Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
For me the difference between bus routes (or walking routes, or cycling routes or . routes) and a collection of McD locations, represented in OSM by POIs (or buildings), is that you can traverse a specific route only by using the roads and paths along that route but you can navigate any way you want (within reason) to get to a specific location. For me they are evidently different in nature. We are not talking about collecting all bus stops in a city independent of the routing (that would be a simple collection). It is helpful to be able to put the routes on a map. And since they are fixed and cannot be calculated at run time by a navigator, I do not see how else we can map routes conveniently in OSM. I already mentioned the reason we do not want to put ALL the roads/paths for a cyclenode network in a single relation: cyclenode networks are large (some are very big indeed). It becomes difficult to manage these with tools we have available. So we just map the routes between cyclenodes (or for busses between the two end points of a route). Putting the marked routes in route relations and putting those relations in a network relation simply reflects reality (they all belong in the same cyclenode network). The same is true for individual parts of a long-distance walking route. Those long-distance routes which have all the ways in a single relation are painful to manage with our current tools (I am thinking of mappers rather than consumers). A site like Lonvia hiking works very well with the current solution with relations and super-relations. If it ain't bust, don't fix it. Please. -Oorspronkelijk bericht- From: Pieren Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 10:38 AM To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ? If you don't understand that a collection of all bus routes from operator XYZ in my city is not different than a collection of all McDonald's restaurants in my town, then I cannot argue any more. And if we tolerate the first, we cannot refuse the second. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
The cyclenode networks we are talking about are specific, published networks with route signage and node signs and/or information panels. They are not a loose connection of nodes which mappers have decided to gather together in OSM for convenience. You will find them in Belgium (where they were invented), the Netherlands and some parts of Germany. (And possible elsewhere if people have decided to use the same system.) They are observable (route signs, node signage, information panels and maps) and exist verifiably in the real world. There are separate route relations for all the roads and paths signed between two nodes and these are included in network relations which contain those route relations as well as the nodes. It would not be convenient (or probably possible) to include all the roads and nodes which make up a complete network in a single relation, so that is why we have route relations. And it is convenient for all of us who try to maintain them in OSM to have all the separate route relations collected in network relations. The same is true for other node networks mentioned (walking/hiking routes, equestrian, etc.) To answer Pieren’s original question: No, you cannot begin removing these from the database. The wiki needs to follow practice, not the other way round. From: Paul Johnson Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 4:59 PM To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ? I'm going to have to side with Pieren against the network relation. Just spitballing, but that would roughly mean one network per county, and an additional 1-8 networks per state, occasionally one network per city, and at least 3 for national in the US alone, bringing nothing to the table that can't be accomplished in a far more manageable way in what would be each member relation. And I'm only talking road networks, and not the tens of thousands of potentially mappable transit, bicycle, hiking networks. It's like hydroponic tomatoes: a great way to seriously complicate growing without much payoff except in very few edge scenarios. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
These are practices which a lot of people have been following for a long time. I do not see a real problem which you are trying to solve here. Leave it alone, please. -Oorspronkelijk bericht- From: Pieren Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 6:46 PM To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ? On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote: I'm having a look at it. It could of course be converted automatically. Since I have the scripts to walk through the hierarchy already. Again, I'm not asking to delete them *right now*. I'm checking if the proposal is fair and is not breaking the relations are not categories principle. If no, I could modify the wiki and recommend some solutions (like using query the appropriate tags on the collection itself instead of creating a relation for that). Existing relations could be modified along the way when people are contribution around them. @Frank I agree that the wiki should formalize the practice but not all practices in OSM have to be followed. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
Nodes currently are placed (where relevant) in both cycling and walking networks. If one did not include nodes in route relations (I do that and prefer it; Jo, as he said earlier, does not), or in the network relation, or in both (slight redundancy, but quite useful IMO) then the cycling or hiking network name would have to be on the node. Again, I fail to see what the advantage would be for such a change. ALL tagging issues can be resolved by adopting a different set of tagging principles and therefore (within reason) can be changed using programming, but why would you want to? From: Marc Gemis Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 9:15 PM To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ? snip Putting the network name solely on the nodes might solve this. Until now, a node only belongs to one walking network. However it could belong to a cycling and walking network, hence, my previous proposal to include the network type in the network:name tag. So all problems for retagging could be solved, one could write a program to do this. I leave it to others to decide how urgent this retagging is. regards m ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
We don’t disagree that routes can change. But the point is that a route relation connecting two different networks (especially true, I believe, for the cycle node networks) is unlikely to change unless the network nodes change (and that does not happen much). What does happen is that the actual route (which is in the route relation defining the roads and paths between the two nodes) may change for reasons you mention. My point is simply that the number of connection routes between networks is relatively small and of those the number likely to change is very small indeed. (Note that changes to the actual roads used is irrelevant; those changes are found in the route relation, which is not what we are talking about here. This is about the “super-relation” for all the routes in a network.) (I realise you grasp this, Marc. but not everyone reading this is familiar with cycle node networks (or walking node networks) I fear, from the responses so far.) From: Marc Gemis Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 10:11 PM To: Frank Little ; Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ? O, did you ever walked along a walking network ? :-) The one in my neighbourhood (Rivierenland) changes almost yearly: farmers that decide that a route can no longer pass over their land, new paths are opened, and sometimes, nodes are just moved a few meters for whatever reason. The network Kempense Netevallei has many nodes with only 2 routes. It's obvious that new routes will be added as soon as the paths are opened to the public. Perhaps, after the governments bought the ground form the current landowners. I've heard that several changes where planned for the cycling networks in Flanders. Probably because new cycle path where constructed or due to new road layouts. So both the routes and the collection of route (== the network) changes. I've said several times on the Belgian mailing list that one should revisit all networks again every year, just to keep them up to date. BTW, the maps of Rivierenland that could be bought from the tourist office used the old nodes for several years. Some websites that use the official information from the Flemish tourist office had the same problem. Only OSM was up-to-date :-) BTW, I'm not asking for retagging. I just pointed out that it could be done. regards___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] capital and state_capital: how are they being used in your country?
Sunday, May 18, 2014 2:43 PM John Pakker wrote: Honest question: are there capitals for something besides countries and states? Italy has both regions and provinces. For example: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abruzzo (Region) Capital: L'Aquila - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Chieti (Province) Capital: Chieti (and the main town of a comune is technically a capital too). So L'Aquila is the capital of the Region and its own Province too. Rome is the capital of Italy, of the Region of Lazio, and the Province of Rome.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 14/mar/2014 um 15:51 schrieb Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com: Do you agree that the river can be tagged with layer=-1 as long as this value is correct in relation to the layer of other nearby/crossing ways? I would discourage you to do so. Layer tags should only be applied to ways that actually cross other objects on different layers (ie without intersecting them). I agree totally with: Layer tags should only be applied to ways that actually cross other objects. At its simplest, a layer tag is a hint to a renderer which of two crossing ways should be rendered later (i.e. on top). If a renderer does not apply the real world knowledge that a bridge (by its definition) crosses over a way (road, water, whatever) underneath, then it can still take the hint to render it correctly. The renderers have no problem interpreting the situation correctly, with or without the layer tag, afaik. A layer tag is not a way to define the relative height of different objects. Some of the discussion on the proposal's talk page is confused about that. I would tag the structure (bridge or tunnel) with a layer tag*. I would not tag a river or stream along its entire length. Rivers, streams, canals, etc. are surface features (in most cases). The mere fact that the bed of a waterway is often at a lower level than the surrounding ground level is not relevant for the layer tag since hinting for correct rendering is not necessary. (In the Netherlands and other polder areas, waterways are often above the surrounding area.) *Actually, as I made clear on talk when we had this discussion very recently, I would prefer not to use the layer tag at all in most of these cases. The fact that somewhere between one quarter (taginfo) and one third (overpass turbo samples in the Netherlands) do not use a layer tag with bridges indicates to me that it is not as clear cut as people are suggesting. (Note: I realise that there are specific cases where explicit tagging for layer hinting is necessary (e.g. bridges or viaducts layered vertically). These are relatively rare.) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels
Fernando Trebien wrote: Alright. I see that applying layer to long ways is bad for several reasons. Surely this could be turned into a validation warning. But what's the difference between tagging the bridge with layer=1 and tagging the river underneath with layer=-1? Some people seem to think that both are necessary, many think it's best to use layer=1 on the bridge, I'm saying that layer=-1 on the river (let's say a short section, not the entire length) is equivalent. Is it not equivalent? Is it wrong? If it is wrong, why is it wrong? I don't think 'wrong' is the way to approach this; afaik, they are indeed equivalent. There are four alternatives which mappers follow, none of which are 'wrong': tag the bridge segment, tag the water segment under the bridge, tag both, tag neither. I've run waterway=stream or =canal (or =ditch, I think) through a few of the small rivers and streams here in the Netherlands. Roads need splitting to make bridges, so it makes sense to do all the relevant tagging on the road segment with the bridge tag when you are working on it. I don't have any reason to split the waterway=*, so I just draw on without stopping. Since I put the name on the waterway and not on the riverbank, it leaves it to the renderer to find a good place to fit in the river/stream/canal name. In principle, that should mean a cleaner map if the renderer can work out the proper placement (difficult job, though). So I would be against splitting the waterway at a bridge and tagging it layer=-1 on practical grounds. And you can be sure that it would cause confusion with other mappers who would imagine that you are trying to model an inverted siphon with the piece of waterway tagged layer=-1, or that you had simply made a mistake. (The 'level' confusion again.) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tag man_made=campanile to be replaced withman_made=belfry?
Andreas Labres wrote: For me those are rather synonym (but different regions/cultures obviously build them much different). In German the word Glockenstapel doesn't exist (at least in our latitude, 48°). The Nordic Klockstapel as well as the Italian Campanile translate to Glockenturm (which means bell tower) in German. As those are all towers, I'd prefer man_made=tower for all of them. And then I'd detail tower:type=belfry for those Nordic belfries tower:type=campanile for those stand-alone Italien Campaniles tower:type=bell_tower for any ordinary bell tower Or even more extreme man_made=tower tower:type=bell_tower (as we probably agree those all are bell towers) and optionally tower:subtype=belfry tower:subtype=campanile /al Confusingly, some of the pictures on the wikipedia page for 'Klockstapel' (Swedish) are not towers but open structures (and not very tall structures at that). Similarly 'Klokkestabel' (Danish). Are these towers at all? They look like the kind of thing which the bell_cage proposal was intended to cover (and which have been used for such free-standing, non-tower bells here in the Netherlands (Dutch: 'Klokkenstoel'). http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Bell_cage I notice that the Dutch wikipedia page for Klokkenstoel links to a German wikipedia page for Glockenstuhl. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 53, Issue 13
St Niklaas wrote: Volker and Dave, There some in Holland as well, about 230 in totall. http://nl.ask.com/wiki/Lijst_van_klokkenstoelen_in_Nederland?qsrc=3044lang=nl Many of these without a surrounding tower structure are tagged as man_made=bell_cage. There's a page for this proposed feature on the wiki here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Bell_cage And the overpass-turbo is here: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2rk ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tag man_made=campanile to be replaced with man_made=belfry?
St Niklaas wrote: Volker and Dave, There some in Holland as well, about 230 in totall. http://nl.ask.com/wiki/Lijst_van_klokkenstoelen_in_Nederland?qsrc=3044lang=nl Many of these without a surrounding tower structure are tagged as man_made=bell_cage. There's a page for this proposed feature on the wiki here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Bell_cage And the overpass-turbo is here: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2rk (Same post, but this time in the thread; sorry about that; Just replied to St Niklaas without looking where it went.) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag an imaginary oneway barrier
Kytömaa Lauri wrote: Bryce Nesbitt wrote: does not represent what's on the ground: there won't be a one way street sign. Dual carriage roads don't have one way signs, either, but the parts have oneway=yes. I just noticed that the relatively recently changed description on the Key:oneway wiki page is even wrong because it tries to set the requirement of a oneway street sign. It's the effect traffic on this way may flow in one direction only, not the signs, that are more relevant to most use cases. -- Alv Agreed. It is the effect we need to tag. If we only use the oneway tag where it is explicitely signed, we get a routing problem on cycleways in the Netherlands. In most cases, when there are cyclepaths on both sides of a road here, the cycleways are oneway in the appropriate direction (on the rightmost side of the road). The cyclepaths may or may not have a no-entry sign at the end and may or may not have one-way signage where you join the path from the left (or right). If a cyclepath is two-way, this is explicitely signed with arrows in both directions. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
As others have pointed out, bicycle=no may have also been used by mappers to exclude bicycles not just to exclude cycling; I'd say we can't know what people meant (though I imagine mostly it will have had the meaning of 'no cycling'). I looked to the wiki for clarity on usage, but the Bicycle page under Bicycle restrictions only refers explicitly to cycling in the entries for bicycle=dismount and oneway:bicycle=yes/no . Other entries refer simply to bicycles and specifically bicycle:no is defined as Where bicycles are not permitted. So I can't see justification for assuming that people will have only interpreted the bicycle=no tag to mean no cycling. Maybe they did, maybe not. The wiki page Key:access does refer to bicycle=* (cyclists) but the page for country defaults (OSM tags for routing/Access-Restrictions) just refers to bicycles not cyclists or cycling. BTW: The country access defaults page shows that in 16 of the countries for which defaults are given, pedestrians can walk on the cycleways (sometimes, only if there is no adjacent sidewalk). So it is unclear why the OSM 'default' for a cycleway is said to be foot=no. Related to this: the Tag:highway=cycleway page says In most countries foot access on cycleways is not allowed per default (see default access restrictions). This is incorrect. The first line on that page The highway=cycleway tag indicates a separate way which is mainly or exclusively used by cyclists. could probably better read mainly used or sometimes exclusively used ... . - Original Message - From: Jonathan bigfatfro...@gmail.com To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 2:44 PM Subject: Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways Sorry Dan, but bicycle=no means no cycling, pushing a bike is OK. We don't have any way of saying you cannot push a bike except by banning pedestrians as well. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 16/10/2013 10:29, Dan S wrote: Martin, your statement here is the same as the one which fly used to start this thread, and a few of us in the UK have pointed out that there is indeed a difference between two situations, both of which occur often: * cycling AND pushing a cycle are forbidden (which, UK-based, I consider bicycle=no) * cycling BUT NOT pushing a cycle is forbidden (which, UK-based, I consider bicycle=dismount) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tourism=guest_house or tourism=bed_and_breakfast ?
+1 to that. Just returned from a week's stay in a short-let apartment in Brussels, which was certainly completely different from the hotels, guest houses or bed breakfast places I could have stayed in (and I chose it specifically for that reason). This was a single apartment; I've often stayed in an 'aparthotel' but that should also be classed as =apartment not =hotel. It would also help to have sub-keys showing the number of apartments and whether there is a reception, facilities, etc. These are relevant distinctions for someone using the data to search for appropriate accommodation. I'm not so sure about tourism=* (I was there for work; most short-term apartment lets in Brussels are work-related,as was mine.) But since all these accommodations are so classed, it will have to do. - Original Message - From: Dudley Ibbett dudleyibb...@hotmail.com To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 10:30 PM Subject: Re: [Tagging] tourism=guest_house or tourism=bed_and_breakfast ? As a humble surveyor and editor I would ask that we have tourism=apartment at the first level. An apartment is quite distinct from a hotel and a guest_house and we already separate out these along with motel, hostel and chalet at this level. The only debate for myself would be is at to whether it should be tourism=apartment or tourism=apartments. In many cases you will have a number of apartments for rent in a apartment building block but not necessarily all. In which case I presume it would be most appropriate to put a node in the building area rather than tagging the building area. Would you therefore need to put in a node for each apartment if it was tourism=apartment? Regards Dudley ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tourism=guest_house or tourism=bed_and_breakfast ?
Presence or absence of a kitchen for the traveller does not define for me whether it is a guest house or not. I've stayed in places in Egypt and Pakistan which our company certainly called 'the guest house' which had kitchens. They did not have live-in owners or staff (but did have people to prepare lunch; we used it in the evening). I've stayed in guest houses which were like a bed breakfast place with a live in owner. And even ones which were more like small hotels. I use hotels, apartments and an occassional BB a lot and in many different countries. The name people use for their accommodation is inconsistent at best. I think the best way to tackle this is to use sub-keys to define the facilities on offer. - Original Message - From: Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 11:35 AM Subject: Re: [Tagging] tourism=guest_house or tourism=bed_and_breakfast ? 2013/10/17 Dudley Ibbett dudleyibb...@hotmail.com From a tourists perspective it is quite important to know whether it is self catering accommodation or not. It is also important to know whether it is a single building unit (i.e. house,cottage,chalet) as opposed to a number of units in a building (i.e. apartments). I would be inclined to use tourism=apartments for the latter. +1, an appartment would have a kitchen, while a guest house wouldn't (often) have a kitchen at disposition for the tourist, nor would a bed and breakfast typically. I also agree with the distinction chalet/cottage/hut and apartment. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
That depends where you are located, Mike. The rules in Germany, for example, are different from the Netherlands. Martin's statement is not necessarily true in the Netherlands (and perhaps that is where the confusion begins). In the Netherlands, the law states: pedestrians use the sidewalk; if there is none, they use the cycleway; if there is none, they use the (side of the) road. Cycleways in the Netherlands are not signed separately for pedestrian use. There are three categories of cycleway, one only for bicycles, one for bicycles and lightest category of mopeds (OSM: mofa), one where the other category of mopeds is also allowed. All three have a different sign. (The bicycle | pedestrians signs are not used at all.) It is not compulsory to use the first kind, the other two are compulsory (you are not allowed to cycle on the adjacent road). Whether you have to use the road instead of the cycleway with a heavy class moped depends on the signs. In general, the heavier class moped in the Netherlands must use the road in the built-up area, but not always. The general traffic regulations say that if you push your bicycle, you follow the traffic rules for pedestrians. This also applies to mopeds (both classes) and motorbikes: if you push it, you follow the rules for pedestrians. You do not become a pedestrian: your moped / motorbike needs a license plate and road insurance. And you need an appropriate driving license (for a moped/motorbike), although you do not need to wear your helmet. If your bike breaks down and you push it and there is no sidewalk, you behave as if you were a pedestrian and stay on the cycleway. In the Netherlands. (Other countries may have different rules.) - Original Message - From: Mike N nice...@att.net To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 1:23 PM Subject: Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways On 10/11/2013 7:17 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: A normal dedicated cycleway doesn't allow you to push your bicycle because pedestrians aren't allowed there I'm not familiar with dedicated cycleways - if you have a breakdown and can't repair, is it required that you walk to the nearest roadway and back home via the roadway instead of the cycleway? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
Nice summary: thanks, Robert. In the Netherlands: (a) Yes, this is true: if there is no sidewalk (very common outside the built-up area). (b) This is only true if there is a sidewalk; if there is no sidewalk, see (a). Different countries have different rules. (c) This is generally true on footpaths and pedestrian areas (unless otherwise signed). (d) Yes, if it is a pedestrian zone / signed footpath (=no cycling) and also specifically signed 'no pushed bicycles' (quite rare) In the Netherlands, the default for all cycleways is (or should be) foot=yes if there is no adjacent sidewalk in OSM. Since it is the default, it is often not explicitly tagged. The regulations here say that when you push a bike/moped/motorcycle you follow the traffic rules for pedestrians. Therefore, pushing a bike/moped/motorcycle on a cycleway is allowed by default and does not need explicit tagging in NL. The default for all footways and pedestrian zones is bicycle=no (no cycling). Pushing a bike etc. is allowed by default. In a small number of cases only is a new tag needed for the 'no bike pushing' situation. (I retract my previous claim that bicycle=no will cover those cases.) On 11 October 2013 12:55, Robert Whittaker wrote: To make the case for this clearer, consider the following. There are four combinations of access for bicycles and cyclists, depending on whether you are allowed to cycle and/or allowed to push a bike: (a) Cycling and pushing both allowed (b) Cycling allowed, but pushing not allowed (c) Cycling not allowed, but pushing is allowed (d) Neither cycling nor pushing allowed I beleive all of these combinations are possible in real life. In the UK (a) would be a normal cycleway that's shared with pedestrians, (b) could occur on a cycleway that's only for cyclists (i.e. no pedestrians allowed), (c) would be the case of (e.g.) a narrow bridge on a cycle route, where dismount signs are shown, or a typical pedestrian shopping street with no cycling signs, and (d) would be an area/route explicitly signed as e.g. no bicycles not even pushed (Oxford University Parks used to be like this until a couple of years ago). Clearly if you are travelling with a bike you would want to distinguish between at least (a)/(b) vs. (c) vs. (d), to determine where you can go with your bike and at what pace. Currently the tagging used is bicycle=yes/no/dismount. The problem with this is that while bicyle=dismount unambiguously indicates (c), people have used bicycle=no for both (c) and (d) -- interpreting it as either no cycling or no bicycles. Also (although less importantly) using bicycle=yes offers no way to explicitly distinguish between cases (a) and (b). I would therefore propose a new access tag be introduced to capture information about whether pushing a bike is allowed. I'll call this bicycle_pushed for now, but the actual name is something that can be discussed and agreed upon later. With this tag and the existing bicycle=* access tag (whose values are now taken, as I believe was originally intended, to apply to 'cycling' rather than 'bicycles'), it is now possible to unambiguously distingiush between the four cases above: (a) bicycle=yes + bicycle_pushed=yes (b) bicycle=yes + bicycle_pushed=no (c) bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=yes (d) bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=no bicycle=dismount is then deprecated, and the same information captured by using bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=yes (i.e. no cycling, but you can push your bike). For actual tagging use, It might be worth considering that whether, in the absense of a bicycle_pushed tag, the presense of foot=yes implies you can push a bicycle on that route -- which is probably a sensible default in most of the world. Although we would have to think carefully about how to handle the case of people who have previously tagged bicycle=no to indicate case (d). Robert. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
It is no longer clear to me what is being proposed since two different situations are involved. 1. There are situations where there are signs telling a cyclist to dismount. He/she can continue on the way, pushing the bike. To tag these situations the current solution is to tag bicycle=dismount. The original question was: is it an 'official' sign? The answer seems to be, yes, in some jurisdictions (e.g. the UK). We also have a similar sign in the Netherlands (although the legal status is not entirely clear). Where there is a sign (and only in those situations), it makes sense to tag it accordingly. So there is no reason to deprecate the tag. Possibly other tagging solutions need to be found where there is no explicit signage but there are general rules (e.g. in Italy). 2. A different situation is where a cyclist is explicitly forbidden to push the bike (e.g. through a pedestrian area) after dismounting. The assumption is that a cyclist pushing a bike is to be treated as a pedestrian, and may normally use a sidewalk, pedestrian zone, etc. Where that is not allowed, we need a different tag. I don't like bicycle:dismount=no since it suggests to me that you do not have to dismount. (On pragmatic grounds, I wouldn't tag this anyway because I don't expect routers to use highway=footway or area=pedestrian for bicycle routing.) On 10.10.2013 16:28, fly wrote +1 for a separate tag and deprecating bicycle=dismount On 08.10.2013 18:46, Tod Fitch wrote: Would bicycle:dismount be better than bicycle_dismount? Seems like that would be more in keeping with current key naming conventions. The convention did change a bit by time and now : is more common than _ but at the end it does not really matter. Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: I think dismount should be a key, not a value - bicycle_dismount=yes/no. On a typical sidewalk we have bicycle=no + bicycle_dismount=yes. On some pedestrian streets in Netherlands we have bicycle=no + bicycle_dismount=no When bicycle_dismount is not tagged, it is the same as foot=*. Bicycle=dismount is the same as bicycle=no + bicycle_dismount=yes. +1 cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
Yes, the intention is to stop people pushing their bikes in a pedestrian area. No limitation on prams, wheelchairs, luggage trolleys, etc. It's just aimed at bikes (which in a country with lots of bikes, like the Netherlands, is understandable). Again: this really is not what bicycle=dismount is about. - Original Message - From: Jonathan bigfatfro...@gmail.com To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 7:55 PM Subject: Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways However, if there is a situation in a country where a bicycle can't even be pushed, which I'm unaware of in the UK, then the access tag needs to be extended to include a no pushed bicycles option. In those circumstances can you push a wheelchair or pram or a luggage trolley but not push a bike? Jonathan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
Here's an example from the Netherlands: http://www.eemsbode.nl/nieuws/18774/oplossing-gemeente-delfzijl-fietsers-afstappen-bij-tunnel/ It's a cycleway (mopeds also allowed). No change in highway type here. It's cycleway all the way down. There were accidents. The local authority decided that the best way to reduce the risk of accidents was ... ... to sign it with a cyclists dismount' sign. We can all decide that it's nonsense, and they shouldn't have done that, but that doesn't change the sign. And we map what's there, not what we'd like to be there. There are plenty of signs I disagree with. (Or even ignore.) But that doesn't mean we should leave them out of OSM. Is it legal: Well, the council placed it (though I couldn't find a basis for it in the local ordinance). Could a strategically-placed policeman fine you if you ignored the sign? (Like most people will do). Probably he could (there's always the catch-all in the road regulations), though in practice he might not. If you cause an accident, your insurance company might want to take it into account. I am not in favour of tagging dismount for any other reason than a sign (or, possibly, a general traffic regulation). - Original Message - From: fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:18 PM Subject: Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways On 10.10.2013 20:10, SomeoneElse wrote: Jonathan wrote: I don't see any point in the bicycle=dismount tag, when there is a change in speed limit we don't tag car=slowdown! The only way to tag the effect that the sign has is to change the access tag to exclude bicycles. As I see it it's that simple. Here's an example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/26194733 looks like a cycleway and quacks like a cycleway - it's clearly a cycleway. It also has a cyclists dismount sign on it. Either the sign is official and the path should be tagged: highway=path foot=yes/designated vehicle=no note=bicycle dismount sign or it is unofficial and highway=path foot=yes/designated bicycle=designated vehicle=no note=bicycle dismount sign no need for bicycle=dismount cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
It's cycleway all the way down, under the bridge, and up the other side. We don't get to decide whether it's a cycleway or not. That's what the signs are for. If it had changed into a footpath, there would be a sign (the Dutch are good at that). I agree that if there was a pedestrian sign, it would be enough to mark it as a footway (implies 'dismount and push'). I certainly wouldn't mark it as bicycle=no, because bicycles are allowed (they just have to be pushed). Can anyone please explain what the problem is with keeping the tag bicycle=dismount? (And yes, I do understand that many cyclists, me included, don't like it and often ignore it.) But it not just a made up sign. It's there in real life. And we map what is there. - Original Message - From: Jonathan bigfatfro...@gmail.com To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 12:31 AM Subject: Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways I'm not suggesting the dismount sign is ignored on the map, I'm saying, if cycling is not allowed (i.e. cyclist should dismount and no longer cycle) then it should either not be marked as a cycleway or the access tag should be used to restrict cycles on the way. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
