Re: [Tagging] Link roads : the Michelin style

[Richard Mann]

The links around my city have links_lower and links_higher tags so the
renderer can use those if they prefer. It works a treat.

(I raised this a few years ago and got shot down by people saying "you
can't change this now").

Some problems have no acceptable solutions...

On 27 Apr 2017 22:37, "djakk"  wrote:

Hello,

I was thinking that the Michelin style is better than the osm style in
rendering link roads : on Michelin maps, the link road refers to the lowest
road level, which is better to visualize small or big exits.

Julien Djakk (http://itineraires.de.bus.free.fr)



--
View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.
com/Link-roads-the-Michelin-style-tp5896020.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
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] furniture maker

[Richard Mann]

Cabinet maker. But furniture maker is probably better.
On 31 Mar 2016 10:34, "Andreas Labres"  wrote:

> What would be the "correct" English term (craft=* value) for a "furniture
> maker"?
>
> And what if that craftsman works on both building houses and making
> furniture ("Bau- und Möbeltischlerei" in German)?
>
> /al
>
> ___
> 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] highway=crossing and crossing=*

[Richard Mann]

Nodes don't have an orientation, so I find it useful to put crossing=* tags
on the footway/cycleway, so I can render it with a nice set of black and
white stripes.

Eg:
http://www.transportparadise.co.uk/cyclemap/?zoom=3=51.74075=-1.25238=B0TF

I also add the tags to the intersecting node, since some people (eg the
cycle layer) make use of that data.

Leave it alone.

On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > Am 06.02.2016 um 11:04 schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > So the 'problem' of conflicting crossing= tags may be better served by
> requesting mappers to only declare one crossing= tag .. either;
>
>
> I don't see the problem of possibly conflicting tagging: it indicates an
> error. If you ask to only put the crossing tag on one element then you'll
> likely get the same errors, just that you can't find them automatically any
> more. On a bigger crossing over several carriageways there might also be
> both present: uncontrolled (zebra-) crossings and traffic lights. I'm
> adding the crossing=* to nodes on the carriageways that are crossed, and
> believe that it belongs there.
>
> 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] highway=crossing not rendered on Mapnik (& others)

[Richard Mann]

Yeah, not unknown elsewhere, but I'd still say the UK has a much higher
density of mid-block signalled crossings (and contrariwise, rather fewer
signalled junctions).

Anyway, I wouldn't say that
highway=traffic_signals+crossing=traffic_signals is wrong for a crossing,
just typical of a tagging approach that focuses on the impact on the
driver, rather than the opportunities for pedestrians. Since there's no
information loss, that's probably fair enough.

Crossings are rendered in the cyclemap, though they use the same symbol for
all types of crossings:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/51.74895/-1.23984=C

Richard

On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Tom Pfeifer <t.pfei...@computer.org>
wrote:

> Richard Mann wrote on 2015/11/22 23:24:
>
>> You may or may not know, but mid-block signalled crossings are a bit of a
>> UK-specific phenomenon. In many other countries (in Europe, anyway),
>> signalled crossings are part of junctions.
>>
>>
> I would not say so, I know a lot in Germany. Often they are on-demand.
> There are also plenty cases when there is a signalled crossing on a
> tertiary road near a junction with a residential, and the traffic light
> only regulates the pedestrian flow across the tertiary, while the
> motor traffic coming from the residential into the tertiary is
> unregulated.
>
> tom
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] highway=crossing not rendered on Mapnik (& others)

[Richard Mann]

You may or may not know, but mid-block signalled crossings are a bit of a
UK-specific phenomenon. In many other countries (in Europe, anyway),
signalled crossings are part of junctions.

Anyway, if you want something rendered, raise a ticket with the renderers;
it's not a tagging issue as such.

On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Dave F.  wrote:

> Hi
>
> Before listing this as a request on the openstreetmap-carto I thought I'd
> check/discuss here first.
>
> From the wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing & the
> default selection of the 3 main editors, the tags for a pedestrian road
> crossing that's separate from other traffic control lights are:
> highway=crossing
> crossing=*.
>
> This combination doesn't render in Mapnik. It's led many people to
> (possibly inadvertently) tagging for the renderer:
> highway=traffic_signals
> crossing=*
>
> Is there a reason why it's not in mapnik? It's doesn't cover up other
> entities as can be seen as used in the latter tag configuration.
>
> Also, on the wiki under traffic_signals 'crossing=traffic_signals' it says
> "Mostly near highway=traffic_signals." Unsure what's meant by that. If the
> pedestrian crossing is separate they are almost certainly not near traffic
> signals. I think it should be clarified or removed.
>
> Cheers
> Dave F.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> 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] roundabouts without obstacles in the middle

[Richard Mann]

Just to add to the fun, we're now getting a new type of roundabout, with a
different-coloured circle of tarmac and no signs (or markings) at all. I'd
use a node if the mini-roundabout is just an ineffectual piece of traffic
calming, and make a circle if people genuinely give way (yes I know that's
a bit subjective).

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> The reason why we have two different mapping approaches for
> mini-roundabout and roundabout is that at least in one country (that
> happens to be the birth-country of OSM) there is a clear distinction
> between the two with different road layouts (see
> https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/222621/dg_191955.pdf
> - pages 10, 19, 68, 95). Also on a mini roundabout you would expect the
> navigation device to tell you "turn left at mini roundabout", whereas the
> at the normal roundabout it would say "take the 3rd exit" (from the
> roundabout).
> At least for the UK (and maybe other countries that make that distinction)
> we should keep the two different taggings.
>
> As far as I know, here in Italy we have the two types of road layout, but
> without any distinction in the road signs (horizontal and vertical)
>
>
>
> On 4 November 2015 at 08:08, GerdP 
> wrote:
>
>> voschix wrote
>> > if you are talking only about your specific example, I would say that in
>> > this specific case we have normal roundabout which has been adapted for
>> > the
>> > situation of the harbour area where the centre piece has no rigid
>> border,
>> > but it's certainly not flat. It seems also the islands in he roads
>> > connecting to the roundabout have no steep kerbs.
>> > I would map this as a normal roundabout.
>>
>> Yes, that's what ij_ (the mapper) did. AND he added a closed way around it
>> with
>> highway=mini_roundabout
>> area=yes
>>
>> to somehow pass the information that this roundabout has no
>> obstacle. I am looking for a solution which is less complicated.
>>
>> Gerd
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/roundabouts-without-obstacles-in-the-middle-tp5858808p5858868.html
>> Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Often seen tagging problems regarding junctions

[Richard Mann]

It's been the advice for a long time to use a node. Some data users will
expect a node.

I use both a way and a node, because I can make good use of the way.

Looks like someone has set up a preset that does the way and not the node.
That's not ideal, because some data users will expect the node to be marked.

The normal response is to leave data users to figure it out.

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

Re: [Tagging] Often seen tagging problems regarding junctions

[Richard Mann]

I use highway=footway+crossing=X+crossing_ref=Y on *ways* (as well as
placing a wiki-compliant node at the intersection of the crossing way and
the road way).

This makes it (relatively) easy to draw a Zebra crossing, correctly
orientated along the way.

Richard

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Gerd Petermann <
gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
> while trying to clean up wrong highway=* tags in the OSM database
>
> I noticed a few error patterns. Not sure if I can call it an error when
>
> other people are using tags in a completely different way, but I think
>
> I should report them:
>
>
> 1) the tag highway=crossing is/was used for ways, often instead of
>
> bridge=yes, often at junctions instead of footway=crossing or
> cycleway=crossing
>
> or in addition to them.
>
> I think it happened in the past, so this seem no longer a problem.
>
>
> 2) Some mappers tag a footway that is crossing the road like this:
>
> -  the way:
>
> highway=footway
>
> - the first and last node of the way (both on the sidewalk):
>
> highway=crossing[,crossing=*][,crossing_ref=*]
>
> The advantage of this tagging is that e.g. JOSM shows the
>
> symbol for crossing=traffic_signals at the position where
>
> one would expect the traffic_signal (and maybe the button)
>
>
> 3) nodes with tags like highway=traffic_signals;crossing or
>
> highway=crossing;traffic_signals show that it is not very clear
>
> how to use these tags, I am not even sure if some of the combinations
>
> that Taginfo shows are valid, e.g.
> highway=motorway_junction;traffic_signals
>
>
> The wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtraffic_signals
>
> explains how to tag junctions with highway=traffic_signals,
>
> the wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing
>
> explains the crossing=* tag. What I am missing is a combination of both.
>
> Should I tag crossing=traffic_signals at a junction that has one or more
> nodes
>
> with highway=traffic_signals? Or should I use crossing=controlled instead?
>
> Is a crossing_ref=zebra correct when the junction is controlled by
> traffic_signals?
>
> Should I map highway=stop at a junction with highway=traffic_signals?
>
>
> My understanding is this:
>
> - For the routers, we like to have the information that the junction is
> controlled by
>
> traffic_signals, as this means a potential delay. For routing, we don't
> want to have
>
> several different nodes with highway=crossing or highway=stop ,
> highway=traffic_signals
>
> etc. for a single junction, as it is difficult to sort out which one adds
> more delay.
>
> - For renderers or "completeness" we like to have the position of each
> traffic_sign, each traffic_signal
>
> and each crossing=zebra.
>
>
> If I got that right, a few proposals were made to solve this conflict,
> e.g. relations
>
> or closed ways to collect all elements of one junctions, but none seems to
> be
>
> used often.
>
>
> If anybody thinks that there is a good and correct solution for a complex
> junction in OSM, please
>
> post a link.
>
>
> ciao,
>
> Gerd
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Richard Mann]

On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote:

 For Belgium we follow this convention:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Eimai/Belgian_Roads#Paths
 It's full of highway=path examples. You'll give us a lot of work if we
 have to revisit and retag them all. :-)


So if it's a 2m paved path with pedestrians and cyclists allowed, you call
it highway=cycleway if it's got a blue/white sign, and highway=path+various
other tags if it's got a red/white/black sign.

I'm sorry, that's just a muddle.

I'd also note that there are a lot more surface values that just
paved/unpaved nowadays - which kinda indicates the problem with relying on
subkeys: their values tend to get more complicated, making it impossible to
use them reliably to subdivide the main key.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Richard Mann]

This isn't an argument that's ever likely to reach consensus.

Use of highway=path for unmade paths, usage rights vague is unobjectionable.
Use of highway=footway for made-up paths, default usage foot is
unobjectionable.

Other uses carry a degree of ambiguity.

All we can do is document the various uses, and suggest that people avoid
using tags in ways that are open to misinterpretation.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Richard Mann]

No, that isn't a difference. If path is generic then footway is a subset of
path.

It's this idea, that we need a vague generic basket for smaller highways
that has created all this confusion. It amounts to saying: put in a vague
tag and then add others to clarify. That isn't how people use tags in
practice: all tags develop a semantic meaning, the only question is whether
anybody understands what that meaning is!

On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
 wrote:



 sent from a phone

  Am 03.08.2015 um 11:07 schrieb Richard Mann 
 richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com:
 
  So lets at least have a clear difference between a plain highway=footway
 and a plain highway=path


 there is, a path is generic while a footway is for pedestrians


 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] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Richard Mann]

What we have is a mess. Most data consumers will simplify it to meet their
needs.

About the only useful high-level distinction is between well-made paths,
typically in an urban environment, which clearly have been built with the
intention that they be used by someone, and poorly-made paths (mostly in
the countryside, but some in marginal land in urban environments), where
the intention is unclear or absent.

If people want to add further tags
(foot=designated+bicycle=designated+segregated=yes or whatever) then feel
free: some specialised data users might use such detail (and indeed, with
all those tags, the specialised data user is unlikely to read too much into
the actual value of the highway tag).

So lets at least have a clear difference between a plain highway=footway
and a plain highway=path. And leave the fine distinctions about who is
supposed to use them (if known) to further tags.

highway=path should be a rough path
highway=footway should be a made-up path with limited room for non-foot
traffic (eg bicycles), or an explicit ban
highway=cycleway should be a made-up path with good room for bicycles
(given other usage)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Local highways classifications

[Richard Mann]

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 3:23 PM, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:

 On Thu Jul 16 15:06:34 2015 GMT+0100, Richard Mann wrote:
  For those interested, the issue appears to be that the Poles can have
  multiple routes on one road section (fine, just like the Americans, use
  relations), but also the same route number can get used on a series of
  roads of different classification. So route 2 goes from Germany to Warsaw
  as a motorway, then becomes a trunk, then a primary.
 
 That happens in the UK, on whos road system OSM road classification is
 based, too.

 Many A roads switch between trunk and primary, or even vanish for a
 section where the route is a motorway. The A5, passing Telford,  is a
 classic example.

 Phil (trigpoint)


Yes  no. The UK classification system is mainly based on route importance,
with motorways bolted on as having specific physical characteristics (and
also generally being the most important).

I could well imagine a system where the classification is mostly based on
physical attributes, and where it would be useful to put this in a separate
tag, and let highway be used for importance (because that generally makes
for better-looking maps). Perhaps
local_highway=whatever-they-call-this-type-of-road-locally.

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

Re: [Tagging] Local highways classifications

[Richard Mann]

For those interested, the issue appears to be that the Poles can have
multiple routes on one road section (fine, just like the Americans, use
relations), but also the same route number can get used on a series of
roads of different classification. So route 2 goes from Germany to Warsaw
as a motorway, then becomes a trunk, then a primary.

I'd probably do separate relations each time the classification changes,
and let people combine information as they see fit. I'm not convinced that
further tags would help.

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Daniel Koć daniel@koć.pl wrote:

 W dniu 16.07.2015 15:16, Richard Mann napisał(a):

 You might have to explain a little more what the issue is, if you want
 comments from people from other countries who don't speak much/any
 Polish...


 I gave the link only as a convenience for those who speak or may be
 otherwise interested.

 The discussion itself is not relevant here - it's just the unfortunate
 outcome of trying to squeeze every highway into global OSM scheme of
 things. My questions are simple:

 1. Are there any other clear/known local highways classifications we
 should consider?
 2. Is this tagging scheme relevant enough to be used internationally or
 how should bit e tweaked (to be as universal as possible)?


 --
 The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags
 down [A. Cohen]

 ___
 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] highway=crossing/crossing=traffic_signals

[Richard Mann]

I've taken to adding a way on the alignment of the crossing (with
highway=footway+crossing=traffic_signals as tags). This allows them to be
rendered as a orientated feature, rather than just as a node.

I guess the nodes aren't rendered because otherwise you'd have traffic
light symbols dotted all over the place on some junctions. It's hard to
make a coherent render out of single-node features.

Richard

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:

 Hi

 The predefined options for a pedestrian road crossing that shares it's
 location with a set of traffic lights in P2, ID  JOSM is highway=crossing
  crossing=traffic_signals: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1353800523

 And yet it doesn't render in mapnik. Is this intentional or an oversight?
 If highway is changed to traffic_signals it renders but ruins the concept
 of sub-tag keys relating to their parent's value.

 It's not like it's a rare occurrence:
 http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=crossing#combinations

 I think this should be included in a future update of mapnik carto's. I
 suggest a traffic light icon with a different colour icon. I note the
 default French render with 'zebra' lines but that doesn't indicate any
 lights are used.

 Cheers
 Dave F.




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


 ___
 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] highway=crossing/crossing=traffic_signals

[Richard Mann]

Example in OSM default render:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.75352/-1.26340

and my rendering:
http://www.transportparadise.co.uk/busmap/?zoom=3lat=51.75325lon=-1.26182layers=B0FT

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:

 On 15/07/2015 08:42, Richard Mann wrote:

 I've taken to adding a way on the alignment of the crossing (with
 highway=footway+crossing=traffic_signals as tags). This allows them to be
 rendered as a orientated feature, rather than just as a node.


 Do you have an example?


 I guess the nodes aren't rendered because otherwise you'd have traffic
 light symbols dotted all over the place on some junctions.


 I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. It should clarify routing
 slightly. They don't need to be rendered until zoomed right in close.


 Cheers
 Dave F.



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


 ___
 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] highway=crossing/crossing=traffic_signals

[Richard Mann]

Rotating icons didn't used to be possible; maybe it is now (but that's a
feature that isn't available in all renderers, so it's probably better to
use a way, to make the data more usable).

Richard

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:

  Thanks

 This allows them to be rendered as a orientated feature, rather than just
 as a node.

 I know little of rendering rules, but the French render appears to rotate
 node icon to suit


 http://tile.openstreetmap.fr/?zoom=20lat=49.01049lon=8.3876layers=B000FF


 https://github.com/cquest/osmfr-cartocss/blob/abe144cfb375eb7fb403992f06924c40120c6cbf/other.mss#L3547

 To me, it seems worse for mapnik to miss the rendering of 75% of traffic
 lights than not displaying any of them. If you can see some the assumption
 is that that's all of them.

 Dave F.


 On 15/07/2015 10:09, Richard Mann wrote:

 Example in OSM default render:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.75352/-1.26340

  and my rendering:
 http://www.transportparadise.co.uk/busmap/?zoom=3lat=51.75325lon=-1.26182layers=B0FT

 On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:

 On 15/07/2015 08:42, Richard Mann wrote:

 I've taken to adding a way on the alignment of the crossing (with
 highway=footway+crossing=traffic_signals as tags). This allows them to be
 rendered as a orientated feature, rather than just as a node.


  Do you have an example?


 I guess the nodes aren't rendered because otherwise you'd have traffic
 light symbols dotted all over the place on some junctions.


  I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. It should clarify routing
 slightly. They don't need to be rendered until zoomed right in close.


 Cheers
 Dave F.



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


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




 ___
 Tagging mailing 
 listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




 --
   [image: Avast logo] http://www.avast.com/

 This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
 www.avast.com


 ___
 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] Mapping busways with alternating physical separation

[Richard Mann]

Trams used to be just done as a simple tag on the road way, but they have
slowly been converted to having their own OSM ways (one for each track). I
haven't been paying attention; there might not be many of the original
method left.

I'd probably draw it as four parallel ways, and regard the white line as
effective separation. I don't think the tags for busways are entirely
settled yet. Some in the UK are
highway=service+access=no+psv=yes+name=Busway, but the one in Cambridge
uses highway=bus guideway+psv:guided=only, which shows up in bright blue at
zoom 13 in the default rendering, but isn't recognised by many data users.

{I'd probably suggest that the blue rendering should be based on something
other than the highway tag, but that's another matter}.

Richard

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Fernando Trebien 
fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote:

 I assume there is no opposition to either method then.

 Most tram systems are mapped as individual ways (usually in parallel
 pairs), even when they share space with cars and have no physical
 separation. I'm not really acquainted with tramway mapping (they're
 very rare in Brazil), but I tried to sample various cities (see list
 below) and what I found is that, where the street is drawn as a single
 way and cars share space with trams, a platform that is a physical
 divider essentially never really causes the road to be drawn as
 separated lines. The road is usually divided for its entire length for
 other reasons (I'm guessing it's usually due to local law requiring
 cars to stay out of the tramway except when turning at intersections
 or reaching a destination at the opposite side).

 This suggests it is ok to map the BRT system in Porto Alegre as bus
 lane tags on the main ways. However, the map would show a platform on
 the left side of the way that on reality is on the right side of the
 buses as they arrive. By mapping as a separated way, one can render a
 bus map where lines are clearly identified as going through the
 corridor (faster, reachable only by the middle platforms) or through
 the main ways (slower, reachable by the sidewalk). So I think mapping
 separately has more practical value.

 Here's the list of cities I've sampled: Moscow, Saint Petersburg,
 Toronto, Melbourne, Berlin, Paris, Milan, Brussels, Antwerp,
 Amsterdam, The Hague, Stuttgart, Bremen, Leipzig, Dresden, Hanover,
 Zürich and Manchester. A few odd cases I found that you might want to
 check out:

 52.3545998 4.8884183 Highway and railway tags mixed on same line (akin
 to maping bus lanes with tags on the main way)
 52.0680083 4.288239 Same as previous
 43.6513302 -79.3843008 Highway and railway are overlapping ways
 (probably bad practice, and also seems to break the logic of one line
 for each rail track)
 53.0806042 8.8297144 Tramway space can be used by non-rail public
 service vehicles

 On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Richard Mann
 richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote:
  Map it one way or the other (I'd say either was acceptable), but don't
  switch repeatedly between the two.
 
  There are many tram systems which only really separate from the road at
  stops, with much less separation between stops than your clear white
 line.
 
  On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:20 AM, Fernando Trebien
  fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  I'd like to hear your opinion on how to properly represent my
  hometown's (Porto Alegre) bus rapid transit (BRT) system, which is
  slightly unusual.
 
  The system consists of bus lanes (buses can switch to/from main
  traffic at any point and do so almost at will along several stretches)
  that become separated from the main ways next to platform/stops, which
  act as physical barriers. Check either:
  - an illustration: http://i.imgur.com/O4MaQhK.jpg
  - the reality:
 
 https://maps.google.com/maps?layer=ccbll=-30.008432,-51.183492cbp=12,84.21,,0,7.43
 
  If strictly following OSM's conventions on separation of ways [1], I
  think it would be represented as lanes:psv=* on many (but not all)
  spans of the main ways, with highway=service ways only next to
  platforms.
 
  After some research, I think this would be a rare, perhaps unique
  (weird) mapping of a BRT system in OSM. Here
  [http://i.imgur.com/RLdZgDk.png] is an comparison of several major BRT
  systems in reasonably well mapped areas of the world. All of those
  systems are correctly mapped as separated service ways because there
  is continuous physical separation between the busways and main
  traffic. So I'm wondering if, for clarity, my hometown's case
  could/should be mapped as if there is continuous physical
  separation, like almost everywhere else.
 
  Notes:
 
  In my comparison table, Mexico City's and Jakarta's BRT systems' stops
  are highlighted because they probably qualify as bus stations [2].
 
  Buenos Aires' system is quite similar to Porto Alegre's. They use a
  variety of physical structures between bus lanes and regular lanes,
  but I'm not sure if the smallest ones

Re: [Tagging] Mapping busways with alternating physical separation

[Richard Mann]

Map it one way or the other (I'd say either was acceptable), but don't
switch repeatedly between the two.

There are many tram systems which only really separate from the road at
stops, with much less separation between stops than your clear white line.

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:20 AM, Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 I'd like to hear your opinion on how to properly represent my
 hometown's (Porto Alegre) bus rapid transit (BRT) system, which is
 slightly unusual.

 The system consists of bus lanes (buses can switch to/from main
 traffic at any point and do so almost at will along several stretches)
 that become separated from the main ways next to platform/stops, which
 act as physical barriers. Check either:
 - an illustration: http://i.imgur.com/O4MaQhK.jpg
 - the reality:
 https://maps.google.com/maps?layer=ccbll=-30.008432,-51.183492cbp=12,84.21,,0,7.43

 If strictly following OSM's conventions on separation of ways [1], I
 think it would be represented as lanes:psv=* on many (but not all)
 spans of the main ways, with highway=service ways only next to
 platforms.

 After some research, I think this would be a rare, perhaps unique
 (weird) mapping of a BRT system in OSM. Here
 [http://i.imgur.com/RLdZgDk.png] is an comparison of several major BRT
 systems in reasonably well mapped areas of the world. All of those
 systems are correctly mapped as separated service ways because there
 is continuous physical separation between the busways and main
 traffic. So I'm wondering if, for clarity, my hometown's case
 could/should be mapped as if there is continuous physical
 separation, like almost everywhere else.

 Notes:

 In my comparison table, Mexico City's and Jakarta's BRT systems' stops
 are highlighted because they probably qualify as bus stations [2].

 Buenos Aires' system is quite similar to Porto Alegre's. They use a
 variety of physical structures between bus lanes and regular lanes,
 but I'm not sure if the smallest ones are considered physical
 separators in Argentina. In case they are not, it would turn out as
 the same weird situation as in my hometown in some places. The
 Brazilian separators are quite different, but their status as
 physical separators is well agreed upon. [3]

 An opinion [4] made me wonder if highway=service is indeed adequate
 for these bus tracks. They really don't provide local access to
 sites (parking lots, private properties, bus stations, etc.).
 Instead, they allow people to move across vast distances around the
 city, just like regular roads. Maybe they should be
 highway=unclassified as in Brisbane.

 I know that Cleveland has a BRT system based solely on bus lanes, but
 with no separation from main traffic next to platforms.

 To help anyone interested, below are coordinates of areas that I
 consider representative examples of each of those BRT systems. They
 are good starting points for exploration.

 -27.4785878 153.0205546 Australia/Brisbane/South East Busway
 45.4064414 -75.6642915 Canada/Ottawa/Transitway
 -34.5922814 -58.4407038 Argentina/Buenos Aires/Metrobus
 34.1812658 -118.5534848 USA/Los Angeles/Orange Line
 -23.6915090 -46.5570539 Brazil/São Paulo/Corredor ABD
 -25.4359510 -49.3072766 Brazil/Curitiba/Linha Verde
 49.440 1.0825457 France/Rouen/TEOR
 47.2060680 -1.5388248 France/Nantes/Busway (line 4)
 52.2340794 0.1350110 UK/Cambridge/The Busway
 -23.0003967 -43.3829705 Brazil/Rio de Janeiro/TransOeste
 -23.5620123 -46.6124021 Brazil/São Paulo/Expresso Tiradentes
 -6.1878222 106.8229964 Indonesia/Jakarta/TransJakarta Corridor 1
 19.4036069 -99.1692696 Mexico/Mexico City/Metrobus lines 1-3

 [1]
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Divided_highways
 [2]
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport#Station
 [3]
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-br/2013-December/004837.html
 [4]
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2010-November/005799.html

 --
 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] Wiki Edit War on using/avoiding semicolon lists

[Richard Mann]

Click on the dots, ctrl-a, delete. It's a lot easier than regex.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] path vs footway

[Richard Mann]

Interesting interpretation of history. Slightly different version:

The path tag was introduced by people who couldn't deal with
highway=cycleway being shared with pedestrians, and wanted something less
mode-specific than highway=footway and highway=cycleway.

In practice, this use is fairly limited: highway=path has been used far
more for unmade paths in field and forest.

The footway/cycleway issue largely continues to be dealt with by the
meaning of cycleway being a bit country-specific; in some countries
highway=cycleway (in cities, alongside roads) means
probably-not-for-pedestrians, and in others it means
probably-for-pedestrians-too-so-cycle-with-due-care.

Personally I use highway=footway+bicycle=yes if it's low quality and legal
for cycling, and highway=cycleway (which implies foot=yes in the UK) if
it's halfway decent for cycling. And highway=path in field and forest.

Richard

On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:


 2014-11-03 23:38 GMT+01:00 Mike Thompson miketh...@gmail.com:

 Nearly all trails in this area have been tagged
 highway=footway although most of them are open equally to foot
 traffic and horse traffic. Any reason to leave them as footways?



 You can (IMHO) change them to path.

 To give some historical background: initially there were only footways,
 cycleways and bridleways in OSM, and the suggestion then was to use the tag
 for the higher/more important means of transport and eventually add
 additional ones (e.g. cycleway and foot=yes). Then it was argued that there
 is no preferred/higher/more important means of transport on a general
 purpose way for single tracked vehicles (nor is there on a shared
 cycle-pedestrian way), so highway=path was introduced, allowing all means
 of unmotorized transport equally by default and allowing to override the
 exclusion of motorized vehicles (e.g. snowmobiles, motorcycles).

 This new path tag was designed so generically that it was in theory able
 to replace the well introduced tags footway, cycleway and bridleway by
 adding additional access tags to the path (e.g. path and foot=designated
 equals footway). In practise people continued to use in these cases (way
 dedicated to one means of transport) the well introduced simple tags like
 footway, while they adopted path for ways that can be generically used or
 that allow more than one means of transport equally (something like
 highway=footway, bicycle=yes still has its place, e.g. for spots where
 pedestrians have the right of way but bicycles are allowed when driving
 carefully).

 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] path vs footway

[Richard Mann]

(hawke = snowmobile enthusiast, or at least that's the impression he gave,
for anyone coming late to this debate)

On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
 wrote:


 2014-11-04 11:28 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:

 2014-11-04 11:17 GMT+01:00 Richard Mann 
 richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com:

 The path tag was introduced by people who couldn't deal with
 highway=cycleway being shared with pedestrians, and wanted something less
 mode-specific than highway=footway and highway=cycleway.



 the guy who proposed the tag path is a passionate horse rider and had
 mainly issues for riders in mind (basically all paths by that time were
 tagged either highway=cycleway or highway=footway, but most of them hadn't
 any horse tag attached --- despite the fact that many were accessible for
 horses --- because few mappers cared of even thought of horses).



 sorry, even if this sounded logical, it might not be the true story ;-)
 (honestly thought this was it, but by looking up the wiki it seems that the
 tag has been proposed by 2 guys, CBM e hawke):
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approved_features/Path

 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] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

[Richard Mann]

It's established that we use relations for routes, because the components
are related geo-spatially to one another (in a particular order, sometimes
having particular roles such as forward/backward). If a way forms part of
multiple routes, that is fine - just make it a member of multiple relations.

However, when it's a group of nodes that have no geo-spatial relationship,
then it's better to avoid using relations, since it's unnecessary, and just
adds complexity (duplication is regarded as better than complexity). As far
as I can see, the rcn node networks are independent, so all the information
could be on the node.

I think there may be relation hierarchies in public transport as well.
Again, it's better to collect independent routes into a network using tags,
rather than a relation.

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

Re: [Tagging] Marking dual carriageways

[Richard Mann]

I did manage to do it (reasonably accurately) by algorithm for the UK, but
it was a bit of a pain.

Adding dual_carriageway=yes tags, particularly in urban areas, wouldn't
hurt.

Richard


On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com
wrote:

 I am thinking about marking tagging roads with separate carriageways. I
 want to create map with oneway roads, but in OSM data roads with separate
 carriageways that are not oneway are frequently represented as separate
 ways, both tagged as oneway.

 Adding tag that that would describe way as part of dual carriageway, with
 twin road leading in opposite direction would allow to solve this problem.

 I am currently thinking about good name for this tag and whatever there is
 possibly to achieve this result solely by processing OSM data (processing
 is probably necessary anyway to catch cases like
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/182138211 ).

 ___
 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] Marking dual carriageways

[Richard Mann]

I think I just ignored very short links, so I don't think it would help in
that case.

Very roughly, I calculated the bearing of each way, and matched up ones
that were within a few metres laterally and a few degrees of 180deg of each
other.

Richard


On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com
wrote:

 I did manage to do it (reasonably accurately) by algorithm for the UK, but
 it was a bit of a pain.


 Can you share it? Currently I have absolutely no idea how to solve case of
 link type roads that are not really links ( cases like
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/182138211 ).

 ___
 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] Native English speakers: locker or lockbox?

[Richard Mann]

left luggage for the facility as a whole, probably locker for them
individually

it might be more international to call them lockers, though


On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Michael Reichert naka...@gmx.net wrote:

 Hi,

 over a year ago I was indoor-mapping the central train station of
 Heilbronn, Germany and looked for a tag to tag a locker/lockbox like this:

 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schlie%C3%9Ff%C3%A4cher_-_Bahnhof_Neumarkt_Oberpfalz.jpg

 After reading a discussion at talk-de from October 2010 [1], I decided
 to tag them amenity=lockbox. [2] In that discussion they decided to use
 the amenity key instead of tourism key.

 At the moment Constantin Müller (aka ubahnverleih) and I think about a
 consistent tagging of this amenities. At the moment there are 9 objects
 tagged amenity=lockbox and 30 objects tagged amenity=locker [3, 4].
 Because there is few difference between both tags I would like to ask
 the native English speakers at this list to answer me following question:

 What word describes a locker/lockbox at a train station (see linked
 image above) better? Locker or lockbox? In the discussion at talk-de
 Martin Koppenhöfer wrote that a lockbox can be found at a bank (for
 money, gold etc.). But he was not sure. [5]

 Best regards

 Michael


 [1] German:
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-de/2010-October/076965.html
 [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/215036986#map=18/49.14281/9.20764
 [3] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/amenity=locker#overview
 [4] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/amenity=lockbox#overview
 [5] German:
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-de/2010-October/076976.html

 --
 I prefer GPG encrypted emails.


 ___
 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] Native English speakers: locker or lockbox?

[Richard Mann]

Yes - in Britain they would be signposted left luggage.

But we're a tolerant lot, and lockers would be perfectly acceptable (and
probably how many people, especially younger people, would refer to them)


On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Michael Reichert naka...@gmx.net wrote:

 Hi Richard,

 Am 24.06.2014 19:41, schrieb Richard Mann:
  left luggage for the facility as a whole, probably locker for them
  individually
 
  it might be more international to call them lockers, though

 Thank you for the additional phrases. Are your answers in British
 English? (Because tags should be in British English, shouldn't they?)

  On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Michael Reichert naka...@gmx.net
 wrote:
  At the moment Constantin Müller (aka ubahnverleih) and I think about a
  consistent tagging of this amenities. At the moment there are 9 objects
  tagged amenity=lockbox and 30 objects tagged amenity=locker [3, 4].
  Because there is few difference between both tags I would like to ask
  the native English speakers at this list to answer me following
 question:
 
  What word describes a locker/lockbox at a train station (see linked
  image above) better? Locker or lockbox? In the discussion at talk-de
  Martin Koppenhöfer wrote that a lockbox can be found at a bank (for
  money, gold etc.). But he was not sure. [5]


 Taginfos says:
 9 amenity=lockbox
 30 amenity=locker
 48 amenity=lockers
 4 amenity=left_luggage

 Best regards

 Michael

 --
 Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt.


 ___
 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] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

[Richard Mann]

Setting the river to layer=-1, and the bridge to layer=0 (or 1) avoids a
range of rendering artefacts when roads have casings (which they usually
do). Good practice is only applying that to a shortish section of river,
obviously.

I don't know why the wiki has a statement against it - it always seemed
like a unilateral I don't like it from Nathan Edgar the second.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an imaginary oneway barrier

[Richard Mann]

We have lots of false one-way streets in Oxford. We tag a short section
with oneway=yes+oneway:bicycle=no.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag max width at chicane-type bicycle barriers

[Richard Mann]

0.7m is the width of the path (typical handlebars plus a bit)


On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 4:02 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:


 On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 4:30 AM, Richard Mann 
 richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote:

 You could probably calculate it for standard bikes by drawing a ?0.7m
 straight path through the barrier and then calculating the degrees of
 deviation from straight that requires.


 I might be missing something here.  0.7m is awful short for a standard
 bike.  Granted, my bike is on the large side for a standard bike (at 6'2
 (1.88m) in length, it's just 4 short of the maximum length allowed on the
 vast majority of transit systems (6'6 or 1.98m).  City of Portland (and
 likely soon, USDOT) consider a single bicycle parking space as minimum
 3'x6' (though I'd really prefer it, and wouldn't be surprised, if they
 bumped that up to 7' or 8' just to be consistent with 6'6 being a popular
 maxlength requirement and provide for a little extra clearance given
 inconsistencies with locking strategies between riders).

 ___
 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 max width at chicane-type bicycle barriers

[Richard Mann]

I've pondered this without conclusion, yet.

Unfortunately it's a bit complicated, since length and width of vehicle,
width of barrier and width of path all come into play.

You could probably calculate it for standard bikes by drawing a ?0.7m
straight path through the barrier and then calculating the degrees of
deviation from straight that requires. But that's a bit fiddly and doesn't
really help you for non-standard bikes.

Maybe:
barrier:bicycle=feet-up (for ones where with practice you can get through
without putting your feet down)
barrier:bicycle=feet-down (for ones where you have to put your feet down
but don't have to lift and move wheels sideways)
barrier:bicycle=wheel-up (for ones where you have to lift and move wheels
sideways)
barrier:bicycle=dismount (for ones where you have to dismount)
barrier:bicycle=bike-up (for ones where the bike has to be lifted
completely)
barrier:bicycle=no (for ones where bicycles can't get through at all)

with similar for tandem and bicycle_trailer

Richard



On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com wrote:


 Here in Italy we have plenty of bicycle barriers or chicanes (
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Barrier_examples), often with more
 than 2 inverted-U-shaped bars to make life even more difficult.
 They are used to prevent motorcycles from using cycle paths (not as in
 Germany to prevent bicycles from using footpaths).
 As these are serious obstacles for cyclists I have started tagging them
 more precisely with, for example:
 bicycle=yes/dismount
 wheelchair=yes/no
 max_width=xxx
 The latter is not correct as max_width indicates a legal requirement,
 normally a road sign, giving the maximum width of the vehicles that may
 pass the obstacle or road.
 Should I use width or est_width which normally indicates the width of
 a way? But I want to indicate the maximum width of the normal-length
 bicycle that I presume would pass the chicane.
 In addition I should tag also:
 bicycle_trailer=no
 tandem=no
 (which at present have not done)

 I had hoped to find answers here:
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radwegeigenschaften
 but that page shows questions, not answers. :-(

 Advice?

 ___
 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] Waterway river vs stream

[Richard Mann]

Ah, but in England we have some Streams that are bigger than Rivers.

Stream is sometimes used when a river divides into a number of channels,
and some Rivers retain that name even in their upper reaches when they are
pretty small (and easily jumpable). So you can't always rely on the name.


On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
 wrote:


 2013/10/19 Jonathan bigfatfro...@gmail.com

 It seems a river is something that has a source and a mouth (either where
 it joins the sea, lake or a larger river).  So I would say that only
 streams that have been named River  or The River ... should ever be
 tagged as a river, everything else is a stream.


 +1, this is also how I do it, if it is called River its a river,
 regardless of any jumping. If it is something else (like a German Bach,
 Italian torrente/ruscello) it's a stream.

 cheers,
 Martin

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


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

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Richard Mann]

 There are only some singular situations where pushing bicycles as an
object is not allowed.
 In this situations I am always puzzled, what I have to fear, if I would
carry the bicycle like a suitcase or parcel/packet ...
 none I suppose, but I never was in such situation yet.

 Georg
Nothing to fear except a long walk back to where you started when you try
to get out here: http://goo.gl/maps/9ncnD

I guess you could throw the bike over the fence. Or wait until one of those
cars opens the gate.

(and don't ask me what you do if you are in a wheelchair)

Actually, I don't think this is a major issue. It's enclosed land on the
map, and no cycle route is shown through. So you'd be unlikely to assume
you could go through there anyway.

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

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Richard Mann]

bicycle=no on the entry/exit node should suffice for routing


On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Stephen Gower 
socks-openstreetmap@earth.li wrote:

 On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:53:04AM +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
 wrote:
 
  and [Neither cycling nor pushing allowed] would be an area/route
  explicitly signed as e.g.  no bicycles not even pushed (Oxford
  University Parks used to be like this until a couple of years ago).

 Just for the record, this is still the case in Oxford University Parks,
 they
 had a few months trial of allowing people to push bikes, and shortly after
 the trial was over they put up the current, explicit signs:
 http://cycle.st/p53524 http://cycle.st/p53525 (text reads NO CYCLES
 WHETHER
 RIDDEN OR NOT)
 The same is also true of Christ Church Meadows: http://cycle.st/p17860
 http://cycle.st/p17861

 Given people seem to be saying bicycle=no doesn't correspond to this
 situation I'd be grateful for a tag, likely to be supported by routing
 software etc, that does.

 s

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Richard Mann]

Jonathan, I think you are saying that foot=yes+bicycle=no covers it. It
doesn't because bicycle=dismount is typically advisory, and considerably
less strong than bicycle=no. Usually it means that a pedestrian might take
umbrage, but the authorities aren't interested in making it an offence.


On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Jonathan bigfatfro...@gmail.com wrote:

 We do appear to have a problem in that in parts of the World the concept
 of allowing bicycles but not allowing cycling is a reality, however mad
 that may seem. Likewise, some countries don't care where you go with your
 bicycle if you're not riding it but other countries don't allow bicycles to
 even be present on some ways.

 So, we need to adjust the values in the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**
 wiki/Access http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access tag to reflect
 this.

 Looking at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/**
 Access-Restrictionshttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictionsthere
  are clear assumptions set out for each country but no where do we
 address the issue of bikes being allowed or not dependant on if they are
 being ridden or not.

 However, the above is a separate issue to bicycle=dismount.  The dismount
 road sign is simply a way of telling the cyclist that you can no longer
 ride your bicycle along this way.  It is a modification of the ACCESS
 rights on that way, hence we shouldn't have a tag for that sign, just like
 we don't have a tag for no-entry, we either modify the flow of traffic or
 modify the ACCESS tag; nor do we have a tag for Buses only, we modify the
 ACCESS tag.

 So, to answer the original question: I see no reason for the
 bicycle=dismount, it is covered by the ACCESS tag.

 Here's a clue : 
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/Key:bicyclehttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle


 http://bigfatfrog67.me

 On 11/10/2013 08:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


  Am 11/ott/2013 um 01:07 schrieb Frank Little frank...@xs4all.nl:

 I certainly wouldn't mark it as bicycle=no, because bicycles are allowed
 (they just have to be pushed).


 at the risk of repeating: the key bicycle is not about bicycles but about
 cyclists.

 cheers,
 Martin
 __**_
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagginghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



 __**_
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagginghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] Ferry frequency

[Richard Mann]

Ah, do you mean the signalling headway, or the planning headway or the
operating headway?

:o)

service_interval=nnn would probably be more en-gb


On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 6:46 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.ukwrote:

 Tilo wrote:

 what about the headway tag?


 Perhaps a tag that's actually used by normal people (as opposed to the
 Gnomes who operate e.g. London Underground) would be better? Realistically,
 this is never going to turn up in the presets in the editors used by most
 mappers - better to pick something that would at least be recognisable.

 Cheers,

 Andy



 __**_
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagginghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] Ferry frequency

[Richard Mann]

I use frequency=6 for 6 buses per hour as a tag on a bus route relation.
And journeys=3 for 3 services a day.

Interpreting such tags is always likely to be context-sensitive

Richard




On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:

 I'd like to tag approximate ferry frequency in OSM. It's important for
 routing: something that runs every 10 minutes is likely to be useful for
 routing purposes; something that runs once a day, less so.

 Before I go ahead and JFDI, has anyone done this / seen this done, and if
 so, what tags did you use? The frequency= tag appears to be denoted in
 Hertz which is not so useful for a ferry. ;)

 cheers
 Richard


 __**_
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagginghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] Ferry frequency

[Richard Mann]

Yes, that is how I use it - frequency if there's 1/hour or better, journeys
if it's less than that.


On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:35 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.comwrote:

 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote:

 I use frequency=6 for 6 buses per hour as a tag on a bus route relation.
 And journeys=3 for 3 services a day.

 Interpreting such tags is always likely to be context-sensitive

 Richard




 On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Richard Fairhurst 
 rich...@systemed.netwrote:

 I'd like to tag approximate ferry frequency in OSM. It's important for
 routing: something that runs every 10 minutes is likely to be useful for
 routing purposes; something that runs once a day, less so.

 Before I go ahead and JFDI, has anyone done this / seen this done, and
 if so, what tags did you use? The frequency= tag appears to be denoted in
 Hertz which is not so useful for a ferry. ;)

 cheers
 Richard


 __**_
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagginghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


 --

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


 So, are you saying that you use frequency only for buses that run at least
 once per hour, and otherwise use journeys instead?

 --
 John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
 Darkness cannot drive out darkness:
 only light can do that.
 Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.
 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

 ___
 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] foot=yes or bicycle=yes on track without other limitations?

[Richard Mann]

If you add bicycle=yes, they render differently in opencyclemap (not saying
that's a good thing, just an observation). It seems to be used to imply
that it's reasonably passable by bike, and nobody seems to object.

Richard


On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote:

 Is there a deeper meaning of adding foot=yes or bicycle=yes to
 highway=track or highway=path without adding other limitations? I thought
 track and path are by default routable for foot and bicycle, so IMHO they
 add nothing.

 Examples:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/**browse/way/53561813http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/53561813
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/**browse/way/68796031http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/68796031
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/**browse/way/195440134http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/195440134

 Regards,
 Maarten


 __**_
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagginghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] Really big junction=roundabout

[Richard Mann]

It's more like what we in the UK would call a gyratory (or simply a one way
system)


On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Elliott Plack elliott.pl...@gmail.comwrote:

 Hello OSM friends. Another member of the community asked if I think that a
 circulator road around a large athletics facility (RFK Stadium in Wash. DC)
 would be considered a roundabout. Here is one of the ways in it:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/51369536

 This round, one-way road does act somewhat like a roundabout, and might be
 nice to have tagged so routing software can interpret it as such. That way
 the computer can say, take the third exit to 123ZYY road.

 Thoughts?

 --
 Elliott Plack
 http://about.me/elliottp

 ___
 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - More Consistency in Railway Tagging

[Richard Mann]

The German use of railway=light_rail for S-Bahn is a bit peculiar, since it
is generally operated with heavy rail equipment (often lococoaches), to
mainline signalling standards (which tend to be defined in terms of the
stopping distance for a heavy freight train), and with heavy rail
structures and clearances. There probably needs to be a term for railways
that largely operate independently of the the mainline network, but are
heavy-rail in technical terms (and may get used as diversionary routes for
long-distance trains, during engineering works, and for excursions etc).

railway=suburban would be a possibility (or as an intermediate step, to let
data-users adjust, railway_type=suburban)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mismatched Level of Detail in highways vs. other elements

[Richard Mann]

You can always make a rendering with the streets drawn wider at zoom 18.
That would solve most of the problems.

Mapping all the street as a series of parallel lines or areas will just
make a large mess of data that is a pain to decipher. It only really adds
value at very high zoom, and it isn't a good idea to add complexity that
can't be easily ignored.


On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Martin Atkins m...@degeneration.co.ukwrote:


 Hi all,

 I do mapping in San Francisco, CA and I'm frustrated about the
 inconsistent levels of detail we typically use when mapping urban
 environments.

 For example, most highways are mapped in a network-oriented fashion with
 one string of ways representing both directions of traffic, often
 encapsulating other features like cycle lanes and sidewalks, and
 intersections simply represented by crossing the streets at a single common
 node.

 On the other hand, rail lines are most commonly mapped by their physical
 shape, so the rail ways come in pairs. The people who mapped the tram lines
 in San Francisco also mapped the curves of the rails at intersections,
 rather than having them meet at a single node as with the highways. This
 creates the following ridiculous effect in rendering:
 http://osm.org/go/TZHvFT5aF--

 Notice how the rails only just fit inside the rendered street on straight
 sections, and cut the street corner completely at the intersection.

 However, here's how it actually looks on the ground (looking across the
 intersection from east to west). Notice that the rails are completely
 contained within this 4-lane intersection (all four being normal traffic
 lanes with no physical separation except for the tram boarding platforms):
 http://oi45.tinypic.com/**w6qsgh.jpghttp://oi45.tinypic.com/w6qsgh.jpg

 (On the plus side, we're doing better than Google Maps, whose rendering
 makes it look like the rails on Church street are both off to the west side
 of the street! http://tinyurl.com/cedot4n )

 This problem shows up in various other contexts too: it's impossible to
 accurately tag a bench or bus stop on a sidewalk because the sidewalk
 doesn't exist as a separate construct. Fences or buildings directly abut
 the street end up rendering either over the street or set back from it
 because the true width of the street is not represented.

 For most normal street mapping and vehicle routing purposes it seems
 sufficient to just know simple landmark details that aid in orientation,
 e.g. that whether particular street contains a railway or it passes
 alongside a railway. Of course, more detail-oriented uses like 3D
 renderings it'd be more important to have the full physical street layout
 described, with separated lanes and proper physical relationships with
 surrounding objects.

 How have others resolved this fundamental conflict? More detailed streets,
 or less-detailed everything else?


 __**_
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagginghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] Historic huts

[Richard Mann]

The English/Scottish word for it is bothy. But it might be better to use
something a bit more internationally-intelligible.


On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com wrote:

 What about:
 amenity=shelter
 historic=alpine_hut
 ruins=yes (if appropriate)

 Volker
 (Padova, Italy)


 On 27 March 2013 05:16, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi all,
   Just wondering how best to tag the historic alpine huts we have in
 the mountains of southeast Australia. Some basic properties:
 - usually fully enclosed (4 walls and a roof) although not necessarily
 weatherproof
 - usually have fireplaces
 - sometimes in good enough condition to sleep in (bring your own
 mattress and bedding)
 - primarily of historical interest, rather than for accommodation.
 That is, you might have lunch in the hut, or camp next to it - you
 wouldn't hike without a tent and plan to sleep in the huts. (They
 often have rodent and/or snake inhabitants...)
 - could possibly be completely uninhabitable or ruined. (Hiking maps
 here typically don't make much distinction, they might say Smith Hut
 (ruins))
 - typically built between 1850 and say 1920 by stockmen (cattle farmers).
 - only maintained for their heritage value - no one improves them,
 there's no hut warden or anything.

 Is this just an Australian thing? tourism=basic_hut seems like the
 closest, but still promises accommodation. I think most Australians
 would know what to expect, but there are frequent stories of unhappy
 Europeans expecting hot meals in the middle of nowhere...

 An example of a hut I visited on the weekend, Kelly Hut near Licola.
 Rough wooden walls, corrugated iron roof, stone chimney, dirt floor.
 There's a very rough sleeping platform (no mattresses), no table or
 chairs. The door is a sheet of corrugated iron. I'd have lunch in
 there, especially on a cold day, but I wouldn't sleep in there unless
 desperate.

 Steve

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



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


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

Re: [Tagging] source:maxspeed vs. maxspeed:type

[Richard Mann]

My impression is that a lot of the source:maxspeed were added by a single
user in an armchair edit. So its prevalence is not really an indicator of
anything.


On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com
 wrote:

 On 22 February 2013 16:38, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi!

 Recently the use of the key maxspeed:type was documented in the wiki
 (see [1] and [2]). It seems to be used in the UK for the same purpose
 as source:maxspeed. I quote: In the UK the general practice is to use
 the maxspeed:type tag as the source:*=* should be for how the data was
 collected, not how it was derived. 

 Well - there's a point. Yes, I know how often source:maxspeed is
 tagged (241,738 times). But besides being tagged, is it used for
 anything at the moment?


 I think the changes to the wiki are slightly misleading. It is not general
 practice in the UK to use maxspeed:type There have been a few discussions
 about maxspeed tagging on the talk-gb list with limited consensus. It's
 difficult topic to summarise.
 A number of UK mappers feel that the simple maxspeed tag with a numerical
 value is of limited value or even incorrect. Along the majority of our
 roads the speed limit is derived by the type of the road and your vehicle.
 As Philip Barnes pointed out, speed limit changes can happen and if so are
 likely to be applied to a type of road. Discussions on the subject can be
 found by searching maxspeed in the GB mailing list.

 Discussion in the talk-gb list suggested that maxspeed:type would be
 better than source:maxspeed. Several people agreed but it was pointed out
 the globally source:maxspeed was preferred, and that in the UK
 source:maxspeed was also preferred (demonstrated by tagwatch). I believe
 Peter Miller (of ITO Map) was one of those arguing for the maxspeed:type
 tag. In the last year Peter has put a lot of time into adding and cleaning
 up maxspeed tags on major UK roads and has been using the maxspeed:type
 tag. This has led to significant increase in the number of times the tag
 now appears in the UK.

 The updates to the wiki page imply that maxspeed:type is the UK standard,
 but that is not the case. Source:maxspeed still appears more widespread
 across the country. Personally I think maxspeed:type is better but I
 carried on using source:maxspeed because it appeared to be the accepted
 'global' way of doing things.

 Jason

 ___
 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] Giant river multipolygons

[Richard Mann]

It's crowd-sourced data. Of course it's not reliable. You won't make it
more reliable by trying to get people to impose mega-structures.

Better to add further information which you can use intelligently to
improve reliability (and which might well be useful for some other purpose)


On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote:

 2013/1/29 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com

 The Danube river is perfectly adequately made whole by looking for
 name:en=Danube. Get the computer to do the work, not mappers.


 What if there is a little river Danube, somewhere in Ohio?

 I guess other tags like wikipedia=de:Donau might be ok, although it
 doesn't sound very reliable.

 Janko

 ___
 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] Kids use a sled downhill

[Richard Mann]

No word for it in English (en-gb), to my knowledge. Locally we'd refer to
the slope by the bridge or going up to Rayleigh Park. As some of us
were doing yesterday :o)


On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote:

 I've spent every winter since ~2008 wondering what you call a Pulka
 hill in english, so basically a hill that kids use to go fast with a
 sled. People have been using:
 piste:type=sled

 So a pulka is something like this:
 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rodeln_01.jpg

 And a Pulka hill is something like this (and that's a big one)

 http://www.bagisbloggen.se/2010/01/27/bagarmossens-basta-pulkabackar-del-2-laxabacken/


 I've used leisure=pulkabacke, swedish for sled hill,  which I think is
 better than piste:type=sled, but it's not very international.

 --
 /emj

 ___
 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] cycleway Tagging and Wiki-Page

[Richard Mann]

I think shared_lane is used when the bikes are sharing the lane with cars,
perhaps with a cycle logo in the centre of the lane. Sharrows are when
there are cycle logos to one side, but no lane marking (not very common in
the UK; I've seen them in Brussels alongside parked cars, and they're more
often referred to in the US).

The main distinction in the UK is between solid white line (mandatory),
which means it's exclusive to bikes (cars must not enter), and a dashed
white line (advisory) where cars should try not to enter. There is no
obligation on the cyclist to use or stay in those lanes, and drivers should
be prepared for a cyclist pulling out to overtake a slower cyclist (though
whether that is culturally accepted in practice varies by location).

For clarity, I'd probably go for cycleway:designation=Radfahrstreifen or
cycleway:designation=Schutzstreifen, so someone who knows the rules is
absolutely clear what you mean. You can try adding appropriate access tags
for the cycleway and maybe the roadway as a whole
(bicycle=no|discouraged+cycleway:bicycle=yes|designated), but the odds of
this being done clearly and widely enough to be useful are dubious. As you
say the bicycle=no might lead to some unintended effects, so maybe it would
be better as roadway:bicycle=no|discouraged.

Richard


On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Balgofil balgo...@gmx.net wrote:

 Hi,

 in the German Forum [1] we had a discussion about cycle lanes (with a
 lot of off-topic talk). In Germany there are two different kind of
 bicycle lanes:

 1. Radfahrstreifen: cycle lanes which are mandatory indicated by a
 sign and a solid lane (cycleway=lane)

  2. Schutzstreifen cycle lanes with dashed lines not so wide as a
  Radfahrstreifen and therefore only advisory and no sign (cycleway=?)

 So one solution that was pointed out in the thread is to tag the
 Schutzstreifen with cycleway=shared_lane because of the description
 in the wiki. I then pointed out, that in the UK there is a similar
 situation, but no solution to it (see [2] Limitations). But I don't
 know what is meant with cycleway=shared_lane. So can someone specify
 what is meant by this tag?

 My solution would be to tag a Radfahrstreifen with cycleway=lane AND
 cycleway:bicycle=designated and a Schutzstreifen with cycleway=lane
 AND cycleway:bicycle=designated. But this will break
 backward-compatibility.

 In the wiki there is also a tag for sharrows. But the description
 starts with As shared_lane,  Does that mean that sharrows are
 tagged with cycleway=shared_lane, or is cycleway=sharrow the tag
 describing the markings on the road?


 Best regards,

 Balgofil



 [1] = http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=19585
 [2] = http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycleway

 ___
 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] How to solve the problem with relation overload?

[Richard Mann]

Martin's problem would be solved if the extra-long relation is broken up
into segments. Which you are just as free to do as splitting a way in two.
Keep the relation tags on each segment, just like you'd do if you split a
way.

(This is rather different to Jo's proposal, which involves shifting tags
onto a parent relation)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to solve the problem with relation overload?

[Richard Mann]

I think Martin is complaining about long-distance coach services. Splitting
them into within-urban and extra-urban segments would seem fairly sensible
to me.


On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote:

 2012/12/4 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com

 Martin's problem would be solved if the extra-long relation is broken up
 into segments. Which you are just as free to do as splitting a way in two.
 Keep the relation tags on each segment, just like you'd do if you split a
 way.

 (This is rather different to Jo's proposal, which involves shifting tags
 onto a parent relation)


 A bus line goes from a starting point to a terminus. It would seem strange
 to me to split such relation at arbitary places in the middle in order to
 avoid conflicts when editing. So it's not comparable to splitting a street
 because the properties or relation membership changes. It would still
 render correctly, but you lose the semantics of what the relation stood for.

 The proposal for the route segments was made 1,5 years ago, but never went
 to a vote.

 I agree that it should not simply apply to route relations. There are some
 relations where it is already in use. If I'm not mistaken long foot/hiking
 routes.

 Rather than 'winning' a vote we should try to get support from öpnv-karte,
 transportmap and OSMtransport. Once those big players render it, the rest
 will most likely follow.

 Jo

 ___
 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] Catchment Areas

[Richard Mann]

If only a handful of people are likely to use the data (inevitable with
lots of overlapping catchments), then create it offline (draw it as a
separate layer in JOSM and save it). If more than 1 person will use it,
post it somewhere. You could add a link on the wiki city page.

But I wouldn't add obscure large-scale geometry to the DB. Obscure tags are
tolerable, pretty easy to ignore, and we can hope they get documented.
Obscure geometry is just clutter.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to solve the problem with relation overload?

[Richard Mann]

Try using Potlatch


On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.comwrote:

 Hi!

 I'm a little desperate now. The increasing number of relations -
 especially those for public transport - make it harder and harder to
 make simple edits.

 Example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/146170815

 I avoid to edit the Süd Autobahn because I'm aware that it is nearly
 impossible to do so because of the relations attached to it. But
 sometimes I have to. Right now I downloaded that area, had a look what
 to do, updated the data again, split one(!) way and uploaded the data.
 The timespan between data update and upload was about ten seconds(!).
 Result: nine(!) conflicts.

 Are we sure that those relations provide more information than they
 prevent to be provided?

 regards,
 Martin

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging GB railway stations and track

[Richard Mann]

Source? Most of these things are owned by Network Rail, and it's not
clear whether they are publically available without strings.

I'd love this to be available (speaking as someone who made maps of delay
in a former life...).

Richard


On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Peter Hicks peter.hi...@poggs.co.uk wrote:

 All,

 I'm part of a group of people who are working to get a richer set of
 metadata attached to the railway network in Great Britain, specifically:

   - Tagging railway stations with the three-letter CRS (computer
 reservation system) codes, which is widely used by train companies and the
 public to refer to stations, plus TIPLOC (TIming Point LOCation) codes -
 used in timetable planning - to relevant parts of stations, and STANOX
 (Station Number) codes used for train reporting

   - Adding junctions as nodes or closed ways (depending on their
 structure) to existing railway lines, along with their TIPLOC and STANOX
 codes

   - Adding Network Rail route codes to logical groups of routes and
 tidying up line names

 I've started using three tags - ref:crs_code, ref:stanox and ref:tiploc
 for locations, and ref:nr_route_code for route codes - they're attached to
 St Albans Abbey station and stations toward Watford Junction as an example.

 Does anyone have thoughts or comments on the above?  I've set up a Wiki
 page at
 http://wiki.openraildata.info/index.php/AddingJunctionsAndSidingsToOsm and
 there's a mailing list at
 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/openraildata-talk if you want to
 get involved.



 Peter


 ___
 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] designation=* is a mess in Germany

[Richard Mann]

Slowly walk away.

The usage in the UK should be shifted to a new key (maybe something like
path_type), and the rest probably ignored.

The choice of name for the key stemmed from access=designated, and (with
20:20 hindsight) was a mistake. There are some people who prefer to have
multi-purpose key names, but this is just a meaningless bucket.

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

Re: [Tagging] access restrictions on ways

[Richard Mann]

It looks like it's just inside the village (commune?) boundary. Maybe they
mean the whole village?

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 2:55 PM, André Pirard a_pir...@hotmail.com wrote:

 **
 Hi,

 Summary: setting access restrictions on ways sometimes (often?)
 inappropriate
 Full story and conclusions: ...

 At 50.5308 
 5.5959http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.5309716mlon=5.5954177zoom=19,
 there's a C23 road sign (below) towards NW town Esneux.
 As understood with common sense, they don't want heavy vehicles inside
 Esneux and cartographers will 
 usehttp://www.ign.be/Common/leg10/1FR.htma distinctive rendering (road
 with traffic restrictionhttp://www.ign.be/Common/leg10/images/leg1n_10.gif)
   over the restricted wayshttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweight
 .
 Which means I have to look for other corresponding road signs to determine
 the span.
 I found none, starting with none on the next left Rue de la Cissure (rdlC).
 I asked Esneux' administration in vain.
 That means that a heavy lorry can come through Esneux, drive through rdlC
 up to the village Fontin and then U turn and go all the way back as if it
 had passed the C23 sign.  How can cops book anyone unless they come and sit
 near the sign? ;-)

 So, I defined the weight restriction from the sign up to rdlC, over 50m.
 That's incorrect because it's not one-way but it's the best I could do to
 reconcile OSM and ADM.
 Sounds kinda stupid but I plead not guilty.

 But now what does that highway code tell us about C23 after all?
 accès interdit = forbidden access: to where?  To behind the sign, of
 course.
 Unlike C43 speed limit below which is bound to say up to the next
 crossing to tell you where you can speed up again, there is no point in
 saying what happens behind C23 sign if the driver cannot go there, is
 there?

 But now how can we make a map of such a case if OSM 
 instructionshttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweight
 make the weight limit a way attribute and JOSM scolds with : *Wrong
 highway tag on a node.  Suspicious tag/value combinations*?  Is that
 Esneux adm playing tricks on OSM? ;-)

   André.

   *C23. **Accès 
 interdit*http://www.code-de-la-route.be/textes-legaux/sections/ar/code-de-la-route/251-art68aux
  conducteurs de véhicules affectés au transport de choses.
 Une inscription sur un panneau additionnel limite l'interdiction aux
 conducteurs de véhicules dont la masse en charge dépasse la masse indiquée.
 7,5t

   C43. *A partir du signal jusqu'au prochain carrefour*, interdiction
 de circuler à une vitesse supérieure à celle qui est indiquée.
 - La mention “km” sur le signal est facultative.
 - Lorsqu'une masse est indiquée sur un panneau additionnel, l'interdiction
 n'est applicable qu'aux véhicules dont la masse maximale autorisée excède
 la limite fixée.
 Le signal C43, avec la mention 30 km/h, placé au-dessus du signal F1 vaut
 sur l'ensemble des voiries comprises dans les limites de l'agglomération.



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


image/pngimage/png___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Map for surface/smoothness?

[Richard Mann]

http://www.itoworld.com/map/25

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.comwrote:

 Hi!

 I'm looking for a map where I can see what ways are (not) tagged with
 surface/smoothness. The tag width would be a nice-to-have. Maybe
 something like OSMI?

 Any hints for me?

 Martin

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Advice clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.

[Richard Mann]

Dave has been quite rude, and completely dismissive of the value of
anything other than his interpretation of what the wiki states. Internet
etiquette is that you do not respond to rudeness, so I haven't.

Counting parallel lines is a pain, and trying to put the info into
relations is unnecessarily complicated. So I favour a total_tracks on ways
approach.

Since Peter (ITO) seems moderately relaxed about the tracks info being
deleted where there are multiple tracks (and he's the only known user),
I'll probably remove the tags.

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

Re: [Tagging] Advice clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.

[Richard Mann]

I've added track_detail=yes in places where there are tracks1 tags but the
lines are separately drawn. I've included some that have been there for a
while.

I've contacted the only people who I'm aware that use the tracks data
(itoworld) to see if deleting the tracks tags (or setting them all to
tracks=1) causes them any stress, and whether they prefer it one way or the
other.

Deleting a lot of tracks tags (or setting them all to 1) involves removing
data that some people may be using, so I'm not proposing to do that yet.

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

Re: [Tagging] traffic=fast

[Richard Mann]

There's two things that distinguish HSLs/LGVs/NBSs: high maxspeed
(typically 250-320, though some would include the new lines in Switzerland,
which are only 200), and a lack of slow traffic (freight, stopping
passenger services) because they have alternative routes.

In some cases, you can get pretty high speeds without providing a second
pair of lines, if traffic is sparse (upto 200kmh in the UK, upto 230kmh in
Germany), so I think the presence/absence of a parallel slow route is
something that can usefully tagged explicitly.
Richard


On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:21 AM, St Niklaas st.nikl...@live.nl wrote:

  Hi taggers,

 Colins question are there more countries with different speed rules
 on tracks ? Yes all the TGV like tracks in Europe through, France, Germany
 and Netherlands are specially build for TGVs but somewhere there still
 tracks combined, limited speed up to 100 miles / hr.

 Hendrik

 ___
 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] traffic=fast

[Richard Mann]

There's usage=main and usage=branch, but that is pretty crude. You might
use that to reproduce the old BR network map (before Railtrack/NR went and
made all the lines the same width).

The norm on four track railways is for two of the lines to be designated
the fast lines (or main lines on Great Western) and two to be designated
the slow lines (or relief lines on Great Western). The naming isn't as
clear if the pairs of lines diverge (eg the lines that bypass Redhill on
the way to Brighton), but the idea is basically the same.

Richard

On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote:

  As every track segment has a maximum speed, why not just apply the
 existing maxspeed=* tag to the tracks? It is not clear to me whether your
 intention with traffic=fast refers to some attribute of the track itself,
 or the use to which it is put. Is it some official designation (from
 Network Rail)? I recall also seeing things like service=main_line (from
 memory) to distinguish main line from local tracks.

 Colin


 On 09/08/2012 11:33, Richard Mann wrote:

 There's two things that distinguish HSLs/LGVs/NBSs: high maxspeed
 (typically 250-320, though some would include the new lines in Switzerland,
 which are only 200), and a lack of slow traffic (freight, stopping
 passenger services) because they have alternative routes.

 In some cases, you can get pretty high speeds without providing a second
 pair of lines, if traffic is sparse (upto 200kmh in the UK, upto 230kmh in
 Germany), so I think the presence/absence of a parallel slow route is
 something that can usefully tagged explicitly.
  Richard


 On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:21 AM, St Niklaas st.nikl...@live.nl wrote:

  Hi taggers,

 Colins question are there more countries with different speed rules
 on tracks ? Yes all the TGV like tracks in Europe through, France, Germany
 and Netherlands are specially build for TGVs but somewhere there still
 tracks combined, limited speed up to 100 miles / hr.

 Hendrik

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




 ___
 Tagging mailing 
 listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



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


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

Re: [Tagging] Advice clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.

[Richard Mann]

I think we're rapidly heading to mapping each track separately. They can
all be labelled as tracks=1 (though the wiki doesn't actually tell you to
do that), but that would be completely pointless. It might have some value
in the interim period, but the tag isn't used consistently enough to make
that meaningful: better just to get on with drawing parallel tracks.

The useful information is the number of passenger running lines (with the
number of goods running lines as supplementary information). The number of
sidings is useful/interesting for different (but separate) purposes. Most
of the lines in that first example should be tagged service=siding or
service=yard.

Maybe I'd better just copy all the info in tracks=* into a new tag, and let
Dave set them all to tracks=1.

Richard

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 2:27 AM, André Pirard a_pir...@hotmail.com wrote:

 **
 Look at this 
 examplehttp://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.60938lon=5.57874zoom=16layers=Mand
  ask yourself how to tag track=* on each way according to that user's
 concept ;-)

 I have found interesting to map two tracks (vs one line) to visually
 stress that a single track line splits in two on some distance (where
 trains cross like when the English drivers hand those anti-crash control
 sticks over).  My question is: how do I include the second track in the
 relations containing the single line?  Same question when the line is two
 tracks fully, of course.

 Now if you look at thishttp://www.papou.byethost9.com/tmp/Kinkempois.png... 
 isn't it tempting to map each rail? :-)  One even sees where their
 straight line segments meet.

 But, last question, what's the use of mapping such micro details if the
 renderers do not show them.
 I have mapped cellphone aerials (man_made=tower,
 tower:type=communication), several on water towers like 
 thishttp://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.534604lon=5.626856zoom=18layers=M
 .
 The water tower or other support shows, but never the aerial.

 Best regards,

   André.







 ___
 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] Advice clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.

[Richard Mann]

It feels more like a collection rather than a geospatial relation to me,
and (pace the conversation about refs on highways), it seems simpler to put
the info directly on the relevant ways, rather than making the ways a
member of a relation where the info is stored.

In general, I think slow-changing infrastructure-type information is better
recorded on the ways. Whereas service-type information is better recorded
in relations.

Richard

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Richard Mann 
 richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote:


 Maybe I'd better just copy all the info in tracks=* into a new tag, and
 let Dave set them all to tracks=1.



 Instead of creating a new tag duplicating the information, you could also
 create a relation containing all tracks as members.

 Pieren


 ___
 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] Advice clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.

[Richard Mann]

I've copied the info to a new passenger_lines tag, since it would appear
that some people would prefer to use the tracks tag for a different purpose.

For those of you who don't have experience of train operations, I can
assure you that the number of tracks available for passenger operations
(and in particular, whether services can be readily timetabled to operate
with limited stops due to the absence of slow traffic on some lines) is
pretty useful info.

(Colin - it may be that usage=main covers the situation that I tagged as
traffic=fast, but I think usage=main also covers situations where
long-distance services dominate, but may have to share with freight, like
on much of the ECML. I'll try to elucidate in due course.)

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

Re: [Tagging] Advice clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.

[Richard Mann]

I guess that'll be me.

The total number of tracks is a useful piece of data, whereas tracks=1 on
the four individual tracks is useless. I don't really mind where the
information is stored; the tracks tag looked like a sensible place to me
(and indeed was already being used in this way in some places).

Richard

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:

  Hi

 A user in GB has been editing railway lines by adding tracks=4 even though
 each individual track has been mapped:

 www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/174899570

 From the railway page of the wiki:

 When modeling multi-track parallel railway lines in close proximity they
 can either be modeled as a single way with tracks=*, or as a number of
 parallel ways.
 The tracks=* tag should be used to record the number of tracks with a
 default value of 1 being assumed where this is not supplied. 

 In the example he's tagged each way with tracks=4. Going on what the wiki
 says this implies there are a total of 16 tracks on the ground. This seems
 incorrect tagging to me.

 I've contacted him directly  received a reply but he appears to think his
 way is correct  the wiki wrong, so I'm posting here for advice 
 clarification.

 Cheers
 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] Advice clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.

[Richard Mann]

Tracks is actually mostly used in the UK to tag the total number of tracks,
whether the lines have been individually mapped or not (this snapshot is a
few days old):

http://www.itoworld.com/map/14#lat=51.78185298480979lon=-0.5093040346167376zoom=7
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Data redundancy with ref tag on ways vs relations

[Richard Mann]

Bridge ref  highway ref: bridge ref should have a specific tag, such as
bridge:ref=whatever

Two roads meet at roundabouts: roundabout has higher-ranking (ie lower)
number, unless the higher-ranking road has a flyover or underpass. Or don't
have a ref.

None of the issues raised justify changing a very well established scheme.

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

Re: [Tagging] Data redundancy with ref tag on ways vs relations

[Richard Mann]

Chill guys.

Refs and street names on ways are OK in most countries. So leave well
alone. Data consumers can and do cope.

If you're one of the few places that use multiple refs on a single street,
then code them by local agreement - probably using relations.

Yes, relation support should improve. But don't hold your breath.

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

Re: [Tagging] sports_centre

[Richard Mann]

gym is a bit colloquial, but if it's already in use then go for it

(potential confusion for German speakers, I guess, but probably tolerable)

Richard


On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:

 Hi,

 On 07/16/12 10:24, Philip Barnes wrote:

 Sports centres are usually big, often municipal with a swimming pool and
 the like.

 In the UK the smaller places you are describing would be called gyms.


 amenity=gym is rarely used and the wiki page advises against using it
 because it is ambiguous: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**
 wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dgymhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dgym

 I find that surprising because it seems that sports_centre is even more
 ambiguous or misunderstood - at least if someone tells me he's going to the
 gym I know what they mean.

 Maybe we should simply define that amenity=gym means exactly these
 smaller places that I am describing and change the wiki accordingly? I
 have had a quick glance at the ~500 existing amenity=gym objects and I
 think the tag is used exactly for this purpose already, so we'd only be
 documenting an existing practice.

 It seems that there once was a Proposed_features/Gym page which has been
 removed by Harry Wood (explicit Cc as I don't know if he reads this) -
 unsure if he did so because he was convinced that there is too much
 ambiguity or just for procedural reasons.

 Bye
 Frederik

 --
 Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09 E008°23'33



 __**_
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagginghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] New access tag value needed?

[Richard Mann]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-17530125

(lorry stuck on very tight corner)

This is tagged hgv=unsuitable in OSM
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/69590803

Maybe such tags need regularising
Not sure I'd bother with cycle tracks though.

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

Re: [Tagging] Cycle lanes cycle tracks - my findings and a proposal

[Richard Mann]

In Denmark, they use lanes/tracks that are immediately alongside the road
and separated by a shallow kerb, and turn into lanes on the approach to
junctions. You can certainly move on and off them very easily.

On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.comwrote:


 Hi All,

 Sorry for the late reply after starting this thread a few days ago.

 I was surprised to see how far this topic has expanded (even into OSM
 should have fault lines so we can re-align after earthquakes!), so I just
 want to refocus on cycling.


 1. A Quick Recap
 From the countries that I have researched so far (UK, Netherlands,
 Germany) there is a consistent difference between a cycle LANE
 (Fietsstrook, Radfahrstreifen), and a cycle TRACK (Fietspad, Radwegen).

 In all countries a cycle LANE is a area within the main roadway
 (carriageway) that is allocated for cycle use. It is indicated by a painted
 line on the road surface. For all purposes in OSM it can be considered as a
 'lane' as there is no separation from the other lanes that form the road
 and therefore nothing physically stopping a cyclist from changing to a
 different lane at any point along the road. Motor vehicles may be
 prohibited from using this lane (UK: Mandatory cycle lane) or not (UK:
 Advisory, Netherlands Fietssuggestiestrook).

 Contrast this to a cycle TRACK, which is physically separate from the main
 roadway. The separation may be a kerb, barrier/wall, strip of grass or just
 a row of parked cars. In different countries the TRACK may be one-way or
 two-way, shared with pedestrians, mandatory for cyclists, and so on.
 Irrespective of all of these things is the key fact that the cycle TRACK is
 physically separated and therefore the cyclist cannot simply move from the
 track to the main roadway at any point / at will.


 2. The cycleway=* tag
 The current cycleway tag attempts to cater for both of these and as a
 result it is not particularly clear for new users. I believe the fact that
 renderers and routing software haven't picked up the cycleway tag with any
 widespread enthusiasm is evidence that improvements can be made.


 3. So what is important
 For a cyclist I feel that the most important thing is I am travelling
 from A to B with my child. How _safe_ is it for cyclists? Will there be
 cycle lanes and/or cycle tracks to use in the _direction_ of my travel?

 Based on this question the useful things to know are:

 * Direction
 * Safety

 3a. Cycle LANES

 By having a tag specifically for cyclelanes we can indicate both direction
 and type of lane (an partial indication of safety). For example:

 highway=secondary
 cyclelane:forward=share_busway
 cyclelane:backward=advisory

 Exact lane positioning can then be picked up by the lanes fans (
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes)


 3b. Cycle TRACKS

 As these are physically separate from the other lanes of the main roadway
 (and therefore a cyclist is not free to switch back and forth between cycle
 track and roadway), my personal preference is to map them as a separate
 way.

 Our German mappers raised the concern that cyclists must use the
 cycletrack and are not allowed to use the roadway unless the cycletrack is
 obstructed, for example. They have pointed out that they do not like the
 use of bicycle=no on the main highway as cyclists are not legally banned
 from using the road in all circumstances. Although I think they are being
 hopeful that bicycle=no is only being used when it is illegal, can I
 suggest bicycle=secondary, bicycle=non-primary, or bicycle=alternative for
 this case (another suggestion already made is bicycle=destination)?

 For cases where it is difficult to draw a separate way then consider:

 highway=secondary
 cycletrack:left=two-way


 Any feedback will be much appreciated, but please keep in mind the ease of
 the system for new users and long-term maintainability.

 Cheers,
 Rob


 p.s. In my opinion no is not a strong enough word to ensure that it is
 only used when access is illegal/prohibited, especially when shown in
 Potlatch2's drop down menu with no explanation. Much better would be
 access=illegal - please start a new thread if you would like to discuss
 this :-)








 ___
 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] Cycle lanes cycle tracks - my findings and a proposal

[Richard Mann]

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.comwrote:

 You have to keep in mind that most of the streets are in fact a
 collection of parallel features. Only at some points (junctions, ends)
 this might not be true. The proposed relation might(!) be a solution
 for some special cases (e.g. irregular steps), but for the rest this
 is unmanageable imo. Any solution should concentrate on the common and
 make it simple, but also allow to handle the exceptions - maybe with
 some extra effort. This proposed solution seems to concentrate on the
 exceptions.



+1. Streets are predominantly 1-d objects. Computers are a lot better at
unpacking stuff than repacking. Yes you can write intelligent algorithms to
do it (at least, I begin to see how you might do it...), but the dataset's
big enough as it is, without removing a bunch of useful constraints.

Now if we had an editor that displayed some parallel lines if you put in
cycleway=track, and maybe something similar on the standard rendering... A
fancy renderer might take further tags about the degree and nature of
separation into account, perhaps even interpolating between values on
nodes. That's all entirely extensible. A botched
lets-just-put-it-all-in-a-relation-and-hope-someone-writes-an-algorithm-to-decipher-it
is probably just creating data, and destroying information.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Another reset on roundabouts

[Richard Mann]

The distinction in the UK is between a roundabout and a gyratory.
Roundabouts can have signals, but they tend to be linked so that it flows,
and if you're going straight ahead, you won't normally stop once you're on
the roundabout. Roundabouts don't generally have buildings in the middle,
or pedestrian access to the middle (at grade).

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:

 On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
  On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  junction=roundabout should not care about right-of-way. Trying to
  enforce this in the map is going to be impossible anyway because it is
  such a technicality. And I'm not sure what value is added by inventing
  another tag for edge cases that differ only in handling of
  right-of-way.
 
  But what is a case where the only difference is in right-of-way?
 
  I don't see right-of-way as a rule so much as a guideline.  If you are
  going to call any roadway which is kind of circular in shape a
  roundabout, no matter how large, and no matter how complicated the
  intersections, then where do you draw the line?  Is the beltway around
  Washington DC a roundabout?

 The key word there, I think, is *intersections*.  A roundabout should
 be an intersection, not a bunch of separate intersections.  If you're
 going to expand it to the point where you have traffic lights or stop
 signs for people who are already in the roundabout, it's no longer a
 single intersection.

 ___
 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] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag

[Richard Mann]

If it's 4m, you will be able to see continuous wear on the verge where
people drive off the edge of the tarmac. At 4m there will only be wear for
occasional large vehicles (tractor tracks, typically). At 6m there's
usually a centre line.

I'd quite like some tags for these subtleties, but I wouldn't use the lanes
tag (so not lanes=1.5)

A few standard widths might not come amiss: maybe 3, 3.6, 4.2, 6?

Some of you may remember that the OS criteria used to be 14ft (4.2m).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag

[Richard Mann]

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.comwrote:

 But I think about adding a statement, that
 usually only on major roads or very complex junctions those lanes are
 actually mapped. Can we agree on this?


+1 Urban roads are going to be very messy if every little centre turning
lane gets tagged.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wikifiddling, surface=cobblestone vs. sett paving_stones

[Richard Mann]

The problem is that setts are often referred to as cobbles, in common
parlance. If someone tags something as cobbles, I'd probably reckon they
were actually setts 99% of the time.

http://g.co/maps/bnndk The stuff in the road is cobbles; in the gutter and
on the pavements is setts.

So having a clear setts/cobbles (illustrated) distinction is good, but I
wouldn't rely on it. A warning to data users is probably wise.

Richard

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Jonathan Bennett 
openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote:

 On 20/02/2012 12:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

 Is it consensus to use sett instead of cobblestones for most of
 the stone pavings of roads? Taginfo shows only 177 objects tagged with
 sett.


  How should we deal with this? Maybe there was indeed a definition gap
 to distinguish on a finer granularity between different pavings?


 You shouldn't be using sett instead of cobblestones in any case,
 because they're not the same thing. My understanding is that cobblestones
 are irregular stones, used in pretty much their natural state for paving,
 whereas setts are specifically shaped, brick-sized pieces of rock (granite
 in the case of Guildford High Street, where I live) that form a smoother
 surface (but not as smooth as a metalled road).

 Paving stones, I'd venture, are another class again, where they can either
 genuinely be flat stones or cast material, but larger than setts or
 cobblestones, perhaps over 50cm.

 In summary: I believe the three classes to be separate and
 non-overlapping. So I disagree with the wiki edit made, but do think
 surface=sett is a sensible, verifiable tag.


 Jonathan.

 __**_
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagginghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] Wikifiddling, surface=cobblestone vs. sett paving_stones

[Richard Mann]

Probably better to introduce a new value to mean
yes-they-really-are-cobbles. Perhaps cobbles (as opposed to cobblestone)

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:

 Jonathan Bennett wrote:
  In summary: I believe the three classes to be separate and
  non-overlapping. So I disagree with the wiki edit made, but do think
  surface=sett is a sensible, verifiable tag.

 A sett (a word I've never heard before) is apparently colloquially
 called cobblestone. To the extent that even the image in the Wikipedia
 article about sett is called Cobblestones_01.jpg.

 We cannot just introduce a new surface value sett: That would change the
 definition of surface=cobblestone to no longer include sett surfaces. But
 almost all surface=cobblestone currently in the database have actually a
 sett surface, and according to the wiki documentation until now, this was
 the expected way to tag them - it was using a sett surface as an
 illustration for the meaning of surface=cobblestone.

 Tobias


 __**_
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagginghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] Named railway locations

[Richard Mann]

Well the British railway speak for such locations would probably be TRUST
reporting point or timing point. They are typically junctions, crossovers
or passing places (if there's no station). So I'm not sure there's a
public term available.

Maybe railway=location?

Richard

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Harald Kliems kli...@gmail.com wrote:

 We recently had a discussion on the talk-ca list about named railway
 locations that had been tagged as railway=station (see this thread).
 It was proposed to take the discussion to the tagging list in order to
 come to a consensus that's consistent and in line with other
 countries.

 To quickly summarize the issue: there are a lot of railway=station
 tags in places where there is no train station. Instead, they are what
 has been described as follows:

   FYI, I work for a railway for what it's worth. Pretty much every 10
  miles or so is a named location. I wouldn't tag it as a station but a
  POI seems appropriate to me as a railroader :-) Rail fans would also use
  the POI as reference points for photography and video.
 
Trains communicating with the dispatcher use these locations to
  identify their location.

 Us railway folks, these name POI are part of our general
 conversation,
  such as 73 is approaching Ridout.

  The names are chosen  using a similar process as say bridge
 names. The
  could refer to a respected employee or as a memorial to an employee who
  died while on duty. Around Ingersoll are Blain and Lihou who where
  engineers who died in a head on train collision.

 Two examples in Montreal can be seen here (Cape and Bridge)
 http://osm.org/go/cIrPCS5Q

 The various pages on railway tagging don't seem to provide an obvious
 tag for this situation, presumable because these named points don't
 exist in many other countries. It has been suggested to use the
 generic place=locality tag, but that doesn't seem to be ideal to me.

 Does anyone have suggestions on how to tag?

  Harald.

 --
 Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
 Key-ID: 0x199DC50F

 ___
 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] Named railway locations

[Richard Mann]

Yes, I remember *Adlestrop* ...

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:

 Richard Mann wrote:
  Maybe railway=location?

 Or even railway=locality, to tie in with the well-established
 place=locality
 for tagging a 'lieu-dit'.

 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieu-dit: The name usually refers to some
 characteristic of the place, its former use, a past event, etc.)

 cheers
 Richard



 --
 View this message in context:
 http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Named-railway-locations-tp5499478p5499546.html
 Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Amenity parking

[Richard Mann]

access=private is a modifying tag - if it is used in conjuction with an
amenity=parking area then it means that the parking is private (and nothing
else). I guess you could use something more specific like parking=private,
but there are 1000s of uses of access=private in this context, so it's
unlikely to catch on.

access tags normally modify ways (as opposed to areas), and for routing
purposes you need to have ways across the land if the data is to be usable
(just around the periphery if there's no obvious paths across the middle).
So put in appropriate access tags (eg access=private+foot=yes) on the ways.

If the area is (for example) a field on which a handful of people have
parking rights, and never occupy more than a fraction of it, I'd have said
just mark a small parking area where they're most likely to park, and don't
put parking tags on the field as a whole.

Richard

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 23:51, Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.comwrote:

 2012/1/11 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
  2012/1/11 Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com:
  I will gladly change my amenity=parking to what ever you decide. Does
  access=private work? The parking lots aren't private it's just that
  you can't park there.
 
 
  access=private doesn't say that something is private, it means that
  the right to access is private / given on an individual basis. Current
  tagging practice (access=private AFAIK, also rendered differently in
  Mapnik) does indeed seem wrong if you can access the parking (e.g. you
  can cross it on foot or bike) but cannot park there.

 Er, sorry? It seems to me that access=private is exactly what is
 needed, and your own definition falls into place easily: the stall is
 phisically accessible, but the right to access is private. The fact
 that you can walk on it is irrelevant: actually, since it's a parking,
 it should be interdicted from traffic (ok, walking is not a good
 example, but for example you shouldn't drive your car through it)


 This is IMHO.

 To be clear I'm talking about huge parking lots in suburbs which for all
 practical reasons are public land if you ask the people living around it.
 There is a big problem with adding PRIVATE PROPERTY to something like that
 just because you can't park your car there without a parking permit.

 access seems to mean that access is private or permissive.




 ___
 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] Amenity parking

[Richard Mann]

I'd have called it amenity=parking+access=private and then added a way
through the area for pedestrians (tagging individual parking aisles,
probably, plus any footway links to connect it up)

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Simone Saviolo
simone.savi...@gmail.comwrote:

 2012/1/11 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
  2012/1/11 Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com:
  I will gladly change my amenity=parking to what ever you decide. Does
  access=private work? The parking lots aren't private it's just that
  you can't park there.
 
 
  access=private doesn't say that something is private, it means that
  the right to access is private / given on an individual basis. Current
  tagging practice (access=private AFAIK, also rendered differently in
  Mapnik) does indeed seem wrong if you can access the parking (e.g. you
  can cross it on foot or bike) but cannot park there.

 Er, sorry? It seems to me that access=private is exactly what is
 needed, and your own definition falls into place easily: the stall is
 phisically accessible, but the right to access is private. The fact
 that you can walk on it is irrelevant: actually, since it's a parking,
 it should be interdicted from traffic (ok, walking is not a good
 example, but for example you shouldn't drive your car through it).

  cheers,
  Martin

 Ciao,

 Simone

 ___
 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] Bus pullout?

[Richard Mann]

A bus bay means
1) less sidewalk (usually)
2) buses pulling out and hitting overtaking cyclists
3) buses swinging their noses over the edge of the pavement threatening
unwary passengers
4) buses stopping further from the kerb because they've misjudged it, so
you can't step from the kerb to the bus
5) more road maintenance cost (or lower quality)
6) buses lose advantage over cars (the reasonableness of this depends on
how long the bus stops, obvs)

Other than that, they're a great idea.

Richard

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 09:11 +, Richard Mann wrote:

  But I haven't tagged any (might be something to do with the negative
  value I associate with them...)

 Curious what negative value this is?

 ___
 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] Bus pullout?

[Richard Mann]

Paul asked; I answered out of courtesy. It was off-topic so I'm not going
to discuss further.

Richard

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 2011/12/7 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com:
  A bus bay means
  1) less sidewalk (usually)


 in here usually not. The space is usually taken from lateral parking
 space, not from the sidewalk.


  2) buses pulling out and hitting overtaking cyclists


 pulling out busses do have the right of way (given you not already
 started to overtake them before they are setting the turn indicator),
 at least in here


  3) buses swinging their noses over the edge of the pavement threatening
  unwary passengers


 where are you living?


  4) buses stopping further from the kerb because they've misjudged it, so
 you
  can't step from the kerb to the bus


 blame the driver, what has this to do with mapping? Is this better
 without bus bays?


  5) more road maintenance cost (or lower quality)


 why that? And in which sense are we interested in road maintenance
 costs in OSM?


  6) buses lose advantage over cars (the reasonableness of this depends on
 how
  long the bus stops, obvs)


 in here the biggest advantage from taking a bus is that you won't
 loose lots of time looking for a parking lot when you arrive, but I
 can't see why a bus bay is actually a disadvantage for the bus. Don't
 buses have the right of way (in your area), when pulling out from a
 bus bay/stop?

 cheers,
 Martin

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Bus pullout?

[Richard Mann]

They are called bus bays in EN-GB.

I'd probably add a suitable tag (bay=yes, maybe) to the highway=bus_stop
node (and maybe to a node on the road on the lines of busway:right=bay or
some such).

But I haven't tagged any (might be something to do with the negative value
I associate with them...)

Richard

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:

 Is there a way to tag a bus pullout that may or may not currently be
 served by buses? Here's an example of what I mean: http://g.co/maps/9abbu

 __**_
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagginghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*

[Richard Mann]

I think you meant might be advised rather than need

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:

 If entrance=* is being used at all, you need to change your rendering to
 support it, whether or not existing building=entrances are being changed.

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

Re: [Tagging] sidewalk tag when mapped as a separate way

[Richard Mann]

Put the sidewalk tag on the road, and put some indicator on the
footway (I use adjacent=yes) that it's also covered by tagging on the
adjacent way.

The worst that happens is some router gets two parallel links in their
network, or that some super-clever algorithm identifies two parallel
sidewalks but doesn't have the wit to work out that they're identical.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb

[Richard Mann]

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 3:07 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
 http://www.kohl-ratingen.de/images/kohl-markierung/z.299.jpg

That's a dropped kerb, which is probably semantically equivalent to
lowered. But dropped is the standard en-gb term.

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=unclassified

[Richard Mann]

When I had a go at re-writing it, I tried to give some clarity on the
boundaries with adjacent values (residential, tertiary, track) -
without being too country-specific. I'm not sure that the deleted
sentence is particularly helpful, so I'd leave it out on the
keep-it-simple principle.

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=unclassified

[Richard Mann]

The problem is that it ain't that simple. Quite a lot of unclassifieds
don't go anywhere much, and aren't really part of the connected
network. An unclassified isn't necessarily higher in the hierarchy
than a residential.

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:51 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
 2011/7/27 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com:
 When I had a go at re-writing it, I tried to give some clarity on the
 boundaries with adjacent values (residential, tertiary, track) -


 Yes, but on the other hand deleting the cited part changed the
 definition and made it more difficult to differentiate between
 unclassified and residential. IMHO lower end of the interconnection
 grid network was very clear, but the current state is a longish and
 almost unstructured page of text, even including some country specific
 hints, and a very general short description: Public access road,
 non-residential.

 I think that every feature should have a clear definition in 1 (max.
 3) sentence(s). All the examples and other particularities can go in
 different paragraphs, but should not be required to understand the
 point.

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Unclassified

 cheers,
 Martin

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


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

Re: [Tagging] Road center style

[Richard Mann]

I would be glad if it was revived. As we get ever more detailed
imagery, people are starting to want to split roads in two at every
intersection and it makes for a right mess: I'd prefer if there was a
more elegant way of handling divided roads in towns.

The routing stuff should be smothered - it's a lot easier to do turn
restrictions now that P2 has a facility for it, so it isn't necessary.

Richard

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 5:21 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hmmm. That seems a little complicated, combining separation between
 directions with passing restrictions, and concentrates mostly on physical
 dividers. I've started using center_turn_lane=yes, but have run into

 Whee, you're right. I think that routing stuff got added on after I
 lost interest in it. All I wanted was a way to tag different kinds of
 medians, particularly to distinguish between physical barriers and
 painted lines.

 Steve

 ___
 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb

[Richard Mann]

kerb=flush would mean that there is a kerbstone (with all the
potential for localised puddling, misalignment, settling etc), whereas
kerb=no would mean there's a continuous tarmac surface - the latter
occurs either if someone is trying to make a very smooth transition
between the road and a cycle track, or if the pavement/sidewalk is
only delineated by a painted line (you get this on narrow village
roads, sometimes)

the normal UK term for a lowered kerb is dropped

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

Re: [Tagging] Missing only_u_turn?

[Richard Mann]

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:40 AM, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 22 June 2011 15:13, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
 I assumed he meant only U-turn and forward - ie no left or right
 turns.  I have seen that restriction once at a t-junction, where the
 side street can enter the main road in either direction, but the main
 road can't exit onto it across the other lane of traffic.  Why they
 allowed a U-turn I couldn't figure out, though.

That'd be a no-left and a no-right (ie two relations).

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb

[Richard Mann]

Urban normal in the UK is 100-120mm. Raised (at eg bus stops) is about 160-200mm

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com wrote:
 On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:

 2011-06-22 Josh Doe:
  I think we're definitely going for functional. The original author used
  those height ranges, and I'm not sure if there's any value to mention
  something specific like 16cm, so I changed it to ~0cm for flush, ~3cm
  for lowered, and 3cm for raised. I've edited the proposal to that
  effect.

 I agree with your decision to go for functional classification. However,
 I just noticed that it seems there isn't a value for standard kerbs?
 (One that is neither raised nor lowered?)

 Ah, I think this may be a regional distinction, and why I was confused about
 the mention of standard kerbs. Standard kerbs to my US (specifically
 east coast) context are in fact raised, i.e. they are somewhere between 6-8
 inches (15-20cm). If the German/British/Europe standard kerb is something
 important to define (especially for a functional reason), then we can do so,
 but should avoid the word standard since that will means something
 different at least between the US and other parts of the world. Likewise, if
 raised means something particular to Europeans then perhaps we can change
 that word to something more neutral.

 So my question is should we have just flush/lowered/rolled/raised (in order
 of increasing inaccessibility, and perhaps changing raised to something
 else), or do we need flush/lowered/rolled/European standard/raised?

 Thanks,
 -Josh

 ___
 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] access=avoid

[Richard Mann]

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:52 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote...

Well done Paul, for not rising to the bait.

Can we keep discussions productive please.

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

Re: [Tagging] access=avoid

[Richard Mann]

That'll be a very big boat

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:57 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
 2011/6/14 Sander Deryckere sander...@gmail.com:
 It's Paul Johnson who introduced the tag, not Nathan.

 Your comment is right, but you should point it to Paul Johnson instead.


 yes, I saw this, he kept it, so they're sitting in the same boat ;-)

 Cheers,
 Martin

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


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

Re: [Tagging] Cutting on only one side?

[Richard Mann]

cutting:left=yes

Rendering is, as ever, another matter.

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
 Is there a way to tag a cutting that's only on one side of the feature? This
 appears to be an example:
 http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_dXEL7_-VClA/TOnGKjrOgDI/A3Q/dGJZk3ZhETM/s1600/090417_KentuckyHighway-4.JPG

 ___
 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] Requirements for proposals and voting to be valid

[Richard Mann]

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote:
 The wiki should be a place to document the various parts of OSM, and for
 things like software it can be useful. For tags, however, it is getting
 steadily more and more complex and confusing and less and less beneficial.

I think we need to set a wiki principle: it should be descriptive. If
there are different views then we should describe them, with an
objective indication of relative popularity. Deleting someone's views
because you disagree is vandalism.

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

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] sidewalks and trails

[Richard Mann]

Relations between adjacent ways - yuk - proximity tests between
near-parallel ways are computationally horrible. It isn't adequate to
just say the two are related and hope the data consumer will sort out
the mess. The cycleway key is applied to the road to say what the
cycle facility is on that corridor (so I use cycleway:left=track to
say there's legitimate cycle access on the adjacent sidewalk, and
lcn:left=track to indicate it's part of a local cycle network).

Using highway=path just because it's shared-use - yuk. The norm in the
UK is to use whichever of footway/cycleway feels right (basically
cycleway if it's nice and wide, and bikes are allowed, footway if it's
a bit narrow or bikes aren't allowed), and set access tags
(bicycle=yes) if the default for the highway value isn't appropriate.
highway=path is better left for the countryside. IMO - others
disagree.

Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Key:designation)

[Richard Mann]

On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 11:29 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
 On 03/02/2011 05:01 PM, Richard Mann wrote:

 I reckon the voting is running at about 24000  a handful for, and a
 handful against.

 Oh, come on.  If you’re going to count every element tagged with
 designation=* as a “vote for” you really ought to count every element *not*
 tagged with designation=* as a vote against.  Both cases are obviously
 silly.

 At best you could count the number of users who have applied this tag using
 the values described on the page, which is guaranteed to be less than 24000.


I was being flippant. I don't think it's been subject to any imports,
so user numbers are probably in the hundreds, at least. I don't think
taginfo summarises the user data any more, alas.

The general point I was making was that the wiki/RFC/voting system can
be used intelligently, if you want to. If someone votes no and
provides a killer argument, I would accept that overrules any number
of yes votes. It's the same as any form of committee decision - the
result might be a bit designed by a committee, but at least the
rough edges have been smoothed (oops - probably not the right word).

Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Key:designation)

[Richard Mann]

On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
 Yes, I know rewriting a page at this stage isn't the Done Thing. So sue me.

Wikifiddler, first class.

;)

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Key:designation)

[Richard Mann]

On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
 Tordanik wrote:
 I'm still not quite sure whether I understand what designation=*
 is supposed to do.

 It's to record the legal status, or designation, of a given object - whether
 that object be a footpath, a waterway, or whatever.

 Having now looked at the wiki voting page I'm afraid the description given
 there is spectacularly bad. :( I'll rewrite it tomorrow morning (UK time).

During the RFC, the only comments concerned it's use for recording
path types in England and Wales. No great desire was expressed for
it's use for other purposes, so I left it as largely for the EW
purpose, but with the proviso that others could start using it for
other purposes if it met a locally-agreed need (or I guess if you just
feel like it).

Nop added the German values, though they haven't been taken up by the
German community (which makes his negative vote a bit cheeky, really,
but such is life). My preliminary conclusion is that the suggested
German values will simply be dropped, post-vote.

I reckon the voting is running at about 24000  a handful for, and a
handful against. Comments alongside the votes are more useful than the
votes, really.

The wiki/RFC/voting process is good for flushing out issues: it's
better than just sitting in ignorance of what others think.

Richard

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Key:designation)

[Richard Mann]

24000 uses so far, so I guess it's time to put it to a vote:

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

Richard

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