: Just to be clear, highway=cycleway is shorthand for highway=footway + bicycle=yes and highway=bridleway is shorthand for highway=footway + horse=yes. No it’s not. highway=cycleway is shorthand for highway=path+bicycle=designated and highway=bridleway is shorthand for highway=path+horse=designated. This is pretty clearly documented on the wiki. -Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Using relations to group highways
On 01/05/2010 05:23 PM, John Smith wrote: I'm talking about people adding network=us_ny_ny_co I’ve never seen that, either in use or anywhere in wiki documentation. Where would that be used? I'm not talking about things like network=NH, ref=1 or ref=M5 As for how it might render Wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Custom_Highway_Shields Well, I know what the shields themselves look like. Are you suggesting a tag shield=* which would refer to specific shields used to render behind a particular highway’s ref=* tag? -Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
