Re: [Tagging] How to tag Seveso sites ?

[OSMDoudou via Tagging]

Agreed. I just responded something similar.

Question is now how to tag properly.

I don't expect a tag called "seveso".

I would use a tag that mentions the norm in a way or another, but I'm not sure how to best do it.



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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag Seveso sites ?

[OSMDoudou]

The case at hand here is a norm to characterize a  hazard, not the result of a past incident.

In fact, I don't mind if the tags are not detailed.

I was thinking to reflect the classification scheme in place.

A bit like the stars for hotels. If it's a 4 star hotel, we don't tag all the details of the norm, but we refer to it instead.




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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag Seveso sites ?

[OSMDoudou]

Indeed. I'm not an expert, but it's a good summary.

Data about the classification is available and of public interest, so I'm 
wondering how to tag.


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

[Tagging] How to tag Seveso sites ?

[OSMDoudou]

Hello,

 

I was wondering how to tag Seveso sites. [1]

 

I found a page in French language on the wiki which indirectly mentions the 
possibility to tag "seuilːFRːDREAL=haut/bas" (with tag and value in French 
language). [2]

 

Taginfo shows it's indeed in use, but only in France. [3] 

 

I see an interest to tag these sites as there are many of them and the 
information of public interest.

 

But I barely find some site tagged in practice, so I wonder if I’m missing 
something or if I’m not looking in the right tags.

 

Any suggestion what tagging scheme to use ?

 

Thank you.

 

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_2012/18/EU

[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/France/Liste_des_références_nationales

[3] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.fr/keys/seuil%3AFR%3ADREAL#values

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

[OSMDoudou]

Notice, one shouldn’t confuse “historical” (exists and is historic interest) 
with “out of date” (doesn't exist anymore and cannot be verified on the ground) 
and with “life cycle” (change of state or usage).

Definitions are mine and can be imperfect.

In fact, I want to allude to:

- Open Historical Map: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Historical_Map

- Historic: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic

- Lifecycle: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

[OSMDoudou]

Specifying bolts May also be of interest for climbing: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Climbing.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Emergency vehicle country-specific law

[OSMDoudou]

I would expect the police would first re-organize the scene to revert 
circulation.

 

If the house on fire is just a few meters in the opposite one-way direction, 
they might go directly, but technically they would break the law, if I read the 
articles correctly.

 

So, we should map what it authorized and not authorized under normal 
circumstances, otherwise we map no restriction at all (because the policy may 
always reorganize things in urgent situations).

 

 

From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 14:23
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Emergency vehicle country-specific law

 

 

 

Am Mi., 6. März 2019 um 14:16 Uhr schrieb Marc Gemis mailto:marc.ge...@gmail.com> >:

On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 11:52 AM OSMDoudou
<19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com 
<mailto:19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com> > wrote:

If there was an explosion due to a gas leak and the road is blocked by
debris, I guess they can go in the opposite direction of a one-way
street as well.

 

 

I don't know the Belgian law, but in cases like these it is likely there will 
be police at the scene and will temporarily organize the traffic as required. 
Policemen everywhere (?) are higher ranked than road markings and street signs. 
;-)

 

If you need to infract some traffic regulations in order to save lifes, there 
might be exceptions or even obligations. 

 

Cheers,

Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] Possibility to draw parking properties as an area

[OSMDoudou]

Parking spaces, you mean ?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dparking_space___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Emergency vehicle country-specific law

[OSMDoudou]

> AFAIK emergency vehicles are exempt from limitations of traffic law 
> (including oneway roads, forbidden access roads, speed limits, red lights, 
> forbidden turns)

Belgian law requires they stop at traffic lights and exercise caution. Not only 
exercise caution, but explicitly stop. Also, they can’t go opposite direction 
of one-way streets, except motorways.

So, globally, yes, they have priority, but in the details, it’s more subtle.

French language references:
- https://leblogdumono.be/privileges-vehicules-prioritaires/
- 
http://www.policelocale.be/files/5318/files/downloads/A-propos/Prevention/VAC_2014-03.pdf
- https://www.matele.be/vehicules-prioritaires-meme-code-de-la-route-pour-tous

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

Re: [Tagging] How to map Hostile Architecture? e.g. benches you can't lie/sleep on?

[OSMDoudou]

Wiki describes a bench as a place to sit on.

Lying on some benches is possible but sounds like a hack, as the "friendly vs. hostile" point of views proves.

I wouldn't tag the hacks that can be done of things.

A bit like we don't tag urbex ("urban exploration") but tag abandonned industrial places.
On 2/28/19, 12:04 Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
Am Do., 28. Feb. 2019 um 11:46 Uhr schrieb OSMDoudou <19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com>:By the way, there is already a tag for the number of places on a bench: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:seats. And for width, length and height.we could add  a tag how many people can lie on the bench as well. If there are physical impediments against lying (as in "staying in a horizontal position") the value could be 0.Not sure about a good word for the tag, maybe "lying_capacity"?Btw.: from a 1.8m long bench I would conclude that one person could lie on it, as long as she isn't much longer than that. It may also be a question how the ends are made, it may not be a problem to have your feet pending, if it is physically possible. There are many parameters, therefor being explicit ("how many people can lie here") seems the most useful approach to answering this question.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] How to map Hostile Architecture? e.g. benches you can't lie/sleep on?

[OSMDoudou]

> I second reddit suggestion to use objective criteria.

Totally agreed.

From OSM perspective, we describe how the things are, not so much how they feel 
and what are the intentions. That is to say, the question whether something is 
friendly or hostile is a decision of the inventors and the users of the bench, 
not for the mapper.

It's similar to an earlier discussion in this list about "biker-friendly" 
places. The infrastructure and services people consider as friendly to biker 
can be mapped.

Or similar to discussion about rating places and qualifying them as of "good or 
bad quality", like hotel stars. Number of starts issued by a certification 
authority can be mapped, but whether it really means "quality" is totally 
personal and cannot be mapped.

By the way, there is already a tag for the number of places on a bench: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:seats. And for width, length and height.

Users can conclude that a 1,8 m wide bench made of 3 seats is not intended to 
be lied on, even less so if each seat has armchairs.

So, maybe no new tag is needed ?


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

Re: [Tagging] units and notations for maxstay

[OSMDoudou]

> I think any discussion of dates and times should start by asking if we could 
> apply ISO8601 to the problem at hand. For example the other thread about 
> start date variants.

By the way, ISO 8601 is already in use at places: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?search=ISO+8601=Special:Search=default=1.
 



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

Re: [Tagging] Problems with Open Street Browser

[OSMDoudou]

Or Github.

https://github.com/plepe/OpenStreetBrowser

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

Re: [Tagging] Problems with Open Street Browser

[OSMDoudou]

Could try via Mastodon: https://en.osm.town/@plepe.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs

[OSMDoudou]

The minimum can also differ.

Some banks allow their young customers to withdraw small amounts, like 5 EUR, whereas adults and even young customers with cards from other banks will not be allowed to withdraw less than 20 EUR.

So, it may create confusion between mappers because what you see as options on the ATM may depend on your card and your affiliation with the bank. 

This impairs verifiability on the ground of the information.

On 2/14/19, 03:45 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

  
The maximum may also be limited by the
  card provider. Need some careful words on the proposal to say it
  is the limit of the ATM provider. 
  
  
  On 14/02/19 13:31, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:


  
  Withdrawals are not the only type of ATM transaction. 


So use 
withdraw_min=*
withdraw_max=*

???

  The currency is set by some other tag that I forget now. That
  needs to be mentioned in the proposal. 
  As a user .. I have no idea what the limits are. I suspect I may
  know the lower limit, but not the upper. 
  
  
  

  Perhaps max_withdrawal would be clearer?
  
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:57 AM Nathan Wyand
  
  wrote:


   Hello mappers,

I frequently use OSM to find ATM's near me, but many of
these machines place limits on how much can be withdrawn in
1 transaction. This can make it inconvenient and expensive
to withdraw money, requiring several transactions. Another
issue is that many machines only carry $20 notes, which
forces people to withdraw more or less than they actually
desire. I am considering two tags for use alongside
'amenity=atm':

min_transaction (the minimum amount of cash that can
be withdrawn in one transaction...typically the smallest
denomination of notes in the machine)
max _transaction (the maximum amount of cash that can
be withdrawn in one transaction)

This is my first time proposing a tag, and I would love to
hear your input and and advice. Thank you!

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

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




  
___
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] Micronations

[OSMDoudou]

People in search of mapping fictive worlds should consider OpenGeofiction: 
https://opengeofiction.net/#map=11/-20.1066/22.4554___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] edit war about deletion of proposal

[OSMDoudou]

Past proposals constitute knowledge which can serve later on for a new 
proposal. If it would be total crap, it would better be delete it to avoid it 
serves as bad model. But if it’s half good, it can be a baseline of what was 
learnt, what was disputed, what needs improvement, etc.

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

Re: [Tagging] weight limit in short tons

[OSMDoudou]

Indeed, it's very strange to require mappers do the maths when there is a 
notation to indicate the unit and let the renderers do the maths. 


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

Re: [Tagging] crossing=cycleway as a node

[OSMDoudou]

> can only be used by cyclist

The “access” tag allows to express this.

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

[Tagging] Drift // Re: Re: Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

[OSMDoudou]

Indeed, that's why it's common practice to advertise the drift by changing the subject line.


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

Re: [Tagging] Tag an information panel

[OSMDoudou]

> Tag the capacity of the car park itself. It's more useful.

I think the OP is talking about variable display signs indicating the free capacity in real time.


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

Re: [Tagging] Glamping

[OSMDoudou]

Tagging as glamping is very helpful because glamping is a recognized concept, 
so you can learn more about it at many places on the web, one of which can be 
Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glamping.

But I wouldn’t tag luxury or glamour to reflect that a glamping is a luxury or 
glamour place because that is already part of the concept.

And if a particular glamping was to have more luxury or glamour than the 
average, tagging as luxury or glamour is tempting as it would reflect this one 
has *extra* offerings over the average.

But then of course, the question of anyone curious at this place will be to 
wonder what more luxury or glamour this one has over an average one.

And this would be because of infrastructure or services which is then to be 
tagged as it is verifiable and much more informative than a simple luxury=yes 
tag.

And you leave to the user to decide if it is luxury or not, because what is 
“luxury” for one can be just “normal” for someone else or can change over time 
(because what was luxury years ago is maybe not anymore today).___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Can OSM become a geospacial database?

[OSMDoudou]

So, are you then asking how to find this school or any other, without searching 
through the name tag ?

Then, search for elements tagged with amenity=school.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=school

And if you want to search elementary schools, search for school=* or 
isced:level=* (provided it’s tagged).

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:school
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:isced:level

This school happens to be tagged with school:FR=élémentaire.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/57403552#map=19/48.86055/2.36046___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Can OSM become a geospacial database?

[OSMDoudou]

> Let's take at look at this spot in the centre of Paris
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/48.86138/2.36028
> You can see category names displayed everywhere there, e.g. musium, hotel, 
> school (in French).
> As a result when you query OSM database for some category items you have to 
> apply algorithms for clearing
> category names from the name field to get just proper names

Not sure I understand.

Do you mean "École primaire des Quatre Fils" doesn't have a proper name ?

What would be a better name ?


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

Re: [Tagging] Named walking tracks following road

[OSMDoudou]

I would suggest to make a consistent edit of the area, not just solve one 
isolated MapRoulette challenge.

Other segments of the walks have the three names:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/435947565
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/435947561
etc.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Physical vs legal access tagging on barriers

[OSMDoudou]

The wiki says the access tag represents the *legal* access condition, so not 
related to the physical aspects of the feature.

Reading the wiki a bit, I see the access on gates exists to override the 
default characteristics inherent to the barrier type: “Each barrier has its own 
accessibility defaults. Use tag access=* to override them.” [1]

So, lift_gate with access=foot is probably redundant, because the lift_gates I 
can think of do not have features that effectively prevent foot passage (they 
might deter or have signs, but the physical construction of the gate itself is 
not preventing foot passage).

I don’t know where the default accessibility condition per gate type can be 
consulted, however.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Barriers___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Estimated values for height

[OSMDoudou]

What’s the fundamental difference (and thus main benefit ?) between 
measure:accuracy, accuracy:measure or est_height ? They’re all telling that the 
given height is an estimate within an undisclosed interval of confidence?

I wonder if it’s not.better to accept that *any* measure is an estimate, and 
let mappers improve the accuracy, just like the drawing of a highway can be a 
poor or a great estimate, which improves over time as imagery or traces permit 
improvement.

Even if the imagery is of great precision, it’s not a guarantee of.accuracy, as 
the mapper might be in a hurry or might not particularly care for accuracy, and 
leave to its successors to improve it.

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

Re: [Tagging] رد: New rag to draw node name with rotate angle

[OSMDoudou]

Can you show an example of where it’s not appearing properly ?

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

Re: [Tagging] New rag to draw node name with rotate angle

[OSMDoudou]

Looks like encouraging “tagging for the renderer”.

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

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables

[OSMDoudou]

> Even if you can make it fit, it's not necessarily a good idea to do it.
> I'm thinking of the Hoover Dustette.

Excuse my ignorance. You’re thinking to what ?

> I'm not sure that a wiki would be the optimal architecture for this if we 
> ended up with many GTFS feeds that were interrogated frequently.

Problem solved already, it seems: http://transitfeeds.com.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables

[OSMDoudou]

(Re-posting because I accidentally dropped talk-transit)

On Nov 8, 2018, at 00:30, OSMDoudou 
<19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com> wrote:

Just a quick web search, but it appears there exist GTFS editors and there is 
an entire ecosystem around creating and hosting GFTS files. Here is one editor, 
for example: https://conveyal-data-tools.readthedocs.io/en/latest.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables

[OSMDoudou]

(Re-posting because I accidentally dropped talk-transit)

On Nov 8, 2018, at 00:18, OSMDoudou 
<19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com> wrote:

> And it's re-inventing the wheel.  GTFS already exists.
> Could we do better?  Maybe, maybe not.

Indeed. If someone determines GTFS needed improvement, it’s best to work in 
that community to improve it instead of inventing another standard. This xkcd 
comic is particularly well suited for this situation: https://xkcd.com/927/.

> We could perhaps encourage mappers to generate
> feeds where the operator doesn't provide them and maybe even
> go so far as to run a web server hosting those feeds until
> such time as a more official feed is available.

It’s very much what I have in mind as well.

We should think one step further than the tagging and figure a solution for 
maintaining and hosting GTFS files in case the PT organization doesn’t publish 
one. If we can resolve the issue of hosting the files, it will encourage OSM 
contributors to think more towards contributing to a web of data and less into 
“forcing” whatever geo-related data in OSM database.

And hosting these files doesn’t need to be complex. For example, certain JOSM 
plug-in’s have their configuration hosted in the wiki: 
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Presets#JOSMwikiAvailablepresetpreferredmethod.
 So, we maybe already have the solution (with the OSM wiki, not the JOSM wiki).___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables

[OSMDoudou]

Just a quick web search, but it appears there exist GTFS editors and there is 
an entire ecosystem around creating and hosting GFTS files. Here is one editor, 
for example: https://conveyal-data-tools.readthedocs.io/en/latest.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables

[OSMDoudou]

> And it's re-inventing the wheel.  GTFS already exists.
> Could we do better?  Maybe, maybe not.

Indeed. If someone determines GTFS needed improvement, it’s best to work in 
that community to improve it instead of inventing another standard. This xkcd 
comic is particularly well suited for this situation: https://xkcd.com/927/.

> We could perhaps encourage mappers to generate
> feeds where the operator doesn't provide them and maybe even
> go so far as to run a web server hosting those feeds until
> such time as a more official feed is available.

It’s very much what I have in mind as well.

We should think one step further than the tagging and figure a solution for 
maintaining and hosting GTFS files in case the PT organization doesn’t publish 
one. If we can resolve the issue of hosting the files, it will encourage OSM 
contributors to think more towards contributing to a web of data and less into 
“forcing” whatever geo-related data in OSM database.

And hosting these files doesn’t need to be complex. For example, certain JOSM 
plug-in’s have their configuration hosted in the wiki: 
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Presets#JOSMwikiAvailablepresetpreferredmethod.
 So, we maybe already have the solution (with the OSM wiki, not the JOSM wiki).___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables

[OSMDoudou]

> including the GTFS endpoints and license info as tags, and maybe then adding the ability to discover the GTFS Realtime extension would be the way to go

+1


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

Re: [Tagging] How to include the new speed limits of Madrid (Spain)?

[OSMDoudou]

It reminds of this earlier discussion: 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-September/039108.html.

Sorry I didn’t take the time to read it all to verify but I seem to remember it 
was dealing with the same concern of tagging explicitly or implicitly (by 
tagging a parent area).

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

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables

[OSMDoudou]

Considering De Lijn may share their data as GTFS, isn’t it a better effort to 
integrate instead of duplicate existing data?

https://www.delijn.be/en/zakelijk-aanbod/reisinfodata/gebruik-onze-data.html___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables Proposal RFC

[OSMDoudou]

I incidentally ran across Moovit.com, who describe themselves as the wikipedia 
of transit and are using OSM as basemap: https://moovit.com and 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moovit#Product.

Is it what you have in mind to achieve ?___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables Proposal RFC

[OSMDoudou]

As you don't provide more details, this statement reads as a personal preference and isn't helping in improving the proposal of enabling public transport routing. Can you make a more factual and informative explanation as to how it would be bad for OSM to contain timetable data? The proposal mentions a number of interesting use cases. Thx.


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

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables Proposal RFC

[OSMDoudou]

A couple of thoughts:

- The schedules I know have values different for week days and week-ends and again for school holidays, so I wonder if the depature tag value (as well as the other timetable tags) of frequent departure lines will not run into the 255 character limit. This is similar to the opening_hours tag which was discussed recently [1]. This possible issue should be looked into: based on real data: how likely is it to happen, and how can the tagging scheme circumvent the limit?

- As the proposal mentions, there exist public and maintained sources of data (GTFS). Can you discuss how this proposal will not result on the long run in duplicating these data, thus requiring double maintenance? Wouldn't it be better to interface and integrate this external data (like with wikimedia tag)?

[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-October/039889.html



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

Re: [Tagging] Out of the bars and onto the map: An lgbtq:*=* tagging scheme?

[OSMDoudou]

Thanks for pointing to it. It was also reminding of this earlier discussion on how to tag the "friendly" attitude of a place, but I couldn't find it back.

"Biker friendly" is difficult to grasp because it's a mindset more than a fact, and we don't map places for their mindset but for tangible and independently-verifiable services and infrastructure which are relevant and, if not unique, at least differenciating.

For example, there is the tag social_facility:for="" https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:social_facility:for.

It's a place where people not only are in mindset to help other people but actually deliver verifiable services and may have specific infrastructure.

So, a question may be what are services or infrastructure specific to these bars that are not found elsewhere (or not so frequently found elsewhere).


On 10/25/18, 07:54 Yves  wrote:
I agree with Frederick here, lgbtq=yes looks like the access tags.This discussion also reminds me the motorcycle-friendly thread not so long ago.https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/motorcycle_friendlyYvesLe 23 octobre 2018 20:27:04 GMT+02:00, Rory McCann  a écrit :
Hi all,I'd like to improve the state of mapping/tagging for LGBTQ topics, andI'd like feedback.There is an existing "gay" tag[1], which is used 650 times[2]. But it'sa little restrictive. And it also suggested "gay:transgender=yes" whichis just plain wrong.So to start off, I'm suggest a simple "lgbtq=yes" tag tomean "this thing is a LGBTQ thing". I've intermittently used"lgbt"/"lgbtq" tag in the past, but I think "lgbtq" ("lesbian gaybi trans queer") would probably be a little better.So "amenity=bar lgbtq=yes" is what is commonly called a "gay bar"."shop=books lgbtq=yes" is a LGBTQ book shop, "leisure=sauna lgbtq=yes"is a gay sauna, etc. We can expand the tagging later, or just use"lgbtq:(men|women|trans|cis|bears|...)=(yes|no)" straight () away.For trans issues, there's the whole topic of toilet tagging (unisex,etc), which is tagged separately, and maybe there's some good way to tag"informed consent" for medical clinics?*When* to add a lgbtq=yes tag can be hard to know. In some places a gaybar can be easily identified by a prominent rainbow flag. Some culturesare less accepting, so bars might not be so blatant (I've seen this inthe EU). Using the common OSM rules of "local knowledge", people withinthe local LGBTQ community are probably the best place to make a final call.Like many things in OSM, most of the work will be the actual mapping.It's best to tag areas your familiar with, IME online directories canoften have lots of facilities that no longer exist. At some point I wantto create a custom map based on this data (a la the now dead OpenQueerMap).Thoughts? Comments? Feedback?--Rory[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Visitors_orientation#for_gay.3D.2A[2] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=gayTagging mailing listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___
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] Opening hours too long for OSM

[OSMDoudou]

> opening_hours="see the web site."

If one doesn't intend to tag the opening hours, then one better uses the 
"website" tag [1] and not the "opening_hours" one.

But it would be a pity one doesn't document opening hours due to a technical 
limitation.

As to improving (thinking out loud here...), couldn't one envisage an 
enhancement to document opening hours with "opening_hours:jan_sep=08:00-12:00" 
and "opening_hours:ph::jan_sep=08:00-16:00" if the place is opened in the 
afternoon only on public holidays, for examples ?

Of course, data consumers must be adapted, but it doesn't break anything or 
doesn't require to change the technical limitation.

And maybe a more radical improvement and definitive solution would be to go 
towards a semantic web [2], so the data doesn't need to be in the OSM database 
but there is a link to query data hosted outside OSM. A bit like for "wikidata" 
tag. [3]

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:website
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_web
[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wikidata



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

Re: [Tagging] hydrants

[OSMDoudou]

Maybe leverage the existing direction tag (fire_hydrant:opening:direction) ?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:direction 



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

Re: [Tagging] landuse for government offices ?

[OSMDoudou]

I'll go for civic_admin. Sounds specific enough. Thx. 


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

[Tagging] landuse for government offices ?

[OSMDoudou]

Hello,

The "landuse=commercial" page [1] says "area may consists of offices,
administration", whereas the "landuse" page [2] says "Government services
and businesses should not use this tag".

How to tag a piece of land where governmental several office buildings are
situated ?

For example, a set of Service Public Fédéral (SPF) buildings, which are
government offices. [3]

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse=commercial
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landuse
[3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/50.44476/3.95168


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

Re: [Tagging] Why isn't the amenity=parking object part of the relation ?

[OSMDoudou]

Do you mean you use plain polygons, and let data consumer derive relation 
observing the parking space polygon is situated within the geo boundaries of an 
amenity parking polygon ?

Or do you mean you use multi-polygon relations. [1]

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon 



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

Re: [Tagging] Why isn't the amenity=parking object part of the relation ?

[OSMDoudou]

> I’m hardly using the site relation because you can express almost everything 
> spatially (a (multi-) polygon for the site

Can you give a link to such an example ?
 



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

Re: [Tagging] Why isn't the amenity=parking object part of the relation ?

[OSMDoudou]

Thx. Two follow-up questions.

(A)

I had a look at a place to which - if I'm not mistaken - you contributed to [1] 
and I see what you mean.

Still, I'm curious why we wouldn't use the "role" attributes of a relation to 
*explicitly* qualify the outer polygon as the "parent" of the parking spaces 
(and the other possible parking-related objects, if any).

As a was searching more, I saw in JOSM that when I click Presets > Relations > 
Site, it opens a dialog box which I think tries to explain that one can add 
nodes, ways or areas with role label, perimeter, entrance or just member (no 
role).

And indeed, when I start writing in the Role column in the relation editor 
dialog in JOSM, it will autocomplete when I start typing perimeter, label or 
entrance.

But I can't find discussion of that in the wiki. [2]

Although when searching even further the wiki, I found an explanation of role 
"perimeter" and "label". [3] [4]

So, it looks like one should tag the amenity=parking member in the relation 
with role perimeter.

What do you think ?

(B)

By the way, back to [1], I see tags from amenity=parking have been duplicated 
to the relation object.

I would have deleted the tags on amenity=parking to avoid double maintenance 
work.

Is that intended ?

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8448251
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/parking#Site_relation
[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Site_Perimeter
[4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Label


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

[Tagging] Why isn't the amenity=parking object part of the relation ?

[OSMDoudou]

Hello,

 

When micro-mapping parkings, amenity=parking_space are to be brought into a
relation (type=site and site=parking). [1]

 

But I find it strange the "outer" object (i.e. amenity=parking) doesn't need
to be added to the relation.

 

I would have expected something like inner / outer in multipolygon relations
to indicate to which parking the paking space belongs. [2]

 

Any thoughts ?

 

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dparking_space

[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon

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

Re: [Tagging] Parking Fees

[OSMDoudou]

Not an expert, but I think you'll need a combination of tags:

 

- fee or fee:conditional to express fixed time intervals [1] [2]

 

- maxstay to express the maximum allowed stay within the fee period [3]

 

- charge to express the fee amount [4]

 

Querying with overpass-turbo for nodes combining these tags with query < 
node["charge"]["fee"]["maxstay"] > [5], I found an example. [6]

 

[1]   
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:fee

[2]   
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/fee%3Aconditional#values

[3]   
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxstay

[4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:charge

[5] http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/xhW

[6] http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/250252788

 

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

Re: [Tagging] wayside shrine tag definition page

[OSMDoudou]

Yes.

According to this description in French [1], to be defined as "oratoire" / 
"shrine", there should be a cavity to exhibit something (with a cross, a roof, 
etc.).

So, it's also my interpretation that the picture is more a column than a shrine.

[1] http://www.les-oratoires.asso.fr/presentation-oratoires



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

Re: [Tagging] 'Unknown' value.

[OSMDoudou]

You have a point… :-)

The wiki already presents the idea that unknown means "unclear". [2]

Taginfo tells access=unknown has 20 thousand occurrences (i.e. 0.30% and 
ranking at the 11th position), which makes it not so unusual. [3]

The discussion here shows the value of "unknown" raises confusion, but 
admittedly if it was "unknown", "unclear", "uncertain", "difficult-to-tell" or 
whatever, it will always come down to awareness and getting used to the concept.

[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
[3] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/access#values 



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

Re: [Tagging] 'Unknown' value.

[OSMDoudou]

I'd rather use fixme and note tags instead of encoding uncodified information 
in well-established tags.

The wiki page [1] explains a bit the difference: "The fixme key allows 
contributors to mark objects and places that need further attention. These can 
be in the form of a "note to self" or request for additional mapping resources. 
Its distinction from note=* is that fixme is only to express that the mapper 
thinks there is an error, while note might be information to other mappers."

If it's reasonable to think tagging can be improved (e.g. initial tagging was a 
bit rushed and better tagging is expected based on site survey or imagery), 
than a fixme note looks suitable.

In the case you describe ("nothing suggesting that further survey will reveal 
what the legal situation is"), a note looks suitable to document there was a 
site survey and explain why "it was obvious that it was not obvious" (that is 
to say: explaining the elements causing your perplexity conveys much richer 
information than tagging "unknown").

And you could also start a discussion on the mailing list and link to it from 
the note, so other mappers are aware of the discussion and can contribute.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:fixme 


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

Re: [Tagging] 'Unknown' value.

[OSMDoudou]

> Like with any tag value, if data consumers don't undestand it they can just 
> ignore it.

One of the data consumer is human. And humans are confused when something hold 
unexpected value. :-)


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

Re: [Tagging] 'Unknown' value.

[OSMDoudou]

Others already gave possible causes, so I won't add or repeat.

It's pointless tagging and leaves us guessing whatever it could mean.

If your analysis shows these tags don't add value (this is to say: don't make a 
gigantic update on places you haven't reviewed), you better remove them 
(possibly with a comment on the changeset explaining you're removing tags which 
don't make sense).


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

Re: [Tagging] Mixed paid, free and forbidden parking

[OSMDoudou]

> It is pay and display, so coins or you can use some sort of complicated 
> mobile payment system.

See payment methods: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:payment#Keys

> A fee is payable between 08:00 and 18:00 Monday to Saturday, it is free on 
> Sunday and bank holidays.

fee=Mo-Sa 08:00-18:00

Though the opening_hours tag caters for school holidays and public holidays, it 
doesn't support custom calendars. A separate note would be needed.

> during the paid period you can park for free for up to 15 minutes

I would put maxstay=15 minutes, but I'm not sure if it's an absolute maximum or 
if it can reflect the free stay: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxstay


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

Re: [Tagging] Mixed paid, free and forbidden parking

[OSMDoudou]

Not totally sure, but I was thinking of:
- the tag opening_hours would cover the period of time when free and paying 
parking is allowed, so that the forbidden period is the rest of the time
- in addition, the fee tag would cover only the period of time when a fee is 
due [1]
- add boundary=low_emission_zone to restrict access in case of pollution [2]

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dparking
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dlow_emission_zone


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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag this area

[OSMDoudou]

It's clearly visible in JOSM with Mapbox Satellite imagery, but I don't know 
how to give a link to that view point.


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

[Tagging] How to tag this area

[OSMDoudou]

Hello,

I can't find how to properly tag this place. [1]

No name pops to mind to represent its purpose: forum, amphitheatre,
pedestrian, speakers corner, etc. don't correspond to suitable tags.

I see a "circle area made of steps where you can sit and meet people", but
that won't make a good tag... :-)

What do you see there ? How would you tag it ?

Thx.

[1] https://goo.gl/maps/toZ8QvVUB7w



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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag shop areas in a shopping mall ?

[OSMDoudou]

Following the discussion here, I changed the mapping of the mall to move
tags from individual nodes to an area.

 

For one shop, it attracted feedback from the commercial entity who maintains
its data on OpenStreetMap saying the change broke something at their side.
See the discussion on the changeset: [1].

 

I'm very glad a company enriches the map and actively maintains the data
(1700 nodes, they say), so I really want to support them and I reverted the
change.

 

But as they're asking to maintain their shops tagged as node, this is
effectively asking the community refrains itself from improving the tagging
of the mall (following the idea that shops are better mapped as areas than
nodes), and this is not in the interest of the community (which is to have a
complete, coherent, accurate and maintained mapping of the place).

 

So, I wanted to ask your views on how to deal with this situation.

 

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/55640175#map=19/50.45645/3.93247

 

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag shop areas in a shopping mall ?

[OSMDoudou]

No warning raised there. I figured adding building:part=yes changed the 
behavior and removed the warning.

-Original Message-
From: Steve Doerr [mailto:doerr.step...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 18:09
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] How to tag shop areas in a shopping mall ?

On 21/01/2018 16:48, OSMDoudou wrote:
> When I tag the perimeter with indoor=room instead of building=yes, JOSM 
> raises an error "Overlapping ways" for the segment B->C in this kind of 
> layout:
> A>B->E
> ^ | |
> | | |
> | | |
> | | |
> D<---C<F
>
>

Here's an example of indoor=room on contiguous objects that I found near
me: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7041387 (see the individual ways in 
the relation for the rooms).

Does JOSM raise the same error here?

Steve

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
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] How to tag shop areas in a shopping mall ?

[OSMDoudou]

When I tag the perimeter with indoor=room instead of building=yes, JOSM raises 
an error "Overlapping ways" for the segment B->C in this kind of layout:
A>B->E
^ | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
D<---C<F

If I change the tags from indoor=wall to building=yes, no error is raised 
anymore (but then of course, Osmose will report overlapping building, which is 
the start of this discussion).

It seems indoor walls cannot overlap. Same if I try indoor=room.

If I delete B->C and tag as shop, then JOSM says the area is not closed.

How should I draw the perimeter of the shop ?

Thx.

-Original Message-
From: Tobias Knerr [mailto:o...@tobias-knerr.de] 
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 21:36
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] How to tag shop areas in a shopping mall ?

On 17.01.2018 23:16, OSMDoudou wrote:
> There is a shopping mall here [1] for which a mapper detailed the 
> inside shops with a node for the "identity" and an area for the 
> "physical perimeter" of the shop inside the mall. [...] Can you 
> suggest tagging improvements ?

My suggestion (based on Simple Indoor Tagging¹) is to tag the areas with their 
shop tag, level, and and other attributes such as name. So you get a closed way 
with some basic tags, for example:

name = Jack & Jones
shop = clothes
level = 0

There's no reason to keep the nodes around once you have mapped the shops as 
areas, so move all other tags such as opening hours to the area instead.

At this point, you have a perfectly valid representation of the mall, so you 
can stop here if you want. But if you're interested in adding more details, 
there's a lot of possibilities: Add indoor=room or indoor=area tags to the shop 
areas (depending on whether they're fully enclosed with walls or not), and add 
walls (indoor=wall), corridors (indoor=corridor), doors, elevators, staircases 
and so on.

Yours,
Tobias

¹ https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_Indoor_Tagging

___
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] How to tag shop areas in a shopping mall ?

[OSMDoudou]

Indeed. The physical perimeter of the shops is very useful information. There 
is no reason to delete it.

-Original Message-
From: "Mateusz Konieczny" <matkoni...@gmail.com>
Sent: ‎19-‎01-‎18 08:56
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Tagging] How to tag shop areas in a shopping mall ?

With areas already mapped there is no reason to do that.


On 19 Jan 2018 8:54 a.m., "Mateusz Konieczny" <matkoni...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, just move tags from nodes to areas, delete invalid building tags and no 
longer necessary nodes.


On 18 Jan 2018 9:36 p.m., "Tobias Knerr" <o...@tobias-knerr.de> wrote:

On 17.01.2018 23:16, OSMDoudou wrote:
> There is a shopping mall here [1] for which a mapper detailed the inside
> shops with a node for the "identity" and an area for the "physical
> perimeter" of the shop inside the mall. [...]
> Can you suggest tagging improvements ?

My suggestion (based on Simple Indoor Tagging¹) is to tag the areas with
their shop tag, level, and and other attributes such as name. So you get
a closed way with some basic tags, for example:

name = Jack & Jones
shop = clothes
level = 0

There's no reason to keep the nodes around once you have mapped the
shops as areas, so move all other tags such as opening hours to the area
instead.

At this point, you have a perfectly valid representation of the mall, so
you can stop here if you want. But if you're interested in adding more
details, there's a lot of possibilities: Add indoor=room or indoor=area
tags to the shop areas (depending on whether they're fully enclosed with
walls or not), and add walls (indoor=wall), corridors (indoor=corridor),
doors, elevators, staircases and so on.

Yours,
Tobias

¹ https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_Indoor_Tagging

___
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] Way access mismatch relation route=bicycle

[OSMDoudou]

I didn't know about that page. It makes sense. Thx.

-Original Message-
From: "Volker Schmidt" <vosc...@gmail.com>
Sent: ‎18-‎01-‎18 09:39
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Way access mismatch relation route=bicycle

I suppose Osmose uses the country specific tables in [1]

The table for Belgium states that bicycle=no is implicit for "highway=trunk".

Hence the short way in question would need to have the additional tag 
"bicycle=yes" for bicycle routing to pass along that cycle lane.

The road signs out there seem to be consistent, there are "no-bicycle" sign 
along the ring road, except for this short piece.


Your second point regarding the road classification trunk is a different issue, 
that needs to be discussed with the Belgian community.


[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions



On 17 January 2018 at 22:45, OSMDoudou 
<19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com> wrote:

Hello,
 
This is a two-fold question in fact.
 
(A)
 
Osmose raises error "Way access mismatch relation route=bicycle" [1] on a 
segment of the R50 highway [2] [3].
 
I'm guessing it's because the segment is part of relation for a bike route but 
it's tagged as trunk (as the rest of R50), and a trunk would imply a 
restriction for bicycles.
 
Although, I see such an implication for motorways [4], I don't see it for 
trunks [5].
 
Do you know what causes the access mismatch, because I don't see it from the 
tags ?
 
(B)
 
This issue raises the question whether R50 should be tagged as trunk in the 
first place.
 
The Wiki page [6] refers to notions like "high performance" and road signs F9. 
But the road is limited to 70 km/h and there are no F9 signs on the entries and 
exits of R50, only C19 "No entry for pedestrians" and C11 + C9 "No entry for 
bicycles" + "No entry for mopeds (and mofas)", which tend to confirm it's not a 
trunk.
 
I wonder if primary wouldn't be more accurate classification, although the Wiki 
refers to a "highway linking large towns" [7], which is not the case here as 
the highway is a ring around the city not a road between cities.
 
What type of road would you qualify the entire R50 ?
 
Thx.
 
[1] http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/error/15216104253
[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/251684307
[3] https://goo.gl/maps/khpwvm8kxQw
[4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway
[5] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Trunk
[6] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Belgium
[7] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dprimary

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

[Tagging] How to tag shop areas in a shopping mall ?

[OSMDoudou]

Hello,

 

There is a shopping mall here [1] for which a mapper detailed the inside
shops with a node for the "identity" and an area for the "physical
perimeter" of the shop inside the mall.

 

Both the mall and the shop areas are tagged as, so Osmose is raising plenty
of errors because of building intersections, for example this shop [2] [3].

 

I gave a read at the Wiki on indoor tagging, but I couldn't find something
conclusive (indoor=room seems suitable for an office in a building but
doesn't represent the nature of a shop area in a mall).

 

I searched for other malls with overpass turbo, but I couldn't find another
one where indoor shops are tagged as areas.

 

Can you suggest tagging improvements ?

 

Thx.

 

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/511758552

[2] http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/error/15215480626

[3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/96140107#map=19/50.45596/3.93260

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

[Tagging] Way access mismatch relation route=bicycle

[OSMDoudou]

Hello,

 

This is a two-fold question in fact.

 

(A)

 

Osmose raises error "Way access mismatch relation route=bicycle" [1] on a
segment of the R50 highway [2] [3].

 

I'm guessing it's because the segment is part of relation for a bike route
but it's tagged as trunk (as the rest of R50), and a trunk would imply a
restriction for bicycles.

 

Although, I see such an implication for motorways [4], I don't see it for
trunks [5].

 

Do you know what causes the access mismatch, because I don't see it from the
tags ?

 

(B)

 

This issue raises the question whether R50 should be tagged as trunk in the
first place.

 

The Wiki page [6] refers to notions like "high performance" and road signs
F9. But the road is limited to 70 km/h and there are no F9 signs on the
entries and exits of R50, only C19 "No entry for pedestrians" and C11 + C9
"No entry for bicycles" + "No entry for mopeds (and mofas)", which tend to
confirm it's not a trunk.

 

I wonder if primary wouldn't be more accurate classification, although the
Wiki refers to a "highway linking large towns" [7], which is not the case
here as the highway is a ring around the city not a road between cities.

 

What type of road would you qualify the entire R50 ?

 

Thx.

 

[1] http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/error/15216104253

[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/251684307

[3] https://goo.gl/maps/khpwvm8kxQw

[4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway

[5] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Trunk

[6] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Belgium

[7] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dprimary

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

[Tagging] No U turn restriction in a roundabout

[OSMDoudou]

Hello,

 

I was fixing incorrect restrictions tagging in the area, when I noticed
restriction=no_u_turn on the highway segments forming the roundabout (not
talking about the junctions with the roundabout, but really the roundabout
itself). [1]

 

I find strange to tag the segments of the roundabout with no_u_turn because
the roundabout and the entry/exits junctions are tagged oneway (and you're
not supposed to make a u turn in a oneway).

 

Am I missing something ?

 

Shall I remove these restrictions ?

 

Thx.

 

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7232087

 

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

Re: [Tagging] Bad topology way level 2

[OSMDoudou]

Unclassified looks the better option, because this small road segment is
admittedly not of the width and length you could expect from a primary_link.



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

[Tagging] Bad topology way level 2

[OSMDoudou]

Hello,

 

Osmose reports an error with reason "Bad topology way level 2" [1] at this
place [2] and I don't know how to resolve it.

 

There are no buildings around that piece of highway (I'm talking about the
small segment of road, not the residential or the primary highway around)
and its sole purpose is clearly to link the primary and the residential
road.

 

So, according to table on the wiki page [3], it should be tagged as
primary_link, but then Osmose reports a topology error.

 

Am I missing something ?

 

How would you tag it ?

 

Thx.

 

[1] http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/error/15188159403

[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/36971912

[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_link

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

Re: [Tagging] Surface value for portuguese pavement

[OSMDoudou]

Of course, what is art is left to everyone's guess and I'm trying to not enter 
this debate… :-)

Maybe a way out is Wikipedia's suggestion that the term "craft" could be used 
instead of "art": " Often, if the skill is being used in a common or practical 
way, people will consider it a craft instead of art." [1] And the Wikipedia 
article on Portuguese pavement also tends to generally qualify it as craft, and 
only as art when it's particularly nice.

However, it's my reading of the OSM Wiki that the tag "craft" denotes the place 
where the craft is *created* and not where it's *deployed*.

Anyway, adding precision with subtype tags looks a good option because it 
captures a factual element visible on the ground and leaves the discussion 
whether it's art or not is outside OSM.

Maybe some people will start a debate about the "Portuguese" qualifier, but 
that's another story… :-)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art



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

Re: [Tagging] Surface value for portuguese pavement

[OSMDoudou]

It would be a pity to not do justice to the artwork element in this sort of 
pavement.

Not sure what to suggest however, but maybe something with artwork_type=mosaic 
? [1]

[1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/artwork_type=mosaic

-Original Message-
From: Fernando Trebien [mailto:fernando.treb...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2018 22:22
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: [Tagging] Surface value for portuguese pavement

Hello,

I'm wondering about what would be the best description for a Portuguese 
pavement [1] in OSM. They are quite common in Portuguese-speaking countries' 
sidewalks and pedestrian streets. I believe that should be surface=cobblestone 
due to the irregular cut of the stones, perhaps with smoothness=good since it 
is usually nice to walk on but not as much for roller skating.

It could maybe be surface=cobblestone:flattened, but the text in the wiki [2] 
makes me think this value is discouraged.

Regards

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_pavement
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface

--
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

"Nullius in verba."

___
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] area=yes on object without kind

[OSMDoudou]

Good point. Landcover seems to be the closest it can be.


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

[Tagging] access=yes|permissive allow all transport modes

[OSMDoudou]

Hello,

 

Osmose is giving an error at many places around the R50 trunk with reason
"access=yes|permissive allow all transport modes" and additional info
"Including ski, horse, moped, hazmat and so on, unless explicitly excluded".
For example, this way [1] has the error [2].

 

The road is clearly signed as forbidden to pedestrians, bikes and moped. [3]

 

I'm not sure how to improve the tagging to resolve the error.

 

Should I remove the entire "access" tag ?

 

Or set it to something else, like "access=designated" ? The road is not
designated as for motor vehicles only and hazmat is not forbidden, but if
care enough for you horse, you wouldn't let it go there :-) and nobody in
his right mind would try to go ski there even on snowy days. :-)

 

What do you suggest ?

 

Thx.

 

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/328935225#map=18/50.46032/3.95820

[2] http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/error/15187485950

[3] https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=50.4602335

=3.95913054=17=eaxXlnQC_nxGAzi9T7JU5g=photo=0.546
8615573991835=0.49186316322319024=1.81360201511335

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

Re: [Tagging] area=yes on object without kind

[OSMDoudou]

Don't worry about local knowledge, I'm local mapper and will survey the place.

I found a dozen of similar or slightly different cases in the area, and the 
problem is not about verify things, but about *what* to verify.

The goal of using street view images is not to map based on that, but to 
discuss the most concretely possible the approach to tag such a place, i.e. 
what visual clues are you searching for and not seeing in the image (e.g. "I 
was looking for a parking road sign, but I don't see one"), what other sources 
of information to possibly consult (e.g. reach out to other local mappers via 
changeset comments or a note on the map), etc.

As an additional information, this piece of land is not a private property 
(it's not circled with a red line in the governmental map registering 
properties [1]). So, it's perfectly allowed to park there, and if in practice 
it's not frequently used for that, it's probably simply because there is enough 
parking around closer to the places that need a visit.

So, I was thinking:
- amenity=parking and informal=yes, because it's obvious it can serve as a 
parking place but it's not visually designated as such (no road signs)
- highway=service, service=driveway and area=yes, because it can be used to 
reach to properties
- landuse=retail and landcover=gravel, because it's reasonable to consider it 
part of the adjacent retail area
- delete the area, because there is no clear main purpose (but if another 
mapper found it worth mapping it in the first place, there must be some value 
to it)

I was tempted by parking, but I'm now more inclined towards landuse=retail.

[1] 
http://geoportail.wallonie.be/walonmap#SHARE=6294968BB7625EA3E053D0AFA49DC676


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

[Tagging] area=yes on object without kind

[OSMDoudou]

Hello,

Osmose is complaining an area is mapped but not further specified: [1] and
[2]

Here is how the place looks like: [3]

I was thinking it's a side walk, but they're not to be mapped as area [4]
and the place doesn't really look like a square or plaza [5] nor like a
parking.

How would you tag it ?

Thx.

[1] http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/error/15140678368
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/223853253
[3] https://goo.gl/maps/yhA3rx2WVhM2
[4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sidewalk
[5] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpedestrian



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

Re: [Tagging] Urbex

[OSMDoudou]

I don't read them asking to remove routes from maps.

 

What catches my eye in the article is they ask to "remove our side streets from 
their algorithms and not offer them as recommendations".

 

So, it's a matter of municipalities putting the right signs in the field (e.g. 
destination only -- which they need to do anyway to fine abusive cut-through), 
tagging the map accordingly (local OSM mappers will happily do that) and the 
routing engine will simply gently abide.

 

 

From: Kevin Kenny [mailto:kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 03:41
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Urbex

 

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2018-January/018279.html

 

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 7:32 PM, Andy Mabbett  > wrote:

On 8 January 2018 at 23:39, Kevin Kenny  > wrote:

> Witness municipalities asking us to remove their
> streets from the map

When & where did that happen?

[off-topic for the tagging list, so please feel free to point me to an
alternative venue]

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk


___
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] Urbex

[OSMDoudou]

A lot of good food for thought, be it in favor or not in favor of mapping it. 
Thanks for the feedback.

I could see room for mapping, potentially in great details even (e.g. is there 
under-water exploration, cave exploration, toxic material detected, what kind 
of hazards you could be exposed to, etc.).

This is to me the criteria: tagging the feature as "abandoned" is not 
explicitly implying anything else than it's observable state. Of course, the 
information can be abused by miscreants but it still serves many legal purposes 
in the first place, whereas tagging urbex is implying an activity described as 
more often dodgy than legal by the experts themselves.

I decided to delete the node. If a legal or tolerated activity later emerges, 
it's still time to tag it then.


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

[Tagging] Urbex

[OSMDoudou]

Hello,

I stumbled upon this place: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2994322059.

I initially thought Urbex would be the former name of the factory
("Exploitation de craie abandonée" = "abandoned clay exploitation" in
English), but it seems it rather stands for "Urban Exploration":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_exploration.

I wanted to improve the tagging, but I’m not sure what to choose.

I thought an area for the land piece with:
* abandoned:landuse=industrial
* resource=clay
* description=Exploitation de craie abandonée

And an area for the building on the land piece with:
* abandoned:building=industrial

But what about the urban exploration activity ?

I couldn't find something helpful in the Wiki and I found only two
occurrences of urbex=yes on taginfo:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/urbex.

Though not popular, urbex=yes could make sense but then only as an
additional tag, I suppose.

Probably leisure would be suitable because urbex is not a physical something
but an entertaining activity conducted at the place.

So, I thought of a node with:
* leisure=urban_exploration (or urbex ?)
* urbex=yes (to be consistent with the other two existing occurences of the
tag, but is it advisable ?)
* description=Urban Exploration
* wikipedia=en:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_exploration (because
there is not documentation of urbex on OSM Wiki, I was thinking of a link to
Wikipedia instead; because urbex puzzled me, it will likely puzzle someone
lese and a link on the tag might come handy, even if to a generic article)
* informal=yes (ultimately, it's a probably a private place and even if
exploration was doable in practice without too much trouble, it's probably
not official and I'm not inclined to tag access=permissive because it might
imply a sort of permission was given but I have no evidence of that from my
armchair).

What would you recommend to improve the tagging ?

Thx.


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