Re: [Tagging] route=foot
Huh. And here in Australia (well, at least amongst the people I know) the difference between a hike and any other form of walking is strictly whether it's more than one day. A daywalk is, well, a day or less, and a hike is two or more days. But that doesn't cause me any concerns using route=hiking. On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 13:06 +0100, Marc Gemis wrote: In Belgium and The Netherlands we have tagged all the regional walking networks as foot. With this system of walking networks it is possible to plan walks as short as 2-3 km and and long as a few hundred kilometers. For me the short walks are no hikes, but that might be the wrong interpretation. We had some discussion about this (foot vs hiking) a few years ago. We decided to stay with foot because that was used in The Netherlands and Germany. And because some of those networks cross the border, it did look appropriate to change it only in Belgium. In UK English, the language of OSM, hike has extreme connotations. Hiking implies a route over extreme ground and a forced high pace. If I was to describe one of my ramblers walks as 'a hike' I would not get many takers. US English uses the term hike to describe a walk in the countryside, which is the usage I suspect Fly is using. Having done a Overpass Turbo query on route=foot locally, it returns the Shropshire Way and Severn Way. I would not use the term hike to describe either, route=foot is absolutely appropriate. Phil (trigpoint) ___ 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] man_made=adit_entrance
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: And tags for other mine entrance types? Would it not be better to have man_made=mine_entrance type=adit etc I'm a native speaker of English and I only came across the word adit relatively recently. To me it seems obscure and technical - but I understand that in other parts of the world it's common. Would man_made=mine_entrance be offensive to people who do use the word 'adit'? Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Topographic place names
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:24 PM, bulwersator bulwersa...@zoho.com wrote: With mountain ranges there would be a major problem where node should be placed. Carpathian Mountains cover 190 000 km² - good luck with edit wars where node should be placed. It'd be a way, not a node. And maybe there are strong guidelines somewhere for defining its exact location? Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Topographic place names
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:50 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: the question should be: how to map a mountain range, as it seems we can't represent these kind of features (very big, blurry borders, not mappable in high zoom levels) well in our data model. That's the main reason why we don't have these. There are also other features similar to a mountain range (a forest as name for a region, including non-forest areas, lowlands / plains, desert, ...). Actually we don't have tags or a way to map to most of these geographic features and regions besides the atomic components (like peaks). Thanks, I was having trouble articulating what the issue is. Tags like landuse=* or natural=* often work well for mapping a physical property with a sharp border - but not so well when we're describing a human abstraction (a mountain range is really an abstraction over a number of individual mountains, and it's up to some sort of geologists' consensus where it begins and ends). IMHO it would be nice to have an alternative dataset in lower zoomlevels for geographic regions and extended/blurry features, something like a set of shapefiles with translations into all languages we can provide, something similar to what natural earth data provides, but distributed and modified/translated by us, not just English and for higher zoom levels (i.e. more detailed) than what NE has. Still we could start with their geographic regions dataset and refine it, as All versions of *Natural Earth* raster + vector map data found on this website are in the public domain. Are you saying that this kind of data is a poor fit for OSM itself? if you don't know what it is (i.e. generic feature) place=locality seems perfectly fitting, otherwise be more precise and tag or subtag it as what it is (e.g. a cluster of rocks). My issue with place=locality is that the place=* are basically for human habitation, whereas these can occur in completely uninhabited places. As a cartographer, I'd want to label these using topographic styling (ie, similar to how I'd show natural=peak, natural=saddle), and not at all similar to place=hamlet Hence my desire for something like natural=feature - a catch-all, label any natural feature. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Topographic place names
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Andrew Errington erringt...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 19:26:55 Steve Bennett wrote:Yes please! I just added some hiking trails and had a named spur[1] that I wanted to record. I used place=locality, but it seems wrong for the same reasons you give. I'd suggest that since we have natural=peak, and natural=saddle we should have natural=spur. natural=ridge, if it's not already used, should be for ridges. natural=ridge is widely used (~8000) for ridges: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=ridge There's also natural=arrete (273): http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=arete Remarkably, there is not a single use of natural=spur. Maybe people just tag them as ridges? Could use natural=ridge, ridge=spur to be more precise perhaps. Perhaps we could also have natural=feature for a general named 'thing' that is visible and well known. 174 examples already: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=feature#overview Taginfo doesn't seem to show any other information on them - I'd like to see how else they're being used. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Topographic place names
Hi all, My cycletouring map, http://cycletour.org, has been slowly morphing into a general topographic map[1]. One thing that's missing, though, is names for topographic features like mountain ranges, spurs, and general areas. Looking at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:En:Key:natural, there seem to be some gaps. - how do you tag a mountain range? That is, not a single ridge or mountain, but a line of mountains, potentially hundreds or even thousands of kilometres long - how do you tag a spur? In Australia, many spurs are named, (Champion spur, Son of a bitch spur). natural=ridge perhaps? - how do you name a generic geographic feature, like a cluster of rocks (Mushroom rocks) or a vague features like the blowhole, something hollow. The tags are all very specific and seem to imply the ability to render it somehow other than using words. (I have ended up using place=locality for some of these but it doesn't seem right.) Steve [1] See this area for instance: http://bit.ly/1gVmycD ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 3:09 AM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: Hey I wonder if it is useful to tag bicycle=dismount on ways. At least in Germany there is no official traffic sign despite of the existence of some. You are allowed to push your bike on every footway/pedestrian plus ways with vehicle=no. E.g. it is useless. Either you are allowed to ride (bicycle=yes/designated) or not (bicycle=no or vehicle=no) I can understand if it is used together with barrier on nodes. How is the situation in other countries ? In Australia, sometimes you see the sign cyclists dismount. Usually, it's the rather clueless designation of some council worker who is trying to avoid a lawsuit in places like a bike path crossing a train track, or a wooden boardwalk. (Effectively, it means caution.) I'd be inclined to map it, indicating this is what the sign said. As a routing engine, I'd probably treat it as a hint that a bike will be going slower than normal, but still faster than walking. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Ranger Station Tag Update (too anglo-centric)?
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.dewrote: I didn't read the documentation for the ranger station tag, but from my understanding of language (which is often in fact used for tagging in the real osm world) a ranger station does not have to be a visitor centre and the other way around: a visitor centre does not have to be a ranger station. There's a balance between a single tag accurately and precisely capturing a specific real world phenomenon, and maintaining a relatively small and useful vocabulary of tags. I think it makes sense to limit the number of top-level tags, and to instead capture those fine details in secondary tags. If you think a visitor centre is too different from a ranger station, is there some other broader concept that could include ranger stations and things like it? What other equivalents exist in other countries? (In Australia, national park budgets are so low I can barely think of any that have manned visitor centres, let alone ranger stations where the public is welcome to drop in. The rangers are usually so overworked they don't have time to hang around base chatting with visitors. Occasionally there is a kind of ranger hut where the ranger does desk work, but they don't really provide any services to the public there.) Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Ranger Station Tag Update (too anglo-centric)?
Could this have been less anglo-centric with amenity=official_park_police_museum_information_permit_center or amenity=official_park_visitor_services building=yes rather than amenity=ranger_station building=yes Hmm, amenity=ranger_station is kind of gross - it's so specific to a particular culture. Something like amenity=visitor_centre could have been a lot more generically useful. (With potentially a visitor_centre=ranger_station for applications that want to be certain they're dealing specifically with Ranger Stations.) Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bridleway/hiking trail/bike track tags
Primarily a horse trail (not so good for cycling or walking): highway=bridleway Primarily a hiking trail: highway=path Primarily a mountain biking trail: highway=path, mtb=yes (maybe foot=no) Primarily a normal bike path: highway=cycleway, foot=yes (And one hundred other opinions. :)) Adding route relations also helps different kinds of renderers show the right kind of trails to the right kinds of users. Steve On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 4:34 AM, doug brown dougc...@hotmail.com wrote: I wish to map the trails in a state park, many of which are multiple use horse trails, hiking trails, and mountain biking trails. What tagging scheme would be appropriate for these trails? ___ 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] Open of discussion on operational_status (part of life cycle with disused/abandoned/demolished)
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: This leads to a situation where a mapper is expected to, as he or she walks the streets, update every object in the database with yep, this is still there, I walked past it right now. Because just as a toilet could fall into disrepair, a shop could close or a house vanish, and what we currently do is we map this when we see it but we don't map yep the house was still there last Sunday. Attempting to do this would change the typical mapper workflow and the structure of our data drastically. I know it's a slippery slope argument, and you're only proposing to do this for a narrow subset of things - I just wanted to point out that verification mapping is not something we do currently. I don't think the situation you describe arises at all. There is never any onus on any mapper to add extra redundant details - and it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise. An example is surface=asphalt. It's indeed the default. And in most parts of the world, there's no need to map it - and the fact that this tag exists doesn't make any of the implications you suggest come true. But in other parts of the world, it's *not* the default, so it's useful to map it. And in some places (eg, the countryside in my region), there really isn't a default, so it's best to explicitly tag the surface of all roads. Similarly, in a part of the world where it's unusual for, say, public telephones to actually be functional, it would make sense to tag that fact. And maybe, possibly, a mapper who sees that a public telephone has just been fixed might feel compelled to update the database to report that fact. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Open of discussion on operational_status (part of life cycle with disused/abandoned/demolished)
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: A telephone that is already tagged as functional would not normally be re-tagged as functional just to say yes, it still is. This means that the operational_status:date tag is superfluous, since it will always be the date of the changeset when the operational_status was last modified. But much easier for a data consumer to access, than attempting to apply the heuristic you suggest (processing changesets one by one until you find the latest one in which that tag was changed). Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bad tag: demolished=date: move to a) modify, b) strongly discourage
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:23 AM, Andrew Chadwick (lists) a.t.chadwick+li...@gmail.com wrote: iii. We should not in general be mapping features which are no longer physically relevant. Demolished items by their very nature are not relevant, and are potentially not verifiable. OSM a map of the the world as it is in reality, verifiably and currently, and not a historic map. If a demolished item is currently a brownfield site, it should be tagged as a new object with those details. If it's now a construction site, tag it as that. Mmmm...not quite. You're driving home from work. The bridge you normally drive over has been demolished. I'd say that's pretty physically relevant to you right now. And tomorrow. And probably for a few weeks. Maybe months. That bridge that was demolished 6 years ago? Not so much. It's up to local mappers to decide when to remove the object altogether. So, yeah - find a better way to mark objects as demolished. But no need to deprecate the notion altogether. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bridges redux
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Christopher Hoess caho...@gmail.com wrote: conflict-prevention measure. Demoting cantilever into that key, for instance, makes it impossible to express both cantilever and truss simultaneously, which presents a problem. Now, I've realized that bridge=covered is actually superfluous to bridge=yes; covered=yes; if that goes away, I might be mistaken, but I don't think this is quite true. A covered bridge is a very particular kind of historical structure. You wouldn't call a modern bridge where the footway happened to be sheltered from the elements a covered bridge. Anyway. Because it's almost always tagged on the lower, rather than the upper, way, I'm inclined to drop culvert entirely barring a strong argument to keep it. Yeah I thought so too, but if you look closer, the description here is very specifically of a type of bridge which is part culvert, part bridge. That is, a kind of brick structure which both has a tunnel for water to pass through, and directly supports the roadway. (Why we would want to specifically tag such a thing I'm less clear on...) Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bridges redux
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: I don't think non-programmers realise how easy it actually is to cope with tag variations, especially now that our tools are so sophisticated. For renderers, the standard is osm2pgsql+Mapnik/Tilemill: Carto makes it easy to assemble tagging rules, and osm2pgsql has (just!) got lua-based tag transformations. For routers, the standard is OSRM, and that too has lua-based tag transformations. Ok, I disagree. I'm a programmer, I'm pretty familiar with most of the tags, and I think the overhead in handling the immense variety of tags is a huge burden. It's a major learning curve for anyone trying to create a new generalist style, and is something we should be trying to reduce, not increase. Maybe one day there will be standardised web services (or Lua libraries) that condense these arrays of tags into something simpler - but I don't think it exists yet. The easier we make consuming OSM, the better maps, apps and general penetration we get. Optimising for data contributors makes sense - but should be done through editors like iD, not through messy, unwieldy tagging systems. I'm currently working on two rendering projects (one for bikes, one for boats) and one routing project (for bikes). Even coping with paths, the most complex tagging scheme that we have, is really easy with the lua+Carto combination; just 20 lines of code sorts out the complexities of access=, bicycle=, designation=, highway=, tracktype=, and surface= into the three rendering categories I want. And you bear almost no resemblance to a typical OSM data consumer. (Which I mean as a compliment.) So for the tiny number of renderers/routers which want to show bridge types differently - and my canal renderer will be one of them! - differentiating based on a single bridge= tag is plenty easy enough. For the majority of renderers/routers, it's a bridge will suffice. In this case, movable is such an obvious place to break the hierarchy down. It's very easy to imagine a non-specialist map would want to show movable bridges slightly differently. It's much harder to imagine many maps caring about the difference between bascules and drawbridges. Similarly, the bridge_type=* is a convenient place to get all the bridge nerdery out of the way of normal data consumers. (But I'd quibble: I'd promote floating and culvert as a fundamental kind of bridge, and demote trestle and cantilever as bridge_types). Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Disused/historic railway stations
Belatedly following up. I've updated the wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Railway_stations) with my understanding. Further changes of course welcome. Steve On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: All of these exist in taginfo, and have at least 10 hits: railway:historic=station_site (376) railway:historic=station (188) historic:railway=station (230) historic=station (10) historic=railway_station (37) historic=station_site (65) disused:railway=station (223) disused=station (64) (And of course very many railway=station, disused=yes combos, deprecated.) Would anyone like to speculate on which of these is preferred, and what the possible semantics are? I can kind of see two distinctions being made above: * historic vs disused: whether the fact of there being a station is actually of historical interest. (As opposed to a station built in the 1980s and shut down a couple of years ago, or never put into service or something.) * station vs station_site: whether there are any physical remains to see. Also, anyone know which renderers/styles support which? Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] railway=abandoned + highway=cycleway (was: [OSM-talk-be] Abandoned Railways / cycleways)
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 1:38 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Steve Bennett wrote: Disadvantages - tag clashes, particularly name= - is this the name of the bike path, or of the former train line? Use relations! (did I really say that?) Well, yeah, use relations. But also: I recently helped run a 4 session course on using TileMill to render OSM data, and it gave me a whole new perspective on how the average punter consumes OSM data. Services like TileMill will probably mean a lot more people consuming OSM tags directly, and they'll probably look first to name=* on the way. (Consuming relations is much fiddlier...) Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] railway=abandoned + highway=cycleway (was: [OSM-talk-be] Abandoned Railways / cycleways)
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 4:19 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote: a) If the trail meanders a little from side to side (where the old railway would have just gone straight), I match the way to the trail and trust that the semantics of this used to be a railway remain intact. Interesting. I can't think of any around here that do that - must be a cultural thing. b) If the trail diverges significantly from the old railway (to take a detour or something similar), I make a separate ways for the trail and old railway. An example is http://osm.org/go/ZZfEh16SR-- , where the trail was diverted to better cross the road or http://osm.org/go/ZZfEbCqE , where a mall was built in the path of the old railway. Cool, same here. Often happens where the rail bridge hasn't been restored. c) If there are still rails present, even if they definitely qualify as railway=abandoned, I use two ways, like http://osm.org/go/ZcJqM34YW- (not my work, but a decent example). Ah, I haven't seen many like that either. I like the end result. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] railway=abandoned + highway=cycleway
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 2:56 AM, Mike N nice...@att.net wrote: I would tend to keep it separate. Ideally, once it is a cycleway, it is a cycleway, and no longer an abandoned rail line. However I have learned that the abandoned rail lines should not be removed - they magically regrow, so I allow them to remain as they go through hillsides which have long been bulldozed down and through blocks of buildings which have long since replaced the railway. Kept separate, perhaps eventually the abandoned railways can be placed in a yet-to-be implemented historical database. Yep, this gets debated fairly often, it seems. The position I think I've ended up at is: - if there are physical traces, even if obscure (like a wide reservation alongside a street, or a slight embankment), then keep the railway=abandoned (or dismantled...not sure where that's up to) - if it's been built over, or has otherwise left no permanent trace on the landscape, it doesn't really belong in OSM, and could/should be moved to some other DB. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] railway=abandoned + highway=cycleway (was: [OSM-talk-be] Abandoned Railways / cycleways)
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 2:33 AM, André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.comwrote: From OSM-talk-be, with best regards. I put the questions before the replies ;-) On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 2:31 PM, André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com wrote: On 2013-04-13 23:02, Marc Gemis wrote : ... [ full messagehttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20130413/9baee2b4/attachment.html] So why two lines for an abandoned railway and the cycleway/footway on it ? Can't they be combined ? What to do is explained in the OSM wiki at ... Railwayshttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Railways Abandoned - The track has been removed and the line may have been reused or left to decay but is still clearly visible, either from the replacement infrastructure, or purely from a line of trees around an original cutting or embankment. Use railwayhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:railway =abandoned http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dabandoned. Where it has been reused as a cycle path then add highwayhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway =cycleway http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway. Consider adding a end_datehttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:end_date =* tag or more specifically a railway:end_datehttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:railway:end_dateaction=editredlink=1 =* tag. ... On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.comwrote: This means that the separate track should be removed for the 3 cases I listed, or not ? On 2013-04-14 23:11, Ben Laenen wrote : No, highway and cycleway should not share any ways. The only thing which may be acceptable is reusing the same nodes for two different ways, but only if they are on exactly the same location, which is actually quite rare. In quite a lot of cases there will be an offset, or it will diverge a little bit from the original railway track. Ben IMVHO, there is no railway if there are no rails, just a cycleway, just one way. And the intention may be to add information that there *was*** a railway there, the genesis. How then explain the wiki rules: railwayhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:railway =abandoned http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dabandoned and add highway http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway=cyclewayhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcyclewayto railway http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:railway=abandonedhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dabandoned instead of add ...???... to highwayhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway =cycleway http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway? Hi. I have a bit of an interest in rail trails. For those not well versed in them, these are where an old train line has been decommissioned, the rails have been pulled up, and a bike path runs where the trains used to. Usually the bike path has to diverge from the original alignment at certain points, where the land has been sold, or there's a bridge missing or something. So, there are few options for tagging: 1) A single way: railway=abandoned | highway=cycleway | name=Blah Rail Trail | surface=unpaved (usually with a cycle route relation as well) Advantages: - easy, can quickly convert a mapped train line into a rail trail - preserves the relationship between bike path and train line (eg, it's easy for a data consumer to pull out ways that are rail trails) - can use this information for rendering (eg, show the bike path in a special way when it's a rail trail, and don't render the train line directly) Disadvantages - tag clashes, particularly name= - is this the name of the bike path, or of the former train line? 2) Two ways, not sharing nodes Advantages: - keep information separate, retain everything about the train line Disadvantages: - messy for editing, rendering 3 Two ways, sharing nodes Advantages: - clean, most precise Disadvantages: - really bad for editing (hard to select between multiple colinear ways) - really bad for rendering (totally unpredictable which of the two ways will show, maybe they both will and will look terrible) Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - More Consistency in Railway Tagging
Hi, My view (I'll try to be concise). Being able to map both abstractions (like a schematic route) and physical details is a real problem. We need to be able to do both. The problem is not unique to rail. Use cases I've thought of: - roads (the road network, vs the individual bits of tarmac) - rail (the line vs the bits of track) - power (the power grid vs every individual power line) - traffic lights (this intersection has traffic lights vs each individual physical traffic light) - universities, hospitals, precincts (the campus as a whole, rather than the individual plots of land near each other) - bike parking (space for 20 bikes here vs 10 individual bike hoops) - car parking (space for 200 cars here vs several individual parking areas) - bike routes (the route follows the river, vs the two individual tracks on each bank) The point is: it's hard to make beautiful maps without mapping the abstractions. The physical detail looks ok at high zoom levels, but when you're zoomed out, it's messy - and it's really not easy to automatically generate these kinds of abstractions. It would be really good to have a single, consistent approach (including terminology) for this multiple levels of abstraction problem. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Historic huts
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote: We all know don't tag for the renderer mantra, repeating it is pointless. Or at least repeat it with the appropriate nuances: Don't use semantically incorrect tags to achieve a short term goal based on the current behaviour of one particular renderer. I'm pointing out that this is neither objectively an attraction nor a shelter, To the extent that tourist attractions objectively exist, most of these huts would qualify. Not sure I really want to argue this point though. Sure you can micro map it, but it's really too much work to tag it like this: I'm not sure how many of these huts there are - maybe 100 or so. It's not really a question of too much work - I'm happy to add whatever tags are necessary to make the data useful to the widest range of renderers etc. They're very small though, and usually outside the range of high quality imagery, so not likely to get mapped as areas. So you are probably going to end up with a one node solution, one could also call it disused:amenity=shelter shelter_type=weather_shelter tourism=attraction name=Smith hut (ruins) note=historic feature built blablabla see more about smith huts Yup. (Although probably not ruins and weather_shelter on the same hut...) My view is that many tags in OSM are either too specific or too general, alpine_hut/tucan crossing/pelican crossing/basc_shelter are to specific and tourism=attraction might be too general. Going after Steves description I'm not sure I would like to discover this when I went to find a hut. Yeah, that's the cultural expectation thing I referred to earlier. Australians do not expect to find staff huts when they go hiking, and interpret hut symbols on maps appropriately. (And it still confuses me every time I go hiking in Europe!) IMHO this is ok - semantics can vary slightly by region. No? Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] informal helipads for emergency use
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: i'm thinking both areas and nodes, with tagging that looks something like this: aeroway=helipad name=Fred's LZ access=no emergency=yes surface=grass does this seem reasonable? Seems reasonable to me, and useful. Maybe an operator=*? There are plenty of things less verifiable and less on the ground that get mapped - place=locality comes to mind. FWIW, I noticed recently that some 4wd maps I've been using have helipads marked, deep in national parks. I'm not sure if their intended use is for emergencies (evacuation points for bushfires, perhaps) or for loading/unloading supplies. In some areas they're pretty common - every 10km or so. Btw, some objections below complain that this would be mapping agreements with landholders. I think what's really being mapped is the *designation* by an emergency authority. Which makes this information exactly equivalent to any other designation that we include, including protected areas, road designations, land zones, etc. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 42, Issue 26 Historic huts
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 12:14 AM, St Niklaas st.nikl...@live.nl wrote: Since the hut is situated in Australia, why name it Alpine hut ? I always thought the Alps to be a European mountain range. In rural uninhabited areas there will be shelters like it all over the world. Yeah, that's a bit messy. In Australia Alps means the Australian Alps, and alpine generally means anything above a certain elevation (maybe 1300m or so). It has a much stronger association with geography and ecology than in Europe, where the association is cultural more than anything. So I think in Europe, alpine hut means a hut managed in the Alpine style (just like Alpine style mountaineering). Whereas in Australia, alpine hut means a hut found in the elevated Alpine region. You might be amused to know that in Victoria (the southeastern state I live in), we also have Pyrenees, but we don't use this term as much. I would rather name it neutral, fi (mountain) hut, cabin or lodge. Despite of the former use, for cattle, hunting or just for emergency like Alpine shelters in remote areas. In general I don't have a problem with using existing tags, even if the semantics in different regions vary. If it’s not maintained I would use abandoned instead of ruins. And yes without maintenance it would graduatedly become a ruin but that’s mainly the climate. Depends what you mean by maintained. I think they're generally maintained to their current, basic standard - if a wall fell down it would probably be put back up (but I don't know by whom). When huts burn down, they're even sometimes re-built. I should mention for completeness that we do also have genuine, modern huts that are intended for sleeping and eating in, which are weatherproof and have fireplaces, both in the Alpine region and in Tasmania. I'm not talking about those here, though. But I guess tagging the historic ones as amenity=shelter and the modern ones as amenity=wilderness_hut, shelter_type=basic_hut would cover the distinction. (We don't, afaik, have any staffed huts that provide hot meals - our hiking culture is about self-reliance etc.) Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Historic huts
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: looking at the tags maybe historic=wilderness_hut would be better (according to a proposal and the current wiki state, tourism=alpine_hut is for places where you can get food and accomodation, while tourism=wilderness_hut is for places that offer less comfort and are not usually managed, i.e. you bring what you need). Seems sensible. Just noticed the (contradictory) tag shelter_type=* (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shelter_type). Maybe the right thing is: amenity=shelter (you can take refuge from the rain here) shelter_type=weather_shelter (seems to describe the current role of the hut, only for emergencies) historic=wilderness_hut (historically, people slept and cooked here) tourism=attraction (to increase the chance that the historic=* actually renders as something...) Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Historic huts
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
Re: [Tagging] Footway as painted lane in highway
Hi Dave, It sounds essentially like a sidewalk - the only distinction being that it's not raised above the road surface. So why not just use footway=sidewalk? The footway=lane tag sounds nice, but it sounds like such a rare occurrence that it will never get much rendering/routing support. Maybe if you want to be really accurate: highway=whatever, footway=sidewalk, sidewalk=lane. Steve On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Hi I have a country lane where on one side has a dashed white line about 1.5m from the road edge a walking person symbol painted on the surface. It has no adjacent raised kerb footpath. What would be the best way to tag this? I'm thinking using footway=lane as a sub tag of 'highway=' in similar fashion to a cyclway. Is there a better way? 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] Public transport zones
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote: Let me try to clarify this. In case there are 2 companies stopping at a particular station, they both might have different properties for that stop: e.g. the names, reference numbers and zones. So the zone might depend on the company (both bus transportation), not on the form of transportation (bus vs. metro). This means that you need to group those attribute name, route_refs, refs, zones, etc.) per company. Agreed. As I mentioned before, my proposed scheme was: public_transport_zone:ptv=... public_transport_zone:vline=... (In Melbourne, the question of what to call them is a bit of a mess, as the branding changes every 5 years or so. I'm not sure what name to call the system of trains, buses and trams in Melbourne. Maybe it should be public_transport_zone:myki - that's the name of the ticketing system. Although again, to complicate matters, myki is supposedly being extended to regional transport real soon now...) You could either add the company name to the key, create a different node for each company or maybe use a relation. Martin wrote: I'd rather add 2 bus stops if all these attributes were differing... When there's a local bus stop at a regional bus station (including in the city centre), I think I'd do the same. They're not really the same bus stop, they're just very near each other. But for train stations, I feel differently. Regional trains stop at the same train station, at *the same platform* as local trains. (Each regional train typically stops at about 2-3 of the local stations on the way to/from the city centre.) So I think multiple nodes/areas would be wrong. Fortunately there is no such thing as regional trams :) Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Public transport zones
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Ronnie Soak chaoschaos0...@googlemail.com wrote: Fortunately there is no such thing as regional trams :) I learned very early on that there is no such thing as 'no such thing' in OSM. There are quite a few regional trams here in Germany alone: ... in Victoria. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Public transport zones
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: If you would prefer to use something generic referring to public transport it would be better to use something like public_transport_zone=* instead of just zone (but I'd prefer the approach proposed by Steve and the most used according to tag info: an explicit reference to the actual public transport provider / system / entity that created the zones in the key). Thanks for the replies. Thinking about it some more, maybe even more specific would be better: public_transport_zone:ptv=1 It's actually not beyond the bounds of possibility that we'd need to record a stop's zone within two different schemes. Several stations are on both the metro and regional networks. Apparently[1] our regional network has its own zone scheme, but there's some alignment between them (http://www.vline.com.au/fares-and-tickets/tickets/zoneb.html) So, the more I think about it, the more sense it seems to have: public_transport_zone:ptv=1+2 public_transport_zone:vline=B Ambiguous, common tags like 'zone' are fun for the people entering them, but a nightmare to compute over... Steve [1] I actually take regional transport a lot, but you don't seem to need to know this. You just tell them where you want to go and pay for the ticket... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Public transport zones
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:27 AM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote: Why is zone ambiguous on a bus_stop ? Or any more ambiguous than name ? The latter is also used for so many different things. These are deep semantic philosophy questions :) I'd point out that renderers can naively render name tags and produce something that is useful to the human consumer, but that's harder to do with PT zone tags. How important the zones are to the user varies a lot, so they'll probably only be used by a map product that is specific to that area anyway. I think. Maybe. When you need 2 different zones for metro and regional networks you will probably also want to group the routes (and other information) that fall under each zone system. In that case your keys (public_transport_zone:ptv/vline) are also not sufficient. So you will end up with a relation of type zone in which all the public transport stops are grouped. Sorry, I don't really follow that. Routes are relations. But there doesn't have to be a relation per zone...I don't think. You could render something useful simply by using zone properties on each station and piece of track, for instance. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Public transport zones
Hi all, I don't see any wiki documentation on public transport zones: that is, how to tag that station X is in zone 3, station Y is in zone 2, for systems where the price of a ticket depends on the zones travelled. For example, in Melbourne, there are two zones. Some train stations are in zone 1, some in 2, and some in the 1+2 overlap. Travelling from 1+2 to 2 only requires a zone 2 ticket, which is cheaper than a zone 1 ticket. Travelling from 1 to 2 requires a 12 ticket, which is the most expensive. Any recommended tags? Otherwise, I was thinking of something like: ptv:zone1=yes ptv:zone2=yes or maybe: ptv:zone=1 ptv:zone=1+2 (PTV is Public Transport Victoria...) Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wikidata tag
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: Tag operator:wikidata=Q38076 much better than operator=McDonalds ?! Are you all so disconnected from real contributors ? In addition to, not instead of. operator:wikidata=* is computable. Martin wrote: What is the relation between wikidata and wikipedia? Couldn't one get the wikidata-reference code by looking up the wikipedia article name? In this case it would be an unnecessary duplication of information to also have a wikidata tag. Wikidata is a source of structured information that will be used by Wikipedia etc, instead of just storing that information as unstructured text. If anything, the duplication would be to continue to have a Wikipedia tag. Wikipedia article names change, but presumably the Wikidata identifiers are stable, so you can always look up the current Wikipedia article name from it. But, really you can have both. Stable, widely used identifiers are great things to store, so if Wikidata will fill that role, we should link to it. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Proposition for a classification of path
Hi Balaitous, I think trying to classify paths using a type or grade is the wrong approach. The problem you're trying to solve is a real one: trying to distinguish important trails from less important ones. So why not just use that terminology: importance=5 (most important trails, probably a GR or something) importance=0 (insignificant little desire line, when there's a perfectly good track nearby, only the most pedantic map nerds would care about it). This strategy works. It's used by Google Maps (and exposed in Mapmaker) to assist with rendering and searching. Yes, it's a little bit subjective, but that's not the end of the world. Steve On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Balaitous balait...@mailoo.org wrote: Hi, I have wrote a proposition of classification for path. You can see it at : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/pathtype Balaitous ___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Tagging Live indoor music venues
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de wrote: But where's the border? In the following examples let all these facilities serve food and drinks. - an event location that has daily concerts and opens only for these events. - an event location that has daily concerts, but is open two hours before already and stays open for the rest of the night until everyone is gone. - an event location that has daily concerts in the evening but is open for lunch guests and the like around - a restaurant where occasionally life music is played by bands and so on (also known as concerts) - a restaurant where once in a year life music is played - a restaurant where all music comes from CD or mp3 - a restaurant that's entirely silent Yep, it's a spectrum. And we can argue endlessly about how to ontologise the world. IMHO to make progress we must consider actual uses of this data. Like...a map. A general purpose map. a) Would a general purpose map need to distinguish between a place which is primarily for food and a place which is primarily for music? Yes. b) Would a general purpose map need to distinguish between all the grades of music vs food above? No. c) Would a general purpose map need to distinguish between a music venue for rock music vs a music venue for classical music? Probably not. The purpose of our tagging scheme is to make life as easy as possible for general uses, and flexible enough for specialist uses. So if someone wants to make a music venues of Amsterdam map, they can tag amenity=music_venue, music_venue=concert_hall, music=classical 83%;light_opera 10%;rock 7% etc. Forcing people to make distinctions they lack information about, or don't care about, like the concert_hall/music_venue distinction, doesn't create good data. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] As the crow flies
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote: I feel dirty every time I do that, they are usually tagged as surface=mud.. :-) Basically I map them if there really is a path there and it seems usefull, even though it's clearly not a designated path. There definitely should be a convention for mapping footpads/goat tracks/desire lines. They're real things, they're verifiable, they're useful to map. highway=path; path=footpad perhaps? Separately there is the question of mapping router hints: suggested routes across open areas. I don't see a problem, in principle, with recording hints, as long as it's clear that that's all they are: foot=yes;_hint=yes perhaps. For the example at hand, I think standard practice is to connect the path to the edge of the parking lot, then make sure the other edge of the parking lot is connected to a highway=service... Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Re : As the crow flies
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 12:05 AM, Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com wrote: It happens often on mountain hiking routes. You have a signpost with the red-white sign of the Alpine Club that indicates the direction that you have to take across a meadow, for example. On the other side you have to find a corresponding sign. In between there may not be any visible path. In that case I would happily put a highway=path with surface=grass as a straight line across the meadow. IMHO that's a slightly different case - you also see it on beaches, and sometimes on rocky slopes. Basically there is a defined path, but its exact location is imprecise. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] As the crow flies
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 3:29 AM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: Footpath, not footpad. A footpad is a type of robber. If I saw a path marked as highway=footpad, it would suggest that the path is through a high-crime area, and you are likely to be mugged. Hmm, it must be a fairly uncommonly used Australian term. http://www.mthotham.com.au/mountain/summer/bushwalking_trails/ http://rollick.com.au/2012/the-australian-alps-walking-track/?utm_source=rssutm_medium=rssutm_campaign=the-australian-alps-walking-track Search for 'pad' in those pages. It has the meaning of an unmaintained, low usage walking track with a natural surface - whereas footpath implies much more maintenance, use of gravel etc. But yeah. Not a good word for an OSM tag if it's so obscure. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] As the crow flies
Hi Jo, On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote: pad is Dutch for path. (It also means toad in Dutch, but that is, of course, unrelated) In English I only knew pad as something to jot on. Like a notepad. Maybe you should add those other meanings to Wiktionary.org, Good suggestion. The basic meaning of a path was already present, deeply buried in http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pad . I've added another definition with more detail here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/footpad#Noun (Of course, since I'm not familiar with Wiktionary, I may have done something terribly wrong and will be reverted.) Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bicycle-no on motorways
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: I have had a quick look around Melbourne's motorway entrances on streetview and all I have looked at have a sign like this http://goo.gl/maps/0hC6c. Please can you point out one that does allow cyclists? Western Freeway: http://goo.gl/maps/XUWBF Hume Freeway: http://goo.gl/maps/Ze3qc I imagine that all the inter-city freeways allow it - just not within the perimeter of Melbourne itself maybe. You say Melbourne, I assume you mean Victoria? Allowing cities to have a separate highway code would be scarey. I expect to learn different rules when I drive in France, but not if I cross the border into Wales or Scotland. Err, that's what the signs are for... :) FWIW, there are slightly different rules in different states, like learners are limited to 80kph in NSW. Pretty sure the US is similar that way (I seem to recall that rules like right turn on red vary by state there). Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bicycle-no on motorways
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Around my area in the UK a user is presently adding bicycle=no to all motorways. There was a discussion a while back whether it that tag was implied for motorways. If I remember, it was claimed there were some places (not UK) that allowed bicycles. What was the consensus? There are definitely plenty of motorways around the world that allow bicycles. Where I am (Melbourne, Australia), they do by default - those that forbid them have signs saying so. IMHO, the approach the wiki says that in country X, Y is the default, therefore I don't need to tag it is excessively optimistic. Until there is an automated, easy mechanism for querying defaults (ie, a web service), it's much safer to tag explicitly. Also: yes, someone should make such a web service. Something like: get_default_for_way(way_id, key_name) = returns implicit tag value for the specified key_name, or if none can be deduced. get_default_for_way_by_tags(lat,lon, way_tags*, key_name) = returns implicit tag value for the specified key_name, if the way were subject to the jurisdiction at lat,lon, and had the given way_tags. For that matter, a whole range of interpretive services would be really useful and give renderers, editors and mappers some certainty. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Disused/historic railway stations
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Jonathan Bennett jonobenn...@gmail.com wrote: There was this discussion on talk-gb recently: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-January/014376.html Yeah, that's actually what prompted this discussion - I was pointed there by Andy Allan when I commented on some OpenCycleMap rendering peculiarities. I guess there is a complete continuum between there is an active train station here and there was once a train station here, but now there is nothing but a memory: railway=station (active) disused:railway=station (temporarily or recently inactive) railway:historic=station (a building that was formerly a station, and is now decrepit or used for a different purpose?) historic:railway=station (the same thing?) railway:historic=station_site (less than a building - maybe a marker, an old platform etc.) Do I have this right? How does one tag a station that is active, but also of great historical value? Greg wrote: But, I'd ask: how is the distinction between a station location and station building made now, for stations that are in service? Is it really railway=station vs building=train_station? I can't speak for others, but building=yes is the only building tag I ever use. Otherwise you get into a double tagging mess. So I put a railway=station node at the centre, and various building=yes and railway=platform ways as needed. (What is a station building technically, anyway... frequently stations have several buildings, etc.) Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Disused/historic railway stations
All of these exist in taginfo, and have at least 10 hits: railway:historic=station_site (376) railway:historic=station (188) historic:railway=station (230) historic=station (10) historic=railway_station (37) historic=station_site (65) disused:railway=station (223) disused=station (64) (And of course very many railway=station, disused=yes combos, deprecated.) Would anyone like to speculate on which of these is preferred, and what the possible semantics are? I can kind of see two distinctions being made above: * historic vs disused: whether the fact of there being a station is actually of historical interest. (As opposed to a station built in the 1980s and shut down a couple of years ago, or never put into service or something.) * station vs station_site: whether there are any physical remains to see. Also, anyone know which renderers/styles support which? Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Resorts
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 9:14 PM, Дмитрий Киселев dmitry.v.kise...@gmail.com wrote: I didn't like leisure=resort because in such case we will have leisure inside leisure in case of swimmingpools or pitch inside resort. IMHO, that is of absolutely no concern. There's no rule against key=tag1 being inside key=tag2. There are plenty of examples already, like amenity=parking inside amenity=school, landuse=cemetery inside landuse=residential etc. I didn't like tourism=hotel because 1) sometime resorts have 2 or more hotels inside (it may 2 different buildings new one and old and sometimes rooms in them sold separatly like two different hotels with common territory) 2) tourism=hotel already commonly used with different meaning. Yeah, I think hotel is wrong. tourism=resort sounds ok, subject to taginfo checks etc. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tunnels and bridges
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: By consumer, we all think about renderer (which is in my knowledge the only consumer looking for bridges in OSM atm). If you keep the bridge tag on the multiple highways, it is duplicating the information. And you don't fix the rendering issue because Mapnik will continue to draw one bridge per highway. I think any renderer that supports bridge relations will be smart enough to not also draw bridges on the highways. That is, if you have: highway=secondary bridge=yes layer=1 and a relation type=bridge and a bridge structure: man_made=bridge layer=1 Then any renderer that supports the relation and man_made=bridge will also not draw a bridge casing on the highway. (This is another example of why relations are much easier to process than using geospatial inferencing.) Steve To avoid the duplicate rendering, we need the bridge tag only on the polygon. But then, the rendering software will have to decide to draw the polygon itself. Or like today, draw some symbols along the line. In both cases, if you want a correct rendering (draw only one bridge) wihtout simply drawing the bridge polygon, the software will need some spatial requests anyway (to determin the group of highway segments that belong to the same bridge). 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] Tunnels and bridges
Hi, A few problems with the current approach: 1) When several things pass over the same bridge (eg, highway=secondary, highway=cycleway and highway=footway; or even just two independent lanes), renderers currently draw multiple bridges. 2) In areas where structures (buildings, paved areas, piers, riverbanks) are mapped precisely, bridges can't be - they're assumed to be the width of a standard road. 3) Bridges have distinct properties (name, height, etc) that can't be modelled properly because bridges don't actually exist. Tags like bridge_name are a kludge that don't work in cases like 1). These are all problems worth fixing. The solution seems to be: a) (Optional Create a relation that can group things together (type=bridge, or something more general if there's something good) b) (Optional) Create a closed way for the bridge itself, and tag it with a new tag (probably man_made=bridge would be best, because it would be better rendered by naive renderers than say building=bridge) c) (Optional) Add the bridge, if mapped, to the relation. It seems that every time this topic comes up, people want to go too far, and find general solutions (eg, solving both bridges and tunnels at once with across and over relation memberships), and start solving other problems too (eg, 3D buildings, not splitting ways when they pass over bridges...). It all gets complicated, and everyone gives up. But the solution above is pretty simple, and doesn't require breaking anything, and is totally optional. Map the way you do currently if you want, or also map the bridge separately if you want, or use a relation, or both. Steve On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Michael Kugelmann michaelk_...@gmx.de wrote: On 31.01.2013 12:06, Martin Vonwald wrote: I'm looking for some alternatives to map tunnels and bridges that contain several ways. I'm not really happy with the proposed relation -1 The current method is used and well established since years and for my point of view works fine. So I clearly dislike to change it. Just my 2 cents, Michael. ___ 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
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Balgofil balgo...@gmx.net wrote: 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? Judging from the description, shared_lane means that there are bike markings on the side of the road, but no full lane. We have something like that here: usually a bike symbol with a metre or so of dotted line next to it. 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. I take it you meant: Radfahrstreifen: cycleway=lane, cycleway:bicycle=designated Schutzstreifen: cycleway=lane, cycleway:bicycle=yes That seems sensible, and follows all the existing semantics. What backward-compatibility does it break? 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? The English is a bit unclear. As shared_lane... here means Used the same way as shared_lane. This seems like a pretty dumb tag: cycleway=sharrow has exactly the same meaning and function as cycleway=shared_lane except the marking on the ground happens to look like a chevron. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] POIs
Hi, On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: How would you connect POIs that have no address? Janko Logically, you would make the connection through some kind of permanent ID - not literally an address. I believe there have been various discussions about permanent IDs, but nothing has been implemented. Various people (myself included) have at times (mis)used objects' IDs in this way, but their stability is not guaranteed, and smart people who know what they're talking about recommend strongly against doing this. A large proportion of POIs are very relevant in that context, so presumably a new mechanism for generating maps involving at least two distinct data bases would be required? Yeah, you'd definitely need a service that combines the two. Or rather, services that combine the OSM database with various other non-OSM databases is useful ways. But I don't think that's such a big deal - if I understand correctly, data downloads are all handled through service calls currently: no one downloads a copy of the actual raw OSM database itself. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on-call bicycle ferry service
It sounds more like a water taxi. I'm not sure if that's a widely used term in Europe, but they exist on some rivers here - you call up, it comes and gets you. Not normally for bikes, but that still. Steve On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote: I would use for 'vaporetto' access=no foot=yes, for 'motonave' access=no foot=yes bicycle=yes. 'ferryboats' typical have some maxwight, maxheight or something like this. The problem with vehicle=no is, that there are several other things, which are no vehicles then passengers. Eg. a horse. maybe they would be better mapped as kind of buses than as ferries? At least the feeling when using them is very much that of a bus. If you don't like to map them as bus, what about water_bus? 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] Proposed feature - age groups in schools
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Andrew Errington erringt...@gmail.comwrote: I think 'state school' is more common. I don't think any English speaker would say 'government school'. https://www.google.com/search?q=government+school+site%3A.au I think the most neutral terms here (Australia) are goverment school and independent school (which also includes Catholic ones). We would understand the term state school to mean run by the state (in the sense of Victoria, NSW, etc). Fortunately, primary and secondary education here is indeed a state matter. Anyway, I second the call for OSM to focus on the geospatial aspects of the schools (could include catchment areas), and to store database of school information stuff in, well, a database of school information. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - age groups in schools
Hi, With the exception of pre-schools, aren't most schools defined by the year group, rather than age? Around a here, a primary school is Prep to Grade 6, and high school is Year 7 to Year 12. The actual ranges of kids varies a bit - some skip years, some repeat. I can't see much use for coding an age group. To be honest, I'm not sure I even see the value in coding year groups - what does year_group=7-12 tell you that Blah Blah High School doesn't? The use case of a parent choosing where to send their kids is such a rare one, and involves so much other research that I don't think having that factoid in OSM achieves much. Steve On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Svavar Kjarrval sva...@kjarrval.iswrote: Hi. The RFC process has started for my proposal to tag the age groups schools offer education for. More information is on the wiki page. The proposal is at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/age_group . With regards, Svavar Kjarrval ___ 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] piste:type=nordic but without underlying track
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Michael S mich...@elfu.de wrote: I think tagging areas with piste:type is more for downhill piste. Interesting - according to the wiki (key:piste:type): piste:type=nordic (way only, not area) A nordic/cross country ski trail (also see #Style or kind of grooming). The direction of the way should be the preferred/compulsory skiing direction (see piste:oneway below). Nordic pistes are circular ways if the first and the last point are the same and cannot be rendered as areas. Currently implemented in this way by Osmarender. piste:type=skitour (way or area) A recommended ski tour way or area that is generally used by many skiers during a season for the purpose of a nordic ascent and a downhill descent in the backcountry. Generally the descent is recommended near the ascent route for safety and terrain judgement and the descent is not mapped. To map an alternate descent, use piste:type=downhill with piste:grooming=backcountry. Implies piste:grooming=backcountry. Also defined in the wikipedia Ski touring. Rendered as area if first and last point are the same. If a circular way is needed, do not close the way (first and last point is not exactly the same). It's a pity they didn't just follow the area=yes/no convention. Do not close the way makes it sound like you should leave the end hanging free - but they probably mean to make it connect to a different way. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] piste:type=nordic but without underlying track
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Michael S mich...@elfu.de wrote: I wonder if it is the right way to tag this trail with higway=track, because a user which wants to use the map for non-skiing purposes may think there is a track where one can walk on, which is not the case. Sounds a lot like the winter road discussion a year or two ago. I don't recall the result, but you could probably find it in the archives. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sports_centre
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I'd like to hear from others - is sports_centre the usual tag for such establishments and if so, should we maybe downgrade the rendering to z16? I use leisure=sports_centre for things like bowls clubs, cricket clubs, football clubs, and conglomerations of the above (eg, a place that has tennis courts, cricket nets and a few other things). These are generally community facilities, rather than for-profit commercial facilities like gyms. (Of course, some of these probably have gyms inside somewhere.) I'm always tagging them as areas, not nodes. I'm not sure how I'd tag a gym - it hasn't come up. A tag like amenity=gym sounds more appropriate (IMHO a gym is an amenity much more than it's leisure, but it doesn't really matter). Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: Bad example. power=station is a mess because we have one tag with different interpretations/meanings. Here, it's the opposite : we have several tags for the same meaning. Consolidate the wiki, the presets and the database makes sense here. Consolidate, yes (drinking_water, drinkable = drinking_water). Migrate, no (drinking_water, drinkable = potable) Are there any examples of successful migrations in the recent past? Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Andrew Errington erringt...@gmail.com wrote: The language of OSM should be precise. If it's not then people start inventing tags that have similar, but imprecise meanings, which is exactly what has happened here. There's nothing more precise about 'potable' vs 'drinkable'. The suggestion of migrating drinkable=* to potable=* is just silly. In practice, it's very hard to 'migrate' any tag at all - even when there is a good reason, like the power=station mess. So let's just drop that idea. The only question remaining is whether to deprecate drinking_water=yes in favour of drinkable=yes (or vice versa). From my reading, they have slightly different meanings: drinkable=yes: when combined with another water source tag (like amenity=fountain), indicates that the water source is, indeed drinkable. drinking_water=yes: whether or not it's combined with any other tag (like tourism=alpine_hut), indicates that there is also drinking water available. You see the difference in the negative: drinkable=no: there is water but it's not drinkable drinking_water=no: maybe there is no water at all It's a slight difference in meaning, due to use in two different contexts. Of the two, I think drinking_water=yes is actually clearer and more useful. But because of the difficulties in migrating tags (changing tools, renderers, documentation, actual tags in the database, user behaviour...) I'm not sure it's even worth trying to fix. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Rails with trails
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:59 PM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote: As I understand it, NE2 was looking for a tagging scheme that would allow for searches to find trails on a railway grade. Searching for rail trails The use case is literally to find flattish bike paths? Searching for rail trails sounds like a pretty indirect way to do it. Especially since rails with trails/railside trails definitely aren't guaranteed a rail-friendly grade: the trail can go up and down the sides of cuttings, or down into a gully missing a rail bridge etc. There must be better ways to search for trails with a certain maximum grade? Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Rails with trails
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Masi Master masi-mas...@gmx.de wrote: Hi, Some month ago I tried to start a proposal for rail-trails: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/rail_trail I startet it with 'rail_trail=yes', but on talk-page some are against this, because highway=cycleway/footway + railway=abandoned are enough. Now it propose only the possible rendering. Yeah, I think the way you express it now is appropriate: just highway=cycleway, and railway=abandoned. (I don't necessarily agree with your description that rail trail = autobahn for bicycles. Often, around here at least, they're unpaved, and usually intended for tourism and recreation rather than commuting, for instance.) For the original question of how to tag a rail with trail (I've also heard the term railside trail), is it not sufficient to simply map the two ways separately? Example here: http://osm.org/go/uG4lkKxG?layers=C Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] That stupid 'quarter' tag has been approved
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: So? The wiki is the place for documenting how YOU map, not how other people SHOULD map. The only thing you SHOULDN'T do in the wiki is change the description of how other people map. C'mon. Clearly that's not true. The primary purpose of the wiki is to establish standards that everyone maps by. How can this really be in question? Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] The wiki (was Re: That stupid 'quarter' tag has been approved)
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:27 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: Well, it's to document standards, not to create them. If that's what you meant by establish then +1 to you too. The biggest problem the wiki has is that in some quarters editing it seems to have become an end in itself rather than a necessary evil to make sure that we're all singing off the same hymnsheet. Documenting obscuring procedures that almost no-one follows helps no-one, as does approving tags when only a few people could be bothered to vote. Again, I'm surprised this discussion needs to be had, but there is clearly very poor shared understanding of what the wiki is for and how to use it. It seems obvious to me that the wiki is to document *shared* understanding of mapping standards. You don't attempt to change policy simply by making an edit - but editing the wiki is also a legitimate part of building consensus for a change to policy. (Provided you do it right...) It's a pity that people who complain about wiki-fiddlers make no distinction between people who put time and effort into keeping the wiki up to date (and reflecting community norms), and, well, people who cause chaos by editing. There's also a regular problem with extrapolating from the local - some wiki editors state something that may be true in their local area, but simply isn't worldwide. Unless a comment of that sort is caveated with e.g. In the Duchy of Grand Fenwick... it's often confusing. Yep. But to be honest, I think we vastly overestimate the extent to which different communities actually map the same way. So every time some little issue like roundabouts comes up on the mailing lists there's this enormous shock: you do *what* over there??? (It's also very hard, if you're trying to document in the wiki, to know what to extent the practice you're describing is a local, regional, national, or international practice...) It got to be in its current state because someone (Monxton) rearranged a previous sprawling mess after discussion on talk-gb about how best to structure it - it hasn't been invented, imposed and ignored as a number of other pages have been. Sure. But just think how many discussions have ended up achieving nothing because of the dynamics of the mailing lists. Personally I find it pretty hard to stay interested after about 30 posts on a topic, and I'm probably not the only one. So the only people who stick around to the death are probably those with the most extreme views. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: That's exactly what I was thinking about. Any chance this will find its way into JOSM any time soon? Potlatch2 and JOSM are completely separate codebases, written in different languages (Flex/ActionScript vs Java). So, it wouldn't be trivial. But if any JOSM developers are interested, the code is all here: https://github.com/stevage/potlatch2/commits/magic_roundabout2 Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I am not aware of a plugin, but you can draw a way with 2 nodes (diameter) and hit SHIFT+O, this will create a circle (you can set the default node amount for the circle in advanced preferences). You'd then tag this correctly, ensure that it points in the right direction and that the roads connect (join), SHIFT+delete-click to remove the inner parts of the roads and the center node. There is a coming enhancement for Potlatch 2 that does something like this. It's still waiting to be reviewed. It's actually a bit more streamlined: you select the intersection node, move the mouse to where the roundabout should be, press 'A', and voila. It even sorts out all the tags and relations for you. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted
The problems with this tag are the same with most tags. The history goes something like: 1) The original creator has a very specific real-world object in mind: painted roundabout patterns on intersections in their local area 2) Other people in the local area recognise this real-world concept and also apply the tag. 3) Soon it makes its way into editors, renderers etc. 4) People in other parts of the world see this tag and think they should use it. 5) They deduce what they think are the salient features: it's small, it's painted, you can drive over it physically, you can drive over it legally... 6) Different kinds of real world objects get mapped with the tag, that include some, but not all of the above salient features (eg, roundabouts you can drive over, but are physically raised; or roundabouts that are just painted but legally you must not drive over them...) 7) People notice the contradiction between the (poor) documentation and current practice, and try to change it 8) People who used the tag in step 6 object, because now it doesn't match the way *they* use the tag. I'm not sure what the moral of the story here is, except that whoever creates the tag originally has the easiest job, because the tags match up beautifully with their local environment. (See highway=footway, highway=cycleway, highway=bridleway, which actually appear as words on signs in the UK - but compare the difficulty of applying them to somewhere like Australia) I kind of think the only real solution is to have a fairly loose coupling between regions about the definition of tags, and tight cohesion within regions. So highway=mini_roundabout should universally mean something like small roundabout you could probably drive over, but within a single region (either a country, or perhaps smaller), it should have a much stricter definition, depending on local road laws, building practices etc. (We do this already with tags like highway=motorway and highway=cycleway, but we could be much more systematic.) Steve On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 2:18 AM, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 11:54 PM, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 13:30 -0700, Paul Johnson wrote: On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Nathan Mills nat...@nwacg.net wrote: So this is not/should not be a mini_roundabout? It seems a little silly to call it anything else, since the city just dug a hole in the center of the existing intersection, built a circular curb, and planted a tree: http://g.co/maps/e2gsv What about this one? Also a full on roundabout? http://g.co/maps/d6n74 This looks more like a roundabout to me: http://g.co/maps/hnbp9 All three are roundabouts, yes. All 3 are roundabouts, none of them a mini-roundabouts. The point of a mini-roundabout is that they can be driven over, hence whilst cars are supposed to go around them and many are 'speed-hump raised' to encourage this behaviour. Trucks can pass over them as many are in places where a truck cannot get around otherwise. The first 2 should be mini-roundabouts, as a truck is likely to have serious issues with them. I cannot imagine that tree will last too long. This is a mini-roundabout, which you can see is raised slightly http://g.co/maps/hm49m Actually its part of the magic roundabout, which is a roundabout you can go around in either direction, and at each intersection there is a mini-roundabout. On osm its here, http://osm.org/go/eumbs5ZIw-- Phil But Nathan does have a point, mini-roundabouts are not a specifically good name, and the current docs will only make more people tag small roundabouts as highway=mini_roundabouts.. -- /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] Smooth shoulder intended for cycling
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: One regional mapper uses cycleway=shoulder for this, but I see that as sub-optimal, since it's primarily a shoulder, not a cycleway. It would be like putting cycleway=sidewalk whenever there's a smooth paved sidewalk. I quite like cycleway=shoulder. It describes exactly what's going on: the cycling infrastructure at this point isn't a marked lane (cycleway=lane), nor a segregated lane (cycleway=track), it's a sealed road shoulder. Could you elaborate on your objections? The real complication arises when there are shoulders of varying quality that are assessed (by cyclists) as being more or less suitable for cycling - leading to issues of subjectivity. At least the situation you describe appears objective: the surface was intended for cycling on. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Smooth shoulder intended for cycling
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: It implies that the shoulder is an official cycleway, when in reality it may be full of debris (or worse: http://flbikelaw.org/2012/03/paved-shoulder/ ). You think it implies that because it's a cycleway=* tag? I wouldn't read too much into the tag itself - the meaning of the tag is whatever the documentation for the tag says. Would you use a cycleway tag on any sidewalk that one can ride on (here that would be any outside city limits), or just those that have been specially designated as such? I don't do any mapping in the US - it depends what your local community decides. cycleway=sidewalk doesn't sound terrible to me. We do have a situation here where sometimes footpaths (sidewalks) have signs allowing cycling on them (the default is no). Usually we actually trace out that section as a highway=cycleway. (We don't distinguish it from any other bike path.) If it's more common than that, you probably want a different solution. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wikifiddling, surface=cobblestone vs. sett paving_stones
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: surface=rounded_cobblestone I'd prefer to focus on the shape and therefore rounded_cobblestone, because other aspects like historic can be expressed with additional tags. Also not all true cobblestones are necessarily old. More options: surface=raised_cobblestone surface=uneven_cobblestone Probably the most salient fact here is that the cobblestones don't form an even surface - the stones themselves are raised above the primary surface (tar of some kind?). Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wikifiddling, surface=cobblestone vs. sett paving_stones
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: not so sure about this. Currently there is really a lot of values in surface but (as far as I know) none of them gets subtagged. Instead of subtagging we could also keep cobblestone for sett and invent another value for old cobblestones, could be something dumb like real_cobblestone, real_cobbles, round_cobbles, round_cobblestone, old_cobblestone or similar. We would subsequently change the tags for the (probably few) surface=cobblestone which are actually old_cobbles and done. Ok - I guess I'm wary of there being so many surface values, but that does seem to be the practice. (How does any data reuser cope with so many?) Possible values: surface=historic_cobblestone surface=preserved_cobblestone surface=rounded_cobblestone Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wikifiddling, surface=cobblestone vs. sett paving_stones
Clearly the change that was made was disruptive and changes the meaning of the 80,000 or so surface=cobblestone tags already in existence. I have thus changed the definition back and commented out surface=sett for the moment. Now, some issues with introducing sett: 1) No one knows what sett means. 2) The distinction is probably not important to most people. 3) There is far more sett than true cobblestone in the world. 4) We can't introduce a distinction by splitting an existing tag this way. Clearly surface=cobblestone means Cobblestone or sett. There are too many instances to change that. So, whoever really wants to introduce this distinction is going to have to find another way, perhaps surface=cobblestone, cobblestone=sett. Steve On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I'm pushing this one up because we have taken no action so far. Can we agree how we want to deal with this? here is the full thread: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Wikifiddling-surface-cobblestone-vs-sett-amp-paving-stones-tt5498912.html#none 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] reference_point and landmark for addresses
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: I ask because this sort of description is used everywhere. One might say at the end of the road, past Sand Lake Elementary School rather than 8249 Buena Vista Woods Boulevard, but that doesn't make the former any kind of real address. It's simply a spatial description that can be seen by looking at the map. I seem to recall having read either the articles Felix posted, or similar ones. The point is, in some countries, these informal descriptions actually *are* genuine addresses. There's no other addressing system in place, so over time they become the de facto standard. So what I think Felix is suggesting is being able to define the reference points that addresses are constructed from, in exactly the same way as we define name=* for a highway=*, or for a place=*. I think it's worthy of discussion get this right. landmark=* is problematic because as noted there actually may not be a landmark (like the little tree which is actually not visible). Some kind of addr:reference_point=*? Or maybe a kind of place=*? The harder question is if you want to try and define actual addresses, like actually putting a unique address description on each dwelling (From the church, 400m south, From the church, 380m south with the blue door). But maybe leave that harder question till later :) Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag a trail blaze
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: He is asking because a local community is maintaining such marks and would like to locate them in OSM in addition to the route itself. Our current proposal is to use a node tagged with: tourism=information information=trail_blaze hiking=yes operator= support=tree|pole|rock description= Maybe the word marker rather than trail_blaze. Then it could be used equally be more formal, permanent trail markers. tourism=information information=trail_marker OTOH, information=trail_blaze already has 925 uses, so perhaps that's the de facto standard already. Btw, I think using support this way is a French-ism. I don't immediately have a better suggestion, maybe information:attached_to=tree. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping as two ways or one, u-turns
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 9:20 PM, Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com wrote: There was a proposal like that https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Divider that has been abandoned. Not sure of the reason. I also created one: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Divided_road In my case, the reason for abandoning it was, well, proposing *any* feature is an exercise in frustration and futility. Ultimately, the way to get any feature adopted is through the use of force: implement a style, do a mass import, add support to an editor. Getting any kind of sensible discussion about a possible change like this is next to impossible. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] unfinished railway of historic importance
On Feb 26, 2012 7:42 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 02/25/12 01:23, Richard Welty wrote: how do you tag a never-completed railway which has significant important landmark value in the current landscape? I think that what you are seeing is not a railway at all. I suggest to tag what you see on the ground, rather than whatever the object was that people once planned to build. I don't see why there should be a railway=cut when a layman would never know the the cut he observes was once meant to have a railway line. So many counter examples to this line of thinking: highway = proposed, admin boundaries, under ground culverts etc. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Building tag, building typology vs current function
2012/2/27 Кирилл Zkir Бондаренко z...@zkir.ru: Could you please express your opinion on the issue. Building=* is one of the most used tags, and it would be nice to understand it in the same way, in the whole OSM, even in different countries. Interesting one. I note there is both building=residential, and building=house. Maybe residential here is not function so much as less specific typology - that is, it includes house, flat, unit, etc. To me, whether the tag is building=manufacture or building=factory is not very important, as long as it's consistent and documented. And whether you tag a church building that is being used as a private residence as building=church or building=residential is a matter of opinion, and not especially important to resolve globally, imho. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] unfinished railway of historic importance
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: you could use abandoned_date (like start_date) and have the before/after completion part in another tag. Multiple things (date and status) for one key should possibly be avoided. +1 Keep things simple for the person reusing the data: abandoned=yes abandoned_date=1853 completed_date= Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] unfinished railway of historic importance
any thoughts or suggestions? IMHO there is not much difference between a almost completed then abandoned and completed then abandoned railway, from the perspective of OSM. Either way, it's not a present day railway, yet there are some physical features that history buffs may be interested in seeing. So if it was me, I would mark it railway=abandoned, add a note or two, and be done with it. You can use the normal embankment=yes, cutting=yes. You could get your unbuilt factoid in sideways by using some tag like completed_date=never. The trouble with inventing a new tag for a fringe case is nothing is ever likely to support it, because there will never be more than a couple of uses in the database. Or maybe it's not that fringe. We have a very similar case here: http://osm.org/go/uG4JYUwZt- Whether it was completed is arguable. Most probably, no train ever ran on it - although its creator insisted otherwise. I can't really see any reason that that fact would ever need to be represented graphically, other than in the most comprehensive of railway history maps. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Voting for Relation type=waterway
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote: No. It implies some official status that leads people to remove other tags, sometimes with mass edits. IMHO that doesn't follow at all. If people are doing unwanted mass edits, then we should find a way to discourage them. The solution is not to discard any notion of an official or accepted tag. Just think this through. Approval implies some sort of enforcement, without enforcement what is the point of approval? Just who would make this enforcement happen and how? What would that do to an open project? If only approved tags are used then how would mappers map what they actually see? Wait weeks for some committee to discuss, argue and approve or reject the tag? If you are free to use any tag, what is an approval process for? You're making a lot of unfounded assumptions. I'm not sure where to start. - Approval does not imply enforcement. I don't know why you'd think that. Just because we have rules doesn't mean anyone particularly enforces them. - if only approved tags are used - I explicitly said that it's ok to invent tags to solve a particular problem, then work with others to converge on a convention - then how would mappers map what they actually see - by using the documented tags, and if that doesn't work, extending them, or inventing new ones. - wait weeks... - no. It definitely doesn't follow that you should wait for some process rather than using a tag. You should use the best tag available, and update as a result of community consensus. - if you are free to use any tag, what is an approval process for - well, I'm not arguing for a particular process. But the answer is so people tag as consistently as possible with each other. Flattening the tag structure by homogenising tags is destroying the fine detail, sometimes carefully crafted by mappers and I will continue to speak out against mass edits that attempt to do just that. Again, you're making unwarranted assumptions. I haven't suggested anything like that. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Voting for Relation type=waterway
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Before we vote, shouldn't we try to clean up the proposal? E.g. there is this sentence: Hint: If the waterway starts as a stream and becomes larger, then use the tag of the largest waterway (e.g. river). Well, almost all rivers start small and become bigger ;-), but despite being small, don't they already start as rivers at their spring? No, because the OSM definition of 'river' is width. (As opposed to languages like French which distinguish between waterways that empty in the sea and those that empty into other rivers). The proposal looks pretty sensible to me. I just wish there was a meaningful process we could follow. Probably what we really want to do is deprecate any alternative tagging schemes, and direct people to this one. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Voting for Relation type=waterway
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote: I do not agree with the whole basis of this thread. There are no such things as approved tags, tagging is open and people are free to use *any* tags they like. ... Advertise your ideas and encourage acceptance. Show how well it works any How would you know whether a tag had acceptance? Wouldn't documenting it somewhere make sense? Maybe...in a wiki? What would you call acceptance? Would approved be a reasonable synonym for that? The wiki and (currently broken) approval mechanism is not some horrible bureaucracy that exists to ruin your life. It's there so we, as a community, can document the tags we use, and agree on how we use them. While it's ok to spontaneously invent a new tag and use it to solve your current problem, you can surely see the benefits of everyone eventually converging on the same tag? And if so, what would you do with all the old tags that people used before you converged? Wouldn't you deprecate them? Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Explain sport=multi
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de wrote: I would use it for sports facilities not dedicated to specific sports. So, to play devil's advocate: why bother with a sports=* tag at all in that case? What's the difference between: leisure=sports_centre and leisure=sports_centre sport=multi ? Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] proposed routes, state-tag
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Now looking at routes the preferred tagging suggested in the wiki is different: it is suggested to tag all routes the same way, regardless if they are signposted, existing or simply proposed, and then differentiate just by an additional key ( state ). This tag is somehow established: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/state#values That's because it's supported by OpenCycleMap, which tends to trump any petty discussions on mailing lists like this... But I'd like to propose to adopt the scheme to that of highways and change the tagging to: route=proposed proposed=bicycle (for instance). What do you think? Presumably you mean proposed=cycleway. A few points: - there's a difference between a proposed route and a proposed cycleway. Around here, a proposed route frequently makes use of some existing cycleways, and some to be constructed. - I think the highway=x, x=y mechanism is inferior to highway=y, state=x. So I'd rather be inconsistent and use the superior mechanism. - It would be nice if there was a way to indicate that a route as a whole is under construction, but parts of it are actually open and built. (This situation can remain for years, see http://railtrails.org.au/states/trails.php3?action=trailtrail=21) Currently the only way to do that is to break the route relation into pieces and merge them later. - I think in general the notion of route=proposed makes a lot less sense than highway=proposed. You could argue that a route exists as soon as it is proposed. Whereas the point of the highway=proposed tag is that the highway *doesn't* exist, and even at highway=construction, it's just dirt, not a road. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Light rail station
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote: A light rail stop, would that be a railway=tram_stop or a railway=station? Sounds like a third option is required. Here (Melbourne, Australia) tram stops vary from just a sign on a telephone pole to super stops (raised platforms, safety barriers and ticket machines) to former train stations that now only serve light rails. The first are clearly railway=tram_stop, the last are really railway=station (but it would be misleading to render them exactly the same as a real train station), but the super stops are really something else, some subclass of tram_stop maybe. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] How to tag destroyed stuff?
There are two pedestrian/bicycle bridges in my area that were destroyed by a storm earlier in the year. What's the best way to tag them? Ideally, a renderer should be able to use the information to draw a big red X or something - there's quite a difference IMHO between absence of bridge and there used to be a bridge, but it is currently out of action. Are the humanitarian tags supported by Mapnik, Cloudmade etc? Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Charging station
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:43 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: Presumably, by the same location having both fuel pumps and a charging station for electric vehicles. As separate nodes? Is there not a way they could be combined on one node? Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging a sports club with a closed way
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: This is a general query that could apply to many organisations, but as an example I'm going to use a tennis club to illustrate. This club has on it's site a car park, clubhouse, a garden a few tennis pitches. These I can tag individually render successfully. However what can be used as a closed way to encompass the whole site? Previously it was leisure=pitch but that should be used just for the tennis courts. Sports_centre appears to be used for multiple sports. Weird, I've always tagged them leisure=sports_centre. I never realised it's supposed to be for multiple sports. That seems like an unnecessary restriction? I usually add a sport=* tag anyway, so it becomes: leisure=sports_centre sport=bowls Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Charging station
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:47 AM, Mario mar...@festival-animals.com wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Charging_station It lists amenity=fuel as a combination. How would you combine amenity=charging_station and amenity=fuel? Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] unless someone objects: amenity=truck_rental
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: Maybe this: amenity=car_rental rental:truck=yes rental:car=no equipment that's too expensive for most home owners to just buy. a subcategory for that under amenity=car_rental seems peculiar. I wasn't proposing that. That's the nice thing about my suggestion: amenity=car_rental rental:truck=yes Works now and in the future. shop:rental rental:truck=yes Works in the future. shop=rental rental:plant=yes* Works in the future. Steve * plant meaning equipment... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] mapping static museum ships
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: You can reuse the existing entrance tags. According to the Richard Fairhurst duck test, if it looks like a ship, is floating like a ship, it's a ship... not a building magically floating on the water ;-) By the same test, a parked ship looks like a building, acts like a building, has entrances like a building... Tagging is not about whether an object naturally conforms to our understanding of the English word, but whether it has the right salient properties that should be usefully shown on a map. I don't know if we have a strict definition of building but I would go with something like a man-made structure with walls that is by default inaccessible to the average pedestrian. We could equally ask, how would you micromap a shipwreck... I would think something like the following would be logical: building=yes tourism=attraction attraction=ship Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Named gates
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Sander Deryckere sander...@gmail.com wrote: Well, I just don't know any gates with names, exept city gates like the Menin gate in Ypres, but they can't be closed and I should not tag it as barrier=gate but rather as a building. I never heard of gates that can be closed and are still important enough to get a name. Some use cases: - stadiums tend to have named gates. Your ticket tells you which gate to enter at, and people use them to meet each other. - the local botanic gardens has named gates - they serve as landmarks (go in gate E, then down past the duck pond) - large industrial areas and research parks use them for deliveries etc. So it's really naming the entrance rather than the gate per se, but they're often called gate X. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] shop=farm shop=greengrocer
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: I'm interested in propsing an icon for shop=farm, for highlighting roadside farm stands (this is a fun travel activity, as such farm stands are often not listed in the Yellow pages or conventional maps). My first thought: there is so much overlap between the two concepts (if all you want to do is buy some fruit, what's the difference? None) that it might be better to approach it like this: shop=greengrocer tourism=farm_stand So a tourism map could show it as a tourism activity, and it would show up on normal maps as a place to buy fruit/vegetables. If you want to get specific, you could add tags indicating that the hours are limited, or it's self-service or whatever. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - playground:splash_pad
Sounds good to me. I'd rather a clearly defined, unambiguous, possibly American term like splash pad than a less clear, but more British term like water play area. Steve On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Matt matt.ryan.willi...@gmail.com wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/splash_pad Please comment. Thanks, Matt ___ 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 - Hiking_checkpoint
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Zsolt Bertalan herrber...@gmail.com wrote: Is Themed Walk better than Tourism Movement or you just accept that it's a thing coming from the Eastern Block and adopt the term for it? Heh...no one will ever understand what tourism_movement is meant to mean. Let's keep looking for the right term. We adopted hundreds of words from English, English have only a few Hungarian loanwords (coach, goulash, saber, paprika, vizsla, komondor, puli, that's it). Let's adopt this one! It's only a loan translation. :) Adopting an actual Hungarian word would actually be less confusing than this Hunglish translation... I'm still not seeing a fundamental difference between these types of walks and normal walking routes (rwn, nwn etc). Can you explain more? Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hiking_checkpoint
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 1:23 AM, Zsolt Bertalan herrber...@gmail.com wrote: That's why we can NOT call the THING a route, trail, walk, etc. THIS would be confusing. trail gets used in this metaphorical way, and it's not that confusing. Here's an example: http://www.thebellarinetastetrail.com.au/ That perfectly matches your description of They consist of checkpoints that you can visit anytime, in any order from any dircetion. How about tourism route? Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] highway=path, path=hiking
Hi all, I just came across this tag in taginfo, but there's no description in any wiki. Anyone know the story? Is this a good way to describe hiking paths, and to distinguish well-constructed walking paths from rough, narrow hiking trails? Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=path, path=hiking
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 11:51 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: highway=path, path=hiking doesn't say any more to me than highway=footway on its own would. The distinction is well constructed versus rough, minimal maintenance. highway=path, path=hiking: http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/pictures/12000/nahled/hiking-path-1-238412973779541Zf.jpg highway=footway: http://www.freefoto.com/images/808/12/808_12_2972---Footpath-through-Strid-Wood_web.jpg?k=Footpath+through+Strid+Wood This distinction exists and is meaningful. The question is whether this is a good way to express it. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 6:14 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: what about introducing a kerb:height ? Implying heights from values like yes, raised, normal will probably not be very reliable or stable as this might vary from country to country and also in different cities/neighbourhoods. That's not a bad idea. kerb=yes should have some general meaning, and if there is a more precise measurement available, store it in kerb:height= Btw, I much prefer kerb=yes over kerb=normal, because *=yes is very widespread in OSM tagging vocabulary. So: kerb=flush kerb=lowered kerb=rolled kerb=yes kerb=raised (ie, higher than normal, for a bus/tram stop...) Now, since people *will* use kerb=no, how should it be interpreted? I would say it would cover all of flush, lowered and rolled (ie, everything better than kerb=yes) Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] suitable tag for garden and forest machinery shop
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:37 AM, Mihkel Rämmel r...@hot.ee wrote: If i'm not wrong then there seems to be no tag for shop that is specialised in selling (and repairing) garden and forest machinery (lawnmovers, chainsaws, trimming machines, etc.) and lightweight garden/forest tools like saws, shovels, axes, etc. Can anyone suggest something better than shop=garden_and_forest_machinery . I would make a proper proposal for it , but first I would like to have an understandable name under what to make that proposal. Sounds pretty niche. If we don't want thousands of specific, niche tags, we need to group. Maybe shop=machinery, machinery=garden;forest I'm just trying to picture how a renderer would cope with so many incredibly specific tags. Can you imagine a thousand different icons? Would they even be recognisable? Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:46 AM, Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com wrote: All feedback is welcome. One problem I see with these kinds of proposals is that they map very well to a particular jurisdiction or standard, but will be very hard to apply elsewhere. Perhaps the distinction of 3cm, =3cm, 3cm is very common somewhere - but what would you do in an area where the standard distinction is 2.5cm? Or 4cm? Go and measure every kerb? So maybe it's better to divide it into two halves: in one part, talk about the functional aspects (flat, flush, can roll over etc). In another part, map those functional distinctions onto physical ranges on a regional basis (in the eastern states of the US, flush means ...). Alternatively, just leave the heights as indicative - but make it clear we map on a functional basis. Also is your table missing a way to tag kerbs between 3cm and 16cm? (And lastly, you have 0.03cm instead of 0.03m in one place) Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Missing only_u_turn?
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: I don't get it. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1630619/history is the only one you've added - can you really not continue east on Google Streetview wasn't very enlightening either - looks like a bog-standard intersection to me. http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=enll=33.916369,-117.312849spn=0.004737,0.022359sll=55.594595,-4.495554sspn=0.014283,0.028367radius=15000.00z=16layer=ccbll=33.916569,-117.313959panoid=HESRYHu68aw92TGXYokcvwcbp=11,124.13,,0,7.6 The u-turn only situations I can think of: - a divided highway, where the u-turn lane is represented as a oneway, no relation required) - a dead end road, where the u-turn is self-explanatory - maybe some weirdo situation where one direction of a two-way road meets an intersection, and the only direction of travel is a u-turn. Again, separating directions of travel and using oneway=yes will probably cover most cases? Any other examples? Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] building=dormitory for monasteries?
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 7:23 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: glad that this seems agreed (so far). How shall we deal with this change in practical? Simply change the wiki page? Do we need a vote for this? Maybe ask on the local lists? Are there any objections to simply change this in the wiki? The only process for changing tags I can't think of that isn't broken would be to change the wiki to say as of June 2011, this is the best idea anyone's come up with, and this is how I'm going to proceed. If you're tagging similar objects I suggest you follow this scheme, or discuss a better way on the tagging list. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] fire alarms
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:58 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: I wonder why many people try to force the approval of a tag by fast votes on the wiki. A tag gets approved by uses in the data and software handling it. I find it remarkable that after however many years of OSM's existence, statements like this are, sadly enough, kind of true. If the highest level of evolution of a software ecosystem is standards governed by a managed change process, then what we have here is the lowest: no standards, no organised processes, and the only definition of what tags are accepted is whatever random pieces of software happen to arbitrarily support them, in whatever way they judge fit. And, based on my analysis[1], the end result is pretty messy indeed. The situation described in this statement is not an aspirational goal. It's the current quagmire that we all face, and should be trying to find a way out of. Steve [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Stevage/tagsupport ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
