Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Sunset ref=* on ways in favor of relations

[David Earl]

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 at 14:01 Richard Welty  wrote:

> it's an inevitable consequence of serializing a complex data structure.
> we either find ways to deal with it or else we accept limits on what
> we can accomplish.
>

Or we change the way we do it.

For example, emitting the relations first would help somewhat.

Maybe thinking about the structure further rather than using relations
because they are there.

Or make it easier to cope by providing much easier and less resource hungry
means of managing this

and/or a higher level api which abstracts some of the change and provides a
better level of backward compatibility, at least for extending time. So for
example "tell me what the road number(s) of this way are" irrespective of
how they are stored, and "is this way the same as that one in respect of
road number X"? and so on.

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Sunset ref=* on ways in favor of relations

[David Earl]

I can see the attraction of this, but I do always worry about gross lack of
backward compatibility being a huge barrier to adoption. If you have to
scramble to keep up with changes like this whenever they happen, you aren't
going to be keen to be a consumer of OSM data when it's only peripheral to
what you're trying to do. I hear all the arguments about being able to move
forward and so on, but if you can't keep the customers, there's no point.

Also relations are a massively bigger burden on a consumer. Every time you
get one you've got to do a look up in a potentially HUGE mass of other
data, so it probably has to be done via a database rather than in memory.
Getting the information you need becomes orders of magnitude slower for
every object.

It also doesn't help that relations appear last in the OSM data, so you
can't even note the relations as you go and then look them up as you see
ways etc. You have to process the lot first and then go back and to the
original task. Again it pretty much mandates a huge database for anything
other than a small area.

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Sunset ref=* on ways in favor of relations

[David Earl]

Having been negative, now the opposite...

Why stop at ref?

There are lots of places where it would help to group things uniquely
rather than by a simple text string. Names are the obvious next one. If we
put the names on a separate shared object, you can then tell when they are
actually the same street, or whatever, rather than just a coincidence.
There are two entirely separate Love Lane in Cambridge, for example, and
many High Street all over the place. How do you know they are the same,
especially if they don't all interconnect, or conversely they do, but are
actually different.

Also you could deal with the case of things which have different names
rather than the bodges we have at present. For example, where a street has
different names on opposites sides which are rare, but do exist. Or where
you have a part of a street known by the name of its terrace of houses on
one section, but where the street is really continuous. Or a bridge has its
own name but the street with a name continues across it. And that's even
without starting on different languages.

Which then begs the question: why not do all or most of the tags this way?
Share tags between multiple objects as a matter of course when those
objects collectively represent one thing. And different but overlapping
subsets of objects represent different things. Then maybe say if we're
doing it this way some of the time, why not do it all of the time, even for
single objects, just for consistency.

In which case, are relations just in the picture because they happen to
provide a crude mechanism for this which already exists? If all tags were
done this way might we get to a point where we are representing real world
objects as a whole rather than trying to infer it from groups of tags which
happen to be similar and are split up purely for convenience of managing
other things like bus routes or bridges which run along part of the real
object.

David

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 at 12:37 David Earl <da...@frankieandshadow.com> wrote:

> I can see the attraction of this, but I do always worry about gross lack
> of backward compatibility being a huge barrier to adoption. If you have to
> scramble to keep up with changes like this whenever they happen, you aren't
> going to be keen to be a consumer of OSM data when it's only peripheral to
> what you're trying to do. I hear all the arguments about being able to move
> forward and so on, but if you can't keep the customers, there's no point.
>
> Also relations are a massively bigger burden on a consumer. Every time you
> get one you've got to do a look up in a potentially HUGE mass of other
> data, so it probably has to be done via a database rather than in memory.
> Getting the information you need becomes orders of magnitude slower for
> every object.
>
> It also doesn't help that relations appear last in the OSM data, so you
> can't even note the relations as you go and then look them up as you see
> ways etc. You have to process the lot first and then go back and to the
> original task. Again it pretty much mandates a huge database for anything
> other than a small area.
>
> David
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging

[David Earl]

On Mon, 18 May 2015 at 00:40 pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote:

 Unfortunately change is inevitable and it happens to Microsoft and Google
 customers.


Yes, of course. But they go to considerable lengths to provide upward
compatibility, and when they can't, they provide a migration path and
controlled change. But in any case this is just a gratuitous change with
heavy costs for all the software. If you have an API, and this is part of
one, then changing it randomly under people's feet so it breaks their
products is a sure fire way of driving all but the most dedicated and
masochistic customers away.

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

Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging

[David Earl]

This is no way to treat consumers of map data. If you make major changes
like this, anyone using the map has to scramble to change their rendering
code. If there's no semblance of upward compatibility, people will lose
interest in OSM because it is just too hard to maintain, and if there is
any kind of automation involved, suddenly people's online apps stop working
and it becomes an emergency.

It shouldn't matter what the tags are called, this is like assembly code,
only the geeks should need to ever see them. This really ought to be
abstracted in the editors, as indeed it is in ID.

Please drop this suggestion, it is not helpful. It's an unprofessional way
to treat customers.

David

On Sun, 17 May 2015 at 00:18 AYTOUN RALPH ralph.ayt...@ntlworld.com wrote:

 I believe that the discussion regarding amenity v landuse  should consider
 that where amenity designates the actual use of the area as in
 amenity=school, landuse designates the general use of the land... in the
 case of the school it should be landuse=education, the same as you get
 landuse=residential, landuse=farmland, landuse=commercial.

 In normal cartography there would be different maps designed to depict a
 specific theme, we called them Thematic Maps. A map depicting landuse would
 concentrate on the general use of that land pocket, at larger scales the
 landuse would be more specific as to the categories of landuse used.

 With OpenStreetMap everything is bunged together on a single map and that
 really confuses a lot of people into believing that you can separate out
 the tagging into something that fits. You cannot without restricting the
 use of the map. Some people using the map will be interested in the
 landuse, others may be more interested in the amenities. They are two
 separate and independent themes. We do not at this stage have the zoom
 levels organised to show certain thematics at each level nor do we have
 them separated into separate layers that can be switched on or off
 depending on what you want on the map. To get rid of one discriminates
 against those who have a requirement for that type of information. OSM is
 only now starting to realise that not all the specialist detail can be
 depicted on one map and we are starting to see specialist areas creating
 their own detailed layer of OSM such as the Cycle Map, Transport Map and
 separate maps such as OpenSeaMap. Once this idea has spread to other
 specifics then the tagging can be designed specifically for the
 requirements of those layers and the argument for landuse v amenity will be
 redundant

 So what the OSM community needs is to reconcile their own specific ideas
 with the requirements of others and reach a way of depicting their own
 preferences without compromising the preferences of others. Not by getting
 rid of a whole level of tags just because you do not understand them in
 context with what your interests are.

 Here is hoping we can all reach an amicable agreement and concentrate on
 the mapping.

 Regards to all

 Ralph

 On 16 May 2015 at 14:29, pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote:



 On 16 May 2015 at 04:27, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote:


 On May 15, 2015, at 8:02 PM, pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com
 wrote:

 area IS landuse - it has to be (landuse=ocean ) so we get
 landuse=building even.




 Uhhh.  *What?*  This is a clear about-face on the landuse tag then.
 Everywhere is clearly not a landuse. Most of the earth is not altered nor
 designated nor segregated for a specific use.

 I can define an “area” of the world. But if there are no purposeful
 alterations for a task, designations of purpose, nor manmade buildings and
 amenities contained within….  then it is not a landuse. There is no
 landuse=glacier for a reason.
 Most of the ocean is “unused” by people. - they have not changed it to
 have a specific purpose, nor altered the water to do a specific job - and
 it’s pretty hard to have a landuse on an ocean (maybe oceanuse=fish_farm?)
  That would be a great oceanuse tag- there are plenty of floating,
 manmade, use-specific, designated-to-be fish farms around the world.

 They take up what… .01% of the ocean? the rest of the ocean has no
 man-altered, segregated, designated use (besides political ones) - but
 those are not “on the ground” in reality  (like a fish farm or a oyster
 farm).

 I have no idea where you get the notion that area=landuse.   land…
 *used* for a task. being a woods or a mountain or a lake is not the “job”
 or “designated purpose” of the area. It just is. hence the natural= tag.

 However, the land around a school building, usually fenced in, *containing
 the facility and amenities that belong to the facility and designated as
 such* (pitch, walkways, parking, etc) is clearly part of the school -
 but not a school building. The grounds and the building together make that
 “school.

 That *land*…. designated to be *use*d by people… as a school… And which
 currently is *altered from it’s natural state* … to 

Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus

[David Earl]

This illustrates, to me, that an attempt to add an ontology on top of
the tagging is likely to be vulnerable to the problems it aims to
solve.


Any such thing would want to express relationships, so that e.g. 
renderers which have never seen the tag before can say aha, they say 
that I could render this like a restaurant if I haven't added an icon 
for it it specifically.



However, it's possible we could start to have a fairly low-key move
towards ontology by simply using mediawiki categories. For example if
you add [[Category:placestogetameal]] to the wiki pages for fast_food,
restaurant, cafe, then it's rather likely that data consumers can use
some of the pre-existing mediawiki tools (as used in
http://dbpedia.org/ for example) to extract structured data that
expresses tags' relations. So if you start with wiki categories you
could get fairly far without having to impose a strong ontology.


This seems entirely the wrong way up. Surely much better to start with a 
machine-readable, properly structured, extendable, schema and fderive 
the human readable documentation from it, than try to extract 
information from unstructured data intended for human readers.


The point of a schema is to bring the documentation into the world of 
semantic web - share data not articles, so that programs can do 
something useful with it as well as people. Defaults, varying by 
nationality (what's the speed limit here if it isn't stated 
otherwise), descriptions in the same place in multiple languages, 
alternative names for tags in different languages, class hierarchies of 
objects, suggested related properties (I see you're adding a post box 
here, you might want to add its identifier, it's a hotel - if you can 
please tell us the operator, how many bedrooms, etc) and so on - rather 
than embedding this knowledge separately and independently and often 
differently in every program that works with OSM.


David


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

Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus

[David Earl]

On 19/09/2013 14:45, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:

IMHO the great invention of OSM is that it isn't based on an ontology but
on free tagging. The world is too complex (and dynamic) to be entirely
described by an ontology. It seems appealing to try though, I admit, but it
will always result in flattening complexity (and therefor detail and small
but fine distinctions).


If you can't actually describe the subtleties to other people in a way 
that makes sense to them, then you have failed to do what you set out to 
do by introducing the difference in the first place, because it is 
simply incomprehensible.


But if you can describe it to people, then with a suitable structure, I 
am sure it is possible to describe it to machines as well, so that they 
can do something useful with it even if they haven't been programmed to 
every last nuance. Not least, to offer it on menus as a possibility 
(together with a human readable description or pointer thereto), and to 
render it as if it were something very similar if that makes sense to 
the person who introduced it.


The key thing is the knowledge is centralised and that it can offer some 
upward compatibility in the face of rapid and anarchic change.


Can I suggest people look at by TagCentral proposal from SOTM10, slides 
and video linked from here:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/SotM_2010_session:_Tag_Central:_a_Schema_for_OSM
where I thought about this in quite some detail.

David





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

Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus

[David Earl]

I am a newcomer to OSM but as a newcomer I do not see the so called lack
of concensus as any kind of issue. People call things by different names
and whereas it is of benefit to have concensus on the framework items I can
see no issue regarding the use of locally accepted tags for items in
general.


The problem is that it is almost impossible to write, and more 
importantly, keep up-to-date a data consumer (like a specialized map of 
shops, in the examples people have been talking about) in an anarchic 
free-for-all where tags come and go and people invent their own.


In effect the only data consumer that can reasonably makes sense of it 
all is a human reader (and even then, if is open to misinterpretation, 
as you are all saying, then them may also be unable to consume the data).


David




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

Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus

[David Earl]

On 18/09/2013 15:36, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 2:56 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:

The problem is that it is almost impossible to write, and more importantly,
keep up-to-date a data consumer (like a specialized map of shops, in the
examples people have been talking about) in an anarchic free-for-all where
tags come and go and people invent their own.


I think it could improve things if we could have a file of tag
synonyms, in a machine-readable format, somewhere on the web site, and
provide libraries for parsing and using it, in some widely-used
programming languages.


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/SotM_2010_session:_Tag_Central:_a_Schema_for_OSM 
!




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

Re: [Tagging] maxspeed=signals

[David Earl]

On 26/06/2012 11:43, Martin Vonwald wrote:

Lately I was mapping features along motorways, including speed limits.
Some of them are displayed on electronic signs, but usually only
change in case of traffic jams...  All of them showed 100. And under
normal circumstances they will always show 100.


They have them in the UK as well: on the M25 for example in the Heathrow 
area. But they really do vary here - they aren't just on/off but set the 
speed dynamically to try to improve traffic flow.


There are also indicator sings on all UK motorways which can be used to 
display a variety of signs dynamically, including variable speed limits, 
in case of emergency. Often they will graduate downwards from some miles 
away from an incident to slow or stop traffic. As far as I can see I'm 
the only one who takes a blind bit of notice of these speed limits and 
people get annoyed with me when I do! Funny world.


David




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

Re: [Tagging] maxspeed=signals

[David Earl]

On 26/06/2012 12:39, David Earl wrote:

On 26/06/2012 11:43, Martin Vonwald wrote:

Lately I was mapping features along motorways, including speed limits.
Some of them are displayed on electronic signs, but usually only
change in case of traffic jams...  All of them showed 100. And under
normal circumstances they will always show 100.


BTW, US roads sometimes have permanent but different speed limits at day 
and night (they are black characters on white for the daytime limits and 
white on black for night).


David


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

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the conditions debate

[David Earl]

On 13/06/2012 14:36, David Earl wrote:

http://www.frankieandshadow.com/xref/byway.jpg


BTW, this means I can use this road at all times as a cyclist, even when 
the barrier is locked shut, whatever the other restrictions on motor 
vehicles are.



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

[Tagging] addr

[David Earl]

If I have an address for the form

  N Somewhere Street
  Foo
  Bar
  Code

so that
  addr:housnumber=N
  addr:street=Somewhere Street
  addr:city=Bar
  addr:postcode=Code
where does Foo go, when Foo is a village or a suburb that is used as 
part of the address. I see we have addr:hamlet, but we don't have the 
equivalent addr:suburb or addr:village listed on the wiki.


David




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

Re: [Tagging] Gated communities - access=private or destination?

[David Earl]

On Sunday, April 15, 2012, Alan Mintz wrote:

 At 2012-04-14 22:10, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

 In the U.S., a gated residential community usually allows anyone in who
 has a legitimate reason to be there (e.g. visiting a friend, delivering a
 package, repairing a TV). It seems that this fits access=destination as
 well as private. Would it be reasonable to tag it as such, and leave
 access=private for secondary entrances that lack a guard and can only be
 opened by residents?


 access=destination says nothing about a legitimate reason to be there
 according to the wiki 
 (http://wiki.openstreetmap.**org/wiki/Accesshttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access)
 - just that it's your destination. For example, you might want to go to a
 park within such a community to walk your dog, which would seem to be
 allowed by access=destination on the gate node, roads, or parking, but that
 would be incorrect unless you are, or are the guest of, a resident.

 I tag everything within such gated communities as access=private.

 +1

Everywhere private has a class of people who are legitimately allowed there.

The point about destination is that anyone is allowed but only if they are
going to that place (typically the restriction is to stop rat running).

There's also access=permissive, where a location is private (not a right)
but the owner gives blanket permission for anyone to access. That doesn't
sem to be the case here.

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

Re: [Tagging] University with buildings in 2 cities

[David Earl]

On 25/01/2012 11:12, Gerhard Hermanns wrote:

I'd like to do some mapping on the university of Duisburg-Essen.


I've been using
  operator=University of Cambridge
on areas marked
  amenity=university
for my university mapping project, rather than trying to do anything 
with relations. This makes it much more amenable to many existing tools 
to spot the commonality.


See
  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cambridge/University_of_Cambridge
and
  http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/davidearl/diary/15398

David


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

Re: [Tagging] Wheelchair ramp

[David Earl]

On 02/12/2011 04:31, Josh Doe wrote:

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com  wrote:

2011/12/1 Martijn van Exelm...@rtijn.org:

Is there a specific tag for a wheelchair ramp that is not part of a
steps feature?

I agree with Martin and others, it is a separate feature, but I do
think that it's also a distinct feature type and thus warrants its own
highway type, therefore I am going to go ahead and use
highway=access_ramp as David proposed.



I agree that it might be desirable in some contexts (mainly
statistics) to be able to identify these ramps distinctly, but for
most contexts including routing it is the same as a footway. If you
use a dedicated, low-use highway-tag you will risk to not get this
feature evaluated at all (what is not desired here, IMHO). I suggest
to use a subtag/attribute instead.


+1. I don't see the value in adding a new highway value. How do you
differentiate a ramp intended for the disabled and one intended for
all travelers? Thus I don't see it is substantially different than
highway=path. I'd favor highway=path + wheelchair=yes, and if you'd
like throw on access_ramp=yes as well which can give you special
rendering and stats if you'd like.


I really don't care what the tagging is, so long as
(a) there is a reasonable consensus
(b) it represents the distinctive features of the object, and
(c) it is documented
(d) it doesn't keep changing

The trouble with asking is that you get as many suggestions back as 
there are people listening, and then it goes quiet and you're no further 
forward.


highway=access_ramp was the only remotely documented feature, even then 
as a proposal, so that was what I used. If there is an agreed, 
documented alternative I will alter the ones I've done, but I need to 
record the ones I have now. The trouble with changing anything later is 
that it means all the consumer software that does know about tags in 
common use then has to change.


By the way, I think one distinctive feature of these ramps is that while 
anyone _could_ use them, by and large they wouldn't as they are nearly 
always provided as an alternative to a non-wheelchair-accessible route 
(usually steps). And they are quite distinct from paths visually, even 
if they aren't for routing purposes - if you asked someone what that 
was, they wouldn't say 'it's a path' or even 'it's a path adapted for 
wheelchair use', but 'it's a ramp for wheelchair use'.


Also, my use of these is in micro-mapping buildings and surroundings, so 
I may be recording at a level of detail that others aren't when talking 
about paths etc.


David


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

Re: [Tagging] Wheelchair ramp

[David Earl]

I have been using highway=access_ramp extensively recently (and including
incline=up as per steps) following a similar question a couple of months
ago.

David

On Wednesday, November 30, 2011, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:
 Hi all,

 Is there a specific tag for a wheelchair ramp that is not part of a
 steps feature?

 I see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Steps_features#Ramps
 but that's a tag to be used in conjunction with steps and this is a
 separate feature.

 --
 martijn van exel
 geospatial omnivore
 1109 1st ave #2
 salt lake city, ut 84103
 801-550-5815
 http://oegeo.wordpress.com

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Wheelchair ramp

[David Earl]

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Access_Ramp

On Wednesday, November 30, 2011, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:
 Thanks. Is that documented already?

 On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 3:41 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com
wrote:
 I have been using highway=access_ramp extensively recently (and including
 incline=up as per steps) following a similar question a couple of months
 ago.

 David


 On Wednesday, November 30, 2011, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:
 Hi all,

 Is there a specific tag for a wheelchair ramp that is not part of a
 steps feature?

 I see

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Steps_features#Ramps
 but that's a tag to be used in conjunction with steps and this is a
 separate feature.

 --
 martijn van exel
 geospatial omnivore
 1109 1st ave #2
 salt lake city, ut 84103
 801-550-5815
 http://oegeo.wordpress.com

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

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




 --
 martijn van exel
 geospatial omnivore
 1109 1st ave #2
 salt lake city, ut 84103
 801-550-5815
 http://oegeo.wordpress.com

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

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

[Tagging] barrier=?

[David Earl]

http://www.cyclestreets.net/location/34139/

Could anyone point me at existing examples of these motorised car access 
barriers (operated by waving a card at it) and/or suggest what the tag 
for it should be. I've found a site that sells them: 
http://www.newgate.uk.com/pages/products/blockers_kerbs.php and they 
call them rising kerbs, so how about barrier=rising_kerb, unless 
someone has already got an example.


While we're at it, you also sometimes find barriers on car park exits 
which have fierce, curved, spring-loaded spikes which are pushed into 
the ground if you drive over them in the intended direction, but which 
would rip your tyres to shreds if you attempted to go in against the 
flow. Like a fixed stinger. Any ideas for barrier=? I've found them 
referred to on manufacturer sites as 'alligator teeth' and 'traffic spikes'


David




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

Re: [Tagging] Wide steps

[David Earl]

On Monday, 10 October 2011, Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de
wrote:
 Hi.
 I think, the last argument Martin has in his reply is the most important
one:
 Tagging the width of steps is simple - and useful independant of other
proposals for mapping steps, if it's equal in general from top to bottom.

 But one usual case is, that steps are around a building etc., so they get
smaller upwards (or wider in other cases).
 It is not possible to map that simply as attributes, as long as you don't
want to have step-width tagged on nodes (something that is error prone
because of the missing connection from node to one particular steps-way).

 regards
 Peter


Yes, I hadn't thought about a width tag, good idea. In this case I have some
extremely accurate measurements.

But I do also have some large semi circular and tapering steps to do (though
they ate a lot smaller than the photo I sent, so their geographical
significance is much less.

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

[Tagging] Wide steps

[David Earl]

Any suggestions as to how to represent some steps...

These steps aren't that unusual I guess, but they aren't a staircase. 
They form the edges of a piazza-like platform, running most of the way 
around it. There are only 4 steps, but they are several of them, up to 
about 40m wide: http://twitpic.com/6whcou


I could do a polygon tagged
  highway=steps
  area=yes
but then there is a problem indicating which is the incline of the 
steps, as incline=up no longer makes sense. How would you know that it 
is a wide, short set of steps rather than a long, more conventional 
staircase.


I could do a way
  highway=steps
  incline=right
to indicate that the direction of the steps is across the way rather 
than along it, though of course no renderer will understand that, and 
one could in principle have both long and wide steps. (Indeed, people 
who went to Girona will remember that the steps up to the Cathedral 
there are maybe 25m wide and 50m long, wider than the building they lead 
up to; these are currently a simple way in OSM).


David


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

Re: [Tagging] Wide steps

[David Earl]

On 07/10/2011 18:13, Peter Wendorff wrote:

I'm not sure, but perhaps the area:highway-proposal [1] is useful here.


There are already numerous highway areas for things like market places 
and piazzas, but it's done as highway=x;area=yes, not with its own key. 
These are properly rendered on Mapnik (e.g. 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/27918828 ).


(I don't see any need to change this unless we adopt a proper area 
primitive).



Before we have to discuss the general pros and cons of that proposal: I
don't think it's necessary to tag all streets with an area (but it would
be possible, sure), and I don't think, it's useful to do so in general
before we have tools to support that.

But I think, in cases where the line generalization of a highway is not
enough - like it's here in the steps issue, it would be useful to do that.


As I said, yes, an area for what is a significant area rather than a 
linear feature is the obvious method, but the difficulty with steps is 
indicating which side(s) are the top and bottom. (We also have L shaped 
step areas, and semi-circular ones among others I have come across in 
the last week).




The additional highway:steps would stay at separate ways on top of the
area.


This shouldn't be necessary, any more than any other highway area. It's 
like putting a node for parking in the middle of a parking area.


David


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

Re: [Tagging] Wheelchair lift

[David Earl]

On 23/09/2011 21:01, David Earl wrote:

I can't immediately see reference to structures like I have ringed here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Wheelchair_lift.jpg
It is a small platform to lift a wheelchair, usually as an alternative
to nearby steps. Though you get them in buildings, which would usually
be outside the scope of OSM, they are also found outdoors like this one.

Does anyone know of existing tagging for this?

I'm sure we can all think of tagging for it, but at this stage I'm more
interested in whether anyone knows of tags *already* in use.


No one got excited by this, so I used
  amenity=wheelchair_lift

David



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

Re: [Tagging] Exterior sprial staircase

[David Earl]

On 23/09/2011 21:44, David Earl wrote:

Any existing examples of tagging an exterior spiral staircase?


No one got excited by this, so I used
  highway=spiral_staircase
on a node (though in principle it could have a circular area for its 
footprint I suppose, but in general they aren't more than 2 or 3 metres 
in diameter).


Highway might seem a bit odd, but it seemed to me to be consistent with 
highway=steps (and much the same qualifying tags could apply to it).


David



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

[Tagging] Wheelchair lift

[David Earl]

I can't immediately see reference to structures like I have ringed here:
  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Wheelchair_lift.jpg
It is a small platform to lift a wheelchair, usually as an alternative 
to nearby steps. Though you get them in buildings, which would usually 
be outside the scope of OSM, they are also found outdoors like this one.


Does anyone know of existing tagging for this?

I'm sure we can all think of tagging for it, but at this stage I'm more 
interested in whether anyone knows of tags *already* in use.


Thanks,
David


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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Roundabouts and routing

[David Earl]

On Friday, 9 September 2011, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:
 On 09/09/2011 04:14 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

 2011/9/9 Graham Stewart (GrahamS)gra...@dalmuti.net:

 David Earl wrote:

 The reason I needed such a tag was to avoid one way arrows cluttering
up
 the map on those little Y-shaped approaches to roundabouts

 That's an issue you can take up with the rendering teams.  Based on the
length of the ways and the connections, they should be able to safely
suppress the undesired rendering.

 The routers need the right information more than the rendering packages.


you seem to be conflating two things. Explicitly identifying the approaches
to a junction is completely harmless, and potentially helpful to routers as
well as renderers as well as marking something distinctive as what it is
rather than relying on its shape which only humans are good at seeing.

what you and others dont like is this idiom where people put a single
one-way with a sharp bend to represent this. I dont like it much either
(though no router should take the continuity of a way or otherwise as an
indication of anything at all because of the way ways are broken up in our
model). Nevertheless, it seems to be a rather common idiom - and I stress
again, I didn't introduce this. Even without this though, you still have two
one-ways (or you simply omit a large ground feature), and I still want to
identify such as junction approaches.

Incidentally, I did try some rendering heuristics to decide when this is a
feature of this kind, not a 'real' one way street, and it is fiendishly
difficult. Make it too long, and you miss out real one ways, make it too
short and you get some approaches included and not others. It is so, so much
easier just ro call this spafe a spade than try to deduce it.

Something similar applies on dual carriageways. People dont need the
reference or road name appearing on both carriageways, or one way arrows. it
is visual clutter on what is already often a busy graphic, especially on
paper where you need to exaggerate road widthsvrather more than on screen.
But, except for motorways, it is exceptionally hard to know that this is the
case in a renderer which doesnt have the advantage of the human visual
system, so to do is properly, you need to know that two ways are related as
a pair of cariageways. There are of course roads which run parallel but
which arent pairs of carriageways (actually by cpincidentce there is an
example of exactly that just north of e roundabout example I originaly
quoted) so it is well nigh impossible to do this heuristically. In Mapnik
and the like, the answer is simply to draw all the arrows and repeat the
names/refs, but itnis very unsatisfactory for the idiosyncrasies of the
model we happen to use to force a particular style of graphic, especially if
you want something beautiful not just functional.

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

Re: [Tagging] Map Features Wiki - SchemaTroll 2.01 update

[David Earl]

Sam,

Did you see my talk at SOTM10
(annotated slides:
http://www.frankieandshadow.com/sotm10/tagcentral.pdf )
(video: http://vimeo.com/14776099 )

There's obviously a lot in common here, and there may be some ideas in 
what I said that you might want to consider.


David


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

Re: [Tagging] Busways

[David Earl]

http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/transport/thebusway/howitworks/

On 15/11/2010 17:16, Richard Mann wrote:

I know nothing about busways (other than that they're a ridiculous
waste of money, but that's another story!)

RIchard

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 5:14 PM, David Earlda...@frankieandshadow.com  wrote:

The Cambridgeshire busway is tagged highway=bus_guideway (actuaklly it is
currently tagged highway=construction, construction=bus_guideway because it
is delayed).

We had a long discussion about this at the time.

This busway is somewhat different from what's been described below because
it is a very special kind of road, which has some aspects ion common with a
railway (it has a track and has specially adapted buses running on it; but
is it signalled as signed as a road). There are other examples in Essen
Germany and Auckland New Zealand I believe.

It certainly isn't just a service road to which buses have access. Those
(short) sections (of the Cambridgeshire busway) without the trackbed I think
are not service either, they are unclassified roads to which buses only have
access - they aren't like a service road in an industrial estate or car
park.

David

On 15/11/2010 09:41, Richard Mann wrote:


I generally agree with this approach.

When buses and bikes share a lane, I'd probably stick to cycleway=lane
for the moment, or possibly cycleway=bus_lane.

Richard

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:09 PM, esperanzaespera...@no-log.orgwrote:


How to tag busways ?
I added some cases in this wiki page :
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bus
on this model :
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle
I add also a busway page :
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:busway

Is it right to use busway or should we use another tag ? (like psv ?)
Should we open a proposed feature for busway and share_busway ?

Please tell me if one of this case if not well tagged and if I'm wrong :

(1) Separate busway track

highway=service
service=bus (or psv ?)
access=no
psv=yes (or bus=yes ?)
bicycle=yes/no

if needed oneway=yes

(A) Bus lanes in bidirectional motor car roads

(A1) cycle lanes on left and right sides of the road (open to bicycles)
highway=*
busway=lane
cycleway=share_busway

(A2) Oneway bus lane on right side of the road only.
highway=*
busway:right (or left)=lane

(B) Bus lanes in oneway motor car roads

(B1) Oneway bus lane on opposite way of the oneway road.
highway=*
oneway=yes
busway=opposite_lane

(B2) Bus lanes in oneway motor car roads
highway=*
oneway=yes
busway=opposite_lane
busway:right=lane

(B3) Bus lanes on left and right sides of the oneway road.
2 ways

highway=*
oneway=yes

and
highway=service
service=bus
psv=yes
access=no
oneway=yes
bicycle=yes/no


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



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











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

Re: [Tagging] Busways

[David Earl]

On 15/11/2010 20:25, ed...@billiau.net wrote:

I think that the psv is wrong as no taxi can use the O-Bahn - it is
equipped with devices to destroy your motor vehicle if you attempt it


Yes, likewise the Cambridgeshire one. They're signed as car trap, 
basically the same idea as the Dutch(?) call a 'bus sluis', where 
there's a hole which is too wide for a car to drive over but a pass has 
a wide enough wheel base.


David


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

Re: [Tagging] Permanent open air stage

[David Earl]

On 23/08/2010 10:54, Liz wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:

I'm tagging my hometown and saw that Map features doesn't have any tag
to mark open air stages. I know lot of open air stages are one time
effort (for example, festivals), but there are lot of permanent ones
(made of stone, wood, etc.), especially in Europe.

leisure = openair_stage or leisure=open_air_stage?


a similar item from the 19th Century is called a bandstand
do they have a tag yet?
otherwise I would consider them equivalent and tag them the same



http://osm.org/go/0ERWvVy24--

I tagged building=bandstand, but I know of numerous others so a tag in 
its own right would be good.


I can think of at least four different things like this:
- the Victorian bandstand as above,
- a stage where theatre is performed (Covent Garden - the performance 
area, not the Opera)
- an orchestra stage (which might be the same thing, or might be 
exclusive) - I have in mind the one on the banks of the Charles River in 
Boston. Is this in fact different from a bandstand except in scale? 
Clearly at a high level no and at a deeper level yes.
- a historic amphitheatre still used for contemporary productions - like 
the one at Orange in France


Also, doesn't the Parthenon has a permanent theatrical seating area for 
the Son et lumiere displays, so there's no stage but there is an auditorium.


David

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

Re: [Tagging] emergency=*

[David Earl]

On 28/07/2010 15:09, S.Higashi wrote:

I'm confused because I was thinking that tags on Map_Features page
were all approved tags..


There is no such thing as an approved tag.

David

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

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

[David Earl]

On 27/07/2010 12:05, David Earl wrote:

... You don't need anyone's permission to do this. If you do a good job and
promote it, it might catch on...


which is one of the key reasons why I think Tag Central [1] would help us.

David

[1] http://www.frankieandshadow.com/sotm10/

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

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

[David Earl]

On 27/07/2010 12:30, John Smith wrote:

On 27 July 2010 21:27, David Earlda...@frankieandshadow.com  wrote:

On 27/07/2010 12:05, David Earl wrote:


... You don't need anyone's permission to do this. If you do a good job
and
promote it, it might catch on...


which is one of the key reasons why I think Tag Central [1] would help us.


How would that help with some of these very complex cartography techniques?


It was the promotion bit I was getting at. Doing it is one thing, 
getting it widely known is another.


David

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

[David Earl]

On 27/07/2010 13:51, John Smith wrote:

On 27 July 2010 22:33, John F. Eldredgej...@jfeldredge.com  wrote:

Using the same tag for both could cost lives, by making delays in
finding the necessary equipment (fire hydrant or fire extinguisher)
to fight the fire in question.


While it may be useful to tag these things on OSM, I don't think
anyone could or should be using OSM for life threatening emergency
help in any way shape or form.


Like an earthquake in Haiti, for example,...

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

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

[David Earl]

On 27/07/2010 15:58, Anthony wrote:

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 6:27 AM, David Earlda...@frankieandshadow.com  wrote:

You cannot tell from our model, without additional information such as a
relation, whether two parallel ways are part of a dual carriageway or just
parallel roads.


What's the difference?  Just whether or not they have the same name?


That's not sufficient. You'd have to do some kind of heuristic test to 
see whether they were approximately parallel as well, because there are 
often bits of the same (named) street elsewhere in the vicinity which 
aren't dual carriageway. More complicated geometry that could be solved 
by modelling.


But you're right to some extent, so I revise my statement: You cannot 
*easily and accurately* tell from our model...


David

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

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

[David Earl]

On 26/07/2010 10:58, Richard Mann wrote:

One of the things Dave Earl mentioned in his talk about rendering was
the gaps-in-casings you sometimes get at bridges.

What I've ended up doing is
1) rendering casings in layer (not underneath everything like Mapnik)


That's what I did also in my renderer.

Talking to Steve Chilton afterwards, I was surprised to learn that 
actually Mapnik is not layer-aware at all, which is where some of the 
problems arise (bridges over bridges being a particular case which I now 
understand why solving is so difficult).



2) putting in a flag to identify ways that join ways of different
layer, with a view to suppressing end caps


If you do things in the right order (circular) end caps get obliterated 
by the higher layer in a painting model. (Square and butt line cpas 
cause all sorts of other problems if treated naively, while circular 
line caps - and joins - largely just work).


I came to the conclusion that for several reasons including your case 2, 
and also the problem of some ways penetrating others when not desired, 
the best way to handle all meeting ways might be to render the meeting 
separately from the ways - painting a star of meeting roads on top of 
the basic renderings. Needs a lot more calculation, and there are places 
it would still break down because of very close proximity features 
(which causes problems in other ways too), but I think it would improve 
the general case a lot.


The particular problems I didn't attempt to solve, particularly related 
to the need to exaggerate road widths more on a printed map, are that 
bridges don't necessarily span the entire exaggerated width of the 
underlying road (river, whatever), leaving unpleasant gaps, merges etc 
in the image.


That requires at minimum knowledge of what the underlying feature is, 
which I guess you could determine by computation, but even then the 
geometry is very complicated and can have knock on effects to lengthen a 
bridge artifically (just as widening a road can, as I mentioned in my talk).


David

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

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

[David Earl]

On 26/07/2010 11:37, Pieren wrote:

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com
mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:

Good idea, or just a local fix?

Richard


Personnally, I think the easiest to fix many issues would be to draw a
specific polygon for the bridge and link it to the roads, cycleways,
railways, etc by a relation. I don't know for renderers but it would
make contributors live much easier. You don't split roads anymore. You
can align nodes in circle for your roundabout. You don't see gaps
between the different ways going over the same bridge, etc...


That may well be true - and indeed is *much* better for dual 
carriageways or other multiple ways going over bridges - but it doesn't 
solve the problem for the hundreds of thousands of them already out 
there that renderers have to deal with today. It also doesn't solve the 
exaggerated widths problem I mentioned.


David

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

Re: [Tagging] Dutch cafes (was: What's a power=station?)

[David Earl]

I still think the most important criterion is what the owner of the 
establishment says it is, not on the subjective judgement of the surveyor.

David

On 20/01/2010 12:52, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
 2010/1/20 Peter Childs pchi...@bcs.org mailto:pchi...@bcs.org


 In my book its easy.

 Cafe - Place to buy and consume light snacks and NON-Alcoholic Drinks
 (Tea, Coffee, Coke etc) on site. Usually Unlicensed.



 in many countries you will find alcohol in cafés as well. In a café I
 would before all expect a professional coffee-machine and someone able
 to use it properly. Then I would expect a certain style (chairs and
 tables), opened usually from morning (or noon) to the evening, sometimes
 nighttime, almost never till very late. Snacks I would usually replace
 with cake and cookies.


 Pub - Place to buy and consume Alcoholic Drinks on site, (may also
 retail Non-Alcoholic Drinks, Snacks and sometimes Food)


 might also retail alcoholic drinks (in Germany and Italy, they do all,
 still a German Pub will look different (style) from what the Germans
 (and not only) call an Irish Pub, which is precisely corresponding to
 a Pub in the UK/Ireland. Most of the irish pubs offer a small
 selection of food and snacks, german pubs often don't offer food
 (unless they call themselfes restaurant). They (mostly, nearly all) do
 offer draught beer.


 Bar - Place to buy Alcoholic Drinks within a large establishment,
 maybe with a hotel, or holiday complex, may share its seating with
 other vendors.



 Bars, cafés, restaurants and pubs can all be inside hotels and holiday
 complexes. You might also very often find a bar in pubs and cafés, usually
 1. in northern europe there are mainly night bars (I leave milk bars
 out of this thread), i.e. mostly frequented at night, they will usually
 have a professional bartender that mixes all kind of cocktails and
 longdrinks, probably also have small concerts, sometimes are self
 service. The seating will be bar stools at the counter and maybe lounge
 tables and sofas for relaxing. Ususally no food (or just snacks).
 Sometimes the offer draught beer, sometimes (probably more often) they
 don't.

 2. in southern europe the bar concept is different and goes from
 breakfast, lunch to pre-dinner. They serve all kind of drinks (also
 alcoholic), and often offer a small selection of dishes for lunch. In
 Italy many of them also sell cigarettes. The main use is still serving
 coffee. They change their use during the day: from (northern europe)
 café in the morning, to lunch-time-place at noon (kind of cheap pasta
 restaurant / fast-food like sandwiches) to a place to get an aperitiv
 before dinner. This kind of bar is found in Italy, Spain, southern
 France, Portugal, ...). They will (almost all) have a professional
 coffee machine.


 Still these places vary from country/culture to culture. IMHO we should
 continue the way we are going. E.g. I would recommend to tag an Italian
 bar with amenity=bar but expect something different if I navigate to a
 Bar in Rome than I would if I went to a Bar in Berlin. Let the mapuser
 interpret the available information. All Italian Bars call themselves
 bar. For an Italian (casual) mapper it will be confusing to tag a bar
 with café (and still café doesn't describe the place well, as an
 Italian Bar is not a Viennese Café).

 Cheers,
 Martin



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


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

Re: [Tagging] Dutch cafes (was: What's a power=station?)

[David Earl]

On 19/01/2010 15:34, Emilie Laffray wrote:


 2010/1/19 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com
 mailto:da...@frankieandshadow.com

 In the case of Dutch cafe though, the word has been usurped for a
 purpose other than its original French meaning (which is pretty much
 universal I think - French cafes and English cafes are different in
 character, sure, but they are all restaurants with a limited menu and
 emphasis on soft and hot drinks, pastries and cold food, maybe not open
 in the evening),


 I would be hard pressed to eat at a cafe in France. It usually doesn't
 serve any food, and they have an emphasis on serving alcohol. I guess
 they are not the same after all.

Really? While some English cafes might serve meals, if you can call them 
that, like Egg and Chips, the French cafes I've been into would 
typically serve coffee and pastries.

But put aside the distinction between soft drinks and alcohol, don't you 
think there is something different in character between a bar and a cafe 
in France, that causes the owner to *call* it one or the other (maybe 
even only for marketing reasons of atmosphere, cachet or desired 
clientèle than because of any fundamental difference in what it serves)?

David

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

Re: [Tagging] Dutch cafes (was: What's a power=station?)

[David Earl]

On 19/01/2010 17:42, John F. Eldredge wrote:
 beverages

interestingly, not a word you would often find used in British English. 
Generally drinks often means alcoholic beverages, though sometimes any 
depending on context, with soft drinks and hot drinks.

 pub

I'd have thought this is a largely British/Irish phenomenon, yes?
Most pubs elsewhere in the world are attempts at emulating or mocking 
British/Irish pubs, and nearly everywhere else has bars (and we do too, 
as well as pubs). The micro breweries found in parts of the US come 
pretty close to the British concept of pub, though no doubt some would 
want to make the distinction of beer being brewed on the premises (not 
unknown though in British pubs, though rare - I can think of two, one in 
Bury St Edmunds and one in Hampshire).

But the British pub concept has changed in recent years too as more and 
more become restaurants, where the drinks are subsidiary to food.

 I am to divide these into cafe,
 pub and bar, based on whether they sell drinks and snacks or light
 food...

Not really. I think it's what the operator calls it that counts, not 
your subjective judgement. The difficulty in France and Netherlands is 
that the word cafe seems to better correspond to the English usage for 
bar not cafe, but if there was agreement that this is indeed the case, 
we could solve it objectively by rote not by judgement.

David

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

Re: [Tagging] Adding housnumber the lazy way.

[David Earl]

On 21/12/2009 15:39, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
 are you aware of JOSM-Presets and autocompletion? If you work in JOSM
 and use the presets, the street, city and country-tags will be
 autocompleted.

Furthermore if you use JOSM's addressing plugin, you don't have to type 
the street name at all - you just select the relevant pieces and enter 
the number (and interpolation, if any) info.

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