Re: [OSM-talk] Almost one way streets
Alex S. wrote: Jo wrote: Lambertus wrote: cycleway=opposite The same should be possible for buses/public transportation/taxis. Is it? There's no official tag for it. It would be nice if there was, there's a three-block section of one street here that is three lanes oneway for the public, and one lane opposite for buses only. I think I'll use psv=opposite for now. For the simple oneway tag, -1 is used to indicate a contraflow lane. perhaps: access=highway oneway=yes access:psv:oneway=-1 The last taken from the access: name space proposal -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] voting closed - swimming_pool
Brent Easton wrote: Interesting. If there are votes both for and against, then it requires 14 Yes votes to get something through, but only 1 No vote to can it. In fact, the No voters are more likely to prevent a proposal by NOT voting against a proposal once the first No vote is registered! Wow, somebody's reading the voting description completely wrong. 6 unanimous yes approve is an approval. Otherwise, once 15 votes are reached, the majority rules. This proposal still has only 14 votes, so voting should still be open. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] voting closed - swimming_pool
Ian Sergeant wrote: This is pretty much what Brent said. The proposal only needs one more No vote to succeed. Is there anyone out there who doesn't like the proposal, who can disapprove quickly? We can then move it to Map Features. Ian. No, Brent said ...it requires 14 Yes votes to get something through, but only 1 No vote to can it. This is completely incorrect. And it needs only one vote, which can be yes or no. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] proposal rejected - climbing_wall
Robin Paulson wrote: a proposal can be rejected regardless of whether or not it reaches 15 votes - that is the total number needed if some of the votes are no, for it to be approved by a majority I would consider it to be neither approved nor rejected until it has reached 15 votes (or I guess 8 votes for XOR against, since that would be a majority of 15) -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] golf courses?
The map features page lists both leisure=golf_course and sport=golf. Can we please pick one of these and remove the other? Thanks -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] RFC: Driveway
Please read and comment on the driveway proposal, at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Driveway Thanks -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: Highway administrative and physical descriptions
Please read and comment on the proposal at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Highway_administrative_and_physical_descriptions Thank you. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] updated RFC: Highway administrative and physical descriptions
I've added a decision tree to the physical section of the page, as well as removed the boulevard designation (since it didn't really add much) I'd like to have some more comments from the UK and german end, as to whether or not A and B roads (and others?) fit into the highway:admin scheme. Again, the proposal location is: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Highway_administrative_and_physical_descriptions ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] updated RFC: Highway administrative and physical descriptions
Lester Caine wrote: Alex Mauer wrote: I've added a decision tree to the physical section of the page, as well as removed the boulevard designation (since it didn't really add much) I'd like to have some more comments from the UK and german end, as to whether or not A and B roads (and others?) fit into the highway:admin scheme. Again, the proposal location is: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Highway_administrative_and_physical_descriptions :admin is appropriate for the UK - but not laid out as it is at present. Motorways may be under different administration to the 'Highways Agency' and the 'Highways Agency' is also responsible for other main roads, but private companies will actually be responsible for managing those roads. Basically WHO admins a road is a bit of a lottery, so trying to create a simple list as currently proposed is wrong for the UK :( :admin SHOULD be the company responsible for maintaining the road. Hmm, that's not what I was going for. I was going for the administrative designation of the road (that is, M, A, B [I gather] in the UK, I-, US, [state abbrev] in the US) . In the US this is closely tied to who maintains it. In Europe it seems to be much more closely tied to its physical characteristics, and varies wildly from country to country. :physical simply adds complications without actually fixing anything. Trying to add _almost and _twolane does not provide ANY useful information, and a UK dual_carriageway is unlikely to have shoulders. Infact HAVING hard shoulders is part of the definition that makes it a motorway, and may result in it being A...(M) - OK a motorway_almost except that the A1(M) has three lanes in areas. So it does not fit the decision tree and if it does not have two lanes why is it a (motorway_twolane) ? it's motorway_singlelane but then it would probably not be a motorway ) OK, I made some corrections; I realized that I was taking the designation into account in the decision of motorway vs. motorway_almost (because in the US that's the only way to tell/be sure) If physical adds complications without fixing anything, then it itself needs to be modified to cover the situations that it doesn't. What kind of physical roads are not covered by highway:physical? Many people are saying things like just use highway as-is, but that's really not tenable. trunk (and even primary, secondary, tertiary or A,B,C) says nothing whatever about the physical characteristics of the road. And then anywhere below those designations, there's no description of the physical characteristics of the road. Yes I know I should put this on the talk page - but I can't get in at the moment :( Meh, mailing lists are better for discussion anyway. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] updated RFC: Highway administrative and physical descriptions
Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote: It's a whole lot easier to add additional tags that are logical and describe the physical properties of the highway specifically. For the physical you I disagree that it's a whole lot easier. As you mention below, who wants to spend hours adding 20 tags to each piece of road. Much better IMO to have a tag which can shorthand those twenty tags. Just need to figure out how best to give a general idea of the road physically, without the need to break out the tape measures. You can do the same for administrative designations that go beyond the simple highway= approach we started with. These don't supersede the existing tags, they simply add to the overall definition of the object. That's exactly what I'm going for here. For example, highway=secondary tells nothing at all about the road, besides that it is at a lower level (in some way, administratively or physically) than a primary, trunk, or motorway. This proposal allows a basic description of the physical road (from a glance) and also (hopefully) gives a way to indicate the administrative designation, in a way that can be used globally (perhaps with slight modification at some point to add a level or two) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [tagging] RFV: Path
Voting is now open for http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Path Please vote on the proposal as it stands. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to use lanes= for two way single track roads?
DavidD wrote: According to map features the value for the lanes key should be. Number of travel lanes in each (or only permitted) direction I've been tagging to this definition. Number of travel lanes on the way This makes more sense to me because you can tag two way single lane roads with lanes = 1. The map features definition on the other hand doesn't give an obvious way to tag these roads. lanes = 0.5 perhaps. It also runs into trouble with 3- and 5-lane roads. Tagging the total number of lanes makes a lot more sense to me. (per carriageway if applicable, since each should be mapped separately) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to use lanes= for two way single track roads?
Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote: The lanes tag was in my original Map Features draft way back when and was intended to map the number of physical travel lanes that the way represents. That's certainly the usage I've always put it to. So, as you say, a two way single lane highway is lanes=1 I've updated the wording to hopefully be more clear. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [Tagging] Vote: Shooting
Voting is now open on tagging for the sport of shooting. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Shooting Please record your vote. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] Vote: Shooting
Ulf Lamping wrote: Alex Mauer schrieb: Voting is now open on tagging for the sport of shooting. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Shooting Please record your vote. Page says: voting is not open yet, proposed for 2008-02-12 And it's after 2008-2-12. Conveniently, it's a wiki so incorrect things can be fixed. ;-) -Alex ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] Vote: Shooting
Daniel Taylor wrote: Sorry to reply to this here, I'm still trying to remember my wiki password (been away for a while, only just getting back into it) No problem, I prefer mailing lists for discussion anyway. You (the royal 'you', not you alex) have listed the possible values as clay, range and paintball. What about airsoft? (think paintball with bb guns, more realistic weapons, without the messy paint, it's more of a military simulation then all out killing) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airsoft I think those were just given as examples. I believe that in OSM tradition, user defined is also an option for the 'type' tag. Though I guess that's not mentioned explicitly on the page. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Recent (last few weeks) [EMAIL PROTECTED] render changes
80n wrote: I'm not sure about the secondary roads. At zoom 8, the previous render looks good, but it gets overwhelming once zoomed out a bit. (starting around zoom 6 I guess?) Maybe just the narrowing, without touching the color would be better? Or maybe less reduction of the saturation. The new style hasn't been re-rendered for zoom 6. Only zoom 8 through zoom 11 are different. Lower zoom levels will bubble up (down?) in due course. No, I know. I just meant that it'll be hard to tell if the new one looks better (at zoom 6) until zoom 6 is re-rendered and the new orange shows up there. I was just saying that at zoom 6, it makes the secondaries hard to see. Maybe a color somewhere in between new and old would be better at zoom 6 once that's rendered, or maybe just the narrower lines would make it good, even with the same (old) color Railway lines are a big improvement, but should probably be a touch darker yet.. (IMO their visibility should be just below that of primary roads; they're currently just below secondary in visibility.) I'll try another couple of clicks on the dial, but I don't want to over egg it. Great; I agree. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] railway=incline?
Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote: What does it mean? Is that like a funicular railway? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Funicular_railway I'd prefer railway=funicular than railway=incline. Incline sounds like it's just a railway on a slope. Absolutely right. There are still some rail inclines where wagons are winched rather than under their own steam but on the whole nowadays the power is on-board and some form of rack and pinion is in use. Hmm, I think that's more absolutely wrong. A funicular (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funicular ) is apparently by definition cable driven, and *not* using the rack-and-pinion, self-powered method. The latter would be a rack railway or cog railway. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rack_railway ) incline railway seems to me to cover both systems, as well as some others, adequately (hence my suggestion of such for the TIGER migration, as there was and still is no official way to tag such railways.) -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
Sven Geggus wrote: All I said is that there is no such beast as a generic incline railroad. But there is such a thing as a railroad which is known to be incline, but for which the drive system is unknown. As I understand it, there are standard railways which have rack-driven sections, so some way to indicate that independent of the railway value is definitely needed in any case. And there are definitely entirely cable-driven rail systems (e.g. the San Francisco cable car system). This could be handled with something like railway=tram, cable=yes, or with something like railway=tram, traction=cable. And there are other incline railways, not part of the standard rail system, which may be: * unknown drive type * funicular * other cable-driven systems * rack drive * other drive type However, as far as I am aware, the following do not exist: * railways which are both cable- and rack-driven in the same section * railways which are cable-driven for only a section * funiculars connected to a main rail system I've updated my proposal at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Incline_railway to reflect this. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
Sven Geggus wrote: To be serious, I don't like this pseudo object-oriented railway:incline:traction= stuff at all. Huh? object oriented? It's like that in order to prevent potential conflicts, not anything to do with object orientation. As far as rendering is concerned, your proposol states No rendering changes required. This ist not true, as incline railways are currently _not_ rendered at all. Good point. I've updated the proposal. (though of course, rendering incline railways wouldn't be required as such, but that's just semantics) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
Andy Allan wrote: Gah. All the namespacing appears to be there to raise the barrier to entry, rather than solving any real problem. Once again, I will say that it is unnecessarily complicated. If I find a traction=something I will know that you are talking about railway traction because it is on a railway=something object. Clearly, there's no way that a traction key could ever be applied to something that shares a way with a railway. That's not a real problem, just something imaginary. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
Andy Allan wrote: I see you've changed it from railway:incline:traction= to railway:traction= - but I still don't understand the need for the railway: prefix. Am I missing something obvious? What's wrong with just traction= ? I think it is possible, even likely, that we might want to apply it to something other than railway, which can share a way with a railway. The simple/plain traction= would preclude this. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
Gervase Markham wrote: Alex Mauer wrote: I think it is possible, even likely, that we might want to apply it to something other than railway, which can share a way with a railway. The simple/plain traction= would preclude this. Can you give an example of such a thing? What features shares a way with a railway at all, traction or no traction? highways, for one. There are railways which travel along streets in many places. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dry-weather roads
Jo wrote: Steve Hill schreef: On Wed, 2 Apr 2008, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: water=tidal and water=seasonal, then?? Sounds good to me, possibly with an optional qualifier tag such as: water:tidal:height=4(flooded by tides 4m above datum) water:seasonal:dates=09/01-03/31(flooded September 1 - March 31) If you're going to specify dates, maybe consider to use an ISO format like 2008-09-01. This would look a bit odd without a year, but 09/01 is ambiguous. ISO 8601 gives a method for specifying a time interval: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601#Time_intervals Discussion of a method for specifying day and month only here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Omegatron/Date_formatting#Day-month -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] List of tags in use/database
Matt Williams wrote: On Thursday 10 April 2008 16:14:29 Brian Quinion wrote: Hi, Is there anywhere I can get a list of the tags / values that are actually in use in the system (i.e. an empirical list as opposed to the wiki) without downloading the whole planet file and searching it? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tagwatch Is there any tagwatch covering the whole planet? The links on that page only seem to cover very limited subsets. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?
Andy Allan wrote: * Some people started tagging *and rendering* crossings, using a particular tagging scheme. * Some other people, who weren't actually out doing the work, started complaining about what was going on [1] * This second group made an extremely detailed (or overcomplicated, depending on your point of view) proposal to address their perceived issues with the scheme [2] * The proposal petered out, and meanwhile the people actually tagging stuff have carried on doing so quite successfully. * Now all the complainers are piping up again. Sigh. Hmm, I see it differently. As I recall: *Some people said this is the way it will be. Since they have dev access, they also added their method to the rendering system, ensuring that their method would be the One True Way(tm), but didn't bother documenting it anywhere. *Some other people (myself among them) said that's ridiculously UK-centric and not really compatible with the rest of the world. One of them came up with a sensible tagging scheme that will work in places other than the UK. *Another person took the ideas from that discussion and made a proposal. *Once the proposal got to voting, the creators of the One True Way started bitching about how this tag is already in 'widespread' use (at least in their corner of the UK), and suddenly got round to documenting their usage of the tag. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?
Andy Allan wrote: On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Alex Mauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmm, I see it differently. As I recall: *Some people said this is the way it will be. Since they have dev access, they also added their method to the rendering system, Let me be blunt: I don't have dev access, and I don't have SVN access either. So stop with the moaning, and get your facts straight. I didn't say you personally did that. But if the group of people using this crossing scheme were tagging *and rendering* crossings, someone had to have done the rendering bit -- and they would have needed access to modify the rendering system. Oh noes! Since it seems that you'll moan about it not being documented 12 hours ago, and then moan when I actually do, whilst not raising a finger to help either way, then you must be out to moan rather than help. I'm not interested in tagging animal crossings. Naturally I'm not going to try to document the intricacies of british naming conventions for their road crossings when: I will never have occasion to use them as I don't live or map in Britain; I am unfamiliar with names for these specialised crossings for the same reason; I am more interested in having something usable by the world. And for the record, you're the one on the wiki quoting stats from a UK excerpt, whereas I'm concentrating on figures for the whole planet. I'm quoting stats from a UK excerpt because that's the only place where they're used that I could find in tagwatch. Now perhaps they're in widespread use someplace else that I missed, or perhaps I should be using something other than tagwatch. Do you have usage figures for the whole planet? -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] spur railways?
Robin Paulson wrote: of the two no votes, i suspect one (Hawke/Alex Mauer) is an objection based on 'namespacing'. as this still has not been widely accepted, would you consider changing your vote to a yes, alex? Namespacing aside, I still think 'service=' is too vague. However, as I don't want to hold up this proposal because of that, I have changed my vote. If the service tag ends up causing problems, we can burn that bridge when we get to it. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?
Dave Stubbs wrote: Some more stats for you on the end of the mail. looking at your stats, I count the same 478 tags following Andy's original mailing list post consisting exclusively of the animal-based system. (+refuge, but that was apparently never used at all.) And I count 157 following the road crossings proposal. To say that Andy's mailing list method is in such widespread use that to change it is an unreasonable move is disingenuous at best. And to then vote against the proposal giving that as the reason, while at the same time rewriting the original mailing list idea as if it were current use, and such that it fits exactly with the documented proposal, is an insult to the effort put in by those working on it. That said, I have no problem with the currently-documented page at [[Key:crossing]] since it's basically the same as the proposal. I just have a problem with the way it was created. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overhaul of voting process
Stephen Gower wrote: On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 11:01:33AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: That sounds eminently sensible, and in general I agree with your proposals. For those who think the RFC/vote process represents the consensus on how things should be done, what needs to happen to change that process? I agree as well. To change the process (IMO): 1. Tagwatch must cover the entire planet. 2. A method must be found for the wiki to remain up-to-date with tagwatch (that is, a Key:* page with an == heading of Values, and one === heading within it for each value in Tagwatch.) 3. For tags which require context (i.e. another tag on the item in question) to make sense, it should be possible to link to their specific meaning from Tagwatch. From this, a new tagging guide (How to tag: Roads, paths/trails, waterways, railroads, buildings, ski areas) can be built, presumably using categories. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging of jogging tracks
Inge Wallin wrote: Yes, that is indeed what it is. I haven't tracked it yet, but there is also a mountain bike track in that area. I suppose that should be tagged: highway=cycleway sport=mountainbike Except... these are not really ways at all, but narrow tracks through the woods that are not suitable for anything really, except mountainbiking. In fact, they are narrower and worse than the highway=footway that I have tracked so far, because they are also full of roots and stones. I see no reason that mountain bike trails should not be mapped. It's OK if they're not rendered on the main map, or not differentiated from cycleways suitable for road bikes. And moreover, there is a standardized color coding for the length of a track so that red=2.5km, yellow=5km, and so on. On the rendered map, I'd really love to have a red square rotated 45 degrees so that it's standing on one of the corners to mark the short track and a yellow one for the 5 km (shown on the map in the link right now). Map renderer developers: pleeease?? :-) IMO these specialized track categories don't need to have more detail on the main map. Someone creating a map of that exercise area perhaps could do that though, so tagging the color codes would probably be good. I think sport=jogging and/or sport=mtb or moutainbike is good enough for now. It's just that the map renderers need to be enhanced too, otherway the tags are useless. Adding highway=cycleway would be good as well. The tags aren't useless though, even if they're not rendered on the main map. A map such as the OSM cyclemap (http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/osm/) might need to have the differentiation between a mountain bike cycleway and a general-purpose/road bike cycleway. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overhaul of voting process
Gervase Markham wrote: Lastly, it cannot tell you if 50% of people are using foo=bar to mean one thing, and the other 50% are using it to mean something else. Tags do not contain all of their semantics in their names. It also can't tell you when different tags mean the same thing. If 50% are tagging leisure=foo and the other 50% are using sport=foo, tagwatch can't provide any indication of that. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging of jogging tracks
Karl Eichwalder wrote: Alex Mauer schrieb: I do not know what you actually want to do, but this sounds kind of dangerous. By all means, do not misuse keywords introduced and well established for different purposes. Always try to tag in a backwards compatible manner. highway=cycleway is in use for... cycleways. Yes, and? A cycleway is a way intended for [bi]cycles. Nothing about what type of bicycle. From the wiki, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway : No two cyclists will ever agree what constitutes a good cycle route. Cyclists can seek out anything from only off-road routes to the quickest route on a multi-lane highway. That sounds like a good description to me; and following it as I suggested on short to medium length tracks aimed ... at ... mountain bikers ...often with way-markers showing the sport only makes sense. How you get dangerous or not backwards-compatible from that is beyond me. highway=cycleway is already rendered, though. If you use the same tagging for a mountain bike cycleway, confusion is guaranteed ;) Avoid hijacking ;) It's not hijacking to use a tag as described. No confusion should result. The simple fact is that not all cycleways are created equal. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging of jogging tracks
Simon Ward wrote: Good parts of the national cycle network (often, but not always, alternate routes) in the UK are tracks hardly suitable for road bikes. They are still meant for bicycles. +1. The same can be said for designated cycle routes in countries which don't even have a national cycle network. Just because a route is not suitable for all bicycles doesn't mean it's not a designated cycle route. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging of jogging tracks
Martin Simon wrote: Cycle routes often use residential roads, agricultural tracks, primary/secondary/tertiary/unclassified roads and even footpaths. Of course. Obviously not all designated cycle routes are primarily designed for bicycles. My point was that poor physical condition of the surface of the route (possibly intentional in the case of a mountain biking route) cannot take away its designation as a route for bicycles. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?
Andy Allan wrote: Seems sensible to me to have a shorthand. So where you have a type of crossing that's for cyclists and pedestrians but not horses nor canoes, and it's controlled by traffic lights (as opposed to not being controlled at all), we could do with a shorthand way to tag it because it's really common ...at least in your corner of the world. And it is vitally important that the renderers make special accomodations just for you. and typing four or five tags every time is tedious Lets compare counts for each method. Zebra crossing: yours: 1 tag other: 1 tag Pelican crossing yours: 1 tag other: 2 tags Toucan crossing yours: 1 tag other: 2 tags Pegasus crossing yours: 1 tag other: 2 to 4 tags, depending on whether it is also a toucan crossing (From wikipedia: If the crossing is to be used by pedestrians and cyclists too, then a parallel toucan crossing is placed next to the pegasus crossing. Does that mean they should really be separate crossing points entirely?) It's hardly four or five tags every time. and lets face it - editors don't support language-neutral presets and Surely preset definitions could be created in various languages, at least for JOSM. it constitutes 0.4% of all the data in the planet *alone* (...transport:space:vehicles:spaceshuttle=no...), Exaggerate much? Ludicrous example aside, it's not as if defining an access tag for a new vehicle requires that it be explicitly applied to every entity in the database... For what it's worth, while I agree completely with Steve Hill, I'd be fine with including the shortcuts just to make Andy happy. It's not like anyone else has to apply or render them... -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unknown road classifications
80n wrote: highway=road This is suitably vague, but has a clear enough meaning. Isn't a value of unknown in use on several other tags? It is at least on the whole access series of tags (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Key:access) So highway=unknown would make sense to me. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?
Dave Stubbs wrote: You just said that to the one guy who's actually writing rendering rules which use this tag. Well done there. Yeah, he's free to make use of his shortcuts on his own rendering system. That doesn't make those shortcuts globally useful. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unknown road classifications
Steve Hill wrote: tag is used for lots of non-road things, highway=unknown could be talking about any kind of highway, such as a footway. Quite a lot of the time you know it is a road because you drove down it, but you don't necessarily know what class of road it is. Hmm, I would think that if you're marking it as unknown, you already know it's not a footway (footway is a rather lowest-common-denominator value as pedestrians can go just about anywhere) IMO if it's sufficiently unknown that it will have to be revisited anyway for more accurate classification, marking it as a road rather than a complete unknown isn't really going to be helpful to anyone. I don't think it's a good idea for the highway tag to be used for so many non-road things -- but that's probably a discussion for another time. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unknown road classifications
Steve Hill wrote: On Mon, 12 May 2008, Alex Mauer wrote: IMO if it's sufficiently unknown that it will have to be revisited anyway for more accurate classification, marking it as a road rather than a complete unknown isn't really going to be helpful to anyone. Sure it is - I know I can drive down a road, I don't know that I can drive down any arbitrary highway feature. No -- but as I said in the paragraph before the one you quoted, I would expect that something non-drivable could also be classified without driving it. Or maybe in the situation where you're using Potlatch and don't have sufficient resolution to classify a route: Even if it's not drivable, you probably don't need to travel on it to classify it. You can tell just by going and looking at it, even if it turns out to be in acccessible. unknown is probably good enough as an indicator that the route needs to be visited or revisited for better classification. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] difference between waterway=canal and waterway=drain
Karl Newman wrote: Wow, that's not obvious to the casual (non-UK) observer. In the US, the usage of canal is different. They're almost never navigable, and even small drainage ditches are commonly called canals. Almost no-one here would call any kind of waterway a drain. Definitely clarify that on the Wiki. I've never heard a non-navigable waterway referred to as a canal, here in the Midwest USA. I've only what you're describing called a drainage ditch (as you said) or irrigation ditch depending on their intended purpose. ditch is IMO a reasonable combination of the two (since the intended purpose is generally not immediately obvious) -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [tagging] Vote: highway=path
Please read and vote on the proposal at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Path
Special voting instructions for this one:
Vote with {{vote|yes}} or {{vote|no}}, and then indicate whether you
would approve the deprection option, as listed in the Deprecation
section of the page.
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] difference between waterway=canal and waterway=drain
Shaun McDonald wrote: I have the only remaining part of the Croydon canal near me. It is only a few hundred metres long, and is now left to nature. A century ago the other parts of the canal were filled in and changed to railway. Presumably that's only called a canal for historical reasons then? -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] difference between waterway=canal and waterway=drain
Shaun McDonald wrote: Presumably that's only called a canal for historical reasons then? Yes. Is there anything wron with that? Nope. I was just that I was wondering if it had some reason beyond its physical characteristics for being tagged as a canal. On the other hand, it might be better to just not tag it as a canal (just giving it the relevant name of Croyden canal instead) so that someone expecting a navigable waterway isn't disappointed. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] Voting open for Bridge proposal
Gervase Markham wrote: Gervase Markham wrote: As requested: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Bridge This has now been approved, with 15 votes. As noted on the talk page, the vote is still open since it has not been open for the requisite 2 weeks. Voting is apparently now on the talk page. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way (was: Vote: highway=path)
Steve Hill wrote: Would it be better to have something other than yes to mean legally enshrined access permission to protect against people tagging stuff as yes without fully understanding what it means (i.e. people not reading the wiki)? I think it would. I suggest access=highway -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way (was: Vote: highway=path)
Nick Whitelegg wrote: It would have to be contained within the foot, horse, bicycle, and motorcar tags though, so that the official rights of *each* mode of transport can be described. I think it's been implied for a long time that all the values for the access key apply to all of the mode-of-transport keys as well. Certainly http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Key:access seems to suggest that it does. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way (was: Vote: highway=path)
Andy Allan wrote: On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Cartinus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So to sum it up: Do the ways currently tagged with bridleway conform to your narrow definition or is there already no data to loose, because it is already use for ways which are physically, but not legally paths for horses. I would consider all the existing tagging as of suspect interpretation. For example, foot=yes is almost entirely meaningless as right of pedestrian access enshrined in law since it's been added by default to every highway=footway in potlatch for some time. Agreed. I would expect that all the access tags have that problem, not just foot. I don't think the yes value has ever been defined in that manner, so I'm certain it's been applied to routes which are not rights-of-way. I know I've always understood yes to mean that [vehicle type]s are capable of traversing this route, and are not forbidden to use it. Certainly nothing currently in the wiki appears to contradict that. I'm also quite certain that footway/cycleway/bridleway have been applied to routes which do not follow the UK definition. (In other words, there is already no right-of-way data to lose). -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bridge rendering for freeway overpasses/interchanges in Mapnik and Osmarender
Beau Gunderson wrote: What do you all think? I agree with everything you said. I think that losing the wings would be a big improvement in osmarender even for more basic bridges. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] National borders in the British Islands
Lester Caine wrote: Personally I've been viewing admin_level=0 as the world. admin_level=1 should equal the continents admin_level=2 for countries ( UNITED KINGDOM ) admin_level=3 ( or so ) for states/areas ( ENGLAND ) It seems like level 4 is already used as you describe for level 3. Only niggle with this is 'European Union' - does that class as a continent or do we add floating point as suggested and have 1.5. Not all countries in europe are in the European Union, but EU is certainly an administrative area? So perhaps THAT should be level 2 for Europe with countries at level 3. That doesn't fit at all with the use of level 2 described on the wiki... I don't think that the level structure was eve actually agreed - and now it's biting back? I think it was put in place to avoid discussion about what to name the levels. In that it has been quite successful. I think that discussion would still be underway and no one would be happy, if we'd tried to use names for the values instead. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] National borders in the British Islands
Cartinus wrote: A powerstation and a gas distribution node are physical things (fenced off areas) and not administrative entities, so this comparison is just weird IMHO. I think Martijn was referring to the areas served by a particular power station or gas distribution node, not to the stations and nodes themselves. Those areas are logical, not physical. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [tagging] Approved: path, designated. Rejected: *way deprecation
The new highway value path has been approved. It received 31 votes, 22 in favor and 9 against, with 3 abstentions. The new access value designated has been approved. It received 32 votes, 19 in favor and 13 against, with 2 abstentions The deprecation of footway, bridleway, and cycleway in favor of the path tag has been rejected. However, those tags can be interpreted as shortcuts for the path tag with appropriate access implications. Voting was 6 in favor, 26 against, and 2 abstentions. Relevant changes have been incorporated into the wiki. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Approved: path, designated. Rejected: *way deprecation
Karl Eichwalder wrote: Define appropriate. Otherwise it cannot. A cycleway (Radweg) is somethig very special in Germany (unfortunately). It does not equal to a path where you are allowed to cycle. You are _forced_ to make use of this way if it accompanies the street. Of course, here in Germany there are also many a lot ways where cycling is possible (legally and physically), but most of these ways are by no means cycleway; often these ways are just tracks. The access restrictions on the road (no bicycles if there is an accompanying cycle route) don't affect the access on the cycle route itself. Obviously legality of use by other modes of transportation will vary by jurisdiction (In some places cycleway implies moped=yes, while in others it implies moped=no). But I think it's fair to say that in all jurisdictions, highway=cycleway will imply bicycle=designated. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Approved: path, designated. Rejected: *way deprecation
Karl Eichwalder wrote: Alex Mauer schrieb: The access restrictions on the road (no bicycles if there is an accompanying cycle route) don't affect the access on the cycle route itself. Obviously legality of use by other modes of transportation will vary by jurisdiction (In some places cycleway implies moped=yes, while in others it implies moped=no). But I think it's fair to say that in all jurisdictions, highway=cycleway will imply bicycle=designated. Probably. And what's the equivalent if you want to use the path notation? I can think about different possibilities. Here, using the path would be mandatory for cyclists: highway=path cycleway=yes I don't see anything on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Key:cycleway suggesting that cycleway=yes means that use of the cycleway is mandatory. Changing it to mean that is outside the scope of the path proposal and the designated proposal. You may want to create a new proposal to cover this situation, if it is necessary. I would suspect that the mandatory bicycle route could be accomplished by simply applying bicycle=no to the adjacent roads. cycleway=mandatory would also be a good possibility. But again, it's nothing to do with the recently-approved proposals. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 SteveC wrote: I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that they drop off the noname map. http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/ I've been adding noname:yes but I can see that might not be optimal. Maybe name:__none__. Or something. Sounds overcomplicated to me. If you know something to be correct, just ignore the warnings. - -Alex Mauer hawke -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFITVSn66h/gpo37v8RAiwFAJwOlSMubRPwqZz9qYumylKvSKE7/QCdGUwY NtBEjFKWSPnKWxoec6uzlAs= =B1NX -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
Dave Stubbs wrote: Maybe, but you're then asking, reviewed what/how?. And you're back to specifying that you've reviewed that the road has no name, only probably in a more complicated way. Furthermore, I would expect the default (meaning the value to be assumed if the key doesn't exist) to be yes. I doubt anyone who would put in a named road without bothering to put in the name would bother to enter a reviewed=no tag anyway. That said, I still doubt the utility of a no name meta-value. No conscientious mapper should be putting in roads with no name if they have a name, and no one should be going out of their way to check if a road that has no name in the db actually has no name. What next, going out of your way to double-check that the name is (still) correct? (Yes, I've had a road where the name was changed. I caught it because I happened to drive past that way, not because I'm going around repeatedly checking the same routes just in case. Treat an unnamed road as the simple notification that it is, not as a problem to be corrected. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
Andy Allan wrote: A) No evidence of the name B) Evidence of it not having a name Doesn't have a sign? Or some authority agrees it actually has no name? The two are different and should be handled differently, since the I think one of the principles of OSM is mapping things as they are on the ground. As such, I would say that those two situations are the same. The latter situation might warrant a note=Officially called Foo Road tag or some such. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
Dave Stubbs wrote: We have literally thousands of miles of unnamed roads in London... and the vast, vast majority of these /should/ have names. And I'm going to go try and fix them, and would like to know when not to bother. When it's a single road or far out of the way of where you're mapping, would be my suggestion. It's probably fine to go a few blocks out of the way to check out one unnamed road, and probably fine to go few mile or two out of the way to check a whole neighborhood of unnamed roads. I for one will not be going 100 miles out of the way to check an unnamed road (or indeed to map at all). It's a judgment call, so your mileage may vary. No pun intended. This is one of those cases where we have actually identified a problem and are figuring out how to fix it, rather than just inventing crap for the sake of it. Good! Karl suggested using the reviewed tag, and I agree with that. Mark all unnamed roads in the area you're mapping with reviewed=no, and then once you've reviewed them, delete the tag. I just don't see a need to mark out that the name specifically has been reviewed. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
SteveC wrote: Why do you think Richard 'has' to revisit it? He personally doesn't, but if a road has a name, and that name is to be in the database, someone has to go there and find out what it is. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
Richard Fairhurst wrote: Oh sure, I'm not going to dispute that (things like work get in the way there too). But to say it's not conscientious isn't right. It may have been a poor choice of words (British/American usage difference maybe?). I meant that someone leaving off the names is being less thorough than is possible, not that they are wrong in so doing. In retrospect, meticulous (marked by extreme or excessive care in the consideration or treatment of details) would have been a better choice. Ultimately many mappers make all completeness issues shallow anyway. ;) Absolutely, and fortunately for us. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
Dave Stubbs wrote: Mostly because this is the property that we're most interested in at the moment. Reviewed feels to me too open ended. It is a bit, but I think it's great for this sort of localized, map party sort of thing. You put the tags on in the area you're about to do and take them off when you're done. Any unreviewed roads remaining in the area you (or the mapping party) is working on, you know still need to be done. A little like the concept of completeness. We can't really (easily) mark in the unreviewed areas because so many have already been added without it, but we can tell they don't have a name so then we just want to quickly deal with the false positives that throws up. I think you can fairly easily add a reviewed=no tag to all unnamed roads in an area (using JOSM). Then once you've gone through and reviewed them, any unnamed road in that area without a reviewed=no tag can be assumed to be a truly unnamed street (false positive in the no-names map). This does make a couple of assumptions: *The mapping of the area is fairly complete, so you don't have someone adding a bunch more unnamed roads later on. *You're not going to go out of your way into this area again any time soon to check on the very few unnamed roads that are still there. This is fairly likely, since the area in question hasn't been mapped by hand yet (i.e. there is no mapper local to the area) -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
Andy Allan wrote: The issue is the partially-done, somewhat scrappy areas, like http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/?zoom=15lat=6718359.62403lon=859.10713layers=B000 I don't know whether Dave or Shaun or Harry or anyone else has gone and checked these roads. And there's no point in me checking them, finding that they don't have a name, and also finding on Wednesday in the pub that all three of them have also checked these roads in the last few weeks. That would be a waste of time, and its this double-over-checking that Dave and SteveC are trying to avoid. That (or the corrected link in the followup) is a better example than Shaun's, but surely more of a coordination problem than a tagging problem. Adding a tag (be it reviewed=no, unnamed=yes, or anything else) cannot solve it, and is simply tagging to remove warnings from the validator. Both examples seem to be Look at all the streets that show up in the validator: there might be one or two in there that are truly unnamed!. And the solution there is not to mark the ones that are truly unnamed, it's to go and find out the names of the ones that are named. Once that's done, you can probably assume that the one or two roads that still don't have a name are truly unnamed. And if occasionally someone just passing through anyway double checks the roads because they're on the validator, it's no big deal. I could be mistaken there. If all the roads in that link are truly unnamed, then I could see where the validator could mislead someone by suggesting that there's a need to actually go there to fix up the largish cluster of missing road names in the area. And if so, there's probably a need to clean up the validator. But I don't believe that to be the case. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
Vincent Zweije wrote: You can only do this in very rare circumstances, otherwise the errors-to-be-ignored drown out the errors you need to see and fix. An unnamed street is not such a rare circumstance, IMO. I don't think that's true. There really aren't that many, in my experience. At least roads larger than service -- unnamed service roads are very common. So much so that they shouldn't be in warnings at all. Do you have an example of a place with many unnamed roads? -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
Sven Geggus wrote: We have a whole lot of them here in germany and they are usually paved or asphaltic ways, and they are different from unclassified, because they are usually narrow and have access for tractors and bykes only. They are simular to a highway=service, which I tended to use before somebody told me that tracktype=grade1 is track with paved surface. I would expect them to be highway=service. Do you have a picture of one? -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
Marc Schütz wrote: An alternative is to use highway=service, surface=paved since they are access roads within a property(?) just the same as universities, hospitals and industry. No, they are usually public ways, not within a property. I don't think that's necessarily true, and has no bearing on whether it's marked as service. A service road is a service road, regardless of whether it's public or private. From the wiki, Key:highway page: It is a very general and sometimes vague description of the physical structure of the highway. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Current access rules
Dave Stubbs wrote: Hmm... with no legal restrictions is the problem here. It doesn't say that, and certainly isn't how I've ever thought of it. It doesn't say anywhere in access tags that they have any bearing on onewayness at all. As far as I can tell oneway and access are completely unrelated tags. They are described on the same page, so there's at least some relationship. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Key:access#Routing_restrictions -- I totally agree with your interpretation though. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tag:highway=cycleway inconsistency
William Waites wrote: Possibly it is better to remove implication relationships amongst tags. I doubt it. I think it is safe for highway=cycleway to imply bicycle=yes and motorcar=no, and for highway=motorway to imply foot=no, horse=no and bicycle=no. These are obviously correct assumptions, as they are part of the definition of the cycleway, or the motorway. So I think some implications are quite important, as they indicate some tags which it is unnecessary to apply. (I certainly don't feel like tagging oneway=no on most everything, for example). Cycling is one thing, appropriateness of feet is another, no? There are basically 3 options: Imply foot=yes (and several equivalents) Imply foot=no No implication I feel that leaving it with no implication is a bad idea, because someone wishing to rely on the OSM data for a routing app will need to have a default for it anyway, either to route foot traffic along a cycleway, or not. So OSM might as well indicate which should be assumed. Of course, it would be possible to put an additional foot=* tag on every cycleway, but I think it's better to do this in only half (or less) of the cases, than to have to do it everywhere. That leaves us with yes or no. For the (OSM) definition of a highway=cycleway, it says mainly or exclusively for bicycles -- foot=yes would apply to those which are mainly for bicycles, while foot=no would apply to those which are exclusively for bicycles. The best assumption is the one which applies in the largest number of cases. I think that would be foot=yes. I know Andy disagrees with this, and I can see his point about foot=yes being wrong for some countries -- but I think it's better to have a default so it's easier to make assumptions about routing, than to require that all cycleways be tagged with an additional foot=* tag. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tag:highway=cycleway inconsistency
Andy Allan wrote: The point that I get concerned about is if it's A 55% of the time and B 45% of the time and someone says that A should be default. I still see it as an overall advantage if only 45% of ways must have that additional tag, vs. 100%. It's unfortunate that rather than requiring all of the users to place an extra tag 45% of the time, it actually shifts the burden so that a regional 45% of the users must use the extra tag approximately 98% of the time. If it were even across all users it would be much more acceptable. But I still think that it's better than requiring 100% of users to add an extra tag 100% of the time. I like the idea of having country-specific implications/assumptions, but I don't really see a good way to document that. Any suggestions? -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fire break advice
Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: El Miércoles, 16 de Julio de 2008, David Janda escribió: I cannot find any suitable tabs, and here in Northern Cyprus the fire breaks are strips of land with all growth removed. I'd just tag a highway=footway, and break up any landuse=forest areas. Are they definitely usable as footways? -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] path or byway ?
Pieren wrote: Dear talk, Could some native english speaker explain the difference between highway=path and highway=byway recently introduced in map features ? For one, byway was never proposed or described or otherwise documented, but instead just plopped into map features. So I guess no one really knows except Richard B, who put it there. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] path or byway ?
Frederik Ramm wrote: For one, byway was never proposed or described or otherwise documented, but instead just plopped into map features. Just like them darn motorways... nobody ever put them to vote, it's a shame ;-) Except that motorways were there on the very first rev (ok, second) of Map Features. And they're documented. And conceptually they're not UK-specific. My gripe is that it was put in there with neither discussion nor description; I never mentioned anything about voting. There are probably a few more millions who know what a byway is. In contrast to the generic term path, a byway is something very specific in the UK because it has a legal meaning. You are aware that the OSM definitions of things and the UK legal definitions of things are not always the same, right? -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] tagging trailblazes / marked paths
Brejc wrote: Hello, Now that the highway=path has been moved to the official features page, is there any more or less agreed way of tagging marked paths? I see a lot of different proposal pages on this, but no real consensus. I myself have been tagging my local area using trailblazed=yes, but it would be nice to use some generally agreed tag. Take a look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Key:trail_visibility Combined with highway=path, does that cover what you need to map? -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] tagging trailblazes / marked paths
Tom Hughes wrote: It was approved on the basis of a tiny vote on the wiki and I would Uh, what? 34 votes is one of the largest votes of any proposed/approved feature on the wiki. say there is zero chance of most people switching from the tags that have been in use for several years to some new scheme that, as I understand it, requires about five tags for each path. Then I think you misunderstand it. Take a look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:highway%3Dpath/Examples -- most require two tags at most. The only one which reaches five additional tags is the last one. Which doesn't fit into the bridleway/cycleway/footway paradigm anyway, and is one of the most complex examples to be found. You don't like highway=path, fine. If your tagging needs are met by bridleway/cycleway/footway, then I'm glad for you. But it's not adequate for all situations. Don't make up bullshit just to trash-talk that which you don't understand. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] tagging trailblazes / marked paths
Frederik Ramm wrote: I've never been a friend of that voting business but it seems to get more absurd every day. Is it perhaps time now to have a vote on abolishing votes altogehter - or should we continue to let people vote on whatever they like and ignore the results? Do you have a better suggestion? I like Andy Allan's modifications to the Key:crossing page, suggesting that it be used for documenting current usage, with renderers working from that. So all you have to do to add a key or value is to use it. It's unfortunate that current usage is so hard to find, particularly outside of Europe... -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] tagging trailblazes / marked paths
Igor Brejc wrote: Which tag value would I use for a path through the forest that is clearly visible, but with no markings? There are a lot of those in Slovenia. It's probably not necessary to tag it specially at all as I expect this is the default, but it looks like trail_visibility=excellent (Unambiguous path or markers everywhere) would be the one to use. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] tagging trailblazes / marked paths
Dave Stubbs wrote: Gotcha. Excepth that, assuming you /can/ walk on it, that's what the rest of us have been using highway=footway for since the dawn of time (well, dawn of map features maybe. well, last couple of years at least). If it happened to have another purpose (ie: bikes or horses) then it got upgraded to cycleway or bridleway. If that's not what you thought highway=footway meant then I guess the docs for highway=footway need updating (again). From Tag:highway=footway: For designated footpaths, i.e. mainly/exclusively for pedestrians. That is a perfectly reasonable definition in my opinion. However, I see a distinction among intended for, allowed, and not forbidden. So it really depends on interpretation. In particular, footways have a particular legal status in the UK which doesn't apply to every place that you can walk. And even in the US there's a difference between a path and a path built specifically for people to walk on. So that means 2 to 9 are fully covered by the existing map features (ie: footway/cycleway/bridleway/track/service) 2-4: clearly not mainly/exclusively for pedestrians, since it's not for anything in particular. It's just a path; certainly no cycleway or bridleway, even though bicycles and horses don't appear to be forbidden. 5: it's a cycleway and a footway. Calling it only one of those gives a priority which doesn't exist. That problem is fixed with the designated value for access. 6: the purpose of the path is impossible to determine. All we can see is what is forbidden. We can perhaps hope that horses and bicycles are allowed to use it, I guess. It's still not a bridleway. 7,8: covered by f/c/b 9: again, we can't tell what it's for, just what's forbidden. Definitely not a bridleway since horses are forbidden. Not a cycleway either though, since it's not /for/ bicycles. Aside: I don't think track/service matter at all for this purpose. Nonsensical is a matter of opinion clearly. You can't just say things are nonsensical and hope that means something. It happens to make perfect sense. You might not like it, and there might be a better way, but that's not really the same thing. OK, perhaps nonsensical was too strong. Against the intent of the highway tag certainly, and I'd add defeating the purpose of the access series of tags as well. I hope you agree with my point that the legal accessibility of a way doesn't belong in the highway key, especially when we have a separate key for it. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] tagging trailblazes / marked paths
Stephen Gower wrote: On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 06:33:10PM -0500, Alex Mauer wrote: So it really depends on interpretation. In particular, footways have a particular legal status in the UK which doesn't apply to every place that you can walk. call a pavement and you might call a sidewalk. The particular legal status to which you refer is actually applied to the legal term footpath, You're right, I should have written footpath. My point still stands though. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] tagging trailblazes / marked paths
Andy Allan wrote: What an absolutely terrible idea. This is astounding daft. If I have Yes, I am clearly mad. I appreciate that. chosen to render paths for cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians on my map, why on earth would I want to accidentally render every other variant when someone adds it? If I wanted to render every possible future linear feature without knowing what it was I would use an elsefilter on planet_osm_line and be done with it. Huh? There's a difference between any future linear feature and any sort of path. Say you've got a place with a variety of paths: bike trails, walking trails, ski trails. Now say that you want to make a map useful for biking that area, but you still want to show the other paths. (so that turning at the second left is still accurate) So you render the bike paths in a green broken line. Now, does it make more sense to have single rule for all the other kinds of path that you don't care about to render as a grey broken line, or does it make more sense to have separate extra rules to render footway, bridleway, and four kinds of skiway all in that way? And then someone maps the snowmobile trail that also goes through the area. Is it better that it's now rendered like all the other special-use paths that you don't wish to highlight, or is it better to have to add another rule for snowmobileways? There's good reasons why every new feature gets a new tag - it's so that you don't end up accidentally rendering things in a confusing manner. There's very little to be gained from lumping lots of things that you'd never want to render identically - no sane map would render cycle paths, footpaths and snowmobile-only trails identically. So what Incorrect. See above. If one is making a ski or a horse map, why should one care whether some other paths are for foot, bicycle, or snowmobile? But one would still want to render them just to show that they're there. you're suggesting actually *raises* the bar for renderers since it's now twice as hard to render just footpaths. Not really. If it's highway=footway or foot=designated, render it as a footpath. Hey, that's how it already should work. Convenient! 1. highway=[anything]way. Renderers need to know about every type of [thing]way. Impossible to tag a multiple-use way (or ridiculously complex anyway -- highway=bicyclefoothorseskisnowmobileway? I'm not going to waste time discussing with someone who can't refrain from adding strawman arguments to everything he discusses. That's no strawman. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Cycle_and_Footway So much for: the obligation to research alternative options (rather than just campaigning for one) surely lies with the proposers. Just by mentioning one of those alternative options, you immediately ignore anything else I have to say. Did you even read the rest of the message? The other two options I considered were much better, and I stated straight away that that one is terrible. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] tagging trailblazes / marked paths
Dave Stubbs wrote: If the point is to show all possible paths, then you'll also want to similarly show all the roads as well? In which case an else rule on highway=* would solve the problem. The point is to show all possible paths and highlight one particular subset of them, yeah. This is the sort of map I envision: http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/Schmeeckle/Map/images/schmeeckle_map.jpg Note that it is useful to differentiate roads from paths on that sort of map, so a catchall on highway=* wouldn't be sufficient. And before someone says it, I'm not trying to duplicate that map in OSM. So the only distinction created by highway=path is that it is of type path which is a sufficiently broad spectrum of features from tiny It's not there to distinguish one kind of path from another, it's there to distinguish a path from something which isn't a path, such as a road. Does anyone know why they might have done this? A preset somewhere maybe? (anonymous user so I can't ask them). Looks like the JOSM paths preset to me. If someone used that to change it to a path and thought they had to fill in all the access restrictions, that would likely be the result. no is probably correct, since it means not permitted or unsuitable -- if it gets so little snow, it's probably unsuitable for skiing. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] tagging trailblazes / marked paths
Nick Whitelegg wrote: This is the sort of map I envision: http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/Schmeeckle/Map/images/schmeeckle_map.jpg As an aside, I like the style of that map for doing walking routes (e.g. on Freemap) Wonder how easy it would be to generate using GD / PDF libraries etc? That I don't know, but if you're curious, here's the same area in my slightly customized mapnik render (modified to understand foot/bicycle/horse=designated, and to render paths on top of roads, and with a catchall rule for any paths which have no designation.) http://web.hawkesnest.net/osm.html?lat=44.53762lon=-89.56218zoom=16layers=B and in osmarender: http://www.informationfreeway.org/?lat=44.53753819714547lon=-89.56241392105782zoom=16layers=B000F000F I tried using generate_image.py to create an image of the same area, but it just showed up blank grey... -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway = path in mapnik/osmarander
Gregory wrote: What's wrong with highway=footway ? Or highway=cycleway if it is mainly for cyclists. because not all such paths are for foot or bicycle, and highway=footway+foot=no is not a good way to do it. (same for highway=cycleway+bicycle=no) And calling something a footway implicitly puts foot above the other uses, even though this may not be the case in reality. The designated access value helps with this though. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway = path in mapnik/osmarander
Christoph Eckert wrote: nothing. But there are paths like hiking paths which have been tagged as footways in the past. IMO that's wrong. For me, a footway has to be paved. A path most often isn't. I don't think path or footway say anything about the surface of the route. Just the size and what's allowed to use it. You might want to use the surface=* tag for that. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Communications tower/transponders
Simon Wood wrote: On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 23:17:37 -0600 Simon Wood si...@mungewell.org wrote: I have had a go at tidying the proposed tags for communication towers and would welcome any comments. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Communications_tower http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Communications_Transponder If no-one has any objections I'd like to formally move these to the 'RFC' stage. Do I do it just by setting the date field? Simon, Yup. That and send a message to the list, for which the above message will do the job nicely. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] maxheight/height
On 07/28/2009 11:45 AM, Christoph Böhme wrote: According to Wikipedia clearance [1] is the free space between a vehicle and the structure (i.e. bridge) it is passing through. The maximum height (and width) of the vehicle is -- at least for railways -- called loading gauge [2] while the dimensions of the structure are called structure gauge [3]. Thus, what we find on signs is the loading gauge. It may also be worth mentioning that there's another meaning of clearance when referring to vehicles: that of the free space beneath a vehicle (ground clearance). So it would seem that clearance always refers to free space below -- meaning that it's the bridge's clearance that is marked. This does not contradict that it is also the loading gauge of the vehicles passing underneath it... -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
On 08/04/2009 07:17 PM, David Lynch wrote: The USA has no such sign, nor do Canada and Mexico (AFAIK.) Do we have no motorways? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:I-95.svg -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On 08/10/2009 07:28 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: highway=cycleway foot=official that latter was introduced (probably by the same people that already forced path) Nope. Cbm and I were the ones behind highway=path, as you can see from the wiki. Access=official has nothing to do with me. I agree that it's redundant -- it seems like it's just a combination of travelmode=designated and access=no. Not sure how you think path was forced though. It had 34 votes, 22 for and 9 against (3 abstain). Nobody forced anything, we just used the standard procedure. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On 08/10/2009 05:31 PM, Liz wrote: On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Dave Stubbs wrote: Anarchy in tagging died a bit back when some guys on the wiki decided ochlocracy was the way to go. Tagging used to be occasionally a confused mess. Now it's an organised, and approved confused mess where anyone with a clue automatically withdraws from discussions to keep their sanity intact (and to give them some more time to go and actually map something), knowing full well that not being there won't make much difference to the eventual stupid decision. Gah... must... be... more... positive... I would consider that if we have thousands of mappers, that we should set a quorum for a vote so that unless at least x hundred people vote the vote is not valid From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features#Proposal_Status_Process: 8 unanimous approval votes or 15 total votes with a majority approval It seems to me that we have one. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On 08/10/2009 05:27 AM, Frank Sautter wrote: Tom Chance wrote: I'm 100% unclear about the distinction between highway=path and highway=footway. the whole highway=path-thingy was victim of a hostile takeover ;-) It was? when did that happen? can you point to it in the wiki? at the beginning highway=path was proposed as a something like a NARROW highway=track for use by bike, foot, horse, hiking, deer (mainly in non-urban areas). No it wasn't. Read the history at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Approved_features/Pathdir=prevaction=history Prior to that, I created the proposal Trail which was also not like you describe. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Trail From the very beginning, it did not mean what you say it did. Maybe you're thinking of something else? -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On 08/11/2009 01:58 PM, DavidD wrote: 2009/8/11 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de: Those eight people can only do this if not even 0.1% of the other 1 care enough to oppose the proposal. If that's the case, then apparently the proposal isn't so bad, is it? Why didn't all those people who apparently hate path vote against it? I originally did vote against it. Then when it looked like the vote would go the wrong way it was stopped before being started again some time later after tweaking the proposal. Yup. Problems were brought up (primarily the idea of deprecating footway/bridleway/cycleway), so they were corrected. Seems like a good practice to me, and a large part of the purpose of the whole voting system. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] tag proposal surface=gravel; concrete: dirt; grass
On 08/11/2009 07:41 PM, Sam Vekemans wrote: So anyway, i propose to add surface=gravel;dirt;grass;concrete, to go along side highway=value. (which listed more generally, what the way is generally used for (type of travel between 2 points) We already have those values, see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface -- or am I missing something? -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On 08/12/2009 05:14 AM, Pieren wrote: see why we should add foot=no now in all cycleways in France. I read somewhere that some motorways in US gives access to bicycles. Does it mean that we have to add bicycle=no to all other motorways in the world ? No, that would make no sense because most motorway-equivalents around the world do not allow bicycles. We have to add bicycle=yes to the motorways that allow it. designated means with a sign in most cases; however I am sure there are some places in the world where it's only defined in the local law, without actually being signed. Hence the lack of it needs a sign in the wiki for access=designated. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On 08/12/2009 12:46 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: so the routers don't send the ambulances that way if it's shorter? That's meant to be interpreted as emergency=destination. As far as I know, emergency vehicles are pretty much allowed to go where they need to; this gets back to the idea of suitability, which people are keen to remove from the access=* tags. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Fwd: Re: Proliferation of path vs. footway]
On 08/13/2009 01:24 PM, David Earl wrote: realise we are missing a use case (say we discover motorways in Ecuador permit learner drivers to use them [please don't tell me this isn't the case - it's only an example]) we have to add tags to every other highway you don't even have to go that far -- at least some, probably most or all, states in the US allow learner drivers to use the motorway/freeway/interstate. -Alex mauer Hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging vague, ill-defined, or unfriendly paths
On 08/26/2009 10:19 AM, Roland Olbricht wrote: I use http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=path/Examples and have concluded to use highway=path, wheelchair=no The first tag classifies the way as being an unpaved and small path... It does nothing of the sort. unpaved would require surface=unpaved/dirt/mud/etc., while small would require the width tag, I think. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism
On 08/28/2009 03:46 AM, Gervase Markham wrote: If dieterdriest has found a number of people who've been ignoring the definition, Nobody (that I know of) has been ignoring the definition. It's just that the definitions didn't match the top-leveldescription. *None* of the definitions of the highway values has ever described the physical characteristics of the road, apart from motorway in a very limited sense. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Trace type
On 09/01/2009 12:25 PM, Peter Körner wrote: I have not thought about adding that I used a bicycle for that. Without having some kind of documentation about what *could* be added, people won't add the information nor get developers to use them. So maybe a documentation about the possibilities would be a better start. Two things that I think would be the most helpful, would be the ability to apply additional tags after the fact, and some sort of way of showing common already-used tags (e.g. a completion dropdown while typing a tag value) -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Trace type
On 09/01/2009 01:59 PM, Ed Loach wrote: Two things that I think would be the most helpful, would be the ability to apply additional tags after the fact, I think you can already do this. Ah, so you can. I was only looking for edit links (which all went to Potlatch) and assumed that the Edit this track button went to the same place as all the edit links. Perhaps this could be changed, so that it's more obvious what exactly is being edited. Thanks -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] GPX tagging problem
On 09/01/2009 01:59 PM, Ed Loach wrote: I think you can already do this. When someone added the comma separator support recently I went through all my old traces adding the commas at appropriate places Now that I know this, I'm trying to go back and re-tag some GPX tracks, but it keeps treating them as space-delimited instead of comma-delimited. Is something wrong with the tag interpreter? -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to map quarters?
On 09/11/2009 10:06 AM, Vlatko Kosturjak wrote: Jonathan Bennett wrote: Valent Turkovic wrote: Currently on wiki I only found place=suburb tag and I see that it is used also for mapping city's quarters. Only issue is that when you map quarter of some town or village currently the quarter has bigger font than name of village or town. Maybe, it's time for tag microsuburb? which can be used with place=town and place=village? Sounds to me like a renderer problem, not a case for a new tag. -Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to map quarters?
On 09/11/2009 10:54 AM, Craig Wallace wrote: Why? How does the renderer know whether its a large suburb that's within a city, or a small suburb that's part of a town or village (or part of a larger suburb). As you would want these to be shown at different zoom levels, with different font sizes etc. I know you can map the suburb as an area, to show its size, but that isn't always practical. Many suburbs don't have clearly defined boundaries, so its easiest just to use a node in the middle of it. I don’t think it's necessary to map the suburb as an area; only the place it’s within. If a suburb (node) is within a town (area), then render it smaller than one which is within a city (area). -Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
