Re: [Tagging] Clarify tag access doc
I think all those designated/official/yes are the same thing. They allow something to go through a certain way. What is different is the source of that allowance. If the source is law (access=yes, access:source=de:law) then it's official. If you have a access:source=sign, then it's designated. If you don't have a source, then it's just yes, you can pass here, don't ask me how I know. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Clarify tag access doc
2012/9/13 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com: I think all those designated/official/yes are the same thing. They allow something to go through a certain way. What is different is the source of that allowance. If the source is law (access=yes, access:source=de:law) then it's official. If you have a access:source=sign, then it's designated. If you don't have a source, then it's just yes, you can pass here, don't ask me how I know. This makes a lot of sense to me. However I doubt that we are able to reduce the number of possible access-values: I expect too much opposition. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Clarify tag access doc
2012/9/13 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com: I think all those designated/official/yes are the same thing. They allow something to go through a certain way. What is different is the source of that allowance. If the source is law (access=yes, access:source=de:law) then it's official. If you have a access:source=sign, then it's designated. If you don't have a source, then it's just yes, you can pass here, don't ask me how I know. I am not sure if introducing even more tagging variants really helps us to make this issue easier. If you want to tag some source I'd prefer to use the scheme source:access=value, but law doesn't anyway make much sense to me (there is always some law applicable, regardless of the access-situation, e.g. also signs are defined by law.) and de:law even less. Shouldn't that be de:Gesetz? Or law:DE? Then do we need the country in the tag? Will there be cases where German law would be applied outside Germany? How would you abbreviate a local law (e.g. from the municipality)? Otherwise a simple law would be sufficient to tag the applicable law for this kind of object (could also be international treaties, local law, ...). In the end it seems easier to stick a restricted set of a few well defined (and already used) values instead of introducing new confusion. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Clarify tag access doc
Rob Nickerson wrote: Although I don't know the history of the access tag, I would expect that designated and permissive might have something to do with Public Rights of Way in the UK: Just a recap on how the values have evolved, not to open the path controversy, but just to give some background: 'Designated' is a result of the path controversy. Back in 2008, or thereabouts, there was only yes, permissive, destination, private, no. Permissive is (originally, in the OSM sense) a UK thingy, as it seems to matter there. Back then very few used the tag designation=*, if any. Apparently, it's easier there for a land owner to legally limit outsiders from using any road on their property (no matter how big), unless it's legally designated as a public highway (or any of the other designations) - in other words it's a right of way, as it's described at Key:access. There was no need for designated or official; either - you have a right to use a way, or - the land owner has given a general allowance for anybody, or - you have a right to use a way, but only if your destination is along said way, or - you can use the way if you really know the owner allows you specifically to use it. This was thought to be sufficient for any case. When some non-UK mappers felt that highway=cycleway + foot=yes somehow prefers or favours cyclists over pedestrians, they suggested highway=path. x=designated was originally meant solely to record _for which users any such highway=path is_ (where x=foot/bicycle/snowmobile/hazmat/whatever, but not access=designated). Generally this is always somehow signposted; if it's not signposted, the way looks and works like a footway/cycleway/track or any other highway, and could be tagged as such. Without at least one tag x=designated, one can tell very little about the form and practical use of any single highway=path. Some months later, users in Germany, iirc, noticed that new mappers had used the value 'designated' where there was no specific traffic sign (i.e. the blue compulsory use kind), so they started using x=official and defined it solely as: official = has a compulsory use traffic sign for that transport mode Tool/rendering support for x=official is less common, than the support for =designated. Later, mappers noticed that besides agricultural=yes (tractors allowed/not allowed), sometimes a traffic sign no motorvehicles has a supplementary sign agricultural traffic allowed, to allow those maintaining the farm fields along that road to use any vehicles they need to. Hence, there's the value 'agricultural', most likely used with vehicle= or motor_vehicle=. Both agricultural=* and motor_vehicle=agricultural have about 18 000 uses. Likewise, there's apparantly a lot of no motor vehicles, but allowed for forest maintenance signs somewhere. So they've used x=forestry. I don't remember exactly when was 'delivery' added as a value, but that's not one of the original values, either. Deliveries can happen with any vehicle, but it's not a general allowance for destination traffic; like agricultural, forestry and customers, it's a role, as the various proposals for describing complex access restrictions would label these. Roles don't belong in the value, IMO: motor_vehicle=customers;delivery;garbage_hauling. (I've seen one place with a sign no motor vehicles, but dog park waste collection allowed. After that dog park there's a regular 'combined cycle/footway' sign. Effectively, even the first part is a cycleway). -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Clarify tag access doc
2012/9/11 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Martin Koppenhöfer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: IIRR those were initially intended to mean the same. but do you agree with the current definition ? [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dofficial to me [2] seems unambigous and clear. The definition has never changed and there is only one author, so I don't think that there is need for changes on this page. The only problem I think could be there is what is said about Germany (compulsory) I suspect it is not completely true the way it is written in [2] (I am only aware about bicycle tracks, bridleways and sidewalks being compulsory _under certain circumstances_, not in all cases). In [1] the first paragraph is a link to a UK-specific page (usually country specific stuff is not in the beginning of the pages) and there is still a lot of UK-examples on the general page [1] as well. Definitions and rules are set in [1] as if they would make sense in a general way, but actually they mostly deal with exceptions, e.g. this: To indicate an exclusive access use access=official, or just use access=no in addition to a mode-specific key (foot=designated, bicycle=designated, etc.) The first does not make sense on roads or paths IMHO, only on footway, cycleway and bridleway (highways designed for a specific means of transport). Strange tagging. Access=designated does not follow the convention mode of transport=designated. You cannot infer access restrictions for cars from this (I.e. fall back to the default, which depends on the highway class). But the wiki says The values can be used with the access tag or with tags associated with particular forms of transport.. If you say that some values are not going to be used with the general access key, then we have to document it (currently, taginfo reports 21000 access=designated). According to taginfo 10% of these 21000 aren't even highways. I don't think this is a particularly lucky choice of tagging, as a meaning only emerges together with other tags (mostly the highway-class), but in the case of a mode-specific highway-class it does make sense. On general roads it doesn't. This also becomes clear from the first sentence: This tag indicates that a route has been specially designated (typically by a government) for use by a particular mode (or modes) of transport.[1] You could still express the same with foot=designated (for instance) which I'd prefer over highway=footway, access=designated. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Clarify tag access doc
On 11.09.2012 14:17, Pieren wrote: - customer is documented as disputed in the Values table and similar do destination. And when you read the definition of destination, it says e.g. customer parking lots. Very confusing. I think too that a signle value is enough as already mentionned there. If we keep customer, we need another one for employee (vs custormer parkings/entrances). Or I may suggest a subtag like access=destination + destination=customer/employee. Subtagging doesn't really work with access - there may be different tags using the destination value on the same object, and they might then need different destination subtags. What's wrong with *=customer anyway? The signs for destination and customer are different in reality. If an application wants to treat them the same, it can easily do so even if we use different values. The only thing that makes this particular aspect of the page confusing is the opposition to treating customer as an accepted value. If we could get rid of the disputed claim and the related e.g. customer parking lots for destination, it would be completely clear how to tag this situation. Tobias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Clarify tag access doc
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: Subtagging doesn't really work with access - there may be different tags using the destination value on the same object, and they might then need different destination subtags. Well. I'm waiting an example where the access for customer will be allowed or not allowed depending of their mode of transport... What's wrong with *=customer anyway? The signs for destination and customer are different in reality. If an application wants to treat them the same, it can easily do so even if we use different values. If you specify the access for customers, then you have to do it for employees or visitors as well. Think about parkings or entrances in theatres, hotels, airports, supermarkets, malls, factories, hospitals, etc... The only thing that makes this particular aspect of the page confusing is the opposition to treating customer as an accepted value. That's why I suggest a compromise with a subtag. If we could get rid of the disputed claim and the related e.g. customer parking lots for destination, it would be completely clear how to tag this situation. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Clarify tag access doc
Am 11/set/2012 um 14:17 schrieb Pieren pier...@gmail.com: I'm currently trying to refresh a wiki translation of the Access key page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access I think too that a signle value is enough as already mentionned there. If we keep customer, we need another one for employee (vs custormer parkings/entrances). Or I may suggest a subtag like access=destination + destination=customer/employee. Employee would be private IMHO, not destination - designated vs official. If I understand the wiki, the first is not compulsory and often marked by a traffic signal where the second is complusory and always marked by a traffic signal. Is that correct ? IIRR those were initially intended to mean the same. So, for instance, as a router for cars, how should I handle a road tagged with access=official (or designated) + bicycle=yes ? Strange tagging. Access=designated does not follow the convention mode of transport=designated. You cannot infer access restrictions for cars from this (I.e. fall back to the default, which depends on the highway class). - is permissive a legal status, as the introduction says that values are all about legal access ? Yes, it is a legal status that says you don't have an official right of way. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Clarify tag access doc
Am 11/set/2012 um 14:55 schrieb Pieren pier...@gmail.com: If you specify the access for customers, then you have to do it for employees or visitors as well. Think about parkings or entrances in theatres, hotels, airports, supermarkets, malls, factories, hospitals, etc... I don't agree that detail in one aspect/circumstance automatically requires the same detail for other stuff as well, but neither do I see a problem in using visitors or employees as a value, so go ahead and use them, if you need them. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Clarify tag access doc
Pieren wrote: If you specify the access for customers, then you have to do it for employees or visitors as well. Think about parkings or entrances in theatres, hotels, airports, supermarkets, malls, factories, hospitals, etc... Why? If I'm mapping a pub car park I want some way to say access != the great unwashed public. I'm not going to care that the bar staff actually tend to park in a particular corner, or around the back. Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Clarify tag access doc
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 3:58 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: Why? If I'm mapping a pub car park I want some way to say access != the great unwashed public. I'm not going to care that the bar staff actually tend to park in a particular corner, or around the back. Nobody cares about a single or pair of car parks for bar staff. My examples mentionned more significant features like hospitals, factories or airports for instance with dedicated areas and service roads for employees or visitors. And we document access for deliveries or customers, why not for employees or visitors ? Don't limit OSM tagging to your needs. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Clarify tag access doc
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Martin Koppenhöfer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: IIRR those were initially intended to mean the same. but do you agree with the current definition ? Strange tagging. Access=designated does not follow the convention mode of transport=designated. You cannot infer access restrictions for cars from this (I.e. fall back to the default, which depends on the highway class). But the wiki says The values can be used with the access tag or with tags associated with particular forms of transport.. If you say that some values are not going to be used with the general access key, then we have to document it (currently, taginfo reports 21000 access=designated). Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Clarify tag access doc
Hi, for me visitors belongs to customer, and employee belongs to private. I think between designated and official there are different opinions. For now I would say there is no big difference. Both used primary for foot-, cycle- or bridleways. A way with a sign: Private way, use with own risk I would tag with access=permissive. And maybe i.e. a only footway-bridge (foot=designated), which connecting 2 big cycleways/-routes, I sometimes add bicycle=permissive. (Second example is my personal view. Maybe bicycle=unmount is also possible.) Cheers, Masi ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Clarify tag access doc
On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 21:03 +0100, Rob Nickerson wrote: Although I don't know the history of the access tag, I would expect that designated and permissive might have something to do with Public Rights of Way in the UK: I think they refer to England and Wales. Scotland has different access laws, and I suspect N Ireland is different again. Phil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
