Re: [Tagging] Question reg. wheelchair mapping

Marc Gemis wrote >> >> after a review by local mappers >> >> and that the wiki pages are changed accordingly. >> >> If I hear no complains I'll change the english and german page >> >> next sunday. > > That's a pretty tight deadline. Wouldn't it be better to wait at least > 1 or 2 weeks? Perhaps

Re: [Tagging] Question reg. wheelchair mapping

Gerd Petermann wrote > > Marc Gemis wrote >>> >>> after a review by local mappers >>> >>> and that the wiki pages are changed accordingly. >>> >>> If I hear no complains I'll change the english and german page >>> >>> next sunday. >> >> That's a pretty tight deadline. Wouldn't it be better to

Re: [Tagging] Question reg. wheelchair mapping

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Gerd Petermann wrote: > I'd like to see that the existing highway=access_ramp > > are changed to the well known > > highway=footway > > wheelchair=yes > > in combination with > > incline=x% I have a question about this. I think I

Re: [Tagging] highway = track vs. residential

On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 03:15:00PM -0700, Mike Thompson wrote: > I am editing in Colorado, US in a rural part of the state. I do have first > hand knowledge of the area. It looks like someone has gone through and > changed many ways tagged "highway = residential" to "highway = track." For >

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Street Parking Restrictiion)

Dear All, I am sending this RFC in order to receive some feedback regarding my OSM feature proposal for Street Parking Restrictions. Best regards Paul Simpson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

Colin Smale wrote on 2016/01/08 17:47: How did all the elevation data get into OSM in the first place? > GPS is notoriously bad at determining elevation/altitude. Beside intentionally tagged elevation such as peaks, I found a lot of nodes in the data, that appear to come directly from GPX

Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

> On Jan 8, 2016, at 10:51 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: > > > Tod Fitch writes: > >>> On Jan 8, 2016, at 10:04 AM, Mike Thompson wrote: >>> >>> But I get it that the USGS surely publishes mountain heights >>> somehow. >>> I have asked,

Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

That could be someone converting from feet to meters. On Jan 8, 2016 10:32 AM, "Tom Pfeifer" wrote: > Colin Smale wrote on 2016/01/08 17:47: > >> How did all the elevation data get into OSM in the first place? >> > > GPS is notoriously bad at determining

Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

sent from a phone > Am 08.01.2016 um 17:18 schrieb Greg Troxel : > > I don't think it makes sense to add datum tags and have heights in other > datums. That just pushes the work onto the data consumer and adds > confusion. the advantage for the mapper is that it is quite

Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > the advantage for the mapper is that it is quite easy, you simply read > an elevation off a sign and add the reference height system to the > value. (yes, you have to know what is this reference height system, > that's why the "quite" is

Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

Mike Thompson writes: > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Colin Smale wrote: >> >> How did all the elevation data get into OSM in the first place? >> > The elevations of peaks in the US came from the GNIS import. In turn the > GNIS elevations came

Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

Tod Fitch writes: >> On Jan 8, 2016, at 10:04 AM, Mike Thompson wrote: >> >> But I get it that the USGS surely publishes mountain heights >> somehow. >> I have asked, and so far I have not gotten an answer as to where I can find >> the data. >> >

Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

Mike Thompson writes: > [1] do care about the "official" elevation of mountains. I think OSM > should - in these cases - match official government surveys where > available. Fully agreed that it should be right. > The particular datum is not important, as long as it is

Re: [Tagging] highway = track vs. residential

Greg Troxel wrote: > I more or less agree, from the US point of view, except that > highway=residential has a meaning of something that is > legally a road. highway=residential in the US _largely_ has the meaning "this was imported from TIGER feature code A41 and hasn't been changed". One import

Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > FWIW, for most usages of these ele values it doesn't really matter if a > value is 20 meters more or less, they are used to get a rough idea, not to > be used in calculations where a meter more or less is

[Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Location transitions

Hi all, The vote vote session for the location transition proposal is now open. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Location_transitions As described, location:transition=yes may enable mappers to indicate the location of a feature is changing without using fixme or

Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: > > Mike Thompson writes: > > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Colin Smale > wrote: > >> > >> How did all the elevation data get into OSM in the first place? > >> > > The

Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

> On Jan 8, 2016, at 10:04 AM, Mike Thompson wrote: > > But I get it that the USGS surely publishes mountain heights > somehow. > I have asked, and so far I have not gotten an answer as to where I can find > the data. > Is this the type of data you are looking for?

Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

2016-01-07 23:56 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale : > Nobody will be using the raw data to fly a plane. +1, and you wouldn't fly "blindly" (i.e. without sight) on a low-altitude flight with OSM-maps anyway, the idea sounds ridiculous. Cheers, Martin

Re: [Tagging] highway = track vs. residential

Mike Thompson wrote: > Although these are gravel surfaced roads (not yet tagged that way, > but physically that is what they are), the ones in question provide > access to two or more homes and/or ranches. To me these are > not "tracks" but "residential." Before I change these back, I >

Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

2016-01-08 2:30 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > Grasping at straws .. the elevation of a mountain is given as its peak. If > there is consistency within the map then the elevation of all objects > should be their maximum height. > don't confuse elevation and height. Elevation is

Re: [Tagging] Question reg. wheelchair mapping

On Fri Jan 8 10:41:35 2016 GMT, Gerd Petermann wrote: > > Good points. > We already have the tag ramp=* for ramps along highway=steps: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ramp > and it has a special > ramp:wheelchair=yes > but the typical steps are too steep for wheelchair ramps, so

Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

So if all the elevations in OSM should be interpreted as WGS84, but many (most?) of them are not, we have no way of knowing which are "right" and which are "wrong". Even if the numerical value of ele=* is correct, we have unreliable data. Where do we go from here? Maybe we should encourage an

Re: [Tagging] Question reg. wheelchair mapping

2016-01-08 11:41 GMT+01:00 Gerd Petermann : > ramp:wheelchair=yes > good finding, why not use this together with highway=footway? It's used more than 2300 times: http://taginfo.osm.org/keys/ramp%3Awheelchair but the typical steps are too steep for wheelchair

Re: [Tagging] Question reg. wheelchair mapping

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2016/01/08 11:23: 2016-01-08 10:31 GMT+01:00 Marc Gemis: [...] with highway=access_ramp (duck tagging) I indicate that the path was designed for wheelchair users. Don't I loose some information with highway=footway, wheelchair=yes, incline=up ?

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Location transitions

Le 9 janv. 2016 12:40 AM, "Clifford Snow" a écrit : > > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:09 PM, François Lacombe < fl.infosrese...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The vote vote session for the location transition proposal is now open. >>

Re: [Tagging] Question reg. wheelchair mapping

Marc Gemis wrote > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Gerd Petermann > > GPetermann_muenchen@ > wrote: >> I'd like to see that the existing highway=access_ramp >> >> are changed to the well known >> >> highway=footway >> >> wheelchair=yes >> >> in combination with >> >> incline=x% > > > I have

Re: [Tagging] Question reg. wheelchair mapping

2016-01-08 10:31 GMT+01:00 Marc Gemis : > I have a question about this. I think I can recognise an access ramp > for wheelchair users when I see one. In general I don't know the > incline %, but I assume that it was designed in such a way that the > majority of wheelchair

Re: [Tagging] highway = track vs. residential

* Tod Fitch [160107 23:35]: > My parents house is in a pretty rural part of Arizona and distinguishing > between tracks and driveways or even residential roads can be difficult > there. So my initial instinct was to say leave the ways in that part of > Colorado as tracks

Re: [Tagging] highway = track vs. residential

2016-01-08 10:50 GMT+01:00 Wolfgang Zenker : > I would use highway=unclassified instead of residential as long as we > are not inside a settlement; the implied rules like default speed limits > tend to be different for inner-town roads and these rural roads and the >

Re: [Tagging] Question reg. wheelchair mapping

dieterdreist wrote > 2016-01-08 10:31 GMT+01:00 Marc Gemis > marc.gemis@ > : > >> I have a question about this. I think I can recognise an access ramp >> for wheelchair users when I see one. In general I don't know the >> incline %, but I assume that it was designed in such a way that the >>

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Street Parking Restrictiion)

2016-01-08 10:00 GMT+01:00 Paul Simpson : > I am sending this RFC in order to receive some feedback regarding my OSM > feature proposal for Street Parking Restrictions. you should provide a link... Cheers, Martin ___

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Street Parking Restrictiion)

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2016/01/08 11:41: 2016-01-08 10:00 GMT+01:00 Paul Simpson: I am sending this RFC in order to receive some feedback regarding my OSM feature proposal for Street Parking Restrictions. you should provide a link...

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Street Parking Restrictiion)

On 8 January 2016 at 11:47, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > an empty attempt on > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/StreeT_Parking_Restrictions > that a wiki admin might delete. Deleted. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Street Parking Restrictiion)

I only looked at it briefly, but can it be combined with http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane ? m On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Paul Simpson wrote: > Dear All, > > I am sending this RFC in order to receive some feedback regarding my OSM > feature

Re: [Tagging] Question reg. wheelchair mapping

2016-01-08 15:35 GMT+01:00 Andy Townsend : > a steep footpath with corners that weren't negotiable by a wheelchair > could still be tagged with an incline like that. a steep way is never suitable for wheelchairs, at least not according to construction standards (e.g. in

Re: [Tagging] Question reg. wheelchair mapping

2016-01-08 12:28 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer : > if trucks can use it, tag it service. > yes, but don't tag it wheelchair ramp then. ;-) Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] highway = track vs. residential

dieterdreist wrote: > what's your stance on service? Slightly difficult one, but I'd tend to concur with Florian that it's best used for roads on private property (roughly "access-only"). When I use it I always try and add an access and (if unpaved) surface tag - it's too ambiguous otherwise.

Re: [Tagging] highway = track vs. residential

2016-01-08 11:57 GMT+01:00 Richard Fairhurst : > I wouldn't man the barricades against either > =residential or =track, but the latter is best reserved for ungraded > double-tracks and worse. > what's your stance on service? Cheers, Martin

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Street Parking Restrictiion)

2016-01-08 12:47 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer : > My concern with this proposal is that inner-city roads get extremely > fragmented > when such tags are applied. > +1, around here there are disabled parking spots every few meters, plus different parking rules (free, pay,

Re: [Tagging] Question reg. wheelchair mapping

On 08/01/2016 08:45, Gerd Petermann wrote: I'd like to see that the existing highway=access_ramp are changed to the well known highway=footway wheelchair=yes in combination with incline=x% The explicit "wheelchair=yes" would definitely be needed with those tags as they don't make it

Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

Colin Smale writes: > So if all the elevations in OSM should be interpreted as WGS84, but many > (most?) of them are not, we have no way of knowing which are "right" and > which are "wrong". Even if the numerical value of ele=* is correct, we > have unreliable data. I

Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

Colin Smale writes: > On 2016-01-08 17:18, Greg Troxel wrote: > >> So we just have to fix things that are wrong, and transform heights in >> other datums into WGS84 before entering them. This is exactly the same >> situation that we encounter for horizonal datums, except

Re: [Tagging] highway = track vs. residential

Florian Lohoff writes: > public property - residential buildings > highway=residential > surface=gravel > > private property - residential buildings > highway=service > surface=gravel > service=driveway I more or less agree, from the US point of view,

Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

On 2016-01-08 17:18, Greg Troxel wrote: > So we just have to fix things that are wrong, and transform heights in > other datums into WGS84 before entering them. This is exactly the same > situation that we encounter for horizonal datums, except that people are > even less aware of which vertical

Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Colin Smale wrote: > > > How did all the elevation data get into OSM in the first place? > The elevations of peaks in the US came from the GNIS import. In turn the GNIS elevations came from the National Elevation Dataset (NED) [1], and it