Re: [Tagging] Ordering of routes, possible mapathon? Was: Re: rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)
Jo Thanks for the clarification, yeah I know that warnings in JOSM, specially those with Info level, often can be ignored. As I am working with lines in a metropolitan area with at least 7 different operators, I guess having tidy relations make data more easy to validate. I have until now focused on making master_route relations for lines with more than 1 route relation, but can start looking into completing all routes with a master_route as my work gets more completed. There is still a lot to do with more than 500 lines + variations. Aun Johnsen > On May 12, 2017, at 18:16, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: > > Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 21:12:14 +0200 > From: Jo <winfi...@gmail.com> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Ordering of routes, possible mapathon? Was: Re: > rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2) > Message-ID: > <caj6dwmdovpvhre3wvpxa66tt7_jp736fynogbfodrvvibez...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi Aun, > > JOSM's validator warnings are just that, warnings. Some of them can be > safely ignored. Of course if the route_master relation doesn't really add > information, I'd say it's fine to omit it. > > Here are some examples: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3614368/history > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3612781/history > > The tags on both relations are quite different. I like to have both of > them, because I want to compare with data from the operators and then it's > good to have all of them "behave" in the same way. The route_master to > describe the line, the route relations to describe the itineraries for all > the variations. > > We have a few more of those with only one route relation. For example the > one going in the other direction on our ring road or some school buses for > students that only go from the station to the campus on Sunday evening. On > Friday they have enough possibilities with the standard offered lines. > > > Polyglot ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Ordering of routes, possible mapathon? Was: Re: rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)
When is a route_master relation needed? For the area I am mapping, several of the routes are circular without any variations. That means I make 1 relation for each route, but adding a route master, I get a alert that I am uploading relations with only one member. I can understand the use of route_master where going and return route have different relations, or routes with several variations (I have routes with up to 10 variations in my area, but few of the variations are mapped until now as I focus on main routes). Aun Johnsen > On May 12, 2017, at 15:38, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: > > Many lines on the London underground/overground/etc aren't well ordered, > there isn't a route master, etc etc. The node examples I provided are from > the Central line, that I've been working on. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping time zones as geometries (relations)
> > On 3/6/17 11:21 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: >> On Mar 5, 2017 18:30, "Frederik Ramm" <frede...@remote.org >> <mailto:frede...@remote.org>> wrote: >> >>Hi, >> >> I would like to start a discussion about the mapping of time zones. >> >> >>What do you think? >> >> >> I'm generally opposed to mapping timezones in OpenStreetMap unless the >> tzdata maintainers are 100% on board. Since timezones are a royal >> pain to keep track of, often changing 100+ times a year, on as little >> as a few hours notice in some cases. >> > i agree. this a perfect example of something that belongs in its own > database or > shape file, available to be overlaid on the map when it's wanted. > > richard > > -- > rwe...@averillpark.net > Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting > OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux > Java - Web Applications - Search Actually, timezones are to great extent already mapped, you only have to find a better way to extract the data, instead of creating new relations. There might still be administrative relations that doesn’t have timezone tag set making the timezone data incomplete, but this is not a reason to create new relations, but rather add the missing data in existing relations. Aun Johnsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] shop=estate_agent and office=estate_agent
I am among the few that have tried to buy real estate in multiple countries, and I would definitely heal against office= Entering a real estate agency doesn’t feel like a shop, neither in Europe, nor in South America, where I have first hand experience All estate agency I have entered have the layout of offices. I have noticed estate agencies that solely announce on internet and newspaper without any “shop-front” at all, and use the announcements to get people to on-site sightings of the houses and apartments for sale, and rely solely on media and on-site to sell. The few times I have had “in shop presentation” of a house or apartment have all been for new developments, where no showcase apartment or house have been available. Based on all of these experiences, shop=estate_agent feels and sounds wrong, while office=estate_agent feel and sound like the way to go. Aun Johnsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - flight route
> On Nov 28, 2016, at 11:36, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: > > Hi all, > > As said, no need to draw paths as way in OSM : they can be drawed by any > customized render engine when start and stop point are known. > +1 to make relation with airports as only members. > > > 2016-11-28 13:24 GMT+01:00 Aun Johnsen <li...@gimnechiske.org>: > >> A duration tag would be needed to calculate travel time. This way, a >> transport routing could take air travel into account, without introducing >> unverifiable data and flightpaths into the database. >> > > I respectably disagree : how would a routing engine do to route pedestrian > on roads where only motor vehicle speed/travel time is known ? > Speed and so time depend on the aircraft you use to go down a specific > geographic path. > > This data should not be added to OSM. > It is a routing engine parameter actually. > > All the best > > François Any single route is defined in tables with an expected travel time (which does not always include taxi time on the grund), so for instance, it would be expected that a flight between two airports have a determined time consume. Further, you need to do checkin at a certain time before scheduled departure, and retrieval of luggage have an expected time, as well as a minimum time for connections. This way, the router will only need to know end-points of the route, but it need to be able to link up against departure times. Since each airline most likely have multiple services (with different ID number) between the same two airports, the data is more likely to be a table, best stored in a separate database, but with end-points linked to OSM-objects. The air-route relation is far from an ideal solution, only a work-around for not needing the routing engine to check multiple databases. A pedestrian routing engine would use average walking speed as a base for travel speed instead of signed motor vehicle speed, and if intelligent enough allow to combine with public transportation. Aun Johnsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - flight route
> On Nov 28, 2016, at 10:00, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: > > On 28.11.2016 11:27, Michael Tsang wrote: >> The consensus is that the flight path should not be mapped, but we are >> interested the airport (Stop positions and platforms) where the flight >> serves. > > Platforms, a.k.a. Gates, can already be mapped. Which flight they serve > changes every day, this is neither mappable nor verifyable nor maintainable. > > tom > Best option is to map routes as Terminal endpoints (in almost all cases, terminal remains the same over long periods, and are verifiable), with no itinerary members. A duration tag would be needed to calculate travel time. This way, a transport routing could take air travel into account, without introducing unverifiable data and flightpaths into the database. PS, flight paths are not as fixed as bus lanes, and the actual route of the plane varies with weather forecasts, traffic density, traffic priority, type of aircraft in service, and much more. Aun Johnsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of Country Names
> On Nov 5, 2016, at 20:09, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: > > The defacto-languages-tag would likely need some threshold to make sense, > or any 2 strangers living temporary in an area would add another language > to it and we'd end up with most of all existing languages spoken "de facto" > anywhere on the planet. Adding just the majority languages doesn't seem > right (respect for minorities) either, but we will have to decide what > "significant" means in your sentence. > > Cheers, > Martin As most definitions, I think the different local communities should define when a group is ‘significant’ enough to be entered into “de facto” languages. In my personal opinion, it should be the languages of population majorities, languages to minority groups that belong to the area (native populations). I think it will be wrong to enforce a fixed rule (languages spoken by more than 30% of local population), because in many areas native groups that traditionally have belonged to the area might have been pushed below 5% of general population, but still recognised as a regional minority. Aun Johnsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of Country Names
> On Nov 5, 2016, at 20:09, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: > > This is kind of straying, but 'dependent nations' are a case that is not > well handled at all. There are a number of cases (e.g. most Native American > reservations) where all parties agree on the boundaries - at least of the > current state of control, if not the 'rightful' borders, but most > emphatically do not agree on the political status of the territory. > > A typically complex case is Ahkwesáhsne. It is one of several recognized > territories of the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation. It spans the border between the > USA and Canada. The US portion is known as the St. Regis Mohawk > Reservation. It has some of the attributes of a country - for instance, its > citizens are free to travel within its territory without clearing US or > Canadian customs and immigration. (Other USAians and Canadians do not have > that privilege.) It has three governments: the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne > (a representative democracy elected from the Canadian portion of the area), > the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (a constitutional republic and the nominal > government of the US portion), and the Mohawk Nation Council of Chiefs (the > traditional and religious government of the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation), which > many residents see as the legitimate government of the nation. The MNCC is > not recognized by either the US or Canada, but in a 1948 election, the > traditional chiefs chosen by the Akwesasnro:non 83-1 over an elected > system. (The lack of a European-style constitutional framework impedes > recognition.) > > The Kanien'kehá:ka Nation, even among the First Peoples, is a dependent > state. It is one of six members of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, which is > the nation with which most Akwesasnro:non would identify. Each of the other > nations retains territories with some sort of 'dependent nation' status in > both the US and Canada. In some cases they are combined - the Six Nations > of the Grand River reserve in Canada has residents belonging to each of the > Haudenosaunee nations, plus a group of Delaware (Lenape). This reserve has > nine official languages: the five Haudenosaunee languages, plus Tuscarora, > Munsee, English and French. > > The Haudenosaunee Confederacy has even more of the attributes of a nation. > It issues its own passports (and there have been times at which they have > even been accepted by other states, such as when it sent a delegation to > the League of Nations in 1923). It fields an Olympic lacrosse team, and is > generally recognized as a state in international lacrosse competitions. > > In most cases, all agree on the current state of the borders of all of > these reserves. But they largely go unmapped, because there's no agreement > on what to call them. Whatever it is, it doesn't fit into a strict > admin_level hierarchy, because they span multiple admin_level=2 nations, > What is fundamentally wrong about our model is the assumption that "every > piece of land (except possibly Antarctica) is in one and only one nation." > or that "a dependent nation is associated with one and only one parent > state," or "the citizens of a nation share a common language." > > We would do well to map agreed-on borders and tag things as best we can. > Right now, we seem to be frozen on mapping First Nations boundaries. A little TL;DR I think tagging official and de facto languages will help raise the importance of these First Nation areas. The cases of First Nations is particularly complicated because they often are not recognised as independent nations and therefor not fit under the admin_level=2 tagging scheme. Some of these might fit into admin_level=3 or other sub-national divisions, while others not. At least a language tagging scheme will help highlight some of the issues around these areas. Besides, all of Antarctica are claimed by different nations, though under the Antarctic Treat, such claims does not impose sovereignty, and the same plot of land might have claims from more than one country. Aun Johnsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of Country Names
> On Nov 5, 2016, at 14:37, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
>
> Dave F wrote:
>> What's the difference between 'de facto' & official?
>
> Martin beat me to it, but let me add links for reference, definition
> and examples.
>
> from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_language
>> An official language is a language that is given a special legal status
>> [...] the term "official language" does not typically refer to the language
>> used by a people or country, but by its government.
>
>
> from https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/de_facto, please appreciate the
> provided sentence for use case.
>> Adjective. de facto (not comparable)
>> In fact or in practice; in actual use or existence, regardless of official
>> or legal status.
>> (Often opposed to de jure.)
>> Although the United States currently has no official language, it is largely
>> monolingual with English being the de facto national language.
>
> The contrary of 'de facto' is 'de jure'
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/de_jure
>> Adjective. de jure (not comparable)
>> By right, in accordance with the law, legally.
>
> Another good reading is the wikipedia page, particularly the
> introduction at the top
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto
> and the part on national languages, quite relevant here.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto#National_languages
>
>
>
>
>> Wars have been fought over disagreements between "choices by local
>> community"
>
> Indeed. And when it gets out of control, global community and DataWG
> can intervene if necessary.
>
> But that is not a reason, quite the contrary, to start another war
> between local community and remote/global community. Especially when
> there is no disagreement locally. Even more so when there was
> disagreement locally and it is settled now.
>
>
> -- altho
We could add (on any admin_level applicable) the tags official_languages (for
official languages) and de_facto_languages or common_languages for the de facto
languages in the area. This way, local communities that speak a different
language than the official language will be identified, and this can be
searchable in some way. I would suggest that ISO codes are used for the values
of these tags.
Example:
Norway: official_languages=no;nn
Due to the different dialects (no/nn), some (many) municipalities have chosen
one of these, admin_level=7 + official_language=no
Some municipalities have a significant Samii population speaking their Samii
dialect, and a number of these have included this in official languages (not
familiar with ISO code for the Samii dialects)
USA: common_languages=en, with certain areas having common_language=es, or
other that might be actual. Some native reserves would have
common_language={iso code of tribal language}
Any thoughts?
Aun Johnsen
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] non-temporary usage of highway=road
> On Sep 27, 2016, at 15:18, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: > > > I'd suggest talking to the users concerned - the easiest way is via a > changeset discussion comment. If they're unsure what road category to > use, you can point at other nearby examples in the imagery and say "I'd > map that as residential" or similar. > > I have opened a few changeset discussions, focusing on the newer changesets to users who have included a lot of highway=road, yet none have replied to me as of now. For users who have tagged a low number of items I have done nothing more than reclassifying the ways. It should not be necessary to re-validate 3-4 thousand highway=road (only in Brazil) every year, or have a monthly task for cleaning up this. > Well your Garmin maps are under your control; you can choose to treat > highway=road as routable if you want to! I do. I currently download my Garmin map, so should I than open a ticket for the provider to consider routing on highway=road? What about my favourite online routing tool, which also doesn’t support routing on highway=road, should I open a ticket there as well? Will opening ticket on all of these third party providers solve my situation? Probably not. Wiki indicates that highway=road implies “FIXME=Need proper survey” and that the tag is for temporary use until classification can be determined. If the mapper have no intention of going there, than it is better to guess a value, so that the road can be routable. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] non-temporary usage of highway=road
> On Sep 27, 2016, at 14:24, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 8:42 PM, Aun Johnsen <li...@gimnechiske.org > <mailto:li...@gimnechiske.org>> wrote: > i.e., highway=road means anything between a small footway to motorway, so a > routing engine might wrongfully send cars down a set of steps or a hiker up a > motorway > > Seems like an actual temporary road tag, not a tag that which is temporary, > but a road itself that is temporary, to get around a permanent road that's > under long-term construction, would be useful. The use of highway=road would not be an issue if people used it to mark off an area where they are going to do survey or gather more information. It becomes an issue when people use it to map an entire town, and check it off as completed. During my cleanup rush I have seen examples of this where the roads haven’t been further edited for 10 months. The result is that the town continues to remain unmapped for data consumers, i.e., my downloaded Garmin maps will still not route to the town, but looking at Mapnik hows it has been mapped. iD, JOSM, and other editors should warn about this situation, and validating tools such as KeepRight and Maproulette should highlight it as incomplete, so that they doesn’t remain as highway=road for extended time. Besides it should not take the mapper much effort to identify what highway=* tag is appropriate, to eliminate the need to return to the area. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] non-temporary usage of highway=road
I can understand that mapathon contributors want to map high speed, and rather apply =road to everything instead of doing qualified guessing of wether to tag as path, unclassified, residential, pedestrian, or higher ranking roads. Sometimes I see tagging that is pure laziness, i.e., a bridge tagged road connecting two ways of tertiary. Such tagging laziness breaks routing. Further, large areas mapped as road will show up on OSM mapnik, but might not show on external data consumers As long as the tag is still being used, a warning about temporary nature should be given Also Brazil have, as many countries a tagging convention regarding highways, all armchair mappers should take their time to check up such tagging conventions when mapping far from their local area Sent from my iPhone > On 27 Sep 2016, at 12:56, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I've cced the HOT mailing list as I do a fair amount of validation and > highway=road is one of the most common warnings I see from new mappers > mapping in maperthons. > > Can we improve the training or validation? > > Thanks John > >> On 27 September 2016 at 09:21, Aun Johnsen <li...@gimnechiske.org> wrote: >> >> > On Sep 27, 2016, at 09:00, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: >> > >> > Sadly this issue was closed >> > >> > https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/2742 >> > >> > -- >> > Holger >> > >> There have been quite a few issues and tickets regarding this over a time >> period, with little or no results, that is why I have resolved taking this >> to the list. Seems like asking the developers of the different tools are >> somewhat futile, and we need broader attention on this issue. >> >> Aun Johnsen >> >> >> ___ >> talk mailing list >> t...@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] non-temporary usage of highway=road
> On Sep 27, 2016, at 09:00, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: > > Sadly this issue was closed > > https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/2742 > > -- > Holger > There have been quite a few issues and tickets regarding this over a time period, with little or no results, that is why I have resolved taking this to the list. Seems like asking the developers of the different tools are somewhat futile, and we need broader attention on this issue. Aun Johnsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] non-temporary usage of highway=road
I see a lot of usage of the generic tag highway=road, which is meant as a temporary tag and a “low level entry tag” for beginners. The problem with this is that because of its ambiguous meaning, it is impossible for data consumers to process this correctly. i.e., highway=road means anything between a small footway to motorway, so a routing engine might wrongfully send cars down a set of steps or a hiker up a motorway As described on the proposal page, this tag is meant to be temporary until more data can be obtained from survey. I have now had a few rounds of cleanup of the usage of this tag in Brazil. My cleanup run last year found highway=road that had been unedited for 3 years, so hardly temporary. This year I found several highway=road added by armchair mappers from Europe, and I doubt they ever will travel to the remote areas of Brazil to correct this. I am still in progress of checking each of these elements manually, I started this years cleaning with more than 3600 highway road in Brazil alone, roughly 14 months after I had completely cleaned Brazil the last time. In my opinion, a warning about its temporary state and non-capability with data consumers should be added to the wiki, and it should be removed from the standard presets of all the common editors. Also editors with validation functions should give a warning about the existence of this temporary tag so that it can be dealt with properly by people editing in the areas, and further QA tools should highlight them as items needing attention. Aun Johnsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways
In the rare cases of waterways flow in both directions due to tidal forces or other phenomenon, it is highly unlikely these are one way, and if so, most likely conditional. Besides conditional regulations of navigation is often (though not always) regulated by a signal station or a traffic control authority ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways
> On Sep 18, 2016, at 10:50, Aun Johnsen <li...@gimnechiske.org> wrote: > > >> On Sep 18, 2016, at 09:00, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: >> >> How could the concept of upstream and downstream be applied to canals >> and lakes? > > Open, and non-flowing waterways have a direction of buoyage, that can be > interpreted as direction of flow. This system is defined per country, for > example Norwegian open water keep green to starboard when sailing North or in > fjords, this can be interpreted as water flowing towards South. > > I cannot give a more general concept, as each country defines this rule for > themselves. > > For the Great Lakes I believe (but will have to check up to confirm), have > defined water flow towards the lower lakes. > > Aun Besides, forgot to mention, that in open waters you would not have restricted oneway canals, but more complex Traffic Separation Systems, which have full tagging specifications in the seamark:* tagging scheme. Aun ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways
> On Sep 18, 2016, at 09:00, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: > > How could the concept of upstream and downstream be applied to canals > and lakes? Open, and non-flowing waterways have a direction of buoyage, that can be interpreted as direction of flow. This system is defined per country, for example Norwegian open water keep green to starboard when sailing North or in fjords, this can be interpreted as water flowing towards South. I cannot give a more general concept, as each country defines this rule for themselves. For the Great Lakes I believe (but will have to check up to confirm), have defined water flow towards the lower lakes. Aun ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways (Colin Smale)
For waterways I find upstream/downstream more suitable to indicate direction of navigational channel. These terms are also represented in maritime maps and publications. counter_flaw, reversed, and backwards all seems odd for marine people. A typical description in a Pilots Guide (traffic descriptions for marine use) would be “Channel is used for upstream traffic”, and if not clear by navigational buoys, the map would have “Upstream channel” or similar term printed if not located in a sidenote on the map. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
