Re: [Tagging] What is a terrace after all?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

André, "terraced housing" is a British English language term for what we
would call row houses in America.
If there is already a building outline for the whole row, and you would
like to make it more precise by outlining each individual house, great!
(As the wiki says, this is the preferred option:
*"A more detailed and recommended alternative is to map each dwelling
separately using building
=house
." )*

You can use the "terracer" plugin within JOSM:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Terracer
*"Select the terrace outline way and use the Terrace tool (Shift-T by
default) (optionally also select the street to auto-complete the road name
- see below). It will ask for the range of house numbers and the
interpolation between them as well as, optionally, the road name."*
*"...After clicking OK, you are left with the houses selected so that
entering additional shared tags is easier."*

Joseph

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 9:28 AM André Pirard 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> According to my OSM readings, I thought that a terrace was something very
> special, but, according to dictionary.com
> , a terrace is most exactly
> like French, mainly a) raised ground, b) flat top of a building c) an
> accessible area connected to a building at ground or upper level, such as
> for living or other purposes..
> But beside that, dictionary.com defines a Terrace as a plain row of
> houses without a terrace at all and so does building=terrace
> , unlike
> French and Wikipedia which calls it Terraced_house
>  (adjective).
>
> Practically, I'm correcting hundredths of houses tagged at 3-5m+ away from
> their true location, with incorrect shape and without any addr:* at all.
> And during this I met areas tagged building=terrace that, of course, are
> just as imprecise: they get across the houses.
> If I map the houses that are inside, I get a very logical JOSM
> congratulation: "building inside a building".
> In my mind, building=terrace is a bad tag. It should be:
> building=house
> house:terraced=yes
> be it as a row of houses or a single one.
> But I'm sure a reply will be "we" are not doing like that.  Like what,
> then.
> What should I do? building=terrace
>  describes
> mapping separate houses as an *alternative*.
> Erase what another mapper did, and replace that element with houses?
> While waiting, I converted them to landuse=terraced (invisible).
>
> On the other hand, I once asked how to map a part of the street that is
> fitted with tables and seats near a café or restaurant.
> That is a *real* terrace.
> No answer.
>
> All the best,
>
> André.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] What is a terrace after all?

[Warin]

On 10/09/18 10:27, André Pirard wrote:

Hi,

According to my OSM readings, I thought that a terrace was something 
very special, but, according to dictionary.com 
, a terrace is most exactly 
like French, mainly a) raised ground, b) flat top of a building c) an 
accessible area connected to a building at ground or upper level, such 
as for living or other purposes..
But beside that, dictionary.com defines a Terrace as a plain row of 
houses without a terrace at all and so does building=terrace 
, unlike 
French and Wikipedia which calls it Terraced_house 
 (adjective).



While a 'terrace' is that .. a 'terrace building' is not that.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraced_house

"a row of identical or mirror-image houses share side walls."

The modern practice is to build 'town houses' to try and achieve a 
similar population density.


Practically, I'm correcting hundredths of houses tagged at 3-5m+ away 
from their true location, with incorrect shape and without any addr:* 
at all. And during this I met areas tagged building=terrace that, of 
course, are just as imprecise: they get across the houses.
If I map the houses that are inside, I get a very logical JOSM 
congratulation: "building inside a building".

In my mind, building=terrace is a bad tag. It should be:
building=house
house:terraced=yes
be it as a row of houses or a single one.
But I'm sure a reply will be "we" are not doing like that.  Like what, 
then.
What should I do? building=terrace 
 describes 
mapping separate houses as an *alternative*.

Erase what another mapper did, and replace that element with houses?



While waiting, I converted them to landuse=terraced (invisible).


landuse=residential is the correct tag .. for the area .. not the building!
It should be used to cover the general residential area.

You may as well have used pirade=something_to_do_later
that would at least have other mappers not try to interpret the 
landuse=terraced into something such as landuse=agriculture ('terraces' 
are also used for some farm fields!).





On the other hand, I once asked how to map a part of the street that 
is fitted with tables and seats near a café or restaurant.

That is a *real* terrace.


But it is not a building! So building=terrace is totally incorrect for 
this kind of terrace.


Are the tables and seats fixed? Or do they get moved?
If fixed .. I'd tend to go with man_made=table and man_made=seat.
However that are over 400 amenity=table in the data base, so look for 
yourself.


As for the area .. similar issues exist for 'square', esplanade' and 
'plaza'.

Some areas are not 'pedestrian' but for sitting, not walking/promenading.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] What is a terrace after all?

[André Pirard]

Hi,

According to my OSM readings, I thought that a terrace was something 
very special, but, according to dictionary.com 
, a terrace is most exactly 
like French, mainly a) raised ground, b) flat top of a building c) an 
accessible area connected to a building at ground or upper level, such 
as for living or other purposes..
But beside that, dictionary.com defines a Terrace as a plain row of 
houses without a terrace at all and so does building=terrace 
, unlike 
French and Wikipedia which calls it Terraced_house 
 (adjective).


Practically, I'm correcting hundredths of houses tagged at 3-5m+ away 
from their true location, with incorrect shape and without any addr:* at 
all. And during this I met areas tagged building=terrace that, of 
course, are just as imprecise: they get across the houses.
If I map the houses that are inside, I get a very logical JOSM 
congratulation: "building inside a building".

In my mind, building=terrace is a bad tag. It should be:
building=house
house:terraced=yes
be it as a row of houses or a single one.
But I'm sure a reply will be "we" are not doing like that.  Like what, then.
What should I do? building=terrace 
 describes 
mapping separate houses as an *alternative*.

Erase what another mapper did, and replace that element with houses?
While waiting, I converted them to landuse=terraced (invisible).

On the other hand, I once asked how to map a part of the street that is 
fitted with tables and seats near a café or restaurant.

That is a *real* terrace.
No answer.

All the best,

André.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

The legal definition of the baseline is the low tide line and also cuts
across bays, inlets and estuaries.

But OSM has always marked the coastline at the mean high water line, and
that is also the line shown on most maps. It is also much easier to verify
than the low water baseline, which by definition is in the sea 99% of the
time.

I believe the German language Wiki page mentions that the baseline can be
marked as an administrative boundary, because it is a legal fiction, not a
geographical feature of the landscape.

In the past a few people have mentioned adding the low water line as a
second feature in addition to the coastline, but so far people have beeen
individually drawing shoals, mud flats, beaches and other wetlands befoyond
the coastline, which seems sufficient to me.

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 8:31 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 08:25, Colin Smale  wrote:
>
>> So are we getting any closer to consensus on where the coastline should
>> cross the river? I think only if it is "somewhere between the tidal limit
>> and the sea". Are all "crossing points" then equally valid? Or can we
>> expect strong disagreements (especially at the limits) and possible edit
>> wars?
>>
>
> Unfortunately, I don't think we are ever all going to agree - some people
> are adamant about the tidal limit, while other's are equally convinced that
> it should be where the river enters the sea, & both arguments are just as
> logical as the other.
>
> I think part of the problem is the lack of a precise definition of just
> what is the "coastline"? eg Merriam-Webster dictionary "a line that forms
> the boundary between the land and the ocean or a lake" which could well
> mean that the coastline goes up a river, but how far?
>
> While searching for a better answer, I did however find this:
> http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/E2D8E00068ACF5EE8525622F004AA168
> .
>
> Some of the highlights include:
>
> "Congress reacted to these decisions by enacting the Submerged Lands Act
> of 1953.[10] Congress defined "coast line" to mean "the line of ordinary
> low water along that portion of the coast which is in direct contact with
> the open sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters"
>
> "the Supreme Court set the meaning of "coast line" in its earlier
> decree.[32] The Court defined the term to mean "the line of ordinary low
> water along that portion of the coast which is in direct contact with the
> open sea and the line marking the seaward limits of inland waters.""
>
> "During the late 1950s, the coastal countries of the world proposed,
> discussed, and drafted a treaty known as the Convention on the Territorial
> Sea and Contiguous Zone, April 29, 1958.[34] The hope was to provide
> uniformity in the delineation of the nations' territorial sea. Rather than
> using the term "coast line," the Convention used the term "baseline" in the
> measurement of the territorial sea. Article 3 defines the "baseline" for
> measuring the territorial sea as "the low water line along the coast as
> marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State."
> The Convention was ratified by the United States in 1961 and became
> effective in 1964.[35] It is as a result of the Convention that the term
> "baseline" is used regarding coastline issues."
>
> "By applying both the Convention and the Submerged Lands Act to Article
> X, section 16, Florida Constitution, the following results:
>
> "A. 'Coastline' is the low water line that meets the shore along the coast
> of Florida which is in direct contact with the open sea. A coastline can
> never begin in open water; a coastline, in plain terms, is where the water
> meets the land."
>
> Now, I would interpret all that as meaning that coastline & baseline are
> the same thing, so that the coastline should follow the line of the coast,
> cutting across the mouth of any rivers?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 08:25, Colin Smale  wrote:

> So are we getting any closer to consensus on where the coastline should
> cross the river? I think only if it is "somewhere between the tidal limit
> and the sea". Are all "crossing points" then equally valid? Or can we
> expect strong disagreements (especially at the limits) and possible edit
> wars?
>

Unfortunately, I don't think we are ever all going to agree - some people
are adamant about the tidal limit, while other's are equally convinced that
it should be where the river enters the sea, & both arguments are just as
logical as the other.

I think part of the problem is the lack of a precise definition of just
what is the "coastline"? eg Merriam-Webster dictionary "a line that forms
the boundary between the land and the ocean or a lake" which could well
mean that the coastline goes up a river, but how far?

While searching for a better answer, I did however find this:
http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/E2D8E00068ACF5EE8525622F004AA168
.

Some of the highlights include:

"Congress reacted to these decisions by enacting the Submerged Lands Act of
1953.[10] Congress defined "coast line" to mean "the line of ordinary low
water along that portion of the coast which is in direct contact with the
open sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters"

"the Supreme Court set the meaning of "coast line" in its earlier
decree.[32] The Court defined the term to mean "the line of ordinary low
water along that portion of the coast which is in direct contact with the
open sea and the line marking the seaward limits of inland waters.""

"During the late 1950s, the coastal countries of the world proposed,
discussed, and drafted a treaty known as the Convention on the Territorial
Sea and Contiguous Zone, April 29, 1958.[34] The hope was to provide
uniformity in the delineation of the nations' territorial sea. Rather than
using the term "coast line," the Convention used the term "baseline" in the
measurement of the territorial sea. Article 3 defines the "baseline" for
measuring the territorial sea as "the low water line along the coast as
marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State."
The Convention was ratified by the United States in 1961 and became
effective in 1964.[35] It is as a result of the Convention that the term
"baseline" is used regarding coastline issues."

"By applying both the Convention and the Submerged Lands Act to Article X,
section 16, Florida Constitution, the following results:

"A. 'Coastline' is the low water line that meets the shore along the coast
of Florida which is in direct contact with the open sea. A coastline can
never begin in open water; a coastline, in plain terms, is where the water
meets the land."

Now, I would interpret all that as meaning that coastline & baseline are
the same thing, so that the coastline should follow the line of the coast,
cutting across the mouth of any rivers?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Designated value as a key

[Johnparis]

I said "for example." Taginfo has 2716 different values for the "access"
key, only a few of which are documented.



On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 11:48 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 9. Sep 2018, at 14:53, Johnparis  wrote:
>
> BTW, I have deduced through observation that certain "wild" access tags
> are the equivalent of access=no + [access_type]=yes. So, for example, a
> simple "access=bicycle" means "bicycle only" which is equivalent to the
> standard access=no + bicycle=yes.
>
>
>
> it doesn’t appear to be something observable on a bigger scale though, there
> are 41 instances of access=bicycle in the db ;-)
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/access=bicycle
>
>
> cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves?

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-09-09 23:35, David Groom wrote:

> -- Original Message -- 
> From: "Joseph Eisenberg"  
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> Sent: 07/09/2018 04:02:26 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves? 
> 
>> I've now edited the coastline in the area mentioned. I have now added 
>> natural=coastline along all the ways forming the edge of the mangroves and 
>> open water. 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/62340975#map=13/-4.9075/137.1762
> 
> I have to say that to me this seems wrong. Coastline tags are now on ways 
> forming channels 40m wide and 30km from open ocean.  I just don't see that 
> these are "coastlines" .

Those distances are not too dissimilar to the situation on the River
Dart, where this whole discussion started. 

So are we getting any closer to consensus on where the coastline should
cross the river? I think only if it is "somewhere between the tidal
limit and the sea". Are all "crossing points" then equally valid? Or can
we expect strong disagreements (especially at the limits) and possible
edit wars?___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Designated value as a key

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9. Sep 2018, at 14:53, Johnparis  wrote:
> 
> BTW, I have deduced through observation that certain "wild" access tags are 
> the equivalent of access=no + [access_type]=yes. So, for example, a simple 
> "access=bicycle" means "bicycle only" which is equivalent to the standard 
> access=no + bicycle=yes.


it doesn’t appear to be something observable on a bigger scale though, there 
are 41 instances of access=bicycle in the db ;-)
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/access=bicycle


cheers,
Martin___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Designated value as a key

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9. Sep 2018, at 12:44, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> 
> Local bus is already covered by the psv tag, public service vehicle.


+1, the “bus” tag means local bus, coaches (other vehicles of type bus that 
don’t act as psv) are tagged with “tourist_bus”


Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves?

[David Groom]

-- Original Message --
From: "Joseph Eisenberg" 
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Sent: 07/09/2018 04:02:26
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves?

I've now edited the coastline in the area mentioned. I have now added 
natural=coastline along all the ways forming the edge of the mangroves 
and open water. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/62340975#map=13/-4.9075/137.1762


I have to say that to me this seems wrong. Coastline tags are now on 
ways forming channels 40m wide and 30km from open ocean.  I just don't 
see that these are "coastlines" .


David




Further west, I moved the administrative boundary off of the coastline 
of internal waterways, positioning it near the low water line / 
baseline, because I believe this is closer to the official Indonesian 
definition for Kabupaten (admin level 6) boundaries, and it no longer 
creates separate polygons around each patch of mangroves. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/62344890#map=14/-4.8615/136.8500


This brought up another issue. I did not want to delete the 
natural=water areas, so I changed them to multipolygons (since I had to 
break the closed ways to make a proper coastline) and marked salt=yes, 
removing natural=river from the areas that might better be described as 
tidal channels. I considered using water=tidal or water=salt, but both 
of these tags seem to have limited use and an unclear definition; JOSM 
suggested salt=yes.


But I am uncertain what to do with the waterway=river in the case of 
tidal channels and the complex connections between rivers in these 
mangrove areas. A search of taginfo did not find an alternative tag, 
although river=tidal is in use. I think there should still be a 
waterway midline for the large tidal channels in the mangroves which 
can be used by boats or even ships, to help navigation software. (Many 
of these channels were actually created by flowing river water; the 
rivers in this area meander strongly and often change the location of 
the mouth, as can be seen by comparing the current situation to 100 
year old Dutch maps)


Perhaps waterway=river with tidal=yes or river=tidal is the best option 
to prevent tag fragmentation? Or is river=tidal_channel preferable? The 
problem is determining the direction of water flow when two channels 
connect. Besides tidal, is there a better tag to imply two-way water 
flow depending on the tidal cycle?


Joseph



Message: 3
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 18:03:36 +0200
From: Christoph Hormann 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves?
Message-ID: <201809051803.36467@imagico.de>
Content-Type: text/plain;  charset="utf-8"

On Wednesday 05 September 2018, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> Specific examples:
>
> 1) This changeset on the River Dart in southwest England was the
> source of the Help site question:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/61959067

The coastline closure there:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/216482240

is both below the lower limit of the proposal and below the the range 
i

can imagine a meaningful coastline closure rule to allow.

I would however be interested in hearing any universal rule that would
allow this kind of placement based on physically observable criteria
and that would maintain the coastline as a meaningful geometry on its
own.

> It looks like quite a large estuary, much wider than the non-tidal
> part of the river upstream.

That is largely not really an estuary but more of a ria.  I have no 
data

for this at hand but you can likely see an abrupt change in the
elevation profile near Totnes where the submerged section of the 
former

river valley starts.  So in this case it would make a lot of sense to
place the coastline closure near the upper end of the tidal section
because this is much better defined in terms of physical geography.

> 2) The estuaries and mangrove tidal channels in this area:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=11/-4.8806/136.9339

Here i likewise see no meaningful motivation for the current coastline
placement - like here:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/614052686

Poor image quality in the available sources makes identifying the 
limit

of the mangroves difficult, you really need to make use of available
lower resolution open data images in the area for proper maiing here.
But you can conclude a few thing from the structure of the network of
channels.  For example

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7301266

is quite clearly not a river but a tidal channel (there is no river
feeding it, it is just draining seawater that has entered during
raising tide).

> I previously changed the coastline to be closer to the river mouths
> in another section of coast to the southeast, but perhaps I should
> change it back? The whole idea of coastline around mangrove swamps 
is

> most confusing. I don't think the mangroves should be outside of the
> coastline, but where then 

Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 04:43, Christoph Hormann  wrote:

> I would probably use waterway=tidal_channel since the term 'creek' which
> i think you have correctly identified as the English language term for
> this is ambiguous ('creek' as you also say is also used for inland
> waterways).  The German term is 'Priel' which is clearer but would be
> useless and confusing for those who don't speak German.
>
> Yes, drawing a line between a tidal channel and a river is difficult but
> the purpose would be to offer mappers an option in cases where
> waterway=river is clearly not correct, not to allow doubt free
> decisions in all boundary cases.
>

How about:
waterway=inlet
tidal=yes
salt=yes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inlet

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves?

[Christoph Hormann]

On Sunday 09 September 2018, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>
> So I would favor a tagging scheme that would allow waterway=river as
> the top=level tag. Also, I believe making new top-level tags is
> discouraged.

Using waterway=river for something that is definitely not a river would 
devalue existing data with this tag by blurring its meaning - i don't 
think that is a good idea.

I would probably use waterway=tidal_channel since the term 'creek' which 
i think you have correctly identified as the English language term for 
this is ambiguous ('creek' as you also say is also used for inland 
waterways).  The German term is 'Priel' which is clearer but would be 
useless and confusing for those who don't speak German.

Yes, drawing a line between a tidal channel and a river is difficult but 
the purpose would be to offer mappers an option in cases where 
waterway=river is clearly not correct, not to allow doubt free 
decisions in all boundary cases.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is waterway=riverbank an 'Old scheme' ?

[Dave F]

Ideally, yes. However I'm aware that with waterway=riverbank there's 
nothing inherently wrong, as there was with old style multipolygons*. 
It's just that the alternative are a better option.


* This campaign was only half completed. There are still many examples 
where tags are on outer ways. I plan on writing about it soon.


DaveF

On 07/09/2018 23:00, Andrew Hain wrote:
Would you favour a campaign like the one to update old style 
multipolygons then?


--
Andrew

*From:* Dave F 
*Sent:* 06 September 2018 19:04:23
*To:* tagging@openstreetmap.org
*Subject:* Re: [Tagging] Is waterway=riverbank an 'Old scheme' ?
Clarifying:

natural=water, water=river fits in with all other bodies of water mapped
as polygons.

Cheers
DaveF

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Designated value as a key

[Johnparis]

I agree that it is theoretically a problem for the software not to use
access:bicycle=yes (for example) instead of bicycle=yes. I believe I've
seen (from Thorsten?) a list of such tags, as a hierarchy.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Land-based_transportation

Data consumers always have this problem with OSM's free-form tagging. I'm
not sure the list above is comprehensive.

All the tags you propose would work just fine in combination with
access=no, followed by the specific vehicle types and/or conditional tags.

BTW, I have deduced through observation that certain "wild" access tags are
the equivalent of access=no + [access_type]=yes. So, for example, a simple
"access=bicycle" means "bicycle only" which is equivalent to the standard
access=no + bicycle=yes.

Your "local bus" example translates to

access=no
local_bus=yes

... if you feel it is necessary to make a distinction between local buses
(permitted) and non-local buses (forbidden). I think you are correct that
the psv=yes tag covers all buses.

If you have a "typical" living street (pedestrians, bicycles) with local
buses also permitted but no other vehicles (including non-local buses), you
would have:

access=no
local_bus=yes
pedestrian=yes
bicycle=yes

... but then again you might want to consider: trash collection vehicles?
emergency vehicles? other local public service vehicles (taxis for example)?

John





On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 1:19 PM Lionel Giard  wrote:

> I'm not seeing much difference seeing "designated=bicycle" versus the
> in-use combinaison "bicycle=designated" (same for the other common tag like
> motor_vehicle) except that the first one would use a different "access
> paradigm" than everything else. That's not really a simplification to me,
> and i don't understand the reason that you would use that. Is there really
> a big problem in the processing of such access tag by software ?
>
> For the very specific employee access, why is it better to use the
> "designated subtag" instead of using a "private=Repsol workers" subtag ? As
> most employees-only access are tagged via access=private.
>
> Le dim. 9 sept. 2018 à 12:46, Philip Barnes  a
> écrit :
>
>> Local bus is already covered by the psv tag, public service vehicle.
>>
>> I assume by schoolar you mean scholar? I would consider scholar an
>> outdated term, something my grandparents used to say. It is more common to
>> refer to students in modern English, which I believe is what you have in
>> Spanish?
>>
>> Phil (trigpoint)
>>
>> On 9 September 2018 10:08:42 CEST, yo paseopor 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> When I tag the access to a way reading the meaning of the traffic sign I
>>> miss some specific conditions. I know I can do it at general times with key
>>> access, but in specific cases access is so "small for me". There are also
>>> conditional tags but with these two keys I don't arrive to cover local
>>> meanings and situations of restriction to some vehicles (example, you have
>>> a living street, which is only allowed for the LOCAL bus line, nor the
>>> other buses. So you can't tag it with bus=yes or bus=designated within the
>>> complete meaning of the restriction given you by the traffic sign.
>>>
>>> For these situations I propose to "flip" designated value and convert it
>>> to a subkey. In that way you would have an escalable subkey that you can
>>> complete with the specific information of that tag. This key will be
>>> together with the combination access=designated so you can complete the
>>> information of the specific designation
>>>
>>> access=designated
>>> designated=local_bus
>>>
>>> designated=bicycle
>>> designated=motor_vehicle
>>> designated=pedestrian
>>> designated=Mo-Fr 9:00-9:30
>>> designated:en=schoolars only
>>> designated:ca=Només escoles
>>> designated:es=Solo escuelas
>>>
>>> This also applies for other uses like some restrictions done by "marks"
>>> (Example: in a industrial zone you have some private ways...but private of
>>> who? In the reality you will have a traffic sign it says you who can pass
>>> or who cannot)
>>> With normal access scheme you would say...repsol_workers=yes but Would
>>> it better if I can specify the "specific designation" ?
>>>
>>> access=designated
>>> designated=Repsol workers
>>>
>>>
>>> hey! but you have access tags yes/no to do that! ...And the software has
>>> to guess which of the 32 keys with yes=no is for access . For general
>>> purposes it's ok. But for an specific case the software can read this
>>> designated value.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>> Salut i accessos designats (Health and designated access)
>>> yopaseopor
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> 

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[SelfishSeahorse]

On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 at 12:15, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> The only signage on autoroute with voie pour vehicules lents is the start of 
> a new crawler lane in English and a sign indicating 'vehicules lents'. There 
> is no indication of a maximum speed for that lane, beyond at 130 you may come 
> up behind a truck very quickly, there is no indication that the standard keep 
> to the right unless overtaking doesn't apply. [...]

The 60 km/h are not indicated on the road sign, but in the 'Code de la
route' (highway code):

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?idArticle=LEGIARTI06842322=LEGITEXT06074228

The second section is translated into English as follows: 'For the
purposes of this article, the term slow vehicles refers to vehicles
that cannot travel at a speed exceeding 60 km/h on the road section in
question.'

But because our good practice guidelines recommend to not map local
legislation, this doesn't seem to matter, and smv:lanes=||designated
should be fine. (I wouldn't even tag smv:lanes=no|yes|designated
because of the same guideline.)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Designated value as a key

[Lionel Giard]

I'm not seeing much difference seeing "designated=bicycle" versus the
in-use combinaison "bicycle=designated" (same for the other common tag like
motor_vehicle) except that the first one would use a different "access
paradigm" than everything else. That's not really a simplification to me,
and i don't understand the reason that you would use that. Is there really
a big problem in the processing of such access tag by software ?

For the very specific employee access, why is it better to use the
"designated subtag" instead of using a "private=Repsol workers" subtag ? As
most employees-only access are tagged via access=private.

Le dim. 9 sept. 2018 à 12:46, Philip Barnes  a écrit :

> Local bus is already covered by the psv tag, public service vehicle.
>
> I assume by schoolar you mean scholar? I would consider scholar an
> outdated term, something my grandparents used to say. It is more common to
> refer to students in modern English, which I believe is what you have in
> Spanish?
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
> On 9 September 2018 10:08:42 CEST, yo paseopor 
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> When I tag the access to a way reading the meaning of the traffic sign I
>> miss some specific conditions. I know I can do it at general times with key
>> access, but in specific cases access is so "small for me". There are also
>> conditional tags but with these two keys I don't arrive to cover local
>> meanings and situations of restriction to some vehicles (example, you have
>> a living street, which is only allowed for the LOCAL bus line, nor the
>> other buses. So you can't tag it with bus=yes or bus=designated within the
>> complete meaning of the restriction given you by the traffic sign.
>>
>> For these situations I propose to "flip" designated value and convert it
>> to a subkey. In that way you would have an escalable subkey that you can
>> complete with the specific information of that tag. This key will be
>> together with the combination access=designated so you can complete the
>> information of the specific designation
>>
>> access=designated
>> designated=local_bus
>>
>> designated=bicycle
>> designated=motor_vehicle
>> designated=pedestrian
>> designated=Mo-Fr 9:00-9:30
>> designated:en=schoolars only
>> designated:ca=Només escoles
>> designated:es=Solo escuelas
>>
>> This also applies for other uses like some restrictions done by "marks"
>> (Example: in a industrial zone you have some private ways...but private of
>> who? In the reality you will have a traffic sign it says you who can pass
>> or who cannot)
>> With normal access scheme you would say...repsol_workers=yes but Would it
>> better if I can specify the "specific designation" ?
>>
>> access=designated
>> designated=Repsol workers
>>
>>
>> hey! but you have access tags yes/no to do that! ...And the software has
>> to guess which of the 32 keys with yes=no is for access . For general
>> purposes it's ok. But for an specific case the software can read this
>> designated value.
>>
>> What do you think?
>> Salut i accessos designats (Health and designated access)
>> yopaseopor
>>
>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Martin, are you saying we need a new top level waterway=* tag? What would
you use? Perhaps waterway=yes? That would be the most generic option,
perhaps too broad? Or waterway=marine ? Waterway=tidal?

The correct English term for these features is variable. In southwest
England, they are called creeks (or tidal creeks), or pills. Creek is also
used for water channels between mangroves in India and Pakistan. But in
other areas they are called tidal channels or tidal inlets. See this
Wikipedia article for all the examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creek_(tidal)

This makes it hard to decide on a specific tag. "Creek" would be a poor
choice, because some dialects use this word to refer to small freshwater
rivers (or large streams), including most of North America. That's why I
was inclinded to use a more general tagging scheme.

On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 7:08 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 9. Sep 2018, at 07:00, Joseph Eisenberg 
> wrote:
> >
> > What do you all think about using waterway=river & river=tidalchannel
> for water channels in mangroves?
>
>
> IMHO we could have a tag for channels which could be applied also
> elsewhere and which is not river (rivers are usually freshwater, tagging
> tidal channels as rivers seems strange)
>
>
> cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Designated value as a key

[Philip Barnes]

Local bus is already covered by the psv tag, public service vehicle.

I assume by schoolar you mean scholar? I would consider scholar an outdated 
term, something my grandparents used to say. It is more common to refer to 
students in modern English, which I believe is what you have in Spanish?

Phil (trigpoint) 

On 9 September 2018 10:08:42 CEST, yo paseopor  wrote:
>Hi!
>
>When I tag the access to a way reading the meaning of the traffic sign
>I
>miss some specific conditions. I know I can do it at general times with
>key
>access, but in specific cases access is so "small for me". There are
>also
>conditional tags but with these two keys I don't arrive to cover local
>meanings and situations of restriction to some vehicles (example, you
>have
>a living street, which is only allowed for the LOCAL bus line, nor the
>other buses. So you can't tag it with bus=yes or bus=designated within
>the
>complete meaning of the restriction given you by the traffic sign.
>
>For these situations I propose to "flip" designated value and convert
>it to
>a subkey. In that way you would have an escalable subkey that you can
>complete with the specific information of that tag. This key will be
>together with the combination access=designated so you can complete the
>information of the specific designation
>
>access=designated
>designated=local_bus
>
>designated=bicycle
>designated=motor_vehicle
>designated=pedestrian
>designated=Mo-Fr 9:00-9:30
>designated:en=schoolars only
>designated:ca=Només escoles
>designated:es=Solo escuelas
>
>This also applies for other uses like some restrictions done by "marks"
>(Example: in a industrial zone you have some private ways...but private
>of
>who? In the reality you will have a traffic sign it says you who can
>pass
>or who cannot)
>With normal access scheme you would say...repsol_workers=yes but Would
>it
>better if I can specify the "specific designation" ?
>
>access=designated
>designated=Repsol workers
>
>
>hey! but you have access tags yes/no to do that! ...And the software
>has to
>guess which of the 32 keys with yes=no is for access . For general
>purposes
>it's ok. But for an specific case the software can read this designated
>value.
>
>What do you think?
>Salut i accessos designats (Health and designated access)
>yopaseopor

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Philip Barnes]

On 8 September 2018 21:06:11 CEST, SelfishSeahorse  
wrote:
>On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 at 02:38, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>> I'm thinking, perhaps, a new access tag value: smv (slow moving
>vehicle).  Then you could (using my previous I 82 through the Cabbage
>Patch climb) do something like smv:lanes:access=no|yes|designated.
>
>This seems like a good idea to me -- although 'slow moving vehicle' is
>defined differently depending on the region (e.g. < 60 km/h in France
>or less than the normal speed at the particular time and place in the
>USA or CA), but that shouldn't be our problem, should it?
>
The only signage on autoroute with voie pour vehicules lents is the start of a 
new crawler lane in English and a sign indicating 'vehicules lents'. There is 
no indication of a maximum speed for that lane, beyond at 130 you may come up 
behind a truck very quickly, there is no indication that the standard keep to 
the right unless overtaking doesn't apply. The offside (3rd) lane will have a 
minimum speed, usually 100, posted. At the top the vehicules lents lane becomes 
lane 1 and lanes 2 and 3 become lane 2. 

Phil (trigpoint) 

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9. Sep 2018, at 07:00, Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:
> 
> What do you all think about using waterway=river & river=tidalchannel for 
> water channels in mangroves?


IMHO we could have a tag for channels which could be applied also elsewhere and 
which is not river (rivers are usually freshwater, tagging tidal channels as 
rivers seems strange)


cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Philip Barnes]

The video is from the 70s, more passing places on more modern S1s are longer 
and will not require the vehicle being passed to slow down. If you time it 
right it is common to pass vehicles travelling in the opposite direction at 60 
mph.

Phil (trigpoint) 

On 8 September 2018 00:24:50 CEST, Dave Swarthout  
wrote:
>The situation in the video is the one for which the tag passing_place
>was
>invented. I think the name is misleading for the reasons I've stated
>before.  I agree that such places are perhaps best described by a node,
>as
>demonstrated in the Wiki definition but this situation is, I think,
>considerably different from the turnout lanes I'm trying to model. The
>passing places in the video and Rule 155 are actually places where cars
>that move into them are there to be passed; they are not places where
>one
>passes other vehicles. It's a subtle difference in implied meaning. I
>was
>aware of this difference when I tagged the turnout lanes originally and
>felt it was a poor fit to my scenario but I did it because there were
>no
>other alternatives offered in the Wiki. I don't want to fight what
>would
>surely be an uphill battle to redefine passing_place to suit my
>preference
>especially knowing now, thanks to Philip, that such language is
>enshrined
>in the UK Highway Code.
>
>I'm still looking for a simple solution that allows me to tag
>slow_vehicle_turnout lanes in such a way that makes them visible to
>drivers
>using a GPS as they motor along behind a sluggish truck or bus:
>"Turnout
>lane ahead in 1000 meters". Simple logic and unambiguous tagging will
>make
>that easier than figuring out that a short multi-lane segment of a
>given
>highway actually contains a lane dedicated for vehicles to use so they
>can
>be passed. But, hey, I'm not a routing expert. Maybe the complex
>tagging
>using lanes presents no particular problem for routing software, I
>dunno.
>
>Dave
>
>
>On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 2:21 AM Philip Barnes 
>wrote:
>
>> On 06/09/2018 12:37, Steve Doerr wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Note that in 'passing place', as commonly used in the UK at least,
>the
>> > reference is usually to two vehicles going in opposite directions,
>so
>> > it's not the same as overtaking (though 'passing' does mean that as
>> > well, more often in fact).
>> >
>> Not strictly true, passing places in England, Scotland and Wales are
>> also intended to allow faster traffic to overtake.
>>
>> It is covered by highway code rule 155 states "If you see a vehicle
>> coming towards you, or the driver behind wants to overtake, pull into
>a
>> passing place on your left, or wait opposite a passing place on your
>> right."
>>
>>
>>
>https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/general-rules-techniques-and-advice-for-all-drivers-and-riders-103-to-158
>>
>> It reminded me of a public information film from a while back
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQZownCGnYg
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
>-- 
>Dave Swarthout
>Homer, Alaska
>Chiang Mai, Thailand
>Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Designated value as a key

[yo paseopor]

Hi!

When I tag the access to a way reading the meaning of the traffic sign I
miss some specific conditions. I know I can do it at general times with key
access, but in specific cases access is so "small for me". There are also
conditional tags but with these two keys I don't arrive to cover local
meanings and situations of restriction to some vehicles (example, you have
a living street, which is only allowed for the LOCAL bus line, nor the
other buses. So you can't tag it with bus=yes or bus=designated within the
complete meaning of the restriction given you by the traffic sign.

For these situations I propose to "flip" designated value and convert it to
a subkey. In that way you would have an escalable subkey that you can
complete with the specific information of that tag. This key will be
together with the combination access=designated so you can complete the
information of the specific designation

access=designated
designated=local_bus

designated=bicycle
designated=motor_vehicle
designated=pedestrian
designated=Mo-Fr 9:00-9:30
designated:en=schoolars only
designated:ca=Només escoles
designated:es=Solo escuelas

This also applies for other uses like some restrictions done by "marks"
(Example: in a industrial zone you have some private ways...but private of
who? In the reality you will have a traffic sign it says you who can pass
or who cannot)
With normal access scheme you would say...repsol_workers=yes but Would it
better if I can specify the "specific designation" ?

access=designated
designated=Repsol workers


hey! but you have access tags yes/no to do that! ...And the software has to
guess which of the 32 keys with yes=no is for access . For general purposes
it's ok. But for an specific case the software can read this designated
value.

What do you think?
Salut i accessos designats (Health and designated access)
yopaseopor
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

[Dave Swarthout]

Tom Pfeifer said:
>What Martin means is, it depends on physical separation. If the lane is
physically separated e.g. by
>a barrier being at least a kerb, highway=service + service=* is fine. If
not, the lane tagging comes
>in, and we have an established tagging style for lane properties.
-
I see no requirement that service ways like I'm modeling be
physically separated by some sort of barrier. I have mapped hundreds of
service roads that have no physical separation from the highways they
intersect, abut, or run parallel to. The Wiki defines service roads in
general terms only and it seems like these turnouts would fit into the Wiki
definition.

SelfishSeahorse raises a point about different definitions of "slow moving"
then asks whether it should be our problem. No, it isn't nor is it
important for this discussion.

Dave

On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM SelfishSeahorse 
wrote:

> On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 at 02:38, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> > I'm thinking, perhaps, a new access tag value: smv (slow moving
> vehicle).  Then you could (using my previous I 82 through the Cabbage Patch
> climb) do something like smv:lanes:access=no|yes|designated.
>
> This seems like a good idea to me -- although 'slow moving vehicle' is
> defined differently depending on the region (e.g. < 60 km/h in France
> or less than the normal speed at the particular time and place in the
> USA or CA), but that shouldn't be our problem, should it?
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging