Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?
On 23/07/2020 15.34, Jmapb wrote: As I see it, having bicycle=no imply permission to push a dismounted bicycle violates the principle of least surprise because it's inconsistent with other *=no access tags. I wouldn't presume I could push my car along a motor_vehicle=no way, While I would generally agree, I *have* seen someone "dismount" their car¹ and drag it along sidewalks. Mind, they also drove it onto an elevator and into a library², so... (OTOH, they may have had permission to do this; "someone" *was* Jeremy Clarkson... If you saw it, you knew this thread wasn't going to be "complete" until it got mentioned ;-). Yes, you *can* "dismount" and push/pull a road-legal petrol vehicle. Depending on the vehicle.) (¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peel_P50) (² ...or was that the "P45"? I forget...) or dismount my horse and lead it along a horse=no way. Definitely. -- Matthew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging motorcycle parking
On 22/07/2020 20.49, Warin wrote: You asked for 'better' without defining what better means to you. To me it is 'better' to know where these things are (requires more work by the mapper) rather than that they are somewhere inside some area (requires less work by the mapper). Disabled parking to me is 'better' mapped as a separate thing, as is truck parking etc. While a motorcycle may legal park where a car parking space is the same cannot be said of a motorcycle parking space given the usual sized of the things. Tags may be available for those who cannot be bothered with the detail, similar observations may be made for surface=paved vs surface=concrete etc. ...and what if we're mapping spaces? I'm not sure I'm on board with dividing things which are logically "one parking lot" into multiple areas for... questionable benefit at that point. (If the spaces are also mapped, the "where is the parking for X?" doesn't hold.) I think I want parking:capacity:motorcycle, and, while we're on the subject, parking:capacity:carry_out :-). (And also parking_space=motorcycle and parking_space=carry_out, naturally.) -- Matthew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Two side-of-road parking questions
On 23/07/2020 15.20, Paul Allen wrote: On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 19:43, Matthew Woehlke wrote: I'm trying to tag a whole bunch of side-of-road parking, and I have two questions. First, what is the correct way to tag marked parking spaces? There is parking:lane:*=marked which would seem to apply, but then it isn't clear how to indicate the direction (parallel vs. diagonal vs. perpendicular)? It's also not entirely clear when I am or am not supposed to use 'marked'... In a parking lot, amenity=parking_space. It doesn't render on standard carto, so you may not feel it worth the effort. If it's not obvious from the dimensions (parallel vs perpendicular should be) people will see when they get there. You've given the capacity but can't map how many spaces are currently free - some things have to be left to inspection. Second, at what point does "on street parking" become a parking lot? When it's not part of the street. Interesting. By that criteria, I would think that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/826561593 has on-street parking, but would you argue that all of Potomac Avenue (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/686513005 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20453853 *is* or *is not* on-street parking? What about https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/686513006? I am particularly struggling to decide what to do at places such as: 38.52057/-77.29185 38.52181/-77.29611 38.52125/-77.29711 Pretend they don't exist. Map something else instead. Alas, my end goal isn't just to map for the sake of mapping, but to have a map that is usable for another project :-). Right now, having as much parking mapped as possible is relevant to that objective. That first one is tricky. I assume you're talking about the ordinary parking lot with the off-street parking adjoining rather than the separate 6-place parking next to the building. Actually, I did mean the six spaces on the west side of Broadway. I recommend looking at e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=22/38.52057/-77.29185 for all of those, it will be easier to tell what's centered. That said... I'd map it as a large parking lot (as you have) and then the side-of-street but as a separate off-street parking of the type you did for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/829371451 then combine the two in a multipolygon. ...I was wondering about this also, so thanks for the thoughts! To be clear, you are suggesting to *not* use parking_lane stuff for this? Actually, that#s three separate bits of off-street-parking because they're interrupted by the access roads into the larger parking area. Meh, parking aisles and even driveways pass through lots all the time, I think modeling them as three separate lots may be overkill :-). -- Matthew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging motorcycle parking
On 22/07/2020 16.32, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am Mi., 22. Juli 2020 um 21:11 Uhr schrieb Matthew Woehlke: Right now the only option seems to be to model the lot as two separate entities, one which excludes the motorcycle spaces, and one which is *only* the motorcycle spaces which could be amenity=motorcycle_parking. Is this really the best way? I am usually doing it like this (separate entities), it also seems most useful for drivers / riders, because each group can see where are their parking lots. So... I'm not sure I agree with that. Maybe it's different in !US, but in the US, motorcycles can (generally) park in any car parking space. If we're going to use that argument, why do we have capacity:disabled, or indeed capacity:*, rather than modeling those spaces as separate lots? -- Matthew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=rock
On 21/11/2020 15.07, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: My understanding about this is that there is a difference between British English usage and American usage - especially in the western USA. The English seem to have an idea that "rock" is for mostly solid, immobile "bedrock", while a "stone" is a mobile, separate piece of mineral which you might pick up if you are strong enough, or at least move with a piece of heavy machinery. [...] But American English and perhaps other dialects do not always maintain this distinction, in my experience. "I picked up one of the rocks from my stone driveway." "Look at all these stones I pulled out of the river; sure is rocky in there!" -- Matthew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority
On 20/12/2020 08.54, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging wrote: - What should be considered a crossing? If it is unmarked, is it a crossing at all? (Should all intersections be tagged as "unmarked crossings"? Are places with traffic islands (no kerbs) where people frequently cross considered as crossings even though they have no marking & no kerbs?) FWIW, I would say a crossing is somewhere there is a clear expectation that people will cross the road. For example, where a sidewalk connects to the curb on either side of the road but there are no markings on the pavement would be an unmarked crossing. I've seen these in both aerial imagery and in person. To respond to Paul's point, I would tend to think of "marking" as referring to markings *on the road pavement*, not just on the sidewalk. -- Matthew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
On 19/10/2020 18.46, Robert Delmenico wrote: 'Not really, and "man_made" does not mean that it was made by males.' Yes it does. Why would society also use women-made? Because someone with a PC stick up their decided to declare that "man made" meant "made by men" rather than "made by males" as used to be the case. Besides, the correct solution is clearly to restore the original meaning of "man" to be gender neutral and to (re)introduce something else to mean "an adult male". -- Matthew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Parking fee only after some time period
On 20/10/2020 16.34, Branko Kokanovic wrote: There are lot of parking lots on amenities (shopping malls...), where parking is free for customers, but only if you park for less than some specified time amount (let's say 2-3h), imposed by that amenity. After that period, you have to pay[1]. It is widespread where I live, but I would suspect this is not limited to my country only. FWIW, I believe this is common at many US airports. The first hour (sometimes only 15 minutes) is free, e.g. if you are just dropping someone off or picking someone up. To cover how this works, in case you didn't had joy of experience to use this - you usually press machine to get ticket upon entrance (or human hand it to you) and ramp opens to enter. When you exit, you present ticket to machine/human and lift gate/ramp opens if you stayed for less than specified amount of time. It will not open if time limit (of how long you stayed parked) is reached and in that case, you have to go back and pay first to some specific place. Basically the same where I've seen, except the payment kiosk is right next to the gate. Pull up to the gate; if you don't owe money, it opens; if you do, pay at the gate and then it opens. ...although I think I've seen the sort you describe as well. "Pay at the gate" seems typical for airports in my (admittedly limited) experience; the others have been, yeah, city parking garages. -- Matthew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] OSM changes the world | Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial
On 21/10/2020 09.34, Tobias Zwick wrote: You seem to defend that OSM should be used as a tool to change language, for politically motivated reasons in this case. Indeed; we should not forget that the ultimate motivation here is *very much* political. (Note: as I stated elsewhere, that may not be the OP's motivation, but that of the forces manipulating the OP.) OTOH, there is unfortunately a political aspect to *not* making the change... because the group that wants a change can't tolerate the status quo. In my book, furthering political or social ideologies does not even fall remotely under the mission of OSM. I dearly hope it stays this way. Likewise. -- Matthew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial
On 21/10/2020 00.57, Robert Delmenico wrote: 'her generic man' has been fixed - it was a typo. now reads: "confirmed that when people read or hear the generic version of 'man', people form mental pictures of males" Citation needed, especially as you imply one but don't (AFAICT?) supply a link to it. I'd be especially curious to know whether there is an observable difference in people's mental image of "men", when used in a sense to refer to humans generically, and e.g. "people". Also: The word 'Man' in the Old English sense 'mann' had the primary meaning of "adult male human" Citation needed, particularly as the other thread contains a statement which directly contradicts this. -- Matthew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
On 20/10/2020 15.22, Justin Tracey wrote: On 2020-10-20 12:13 p.m., Matthew Woehlke wrote: On 19/10/2020 16.01, Justin Tracey wrote: It's the same reason we want discourse on lists like this one to be friendly and amicable: it should be obvious to anyone outside looking in that contributing and participating in OSM is *enjoyable*, and they should feel welcome joining in. ...and the irony is that most of what the SJW agenda accomplishes is to polarize and inflame the issues, having the exact *opposite* effect as encouraging harmony and inclusiveness (not to mention the hypocrisy of being inimically opposed to "conservatives"). I have no idea what "the SJW agenda" is, but it doesn't seem relevant to the discussion anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior If you don't see the relevance, I'm afraid I can't help you. The topic under discussion is a prime facet of said agenda. If core aspects of the tagging schema give hints at a bias towards a particular segment of the population (in this case, English-speaking men) So, clearly, we need to change the language of OSM tags to loglan. Oh, wait, that would *still* be biased. Correct. All the more reason to discuss how these biases manifest! :) I don't mind discussing whether or not bias is present. I *do* mind someone else assigning a bias to a group when no such bias exists. I'm not sure what you're talking about, but you seem to have an axe to grind [...] True. [...] with a strawman that hasn't come up in this discussion. Nobody said anything about "intolerance", there is no vilifying here, and nobody is "forcing" any opinions on anyone. Less true. This started as someone / some group deciding that our use of a term that has been historically and widely recognized as gender-neutral is biased. Please note I'm not singling out the OP. In fact, I rather get the impression he's just innocently exploring an idea that has been forced on him. My objection isn't to this discussion as such, but to the groups that ultimately caused us to be having it. Ultimately, given the technical arguments against change, it's hard for me to take a stance on the proposal *without* at least considering the underlying reasons why such things come up in the first place. If I just ignore those aspects, the obvious answer is that the proposal is expensive and pointless... but ignoring SJWs is dangerous. (Again, ironically; those people employ the exact same sorts of tactics they vilify their opponents for using.) Anyway, most of why I brought it up was in reply to "contributing and participating in OSM is *enjoyable*, and [anyone wishing to do so] should feel welcome joining in." I wanted to express my agreement with the goal, but *dis*agreement with the means of accomplishing that goal. -- Matthew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
