[Tagging] Namensanzeige bei der Sucheingabe / Names presented in the search function
Es ist eine Unverschämtheit, bei Sucheingaben die Namen nur noch in der Landessprache des Suchenden anzuzeigen und dem/der Suchenden damit die heute gültigen Namen vorzuenthalten. Diese Art der Anzeige ist der Versuch, die OSM-Nutzer einzusperren und ihnen die Vorteile des internationalen Projektes vorzuenthalten. It is impertinent to present OSM-users searching for some place abroad only the names in the language of the country, they ask from, and not to show the searcher the valid/official names of the country on which he/she wants to get informations. This manipulation is the attempt to retain people mentally in the country where they live, instead of allowing them to enjoy the advantages of the international project. Ulrich Lamm Fesenfeld 121 D 28203 Bremen 0049 421 701968 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] "Mörthe und Mosel"
Meurthe-et-Moselle ist ein Département der Republik Frankreich und sein Gebiet seit vielen Jahrhunderten frankophon. Der Fluss Meurthe fließt in ganzer Länge durch französisches Sprachgebiet. Die Eindeutschung zu "Mörthe und Mosel“ ist politisch inkorrekt und abscheulicher deutscher Nationalismus. Beste Grüße Ulrich Lamm Fesenfeld 121 28203 Bremen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 119, Issue 55
1. The critics, I have answered on this way were not that I had used forbidden sources, but that my entries were not reliable. 2. Woodpeck has banned me just in the moment, when all geographic data of the state of Brandenburg got ODB status. 3. It is a difference either to take copies from databases (which is allowed only if these are ODB) or to know their contents. Publishing without regard of the state of the art is a crime against the real users. 4. If you follow the development of my edits, you can see that I have continued systematical mapping, but after the first punishments, I have not entered informations that are available from public databases only. Most of the essential informations I have recieved by phone from the maintaining corporations (Wasser- und Boden-Verbände). Also pdf maps are nothing yo can call a forbidden database. Look at the map I have linked at the onset of today's thread. Using the information of this map for a free hand drawing is no forbidden copy. The relief can be read in ordinary maps and seen by visits of the localities. Irregular colours of the meadows and fields can be seen from various orthophotos, and it is useful to read more than one of them, as some thing can be invisible in one and obvious in another. Best regards, Ulrich Am 12.08.2019 um 17:30 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org: > Re: Culverts ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Culverts
In some parts of Germany, especially in the northern half of former DDR, in the second half of 20th century hundreds of kilometers of previously openair dtches and streems have been laid into culverts. To understand the waterways, which is finally understanding the landscape, these culverts have to be mapped, to see and show, where the water from remaining open ditches goes. Some important OSM-menbers prefer ignorant mapping, producing a fragmentary presentation og waterways. But ignorant mapping is no innocent mapping, it is almost the opposite of it. It is irresponsoble mapping. For example, if the outlet of a lake is presented as one of its affluents (because most mappers do not follow a waterway up to its source and up to ist mouth), readers of osm-rendering maps are misleaded. Of course, it has to be allowed to map a short section of a waterway, only, but somebody els of OSM community should accomplish that waterway, as soon as possible. The readers of our maps have the right to get systematical information not only on the system of roads but also on the system of waterways. OSM members who call systematical mapping "dispproved" (GER: "unerwünscht"), violate the interests of the real users. Recently, one example of my systematical mapping has been criticized: 2019-08-10 Hallo ulamm, letihu hinterließ einen Diskussionsbeitrag zu einem deiner Änderungssätze, erstellt am 2019-08-10 17:36:22 UTC mit der Bemerkung „bis zur Quelle“ Ein 492m langes Rohr neben der Straße? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/667179290/history das kann doch keiner sauber halten. Weitere Details über den Änderungssatz können gefunden werden unter https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/66767946. 2019-08-12 "Hallo ulamm, streckenkundler hinterließ einen Diskussionsbeitrag zu einem deiner Änderungssätze, erstellt am 2019-08-12 06:24:13 UTC mit der Bemerkung „bis zur Quelle“ Ja, Das war eines von extrem vielen seltsamen und eigensinnigen Erfassungen entgegen der Standards von ulamm, die oft nicht nachweisbar oder aus zweifelfaften Quellen stammten. Normalerweise müssen alle Edits von ihm revertet werden... siehe auch: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2925 Sven Weitere Details über den Änderungssatz können gefunden werden unter https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/66767946.; As a protagonist of ignorant mapping of waterways has banned me for my systematical mapping, I cannot answer in the discssion of the changeset. So I answer here. Look at the website of the maintaining corporation, the WBV Trebel https://wbv-trebel.wbv-mv.de/?page_id=97 "WBV Trebel, Grimmen – Unsere Verbandsgewässer" and click on "Schaubezirk 6 Roter Bürckengraben / Ibitz" On that map you can find the places "Leyerhof" and "Borgstedt" and the waterway running westward from the fields north of Borgstedt to the small road and then as a culvert along the road, until it turns westward, again. Best regards Ulrich ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 117, Issue 95 "copying 1 fact from another database"
Am 26.06.2019 um 11:22 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org: > copying 1 fact from another database That is a great understatement. Two examples: • An equalization of object identities between regional mappers and a regional road authority that provides its data under the condition "commercial use only with special permission, any transfer to other persons prohibited" • A long lasting and well establlished co-operation: A local database with several thousands of objects actively announces each actualization to local mappers who map each new object, at once, but also look in the database. Condition as published in the impressum of the database portal , "copies, publlications or recording in databases as well as any commercial use and the transfer to other persons is not permitted". Of course, there is no danger for OSM. And any commercial exploiter simply has to leave those kinds of information out of his own products, on which he is not sure that commercial use is permitted. That is a matter of his renderer. Best regards Ulrich ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] systematical mapping of waterways
Hello all! In his explications of his ban against me, user Woopeck wrote, "leider machst Du unbeirrt mit Deinen Wasserweg-Edits weiter. … Diese Edits sind unerwünscht." (You have unflinchingly continued with your waterway edits. … These edits are disapproved.) As, after my first ban, I have avoided any violations of ODB copyright, this sounds as if user Woodpeck's personal opinion is a general disappoval of the systematical mapping of waterways. Best regards Ulrich ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 117, Issue 90, topic 1 & 4: Ban of Ulamm by Woodpeck
> > 1. Re: My ban by user Woodpeck = Frederik Ramm (Mateusz Konieczny) > 4. Re: My ban by user Woodpeck = Frederik Ramm (Frederik Ramm) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 11:53:35 +0200 (CEST) > From: Mateusz Konieczny > Cc: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > > Subject: Re: [Tagging] My ban by user Woodpeck = Frederik Ramm > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > 25 Jun 2019, 11:18 by f...@zz.de: > >> >> Hi Ulrich, >> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:16:18AM +0200, Ulrich Lamm wrote: >> >>> This way, my mapping of courses of water including the culvert >>> sections does not violate the principles of OSM. And the ban is >>> totally injust. >>> >> >> It violates the rights of the origin copyright holder. >> The relief is no exclusive database information. It can be seen and recorded by visits of the sites. The same is with the colour of the ground & vegetation. We must not publish scans of historical maps as our own work, that could violate copyright. But if we use the informations shown in historical maps for free hand drawings, we do not violate the copyright for maps. > It violates also our right to have a database free from copyright violations. On 2019-06-13, the law that all LGB (Geographic surveyor) data of the Land of Brandenburg are ODB has definitively been approved by the parliament of the Land of Brandenburg. This way there are no more legal barriers against an optimal OSM mapping of the courses of water in Brandenburg. Bye Ulrich > > Also, complaining about your ban is completely offtopic on this mailing list. > -- next part -- > -- > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 12:19:37 +0200 > From: Frederik Ramm > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] My ban by user Woodpeck = Frederik Ramm > Message-ID: <05ab8fb9-a8ff-e9aa-42d8-3b93433d1...@remote.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Hello Ulrich, > > this is offtopic here but I'd like to say something anyway since you > started the discussion here. > > Your are blocked from editing until we can trust you to respect our > rules. This is a process that has to happen in your head. I would have > hoped that you understood the issue but time and time again you have > demonstrated that you did not. > > You cannot continue to use one inadmissible source and then when you're > told this is wrong, use a different inadmissible source and so on ad > infinitum. This is not a contest of who finds a loophole. Use your own > knowledge, or use public domain (or suitably licensed) sources; and > always add a source tag that lets people verify your source. All these > relations you're adding about complex waterway systems and their names - > these can impossibly all be your knowledge so you're copying them from > somewhere and if you don't say where from then we must assume it's an > inadmissible source. > > Since all your mapping is in Germany, please go to the German mailing > list or German forum to discuss what exactly you are doing with your > waterway mapping and what your data sources and processes are, and then > if we find a way forward that will not lead to lots of complaints to DWG > about your work, we can lift the ban on your account and let you > continue. But simply letting you continue after a couple days, like we > did in the past, has sadly not helped. > > Bye > Frederik The DWG ought to accept that today any informations are available also in databases. The distinction has to be, which informations are available exclusively in databases and which are available in databases and by local research as well. And on geographic data of Brandenburg and some other Lands, which have given them opendata status, the DWG must not insist on legal barriers that have fallen. Bye Ulrich > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 117, Issue 89 on the ban of Ulamm by Woodpeck
The relief is no exclusive database information. It can be seen and recorded by visits of the sites. The same is with the colour of the ground & vegetation. We must not publish scans of historical maps as our own work, but the informations shown in historical maps are allowed to be used be free hand drawings. On 2019-06-13, the law that all LGB (Geographic surveyor) data of the Land of Brandenburg are ODB has definitively been approved by the parliament of the Land of Brandenburg. This way there are no more legal barriers against an optimal OSM mapping of the courses of water in Brandenburg. Am 25.06.2019 um 11:53 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org: > Send Tagging mailing list submissions to > tagging@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > tagging-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Tagging digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: My ban by user Woodpeck = Frederik Ramm (Simon Poole) > 2. Re: My ban by user Woodpeck = Frederik Ramm (Christoph Hormann) > 3. Re: My ban by user Woodpeck = Frederik Ramm (Florian Lohoff) > 4. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - amenity=power_supply (John Sturdy) > 5. Re: Idea for a new tag: amenity=power_supply (John Sturdy) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 10:55:57 +0200 > From: Simon Poole > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] My ban by user Woodpeck = Frederik Ramm > Message-ID: <003389dc-46f5-b108-c99d-4949286c6...@poole.ch> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Besides being off-topic here, 99.9% of the background is missing. > Perma-bans for contributors in OSM are extremely rare and definitely not > imposed lightly, just as they are not in this case: see > https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ulamm/blocks for just a tiny bit of > the very long story behind this. > > Am 25.06.2019 um 10:27 schrieb marc marc: >> Le 25.06.19 à 10:16, Ulrich Lamm a écrit : >>> the ban is totally injust. >> add injust=maybe >> or >> find a better place to talk about not-related-to-tags stuff >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > -- next part -- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: signature.asc > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 488 bytes > Desc: OpenPGP digital signature > URL: > <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190625/ad6f5426/attachment-0001.sig> > > -- > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 10:58:42 +0200 > From: Christoph Hormann > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > > Subject: Re: [Tagging] My ban by user Woodpeck = Frederik Ramm > Message-ID: <201906251058.42720@imagico.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Tuesday 25 June 2019, Ulrich Lamm wrote: >> Ten hours ago, user Woodpeck = Frederik Ramm has banned me for TEN >> YAERS! For what? >> For mapping courses of water. >> Before, he had blocked me or using database data. >> [...] > > For competeness of information and for everyone to properly assess this, > the block history of user ulamm: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ulamm/blocks > > And the OSMF ban policy describing the procedures regarding such > actions: > > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Ban_Policy > > -- > Christoph Hormann > http://www.imagico.de/ > > > > ------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 11:18:31 +0200 > From: Florian Lohoff > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > > Subject: Re: [Tagging] My ban by user Woodpeck = Frederik Ramm > Message-ID: <20190625091831.lcqzai7lslh7s...@pax.zz.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > Hi Ulrich, > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:16:18AM +0200, Ulrich Lamm wrote: >> This way, my mapping of courses of water including the culvert >> sections does not violate the principles of OSM. And the ban is >> totally injust. > > It violates the rights of the origin copyright holder. CC-BY-SA and > others are not com
[Tagging] My ban by user Woodpeck = Frederik Ramm
Ten hours ago, user Woodpeck = Frederik Ramm has banned me for TEN YAERS! For what? For mapping courses of water. Before, he had blocked me or using database data. I ceased to enter figures that were available from databasaes only. Then he blocked me for using figures from PDFs that could be called database, though indeed they have the status of any printwork. I ceased to enter fiigures from such PDFs. And in the las weeks I worked on courses of water in the country of Brandenburg. In brandenburg, there is no sophisticated official presentation of the courses of water (Gwent25 is very vague.). At about 1900, almost the whlole network of courses of water was open air. During 20th century, long sections have been hidden in culverts, most of them closely following the old courses and alike them the relief of the ground. So I concluded the hidden parts of the courses of water from old maps and from the relief of the ground (which I saw from maps but which is nevertheless of to visits of the places). A well as the relief, changes of colour of the ground and plants (especially grass and cereals) can be seen by visits of the places. I cases where I was not sure, I have phoned the maintaining companies, the Wasser- und Boden-Verbände (WBV). This way, my mapping of courses of water including the culvert sections does not violate the principles of OSM. And the ban is totally injust. Best regards Ulrich Lamm ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Dykes
Hi friends, if you map a dyke, ID-editor recently gives a warning that a dyke ought to be a closed (circular) line. On lowland coasts such as in Germany, this demand is a nonsense. Some dyke lines (especially on the North Sea) have a length of several hundreds of kilometers. Nobody can map them in one session. Other coasts, such as on the Baltic Sea, but also in England, have very low sections, that are protected by dykes, and hilly sections that do not require dykes. There the dykes end at slopes of natural hills – which are not mapped, unless they are prominent escarpments. Ulrich Lamm ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 63
Am 14.02.2019 um 12:51 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org: > If you can justify it within your own tortured logic about > copyright, you can even use the > OSM database as a foundation for your efforts. Openstreetmap is present, almost everywhere. On some kinds of contents, Openstreetmap is full of of gaps and mistakes. One has the choice to accept that like a fate, or to try to improve Openstreetmap. Improvement in detail is filling gaps and correcting mistakes. Improvement in principle is pleading for rules that do not prevent scientific standard and supporting a development of OSM's social structures towards democracy. If some people forbid entries of scientific state of the art, unless they are allowed to sell them, this prevents OSM from becoming reliable. It is not acceptable, if errors persist, because the sell better than the truth. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 52 Co-ordinate sets vs. background informations = ODbL vs. CC
Am 12.02.2019 um 05:59 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org: >> the commercial exploiter has the choice either to sell a product >> without informations that are available for free, >> or he has to pay. >> > > Your method of including CC will mean not more use by commercial firms. Rules according to the interests of commercial exploiters make our mapping an unpaid labour for some landlords. That is the opposite of freedom. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Co-ordinate sets vs. background informations = ODbL vs. CC
Am 08.02.2019 um 20:37 schrieb Ulrich Lamm: > OSM is already used like a quallity product. > We have to provide that quality, now, or we have to warn people that they > should not use OSM until ten years later. > > If / As official databases provide their contents under Creative Commons > licenses to enable free use for everybody, > it is a lie to say, OSM cannot use them. > > I have tried to show the way to prevent OSM from isolation by its own fault: > We have to distinguish between those contents (geometries), on which we > cannot meet Creative Commons conditions, > and those contents (definitions, names, results of scientific investigations) > on which we can meet Creative Commons conditions, easliy. Let us face the background interests. The problem of using official reference informations that are available for free use is not a problem between official databases and the community of volunteer mappers, working for free on a collection of geographic informations that can be used for free. It is a problem between the free community with its free product and some people who exploit this free collection (and the unpaid work of thousands of volunteers) for commercial use. Some people that hold powerful positions in the community live from selling applications of our volunteer work. Certainly, some of these commercial applications are a surplus value in relation to the free applications. But that is not our problem. Our intention is to get reliable free information as a revenue for free work. If the most reliable informations are references that are excluded from commercial exploitation, unless the exploiter has an individual license contract with the provider of the reference data, the commercial exploiter has the choice either to sell a product without informations that are available for free, or he has to pay. Best regards Ulrich Lamm ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 33 Co-ordinate sets vs. background informations = ODbL vs. CC
Am 08.02.2019 um 13:00 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org: > Send Tagging mailing list submissions to > tagging@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > tagging-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Tagging digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 29, Co-ordinate sets vs. > background informations (Martin Koppenhoefer) > 2. Re: Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 31 Co-ordinate sets vs. > background informations (Warin) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 11:00:37 +0100 > From: Martin Koppenhoefer > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 29, Co-ordinate > sets vs. background informations > Message-ID: <4467b49b-84bd-49b6-8faf-6a620ea9e...@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > sent from a phone > >> On 8. Feb 2019, at 09:55, Ulrich Lamm wrote: >> >> Mighty people in OSM, at least one in Germany, punish mappers, if they use >> database contents available under Creative Commons license, though source >> tags fit Creative Commons conditions, of course. > > > compatibility of several cc licenses has been analyzed and the outcome is > documented, you can find a quick overview and pointers here: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility If OSM sticks to these rules, it isolates itself from kinds of input that are necessary to male a reliable product. Official databases are more open in that aspect than OSM. Any modern official database has an entrance that invites you to announce mistakes. If you tell them that there is a bias between their contents and data you have found anywhere, thy check the bias within a few days. Though it may last weeks or months, until a correction is displayed. > > > Cheers, Martin > -- next part -- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190208/bbd2eefa/attachment-0001.html> > > -- > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 21:22:53 +1100 > From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 31 Co-ordinate > sets vs. background informations > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed" > > On 08/02/19 20:37, Ulrich Lamm wrote: >> >> Am 08.02.2019 um 00:44 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org >> <mailto:tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org>: >> >>> >>> Message: 2 >>> Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 10:01:28 +1100 >>> From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com <mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>> >>> To:tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org> >>> Subject: Re: [Tagging] A general problem: Co-ordinate sets vs. >>> background informations >>> Message-ID: <0f90faea-b79f-668c-c887-035114856...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:0f90faea-b79f-668c-c887-035114856...@gmail.com>> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed >>> >>> I don't know what your trying to say here? >>> >>> >>> This looks to me like either ; >>> >>> A) 'imported data cannot be changed'! >>> The problem with that is the imported data may be wrong, inaccurate >>> of simply old. >> It is necessary that imported geometries can be changed. >> It is necessary that also other data can be actualized. >>> >>> B) 'imported data cannot be used' >>> The problem here is that OSM looses a valuable and large data source. >>> Yes it can be 'wrong', 'old' and/or 'inaccurate' but it does give a >>> starting point for improvements. >> But for references on definitions, names, and scientific mesurements >> of geographic objects, >> it must be allowed to note "this value is from this source", also if >> the source is not ODbL >> And the provider (e. g. an official environment database) has the >> natural right to be mentioned and to be cite
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 31 Co-ordinate sets vs. background informations
Am 08.02.2019 um 00:44 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org: > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 10:01:28 +1100 > From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] A general problem: Co-ordinate sets vs. > background informations > Message-ID: <0f90faea-b79f-668c-c887-035114856...@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > I don't know what your trying to say here? > > > This looks to me like either ; > > A) 'imported data cannot be changed'! > The problem with that is the imported data may be wrong, inaccurate of simply > old. It is necessary that imported geometries can be changed. It is necessary that also other data can be actualized. > > B) 'imported data cannot be used' > The problem here is that OSM looses a valuable and large data source. > Yes it can be 'wrong', 'old' and/or 'inaccurate' but it does give a starting > point for improvements. But for references on definitions, names, and scientific mesurements of geographic objects, it must be allowed to note "this value is from this source", also if the source is not ODbL And the provider (e. g. an official environment database) has the natural right to be mentioned and to be cited correctly.. Therefore OSM has to accept Creative Commons conditions for such data. Courses and outlines of many natural objects are mapped very roughly OSM. Values derived from such mappings are incorrect, too, For some informations, OSM cannot be more correct than offiical databases: Official definitions may be optimal or suboptimal, but they are valid. Means of long timelines of measurements cannot be substituted by single measurements in single visits. > > > Once in OSM it can be changed by anyone. Even fumble fingered me. Usually > errors are picked up and corrected. > Even deliberate things that are wrong are picked up. > I had repeated the reasons for ODbL. ODbL necessary for the import of geometries. But if everything in OSM is ODbL, OSM isolates itself form references (available under Creative Commons conditions, only), which are essential for its reliability. > > On 07/02/19 22:20, Ulrich Lamm wrote: >> There are very different kinds of data, OSM has to use to serve reliable >> correct informations itself: > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 29, Co-ordinate sets vs. background informations
Am 07.02.2019 um 16:01 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org: > > 2. Re: A general problem: Co-ordinate sets vs. background > informations (marc marc) > 3. Re: A general problem: Co-ordinate sets vs. background > informations (Andy Townsend) > 4. Nope | Re: A general problem: Co-ordinate sets vs. background > informations (Rory McCann) > > -- > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 14:30:22 + > From: marc marc > To: "tagging@openstreetmap.org" > Subject: Re: [Tagging] A general problem: Co-ordinate sets vs. > background informations > Message-ID: > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Le 07.02.19 à 12:20, Ulrich Lamm a écrit : >> it has to distinguish between > > it's why good changeset have a good description and a source tag. Mighty people in OSM, at least one in Germany, punish mappers, if they use database contents available under Creative Commons license, though source tags fit Creative Commons conditions, of course. > > -- > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 14:39:46 + > From: Andy Townsend > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] A general problem: Co-ordinate sets vs. > background informations > Message-ID: <2082011c-557c-dfd8-7397-7f478db4e...@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > On 07/02/2019 11:20, Ulrich Lamm wrote: >> If OSM does not want to be a junk project with a junk product, it has to >> distinguish between the geometry, self made or ODbL, >> and referenced background informations, fulfilling Creative Commons rules. >> > What on earth does the accuracy of a particular feature in OSM have to > do with the licence under which that geometry was obtained? Geometry can only be imported under ODbL conditions, whereas most of the background informations are only available under Creative Commons conditions. > > Also statements like "If OSM does not want to be a junk project with a > junk product" don't reflect well on the person making them. > > Best Regards, > > Andy > > > > > > -- > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:55:13 +0100 > From: Rory McCann > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: [Tagging] Nope | Re: A general problem: Co-ordinate sets vs. > background informations > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > OSM is reliable. Rather than using government published data, it uses > crowdsourced data. Most (all?) of creative commons licences allow > modification, so CC doesn't guarantee "protection against alternations". > > OSM has been going for almost 15 years. It hasn't turned into junk yet, > what makes you think it'll happen at all? Since it's been going so long, > maybe it's actually doing something right? In many sties, official maps are less actual than OSM, but many of the data available in public databases are the product of long term and still continuing scientific work: Elevations of the water level of lakes are the mean values of several decades. The official data set of such a lake distinguishes between that mean level and the actual level at the time of the last visit of an environment officer. Volunteer mappers record one value at one time and, naively, believe that value were representative. Definitions of courses of water (what is the real headwater of XY River in its hydrological system) by the environment authorities are based (and sometimes are revised) on continuous systematical assessment of the whole river system. And the official definition created this way is valid. Eventual visits of volunteers are not that scientific and do not result in more than a private opinion. > > On 07/02/2019 12:20, Ulrich Lamm wrote: >> There are very different kinds of data, OSM has to use to serve reliable >> correct informations itself: >> >> Co-ordinate sets of lines: >> In order to map courses of streets and waterways, it is useful but not >> necessary, if co-ordinate sets from databases can be imported. >> For the localisation of boundaries it may be inevitable, sometimes. >> Importing co-ordinate sets cannot fit Creative Commons conditions. >> After their integration in the map, their provenience is invisible. >> And as every mapper can move every point, their alteration cannot be >> prevented. >> This way, Co-ordinate sets of lines only can be imported under ODbL >> conditions. >> >> Definitions and background informations: >> On the hand, without referenced definitions and naming of geographic &
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 29
Am 07.02.2019 um 16:01 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org: > Send Tagging mailing list submissions to > tagging@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > tagging-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Tagging digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: status of a tag [was: motorcycle:scale] (marc marc) > 2. Re: A general problem: Co-ordinate sets vs. background > informations (marc marc) > 3. Re: A general problem: Co-ordinate sets vs. background > informations (Andy Townsend) > 4. Nope | Re: A general problem: Co-ordinate sets vs. background > informations (Rory McCann) > 5. Re: status of a tag [was: motorcycle:scale] (Paul Allen) > 6. Re: status of a tag [was: motorcycle:scale] (Hufkratzer) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 14:22:53 + > From: marc marc > To: "tagging@openstreetmap.org" > Subject: Re: [Tagging] status of a tag [was: motorcycle:scale] > Message-ID: > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Le 07.02.19 à 14:58, Paul Allen a écrit : >> Informal is me wanting to tag >> some type of object, being unable to find a suitable tag > > maybe > with low usage : status=Without-a-proposal > with high usage : status=De-facto > > -- > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 14:30:22 + > From: marc marc > To: "tagging@openstreetmap.org" > Subject: Re: [Tagging] A general problem: Co-ordinate sets vs. > background informations > Message-ID: > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Le 07.02.19 à 12:20, Ulrich Lamm a écrit : >> it has to distinguish between > > it's why good changeset have a good description and a source tag. Mighty people in OSM, at least one in Germany, punish mappers, if they use database contents available under Creative Commons license, though source tags fit Creative Commons conditions, of course. > > -- > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 14:39:46 + > From: Andy Townsend > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] A general problem: Co-ordinate sets vs. > background informations > Message-ID: <2082011c-557c-dfd8-7397-7f478db4e...@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > On 07/02/2019 11:20, Ulrich Lamm wrote: >> If OSM does not want to be a junk project with a junk product, it has to >> distinguish between the geometry, self made or ODbL, >> and referenced background informations, fulfilling Creative Commons rules. >> > What on earth does the accuracy of a particular feature in OSM have to > do with the licence under which that geometry was obtained? Geometry can only be imported under ODbL conditions, whereas most of the background informations are only available under Creative Commons conditions. > > Also statements like "If OSM does not want to be a junk project with a > junk product" don't reflect well on the person making them. > > Best Regards, > > Andy > > > > > > -- > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:55:13 +0100 > From: Rory McCann > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: [Tagging] Nope | Re: A general problem: Co-ordinate sets vs. > background informations > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > OSM is reliable. Rather than using government published data, it uses > crowdsourced data. Most (all?) of creative commons licences allow > modification, so CC doesn't guarantee "protection against alternations". > > OSM has been going for almost 15 years. It hasn't turned into junk yet, > what makes you think it'll happen at all? Since it's been going so long, > maybe it's actually doing something right? In many sties, official maps are less actual than OSM, but many of the data available in public databases are the product of long term and still continuing scientific work: Elevations of the water level of lakes are the mean values of several decades. The official data set of such a lake distinguishes between that mean level and the actual level at the time of the last visit of a
[Tagging] A general problem: Co-ordinate sets vs. background informations
There are very different kinds of data, OSM has to use to serve reliable correct informations itself: Co-ordinate sets of lines: In order to map courses of streets and waterways, it is useful but not necessary, if co-ordinate sets from databases can be imported. For the localisation of boundaries it may be inevitable, sometimes. Importing co-ordinate sets cannot fit Creative Commons conditions. After their integration in the map, their provenience is invisible. And as every mapper can move every point, their alteration cannot be prevented. This way, Co-ordinate sets of lines only can be imported under ODbL conditions. Definitions and background informations: On the hand, without referenced definitions and naming of geographic objects, OSM is not reliable. OSM has established tags for these references, such as source:name, ref:sandre, ref:gkz. Many of such informations are available under Creative Commons licensing, as the providers want to enable free use. For these kind of data, Creative Commons conditions are first of all a protection against alterations. If OSM does not want to be a junk project with a junk product, it has to distinguish between the geometry, self made or ODbL, and referenced background informations, fulfilling Creative Commons rules. Best regards Ulamm = Ulrich Lamm ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Mistakes in German mapping guideline
The German Guideline DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen kartieren since longer time has contained a wrong description of the designation of bidirectional cycletracks. It claimed that they were generally marked with sign 1000-32, a couple of vertical arrows. In reality this sign is used, if the bidirectional track is optional, quite a new possibility and still quite rare. Most bidirectional cycletracks are obligatory. Left of the carriageway, they are normally marked with one of the three blue signs for obligatory cycletracks (237, 240 or 241), as shown in this example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Z.237_Osterholzer_Heerstr.JPG On the right beside the carriageway, the official signing rule (VWV) recommends but does not order to post 1000-32 below the blue sign. Recently, I have corrected that mistake in the mapping guideline, but my correcting has repeatedly been deleted by User:Hb, who almost surely is identical with User:U715371. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 64, Issue 2
Am 02.01.2015 um 00:00 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org:
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2015 22:09:49 +0100
From: 715371 osmu715...@gmx.de
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Tagging] Sidewalk tagged on highway=cycleway
Message-ID: 54a5b79d.1020...@gmx.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Hi,
there is a sentence on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway
which says
It is also possible to use {{Tag|sidewalk|right}}/*=left [on
highway=cycleway] to indicate which side of the segregated path
pedestrians should walk on (where right/left is relative to the way's
direction).
It was originally contributed by ulamm and modified by RobJN after a
short discussion (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:RobJN).
But this is the opposite of what is written on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sidewalks
The inclusion of sidewalk information makes it easier to provide
effective pedestrian routing, and in particular good narrative
descriptions of pedestrian routes along motorised roads. The sidewalk
tag is not needed on non-motorised thoroughfares, for example
highway=footway/cycleway/path/brideway/track.
• not needed is not the same as must not be needed
• The combination of highway=cycleway with sidewak=right or *=left needs less
tags
than the conventional combination of highway=path or highway=cycleway with
biycyle=designated + foot=designated + segregated=yes.
I think there better solutions to the problem than ulamm's.
Tell us a solution that describes the existence of a cycletrack and a parallel
footway without more tags and without any loss of exactness!
If there are no further arguments, I will remove the sentence from the
first citation. What is your opinion on that?
Cheers
Tobias
--
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2015 22:25:09 +0100
From: Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Sidewalk tagged on highway=cycleway
Message-ID:
CALDvra5Q=ST62exm_Gd9-mSAtJ3e5raECktfSm7sOC=pwwy...@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
I support revert of ulamm's edit.
My sentence is no order, it is the information about an unconventional but
correct description of reality, which is also understood by routers.
If groops of 10, 20 or even 50 people think to be allowed to forbid true
informations, OSM would become medieval.
2015-01-01 22:09 GMT+01:00 715371 osmu715...@gmx.de:
_
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150101/45880dae/attachment-0001.html
--
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2015 22:30:18 +0100
From: Hubert sg.fo...@gmx.de
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
+1. I'm also removal. But I can unterstand the idea behind it. However it
should be discussed some more.
Am 1. Januar 2015 22:09:49 MEZ, schrieb 715371 osmu715...@gmx.de:
Hi,
there is a sentence on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway
which says
It is also possible to use {{Tag|sidewalk|right}}/*=left [on
--
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150101/c6a078ab/attachment-0001.html
--
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2015 22:48:33 +0100
From: Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
+1
I think this should be tagged with lanes, to be compatible with road lane
tagging:
bicycle:lanes:forward=designated|no
foot:lanes:forward=no|designated
Or if this looks a bit complicated (it does to me) invent a new tag,
something like:
designated:lanes:forward=bicycle|foot
Cycle lanes are cycling facilities on the carriageway. A cycletrack as well as
a sidewalk are spaces beside the carriageway.
A cycletrack may be mapped using roadline tags, but that limits the accuracy of
description.
Up to now, even openstreetmap/cyclemap does not render anything that excedes
highway=secondary (or else) + cycleway=track, which due to that rendering
problem, by many mappers is used for roads with an unilateral cycletrack as
well as for roads with cycletracks on both sides.
Better description and exact localization are possible by using separately
drawn cycletracks, see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway#Supplementary_details
With this kind of mapping, the sidewalks of the same street have to be recorded
without too many tags.
Janko Mihelić
2015-01-01 22:30 GMT+01:00 Hubert sg.fo...@gmx.de:
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 64, Issue 10
Meaning of verbs
Am 02.01.2015 um 23:44 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org:
It is also possible to use {{Tag|sidewalk|right}}/*=left [on
highway=cycleway] to indicate which side of the segregated path
pedestrians should walk on (where right/left is relative to the way's
direction).
It was originally contributed by ulamm and modified by RobJN after a
short discussion (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:RobJN).
But this is the opposite of what is written on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sidewalks
The inclusion of sidewalk information makes it easier to provide
effective pedestrian routing, and in particular good narrative
descriptions of pedestrian routes along motorised roads. The sidewalk
tag is not needed on non-motorised thoroughfares, for example
highway=footway/cycleway/path/brideway/track.
• not needed is not the same as must not be needed
• The combination of highway=cycleway with sidewak=right or *=left needs less
tags
than the conventional combination of highway=path or highway=cycleway with
biycyle=designated + foot=designated + segregated=yes.
I think there better solutions to the problem than ulamm's.
Tell us a solution that describes the existence of a cycletrack and a
parallel footway without more tags and without any loss of exactness!
If there are no further arguments, I will remove the sentence from the
first citation. What is your opinion on that?
Cheers
Tobias
In my answer on Tobias unfortunately I followed his mistake, half way.
He had not only commixed a statement with an order, he had also read to need
as to use.
Now I tell it more precisely:
is not needed on non-motorized thoroughfares means on non-motorized
thoroughfares it can be described without that tag,
but it does not mean on non-motorized thoroughfares it must be described
without that tag.
Yours', Ulrich
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Crowded links between carriageway and cycletrack
Hi mapping and cycling friends, I have suggested an overall parameter for separately drawn cycletracks, to record crowded links between roadside cycletrack and carriageway: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Traverse_link Yours' Ulrich ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Crowded crossings of a cycletrack and particular accessways
Hi mapping and cycling friends, I have suggested an overall parameter for separately drawn cycletracks to record the (average) layout of crowded crossings of a cycletrack and particular accessways. As these crossings at the same time serve as links between cycletrack and carriageway, the combination of the parameter traverse link (just suggested) and with this qualitative parameter on particular crossings provides a useful information on the comfortable or uncomfortable layout of a cyletrack. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Particular_crossings Yours' Ulrich ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Shared foot- and cycletracks
Hi mapping and cycling friends, I have suggested a special highway-class for the slim tagging of this very common kind of cycling facilities that up to now affords a combination of four tags. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/foot_cycleway Yours' Ulrich ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 63, Issue 83
Am 28.12.2014 um 20:42 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org: Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 19:22:47 +0100 From: Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Crowded links between carriageway and cycletrack Message-ID: caldvra6wqnl2epddung9dbqev2oxvh21pmzro6fcrgeiipq...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 It is better to map all existing connections between road and cycleway rather than add this tag In areas with houses dwelt by one or two families, often there is such a traverse link every fifteen meters (too complicated, anyway it will be not supported by routers). If this tag tells the router, please consider the adjacent carraigeway,too, why do you think, routers won't understand that. Routers also find a house next to the roadline. 2014-12-28 18:29 GMT+01:00 Ulrich Lamm ulamm.b...@t-online.de: Hi mapping and cycling friends, I have suggested an overall parameter for separately drawn cycletracks, to record crowded links between roadside cycletrack and carriageway: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Traverse_link ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 63, Issue 83
Am 28.12.2014 um 20:42 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org: From: Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Shared foot- and cycletracks Message-ID: caldvra7thqnf07yier7um5g7oc3wwwxtdkf-bdkn67gcd8t...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Please, stop proposing tags conflicting with widely used ones. Since 2008/2008, there is a coexistence of highway=footway with highway=path + foot=designated and of highway=cycleway with highway=path + bicycle=designated. Why not also a coexistence of highway=foot_cycleway with highway=path + foot=designated + bicycle=designated. I think, we have to map many features, but the simpler the lists of tags we produce that way, the better and the easier is our mapping. Also, your example with Poland is incorrect (pedestrians have priority over cyclists). The regulation I know from Germany is that the cyclists mustn't urge the pedestrians, but the pedestrians have to let the cyclists pass. It is the same regulation as between cars and cyclists on a shared lane in USA or Canada (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_lane_marking and the linked sources: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part9/part9c.htm (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 Edition Chapter 9C. Markings)→ scroll to Section 9C.07 Shared Lane Marking http://www.thunderbay.ca/Assets/Living/Active+Transportation/docs/Bike+Lanes+Shared+Lanes+Pamphlet.pdf Except of the right of the pedestrians to use the whole track and to go two by two or three by three, that is even same relation like between cars and cyclists on normal streets. If the regulation in Poland is different, please tell me. (P.S. You might also explain matter with the two different layouts of Polish sign C-13-16) 2014-12-28 18:35 GMT+01:00 Ulrich Lamm ulamm.b...@t-online.de: Hi mapping and cycling friends, I have suggested a special highway-class for the slim tagging of this very common kind of cycling facilities that up to now affords a combination of four tags. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/foot_cycleway ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 63, Issue 77
Ulrich Lamm ulamm.b...@t-online.de: Hi all, I've written a proposal for the tags cycleway=obligatory and cycleway=optional. Now I hope for your comments. Ulrich ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 63, Issue 77
How are your entries rendered? Is there a rendered map that shows, based on your input, which oneway roads are bidirectional for cycling? If you are successfull, I'd like to know, where you have mapped, as a model for correct successful mapping. regards UL Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 09:38:40 +0100 From: Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com I never added the opposite tag in my neighborhood. regards m On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 2:39 AM, Ulrich Lamm ulamm.b...@t-online.de wrote: Now I've understood you, and I think I agree with you: This cycleway=opposite is something like an abused tag, as in reality there is no cycleway. The problem is that no renderer understands oneway:bicycle=no, which would be the correct tag. I have mailed and phoned to the maintainers of two renderers on this subject, Andy Allen of OSM cyclemap and Sven Geggus (giggls) of OSM.de. Both answered, I were right, but I doubt if one of the renderers has been improved, since. Perhaps somebody has to tag a street of little importance with oneway:bicycle=no but without cycleway=opposite, and then wait for a forthight. Cordialement Ulrich ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen kartieren
Dear mapping and cycling friends as that article is in German, it is questionable, if the international mailig list is a good adress, but in German language, I've found only local mailing lists. As one can hear and read in discussions, and as is visible from the results of mapping, a lot of mappers know very little about the cycling facilities, they map. And the WIki in all, the German Wiki in special, is a bit labyrinthical. Several guidelines are not complete, some describe only one of the serious schemes or even suggest(ed) a scheme that can't be called serious. I've tried to accomplish and harmonize articles, but some people don't like that and reverted them. Now, as subpages of my user page, there are two more exact versions of DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen kartieren: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ulamm/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen kartieren/revision from 23 December 2014 is an attempt of a comprehensive explanation of real cycling facilities and a comprehensive presentation of the tagging possibilities. On 25 Dezember I've done some lesser revisions. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ulamm/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen kartieren/approach from 24 December 2014 explains the reality of cycling facilities, but on the guidelines only the biggest mistakes are corrected and only the biggest nonsens is deleted. Who refuses to a comprehensive presentation of reality and serious tagging schemes, has to accept the reproach to submit to ways of tagging that inhibit optimal routing and correct rendering. Merry Xmas, Ulrich ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 63, Issue 75
Does this table help you? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ulamm/Tables_of_street_layouts As you can see, it suggests some innovative tags. And it also suggests an alternative for opposite track. best regards Ulrich Am 25.12.2014 um 20:45 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org: Message: 5 Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2014 20:36:46 +0100 From: Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen kartieren Message-ID: cajkjx-sg_h5ygxdnoutslsbxhjwhuccdedznmgx1gkq3gba...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 I never understood the cycleway=opposite. I would really need a picture of a situation where you need it. IMHO you do not have to use this tag on a oneway street where cyclists can drive in both directions, but on their own side. So I think your requirement to always add it to a oneway street that allows cyclists in both directions is wrong. regards m ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 63, Issue 76
Now I've understood you, and I think I agree with you: This cycleway=opposite is something like an abused tag, as in reality there is no cycleway. The problem is that no renderer understands oneway:bicycle=no, which would be the correct tag. I have mailed and phoned to the maintainers of two renderers on this subject, Andy Allen of OSM cyclemap and Sven Geggus (giggls) of OSM.de. Both answered, I were right, but I doubt if one of the renderers has been improved, since. Perhaps somebody has to tag a street of little importance with oneway:bicycle=no but without cycleway=opposite, and then wait for a forthight. Cordialement Ulrich Am 25.12.2014 um 23:48 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org: Message: 1 Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2014 20:51:37 +0100 From: Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen kartieren Message-ID: CAJKJX-RwE=UBJvSqh++6fVoRbvjJmnYxXTANBMvw9hW2=t8...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 I don't agree, the definition says: --- Use *cycleway*=opposite for situations where cyclists are permitted to travel in both directions on a road which is one-way for normal traffic, in situations where there is no dedicated contra-flow lane marked for cyclists. In practice there is typically a very short section of road, sometimes called a cycle plug, where cycles are excepted from the no-entry by means of a short lane separated by an island. These roads should normally also be tagged with oneway https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway=yes and also oneway:bicycle https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway:bicycle=no. Streets like this are common in Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark. They are rarer in the UK, but are becoming more common due to a recent change in road signage allowing no entry signs qualified with except cycles. So only when there is a short separate lane for bi-directional traffic, one should use cycleway=opposite. It should never be used in the countries that are mentioned above, where the whole street is bi-directional. I think this is one of the most misused tags in Belgium. regards m ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 63, Issue 72
Some weeks ago, I have written something on reliable mapping, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ulamm/Mappers,_evaluators_and_feedback For a special feature, I'd also added it to an existing article, but it was reverted, see Attention in the upper table of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:bicycle%3Duse_sidepatholdid=1119074 Ulrich Am 24.12.2014 um 01:29 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org: Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 17:37:34 +0100 From: Rainer Fügenstein r...@oudeis.org To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Tagging] Accuracy of survey Message-ID: 811143140.20141223173...@oudeis.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 while we are at it, imagine the following situation: mapper A, by means of DGPS, MilStd GPS, crystal ball etc., is able to achieve an accuracy of, say, a few centimeters and uses it to add new nodes (POIs) to OSM. some time later, mapper B with his/her ancestors mechanical GPS device (*), achieving an accuracy of max., say, 15 meters, surveys the same area, figures out that (by his/her point of view) POIs added by mapper A are 15 meters off and corrects their location. what is needed here is some tag, saying don't touch these coordinates, they've been surveyed with high(est) accuracy. I heard this argument from an pipeline expert, noting that marker surveyed with consumer GPS are (for their standards) way off their real location. maybe this is a non-issue after all, if consensus is that consumer GPS accuracy is sufficient enough. cu ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 63, Issue 68
I've written each of my answers on top of an answered post. Am 23.12.2014 um 09:17 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org: Today's Topics: 1. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional √ cycletracks) (fly) 2. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional √ cycletracks) (715371) 3. Re: Date of survey (Marc Gemis) 4. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional √ cycletracks) (Mateusz Konieczny) 5. Re: Date of survey (althio forum) 6. Re: Date of survey (Jean-Marc Liotier) -- For roadline-tagged cycletracks, that is a good idea. Nevertheless, I hope we get a tagging scheme that is available for roadline-tagged and for separately drawn cycletracks almost in the same way. Message: 1 Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 23:49:24 +0100 From: fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optionalcycletracks) Message-ID: 54989ff4.2070...@googlemail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 As we have tags for different kind of *lane the only problem is cycleway=track. Now we have two solutions: 1. deprecate cycleway=track in favour of cycleway=*_track 2. add a new key like bicycle_track=* My two cents fly Am 22.12.2014 um 12:30 schrieb Hubert: The need to distinguish between obligatory and optional cycle ways isquite common. Right now it’s done by distinguishing between bicycle=official/designated and bicycle=yes or bicycle=officialand bicycle=designated/yes. In a similar way, I think it is better to use something like bicycle=obligatory instead of cycleway=optionalsince it is more of an access problem, than a type problem.(I alsodon’tlike cycleway=opposite)After all the only difference is where one may or must ride. The cycle way itself does look the same, except for the missing sing. OnMontag, 22. Dezember 2014 02:20Ulrich Lamm___ulamm.brem@t-online.de_mailto:ulamm.b...@t-online.de wrote: Hi all, I've written a proposal for the tags cycleway=obligatory and cycleway=optional. Now I hope for your comments. -- Make a better suggestion that describes the feature in the same quality of relaibility and of slim tagging! Message: 2 Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 00:47:53 +0100 From: 715371 osmu715...@gmx.de To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optionalcycletracks) Message-ID: 5498ada9.7050...@gmx.de Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Am 22.12.2014 um 02:20 schrieb Ulrich Lamm: I've written a proposal for the tags cycleway=obligatory and cycleway=optional. I am still against this tag as I mentioned several times. -- That's an interesting idea. Nevertheless it ought to be possible to record the basic features of obligation and direction without separate waylines. It is known that I like separately drawn cycletracks – on main roads and on crucial links of the cycle traffic network. But in Bremen we have hundreds of kms of cycletracks in residential streets that even I don't like to draw separately :) Message: 4 Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 08:17:41 +0100 From: Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optionalcycletracks) Message-ID: caldvra5obhgphar_ucoro3drtelxxrrke9ec0rhefcivr2e...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 cycleway=track I propose to treat this tag as a special case of fixme - it indicates some sort of cycleway parallel to road, without any additional details. In theory it is possible to add tags that specify surface, side of road, width by tags like cycleway:track:left:surface, but it is ridiculous. Especially specifying geometry (where cycleway is) is nearly impossible (and sometimes impossible in any sane way - sometimes cycleway is next to road but distance changes). These things are trivial for tagging as a separate way (with highway=cycleway with normal set of tags). Especially geometry is defined in a standard way, not by some ridiculous tags. At least this is my experience from tagging cycleway data in Kraków and using this data to render a map of bicycle related infrastructure. 2014-12-22 23:49 GMT+01:00 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: As we have tags for different kind of *lane the only problem is cycleway=track. Now we have two solutions: 1. deprecate cycleway=track in favour of cycleway=*_track 2. add a new key like bicycle_track=* My two cents fly Am 22.12.2014 um 12:30 schrieb Hubert: The need
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)
Hi all, I've written a proposal for the tags cycleway=obligatory and cycleway=optional. Now I hope for your comments. Ulrich ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 63, Issue 53
The principle yes vs. no vs. unrecorded is no total ban of default values. But if both, yes and no have a certain likelyhood, you mustn't use no as a default value. Toll is a good example: In a region without toll roads or on a type of roads that is always for free, you need not tag tool=no. In coutries like France and Italy, where most motorways are tollroads, but some are for free, you ought to tag toll=yes to the pay sections and toll=no to the free sections. But motorways tend to be the best recorded part of a road system. Residential streets often are not, nor tracks in the fields. In old narrow urban districts more than 50% of the streets may be oneway roads – there you'd better tag oneway=no, if a section of a street is bidirectional. In the outer suburbs and the scattered settlement around, some streets may have sidewalks but some not, some may be paved but some not, some may be lit but some not. The ratios may be 95%/5%, 50%/50%, 5%/95%, or anything in between. Such are classical conditions where you have to note no as well as yes. Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 17:14:08 +0100 From: Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] User:Ulamm/Mappers, evaluators and feedback Message-ID: CALDvra7Vp39=jhbec25qs0e52-6o__594uypa4kcx37prcu...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 This advocates adding [oneway=no; toll=no] to nearly all roads (just because some are with toll and oneway). I consider this as a bad idea. 2014-12-18 15:28 GMT+01:00 Ulrich Lamm ulamm.b...@t-online.de: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ulamm/Mappers,_evaluators_and_feedback This article is an attempt to write down basic rules of/for OSM that had been forgotten to fix in the very beginning. I had started that page with an invitation on the discussion page to do the move now done by Frederik Ramm, if anybody would disagree. As you can see, there was a considerable discussion. Therefore I dared to remove the original invitation after a month. If now still somebody considers anything of this short text wrong, please tell it. Ulrich ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 63, Issue 53
Some weeks ago, there was a post in the forum by a mapper, who remembered that there was a cycletrack at a road he had used, but he had forgotten on which side. Furthermore, Opencyclemap renders cycleway=track but doesn't detect cycyleway:right=track. Therefore, some mappers don't tag the side even if they know it. I don't understand what sort of structural element might exist on one side or the other of a road and a mapper cannot determine which ? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 63, Issue 49
Am 18.12.2014 um 05:04 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org: On 11/08/2014 04:47 PM, Pee Wee wrote: We are writing to you for advice on what steps we should or could take next. The situation is best summarized as: [...] After some consideration I have today asked user ulamm to refrain from making any edits to wiki pages unless he has first proposed the edit on the matching talk page and found broad support. Any edit activity not conforming to this rule will lead to an account ban. Data Working Group does not usually get involved in wiki edit wars but in this case the wiki edit war has a direct connection to disputed edits going on in our database, @ Frederik Everybody shall know that I've asked for your moderation several times this year, myself. Unfortunately, your citation of PeeWee's mail does not tell, who really had complained of which of my edits. • Most of them were not at all inovative, but the elimination of errors (shared lane vs. suggestiestrook vs. Schutzstreifen) and the conversion of the DE-articles on bicycle featuires from a labyrinth of partliy contradicting guidelines into a consistant manual. • An important subject was the explanation of what kinds of cycling facilities exist in reality. If people have wrong ideas on them they cannot map them correctly. • Before started to edit in Wiki articles, I had edited in talks. • With my main edits, I've invited everybody to improve them, such as [[DE_talk:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren#Gründe für meine Überarbeitung]] • On PeeWee32 favourite subject, the tag bicycle=sidepath, I had constrictive discussions with him, Mateusz Konieczny and Jgpacker between 12:09, 8 October 2014 and 08:48, 18 November 2014 •• Before my edtis on that article, part of the illustrations were misleading, as most German optional cycletracks have no sign at all, and bicycle=no as a counterpart of bicycle=use sidepath affords a photo of a discriminative cycling ban, not of a pedestrian zone. Cheers Ulrich ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] User:Ulamm/Mappers, evaluators and feedback
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ulamm/Mappers,_evaluators_and_feedback This article is an attempt to write down basic rules of/for OSM that had been forgotten to fix in the very beginning. I had started that page with an invitation on the discussion page to do the move now done by Frederik Ramm, if anybody would disagree. As you can see, there was a considerable discussion. Therefore I dared to remove the original invitation after a month. If now still somebody considers anything of this short text wrong, please tell it. Ulrich ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen kartieren
Hi! By the revert of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren from19 Dec 2014 18:06, a lot of essential inormations were swept away. To cope the criticism of lacking consense, I have now revised it in a way that nobody can compliain of omitted variants, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren/korrigiert_und_harmonisiert Ulrich ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 63, Issue 32
Am 13.12.2014 um 10:56 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org: Message: 4 Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 16:14:29 + From: SomeoneElse li...@atownsend.org.uk To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Survey of street/road layouts and their tagging Message-ID: 548b1465.60...@atownsend.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed On 12/12/2014 13:13, Ulrich Lamm wrote: See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ulamm/Tables_of_street_layouts This could benefit from an explanation of what problem you're trying to solve here. The wiki's full of I think we should tag X like Y pages but without any arguments for a change to motivate mappers to change their habits it's not going to happen. Currently, for example, obligatory is used only 40 times, and 10 of those are nudism: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=obligatory#values Also the mainly biological term facultative is used as if it's an accepted tag, but there are only 49 uses, in the centre of Bremen: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway=facultative (and it's not common English by any stretch of the imagination - maybe versions of it are more used in Romance languages where the latin root is more obvious) Cheers, Andy All tags I've written in purple are innovative. I. e., they are an outcome of logical delibaration, not a record of frequent practice. Even myself I didn't use them before suggesting them. But only watching practice, we'll never get a set of uneqivocal tools. As I've written in the notes, I have preferred the term obligatory, as it is common in many languages, and it is part of the official description of the round blue French traffic sign piste ou bande cyclable obligatoire = obligatory cycletrack or cycle lane. The counterpart (rectangular blue French sign) is piste ou bande cyclable conseillée et réservée = advisory-and-reserved cycletrack or cycle lane. There, I suggest facultative or simply free for cycletracks and soft_lane fpr cycle lanes. That kind of cycletracks (in Germany Radweg ohne Benutzungspflicht, cycletrack-design without signpost) may be used only by cyclists, but needn't be used by them. The British traffic law has a similar status for its strict cycle lanes, called mandatory, which puzzles readers of other native languages, as according to dicitionaries mandatory is almost synonyme with obligatory. I think it doesn't matter if the term obligatory or the term facultative is also used for other than road traffic features, unless the other usage would be in contradiction to the road traffic use. Cheers Ulrich___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 63, Issue 34
I'd also agree to optional. How do you consider my alternative term free. It is short and positive, but some people may read it as a synonyme of gratis. Cheers Ulrich Am 14.12.2014 um 11:52 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org: When I see 'facultatif' in French, I normally translate this as 'optional' in English. You will find 'facultative' in the Oxford English Dictionary, but it will be a meaningless word to most English people. Steve On 14/12/2014 10:35, Ulrich Lamm wrote: Am 13.12.2014 um 10:56 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org mailto:tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org: Message: 4 Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 16:14:29 + From: SomeoneElse li...@atownsend.org.uk mailto:li...@atownsend.org.uk To:tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Survey of street/road layouts and their tagging Message-ID: 548b1465.60...@atownsend.org.uk mailto:548b1465.60...@atownsend.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed On 12/12/2014 13:13, Ulrich Lamm wrote: Seehttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ulamm/Tables_of_street_layouts This could benefit from an explanation of what problem you're trying to solve here. The wiki's full of I think we should tag X like Y pages but without any arguments for a change to motivate mappers to change their habits it's not going to happen. Currently, for example, obligatory is used only 40 times, and 10 of those are nudism: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=obligatory#values Also the mainly biological term facultative is used as if it's an accepted tag, but there are only 49 uses, in the centre of Bremen: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway=facultative (and it's not common English by any stretch of the imagination - maybe versions of it are more used in Romance languages where the latin root is more obvious) Cheers, Andy All tags I've written in purple are innovative. I. e., they are an outcome of logical delibaration, not a record of frequent practice. Even myself I didn't use them before suggesting them. But only watching practice, we'll never get a set of uneqivocal tools. As I've written in the notes, I have preferred the term obligatory, as it is common in many languages, and it is part of the official description of the round blue French traffic sign piste ou bande cyclable obligatoire = obligatory cycletrack or cycle lane. The counterpart (rectangular blue French sign) is piste ou bande cyclable conseillée et réservée = advisory-and-reserved cycletrack or cycle lane. There, I suggest facultative or simply free for cycletracks and soft_lane fpr cycle lanes. That kind of cycletracks (in Germany Radweg ohne Benutzungspflicht, cycletrack-design without signpost) may be used only by cyclists, but needn't be used by them. The British traffic law has a similar status for its _strict_ cycle lanes, called mandatory, which puzzles readers of other native languages, as according to dicitionaries mandatory is almost synonyme with obligatory. I think it doesn't matter if the term obligatory or the term facultative is also used for other than road traffic features, unless the other usage would be in contradiction to the road traffic use. Cheers Ulrich ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Survey of street/road layouts and their tagging
Hi, as an approach for the development of a set of unequivocal tools for the description of all kinds of road layouts, I've made a large (though not conceise) list with graphics of the layouts and their conventional and innovative taggings. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ulamm/Tables_of_street_layouts Yours' Ulrich ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
