Re: [talk-au] Changing building levels elevator to description elevator shell
Hi Warin, Apologies for not getting back to you and acting on this. We will revisit all these locations and update in the coming days. Below is how we plan to tag the two typical scenarios: *inside a building * https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/993829900 highway=elevator building:levels=2 indoor=room room=elevator *outside building (stand alone) * https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/993533793 highway=elevator building:levels=3 building:yes description=elevator shell Please let me know if you are not happy with this approach. Regards, Sigurjon TfNSW On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 at 22:27, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 23/10/22 21:46, Phil Wyatt wrote: > > Hi Warin, > > > > Both of those examples were previously build:part=elevator. Its probably > > worth asking why they changed them to building:levels=elevator. That > seems > > to be a more appropriate tagging. > > > building:part should be a 'part' of a building .. not the entire > building .. they are both tagged with building=yes. > > One example > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/996164524/history > > has no past history .. so no previous key of building:part. > > > I'd have no problem with building=elevator_shell, but they are > building=yes. I am happy to change that too, if acceptable? > > I have been using building=silo with man_made=silo (key building for > rendering the area .. man_made just does a symbol). > > > > > > Cheers - Phil > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> > > Sent: Sunday, 23 October 2022 8:41 PM > > To: OSM Australian Talk List > > Subject: [talk-au] Changing building levels elevator to description > elevator > > shell > > > > Hi > > > > There are ~260 of closed ways with the tag 'building:levels=elevator'. > > > > This tag should have numbers as the value not text, the number being the > > number of levels. > > > > See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:levels. > > > > > > These object all are associated with railway stations around Sydney and > > appear to have been added by members of TfNSW team. I have left a > message on > > one of their members changeset but have had no reply. > > > > There are no other uses of this tag elsewhere in the world. > > > > > > My thoughts are to change the tag to 'description=elevator shell' as > these > > look to be the walls around the outside of the moving elevator that is > > presently mapped as a node in these cases. > > > > > > Examples > > > > Way 993829900 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/993829900 > > > > Way 996164524 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/996164524 > > > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > > > > > ___ > > Talk-au mailing list > > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Changing building levels elevator to description elevator shell
On 23/10/22 21:46, Phil Wyatt wrote: Hi Warin, Both of those examples were previously build:part=elevator. Its probably worth asking why they changed them to building:levels=elevator. That seems to be a more appropriate tagging. building:part should be a 'part' of a building .. not the entire building .. they are both tagged with building=yes. One example https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/996164524/history has no past history .. so no previous key of building:part. I'd have no problem with building=elevator_shell, but they are building=yes. I am happy to change that too, if acceptable? I have been using building=silo with man_made=silo (key building for rendering the area .. man_made just does a symbol). Cheers - Phil -Original Message- From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, 23 October 2022 8:41 PM To: OSM Australian Talk List Subject: [talk-au] Changing building levels elevator to description elevator shell Hi There are ~260 of closed ways with the tag 'building:levels=elevator'. This tag should have numbers as the value not text, the number being the number of levels. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:levels. These object all are associated with railway stations around Sydney and appear to have been added by members of TfNSW team. I have left a message on one of their members changeset but have had no reply. There are no other uses of this tag elsewhere in the world. My thoughts are to change the tag to 'description=elevator shell' as these look to be the walls around the outside of the moving elevator that is presently mapped as a node in these cases. Examples Way 993829900 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/993829900 Way 996164524 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/996164524 Any thoughts? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cycle permissions by a user
Hi Sebastian It is both frustrating and disappointing to see that you continue to argue your point of view that is incorrect. It is clear that a local council who follows the Victorian road laws has published the permissions of ways within their jurisdiction yet you still try to argue that ways are incorrectly tagged. No, I do not argue that the ways are incorrectly tagged. I argue that the consensus, the majority of OSM editors, believe that the ways are incorrectly tagged. To the point I made in the previous thread, cycling is not permitted on any way unless specifically signed. This is exemplified in change set 127561873 where the permissions that Frankston council have established in line with our road rules. The consensus, not just me, reject your argument that cycling is not permitted on any way unless specifically signed Regardless of copyright, I have personally verified all roads in the Seaford wetlands via both foot and bike and tagged ways according to what is on the ground and which is back to back with Frankston council (as per Victorian law) yet you still cannot provide any evidence that my tagging is incorrect. I do not need to provide evidence that you are incorrect. The concensus believes that you are incorrect. I ask that you conform to community expectations and not tag on the basis that cycling is not permitted on any way unless specifically signed. Thanks Tony On 23 Oct 2022, at 10:06 am, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: Hi Sebastian You sent me private message, 15/10/22 20:52:39 EST In it you agreed that consensus had been achieved even though you thought it was wrong. I was disappointed to then see further tagging changes which in my opinion go against community consensus. Changeset: 127828054 172362952, v4 cycleway changed to footway 170529137, v5 cycleway changed to footway Changeset: 127827849 995759320, v2 cycleway changed to footway 995753641, v3 cycleway changed to footway Changeset: 127561873 15 Oct 9:28am (UTC?), I think this is after your mail to me. It lists source: https://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/files/assets/public/things-to-do/parks-and-reserves/pdfs/seaford_wetlands_reserve_2018.pdf This source may not be allowed because of copyright 1024370763, v2 bicycle=yes, foot=yes changed to bicycle=no foot=no a highway=footway with foot=no makes little sense, if you are correct then its just an informal path with access=no? 827522368, v7 bicycle=yes changed to bicycle=no Seaford Wetlands Trail (770944899) bicycle =yes changed to bicycle=no Maybe I have misunderstood but it seems to me that you continue to act against community consensus though you agree that consensus had been achieved. Your thoughts please. Thanks Tony _ This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Changing building levels elevator to description elevator shell
Hi Warin, Both of those examples were previously build:part=elevator. Its probably worth asking why they changed them to building:levels=elevator. That seems to be a more appropriate tagging. Cheers - Phil -Original Message- From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, 23 October 2022 8:41 PM To: OSM Australian Talk List Subject: [talk-au] Changing building levels elevator to description elevator shell Hi There are ~260 of closed ways with the tag 'building:levels=elevator'. This tag should have numbers as the value not text, the number being the number of levels. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:levels. These object all are associated with railway stations around Sydney and appear to have been added by members of TfNSW team. I have left a message on one of their members changeset but have had no reply. There are no other uses of this tag elsewhere in the world. My thoughts are to change the tag to 'description=elevator shell' as these look to be the walls around the outside of the moving elevator that is presently mapped as a node in these cases. Examples Way 993829900 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/993829900 Way 996164524 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/996164524 Any thoughts? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Changing building levels elevator to description elevator shell
Hi There are ~260 of closed ways with the tag 'building:levels=elevator'. This tag should have numbers as the value not text, the number being the number of levels. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:levels. These object all are associated with railway stations around Sydney and appear to have been added by members of TfNSW team. I have left a message on one of their members changeset but have had no reply. There are no other uses of this tag elsewhere in the world. My thoughts are to change the tag to 'description=elevator shell' as these look to be the walls around the outside of the moving elevator that is presently mapped as a node in these cases. Examples Way 993829900 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/993829900 Way 996164524 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/996164524 Any thoughts? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cycle permissions by a user
It is both frustrating and disappointing to see that you continue to argue your point of view that is incorrect. It is clear that a local council who follows the Victorian road laws has published the permissions of ways within their jurisdiction yet you still try to argue that ways are incorrectly tagged. To the point I made in the previous thread, cycling is not permitted on any way unless specifically signed. This is exemplified in change set 127561873 where the permissions that Frankston council have established in line with our road rules. Regardless of copyright, I have personally verified all roads in the Seaford wetlands via both foot and bike and tagged ways according to what is on the ground and which is back to back with Frankston council (as per Victorian law) yet you still cannot provide any evidence that my tagging is incorrect. > On 23 Oct 2022, at 10:06 am, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: > > Hi Sebastian > > You sent me private message, 15/10/22 20:52:39 EST > In it you agreed that consensus had been achieved even though you thought it > was wrong. > > I was disappointed to then see further tagging changes which in my opinion go > against community consensus. > > Changeset: 127828054 > 172362952, v4 cycleway changed to footway > 170529137, v5 cycleway changed to footway > > Changeset: 127827849 > 995759320, v2 cycleway changed to footway > 995753641, v3 cycleway changed to footway > > Changeset: 127561873 > 15 Oct 9:28am (UTC?), I think this is after your mail to me. > It lists source: > https://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/files/assets/public/things-to-do/parks-and-reserves/pdfs/seaford_wetlands_reserve_2018.pdf > This source may not be allowed because of copyright > 1024370763, v2 bicycle=yes, foot=yes changed to bicycle=no foot=no > a highway=footway with foot=no makes little sense, if you are correct then > its just an informal path with access=no? > 827522368, v7 bicycle=yes changed to bicycle=no > Seaford Wetlands Trail (770944899) bicycle =yes changed to bicycle=no > > Maybe I have misunderstood but it seems to me that you continue to act > against community consensus though you agree that consensus had been > achieved. Your thoughts please. > > Thanks > Tony > > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
