Re: [Tagging] Cycle boxes for two-stage left turns
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:30 PM marc marc wrote: > > Le 06.01.20 à 04:19, Jarek Piórkowski a écrit : > > Comments most welcome! > > keep it simple ! > advanced stop box only use a cycleway=asl without relation > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dasl > a single node is not enought ? The problem I see with this approach is that the node has to be placed on the other street than the one the cyclist is using. In the picture of the original mail, suppose a cyclist is coming from the south and wants to turn to the west. The logical place to put the box is by adding a node on the street to the east. But how wouldn't that complicate things for routers, as the road to the east is not part of the itinerary? m. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cycle boxes for two-stage left turns
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 19:41, Morten Lange via Tagging wrote: > On-street markings for a two-stage left-turn were recently introduced on a > few roads/streets in Oslo, Norway. > > I think > cycleway:asl=two_stage_left_turn > looks okay. > > But since there is > cycleway=asl > > why not use > cycleway=two_stage_left_turn Hi Morten, What element would you use this cycleway=two_stage_left_turn tag on? A node, a way, a relation? > Sadly taking a two-stage left turn is obligatory in some countries. > Are there any known examples where they are not obligatory but exceptions are > marked with trafficsigns? (Or the opposite) I'm not familiar with any, but then my jurisdiction's road laws and signs are barely aware that bicycles exist, so there might well be some elsewhere. Thanks, --Jarek ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cycle boxes for two-stage left turns
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 12:15, Florimond Berthoux wrote: > Hello, > > I think it’s a good thing to map these two stage turn for bicycles. > I can’t see better solution than using relation (unless doing surface > mapping...). > > Le lun. 6 janv. 2020 à 04:21, Jarek Piórkowski a écrit : > > - relation with tag type=bicycle_two_stage_turn (comments on this > > particularly welcome! it doesn't really seem to be a route=bicycle > > since it doesn't have a designated network=*?) > If we copy what we have in France for give way for cyclist at traffic light > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Bicycle#Panonceaux_de_C.C3.A9dez-le-passage_cycliste_au_feu > type=restriction > restriction:bicycle=two_stage_turn > And the relation have three members with from, via, to. Hm, I would think that a restriction-type relation would necessarily restrict what's possible, whereas a two-stage turn box gives more possibilities rather than takes away possibilities (at least in cases where it's not mandatory). However: Does the French sign mean that the cyclist is not required to obey a red light but instead is only required to yield? If yes, then that's similar to the two-stage turn box (it gives more possibilities rather than restricts), and if that's already established, I'll be happy to go along with a similar scheme. > > - optionally segregated=yes if there is a designated, separated > > waiting area for the bikes rather than only a painted area that is > > also driven over by other vehicles (would usually be at particularly > > wide intersections or at T-intersections) > I disagree, today the use of segregated key is for path where the segregation > is made from painting line. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:segregated > If we use the key segrageted for physically segragation by kerb or island > that can lead easily to mistakes. > May be use waiting_area=painting_box if there is only painting, and > waiting_area=track ? island ? if it is physically protected. Ah right, then let's not use segregated. If there is no better existing tag to reuse, a waiting_area=painted_box and waiting_area=track seem good to me. Or to match values in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway#Dedicated_cycle_lanes how about waiting_area=advisory and waiting_area=exclusive? > I think it can be interessting to know if the two stage turn is mandatory or > not for the cyclist, I’m not talking about national law here but only if > there is a traffic sign saying this obligation. > mandatory=yes ? Yeah, that could work. `mandatory` is already in use on the Key:cycleway wiki page as linked above, so using it as mandatory=yes could work (if indeed there is such an obligation somewhere). Thanks, --Jarek ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cycle boxes for two-stage left turns
Hi, On-street markings for a two-stage left-turn were recently introduced on a few roads/streets in Oslo, Norway. I think cycleway:asl=two_stage_left_turn looks okay. But since there is cycleway=asl why not use cycleway=two_stage_left_turn Sadly taking a two-stage left turn is obligatory in some countries. Are there any known examples where they are not obligatory but exceptions are marked with trafficsigns? (Or the opposite) -- Regards / Kveðja / Hilsen Morten Lange On Wednesday, 8 January 2020, 00:52:14 CET, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 16:29, marc marc wrote: > > Le 06.01.20 à 04:19, Jarek Piórkowski a écrit : > > Comments most welcome! > > keep it simple ! > advanced stop box only use a cycleway=asl without relation > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dasl > a single node is not enought ? Hi Marc, I wrote the following about cycleway=asl in the original message, do you have any further thoughts on these objections against using ASL node? "To my understanding, this is not the same as a cycleway=asl (advanced stop line, "bike box") in OSM as an ASL is _behind_ the stop line and behind the pedestrian crossing, and thus not really easily usable for left turns [from the way not tagged with ASL] - cyclists would have to cross the stream of pedestrians to get into the box. ... Looking for an alternatives to a relation, I came up with https://bin.piorkowski.ca/2019/possible_asl_node_tagging.png and described it as following: "I suppose something like this could work to avoid a relation, routers would then have to look for cycleway:asl=two_stage_left_turn a little to the right of where they'd like to make a left turn. ... Disadvantages: the portrayed distance to turn off to right is further than the actual distance; routers might well find it easier to find left turns as they would normally and then prioritize those with a bicycle_two_stage_left_turn relation ... frankly I don't really like that solution much, and the other editor contributing in the Slack thread thought it would be "misleading, since the box is on a way not actually involved in the turn"." Thanks, --Jarek ___ 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] Cycle boxes for two-stage left turns
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 16:29, marc marc wrote: > > Le 06.01.20 à 04:19, Jarek Piórkowski a écrit : > > Comments most welcome! > > keep it simple ! > advanced stop box only use a cycleway=asl without relation > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dasl > a single node is not enought ? Hi Marc, I wrote the following about cycleway=asl in the original message, do you have any further thoughts on these objections against using ASL node? "To my understanding, this is not the same as a cycleway=asl (advanced stop line, "bike box") in OSM as an ASL is _behind_ the stop line and behind the pedestrian crossing, and thus not really easily usable for left turns [from the way not tagged with ASL] - cyclists would have to cross the stream of pedestrians to get into the box. ... Looking for an alternatives to a relation, I came up with https://bin.piorkowski.ca/2019/possible_asl_node_tagging.png and described it as following: "I suppose something like this could work to avoid a relation, routers would then have to look for cycleway:asl=two_stage_left_turn a little to the right of where they'd like to make a left turn. ... Disadvantages: the portrayed distance to turn off to right is further than the actual distance; routers might well find it easier to find left turns as they would normally and then prioritize those with a bicycle_two_stage_left_turn relation ... frankly I don't really like that solution much, and the other editor contributing in the Slack thread thought it would be "misleading, since the box is on a way not actually involved in the turn"." Thanks, --Jarek ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Givebox
sent from a phone > On 7. Jan 2020, at 00:38, Jmapb via Tagging wrote: > > Hi Markus, why not just "reuse" amenity=reuse? IMHO too generic, reuse is a concept but it doesn’t suggest which kind of object it refers to. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings
sent from a phone > On 7. Jan 2020, at 14:40, Paul Allen wrote: > > In that, very exceptional case, it might be useful to put addresses on > entrances (except it's possible all entrances interconnect via corridors). I > have no > problem with exceptional tagging to handle exceptional circumstances but I > find it > perverse to use exceptional tagging in the general case just so that tagging > is uniform. around here it is not the exception but the norm. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking
sent from a phone > On 7. Jan 2020, at 23:10, Phake Nick wrote: > > amenity=parking > parking=bus > bus=tourist_bus a tourist_bus is not a subtype of a “bus” in OpenStreetMap. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking
Le 06.01.20 à 03:24, John Willis via Tagging a écrit : > parking=tourism > parking=disabled > parking=loading_dock > parking=taxi > parking=waiting_lot that conflit with the current meaning : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking parking=surface/underground/roof top would have looked better in the location tag, but changing that is... too late, it's past Christmas :) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking
With all those different types of parking facilities, wouldn't it be easier to create some tag combinations like the following? amenity=parking parking=bus bus=tourist_bus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings
On 2020-01-07 22:21, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 21:00, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> So if I am now more explicit about my intention to help this discussion
>> towards a conclusion.
>
> Actually, you sorta hijacked a discussion about whether to put the address on
> a
> building or a nearby gatepost. This discussion is probably needed too.
I don't think it was so much hijacking the discussion, more getting it
back to fundamentals. If an address is for the benefit of delivering
letters, its location in OSM should ideally approximate to the postal
delivery point: the front door, the front gate... Locating it implicitly
at the centroid of the building outline, or the centroid of the
associated grounds, would be suboptimal. A building, being a single OSM
object, can only really have one address. As a building can
fundamentally have N (maybe hundreds for blocks of flats) addresses for
postal purposes, then there is no point in putting an address on a
building. If a company resides in a premises, it may be useful to put
their postal address adjacent to (i.e. on the same OSM object as) the
other attributes of the company as "contact information" i.e. how to
address a letter so it gets to this building, but not by definition what
to put in your satnav. Then if multiple companies share an OSM building
they all have their own node and thus their own address. HOWEVER if you
want an address for navigation purposes, a single set of address
components will suffice to get you to the right building, irrespective
of who you are visiting.
Fix the complex case, and the rest is easy.
>> What an address refers to, is different in the UK compared to other
>> countries. We will never find a single model to fit the whole world that is
>> not abstracted to the point that it becomes useless. Let's stop chasing our
>> tails, and accept that.
>
> Already have. Long ago. Not sure that what we have, even in the UK, is
> entirely
> fit for purpose because I have several examples in my own town alone that
> don't fit
> that model. These are, to some extent, country-specific editor preset
> issues: figure
> out what works in a given country and persuade the people maintaining the
> editors to
> adopt it. Yes, I'm simplifying a lot (again).
>
>> Back to the philosophical question: Is a normal "address" in OSM: a) for
>> delivering letters, or b) for navigation, or c) an identifier of a
>> building/premises, or d) something else?
>
> The philosophical question is actually should we limit/prohibit any of those
> uses? I
> think not. We can't force any mapper to add all of the info, but we ought
> not to prevent
> them from doing so.
>
>> Should/could we cater for these different definitions of "address", e.g. by
>> having tags like addr:{address_type}:{address_element}? This is a question
>> that IMHO is probably best addressed at global level; then let each country
>> have its own model within that framework.
>
> Gut feeling, without any real analysis, is we don't have address_type, we
> just have
> address_elements. Because in one country address_element X may be a critical
> component of address_type A but in another country it's a critical component
> of
> address_type B. Just have address elements and it's up to the consumer to
> make
> sense of them.
I agree with your gut feeling. But it is bad for OSM's data quality
if we cannot state what frame of reference was used for addressing. If
one mapper uses strict postal addressing (unreliable for navigation),
and another uses physical addressing (not matching the postal
addresses), and we cannot tell the difference from the OSM tagging, then
we are presenting our data consumers with a challenge, in the same way
that having maxspeed=N without explicit or implicit units would cause
problems. Even in the UK speed limits in km/h are used on many rail/tram
systems...___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes
Le 07.01.20 à 20:21, joost schouppe a écrit : > function=recreational/practical usage=tourism/transport ? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking
With access tags we "tag the law" (I like your experssion). Access tags are about legal access (unfortunately with some prominent exeptions, like wheelchair=yes|no). On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 22:28, Florimond Berthoux < florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry I don't understand the point of the questions. > Legally a cargo bike is a bicycle (or a tricycle which is the same) in > France. > But road laws (Code de la route) only apply on roads open to public > traffic in France so the diversity can be wider than the law. > And we don't tag the law in OSM. > > Le lun. 6 janv. 2020 à 00:05, Martin Koppenhoefer > a écrit : > > > On 5. Jan 2020, at 23:22, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > > > > > x=designated means access only for x and and there is a sign, ore > something equivalent, stating this > > > x=designated AND y=designated means access only for x and for y and > there is a sign, ore something equivalent, stating this > > > > > > sure, the reason why I was asking these questions is that people told me > that cargo bike wasn’t a defined vehicle class in the French jurisdiction. > > If you see a sign motor_vehicle=designated you know that a motorcycle > and a motorcar are both permitted on the way. > > IIRR the thread about cargo bicycle parking went dead without providing > answers about implications or legalities, that’s why I was asking again. > > > > Cheers Martin > > -- > Florimond Berthoux > > ___ > 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] Cycle boxes for two-stage left turns
Le 06.01.20 à 04:19, Jarek Piórkowski a écrit : > Comments most welcome! keep it simple ! advanced stop box only use a cycleway=asl without relation https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dasl a single node is not enought ? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking
Sorry I don't understand the point of the questions. Legally a cargo bike is a bicycle (or a tricycle which is the same) in France. But road laws (Code de la route) only apply on roads open to public traffic in France so the diversity can be wider than the law. And we don't tag the law in OSM. Le lun. 6 janv. 2020 à 00:05, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : > > On 5. Jan 2020, at 23:22, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > > > x=designated means access only for x and and there is a sign, ore something > > equivalent, stating this > > x=designated AND y=designated means access only for x and for y and there > > is a sign, ore something equivalent, stating this > > > sure, the reason why I was asking these questions is that people told me that > cargo bike wasn’t a defined vehicle class in the French jurisdiction. > If you see a sign motor_vehicle=designated you know that a motorcycle and a > motorcar are both permitted on the way. > IIRR the thread about cargo bicycle parking went dead without providing > answers about implications or legalities, that’s why I was asking again. > > Cheers Martin -- Florimond Berthoux ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 21:00, Colin Smale wrote:
Royal Mail do not say the Post Town is optional. RM also know of localities
> and dependent localities, which may or may not bear any resemblance to an
> inhabitant's perception of where they live.
>
Yeah, that's what they say. But only house name/number and postcode are
required to uniquely identify a deliverable address. Royal Mail strongly
suggest
you include the other stuff as belt and braces.
>
> [...]
>
>
> Postal counties have been deprecated for years, but are still in many
> people's minds. Metropolitan counties are no longer "administrative".
> Traditional counties maybe? But almost certainly not administrative
> counties.
>
Try buying something online. They want a county. And quite possibly only
let you
choose a county that no longer exists (except as a ceremonial county) such
as Dyfed
rather than the county you're actually in, such as Ceredigion.
>
>
> So if I am now more explicit about my intention to help this discussion
> towards a conclusion.
>
Actually, you sorta hijacked a discussion about whether to put the address
on a
building or a nearby gatepost. This discussion is probably needed too.
What an address refers to, is different in the UK compared to other
> countries. We will never find a single model to fit the whole world that is
> not abstracted to the point that it becomes useless. Let's stop chasing our
> tails, and accept that.
>
Already have. Long ago. Not sure that what we have, even in the UK, is
entirely
fit for purpose because I have several examples in my own town alone that
don't fit
that model. These are, to some extent, country-specific editor preset
issues: figure
out what works in a given country and persuade the people maintaining the
editors to
adopt it. Yes, I'm simplifying a lot (again).
>
> Back to the philosophical question: Is a normal "address" in OSM: a) for
> delivering letters, or b) for navigation, or c) an identifier of a
> building/premises, or d) something else?
>
The philosophical question is actually should we limit/prohibit any of
those uses? I
think not. We can't force any mapper to add all of the info, but we ought
not to prevent
them from doing so.
Should/could we cater for these different definitions of "address", e.g. by
> having tags like addr:{address_type}:{address_element}? This is a question
> that IMHO is probably best addressed at global level; then let each country
> have its own model within that framework.
>
Gut feeling, without any real analysis, is we don't have address_type, we
just have
address_elements. Because in one country address_element X may be a
critical
component of address_type A but in another country it's a critical
component of
address_type B. Just have address elements and it's up to the consumer to
make
sense of them.
--
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] relation types: circuit proposal and an alternative
Le 07.01.20 à 20:58, Richard Welty a écrit : > a profound lack of interest > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relations/Proposed/Circuit maybe it's due to the funny url for a propal moving it at the right place may help ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes
If a route meant for motor vehicles is waymarked as a recreational route, why not use the same tagging system as for other recreational routes? [relation] type=route route=Xmn where X=l (local), r (regional), n (national) or i (international) an mn is motor network (name=...) (operator=...) (symbol=...) (osmc:symbol=...) and other relevant tags If the route is waymarked in both directions, chances are there will be a lot of differences. You could use the role-based backward/forward ways system as is usual in cycling routes or use separate relations for the directions, then put them together in a parent relation. The roles in routes discussion would then apply, too. Fr gr Peter Elderson Op di 7 jan. 2020 om 20:52 schreef Marc Gemis : > AFAIK, routes such as the Krekenroute in Belgium as signposted with > https://images.app.goo.gl/bFnEWw7FVoyfq83x8 (although I thought at on > some signs there is also the silhouette of a car) > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 8:39 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > > > > joost schouppe : > > > > > Especially for car routes, I haven't seen any way to tag touristic > routes for driving cars, like the Turist Veger in Norway or the Route des > Cols in France > > > > Are these routes waymarked as special routes? > > > > > ___ > > > 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 > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] ISO3166-1 key documentation [was:Tagging for emojis names]
Le 07.01.20 à 13:40, Jeroen Hoek a écrit : > using the exsiting ISO3166-1:alpha2 all those ISO3166-1* key doesn't have a wiki page. if the key is fine (I find it ugly as a top level key), it could be a good idea to write a small sheet about them. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings
On 2020-01-07 21:14, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 19:42, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> I'm glad you said "probably", because it is of course not always true. And
>> these edge cases are what we need to accommodate. Limiting the discussion to
>> just handling the easy cases is cheating.
>
> I know it's not true because I've had to deal with some of these oddities.
> Sometimes we can have a scheme that handles oddities in its stride without
> imposing unnecessary difficulties on the normal cases. I haven't seen
> anybody
> suggest anything like that (yet) for addresses. But I still think we should
> optimize
> for the common case and not optimize for the abnormal case. Make the easy
> things
> easy and the hard things possible rather than make everything hard.
Optimisation should be phase two. First define a model that works, then
optimise. Ignoring the edge cases just delays the pain. We are long past
the point of handling the simple cases.
>> Bit of a philosophical question: What is an address? In the UK, the Post
>> Town and Postcode are for the purposes of delivering mail. If they happen to
>> be useful to other parties, that's great, but it is only a side-effect.
>
> Post town is actually the opposite of useful. People put the post town in
> their address
> rather than their nearest named locality which makes it hard to find them
> when looking
> at a printed map. Actual nearest locality is far more useful whether looking
> at a
> printed map or making a nominatim query. Post Town is no longer necessary
> even for
> delivering mail, it's just a historic artefact that serves no useful purpose
> any more.
Royal Mail do not say the Post Town is optional. RM also know of
localities and dependent localities, which may or may not bear any
resemblance to an inhabitant's perception of where they live.
[...]
>> Administrative boundaries are not relevant in UK addressing, unlike many
>> European countries (I know about NL, DE, BE, FR) where "places" have defined
>> boundaries.
>
> Administrative boundaries are not usually relevant but are often given and
> often
> required when filling in forms. They sometimes are relevant; there are
> several
> localities called Tarbert (sounds like a Dilbert character) in Scotland and
> without a
> postcode you need a county to figure out which one is which. There are other
> places
> in the UK where the county is needed to disambiguate, and even some where you
> need
> more than just the county.
Postal counties have been deprecated for years, but are still in many
people's minds. Metropolitan counties are no longer "administrative".
Traditional counties maybe? But almost certainly not administrative
counties.
>> The relationship between buildings and postcodes is N:M. If we replace the
>> word "building" with "premises" and saying that an address refers to a
>> "premises" may get us a bit closer, given that a "premises" may consist of
>> part of a building, a whole building, multiple buildings or any combination
>> thereof.
>
> I simplified, a little. For anything that has a postal address in the UK,
> the building(s)
> number or name, plus the postcode, uniquely identifies it for the purposes of
> postal
> deliveries. But the other stuff can be useful for other purposes.
So if I am now more explicit about my intention to help this discussion
towards a conclusion. What an address refers to, is different in the
UK compared to other countries. We will never find a single model to fit
the whole world that is not abstracted to the point that it becomes
useless. Let's stop chasing our tails, and accept that.
Back to the philosophical question: Is a normal "address" in OSM: a) for
delivering letters, or b) for navigation, or c) an identifier of a
building/premises, or d) something else? Should/could we cater for these
different definitions of "address", e.g. by having tags like
addr:{address_type}:{address_element}? This is a question that IMHO is
probably best addressed at global level; then let each country have its
own model within that framework.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 19:42, Colin Smale wrote: I'm glad you said "probably", because it is of course not always true. And > these edge cases are what we need to accommodate. Limiting the discussion > to just handling the easy cases is cheating. > I know it's not true because I've had to deal with some of these oddities. Sometimes we can have a scheme that handles oddities in its stride without imposing unnecessary difficulties on the normal cases. I haven't seen anybody suggest anything like that (yet) for addresses. But I still think we should optimize for the common case and not optimize for the abnormal case. Make the easy things easy and the hard things possible rather than make everything hard. > > Bit of a philosophical question: What is an address? In the UK, the Post > Town and Postcode are for the purposes of delivering mail. If they happen > to be useful to other parties, that's great, but it is only a side-effect. > Post town is actually the opposite of useful. People put the post town in their address rather than their nearest named locality which makes it hard to find them when looking at a printed map. Actual nearest locality is far more useful whether looking at a printed map or making a nominatim query. Post Town is no longer necessary even for delivering mail, it's just a historic artefact that serves no useful purpose any more. > The street name, plus house number/name, are more directly addressed at > members of the public trying to find the property in question. > Street name is more useful than postcode in actually going to an address unless you're using a satnav (and then it depends on the size of the postcode area, location of the address relative to the postcode centre, etc.) But a lot of rural roads around here don't have names (they may once have had, but they have faded from memory/use). Sometimes house name/number and postcode are all you have. Administrative boundaries are not relevant in UK addressing, unlike many > European countries (I know about NL, DE, BE, FR) where "places" have > defined boundaries. > Administrative boundaries are not usually relevant but are often given and often required when filling in forms. They sometimes are relevant; there are several localities called Tarbert (sounds like a Dilbert character) in Scotland and without a postcode you need a county to figure out which one is which. There are other places in the UK where the county is needed to disambiguate, and even some where you need more than just the county. > > The relationship between buildings and postcodes is N:M. If we replace the > word "building" with "premises" and saying that an address refers to a > "premises" may get us a bit closer, given that a "premises" may consist of > part of a building, a whole building, multiple buildings or any > combination thereof. > I simplified, a little. For anything that has a postal address in the UK, the building(s) number or name, plus the postcode, uniquely identifies it for the purposes of postal deliveries. But the other stuff can be useful for other purposes. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] relation types: circuit proposal and an alternative
a couple of months ago, i brought up the circuit proposal again, to a profound lack of interest. it is being used, by myself and others, because it does serve a need. as a reminder the original proposal is here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relations/Proposed/Circuit but in the past couple of days, i've had an idea, and you all know how dangerous that can be. what if, instead of adding this circuit type, we instead recognized that the route relation already exists and the purposes of the rather specialized circuit relation could be handled simply by adding a raceway or race_circuit subtype. additionally, there is a need in OHM that arises for a similar route relation variant type for horse racing tracks, which has to do with temporal tagging of race tracks that have served both purposes in their lifecycles, sometimes but not always at the same time. this seems like a really clean way to get what's needed while sticking with a relation that already exists. the additional tags for things like start line, finish line, etc. would be added much like the specialized tags for outher types of routes. thoughts? richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes
AFAIK, routes such as the Krekenroute in Belgium as signposted with https://images.app.goo.gl/bFnEWw7FVoyfq83x8 (although I thought at on some signs there is also the silhouette of a car) On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 8:39 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > > joost schouppe : > > > Especially for car routes, I haven't seen any way to tag touristic routes > > for driving cars, like the Turist Veger in Norway or the Route des Cols in > > France > > Are these routes waymarked as special routes? > > > ___ > > 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] addresses on buildings
On 2020-01-07 20:04, Paul Allen wrote: >> But why do we need to have the full street address on the building at all? > > To identify it. In the UK, house number or name, plus postcode is sufficient > to > uniquely identify it. People, however, still find other information useful. > Such as > the address being 7 Foo Street means it's probably accessible by Foo Street. I'm glad you said "probably", because it is of course not always true. And these edge cases are what we need to accommodate. Limiting the discussion to just handling the easy cases is cheating. Bit of a philosophical question: What is an address? In the UK, the Post Town and Postcode are for the purposes of delivering mail. If they happen to be useful to other parties, that's great, but it is only a side-effect. The street name, plus house number/name, are more directly addressed at members of the public trying to find the property in question. Administrative boundaries are not relevant in UK addressing, unlike many European countries (I know about NL, DE, BE, FR) where "places" have defined boundaries. The relationship between buildings and postcodes is N:M. If we replace the word "building" with "premises" and saying that an address refers to a "premises" may get us a bit closer, given that a "premises" may consist of part of a building, a whole building, multiple buildings or any combination thereof.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes
joost schouppe : > Especially for car routes, I haven't seen any way to tag touristic routes for > driving cars, like the Turist Veger in Norway or the Route des Cols in France Are these routes waymarked as special routes? > ___ > 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] Tagging for emojis names
On 07-01-20 14:14, Rory McCann wrote:> Countries in OSM should already include the ISO3166 code as a tag. Data > consumers, or OSM based search engines, could just interpret the emoiji > search term as 2 regular ASCII characters, and do the look up there. No > need for a separate emoiji tag. That is a good suggestion, but the problem is that not every ISO 3166 code is a valid Regional Indicator Symbol pair. There are also other codes that cannot be derived from the ISO 3166 code, such as the flags for England, Scotland, and Wales, which are represented by a different Unicode/emoji mechanism called Tags (e.g., the flag of Scotland is represented by the Unicode emoji (waving black flag) followed by the tag-characters 'gbsct'). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tags_(Unicode_block) > If you add it as a separate tag, then there's the risk that data becomes > different from the ISO code. I'm not too worried about that. Countries tend to remain rather stable on the map; any changes usually imply countries changing names (and regimes), splitting up, or combining with other countries, and garner a lot of scrutinization. I would wager that name:Zsye will be updated before at least half of the other name-tags is. Jeroen Hoek ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings
On 07/01/2020 17:18, Paul Allen wrote: On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 16:51, Volker Schmidt wrote: May I come back to the navigation aspect. Let's assume I have a single square building aligned with the compass directions. It is between two parallel East<>West roads. It is placed closer to the road on the North side. Its entrance is on the South side from the road to the South. There is a fence around the plot that stretches all the way from one road to the other. The access is by a gate in the fence to the South. No footpath or driveway is on the map. With other words, a quite frequent situation in OSM. If I put the house number on the building the navigation device brings me to a point close to the house on the North road, where there is no entrance. If I place the number on a node close to where the gate is on the South road, then the navigation device brings me to the desired place. But I have no information about the association between the number on the gate and the building. Not frequent where I am, but it happens. Map the fence, the gate, and the path from the road to the front door. This. ^ Bodging a tagging schema or adding spurious objects to cover the fact other objects are missing, makes no logical sense. Just add those missing objects. In this instance it greatly increases door to door routing accuracy & improves database quality overall. It often turns out to be less time consuming than fudging it. DaveF ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] recreational vs functional routes
Hi, Has there been any previous discussion regarding tagging recreational versus functional routes? Especially for car routes, I haven't seen any way to tag touristic routes for driving cars, like the Turist Veger in Norway or the Route des Cols in France. It is also of specific interest for cycling. For example, in Belgium we have a very dense "node network" for cycling for fun, but those routes aren't exactly interesting for commuting. On the other hand, we have "cycle highways" which can be boring and focus on actually getting somewhere. In the case of cars, the lack of clarity prevents mapping. In the case of cycling, it would be really useful for routers to be able to differentiate. Similar differences might exist for bus (fpr example for hop-on/hop-off tourist buses in cities) and maybe even for walking. I think maybe another optional tag for route relations might be useful, perhaps just function=recreational/practical or something. -- Joost Schouppe ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 18:05, Volker Schmidt wrote: > I don't see misplacing nodes as being a good alternative to getting the >> routeing right. >> > > At least in the context of the legal requirements in Italy, I am not > suggesting to misplace a node. I suggest to put it where the house number > has to be (in Italy), i.e. on the entrance from the public road. > I think that interpretation conflates two separate issues: the address of a building and the placement of the house number. We do not conflate road junctions with nodes marking the signs for road junctions (which some people do not map anyway). It is the building that has an address, not the sign. The sign is an indication of the address. The fact that Italy demands a specific placement of the sign doesn't really matter because if you know where the building is and have roads (and possibly drives/footpaths) mapped then you can figure out where the sign is going to be (but for multiple properties behind a single gate the reverse is not true). > > Regarding adding the (private) footpath or driveway from the gate to the > house, I did not expect a routing algorithm to be so intelligent that when > routing by car it also takes into consideration additional bits at the end > that are private and/or pedestrian. But I am not a routing expert, may the > AI has done wonders there as well. > Google certainly manages it, and can give you a route which involves buses and walking. In any case, in urban areas (at least in the UK) residential streets usually have names: if a house address is 7 Foo Street then it's almost certain that it is reached by going to Foo Street, even if the placement of the house on the lot puts it nearer to Bar Street. I would definitely expect a routeing algorithm to take account of street names, where present, even if it ignores driveways/footpaths (but why would it, since they're still ways?). Yes, there are some weird exceptions near me. Rare exceptions. The UK seems to conserve postal addresses even if road widening and re-routeing means those addresses are misleading. But why do we need to have the full street address on the building at all? > To identify it. In the UK, house number or name, plus postcode is sufficient to uniquely identify it. People, however, still find other information useful. Such as the address being 7 Foo Street means it's probably accessible by Foo Street. The rest is more for completeness and acting as a reverse gazetteer; that's the building, what's the full address? It's useful, so I add street name and town even though house name/number and postcode is all that's strictly necessary. Oh, and it may also help disambiguate nominatim queries if somebody knows house number, street name and town but not the postcode. Nervertheless I admit that there will certainly be cases where we need some > way of tying together the point where the navigation device finds the > address and the buidling where the people live whom you have come to visit > to have a cup of tea. A site relation ? > I would say that mapping driveways/footpaths is adequate for both humans and routeing algorithms. In many cases we don't even need that much: named streets give all the information needed. Maybe, in exceptional cases, but as a default thing for every building in Italy it seems excessive (especially as some mappers are scared by relations). -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings
On 1/7/20 11:02 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > Nervertheless I admit that there will certainly be cases where we > need some way of tying together the point where the navigation device > finds the address and the buidling where the people live whom you > have come to visit to have a cup of tea. A site relation ? My experiments with routing apply mostly to OsmAnd and what's in the PBF files it uses. I dug pretty deeply into this recently while adding OSM support to CadPage so we could use it for dispatch. All they need to start navigation is the current location, and the GPS coordinates of the destination. There is an option at that time to route on highways marked private, ie... long driveways. If the footpath to the house is in OSM, it'll take you all the way there. That's assuming all your highway data is good, all highways=* actually connect, relations are good, etc... Good navigation has been critical for our new fire fighters being able to find anything efficiently. Beats using a 3 inch thick paper mapbook like we used to... Which hadn't been updated in 17 years either. It of course gets the location of the destination by looking it up using 'addr:street' and addr'housenumber'. Everything else like 'addr:full' is ignored. Sometimes it'll limit the search to the nearest decent sized boundary, like a city. - rob - -- https://www.senecass.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings
> > I don't see misplacing nodes as being a good alternative to getting the > routeing right. > At least in the context of the legal requirements in Italy, I am not suggesting to misplace a node. I suggest to put it where the house number has to be (in Italy), i.e. on the entrance from the public road. Regarding adding the (private) footpath or driveway from the gate to the house, I did not expect a routing algorithm to be so intelligent that when routing by car it also takes into consideration additional bits at the end that are private and/or pedestrian. But I am not a routing expert, may the AI has done wonders there as well. But why do we need to have the full street address on the building at all? OK, I am leaving aside a number of variants, like separate entrances for cars and pedestrians, even though In that case my choice would be to put the number where the door bell is. Nervertheless I admit that there will certainly be cases where we need some way of tying together the point where the navigation device finds the address and the buidling where the people live whom you have come to visit to have a cup of tea. A site relation ? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 16:51, Volker Schmidt wrote: > May I come back to the navigation aspect. > Let's assume I have a single square building aligned with the compass > directions. It is between two parallel East<>West roads. It is placed > closer to the road on the North side. > Its entrance is on the South side from the road to the South. There is a > fence around the plot that stretches all the way from one road to the > other. The access is by a gate in the fence to the South. No footpath or > driveway is on the map. With other words, a quite frequent situation in > OSM. If I put the house number on the building the navigation device brings > me to a point close to the house on the North road, where there is no > entrance. If I place the number on a node close to where the gate is on the > South road, then the navigation device brings me to the desired place. But > I have no information about the association between the number on the gate > and the building. > Not frequent where I am, but it happens. Map the fence, the gate, and the path from the road to the front door. A decent routeing algorithm will send a self-driving car to the right place. Alert humans can interpret what they see on the map. Not perfect, because a disturbing number of holiday cottages around here feel it necessary to warn people that if they enter the postcode into their satnav they'll end up in the wrong place. > > If you think this through we need a means to connect logically the > number-bearing entrance to the house it belongs to, > That's what a driveway or footpath is for. IF we want to have the number-building association as information in the > map. But do we need this information at all? Is it not enough to know that > we have to go the gate with the house number, if we want to go to the house > with that number. How I have to move on the property to get from the gate > to the house is not (necessarily) information that is on the map. > Your solution works unless there is more than one property sharing that same gateway or driveway. My solution works either way, at the expense of sometimes having to map a fence and driveway/footpath you otherwise might not. I don't see misplacing nodes as being a good alternative to getting the routeing right. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cycle boxes for two-stage left turns
Hello, I think it’s a good thing to map these two stage turn for bicycles. I can’t see better solution than using relation (unless doing surface mapping...). Le lun. 6 janv. 2020 à 04:21, Jarek Piórkowski a écrit : > - relation with tag type=bicycle_two_stage_turn (comments on this > particularly welcome! it doesn't really seem to be a route=bicycle > since it doesn't have a designated network=*?) If we copy what we have in France for give way for cyclist at traffic light https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Bicycle#Panonceaux_de_C.C3.A9dez-le-passage_cycliste_au_feu type=restriction restriction:bicycle=two_stage_turn And the relation have three members with from, via, to. > - optionally segregated=yes if there is a designated, separated > waiting area for the bikes rather than only a painted area that is > also driven over by other vehicles (would usually be at particularly > wide intersections or at T-intersections) I disagree, today the use of segregated key is for path where the segregation is made from painting line. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:segregated If we use the key segrageted for physically segragation by kerb or island that can lead easily to mistakes. May be use waiting_area=painting_box if there is only painting, and waiting_area=track ? island ? if it is physically protected. I think it can be interessting to know if the two stage turn is mandatory or not for the cyclist, I’m not talking about national law here but only if there is a traffic sign saying this obligation. mandatory=yes ? -- Florimond Berthoux ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings
May I come back to the navigation aspect. Let's assume I have a single square building aligned with the compass directions. It is between two parallel East<>West roads. It is placed closer to the road on the North side. Its entrance is on the South side from the road to the South. There is a fence around the plot that stretches all the way from one road to the other. The access is by a gate in the fence to the South. No footpath or driveway is on the map. With other words, a quite frequent situation in OSM. If I put the house number on the building the navigation device brings me to a point close to the house on the North road, where there is no entrance. If I place the number on a node close to where the gate is on the South road, then the navigation device brings me to the desired place. But I have no information about the association between the number on the gate and the building. If you think this through we need a means to connect logically the number-bearing entrance to the house it belongs to, IF we want to have the number-building association as information in the map. But do we need this information at all? Is it not enough to know that we have to go the gate with the house number, if we want to go to the house with that number. How I have to move on the property to get from the gate to the house is not (necessarily) information that is on the map. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - give box
On 1/7/2020 7:26 AM, Paul Allen wrote: And yet the examples you give are shops, or shelves within shops. They are NOT boxes. On those grounds alone, "give box" is a very bad name. In any case, who is doing the giving to whom? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give-away_shop uses the generic term "give-away shop" (which I think is too clunky) and has alternatives "freeshop" and "swap shop." I think "freeshop" describes it far better than "give box." I think "swap shop" is a sub-category of "freeshop" in that a swap shop requires an exchange, and whatever we end up calling it we need a subtag to specify whether an exchange is required. From my limited experience (mostly USA), I have the impression that the majority of these dinguses are boxes or cabinets rather than shops. Personally I've encountered "hiker boxes" (commonly found in amenities near hiking trails), free food boxes, free clothing boxes, free art cabinets (just discovered those last week), and of course the venerable public bookcase (which has its own tag.) All of these operate on the give and/or take model -- I've never seen one where a swap is required. I agree that amenity=reuse is not particularly specific and would be prone to misinterpretation. But calling a cardboard box in the corner of a post office "freeshop" doesn't seem right either. If what's being tagged really is an entire shop, I'd probably prefer to just use the shop tag, e.g. shop=second_hand + fee=no. If we're looking for a new all-encompassing tag for things smaller than an an entire shop, I'd suggest something like amenity=free_goods, goods=*, goods:location=box/shelf/cabinet. (Would this also be used for situations where swap is required? It's possible with a bit of troll tagging, I suppose, like free_goods:swap_only=yes or some other awkward tag.) Jason ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 12:07, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: What I meant: we put address tags on objects (e.g. shops, restaurants, > museums, cinemas, etc.) > I put addresses on private houses too. I think you probably covered them with your "etc." but I thought I'd make it clear. and this is usually (in my area) the address that the feature uses (can > also be something like housenumber 3-5 or 39;41;43, is often just a single > number although you could reach the feature sometimes through multiple > numbers). > > I have a couple of cases something like that. They are rare exceptions. A terrace of houses with a communal entrance - I don't know how the building is divided, so 1-12 on the whole building. A large building with 41 dwellings on three levels, several entrances but without a closer survey I don't know which entrance leads where, so 1-41 on the whole building. In that, very exceptional case, it might be useful to put addresses on entrances (except it's possible all entrances interconnect via corridors). I have no problem with exceptional tagging to handle exceptional circumstances but I find it perverse to use exceptional tagging in the general case just so that tagging is uniform. Map is still not complete, but while some houses do have housenumbers, > others only have entrances with letters (those with internal access) and > housenumbers on the gates that lead into the block. > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/365208412#map=18/41.86367/12.48903 > > So somebody who lives in a house with a number on the gate but not on the house itself never gives his house address? Claims his house does not have a number? Cannot insure his house because he cannot give a number for it? If the police go there to arrest him they have to wait at the gate? When I moved to my current house, it was a new build and I was the first tenant. None of the 8 houses on the development had numbers on them: the landlord had not fitted numbers and it was up to the tenants to do so. Some of my neighbours didn't have a number on their house for 5 years. There was no sign at the start of the cul-de-sac saying what house numbers were there, or even the name of the development. I didn't start mapping until years all of my neighbours finally put numbers on their houses, and yet those houses had addresses all that time even if they didn't display them and, had I been mapping back then, I'd have put addresses on the buildings. On the theory of "put the address where the label is, not where the building is" I'd have been unable to put any address anywhere because there were no numbers displayed anywhere. Even if there had been a sign at the entrance to the cul-de-sac saying what numbers it led to, it would have been unhelpful to map the addresses as being where that sign was. Consider towns (and even villages and hamlets). In the UK, most of them have signs on the most important roads to and/or through them at the outskirts. "Welcome to Foo" or "You are now entering Bar" (or, for hamlets, just "Fubar") or whatever. We have had many disputes on how to place a node for a locality (centroid, cultural centre, business centre, etc.) but it would be downright perverse to place a locality node at every sign on the outskirts of the locality. Yet this is what some suggest is the correct thing to do for houses/buildings. The sign is not the thing, and the position of the sign is not the position of the thing. We understand that principle for road junctions and their associated signage... Take this example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.08513=-4.65456#map=19/52.08513/-4.65456 It is the remnant of an old farm, the farmhouse and some farm buildings, where most of the original farmland was sold for the expansion of the town. Here is the start of its driveway: https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.08455=-4.65717#map=19/52.08455/-4.65717 The housename is shown at the entrance to the drive (it may or may not also be on the house itself). Putting the address on the house itself allows it to be distinguished from the other buildings and the route to it can be determined by inspection (on the map or on the ground). Putting the address at the start of the driveway doesn't tell you which of the buildings is the house. Putting the address on both is confusing. Yes, there are always going to be exceptions. They should be handled in exceptional ways. We shouldn't be handling the non-exceptional things in exceptional ways in order to be consistent with the way we handle the exceptional things. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging for emojis names
On 07/01/2020 13:40, Jeroen Hoek wrote: If done correctly, this would mean you could search OSM for a flag copy/pasted from somewhere (like chat), and get the region represented by that flag as a search result. So to me it seems that this isn't so much about getting the emoji for the Statue of Liberty to resolve (although that is possible), but more about being to use country flags to search OSM for the corresponding country. Of course the proposal should reflect on how to ensure the correct Regional Indicator Symbol pairs are added. One way to do this, is by using the exsiting ISO3166-1:alpha2 and flag keys, and verify that the flag rendered via Regional Indicator Symbols matches the flag-value. Countries in OSM should already include the ISO3166 code as a tag. Data consumers, or OSM based search engines, could just interpret the emoiji search term as 2 regular ASCII characters, and do the look up there. No need for a separate emoiji tag. If you add it as a separate tag, then there's the risk that data becomes different from the ISO code. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging for emojis names
On 06-01-2020 23:44, Hauke Stieler wrote: >> I could sort of understand if a business name was an emoji, rather than >> real words, but I'm not aware of any cases of this? > > But I would tag a pure emoji-name of a company using the normal "name" > key. However I'm also not aware of any case. There seems to be some confusion about what name:Zsye is about. While the ISO 15924 script code 'Zsye' is labelled 'emoji', the edit proposed by Ferdinand0101 mainly introduces Regional Indicator Symbol pairs for countries. These pairs tend to resolve to those countries' flags, e.g., , which you may see rendered as the Dutch flag, is composed of two of these Regional Indicator Symbols that represent 'N' and 'L' (i.e., and ). If done correctly, this would mean you could search OSM for a flag copy/pasted from somewhere (like chat), and get the region represented by that flag as a search result. So to me it seems that this isn't so much about getting the emoji for the Statue of Liberty to resolve (although that is possible), but more about being to use country flags to search OSM for the corresponding country. Of course the proposal should reflect on how to ensure the correct Regional Indicator Symbol pairs are added. One way to do this, is by using the exsiting ISO3166-1:alpha2 and flag keys, and verify that the flag rendered via Regional Indicator Symbols matches the flag-value. Jeroen Hoek ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] nomoj de internaciaj objektoj / nazwy obiektów międzynarodowych / names of international objects
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 12:21, ael wrote: > On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 10:59:35PM +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > > On 06.01.2020 21:32, Tomek wrote: > > > Exactly, does a buoy with the inscription "Baltic Sea" swim at 56° N18° > > > E? No, there is simply water that Poles call the "Morze Bałtyckie", > > > Germans "Ostsee", etc. > > > > > > > Please support (vote) my proposal or write a reason why not. > > > > For the count, +1 against. > And another +1, against. > Bringing back memories of AOL, me too. +1 against. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - give box
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 12:09, Markus Peloso wrote: > > > The naming was the difficult part. Why am I for give_box: > > > + Give box is already a known concept in Europa with a big community. > However, OSM uses British English where possible. I don't know what (if anything) British English uses for this concept. + I think "gift box" would be a very good name to describes the idea of > this facility. As a self organized solidarity space of free giving/donating > and free taking/reusing. The name "Give box" is similar. > And yet the examples you give are shops, or shelves within shops. They are NOT boxes. On those grounds alone, "give box" is a very bad name. In any case, who is doing the giving to whom? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give-away_shop uses the generic term "give-away shop" (which I think is too clunky) and has alternatives "freeshop" and "swap shop." I think "freeshop" describes it far better than "give box." I think "swap shop" is a sub-category of "freeshop" in that a swap shop requires an exchange, and whatever we end up calling it we need a subtag to specify whether an exchange is required. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] nomoj de internaciaj objektoj / nazwy obiektów międzynarodowych / names of international objects
On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 10:59:35PM +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > On 06.01.2020 21:32, Tomek wrote: > > Exactly, does a buoy with the inscription "Baltic Sea" swim at 56° N18° > > E? No, there is simply water that Poles call the "Morze Bałtyckie", > > Germans "Ostsee", etc. > > > > Please support (vote) my proposal or write a reason why not. > > For the count, +1 against. And another +1, against. ael ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - give box
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box
A facility where people drop off and pick up various types of goods in the
sense of free sharing.
Many thanks for your helpful Feedback and your support. :D
I have updated the proposed.
I like the idea of using the shop=charity icon. Maybe the icon could be a
combination of the shop=charity icon and the shop=gift icon.
I change the tag name to give_box.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box
Because the name Givebox is used by a website that provides fundraising tools.
The naming was the difficult part. Why am I for give_box:
+ Give box is already a known concept in Europa with a big community.
+ I think "gift box" would be a very good name to describes the idea of this
facility. As a self organized solidarity space of free giving/donating and free
taking/reusing. The name "Give box" is similar.
+ Give box is not overused for other things found in the internet, eg. internet
modems.
"reuse" is to generic, eg. someone can tag a fridge with amenity=reuse and
reuse=fridge, to document a place to share food. But I think this kind of
facility deserves its own tag.
I think the tag "reuse" is currently only used because there is no other tag
for this kind of facility.
Give boxes are some kind of public storage room/space in the sense of giving
and reuse. I think the "free store" (German "Umsonstladen") in Germany is more
a give box as a store. As I read, even the shelf's in the "free store"
("Umsonstladen") are brought by the community, that's more something like a
public storage room. In a store I would except employees who eg. place the
items on the shelves. That's way a give box is not a shop=charity or
shop=second_hand. The idea and organization behind a "free store" (German
"Umsonstladen") and "Give box" are the same, they differ only in the storage
space size. A shack can also be named as a store. This makes a clear
distinction difficult. As abstraction for OSM, I think we can use the same tag.
free_box would be my second choice. I would like to solve it democratically. In
two weeks I would like to vote on give_box. If you prefer free_box then vote
against it and write it in the comment of the vote. Then I change it and do a
second vote for free_box.
Von: Markus Peloso
Gesendet: Montag, 6. Januar 2020 23:41
An: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Betreff: Feature Proposal - RFC - Givebox
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Givebox
A facility where people drop off and pick up various types of goods in the
sense of free sharing.
Hi
Based on the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Reuse and
the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dpublic_bookcase tag I
describe a tag for facilities similar to public bookcases but with all kinds of
(none food) goods.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings
Am Di., 7. Jan. 2020 um 02:06 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 00:57, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > >> >> > On 7. Jan 2020, at 01:17, Paul Allen wrote: >> > >> > The question is, are we mapping an address or the location of a house >> name/number >> > plate associated with the address? I'd say the address. >> >> both, we are mapping both, using the same tags: housenumbers and >> addresses >> > > I'd say that mapping the same address both ways is confusing. > > What I meant: we put address tags on objects (e.g. shops, restaurants, museums, cinemas, etc.) and this is usually (in my area) the address that the feature uses (can also be something like housenumber 3-5 or 39;41;43, is often just a single number although you could reach the feature sometimes through multiple numbers). There can be multiple things/POIs with the same address (particularly if you do not consider unit or door numbers). The POIs can be nodes or areas. Additionally, we map the housenumber (in our case nodes) where they apply to (gates or entrance=* or barrier=entrance). For completeness: Some Italian mappers prefer to add the POI on the entrance, or do not add addresses to POIs, so that the address is used only once, others prefer to add addressing to all POIs. > I'd also say that, in an example that appeared here earlier, where several > properties > can be accessed by any of several gates, the correct way to handle it > would not be > to put addresses on gates but by footpaths or pedestrian areas or similar > and apply > the addresses to the buildings. > I disagree here. Here's a quarter with houses inside walled gardens (with openings, i.e. still semi-public space, slowly transitioning to closed gates and gentrification though) https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Garbatella_01646.JPG https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Garbatella2018camminandoconVisureAcatastali_24.jpg Map is still not complete, but while some houses do have housenumbers, others only have entrances with letters (those with internal access) and housenumbers on the gates that lead into the block. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/365208412#map=18/41.86367/12.48903 > > As I understand it, in some countries the emergency services use OSM. > Knowing > the building they can figure out which gate to use. Knowing the gate may > not tell > them which of several buildings they need to get to. > usually the gate or entrance is more specific than a number for the whole building. In exceptional cases like the above cited Garbatella, you will need additionally a door in order to find the right building inside the block Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Incomplete addresses
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 19:26, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > On 1/7/20 02:16, Lionel Giard wrote: > > The ID template must not be taken a mandatory field, but only as a > > suggestion on what information is generally useful for this feature (in > > the entire world, as i think that the template are not different by > > countries ?!). :-) > > I'm pretty sure the iD template is different in the US and Canada as it > includes state or province, which most other countries don't have. > That's right see https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/blob/2.x/data/address-formats.json ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Incomplete addresses
On 1/7/20 02:16, Lionel Giard wrote: > The ID template must not be taken a mandatory field, but only as a > suggestion on what information is generally useful for this feature (in > the entire world, as i think that the template are not different by > countries ?!). :-) I'm pretty sure the iD template is different in the US and Canada as it includes state or province, which most other countries don't have. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Incomplete addresses
In Belgium, the only two mandatory field are "house number" and "street name", postcode and municipality/city can generally be derived from administrative boundaries and thus are optional. I see a lot of people using ID and adding those, as well as the country which is really not needed (because the country is the one thing that you could always be found easily as the boundaries are always present). The ID template must not be taken a mandatory field, but only as a suggestion on what information is generally useful for this feature (in the entire world, as i think that the template are not different by countries ?!). :-) Le mar. 7 janv. 2020 à 08:19, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit : > > 7 Jan 2020, 02:58 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > > I kept finding places with the street number & name entered, often > together with the post code!, but with no suburb listed? > > Obviously, I have no idea which editor was used to map them, but shouldn't > this sort of thing error to say "Incomplete address entered" or words to > that effect? > > In many places, for example in villages > and small towns there are no defined > suburbs (at least in Poland). > > Also, in Poland, this is either very subjective > or can be generated from mapped boundaries. > > And anyway is not used for addressing anyway. > > So in some places you are unable to tag it, > in some places there is no good reason to tag this. > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
