Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 24, Issue 31
John If the public footpath is cropped i.e. the crop is growing on the path then the farmer is in breach of the Highways Act and the Highways Authority should be informed. Mine operates a 'three strikes and out' policy i.e. magistrate court after two warnings (and the path cleared by the Council at the farmer's expense). I don't usually record the surface of the path in cases like these but do usually add a note that the path was cropped and the date. Mike On 27/09/2011 12:00, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Send Tagging mailing list submissions to tagging@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at tagging-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Tagging digest... Today's Topics: 1. Footpaths through crops (John Sturdy) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Mike Harris ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways
... I've refrained so far from getting into this burgeoning discussion thread ... just 2 humble pleas though: 1. It is different in different countries. In England there are cycleways ... typically part of long-distance non-urban routes that have been created either primarily for cyclists or as shared routes for non-motorised users ... that don't have cycleway signs. But they are ALL available to pedestrians (and often equestrians) as well. 2. OSM is - I hope - not just a cycle project. Some of us walk from time to time (as well as cycle and drive). In England there are already many ways tagged as 'cycleways' - apart from dedicated cycle tracks alongside motor roads every one of these that I have seen so far is available equally to cyclists. pedestrians and (usually) equestrians. If we suddenly redefine 'cycleway' as being exclusively for cyclists there will be a s**tload of re-tagging to do! _ From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Martin Koppenhoefer Sent: 06 January 2010 02:32 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways 2010/1/6 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: maybe you missed NOP's contribution in one of the parallel threads, so again: your point of view is bike-focused, so you think every way or path suitable for cycling should be tagged a cycleway. I'll restate it: every way or path *especially* suitable. More suitable than average. Much more suitable than average, if you like. Anyway, I'm obviously not getting my message across, so I'm going to have to think about how to express it more clearly. I'm not trying to turn OSM into a bike project - I'm actually just trying to work out a definition of cycleway that people can agree on and that is useful. in Germany we have a very simple rule: if there is one of the signs (examples here): http://www.hamburg.de/image/293720/verkehrszeichen-fahrradweg-bildqu.jpg http://www.wilfo.com/blog/archives/fahrrad_weg.jpg http://www.auto-und-verkehr.de/uploads/RTEmagicC_zeichen240_fahrradweg.gif.gif it is a cycleway, if there's none of this, it is not. The rule is simple and easy to apply. Alternatively you can use path and additional tags (see wiki). I don't get your problem. Btw: I do go by bike, almost everytime I go somewhere, and OSM is already a kind of bike project in some point of view, but as a cyclist it is still important to me if a way is a dedicated cycleway (different rules apply, e.g. you generally legally _have_ to take it by bike if you go where it goes, pedestrians can't take it), or not. cheers, Martin No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.126/2601 - Release Date: 01/05/10 07:35:00 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] tagging Greenways
Mike Harris _ From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett Sent: 21 December 2009 06:21 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] tagging Greenways Quesion is: is there anything different about them from other kinds of multi-modal paths? Suggest we tag them highway=chaos like everything else. Steve No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.716 / Virus Database: 270.14.115/2577 - Release Date: 12/20/09 07:35:00 I almost wrote +1 ... but then decided that highway=chaos was far too specific and anyway understated the case ... besides, I suspect it meant something different in ancient Greek ... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] tagging Greenways
Mike Harris -Original Message- From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Greg Troxel Sent: 18 December 2009 13:48 To: Paul Johnson Cc: t...@openstreetmap.org; tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] tagging Greenways Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org writes: Sam Vekemans wrote: Where the only way i know to map it is to use a relation and call it route=greenway and dont have it render on the cyclemap. Just map the sections as appropriate. Greenway is the US/Canadianism for cycleway. I don't follow this. I think that in the US a cycleway would be called either a bike path or rail trail, depending on origin. I would use greenway to describe a large linear park that might contain a bike path and footpaths, as in http://www.rosekennedygreenway.org/ Using greenway to describe a cycleway seems odd to me, although I suspect that the term greenway does not have an established meaning, and people think it means whatever the local Foo Greenway is. Mike Harris says ... Tentatively ... I fear that 'Greenway' is one of those words where the English language is a bit unhelpful. I certainly recognise the US/Canadian definition from my sojourns there ... But equally I find that here in England it tends to mean a linear way (rather than park), usually multiuser, usually not a public right of way, usually created by a local authority to enhance local leisure / environmental facilities and usually in an urban or suburban area. Maybe we should avoid the term ... And thus the considerable ambiguity? No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.716 / Virus Database: 270.14.113/2573 - Release Date: 12/18/09 07:35:00 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Post_Box and addr:* nodes
-Original Message- From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Roy Wallace Sent: 18 December 2009 21:37 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] Post_Box and addr:* nodes On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.net wrote: it is the address of the building that the box is attached/fixet onto or the building that is closest to it Then I wouldn't tag the box with an address. +1. Tag the address of the building on the building, not the box. In the UK a Royal Mail postbox carries a reference number - displayed on it - consisting of the first part of the post code plus a serial number. When I feel keen I tag this as ref=*. I think this thread started in a different country ... Do mailboxes there carry any reference that could be used instead of an address. If the local system is to use a street address as the official mailbox reference I could see a case for using this as ref=* for the mailbox and leaving the address tag for the building. Any help? Mike Harris ___ 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] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledgeofthe law?
Mike Harris -Original Message- From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Craig Wallace Sent: 14 December 2009 18:39 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledgeofthe law? On 14/12/2009 16:37, Mike Harris wrote: Well, first of all, what you describe would still be correctly labeled as a path. However, I have to really doubt that 90% of ways tagged with path are probably unsuitable for any traffic other than pedestrian. Maybe 90% are unpaved, but unpaved does not mean unsuitable for any traffic other than pedestrian. And there's already a tag for surface=paved/unpaved. That's my problem with the current usage. We shouldn't have a tag for surface=unpaved and a second tag for highway=surface_probably_unpaved. 100% of the paths I tag as highway=path are definitely impossible for anything other than pedestrians - perhaps I'm in a more rural area than you? E.g. undefined paths across fields interrupted by gates, stiles, etc. - or upland / mountain hiking trails across moorland / bog / scree / rocks. On these the surface changes so often with the terrain that the surface= tag, which I use widely in other circumstances, is not very helpful. definitely impossible? That sounds like a challenge... I'm sure some people could ride (parts of it) on a mountain bike (or on a horse). The surface tag doesn't need to exact, just the typical (or worse part?) for each section. Also, it sounds like its worth using some extra tags, eg sac_scale / mtb:scale, especially for the upland hiking trails. Or maybe even smoothness. Well, I'm always up for a challenge! But I'm talking about paths across fields with crops - ever tried biking through a maize (US: corn) field - or over a ploughed field - or through bracken - and after about 50 stiles even the keenest biker might get a little jaded - quite apart from the fact that the legality of biking might also be an issue ... There may well be a brave soul out there but I'm tagging for what 95% of people would do 95% of the time! Not keen on the smoothness= tag as some of the suggested values are a bit weird and highly subjective - tend to prefer surface= .. All a matter of taste! Take your point on upland hiking scales - I note that the German community is pretty efficient at this and I probably need to look harder at what is being done in this area - but wil it leave me time to get out there and walk / survey ? (:) Unpaved is not necessarily rough - I know of plenty of cycleways / footways / paths / tracks that have a smooth compacted gravel surface that I would regards as unpaved but allows cycling at well over 20 kph (usually without a bell and at great peril to walkers - only kidding bike-guys - well almost only ... ) Yes, I agree, surface=unpaved doesn't say much about what the path is made of, just that its not tarmac / concrete etc. For the examples you describe, it would be more useful to use something like surface=gravel or surface=compacted. Agree ... I usually try to be fairly specific with the surface tags and do sue surface=gravel for example. Craig ___ 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] bicycle=no
_ From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of James Livingston Sent: 10 December 2009 11:01 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no On 09/12/2009, at 3:30 AM, Mike Harris wrote: Personally - and I'm probably wrong! - I had always thought that foot / bicycle = yes / no etc. did not say anything one way or the other about formal legal status (hence leaving this to designation= ) but merely whether the evidence on the ground (whether signage - which may or may not have strictly legal significance - or physical condition or even local custom) suggested that the way was appropriate for the user group concerned. I don't think there is really a right an a wrong here, but I use those tags in the completely opposite way - foot/bicycle=yes meaning you are legally allowed to go there, and *=designated/designation=* meaning there is a sign. [MRH] Fair comment ... just goes to show that practice differs widely. I have tried to distinguish between designated=* (which I avoid as I'm not at all clear what it means) and designation=* which I use for legal designation in the local jurisdiction e.g. (in England) public_footpath, public_bridleway, restricted_byway etc. However, if -as several responses have suggested, the best way of looking at foot/bicycle=yes/no etc. is to regard them as spinning off from access= then your approach of giving them legal significance could follow logically - without conflict to the more precise definition given by my use of the designation=* tag (or equivalent usage in other jurisdictions). The big problem with sorting this mess out is all the existing data used different ways. I think the only way to handle it would be to split it into two or more tags, and deprecate the old one. [MRH] +1!! I think this is probably the best long-term approach. The problem -as shown by previous threads on this and related topics - is that in the free-form world of OSM there is no-one really able and willing to take on the task of deciding how to split, what into, and what to deprecate ... No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.710 / Virus Database: 270.14.100/2554 - Release Date: 12/09/09 07:32:00 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
... Unless you have access to non-copyright information on legal status and this is reasonably available in the public domain in England and Wales ... So I do add legal status BUT using a designation= tag so that it does not get confused with highway=, surface=, tracktype= etc. I would avoid highway=path so far as possible and give preference to highway=footway / cycleway / track etc. unless the path on the ground was an ill-defined informal track with unknown (or no) legal status. This provides more information. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Roy Wallace Sent: 07 December 2009 21:48 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:49 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Fortunately, you're not mapping for a router. If there's no verifiable data, you shouldn't map anything at all. I guess unknown would also be acceptable, though. I think this is an important point. It becomes a problem when people try to map the *law*, because legal status is often difficult to verify - e.g. you can't see it! I tend to only map legal status when it is directly marked by signage on the ground - at least you can see signs (i.e. their existence is verifiable). So if there's a sign with a bicycle on it and a no pedestrians sign, that should give enough confidence to go with highway=cycleway, etc. If there's no signage, stick with highway=path, surface=*, width=* - these are verifiable without sifting through a law book. ___ 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] bicycle=no
In England and Wales: 1. It is always an offence (trespass) to ride OR LEAD a horse on a designated 'public footpath' without the landholder's consent. The landholder can order the rider / leader off, or sue for damages, or both. 2. Unitary authorities and non-unitary district councils also have powers under the Local Government Act 1972 to restrict or prohibit horse-riding in specified footpaths (and even bridleways). Traffic authorities have similar powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Breach of such byelaws or orders is a criminal offence. 3. A towpath may be a public footpath, or a public right of way with higher rights (such as a bridleway) or neither. The rights for equestrian traffic are those appropriate to the status of the specific path as modified by any permissions granted or by any orders or byelaws applicable. As for tagging ... IMHO the tag horse=no should mean no riding OR LEADING of horses. This is not a strict parallel of bicycle=no, which I suspect - not unreasonably - is taken to mean to riding of bicycles (but they can be wheeled or carried). While this is not entirely logical, there is some justification inasmuch as: 1. The prohibition of horses is usually both to protect pedestrians AND to protect the surface of the path and even leading a horse can seriously impact on pedestrian use if the path is not very wide (some people would be fearful of close proximity walking beside a horse whether led or ridden) and can significantly churn up a soft surface. Whereas wheeling (or carrying) a bike is unlikely to significantly inconvenience pedestrians nor to do any harm to the path. 2. Perhaps horse=no should mean that you cannot ride or lead a horse - but you can carry it (like a bike)? (;) Mike Harris -Original Message- From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Dave F. Sent: 06 December 2009 15:00 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no Roy Wallace wrote: Ok, so horse=no currently refers to using a horse as a vehicle? Does it not also imply that the possession/leading of a horse is prohibited? The vast majority of canals within the UK have towpaths that you're not allowed to ride a horse along. However they can be used to tow barges. Maybe horse=yes, horse_riding=no? the same for bikes? Dave F. ___ 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] bicycle=no
+1 for UK too. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of John Smith Sent: 02 December 2009 21:47 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no 2009/12/3 James Livingston doc...@mac.com: * In France, if you are walking your bike you're considered a pedestrian. So it's a footpath Same thing applies in a number of Australian states, you are supposed to dismount and walk your bike across pedestrian crossings. ___ 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] bicycle=no
IMHO it would be more useful if bicycle=no meant 'no cycling' ... I think there are quite a few situations where a cyclist could wheel (or carry) the bike but not ride it. Without bicycle=no it would be difficult to know that it was 'no cycling' but with 'bicycle=no' + 'foot=yes' it would be reasonable to assume a default that the cyclist could wheel / carry the bike. I agree that horses are different - walking a horse is usually not allowed where riding a horse is not allowed (for protection of the surface) and carrying the horse is relatively uncommon, at least around here. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of James Livingston Sent: 02 December 2009 21:32 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Tagging] bicycle=no Hi all, Because we were having *so* much fun repeating the footway-cycleway-path debate again, here's another related question: what does bicycle=no actually mean, no bicycles or no cycling? Last night I asked on IRC whether anyone know how to tag a Cyclists must dismount sign, and would bicycle=dismount or similar make sense. A summary of the conversation between several of us: * Isn't that what bicycle=no means, that's what I thought it meant? * How do you tag no bicycles then, bicycle=really_no_i_mean_it? * The same would apply to horses, I'd guess you can't walk a horse through a horse=no area * There are a couple of uses of bicycle=dismount already on osmdoc * In France, if you are walking your bike you're considered a pedestrian. So it's a footpath * Over here, you can cycle on any footpath unless otherwise signposted, to confuse the situation * What does a sign consisting of a crossed red circle with a bike in it mean? That probably varies between countries too So, tagging list, how are you supposed to tag cyclists must dismount, tag no bicycles and what does bicycle=no mean? ___ 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] [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
Good advice ... +1! Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com] Sent: 28 November 2009 19:43 To: Steve Bennett Cc: t...@openstreetmap.org; tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs... On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, since I'm new here, You're new here? Welcome to OSM. I'll ask the obvious question: does it matter whether this stuff is done the same across different countries? Is it not ok if cycleway has slightly different semantics in different jurisdictions? A map is an abstraction and can not hope to perfectly represent all of the wonderful variations of 'things' we see. There are likely to be several ways to do some of the things that you want to do. Some of these variations will have subtle benefits and some will be matters of personal preference. Others will be noticeably different than what you will see in other jurisdictions. Look to see what other are doing locally and in similar places. Learn and adapt what you see as best practice in other places. Have fun. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Highway property proposal covered=yes
+1 -Original Message- From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Randy Sent: 28 October 2009 21:04 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Tagging] Highway property proposal covered=yes I have run into several situations where a service road extends under a covered area, such as a building. Layering is one way to tag the building/road system, but, technically, it is not always a correct way. Example: a building on the ground is at layer 0, associated with any pedestrian ways leading to it. That building has a small ground level footprint, a small shop, a stairway, and an elevator. The second floor (first floor to many) extends over a much larger area, and a service road/parking area is under that floor, open on three sides, therefore not a tunnel. The service road should also be at the same layer as the ground floor and the pedestrian ways. The second floor is contiguous, so separating the building into two pieces one at layer 0 and one at layer 1 is also misleading. Unless the building is mapped as a complex relation of stacked layers, there is no appropriate way, that I'm aware of, to map this situation. And, from aerial photography, it's guess work to map the hidden layers, anyway. GPS surveys can also be questionable. I propose that an additional property for highway of covered=yes be used for this and similar situations, where a road extends under a building, roof attached to a building, etc. In addition to providing a proper tagging method, there is an added benefit. There has been a continuing series of rendering bug reports about roads being on top of buildings rather than under them, independent of layering. This property tag would also make it much easier for renderers to render the way differently than on top of the building (or other structure), independent of rendering sequence. My proposed rendering would be parallel dashed lines with transparent fill, similar to a tunnel, without the entries/exits being drawn. -- Randy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
