Re: [Tagging] Optical telecomunication cable tagging
On 04/03/2014 14:05, François Lacombe wrote: Just consider we are talking about pipelines here, optical pipelines which are going out of any urban area most of the time. Along railways, motorways, high-voltage lines, riverbeds, roads, sewers, tunnels... Pretty much every type of right-of-way is used and the telecom link is part of it. Rarely does the telecommunications link exist on its own, except as directly buried cables that exist in rural locations. Like gas oil pipelines, we can map markers and cables too, regarding long distance links. That would satisfy the visibility requirement. We won't be able to map optical circuits or L2 links and that's not the goal. Let's try to give a map of bare infrastructure before everyone forget about it (and before everyone dig in it 'cause no one can inform them of what is under their feet). In France, if you are going to dig a hole, there is a legal process to follow (called DICT) to submit the dig's location to a single point of contact where operators answer with blueprints of their network in the viccinity (got a meeting about that in 30 minutes...). If you hit something mentioned in the blueprints, you are responsible for the damage - otherwise it is the operator's fault for not telling you. There is a lot of money involved - a legally binding answer is required and Openstreetmap can't provide that. underwater ducts get sometimes forgotten by French navigable ways managers (even if they can be sustainably mapped in its GIS). The position of many pieces of infrastructure is indeed not as precisely known as one may expect - for various reasons, many of them having to do with the costs of doing it right vs. letting someone else handle it later (at a greater cost - which may actually make financial and strategic sense). Finding them when a repair is needed is a fun sport - dragging hooks from a riverboat to grab cables (and trash) or beating around the bush to find an enclosure (that is finally found to be in the middle of a Gipsy camp)... Anyway, even if you don a scuba suit and survey a VNF-managed river, users won't be interested because you won't provide sufficient metadata such as which specific cable from which operator you found. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Optical telecomunication cable tagging
On 04/03/2014 17:15, François Lacombe wrote: 2014-03-04 16:35 GMT+01:00 Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org mailto:j...@liotier.org: Along railways, motorways, high-voltage lines, riverbeds, roads, sewers, tunnels... Pretty much every type of right-of-way is used and the telecom link is part of it. Rarely does the telecommunications link exist on its own, except as directly buried cables that exist in rural locations. I don't agree. Except in rural location may concern some important distance. Yes, those rural cables buried directly are long ones and therefore represent a significant share of the network's total length. Opposite case: sewer-borne cables - short, numerous and urban. Come on Jean-Marc, @AlertePelleteuz on Twitter wouldn't report so many optical fibre outage with an efficient and reliable French DICT system. Indeed there is room for improvement - we are working on it. As a data producer I can't know what user would be finally interested in. I see things in my environment and looking for the best way to legally, responsibly and technically add it to the map. If you take a major drinking water pipeline such as Aqueduc de l'Avre or the TRAPIL fuel pipeline network, even though they are buried they are associated with a surface trail so clearly visible that one may almost consider setting landuse=pipeline on top of them. They are an important part of how one may describe their location, even though their main feature is underground. In the case of telecommunications infrastructure, I believe that the issue is visibility. I am convinced that mapping features that are not visible directly or indirectly is not going to produce data that Openstreetmap contributors can maintain - and that it should therefore not be present. That leaves many telecommunications features that are excellent Openstreetmap fodder: hosting centers, central offices, street cabinets - we had those discussions before. But visible cables or cable-bearing infrastructure are going to be a very rare exception to the norm of invisibility - better take that into account early to set limited goals and expectations... Unlike your effort on the electrical network which is turning out very nicely ! Well... Back on topic... Let's take inspiration from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dpipeline and propose: man_made=pipeline type=telecom location=underground operator=* The German man_made=pipeline page already proposes type=telecom https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:man_made%3Dpipeline And on the basis of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:pipeline%3Dmarker you would have: pipeline=marker type=telecom operator=* ref=* The key here is to set the hypothesis that you are going to map not cables but cable paths, which may contain more than one cable - in my view, that justifies using the pipeline tagging scheme. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bitcoin and Online shops
On 22/01/2014 15:33, Janko Mihelic' wrote: 2014/1/22 bulwersator bulwersa...@zoho.com mailto:bulwersa...@zoho.com We are NOT mapping online-only activity. Attempting to place things like this on map is pointless and should be reverted as fast as possible to keep this from spreading. How is an office of an e-commerce business online-only activity? It is in a building, it has a door and people work in it. Don't confuse an actual office with one that serves as a mere mailbox or even just as a geospamdexing address. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bitcoin and Online shops
On 22/01/2014 17:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2014/1/22 Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org mailto:j...@liotier.org Don't confuse an actual office with one that serves as a mere mailbox or even just as a geospamdexing address. don't confuse a mailbox with a geospamdexing address. The latter is clearly not wanted, while the first could possibly add valuable information, e.g. a valid address. This POI tells not about the address but about the presence of a particular business at this address. The validated address is undoubtedly valuable, but is the fact that a business is reachable through this address a relevant Openstreetmap object if it does not represent a geographic reality ? It is an administrative reality - not a geographic reality. Again, I don't believe that Openstreetmap should be the Yellow Pages. Apart from that, I believe that I just coined geospamdexing in its single word form... https://www.google.com/search?q=geospamdexing; ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] one-directinal bicycle dismount on oneway road ?
On 01/19/2014 07:23 PM, Colin Smale wrote: On 2014-01-19 18:32, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2014/1/19 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl The standard sign for no vehicles (red ring on white background) does not apply to bicycles being pushed by hand, but as a bicycle is technically a vehicle whether it is being ridden or not, there are some esoteric edge cases in the no vehicles category, like no vehicles carrying explosives. If your bike carrier is full of Semtex, dismounting is IMHO not enough to allow you to pass the sign. I'd tag this a no explosives rather than no bike with explosives By the way, w.r.t. the explosives business, no explosives would not be right either, as the sign only applies to vehicles (which includes cycles) and does not prohibit you from carrying them on foot. You just dump the bike and put the Semtex in your rucksack. Then you are no longer a vehicle. Openstreetmap routing for cyclist suicide bombers - interesting niche but user retention is going to suck ! ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
On 15/01/2014 15:44, Gerald Weber wrote: [..] A tag called traffic_issue which would take free text as value (similar to note) traffic_issue='Road maintained by local 4WD club, passes over sandy inlet that floods at high tide, four inch rocks placed by club restrict access to high clearance vehicles' [..] and of course something for the renderers/routers: traffic_issue:severity=none|minor|major|danger|info|block I was going to jump at your throat for suggesting a free-text comment attribute... But using it only as a complement to values from an appropriately designed list would make sense. Then remains the issue of what that list of values should be - and doesn't that bring us back to square one ? Also, if I remember correctly, the traffic_issue:severity=block duplicates the meaning of some existing tagging which work just fine as is. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
On 15/01/2014 15:44, Gerald Weber wrote: RS-630 is not passable during the rain season (May to September) For other tags such as opening times, periods are encoded - which is superior in any case to free text. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
On 15/01/2014 18:14, Gerald Weber wrote: I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Why is the problem in passing along a few words of helpful and perhaps life-saving advice in free-text? Especially considering that it may not be possible to convey the exact meaning by a list of pre-established tag-values? No problem, as long that this discussion does not end with let's use free text instead of attributes... Which is not what you are advocating - so no problem. But wherever something can be encoded in an attribute instead of expressed in free text, that is where it should be. But, as this conversation underlines, there might be a diminishing return in encoding extremely rare attributes. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden
On 06/12/2013 02:05, Masi Master wrote: I think we don't should tag something at a private (really private) ground in a residential (except the house, entrance and way to it). IMO we don't need any private things like swimmingpools, ways, trees, sandboxes or playgrounds at the backyard in the OSM database. We do need them - as long as they are in public view. For example, when seen from above, swimming pools make excellent points of reference for navigation. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bitcoin and Online shops
On 11/27/2013 02:59 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote: I was hoping for a general tag that would indicate that something is more online than offline. But I guess that kind of generalization is not really needed and is hardly accurate. office=e-commerce sounds good. I'll start putting those on the nodes and see where it get us. Commerce, e-commerce... What is the difference nowadays ?Are there any activities left that do not have an online side ? Anyway, I have no opinion about office=* subclasses - but I do worry about POI that don't relate to an observable object in physical space. Office, warehouse, shop ? Let them tag it ! Fictional presence that is really about spamming location based searches ? Kill kill kill ! ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
