Re: [OSM-talk] Escalators and Travalators
Stephen Hope wrote: Can I suggest that the documentation for the human conveyor has a section that states clearly that it is not for goods, and pointing to the goods tagging. And maybe the reverse in the other tag. This can and should be done this way. Hopefully, editor preset makers and translators will also take care not to choose misleading descriptions. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Escalators and Travalators
Stephen Hope wrote: 2009/8/23 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de: I believe the best way to solve this is to create a new top-level (that is, highway) value for all variants of conveyor transport. [...] Is this intended to be only for human transport? I know of some quite lengthy conveyors for goods - eg coal, grain etc. There's two main types, belt and screw, and I've seen a mix of both. Escalators and travelators are both belt conveyors. I don't know if we want to try and differentiate for goods use, or just lump them together under something like conveyor=goods, type = grain/coal/gravel/etc. We certainly want to make it easy for routing programs to differentiate between goods and human ones. Using the same top level tag (e.g. highway=conveyor) would only make sense if applications could use both the same way, and I don't believe there are apps that can. Routers don't need conveyors for goods for their calculations, and a rendered map displaying it like a pedestrian conveyor transport would certainly irritate users. So using the same tag would only result in making evaluating (and tagging) the conveyor=* tag required. Therefore, I'd prefer to restrict highway=conveyor to human transport (or human+bicycle or some kind of vehicle, if this exists somewhere, by using access tags) and use a separate top level tag for goods - for example man_made=conveyor. Maybe it would be better to use different values, too, such as goods_conveyor vs. human_conveyor*? Tobias Knerr * I'm not sure whether this is a name at all, maybe someone is more creative... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Escalators and Travalators
--- On Sun, 23/8/09, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: Using the same top level tag (e.g. highway=conveyor) would only make sense if applications could use both the same way, and I don't believe there are apps that can. Routers don't need conveyors for goods for their calculations, and a rendered map displaying it like a pedestrian conveyor transport would certainly irritate users. So using the same tag would only result in making evaluating (and tagging) the conveyor=* tag required. Which already happens with those pushing path tags instead of footway etc... highway=path, foot=designated... So I don't see that as a good enough reason to have multiple highway tags. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Escalators and Travalators
John Smith wrote So using the same tag would only result in making evaluating (and tagging) the conveyor=* tag required. Which already happens with those pushing path tags instead of footway etc... highway=path, foot=designated... No, it doesn't happen there. Evaluating access tags is already necessary for highway=footway, too (bicycle=yes etc.), so path doesn't require evaluating additional tagging. So I don't see that as a good enough reason to have multiple highway tags. Nobody suggested multiple highway tags. The highway tag currently only contains features that are relevant for routing pedestrians or vehicles, and I prefer it to stay like that. Things like pipelines or goods conveyors don't belong into this category. What's the disadvantage of using highway=conveyor and man_made=conveyor for human vs goods conveyors? If there isn't any, then how can a reason not be good enough to do it? Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Escalators and Travalators
--- On Sun, 23/8/09, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: No, it doesn't happen there. Evaluating access tags is already necessary for highway=footway, too (bicycle=yes etc.), so path doesn't require evaluating additional tagging. Not according to the osm-template.xml... http://svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/rendering/mapnik/osm-template.xml Specifically: ([highway] = 'footway' or ([highway] = 'path' and [foot] = 'designated')) So I'd say it does... What's the disadvantage of using highway=conveyor and man_made=conveyor for human vs goods conveyors? If there isn't any, then how can a reason not be good enough to do it? Because someone, most likely more than just someone, some where will mix these up and you will end up with a mess just like some of the other ambiguous tags cause. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Escalators and Travalators
Could I ask the architects whether their down-to-up convention applies to escalators as well (cf. current discussion on 'steps') - given that they are moving steps - or only to up-escalators (;) ... Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Peter Childs [mailto:pchi...@bcs.org] Sent: 22 August 2009 16:23 To: OSM-Talk Subject: [OSM-talk] Escalators and Travalators http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Escalator I'm trying to work out how to tag Escalators I'm not sure the current tagging it clear, or even partially useful. This ties in Greatly with the long running Path discussion.. There seams to be no clear way to tag Moving Walkways or Travelators these are Esclators without steps, so the current tagging steps with an extra tag just does not work, spouse you could tag a path, but that just makes it worse. one_way would seam to make as much sence as escalator_dir currently, and maybe this could be unified. Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Escalators and Travalators
2009/8/23 Mike Harris mik...@googlemail.com: Could I ask the architects whether their down-to-up convention applies to escalators as well (cf. current discussion on 'steps') - given that they are moving steps - or only to up-escalators (;) ... Also steps where a One-Way System applies (even on Steps) (Due to local regulations ie School Rules, Que etc) I think this is the perfect use of incline, (see other thread) Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Escalators and Travalators
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Tobias Knerro...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: Nobody suggested multiple highway tags. The highway tag currently only contains features that are relevant for routing pedestrians or vehicles, and I prefer it to stay like that. Things like pipelines or goods conveyors don't belong into this category. +1 What's the disadvantage of using highway=conveyor and man_made=conveyor for human vs goods conveyors? If there isn't any, then how can a reason not be good enough to do it? Sounds good to me. Not sure what John means - I think this is less ambiguous than having the same tag (highway=conveyor) mean two different things. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Escalators and Travalators
2009/8/23 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de: Therefore, I'd prefer to restrict highway=conveyor to human transport (or human+bicycle or some kind of vehicle, if this exists somewhere, by using access tags) and use a separate top level tag for goods - for example man_made=conveyor. I don't have a problem with that, the question came up because when I see the word conveyor it's not escalators or travelators that come to mind for me. Can I suggest that the documentation for the human conveyor has a section that states clearly that it is not for goods, and pointing to the goods tagging. And maybe the reverse in the other tag. Stephen ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Escalators and Travalators
--- On Mon, 24/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Sounds good to me. Not sure what John means - I think this is less ambiguous than having the same tag (highway=conveyor) mean two different things. Because they are both man made it's ambiguous, it's a very bad idea to use tags that can be confused if the descriptions aren't read, or aren't read properly. Someone somewhere will use the wrong tags, and most likely it won't be just some one and then you'll end up with another endless pointless debate over this. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Escalators and Travalators
--- On Mon, 24/8/09, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote: I don't have a problem with that, the question came up because when I see the word conveyor it's not escalators or travelators that come to mind for me. Can I suggest that the documentation for I've seen some very very long conveyors in places for transporting coal, some shorter ones for grain, and perhaps as a result I don't think of escalators etc as a conveyor either. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Escalators and Travalators
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Escalator I'm trying to work out how to tag Escalators I'm not sure the current tagging it clear, or even partially useful. This ties in Greatly with the long running Path discussion.. There seams to be no clear way to tag Moving Walkways or Travelators these are Esclators without steps, so the current tagging steps with an extra tag just does not work, spouse you could tag a path, but that just makes it worse. one_way would seam to make as much sence as escalator_dir currently, and maybe this could be unified. Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Escalators and Travalators
Peter Childs wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Escalator I'm trying to work out how to tag Escalators I'm not sure the current tagging it clear, or even partially useful. I wouldn't call this current tagging. That page is a proposal in draft state, i.e. its not even in the please look at my proposal, try it and comment state (aka RFC). So if we find something better, we can just use that instead. There seams to be no clear way to tag Moving Walkways or Travelators these are Esclators without steps, so the current tagging steps with an extra tag just does not work, spouse you could tag a path, but that just makes it worse. I believe the best way to solve this is to create a new top-level (that is, highway) value for all variants of conveyor transport. So, for example, we could do: highway = conveyor conveyor = escalator / travelator incline = up / down / percentage (nothing for horizontal travelators) If required also something like: conveyor:direction = forward (default) / backward / on_demand Using a highway value is justified because applications that don't know about this kind of feature would use it wrong anyway (e.g. route in the wrong direction). Would that solution work? Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Escalators and Travalators
2009/8/22 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de: Peter Childs wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Escalator I'm trying to work out how to tag Escalators I'm not sure the current tagging it clear, or even partially useful. I wouldn't call this current tagging. That page is a proposal in draft state, i.e. its not even in the please look at my proposal, try it and comment state (aka RFC). So if we find something better, we can just use that instead. There seams to be no clear way to tag Moving Walkways or Travelators these are Esclators without steps, so the current tagging steps with an extra tag just does not work, spouse you could tag a path, but that just makes it worse. I believe the best way to solve this is to create a new top-level (that is, highway) value for all variants of conveyor transport. So, for example, we could do: highway = conveyor conveyor = escalator / travelator incline = up / down / percentage (nothing for horizontal travelators) If required also something like: conveyor:direction = forward (default) / backward / on_demand Using a highway value is justified because applications that don't know about this kind of feature would use it wrong anyway (e.g. route in the wrong direction). Would that solution work? Tobias Knerr Sounds good to me I was not trying to get discussion and work out what was right and could only find something flaky on the wiki Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Escalators and Travalators
2009/8/23 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de: I believe the best way to solve this is to create a new top-level (that is, highway) value for all variants of conveyor transport. So, for example, we could do: Is this intended to be only for human transport? I know of some quite lengthy conveyors for goods - eg coal, grain etc. There's two main types, belt and screw, and I've seen a mix of both. Escalators and travelators are both belt conveyors. I don't know if we want to try and differentiate for goods use, or just lump them together under something like conveyor=goods, type = grain/coal/gravel/etc. We certainly want to make it easy for routing programs to differentiate between goods and human ones. Stephen ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
