Re: [Tagging] Problems with Open Street Browser

Could try via Mastodon: https://en.osm.town/@plepe.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Problems with Open Street Browser

First saw Open Street Browser in the last couple of days, after it was mentioned in one of the threads here. Having a play in my area & noticed some problems with the way data is shown. Does anybody know how to report stuff like that? To clarify, info is mapped correctly in OSM, but when you

Re: [Tagging] tagging a public waste incinerator complex

> shouldn’t we be tagging *all of these* as man_made=incinerators Yes, I agree this would be helpful. I imagine that most incinerators are built primarily to dispose of trash. The electrical generation is a side-benefit but probably doesn’t pencil out financially alone. On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at

Re: [Tagging] Medicine Disposal

I’d use waste=medication, but I’m an American. Perhaps “medicine” is appropriate British English? On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 11:19 AM Clifford Snow wrote: > Yes, a typo on my part. > > Sent from my Android phone. > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019, 5:23 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> sent

Re: [Tagging] tagging a public waste incinerator complex

> On Feb 13, 2019, at 4:25 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > man_made=incinerator Thanks everyone for all the feedback. I will tag them as a man_made=incinerator. Then, shouldn’t we be tagging *all of these* as man_made=incinerators? (power and non-power

Re: [Tagging] Medicine Disposal

Yes, a typo on my part. Sent from my Android phone. On Thu, Feb 14, 2019, 5:23 PM Martin Koppenhoefer > > > > sent from a phone > > On 15. Feb 2019, at 01:49, Clifford Snow > wrote: > > > > I've thought about using the tag amenity=waste + waste=medicine > > > > Any better suggestions? > > >

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Joseph Eisenberg writes: >> The question asked is "Is this street accessible for pedestrians here?". >> It doesn't ask for the user's opinion on how safe it is. >> > > I believe this is the wrong question. It should be “Are pedestrians legally > prohibited from walking along this road?” Agreed.

Re: [Tagging] Medicine Disposal

sent from a phone > On 15. Feb 2019, at 01:49, Clifford Snow wrote: > > I've thought about using the tag amenity=waste + waste=medicine > > Any better suggestions? did you maybe mean to write amenity=“waste_disposal”? Waste is usually not seen as an amenity ;-) Cheers, Martin

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

sent from a phone > On 15. Feb 2019, at 01:24, Tobias Zwick wrote: > > Is this now about the word "legal" or about the negation of the question? > What difference does the latter make? it is making things much clearer because it follows common legal settings (access is allowed unless it

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 7:26 PM Tobias Zwick wrote: > > Is this now about the word "legal" or about the negation of the question? > What difference does the latter make? Also, doesn't "probited" imply > "legally" in common understanding? > > And of course, foot=no is tagged if a road is not

[Tagging] Medicine Disposal

How should sites that offer drop box disposal for unneeded medicine be tagged? Typical locations would include pharmacys, clinics, hospitals, and law enforcement buildings. I've thought about using the tag amenity=waste + waste=medicine Any better suggestions? Thanks in advance, Clifford --

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Is this now about the word "legal" or about the negation of the question? What difference does the latter make? Also, doesn't "probited" imply "legally" in common understanding? And of course, foot=no is tagged if a road is not accessible by foot. On February 15, 2019 12:52:16 AM GMT+01:00,

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

+1! On 2019-02-15 00:52, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I believe this is the wrong question. It should be “Are pedestrians legally > prohibited from walking along this road?” > > If so, use foot=no smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

> The question asked is "Is this street accessible for pedestrians here?". > It doesn't ask for the user's opinion on how safe it is. > I believe this is the wrong question. It should be “Are pedestrians legally prohibited from walking along this road?” If so, use foot=no Foot=yes should only

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

sent from a phone > On 14. Feb 2019, at 19:51, Tobias Zwick wrote: > > The reason for it being (not) accessible is secondary, if the reason is not of legal nature, it is subjective and may be felt differently by different people, that’s why we don’t do it. The Hamburg example of the

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

sent from a phone > On 14. Feb 2019, at 19:51, Tobias Zwick wrote: > > I am sure the police would find something > else to charge you with when you take a walk on for example this busy > intersection https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/188015324 , like, > hindrance of traffic. Note that the

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

sent from a phone > On 14. Feb 2019, at 19:51, Tobias Zwick wrote: > > I doubt access restrictions are used that way in reality. you can do this, but in general they are used like this, and in the cases where they aren’t, we should strive to improve the tagging, rather than redefine the

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

> Agreed. I don't see much of a difference between residential and higher > class roads. I would even argue that around here a sidewalk=no + foot=no > is even less likely on higher class roads than on residentials. How so? I have the impression, we (all) have different kinds of road in mind, when

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

The question asked is "Is this street accessible for pedestrians here?". It doesn't ask for the user's opinion on how safe it is. Also: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-February/042874.html On 14/02/2019 22:10, Volker Schmidt wrote: > I am sorry, this is not the correct

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Am 14.02.2019 um 22:10 schrieb Volker Schmidt: I am sorry, this is not the correct approach. We have here plenty of streets in other categories (unclassified|teritery|secondary|primary) without sidewalk where it is perfectly legal for pedestrians to use the road. This does not say whether it's

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Legally and practically, all roads are open to pedestrians unless there is a specific prohibition. Walking is considered a basic right, and practically it is difficult to stop people from walking anywhere. Motorways are the only exception in most countries. In rural parts of the USA even

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 63

On 15/02/19 00:36, Ulrich Lamm wrote: Am 14.02.2019 um 12:51 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org :  If you can justify it within your own tortured logic about copyright, you can even use the OSM database as a foundation for your efforts.

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

I am sorry, this is not the correct approach. We have here plenty of streets in other categories (unclassified|teritery|secondary|primary) without sidewalk where it is perfectly legal for pedestrians to use the road. This does not say whether it's safe to walk on them. If people now start putting

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

No, I didn't. I explained the quest here: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-February/042860.html In a nutshell: foot=yes/no is only asked if sidewalk=no is tagged. As per request on this mailing list, I now changed it so that regardless of whether sidewalk=no is tagged, it

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Am 14.02.2019 um 21:28 schrieb Kevin Kenny: On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 3:13 PM Tobias Wrede wrote: Still, they are the very minority of situations where a residential (or any other road) has no sidewalk. Local cultural assumptions are in play here! In my (suburban) township, few residential

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 3:13 PM Tobias Wrede wrote: > Still, they are the very minority of situations where a residential (or > any other road) has no sidewalk. Local cultural assumptions are in play here! In my (suburban) township, few residential roads have sidewalks, so the ones without

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019, 11:17 JS The legal situation is already represented by the default OSM setting, > considering all highways as "foot=yes" except some like motorways or those > explicitly marked as "foot=no". > This seems like a good time to remind folks that in North America, there is no

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Am 14.02.2019 um 20:50 schrieb Tobias Zwick: Alright, I will change it so that the question whether a road is accessible for pedestrians is never asked for residential roads (and living streets, service roads, pedestrians roads) for v10.1 I think you lost me. Didn't you explain in the beginning

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Am 14.02.2019 um 19:51 schrieb Tobias Zwick: This is, by the way, a bit of a different topic now, because the thread was originally about tagging foot=yes on residential, not whether foot=yes/no is limited to a *legal* access restriction. Anyway: I doubt access restrictions are used that way in

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Alright, I will change it so that the question whether a road is accessible for pedestrians is never asked for residential roads (and living streets, service roads, pedestrians roads) for v10.1 Tobias On 14/02/2019 10:26, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > Hi, > i am seeing a growing number of

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

In the United States, the rules aren't quite as permissive (for example, authorities are allowed to forbid foot traffic), but in practice, I'm not aware of a single case where a residential street actually prohibits foot traffic. (I'm aware of one near me that's *tagged* as such, but I think

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 13:51, Tobias Zwick wrote: > I doubt access restrictions are used that way in reality. > The absence of keys like the mentioned key walkable(, cycleable, > motorcarable, hgvable etc.) is a clear sign for that, because there are > enough situations where the situation on the

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

I agree that it would make sense to not ask whether a road has a sidewalk outside of built-up areas because in most cases, it will have no sidewalks. Regrettably, whether a road is in a built-up area or outside is not an information that is recorded in OSM. Tobias On 14/02/2019 18:23, Martin

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

This is, by the way, a bit of a different topic now, because the thread was originally about tagging foot=yes on residential, not whether foot=yes/no is limited to a *legal* access restriction. Anyway: I doubt access restrictions are used that way in reality. The absence of keys like the

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

sent from a phone > On 14. Feb 2019, at 16:05, Rory McCann wrote: > > But in Ireland (& I think UK), all public roads except motorways, are > foot=yes. Legally you can walk on the road, even if there is not footpath > ("sidewalk"). I think this adds bloat and quests which will annoy

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

>The rationale behind collecting this information is, that if a street >is >explicitly surveyed as having no sidewalk, it is no longer implicated >that naturally the street is accessible on foot (foot=yes). Roads >explicitly signed as motorroads are not the only roads that are not >accessible on

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

apart from underpasses, bridges also intersections and similar constructs. They need not be trunk/motorroad. For example many road segments at Deichtorplatz and inner lanes of Willi-Brandt-Straße in Hamburg: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/53.54762/10.00345 On 14/02/2019 17:03, Philip

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 04:00:24PM +0100, Tobias Zwick wrote: > Wrong thread? > > Anyway, the quest in StreetComplete only asks for foot=yes/no if the > road is tagged with sidewalk=no. Sidewalk is a physical issue - foot=* is a legal issue. It is perfectly normal for streets in Germany to

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

On 14 February 2019 15:05:56 GMT, Rory McCann wrote: >I can't find any issue on Github for this feature. > >But in Ireland (& I think UK), all public roads except motorways, are >foot=yes. Legally you can walk on the road, even if there is not >footpath ("sidewalk"). I think this adds bloat

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

I can't find any issue on Github for this feature. But in Ireland (& I think UK), all public roads except motorways, are foot=yes. Legally you can walk on the road, even if there is not footpath ("sidewalk"). I think this adds bloat and quests which will annoy mappers. On 14/02/2019 10:26,

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Wrong thread? Anyway, the quest in StreetComplete only asks for foot=yes/no if the road is tagged with sidewalk=no. On 14/02/2019 15:44, Volker Schmidt wrote: > ... and just to make this even trickier: > The access tag is (in most cases) about legal access, and not about >

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

... and just to make this even trickier: The access tag is (in most cases) about legal access, and not about is-it-a-good-idea-to-route-a-pedestrian-along-this-road access. That has to be underlined. In my part of the world most roads, even with a lot of traffic and without sidewalk are legally

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 08:42, Tobias Zwick wrote: > What do you think? Hello, In my experience in Canada I would indeed expect all (or basically all) highway=residential to be (legally) accessible to pedestrians, the question would be more about comfort or safety. I don't know if tagging

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

I don't take dismissive and generalizing statements on a project I have been putting 3+ years of lifeblood into, invest much of my free time in and offer as open source for the betterment of OSM, lightly. If you have a concrete constructive suggestion to make, do it, otherwise, save your breath.

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 52 Co-ordinate sets vs. background informations = ODbL vs. CC

On a mailing list, in a community, I can't imagine anything more rude and divisive than *publicly* telling someone that he can go away if he don't like things the way you (/and others, even the majority indeed/) like it, and that you are considering to block him/her *just for the opinions

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

With this information given, the question is, whether highway=residential + sidewalk=no implies a foot=yes . And with implies, I mean, that it is considered *duplicate information* if this is tagged. Note that This is different to an unspecified information which can with relative

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 63

Am 14.02.2019 um 12:51 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org: > If you can justify it within your own tortured logic about > copyright, you can even use the > OSM database as a foundation for your efforts. Openstreetmap is present, almost everywhere. On some kinds of contents, Openstreetmap

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Yes, there is a new quest in v10, which tags foot=yes/no. It is no problem to make changes on it, but let me first provide some information on it first, so we have a common basis to discuss: For any street that has been tagged as having no sidewalk, the StreetComplete asks the surveyor: "Is this

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 52 Co-ordinate sets vs. background informations = ODbL vs. CC

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 12:34, Sergio Manzi wrote: > I strongly dissent with the tone of your mail. > That is your right. Even if you are strongly dissenting about somebody expressing strong dissent, it is your right. > Everybody, not only you and the most vocifeferous ones, have the right to >

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 52 Co-ordinate sets vs. background informations = ODbL vs. CC

I strongly dissent with the tone of your mail. Everybody, not only you and the most vocifeferous ones, have the right to express their opinion. You can dissent, but the tone of your mail is definitely rude and divisive. Think twice. Regards, Sergio On 2019-02-14 12:45, Paul Allen wrote: >

Re: [Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs

Hi, Frederik Ramm wrote: *I'd say we stick to stuff that is explicitly signposted on the machine - if the machine says what the limit is or what the network is or what currencies it has, then map that, but don't map data gathered by interacting with the machine. * one use case: I was

Re: [Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs

Here in Indonesia the ATMs are universally limited to dispensing no more than 25 bills, and they only offer one type. So you can get 2,500,000 in one withdrawal if they dispense 100,000 Rupiah bills, or 125 if they dispense 50k bills. The size of bill dispensed is often shown on a sticker (at

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 52 Co-ordinate sets vs. background informations = ODbL vs. CC

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 09:13, Ulrich Lamm wrote: > Am 12.02.2019 um 05:59 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org: > > Rules according to the interests of commercial exploiters make our mapping > an unpaid labour for some landlords. > That is the opposite of freedom. > You have the freedom

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

I think that apps adding redundant tags to cover for a tiny number of special cases is going to cause more problems than it solves (i.e. users misinterpreting the question and adding "private" access to all kinds of roads). StreetBloat instead of StreetComplete :) -Original Message-

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

sent from a phone > On 14. Feb 2019, at 10:26, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > All residentials are accessible to pedestrians so i a bit puzzled > what this challenge is good for. It just adds redundant tags to > all roads. I agree the default is accessibility for everyone on non-motorroad roads.

[Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Hi, i am seeing a growing number of changesets setting foot=yes on all kinds of roads e.g. residential https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/403719315 Commit message is: "Add whether roads are accessible for pedestrians" All residentials are accessible to pedestrians so i a bit puzzled what this

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 52 Co-ordinate sets vs. background informations = ODbL vs. CC

Am 12.02.2019 um 05:59 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org: >> the commercial exploiter has the choice either to sell a product >> without informations that are available for free, >> or he has to pay. >> > > Your method of including CC will mean not more use by commercial firms. Rules

Re: [Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs

some providers already make it publicly available knowledge. for example in the UK link ATM has an app, and you can use it to find nearby ATMs. most of the things it tells you are pretty standard, but some things that may need new tags are pin management services, audio assistance and £5 notes

Re: [Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs

On 2019-02-14 08:35, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I'm surprised to hear this about ATMs in Europe. > > In Southeast Asia and in the USA, usually the ATM will only allow a certain > max withdrawal. It's also uncommon to have more than one denomination (though > some do have 2 types). > > Perhaps