Re: [Tagging] Parcel box tagging

On 7/10/2015 2:21 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:57 AM, André Pirard > wrote: On 2015-10-07 00:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote : sent from a phone You are excused ;-) Am 06.10.2015 um 23:31 schrieb

Re: [Tagging] Parcel box tagging

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:57 AM, André Pirard wrote: > On 2015-10-07 00:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote : > > sent from a phone > > You are excused ;-) > > Am 06.10.2015 um 23:31 schrieb Daniel Koć : > > In my opinion having popular amenity

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On 06.10.2015 19:31, Florian Lohoff wrote: >> So if "destination" excludes off-wanderers and sightseers, what tag do you >> use when you need to include them? > > Whats the possible signage which can induce that? "no through traffic" "no thru traffic" "local traffic only" In Austria: Fahrverbot

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On 06.10.2015 07:15, Marc Gemis wrote: > And (Flemish) Dutch "aangelanden (verkeer)". > > We also have the difference between > "uitgezonderd plaatselijk verkeer" = "except destination" > "uitgezonderd aangelanden" = "except 'visitor'" > > and I even saw > > "uitgezonderd bewoners" = "except

Re: [Tagging] new access value

Exactly my point - the actual definition of what is allowed and what is forbidden is a whole lot more complex than a single word on a sign. Let's not forget that OSM is only a model of reality, which means it will contain approximations of the truth. IMHO "access=destination" is probably

Re: [Tagging] new access value

Instead of trying to translate the words on the signs, why look at what the relevant laws say. There is only room on the sign for one or two words, but in the laws which define the signing there will/may be more detailed definitions of what is meant; these definitions will of course be

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On 06.10.2015 02:08, Georg Feddern wrote: > Am 05.10.2015 um 12:01 schrieb Friedrich Volkmann: >> Many people have been using (motor_)vehicle=destination for this, but that's >> just wrong, because "destination" would mean that you are allowed to drive >> in to take a walk or shoot photos. > >

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 08:54:09PM +0200, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > On 06.10.2015 19:31, Florian Lohoff wrote: > >> So if "destination" excludes off-wanderers and sightseers, what tag do you > >> use when you need to include them? > > > > Whats the possible signage which can induce that? > >

Re: [Tagging] new access value

> On Oct 6, 2015, at 8:48 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > > So if "destination" excludes off-wanderers and sightseers, what tag do you > use when you need to include them? Yes/permissive under general. If I am free to come up park my car for any reason and wander about, that

[Tagging] Parcel box tagging

I was looking for a proper tagging scheme for a parcel box and it looks like we have something strange: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Packstation has a note from 2008 that it's just for German parcel boxes ("This is not an international parcel box page. If you want one, create one."). It

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On 06.10.2015 08:47, Colin Smale wrote: > Instead of trying to translate the words on the signs, why look at what the > relevant laws say. There is only room on the sign for one or two words, but > in the laws which define the signing there will/may be more detailed > definitions of what is meant;

Re: [Tagging] waterway=penstock to complete pipeline tagging

On Monday 05 October 2015, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > probably not very practical to > > differentiate between 'pipelines with a pipe' and pipelines without > > a pipe' underground. > > can you give an example for a pipeline without a pipe? Apart from the pressure tubes of hydropower

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On 06.10.2015 09:04, Marc Gemis wrote: > And the Dutch/Flemish "plaatselijk verkeer" is better translated as > "local traffic"; now what the hell is the (legal) definition of that? > > Same as the Dutch bestemmingsverkeer I assume. I wouldn't assume that. > inhabitants, visitors,

Re: [Tagging] new access value

2015-10-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale : > Instead of trying to translate the words on the signs, why look at what > the relevant laws say. There is only room on the sign for one or two words, > but in the laws which define the signing there will/may be more detailed >

Re: [Tagging] new access value

People, sometimes creatively, put lots of stuff on signs that don't necessarily correspond to the set of values that is actually supported by law*. It frankly doesn't make sense to try and capture each fine semantic difference (wit visitor vs. destination), particularly as it may simply be

Re: [Tagging] new access value

2015-10-06 9:57 GMT+02:00 Friedrich Volkmann : > Sadly enough, most people who participate in discussions do not even know > (or at least not fully understand) the laws in the own country, > +1, the access=destination is likely an example, because it seems the definition in the

Re: [Tagging] new access value

So to summarise, you are proposing a new value for access=*, which has some overlap with "destination", "delivery" and "private" (and others), whereby the distinction with the existing values can only be made clear by refererring to legal texts? Whatever the conclusion, the new value has to

Re: [Tagging] new access value

2015-10-05 12:01 GMT+02:00 Friedrich Volkmann : > The meaning is a superset of > access=private/customers/delivery/agricultural/forestry. Everyone is > permitted to use the feature (road) if - and only if - he is either a > resident or owner of adjacent property or if he is aiming

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On 06.10.2015 10:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > would you be permitted if you wanted to ask for hotel pricing? Or room > availability? Yes. Asking means contact, and that's what it is about. > Many people have been using (motor_)vehicle=destination for this, but > that's > just wrong,

Re: [Tagging] new access value

2015-10-06 11:06 GMT+02:00 Friedrich Volkmann : > > IMHO we should change the wiki to make this more explicit, because the > > German situation is similar, it isn't sufficient to want to go there > (like > > the wiki currently states), but you have to want to come in contact with >

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On 06.10.2015 10:45, Simon Poole wrote: > Your Anrainer vs. Anrainerverkehr example for AT doesn't seem to be any > different than the Anwohner/Anlieger difference in DE, which > semantically for routing purposes boils down to private/destination > (which I suspect most routers wouldn't actually

Re: [Tagging] new access value

Am 06.10.2015 um 11:29 schrieb Friedrich Volkmann: > ... > It's *not* destination, see my other posts. > To put it more clearly: > "destination" targets a location, while Anrainerverkehr targets people. > You can also see it like this: > "destination" is about where you go, while Anrainerverkehr

Re: [Tagging] new access value

Am 06.10.2015 um 12:02 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > > Yes, I didn't imply this. There's another possibility: split it into > several tags, that can be combined to describe the actual situation > (e.g. 2 or 3 rather than one tag). Each of these could have specific > (global) meaning, and

Re: [Tagging] new access value

2015-10-06 10:45 GMT+02:00 Simon Poole : > People, sometimes creatively, put lots of stuff on signs that don't > necessarily correspond to the set of values that is actually supported > by law*. It frankly doesn't make sense to try and capture each fine > semantic difference (wit

Re: [Tagging] new access value

Am 06.10.2015 um 11:15 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > ... > whether the routers do evaluate these rules specifically should not > matter to us. We should try to capture the reality, also in subtle > details, so that someone _could_ interpret the data precisely if he > wanted to. > ... The proper

Re: [Tagging] waterway=penstock to complete pipeline tagging

2015-10-06 10:42 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann : > > > > can you give an example for a pipeline without a pipe? > > Apart from the pressure tubes of hydropower plants the most common case > is probably sewer pipes. For general transport pipelines cutting them > into rock is

Re: [Tagging] new access value

2015-10-06 11:31 GMT+02:00 Simon Poole : > Doing the above allows us to limit the possible values to a manageable > set and allows our mappers to tag things without in-depth knowledge of > the the actual detailed regulations. Creating a new value for each > national variant is

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 12:01:57PM +0200, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > I intend to write a proposal for a new access=* value, but I don't know a > reasonable tag name. So I'm asking you for suggestions. > > We need the tag for Austrian road signs labelled "ausgenommen > Anrainerverkehr" or

Re: [Tagging] intermittent vs seasonal

On 6/10/2015 9:48 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 08:37:54 +1100 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: On 4/10/2015 5:29 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: I will respond to other parts later. On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 21:58:25 +1000 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: Again:

Re: [Tagging] Parcel box tagging

sent from a phone > Am 06.10.2015 um 23:31 schrieb Daniel Koć : > > In my opinion having popular amenity type only for one country it's not about the country, it's about the system I guess. Some time ago I spotted a DHL Packstation at the main station in Rome, so they're not

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On 6/10/2015 7:32 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: On 06.10.2015 09:04, Marc Gemis wrote: And the Dutch/Flemish "plaatselijk verkeer" is better translated as "local traffic"; now what the hell is the (legal) definition of that? Same as the Dutch bestemmingsverkeer I assume. I wouldn't

Re: [Tagging] Parcel box tagging

On 2015-10-07 00:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote : > sent from a phone You are excused ;-) >> Am 06.10.2015 um 23:31 schrieb Daniel Koć : >> >> In my opinion having popular amenity type only for one country > it's not about the country, it's about the system I guess. Some time ago I

Re: [Tagging] waterway=penstock to complete pipeline tagging

On 6/10/2015 8:57 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2015-10-06 10:42 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann >: > > can you give an example for a pipeline without a pipe? Apart from the pressure tubes of hydropower plants the most common

Re: [Tagging] new access value

sent from a phone > Am 06.10.2015 um 12:10 schrieb Simon Poole : > > Anrainer seems to be clearly covered by private "private" is "Only with permission of the owner on an individual basis" this is kind of vague, but from what it says literally it clearly doesn't apply

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On 06.10.2015 11:09, Colin Smale wrote: > So to summarise, you are proposing a new value for access=*, which has some > overlap with "destination", "delivery" and "private" (and others), There is no overlap with "destination", although many mappers mix it up. Of course there is overlap with

Re: [Tagging] intermittent vs seasonal

On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 08:37:54 +1100 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/10/2015 5:29 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > I will respond to other parts later. > > > > On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 21:58:25 +1000 > > Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Again: Intermittent does not mean seasonal.

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On 06.10.2015 11:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I wouldn't do that, but I'd rather make it the opposite way (state that > destination does require contact). That would change the meaning of the tag, and how would you tag "Zufahrt gestattet" (or "Durchfahrt verboten" or "ausgenommen Ziele in

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On 06.10.2015 11:58, Simon Poole wrote: > Am 06.10.2015 um 11:29 schrieb Friedrich Volkmann: >> ... >> It's *not* destination, see my other posts. >> To put it more clearly: >> "destination" targets a location, while Anrainerverkehr targets people. >> You can also see it like this: >>

Re: [Tagging] new access value

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > > Maybe *=visitors? > or *=guests (but this could make believe that deliverers are excluded) > or *=contact (puzzling?) > or *=contact_with_residents (too bulky?) > or *=contact_with_abutters (same) > or *=in_touch... ?

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - aeroway=heliport

W dniu 23.09.2015 19:20, Daniel Koć napisał(a): W dniu 18.09.2015 14:52, Daniel Koć napisał(a): So here is my quick draft documenting aeroway=heliport scheme: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/aeroway%3Dheliport Definition: Aerodrome for helicopters. I don't think it

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On 06.10.2015 12:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am 06.10.2015 um 12:10 schrieb Simon Poole >> Anrainer seems to be clearly covered by private Correct. > "private" is "Only with permission of the owner on an individual basis" > this is kind of vague, but from what it says literally it clearly

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On 06.10.2015 13:06, johnw wrote: > Destination is very good, because it implies people who are going to a > destination on that street/area. not free to roam around, not free to park > and wander off. > > =Destination is for people *visiting* the destination the road services. it > doesn’t

Re: [Tagging] new access value

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 01:48:27PM +0200, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > On 06.10.2015 13:06, johnw wrote: > > Destination is very good, because it implies people who are going to a > > destination on that street/area. not free to roam around, not free to park > > and wander off. > > > >