Re: [Tagging] Sharps / syringe disposal

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 at 02:28, Markus  wrote:

> Do you or someone else happen to know what is allowed to throw into a bin
> labelled 'syringes'? I would have guessed needles and ampoules, but no
> other sharp waste such as scalpels.
>

Bins in public areas (parks, public toilets etc) are intended to have
syringes, with needles attached, disposed of into them. I guess someone
could also put an ampoule in there, but I don't think most people
(hopefully) using these bins are getting their drugs out of ampoules!

Also don't think there's many used scalpel blades to be disposed of in
public areas!

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 at 23:33, Hufkratzer  wrote:

> On 23.02.2019 18:47, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> [...] As I see it, ditches are unlined. [...]
>
>
> I googled for "ditch lining irrigation" and got these examples for lined
> ditches:
>
> -
> http://www.northwestlinings.com/services-available/installation-services/irrigation-ditch-liner-system/
> - http://www.skidmarkgeomembrane.com/Ditch-Lining.html - Irrigation Ditch
> Lining
> - http://www.smartditch.com/markets-agg-irrigation.html - "SmartDitch"
>

They all appear to be conversion kits.  For people who did their irrigation
on the cheap and
used a ditch to deliver the water to the irrigation ditches instead of
using a drain and then
found they were losing too much water.  You can get away with a ditch for
delivering irrigation
water, but it will be inefficient.  You can't use a drain at the edge of a
field to lower the water
table.

Yes, we can merge the tags and have drain for both.  And then have to
create a lined=yes/no
subtag to differentiate.  Or we can use, as some suggest, ditch for narrow
and drain for wide,
and then have to create lined=yes/no and width=n (which might be useful
anyway).  It seems silly
to move away from UK usage of ditch/drain and introduce ambiguities that we
then have to
resolve a different way.  YMMV.

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

[Hufkratzer]

On 23.02.2019 18:47, Paul Allen wrote:

[...] As I see it, ditches are unlined. [...]


I googled for "ditch lining irrigation" and got these examples for lined 
ditches:


- 
http://www.northwestlinings.com/services-available/installation-services/irrigation-ditch-liner-system/
- http://www.skidmarkgeomembrane.com/Ditch-Lining.html - Irrigation 
Ditch Lining

- http://www.smartditch.com/markets-agg-irrigation.html - "SmartDitch"

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal - Key:access=restricted

[Jarek Piórkowski]

Reposting to mailing list, after henkevdb sent to my personal email

On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 at 14:16, henkevdb  wrote:
> watercourses ( in Belgium anyway) are (mostly) open to the 'general
> public', so , access=no (with description ; "No access for the general
> public.") is not good then

Don't set general access tag then, and set only what is restricted.
motor_vehicle=private?

> ... also, access=private is not good because
> of description ; "Only with individual permission" ...

What is the problem with this description? Remember that we're tagging
for the general case. If there is an natural emergency and an army
vehicle needs to use it, motor_vehicle wouldn't stop them, and we
shouldn't tag for it.

> also this 'case'
> is better 'suitable' with access=restricted ->
> https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=736136#p736136

access=no, and don't tag highly exceptional uses IMO

Otherwise did you also change the maxheight tag because of the guy
raising the one cable in the photo?
Would you retag a cycleway to exceptional_traffic=emergency if you see
a firefighting vehicle standing on it one day while responding to a
fire?

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal - Key:access=restricted

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 at 12:54, henkevdb  wrote:
> Possibility to 'introduce' a Key:access=restricted ... with description ; 
> traffic only open for mentioned*=yes .

IMHO: What is the advantage over using access=no? access=no already
compounds like this. This also works in parallel with existing
schemes, like restriction=no_left_turn + except=bus.

> Could be a simple 'replacement' for several others, like i.e. ;
>
> access=restricted + agricultural=yes (because ;"Only for agricultural 
> traffic")
> and access=restricted + forestry=yes (because; "Only for forestry traffic.")

access=no + agricultural=yes
access=no + forestry=yes

More specific tag overrides the general "access" tag

> and access=restricted + delivery=yes (because; "Only when delivering to the 
> element")

access=delivery is in the wiki table and already has 12000 uses
Possibly many cases can be described as access=destination which has
247000 uses

> Because there is some 'confusing' for several 'cases' -> 
> https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=65458

highway=track + foot=yes + bicycle=yes + motor_vehicle=private should
cover it, optionally also access=no (which is then overridden for
foot=yes, bicycle=no, motor_vehicle=private)

You said in the forum "not such a good tag for paths along
watercourses" to access=private but I don't really understand why you
think this.

--Jarek

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

[Tagging] Proposal - Key:access=restricted

[henkevdb]

Possibility to 'introduce' a Key:access=restricted 
 ... with 
description ; /*traffic only open for mentioned*=yes*/ .


Could be a simple 'replacement' for several others, like i.e. ;

access=restricted + agricultural=yes (because ;"Only for agricultural 
traffic")


and access=restricted + forestry=yes (because; "Only for forestry 
traffic.")


and access=restricted + delivery=yes (because; "Only when delivering to 
the element")


and so on ...

Because there is some 'confusing' for several 'cases' -> 
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=65458


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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 at 17:19, Hufkratzer  wrote:

>
> Irrigate with drains? This was the original question of the whole ditch
> vs. drain discussion (see
> (
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-January/042047.html).
>
> It seems to be a contradiction to what wikipedia explains (and therefore
> is difficult to remember):
>

As I see it, ditches are unlined.  They're essentially trenches that are
intended to have water in
them.  In areas with a lot of rain (like mine) they allow for the drainage
of fields where the water
table is close to the surface.  In dry countries they can serve the purpose
of irrigation (in which
case they tend to be interwoven with fields rather than at the edges).  We
don't have words for
"big ditches" or "very big ditches", they're just ditches.

As I see it, drains are lined.  They're intended to transport water from A
to B either for the purposes
of drainage or irrigation.  Which is a little counter-intuitive, until you
think of a drain connecting
a reservoir of water higher than a field to one or more ditches around or
in that field.  You build
a drain rather than a ditch in that case because you don't want the water
seeping away between
the reservoir and the irrigation ditches.  But it's still a drain because
it's draining the reservoir
(that's the bit that's counter-intuitive until you think about what is
being drained).  If it's a big drain
then it might be better tagged as a canal (that's a different endless
discussion we can have in
another thread).

Trying to call big ditches drains is, in my opinion, a bad move.  Ditches
are permeable and
drains are not.  Ditches allow the seepage of water to or from the ditch
and the land surrounding
it; drains prevent such seepage.  Lined/unlined (alternatively seepage/no
seepage) are the key
distinctions.  Maybe we need a way of specifying the width to avoid people
tagging a ditch as
a drain, or vice versa, to achieve different rendering.

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

[Hufkratzer]

On 23.02.2019 00:09, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> [...]
> =drain: Use waterway=drain for artificial waterways, typically lined 
with concrete or similar, usually used to carry water for drainage or 
irrigation purposes.

> [...]

Irrigate with drains? This was the original question of the whole ditch 
vs. drain discussion (see 
(https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-January/042047.html). 
It seems to be a contradiction to what wikipedia explains (and therefore 
is difficult to remember):


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drainage: "Drainage is the natural or 
artificial removal of a surface's water and sub-surface water from an 
area with excess of water..."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ditch: "A ditch is a small to moderate 
depression created to channel water. A ditch can be used for drainage, 
to drain water from low-lying areas, alongside roadways or fields, or to 
channel water from a more distant source for plant irrigation..."


And we already have irrigation mentioned on the OSM wiki page for ditch 
and not on the OSM wiki page for drain. I think these current 
definitions should be changed as little as possible.


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

Re: [Tagging] Sharps / syringe disposal

[Markus]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, 09:39 Joseph Eisenberg, 
wrote:

> I’m a physician. Sharps boxes are designed for safe disposal of all sharp
> medical waste, whether a scalpel, needle or broken glass.
>

Thanks for your confirmation.

Syringes are not sharp. It’s the needle (which may be attached to a
> syringe) that is the issue
>

Do you or someone else happen to know what is allowed to throw into a bin
labelled 'syringes'? I would have guessed needles and ampoules, but no
other sharp waste such as scalpels.

Regards

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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Andy Townsend]

On 23/02/2019 15:35, Greg Troxel wrote:

... But we don't have
   primary_residential
   primary_not_residential

even though in the US that makes just as much sense as
level5_residential and level5_not_residential.


OSM sort-of did have that a very long time ago.  The "abutters" key was 
used for something like that (see 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/abutters ) but even when I 
started (in 2008) I don't remember being told to use that key.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Greg Troxel]

Peter Elderson  writes:

> I was thinking further about the idea that came up here: deduct road type
> from the landuse=residential. It's different than current usage, and I dont
> think it is feasable.

I did not mean "deduce road type".   What I meant is that if a road is
at the lowest level of the road network (level5, below ABC and U, to use
UK terms), then I don't see why we should split that into

  level5_residential
  level5_not_residential

as part of the fundamental road type.  Both are minor, not used to get
from here to there, and one has houses, and the other doesn't.  But we
don't have

  primary_residential
  primary_not_residential

even though in the US that makes just as much sense as
level5_residential and level5_not_residential.

I was merely suggesting that if landuse=residential is tagged, then
anybody who cared about "is this area residential" could get the
answer.  Not that we should somehow infer "this is highway=residential"
and render it differently.

Do you think that level5_residential and level5_not_residential should
be rendered differently?

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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Dave Swarthout]

 > Most residential roads now are tagged as unclassified, I just
> have to list them, determine if the default fits, then retag them as
> highway=road.


Andy replied: "Tagging roads that you know well as "highway=road" sounds
like a mistake"
+1

I agree. Tagging highway=road means: I don't have any idea what sort of
road this is (but I can see it on the satellite imagery). I hope these
roads are never considered to be routable. The mkgmap program's standard
style defaults to that conclusion, IIRC. I think of it more or less as a
place holder, a way that needs a closer look.

Others have stated that they think of an unclassified way as something
having more significance than a residential way while still being less
important than a tertiary highway. (By the way, in Thailand,
coincidentally, a tertiary highway is the lowest class of highway that
carries a ref.). And that has been my assumption right along.

Where do we stand on that question? Is that the correct question to b
asking?

On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 8:16 PM Peter Elderson  wrote:

> I was thinking further about the idea that came up here: deduct road type
> from the landuse=residential. It's different than current usage, and I dont
> think it is feasable.
>
>
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>
>
> Op za 23 feb. 2019 om 14:02 schreef Andy Townsend :
>
>> On 23/02/2019 11:36, Peter Elderson wrote:
>> > The tagging scheme should have a clear intention to facilitate
>> > rendering and routing. Then renderers and routers know what there is,
>> > so they can decide how to handle it.
>>
>>
>> To be clear, "highway=road" is used when it _isn't_ clear what the
>> classification should be.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > If residential area means that road class is highway=residential
>> > unless taggted otherwise, that should be made very clear.
>>
>>
>> No, it doesn't.
>>
>>
>> > At the moment, I don't think it is clear, and road tagging in
>> > residential areas in Nederland certainly does not follow this principle.
>>
>>
>> That's good!
>>
>>
>> > If the scheme is adopted and very clearly documented, I could adjust
>> > the residential road tagging in my village (pop 25.000) in a couple of
>> > hours. Most residential roads now are tagged as unclassified, I just
>> > have to list them, determine if the default fits, then retag them as
>> > highway=road.
>>
>>
>> Tagging roads that you know well as "highway=road" sounds like a mistake.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > The problem with such a default of course is: if the area is altered,
>> > roads may (and will) unintentionally change because suddenly the
>> > default applies or no longer applies. Also, wouldn't renderers and
>> > routers will have to deal with roads crossing the border of a
>> > residential area suddenly changing types, without a node to tie the
>> > action to?
>>
>>
>> I think there's been a miscommunication here - there is no such
>> default.  It's certainly not your fault - English as used to describe
>> roads in the UK is the problem, with "unclassified" meaning a particular
>> explicit classification.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Peter Elderson]

I was thinking further about the idea that came up here: deduct road type
from the landuse=residential. It's different than current usage, and I dont
think it is feasable.


Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op za 23 feb. 2019 om 14:02 schreef Andy Townsend :

> On 23/02/2019 11:36, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > The tagging scheme should have a clear intention to facilitate
> > rendering and routing. Then renderers and routers know what there is,
> > so they can decide how to handle it.
>
>
> To be clear, "highway=road" is used when it _isn't_ clear what the
> classification should be.
>
>
> >
> > If residential area means that road class is highway=residential
> > unless taggted otherwise, that should be made very clear.
>
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
>
> > At the moment, I don't think it is clear, and road tagging in
> > residential areas in Nederland certainly does not follow this principle.
>
>
> That's good!
>
>
> > If the scheme is adopted and very clearly documented, I could adjust
> > the residential road tagging in my village (pop 25.000) in a couple of
> > hours. Most residential roads now are tagged as unclassified, I just
> > have to list them, determine if the default fits, then retag them as
> > highway=road.
>
>
> Tagging roads that you know well as "highway=road" sounds like a mistake.
>
>
> >
> > The problem with such a default of course is: if the area is altered,
> > roads may (and will) unintentionally change because suddenly the
> > default applies or no longer applies. Also, wouldn't renderers and
> > routers will have to deal with roads crossing the border of a
> > residential area suddenly changing types, without a node to tie the
> > action to?
>
>
> I think there's been a miscommunication here - there is no such
> default.  It's certainly not your fault - English as used to describe
> roads in the UK is the problem, with "unclassified" meaning a particular
> explicit classification.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Andy Townsend]

On 23/02/2019 11:36, Peter Elderson wrote:
The tagging scheme should have a clear intention to facilitate 
rendering and routing. Then renderers and routers know what there is, 
so they can decide how to handle it.



To be clear, "highway=road" is used when it _isn't_ clear what the 
classification should be.





If residential area means that road class is highway=residential 
unless taggted otherwise, that should be made very clear.



No, it doesn't.


At the moment, I don't think it is clear, and road tagging in 
residential areas in Nederland certainly does not follow this principle.



That's good!


If the scheme is adopted and very clearly documented, I could adjust 
the residential road tagging in my village (pop 25.000) in a couple of 
hours. Most residential roads now are tagged as unclassified, I just 
have to list them, determine if the default fits, then retag them as 
highway=road.



Tagging roads that you know well as "highway=road" sounds like a mistake.




The problem with such a default of course is: if the area is altered, 
roads may (and will) unintentionally change because suddenly the 
default applies or no longer applies. Also, wouldn't renderers and 
routers will have to deal with roads crossing the border of a 
residential area suddenly changing types, without a node to tie the 
action to?



I think there's been a miscommunication here - there is no such 
default.  It's certainly not your fault - English as used to describe 
roads in the UK is the problem, with "unclassified" meaning a particular 
explicit classification.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Peter Elderson]

The tagging scheme should have a clear intention to facilitate rendering
and routing. Then renderers and routers know what there is, so they can
decide how to handle it.

If residential area means that road class is highway=residential unless
taggted otherwise, that should be made very clear. At the moment, I don't
think it is clear, and road tagging in residential areas in Nederland
certainly does not follow this principle.
If the scheme is adopted and very clearly documented, I could adjust the
residential road tagging in my village (pop 25.000) in a couple of hours.
Most residential roads now are tagged as unclassified, I just have to list
them, determine if the default fits, then retag them as highway=road.

The problem with such a default of course is: if the area is altered, roads
may (and will) unintentionally change because suddenly the default applies
or no longer applies. Also, wouldn't renderers and routers will have to
deal with roads crossing the border of a residential area suddenly changing
types, without a node to tie the action to?

If there is no general agreement: the bulk of residential roads in my area
will remain 'unclassified', in the wrong sense i.e. no classification.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op za 23 feb. 2019 om 12:05 schreef Andy Townsend :

> On 23/02/2019 10:11, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > In this scheme, a highway=road (no classification) within a
> > residential area would (after long dicussions and heavily debated pull
> > requests) be displayed and routed as (currently) a highway=residential?
> >
> It depends on the renderer and depends on the router.
>
> Some renderers (the first 2 I looked at) tend to go with "some sort of
> distinctive grey".  Routers may avoid for car routing, like here:
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car=53.80112%2C-1.74736%3B53.80181%2C-1.74625#map=16/53.8007/-1.7448
>
> But it depends.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
> ___
> 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] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Andy Townsend]

On 23/02/2019 10:11, Peter Elderson wrote:
In this scheme, a highway=road (no classification) within a 
residential area would (after long dicussions and heavily debated pull 
requests) be displayed and routed as (currently) a highway=residential?



It depends on the renderer and depends on the router.

Some renderers (the first 2 I looked at) tend to go with "some sort of 
distinctive grey".  Routers may avoid for car routing, like here:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car=53.80112%2C-1.74736%3B53.80181%2C-1.74625#map=16/53.8007/-1.7448

But it depends.

Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Peter Elderson]

In this scheme, a highway=road (no classification) within a residential
area would (after long dicussions and heavily debated pull requests) be
displayed and routed as (currently) a highway=residential?

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op za 23 feb. 2019 om 09:46 schreef Jan S :

>
>
> Am 23. Februar 2019 03:47:50 MEZ schrieb Greg Troxel :
>
> >Really the notion of "unclassified" is odd, and it probably should be
> >"quaternary".  Arguably residential should then be highway=level5,
> >regardless of housing, and perhaps some tag on all highways about
> >residential or not - but as I said earlier, you can tell that from
> >landuse.
>
> I strongly support this. "Unclassified" causes much confusion outside the
> UK and is at the root of many equivocal tags. "Minor" might also be an
> appropriate denomination.
>
> ___
> 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] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Jan S]

Am 23. Februar 2019 03:47:50 MEZ schrieb Greg Troxel :

>Really the notion of "unclassified" is odd, and it probably should be
>"quaternary".  Arguably residential should then be highway=level5,
>regardless of housing, and perhaps some tag on all highways about
>residential or not - but as I said earlier, you can tell that from
>landuse.

I strongly support this. "Unclassified" causes much confusion outside the UK 
and is at the root of many equivocal tags. "Minor" might also be an appropriate 
denomination.

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