Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalk symmetry
Ed Loach wrote: >where there is a verge so narrow you can step across it without stepping on >the grass. Unless you're with a walker, a pram or a stroller, or in a wheelchair. > or put arbitrary joining ways at intervals. Only useful where there's a real connection anyway, i.e. a route starts from or crosses the highway; be it a driveway (garages count), crossing, footway (or similar) leading away from road, or the intended connection between sidewalk segments across the intersecting road. I don't think any of these are any more arbitrary than the fact that in intersection the two crossing ways both describe the area inside the intersection, i.e. if the ways were expanded into areas with their width, the areas overlap where the ways cross, but that's just the way the model is. -- alv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Traffic Signs
Marc Gemis wrote: > AFAIK the Fins are already adding all traffic signs, see [1]. The Dutch made > [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Finland:Traffic_signs In my experience collecting the signs exhaustively has revealed smaller and bigger errors in osm data, and also in the signs (say, "leaking" zone signs, missing parking restrictions and different moped allowances in different opposing directions on combined cycling and pedestrian ways). It seems like a lot to do, but it's no different to anything else people map in their daily environment. -- alv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > the world is not black and white This (or some other message) reminded of one other very accepted case where the verifiability could be contested, but isn't. People do map underground pipelines (water, drain, heat etc.), either interpolating between manholes or markers, or by having seen an open construction/repait pit. A pit (usually) leaves a strip of patched pavement which the next mapper can use to "verify" the pipeline alignment, but after the whole road is then repaved again removing any "naked eye evidence" of the turns the pipeline takes, nobody is suggesting that the mapped curves and turns in the pipeline should be removed. We trust the mapper and their sources - and just hope they described them in the changeset tags. -- alv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] old_name
On Tue moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > If you go that route, there's no limit to how far back an old name can > go. That'd mean that we should add, for example, all of [Dublin's old > names][1] to the osm object, since they are well documented. It would Reading any old document or fiction would benefit from freely available data affixing the then used place names to present world places. There are numerous centuries old travel diaries that use "old" spellings of place names, and if they were available, one could follow them more precisely. Btw. I'm not against having two different keys for "a not current name but living people have used it 'daily' " and "an old name that is only in documents. The old abandoned names still refer to the present day object. -- alv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject
Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > that it is constructed as a railway bridge? Is there any difference? > > Historical data should not be added and if present - removed. If anyone can add descriptive attributes of present features on present-in-osm objects, they shouldn't be deleted. A tag saying "this was a railway" is not historical (i.e. "gone"), but part of the life story of that feature. Affixing the data to relevant current objects is more precise than storing it separately in "some other database", when the posterity can't tell if those two databases refer to, say, in this example, different bridges that were in the same spot, different bridges close to each other but the location data wasn't accurate enough to indicate that they weren't the same bridge, or that the bridge was in fact the same bridge all along. An original cycleway bridge most likely looks a whole lot different from a railway bridge converted to host a cycleway, or any other less heavy stuff. Even if it wasn't, the mapper who sees the change or who's investigation reveals that the bridge is in fact the same that used to host the railway, has done a worthwile and original contribution. Tags are cheap. -- alv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject
Dave F. wrote: > A 'life story' is historical. Historical doesn't mean 'gone'. Then that data shouldn't be 'gone' but just with a different key/tag, especially as long as the not-gone object exists. -- alv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails
(I hadn't subscribed to this list, so the reply is to a seemingly random message and not directly related to that) I believe much of this recent discussion is happening because there's a ... misconception that hasn't been addressed, and the actual tags that have been mentioned suggest readers to believe so. I believe I've mentioned this idea in the past, but I feel compelled to have it included in the discussion so that the arguments on either side refer to the same concepts. When a way no longer is an intact railway (or railbed), we don't want to claim it is a railway but rather this was a railway; the railwayness becomes an attribute of what is, i.e. this row of trees and this embankment were for a railway and part of the railbed), when previously it described an object, i.e. this is a railway and railbed. In short, they shouldn't use the same *key* in the tag. I therefore propose ** instead of changing the tag value to railway=dismantled, it would be better if mappers changed the tag key to was:railway=rail following the method of lifecycle prefixes (quotation marks only for added readability) ** http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix The prefix can be dismantled: or razed: or destroyed: or removed: or was: or something else; I personally prefer was: as it's applicable to a lot of other cases, and applies to all that were something. At least that way the information (that the real world object no longer is an object) is stored in osm, in contrast to plain deleting which doesn't tell anyone if it was deleted because the way was a mapping mistake or just replaced by a better version. Even if it's deleted later by someone who finds it impeding his editing, it is still *possible* to extract that difference. With a change of key, even those who blindly draw all ways with railway=* (for example the humanitarian layer on osm.org seems to do so) won't be drawing false features. Reassembling straight-away-deleted railway ways and figuring out which ways presented the last coherent state of things requires manual work from everyone who wants to see that information (think 30 years from now), but if the real world removal is first tagged, the most manual part of that work is already done, even if somebody later deletes the ways. And it would be at least possible to automatically watch for and store all those objects in OHM or similar, but discard the technical deletions. At least in urban environments the small details that tell a railway existed can remain for centuries: unusual colonnades, loading platforms, fasteners on the walls, curved buildings in an otherwise square road network etc., so the line between totally gone and identifiable isn't a clear cut line; why would it be paramount to delete stuff just when the iron beams were lifted, or when new asphalt was poured there? A possible life of a railway section in urban environment, a simple case: - the railway construction starts: railway=construction - the railway is in active use: railway=rail (say, in this example, in the middle of the city harbour, between warehouses which even have loading platforms at the height of the freight carriage floors) - the railway is no longer needed, no trains run there: railway=disused (everybody sees it's a railway). (a road had been built between the warehouses) - the track is converted to a sidewalk (the harbour is scaling down), but the loading platforms and the geometry remains; the way was a railway, and can be identified as such with expertice, and/or local knowledge and/or old sources: following the method of lifecycle prefixes, the best tag: was:railway=rail The road under my window is a bus-only road, that was a freight rail track for decades (tracks ran in the center) before the buses started to run there, then only occasionally used at night, then disused for some years before the tracks were removed last summer. They'll build, eventually, tram tracks where the driving lanes are now, but then the road (emergency vehicles only) will still be something that was a railway track. A linear clearing with some scrubby young trees in a small but healthy wood area nearby is also there because that freight track was partially realigned a few decades ago (only the tracks were removed, still railway=abandoned). If nothing is built there, the line could, in some or several decades, become indistinguishable; at that point it would be appropriate to change to was:railway=rail. Verifiability doesn't mean it's easily seen with the naked eye at ground level, but that the next person can use any combination of observations, previously mapped related data, and reliable sources to make up their mind if the feature is or isn't (or wasn't) correct. That way drawing multiple generations of past buildings in cities with a long history (an example mentioned here) wouldn't be verifiable, because even if some preindustrial maps are suprisingly accurate, the sources don't have enough accuracy to tell how their
Re: [OSM-talk] Historical Data in OSM database
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I think this has to be done, and it can be done. We could invent a way to flag stuff that we remove because it ceased to exist as such, and The solution that works right now, even if it is a bit laborous sometimes: first prepend all keys with was: or past: (for example change highway=track - was:highway=track), add end_date if known and upload, then delete and upload again. This way historical data ends up deleted, but the last version tells that the feature didn't exist anymore at the time it was deleted. Nothing supports it, but such data could then be extracted from the database or from the full history files, if someone really wanted to. Mapped objects very seldom get dismantled, so the overhead for storing one extra version in historic planets and full-history is minimal. And most wouldn't care enough to do it for POIs, trees(!) or other constantly changing features - just old buildings, major roadworks and the like. -- Alv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?
It's not detailled enough. A path is too narrow for a 4 wheels vehicle like a car but not for a 2 wheels vehicle like a moped or a motorbike (or no While that is often true, the criteria goes the other way: - if the way is too narrow to fit a car (hey, my summer car is only 1.48 m wide) or a tractor, it can't be a highway=track, but is a footway, bridleway, cycleway or a path - not all paths are too narrow for four wheel vehicles; many of the things some country guidelines recommend to tag as highway=path + bicycle=designated etc. are 3 to 5 meters wide. Given a random ... linear thing you cross in the forest, without any knowledge of the restrictions possibly posted at the ends, you can be sure it's anything from path to bridleway if it's not wide enough; but not the other way. Replies should go to the tagging list. -- Alv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-de] highway mit cycleway und seperater way für rad/fussweg
highway=cycleway ist zur Zeit lediglich als andere Schreibweise für highway=path + bicycle=designated anzusehen. Beim Proposal für highway=path war das in die andere Richtung diskutiert. Also nicht alle highway=cycleway Wege mit ein blauen Schild stehe (es gibt schon viele Menge Wege die älter als die Konzept highway=path sind), aber alles was path + bicycle=designated hat, könnten wir gleich als ein highway=cycleway halten (Radler, und vielleicht andere Benutzer, sind erlaubt, aber keine KFZ). Aber danach sind verschiedene Anleitungen auf verschiedene Sprachen geschrieben. -- Alv ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
[OSM-talk] Name tags on sidewalks and on cycleways next to a road
Some places are mapped thoroughly enough that we're adding sidewalks, and cycleways on the sidewalk (or Copenhagen style cycleways, as they've been called on this list) as separate ways. Generally these don't have a separate name. At least when the cycleway/footway deviates away from the road, even if only for some meters, other places have them drawn as such, too. Having read the oldest talk archives few years back, it has been a common understanding that only the road, which these cycleways run along, is named with name=*, yet it's not explicitly stated anywhere. Some disagree, as I have learned in the last half year. I'm writing this, because now (yesterday) the German documentation for Tag:highway=cycleway was changed to recommend always adding the name of the parallel road to the cycleway, even regardless of the distance. It's a big change that needs to be at least discussed, and my attempt on the wiki to direct the other side to start a discussion there, or preferably on the lists, was reverted. This is a more fundamental question than a what tags to use, so I've posted this initial message on the talk list. Either way of tagging can be made to work reasonably (at least with additional tags), but if the names are added en masse, it requires changes to many currently used programs for consistent and usable results. I found very few places where the names have been added, so the new guideline doesn't even seem to be documenting what's in use. It's intolerable that the guideline is different for different languages. The reasons I have seen given for why one would tag the cycleway, too, with the name of the road * routers require it for good instructions (As in turn left to cycleway X street vs. turn left to unnamed cycleway) : IMO, that's tagging for a router. A router/preprocessor can be made to check the distance to the nearest parallel road and use that name for directions. Yes, there isn't such code yet, but changing the software should be easier than changing the whole database. Even Nominatim finds the nearest road for housenumbers tagged only with addr:housenumber. : If it's sufficiently difficult to code such features, why not start adding a (superfluous) name_of_the_road_it's_next_to (with a better key, naturally) tag that the routers/mkgmap can use? * All ways making up the road have the name, a cycleway on the side is no different. : IMO, the road has a name and the sidewalks are a separate thing that happen to run along the roads. If I were to draw the curbstones along the roads as lines, nobody would suggest that I should add the name of the road to that curbstone way. Or the way marking a guard rail between the cars and the pedestrians. Or the hedge along the road, possibly between the parallel footway and the proper road. The reasons I think support not adding the names to sidewalks: * Such guideline would require a threshold distance, at which a parallel cycleway (without any name signs) would no longer be considered part of the road. And what about cycleways that criss cross that distance? To what an angle away from the road would a cycleway need to turn before it stops being a part of the road? * It's unnecessary data duplication. We wouldn't tag parking aisles with the name of the amenity=parking just because they are a part of the said named parking area. * If/as current implementations define what's usable data, there's two, although minor, reasons why it's not the way to tag them: ** Current rendering rules don't support the idea, and currently they would require an additional tag to suppress rendering on such sidewalks (say, add sidewalk=this to every such way for easier processing, even if that could be deduced by preprocessors and I know there are strong opinions against that). For an example, here's a place where one local mapper has been adding the names to cycleways along roads: http://osm.org/go/0xPl9mW0r-?layers=B000FTF Most of those other remaining roads will eventually get footways along them, too, and then those sidewalks would be named, too. Just imagine what city centers would be like, when all these sidewalks had a name tag of their own: http://osm.org/go/0xPLmDUGZ- ** It confuses Nominatim: At the previous link, try searching for Talvikkitie, and the first two resulta are a secondary road and a cycle path. For any of those roads the cycle path hit comes up quite early in the results. * There isn't a cycleway with the name X Street, but cycleway along the road with the name X street. - This is the fundamental question on how to model the cycleways in question. -- Alv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Cycleways wiki doc enhanced
Richard Mann wrote: then yes they probably will get converted into tags on the road, just as soon as that renders properly. Rendering gain trumps notional information loss. The Danes are just ahead of the curve. I think they have been too eager to discourage drawing the cycleways separately. The national officials here are allegedly constructing a database for a online routing service for cycling and they have concluded that the information can not be described with sufficient detail for very accurate routing as tags on the roads. Other authorities already made such a service available for the capital region, but now they wan't to expand it to cover the whole country. (Sorry, the document was only in Finnish). Just try describing this intersection (which isn't that complex, even) solely with tags on the proper roads: (make sure you have the bicycle layer visible, if the link gets truncated) http://elanor.mine.nu/daeron/kartat.php?zoom=17lat=60.20853lon=24.94616layers=0B0 Consider especially a cyclist arriving from the south on the eastern cycle track, and how to guide them towards other directions... As most of those are shared use tracks, also think how a wheelchair user/ visually impaired user gets as good instructions as possible. It would have been very sufficient in the beginning to add cycleway=track only on the roads, but as the level of detail has increased, removing the later added highway=cycleway ways would be outright destructive. Additionally, I feel a point that hasn't been mentioned here, for only expanding the area covered with separate highway=cycleway ways, is that the transitions from cycleway=track to a highway=cycleway next to and along the road either introduces a nonexistant 90 degree curve (or two) away from the road centerline, or where the cycleway then continues away from the road at a shallow angle, the highway=cycleway way starts at an incorrect location. Keeps straight things straight. Linking the cycle track to the road next to it could use some explicit information; some have mentioned using relations, but wouldn't a simple tag sidewalk=this, on the cycle track separated by a curb stone or a thin green patch, suffice? The nearest road segment (roughly) parallel to this way, is the road that most would call this cycleway part of. The same idea works with addressing; node and a tag this belongs to the nearby way (with this name). There's no support in software, yet, and I don't know if osmosis could even reasonably find such ways, but that shouldn't be an excuse to delete the more accurate data. It didn't take long for authors to implement checking for Karlsruhe schema addressing, as in finding the point on the correct road, so if it were urgently needed, someone could. And most of the time it wouldn't even be needed, since surely a cycleway/footway few meters from a parallel road _is_ the sidewalk, unless there's a building in between. Only where such a cycleway is roughly midway between two different roads and very close to both of them, one couldn't deduce it - but they hardly could dedice between the two when mapping, either, in such border cases. -- Alv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] how to map this? cycleway or footpath?
I think we've seen (several times) the different meanings given in
the wiki guidelines in different languages/ for different countries;
there's little to gain from discussing them over again _until_ someone
makes a proposal to clear the issue with well written explanations.
But I want to note a common misconception:
I assume highway=cycleway to imply bicycle=designated
I do too. However after the last discussion a lot of people seemed to
think it only implied bicycle=yes not bicycle=designated, so I'd add
The proposal for highway=path and access=designated did read (from the
start of the voting on that):
{{Tag|highway|path}}+{{Tag|bicycle|designated}}+{{Tag|foot|yes}} is
considered equivalent to {{Tag|highway|cycleway}}
but *not* the other way round - nothing was to be added to the then valid
definition of highway=footway or highway=cycleway - not all
highway=cycleways are paths designated for cycling (unless country
specific traffic rules/laws make such criteria absolutely necessary _in
that country_).
--
Alv
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Nop wrote: This is a rather lenient definition that is unsuitable to depict the German use case. That is exactly the reason for the confusion we are having. If something is tagged as a cycleway and I am planning to walk on foot, I need to know whether it is an unsigned way assumed to be suitable for cycling (then I may use it as a pedestrian) or whether it is legally dedicated to cycling (then I must not use it as a pedestrian). The last time I was in Germany most of the signed-for-cycling ways were of the combined cycle and footway type. We have both types of signs here too, (combined use vs. cycles only 100 to 1 I'd say, or even more), but I haven't yet seen a only-for-cyclists way that didn't have a footway somewhere really near (within 10 meters) - which kind of makes it irrelevant for a pedestrian looking at a map - there's then just one way he may use, not the cycleway he chose from the map; software knows which one can be used no matter cycleway or footway, when they're tagged with correct foot/bicycle=designated/yes/no. But that's a rendering issue anyway - either add something to the rendering to show the both allowed or the cycleway + foot=no as something different from those where foot=yes or foot=designated. designated in a dictionary it means marked with a sign and it is the only/most fitting tag for the purpose anyway, so in Germany bicycle=designated must mean foot=no, so it cannot be the same as Why not always add the foot=no when it's the only for cycles sign - and foot=designated when it's combined use? When not tagged it's just incomplete data: foot=unknown - someone will add it sooner or later. -- Alv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Roy Wallace wrote: I have no idea what you would consider suitable for the common cyclist. Please, at least write the criteria down. Since it's the not signposted ways that are not evident and a common cyclist is not looking for mountain bike trails, I'll try: shout if you disagree. Absolute requirements: * cycling is legal (e.g. some parts of Germany require a width of over 2 meters, or so I've read) * way is not infested with roots or other sharp objects - things you could cross at walking pace only * surface is not mud, loose/fine sand or other where the tires sink enough to slow down the cyclist. * way is wide enough for two cyclists to pass - generally at least about 1.5 meters wide, but 1.2 might just suffice * a cyclist can use it to get ''somewhere'' - at least one of the ways connected to it must be something else than steps or footway, but dead ends may exists if it's the way to a house or an amenity or attraction And fullfills most or all of the following: * way has at some point been built for traffic * way is wide enough for three cyclists to pass (one in each direction and one overtaking) - over two meters * visibility obstructions don't limit the safe speed below 20 km/h in corners (the max most cyclist can keep going for longer times) Additionally: we've instructed the Finnish mappers to consider the other ways suitable for cycling nearby - if there's a better/faster/wider/ flatter way in the same direction nearby, the smaller is better of as a footway + bicycle=yes _when there's doubt_ and no signs. This has lead to consistent results. As to the example of your mother, I fully acknowledge that not all mothers are alike but stereotypes are usable if they're consistent, I should have it made more clear that I was referring to a person not driving a mountain or trekking bike and with no intention of physical exercise; let's make that your grandmother on a gearless city bike hauling the groceries; she might have just bought a basket of eggs. -- Alv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Layer transitions
Lambert Carsten wrote: sense. Even though the smaller road ends at the edge of the larger road not the middle of the road. Inside the crossing area the roads overlap, neither ends there - you're on both roads. But you're not on the bridge that starts only several meters away - or inches away if you're already moving towards the bridge. Taking the canal bridges mentioned previously: if you draw the riverbanks/canal edges, it has been the recommendation (I'd have to dig the talk list archives for that) also that the bridge=yes starts and ends at the points where one can get under the bridge - at the water's edge, meters away from the ways marking the roads running parallel to the canal. One thing about the same layer check occurs sometimes: a motorway link road joins the motorway right at the point where the bridge starts: most notably the case where the road markings indicate three lanes on the bridge and only two (+1 approaching but still separate) up to the exact point where the bridge starts. We can make the connected node something other than the point where the lanes come into contact (the acceleration lane's hundreds of meters long anyway, but that would need some kind of a note to be consistent - at least once more people start to get to that level of detail. -- Alv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Roy Wallace wrote: Is tagging the primary users intended to use the way verifiable? If not, it shouldn't be tagged. If it is, then is footway/cycleway As fine as it as a guideline, verifiability as a topic and was introduced into the wiki only in 2009, while footway and cycleway have been successfully used since ... the beginning. But anyway, primary intended users are those for whom the way is signed as being for (cycleway, footway) - convention was to choose the most demanding mode of transport when it's equally for both, for example for the combined cycleway and footway. This just wasn't written properly in the tag documentation until sometime in winter 2007/2008 or thereabouts. _When not signed for anyone_ but where local legislation allows cyclists on such routes, people used local judgement to decide whether the way was built as being suitable for the common cyclist. Some claim that one couldn't know what others consider suitable, but I hold the view that most people can relate to what others think, if they have ever ridden a bicycle after childhood. The best example I've come up with so far is that if your mother asked should I cycle on it you'd instantly know the answer (most of the time anyway): definitively (cycleway) or you could (footway + bicycle=yes) or no, you shouldn't (footway) Sometimes this did lead to ways being later changed to the other classification, but likewise some (very few but anyway) roads are changed between unclassified/tertiary depending on each user's view of the interconnecting function of that road - or of width or of legal classification. Alv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Shaun McDonald wrote: As fine as it as a guideline, verifiability as a topic and was Even so the on the ground rule and verifiability have not been on the wiki for long. They have been the unwritten norms of the community since the I'm all for referring to that verifiability where it comes to legal and physical attributes (e.g. access=yes/designated/no or building:levels or width), yet trying to squeeze by force the old tags to comply - to the letter - to that norm seems counter productive. As with car access on very rough tracks: there could be tens of tags to describe the ground clearance, wheel size and suspension travel etc. required to get through, but instisting people start measuring them is too much work that anyone else would start doing so - users require something simplified from that - even if there's no widely accepted solution yet. The description of a way for other users than cars varies on multiple axes and fitting all that into one tag seems impossible; yet it's most of the time reasonable and simple to divide the decision space into two sets: cycleway and footway and use additional tags from there on. Some ways then are borderline cases or sufficiently outside of those two sets that they necessitate some other solution. Most of the time the intended use is unambiguous, either signedposted or evident from the location or structure. Where it's not, I trust people can classify things on a closed scale, even if with some personal judgement And to make those cases easier, there is a need for something in addition to the footway/cycleway pair. (Where does a coniferous forest turn into a mixed forest? One birch? One birch for every ten pinetrees? 25:75 distribution?) Much of the discussion would have been avoided if the documentation of footway and cycleway had been more exact already in the fall 2007 - it took me then quite a lot of reading to get to the logic and implications behind them, and many don't read that much of the scattered documentation which has lead to some of the pages having been changed around and misconceptions. The big question is just how can that be fixed? Alv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Quote Key:highway: It is a very general and sometimes vague description of the importance of the highway. (Was until last week:) ... of the physical structure of the highway. Either way, the highway tag itself should (IMO) convey they primary description of the highway - the distinction between two highway tags should be significant, not just a different sign if the allowed foot/cycle users are the same. For a cycling user (prove me wrong!) it's not important if the light traffic way where he may cycle is signed as no motor vehicles or cycleway or combined cycle and footway. A router (yeah, it's not the only use for map data) may choose to prefer some type of those over others if they think there's some reasonable difference in expected travel speeds - but it's not the main attribute of the way. Given other tags are the same (at least surface, width, lit) they're all alike; for pedestrians too. If that user is on foot, it's even more so, if there's a foot=yes on the cycleways or if it is assumed default. There's a much bigger difference between ways planned and constructed for pedestrian and cycle traffic vs. the ways that have emerged from erosion caused by people walking that way. My point: I don't see a point in _not_ tagging ways such as these: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:Path-nomotortraffic.jpg and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:Path-lighttraffic.jpg as cycleways with either foot=yes or foot=designated, respectively. -- Alv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Nop wrote: I think we should step back one step. The discussion here seems about to fall victim to the same mechanisms Trying to keep my comment general at first to find what are the needs: what should be in the highway tag and what are local factors. This turned into a stream of thoughts but hopefully coherent enough to breed some more refined thoughts. Things that all agree on: highway=footway: Something, where walking is allowed and possible for someone. (walking might be and is allowed and possible elsewhere, too) highway=cycleway: something, where cycling is allowed and possible (even a German dedicated/signposted cycleway fits that description, i.e. it's not a oneway dependency - not all things tagged highway=cycleway are german signposted cycleways). Pedestrian access undefined - might be country dependent but not supported (yet), so there has about always been a suggestion in the wiki to always tag it with foot=no/yes/designated. highway=path: something not wide enough for four wheeled vehicles OR where motorvehicles are forbidden (unless otherwise indicated by snowmobile/agricultural=designated or similar). Anything with wheelchair=no: unsuitable for wheelchair users or other mobility impaired Anything with highway=footway + foot=no (+ snowmobile=yes) would be silly highway=track implies that it's wide enough for a small motorcar to drive on, even if it's illegal. Things that people don't agree on: 1) Is a highway=cycleway + foot=yes any different from a highway=footway + bicycle=yes 2) Is it significant if there signs read footway + bicycle allowed or combined foot and cycleway (presumably a difference in the legal maxspeed at least in Germany) 3a) is a forest trail any different from a paved sidewalk 3b) is a forest trail any different from an unpaved but built footpath 4) is a constructed way with the traffic sign no motorvehicles any different from a constructed way with the traffic sign combined foot and cycleway (or with a cycleway-signpost in the UK) User needs: Pedestrian / Cyclist / Horse rider / Urban planner / Statistician / Safety engineer / Accessibility analyst / Crime investigator ... A pedestrian considers mostly the surface and the build quality of the ways _allowed_ to him. A trail in an urban forest (picture 1), formed by repeated use only, is not usable for an average pedestrian, even if a normally fit person in sneakers would go for a walk there sometimes, even if only to walk the dog. A mountain trail is effectively the same, even if more difficult to use. Just about every person, even in (very) high heels would walk down (picture 2) if the way hasn't turned into a puddle of mud. And a western world way constructed for walking usually doesn't deteriorate that much. Then there's the third variant in-between (3), which some would use and other's wouldn't. 1) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:06072009(045).jpg 2) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:Path-motorcarnohorseno.jpg 3) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:Path-footyes.jpg Some cyclist disregard access rights and consider the surface and hills only, while others would want to drive on dedicated cycleways only; on those where only cyclists are allowed. Most common cyclist probably don't care if there are pedestrians involved, they just wan't to use legal and properly built ways and avoid driving amongst the cars. Horse riding is something to think about, too. For signposted bridleways it's quite unambiguous, even if a British bridleway allows pedestrians and cyclists, too, whereas the German (and Finnish) legally signposted bridleways allow neither. But on a built way signposted as no motor vehicles horse riding might be legal, but if it's signposted as a footway, cycleway or the combined foot and cycleway (picture 4), horse riding is not allowed. 4) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:Path-lighttraffic.jpg On the forest trails (picture 1 again) horse riding might again be legal or private/permissive. If the picture 2 didn't have the no horses sign, I'd think around here that it's legal to ride a horse there. City planners possibly need to consider if the way is signposted for combined use or with a no motor vehicles - first ones the city might have to keep in good walking condition to avoid expenses when someone breaks his bike because of the unfixed potholes but the latter ways don't possibly carry such limitations. On the other hand that doesn't usually interest the cyclists at all even if it is so. This can and does have implications when dedicing where to build the light traffic ways in the next suburb to be built - or where to add new cycleways to improve the percentage of cycling commuters. Statisticians and safety engineers could want to know whether (un)segregated shared use paths have more fatalities or broken legs (or wild angry goose or ice cream eaters) than some other ways allowed to cyclists and/or pedestrians. They're interested in all the details:
Re: [Talk-de] highway=no
Rückeweg ist ein Begriff der Forstwirtschaft, heißt eigentlich nur, dass die Bäume weit genug auseinander stehen, dass man mit Maschinen durchkommt. Wenn wirklich Holzabfuhr stattfindet, können deren Spuren zu Verwexlungen mit tracks führen, ansonsten wuchert's da vor sichhin... Und es geht eben gerade NICHT um solche Wege, sondern um Schneisen, die nur alle 5 Jahre benutzt werden, um paar Bäume zu schlagen, oder alte Wege, die wegen Nichtbenutzung KOMPLETT zugewachsen sind, Also etwas fast wie die Erste Beispiele auf Tag:highway=path/Examples im Wiki, nur mit Bäume usw. Ich würde benutzen: highway=path foot=no (... oder nicht möglich. laut De:Key:access.) bicycle=no harvester=yes trail_visibility=no (oder horrible) surface=ground (smoothness=impassable/very_horrible) Pferde können das wahrscheinlich benutzen, also kein horse=no, wenn Pferde erlaubt sind. -- Alv ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk] Highways tagging vs Polygon
Radomir Cernoch wrote: http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=60.18933lon=24.9642zoom=18 I do not think that streets like Sturenkatu or Teollisuuskatu, nor any of connected primary/secondary/tertiary form a zone. I would suggest to define a zone as an area with predominantly uniform traffic regulations. Not that it matters in Finland, but urban roads are more often signposted as zone 30 or zone 40 and not maxspeed 30/40, at least in Helsinki. Such zones can't be made up at will, but can only be surveyed by entering an area from all directions. To me the maxspeed is just a property of the road, even if the authorities have signed them as a maxspeed zone. Likewise the urban area (as defining the applying traffic rules, mainly maxspeed=50/80) can't be accurately deduced from landuse areas, residential roads nor from any administrative boundaries yet entered. The only relevant legislative differences are the maxspeed and whether honking is allowed to signal starting an overtake, but no one does that anyway. Examples: in http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=60.221lon=25.035zoom=16 everything is urban, but in http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=60.193lon=25.03zoom=16 only the trunk road is not urban (as are all trunk roads inside Helsinki) * If someone forgets to add the maxspeed or zone:traffic tag to a road, this model is closer to reality. (Please note that this may happen in a very well made map, see my previous Helsinki mail). Actually, if there was a polygon with zone:traffic, it'd likely be wrong. Those roads most likely have a maxspeed of 30 or 40 and without a proper survey(*1) they would still be inside a zone:traffic=urban, which would imply a maxspeed 50 in Finland. Guessing a zone from the other minor roads, roads that aren't connected to those without a maxspeed (Allotriankuja and Rialtonkuja in the example), would indicate a maxspeed zone of 30 or 40 - a 50 percent probability of being wrong. Without a given maxspeed it's known to contain incomplete information. *1 Someone unkown drew most of the roads in Helsinki in 2007 from the Yahoo aerials and there's still much to add details to. A chance to get the house numbers, too. It's a work in progress, even if it looks quite detailed in places. With about 600 mappers (ever having edited anything) in Finland and 300 000 km of roads it's going to take a whole lot of time, esp. outside the significant cities. -- Alv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[Talk-de] Taggen Gemeinsamer Rad- und Fußweg
(Habe nicht in vielen Jahren etwas so langes auf Deutsch gescrieben aber muss jetzt versuchen...) Was es nicht alles fuer verschiedene Interpretationen fuer designated gibt. Wie schoen einfach und klar muss die OSM-Welt gewesen sein, als es das Proposal fuer path noch nicht gegeben hat. Zuerst gab es nicht den path im OSM. Dann gab es nur footway für Wege, die nur zu Fuss benutzen würden. Wenn Mann da radfahren darf und könnten, war die Weg einen cycleway. Wenn eine solche cycleway Fussgänger erlaubten oder verplicteten, war auch foot=yes gegeben. Weil das yes kein Unterschied zwischen erlaubten und beschilderten wegen machen könnte, haben einige foot=designated vorgestellt. Im Anfang war es gedacht, dass die path für die gleiche Recht zu benutzen, dass heisst gemeinsamer rad- und fussweg, besser als cycleway wäre und so war der Vorschlag zum highway=path geschrieben. Deswegen war das deprecation von highway=footway und cycleway vorgeschlagen, aber die meisten haben dagegen gewahlt. Das meint, dass man die footway und cycleway gleich als bevor benutzen dürfen und sollen. In der Vorschlag war geschrieben, dass ein highway=path mit bicycle=designated soll die gleiches bedeuten als ein highway=footway aber jemand hat dass rückgängig auf der Deutschen Map Features geschrieben. Dass heisst dass da geschrieben wäre: ein footway bedeutet highway=path + foot=designated aber ist nicht so; Footway bedeutet die Gleiche was sie letzte Jahr bedeutet hat: mainly/exclusively for pedestrians. Die wort designated im Englischen Map Features war nicht in die gleiche bedeutung benutzt als was die foot=designated bedeutet. Unglücklich war die Renderern beigebracht, auch foot=yes und bicycle=yes auf einer path zu beachten und nicht nur x=designated. Gleichzeitig haben die Vorschläger gedacht, dass es nicht ausreichend alle wege (z.B. Schneemobilwege) als footway zu taggen wäre - vielleicht gibt es da gar kein footway im Sommer oder Fussgänger verboten sind (das wäre also highway=footway + foot=no und kommt aus selbst-widerspruchlich). Einen path ohne andere Tags kann meistens zu Fuss (und mit Fahrrad) benutzt werden, aber dazu gibt es kein Garantie, wenn nicht mit x=designated oder x=yes erscheint. Einen path kann ohne weitere Tags also nur einen Spalt im Wald (mit Erosionkratzer(?)) sein, wo jemand beim winter Schneemobil fährt, aber es kann auch ein Waldspur sein. Wenn Mann path mith foot=designated und bicycle=designated kombiniert, bekommt Mann einen für Beide geeigneten Weg. Dann kann Mann glauben, dass es gut da zu gehen ist. Dazu war path geeignet und dass war was die meisten haben yes zugestimmt. Was bedeutet das? * Sieht wie zum radfahren geeignet aus und radfahren und zu Fuss gehen ist mit Strassenverzeichnis verpflictet? Soll cycleway + bicycle=designated + foot=designated sein. * Sieht wie zum radfahren geeignet aus und radfahren ist verpflictet? Soll cycleway + bicycle=designated sein. * Sieht wie zum radfahren geeignet aus und radfahren ist nicht verboten? Soll cycleway sein. * Sieht wie zum radfahren geeignet aus aber radfahren ist verboten? Soll footway sein. * Sieht zu Schmal aus oder auf irdendetwas andere Grund nur zum Fusgänger geeignet? Soll footway sein. * Sieht zu Schmal aus oder sieht wie nicht für Fussgänger empfehlenswert aus? Soll path ohne andere tags sein. * Ist für Schneemobil geeignet und zu Fuss gehen verboten oder für die meisten Fussgänger unmöglich ist? Soll path mit foot=no und snowmobile=yes (vielleicht auch mit bicycle=no) sein. -- alv ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
[OSM-talk] footway vs. path [Was: highway=track and motorcar=yes/no]
Are paths larger than footways? Is it for paths required that any other vehicle/horse can use the path otherwise it is a footway? There is no defined physical difference between footway and path. The difference is that footways are primarily or exclusively for use by foot traffic, while paths are not. Just a thought; it all comes down to horse riding. Luckily the wording was chosen to include open to all non-motorized vehicles. At least if the German law forbids equestrian traffic on sidewalk and cycleways (as it seems to do), with highway=path they'd have to enter horse=no for every f^H^H single sidewalk and cycle lane. Such clear cases are, IMO too, left as footways and cycleways which forbid horses, with possibly a bicycle=designated or foot=designated where equal designation is present. As a consequence, a path is often *likely* smaller or looks less man-made than a footway or cycleway (the hiking trails type), but could be bigger (for example a dedicated, built-up and wide snowmobile route that would be wrong to claim as a footway). Now who can convince the germans to change their tagging recommendations? -- alv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - maxspeed=none
Hi, The proposed feature for specifically acknowledgind a value of none for the tag maxspeed has been in voting but has not been voted upon 15 times and is therefore re-introduced to this list. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/maxspeed_none ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
