Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Florimond Berthoux
Hi,

I would like also to be able to map four kind of cycle routes : touristic,
commuting, road bike, mountain bike (mtb).
Today we can map mtb and general cycling route (most of them are touristic
though not limited to them).
But unfortunately mtb and cycling routes are split in two kinds of routes.
I'd prefer to have cycle route for every kind of cycling and precise the
type by an other tag (with the possibility to set multiple kind of cycle
route for the same relation).
So what I’m thinking is to add tags to cycle route relation in order to
precise there use https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes#Relations
tourism=yes : if the cycle route is a touristic purpose route
commute=yes : if it's a route for commute and every day cycling
road_bike=yes : if it's a route to do road biking sport
mtb=yes : if it's a cycle route mtb oriented


And for general route (and car routes) I’d say that type=road relation is
what you need https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Droad
(By the way the Route des Grandes Alpes in France is also a cycle route
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_des_Grandes_Alpes )

Le mar. 7 janv. 2020 à 20:24, joost schouppe  a
écrit :
>
> 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

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


Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 9. Jan. 2020 um 10:41 Uhr schrieb Florimond Berthoux <
florimond.berth...@gmail.com>:

> tourism=yes : if the cycle route is a touristic purpose route
> commute=yes : if it's a route for commute and every day cycling
>


where do you get this information from? Is it verifiable?



> road_bike=yes : if it's a route to do road biking sport
> mtb=yes : if it's a cycle route mtb oriented
>


to some extent the mtb=yes tag this is already covered (in greater detail)
by presence of mtb:scale tags
maybe it could be extended for road_bike as well (e.g. mtb:scale=-1). Also
smoothness could help.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mountain_biking
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness

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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 124, Issue 40 brick laying technics.

2020-01-09 Thread St Niklaas
7:18 PM, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>
> make use of the fact that amenity=parking_space
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dparking_space> can be
> used for this.
> Make separate parking space areas for different vehicle types.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200109/338c931d/attachment-0001.htm>

--

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2020 01:08:20 +0100
From: François Lacombe 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Overhead lines
management (consecutive to line_attachment)
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hi all,

This proposal is still in RFC and may be voted in a couple of weeks as
evaluation shown no issue so far, at least on transmission power lines.
line_management tag is used carefully for testing.
Read more : https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/InfosReseaux/diary/391058

Nevertheless it's an opportunity to review the branch:type tag replacement
with line_management=*

i'm still looking for an appropriate illustration for two values examples:
* line_management=cross (two or more lines with different directions
sharing the same support without connecting)
* line_management=loop (two or more lines coming from the same direction
are connected as to mock some of them)

Feel free to propose and complete if you find corresponding situations on
ground

Thanks in advance

François

Le sam. 26 oct. 2019 à 20:59, François Lacombe 
a écrit :

> Hi all,
>
> After the review of line_attachment key this summer and Karlsruhe
> hackweekend at Geofabrik headquarters last week, let me introduce the
> second stage of tower:type key cleaning project for power lines. Great time
> has been spent on discussing and finding relevant situations.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lines_management
>
> It's now about the arrangement of power lines around their supports: how
> the lines branch, split, transpose or terminate.
> As current tagging (without line_management) still collides with any tower
> building function, the line_management key may be a solution to strip
> unrelated values from tower:type.
>
> I've published a diary entry to give more explanations
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/InfosReseaux/diary/391058
>
> I'd draw your attention to the conclusion :
> "Mapping utility supports like power towers or telecom poles is a
> worldwide challenge. For instance in France, professionals including
> operators and contractors rolling out overhead telecom cables are currently
> looking for approx. 16 millions missing shared power poles that weren’t
> mapped in operational GIS. There’s no doubt updating OSM can help."
> There's no short term risk of importing massive data, at least.
>
> This proposal is a first try and may cause worries about some local
> concerns. RFC is here to solve this prior to vote anything.
> We have to focus on simple situations to begin with to adopt the right
> semantic. More complex cases will be added step by step.
> Feel free to open a topic in Talk page.
>
> All the best
>
> François
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200109/d16640ce/attachment-0001.htm>

--

Message: 4
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2020 22:14:00 -0200
From: Fernando Trebien 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] surface=block_paved, or surface=paved +
paving=block
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

>From the key:surface article:

- surface=paved: "This value gives only a rough description; use a
more precise value if possible."
- surface=paving_stones: "A relatively smooth surface paved with
artificial blocks (block pavers, bricks) or natural stones
(flagstones), with a flat top. The gaps between individual paving
stones are very narrow, either because the stones have a perfectly
regular shape (rectangular, or any surface-filling shape) or because
they have been carefully selected, fitted and placed in order to form
an even, closed surface."

The picture [1] fits the description for surface=paving_stones, and
I've been told that the description fits current mapping practices.
[2] So the question is whether the mapping terminology fits the common
language and whether this would be a good reason to change the tagging
scheme. Language is a problem for other values as well, such as
surface=co

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Peter Elderson
waymarked mtb routes are tagged route=mtb on the relation
waymarked cycling routes are tagged route=bicycle on the relation.

I don't know how I could verify that a cycling route is either touristic or
for commute/everyday cycling or both. Even if advertised as touristic it
can be used for commute/everyday cycling, ande the other way around.
I do not foresee significant mapping of these purposes.

Best, Peter Elderson


Op do 9 jan. 2020 om 15:08 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com>:

> Am Do., 9. Jan. 2020 um 10:41 Uhr schrieb Florimond Berthoux <
> florimond.berth...@gmail.com>:
>
>> tourism=yes : if the cycle route is a touristic purpose route
>> commute=yes : if it's a route for commute and every day cycling
>>
>
>
> where do you get this information from? Is it verifiable?
>
>
>
>> road_bike=yes : if it's a route to do road biking sport
>> mtb=yes : if it's a cycle route mtb oriented
>>
>
>
> to some extent the mtb=yes tag this is already covered (in greater detail)
> by presence of mtb:scale tags
> maybe it could be extended for road_bike as well (e.g. mtb:scale=-1). Also
> smoothness could help.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mountain_biking
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness
>
> Cheers
> Martin
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Peter Elderson

Florimond Berthoux  het volgende geschreven:
> 
> 
> Ok, you need examples :
> this Eurovelo 3 is for tourism 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9351172#map=12/48.8454/2.4130=C
> this REVe Nord-Sud is for commute/every day cycling 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8664006#map=14/48.8784/2.3599=C 
> as you can see in this video https://youtu.be/1dGtSZbUKew
> and this is for road cycling 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/163270#map=15/48.8577/2.2333=C 
> as you can see in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLwNlVjTOKU
> 

I can't see the signposting of the routes in the videos, I assume because I 
don't know where to look? 

> Of course nobody will blame you if you use a touristic route for commuting, 
> and adding a tag tourism=yes doesn’t imply it can’t be used by every day 
> cyclists.
> 
> What the point? If you are a commuter you’ll focus on fast and safe route, so 
> you’ll prefer REVe Nord-Sud than Eurovelo 3 at this place 
> https://www.cyclosm.org/#map=18/48.86796/2.35391/cyclosm 
> For instance, this information can be used for rendering map (like CyclOSM on 
> which I work) or routers (a tourist profile routing will prefer tourism 
> route).

(just playing devil's advocate)
Wouldn't renderers and routers prefer road attributes? 

>> ___
> 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] relation types: circuit proposal and an alternative

2020-01-09 Thread Richard Welty
On 1/7/20 4:18 PM, marc marc wrote:
> 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

so i looked over the general proposal page here

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal

and there are no actual guidelines about what URL to use,
and while the non-relation proposals are generally in one place,
the relation proposals are often similar to the one for
the circuit relation proposal. on top of that, the "directory" for
proposals seems to me to be a poorly maintained mess.

i want to enter a proposal for my additional tags for
route relations, and i'm happy to move the circuit proposal
if i can get some clear direction. my hope would be to get
some genuine discussion going about the pros and cons of each,
then move one through. i suspect that adding some new tags to
the existing route relation will be easier than getting the
circuit relation through, but that's just a hunch.

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] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

2020-01-09 Thread Dave F via Tagging

On 09/01/2020 20:17, Volker Schmidt wrote:

oneway=yes|no needs indeed be applicable to vehicles only,


That tag on footways would apply only to walkers.

DaveF


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


Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Peter Elderson
> You don't need signpost to have a route.

I disagree. If there is nothing on the ground, there is no mappable route.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

2020-01-09 Thread Volker Schmidt
oneway=yes|no needs indeed be applicable to vehicles only, for very
practical reasons: otherwise we would have a massive problem with all
one-way streets without separately mapped sidewalks.

On Thu, 9 Jan 2020, 02:16 Jarek Piórkowski,  wrote:

> On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 16:33, Mateusz Konieczny 
> wrote:
> > Although unusual, oneway on pedestrian highways (path, footway, track) is
> > possible in some places.
> >
> > Cases of oneway pedestrian traffic includes some hiking trails, border
> crossing,
> > exit-only passages and more.
> >
> > How to tag this?
>
> Would just like to note that oneway=yes is established on
> highway=steps (usually with conveying=yes, i.e., an escalator) to the
> point where a major data consumer openstreetmap-carto supports it,
> e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/367618960
>
> Arguably escalators are a special case since unlike most footways
> there is a mechanical component to them. However I would still be
> interested in seeing any tagging for footways maintain at least some
> consistency with it.
>
> If this is hugely problematic for data consumers I would not be
> opposed to tagging like highway=footway + foot:backward=no, with
> oneway=yes allowed as optional for human readability.
>
> --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] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Richard Fairhurst
Joost Schouppe wrote:
> In the case of cycling, it would be really useful 
> for routers to be able to differentiate.

Yes - with my cycle.travel hat on, I'd find this very useful. Just an
optional route_type= tag on the relation would help.

I've mentioned on here a couple of times before [1] that there's a road bike
route in North Wales that is particularly problematic: it's signposted as a
bike route, but whereas other routes in the UK are for utility or touring
purposes, this one is specifically for road bike training and is wholly
unsuitable for all other purposes. (Almost all of its route is highway=trunk
or highway=primary with no cycling provision whatsoever.) Although it's a
signposted bike route and as such merits mapping, it is no more akin to a
standard route=bicycle than a stretch of mountain bike singletrack is.

cheers
Richard

[1]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-October/048713.html,
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-September/047873.html



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

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


Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Florimond Berthoux
Ok, you need examples :
this Eurovelo 3 is for tourism
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9351172#map=12/48.8454/2.4130=C
this REVe Nord-Sud is for commute/every day cycling
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8664006#map=14/48.8784/2.3599=C
as you can see in this video https://youtu.be/1dGtSZbUKew
and this is for road cycling
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/163270#map=15/48.8577/2.2333=C
as you can see in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLwNlVjTOKU

mtb:scale / surfaces tags are for ways not relation.

Of course nobody will blame you if you use a touristic route for commuting,
and adding a tag tourism=yes doesn’t imply it can’t be used by every day
cyclists.

What the point? If you are a commuter you’ll focus on fast and safe route,
so you’ll prefer REVe Nord-Sud than Eurovelo 3 at this place
https://www.cyclosm.org/#map=18/48.86796/2.35391/cyclosm
For instance, this information can be used for rendering map (like CyclOSM
on which I work) or routers (a tourist profile routing will prefer tourism
route).

Le jeu. 9 janv. 2020 à 16:10, Peter Elderson  a écrit :

> waymarked mtb routes are tagged route=mtb on the relation
> waymarked cycling routes are tagged route=bicycle on the relation.
>
> I don't know how I could verify that a cycling route is either touristic
> or for commute/everyday cycling or both. Even if advertised as touristic it
> can be used for commute/everyday cycling, ande the other way around.
> I do not foresee significant mapping of these purposes.
>
> Best, Peter Elderson
>
>
> Op do 9 jan. 2020 om 15:08 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Am Do., 9. Jan. 2020 um 10:41 Uhr schrieb Florimond Berthoux <
>> florimond.berth...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> tourism=yes : if the cycle route is a touristic purpose route
>>> commute=yes : if it's a route for commute and every day cycling
>>>
>>
>>
>> where do you get this information from? Is it verifiable?
>>
>>
>>
>>> road_bike=yes : if it's a route to do road biking sport
>>> mtb=yes : if it's a cycle route mtb oriented
>>>
>>
>>
>> to some extent the mtb=yes tag this is already covered (in greater
>> detail) by presence of mtb:scale tags
>> maybe it could be extended for road_bike as well (e.g. mtb:scale=-1).
>> Also smoothness could help.
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mountain_biking
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness
>>
>> Cheers
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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


Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Peter Elderson
I don't see why it's not a type=route route=bicycle. Bicycle routes do not
have to be exclusive or any particular type of road, just signposted as a
bicycle route. You can tag extra attributes of course.

Best, Peter Elderson


Op do 9 jan. 2020 om 21:15 schreef Richard Fairhurst :

> Joost Schouppe wrote:
> > In the case of cycling, it would be really useful
> > for routers to be able to differentiate.
>
> Yes - with my cycle.travel hat on, I'd find this very useful. Just an
> optional route_type= tag on the relation would help.
>
> I've mentioned on here a couple of times before [1] that there's a road
> bike
> route in North Wales that is particularly problematic: it's signposted as a
> bike route, but whereas other routes in the UK are for utility or touring
> purposes, this one is specifically for road bike training and is wholly
> unsuitable for all other purposes. (Almost all of its route is
> highway=trunk
> or highway=primary with no cycling provision whatsoever.) Although it's a
> signposted bike route and as such merits mapping, it is no more akin to a
> standard route=bicycle than a stretch of mountain bike singletrack is.
>
> cheers
> Richard
>
> [1]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-October/048713.html
> ,
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-September/047873.html
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html
>
> ___
> 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] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Florimond Berthoux
Le jeu. 9 janv. 2020 à 22:05, Peter Elderson  a écrit :
>
> Florimond Berthoux  het volgende geschreven:
> 
> Ok, you need examples :
> this Eurovelo 3 is for tourism 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9351172#map=12/48.8454/2.4130=C
> this REVe Nord-Sud is for commute/every day cycling 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8664006#map=14/48.8784/2.3599=C 
> as you can see in this video https://youtu.be/1dGtSZbUKew
> and this is for road cycling 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/163270#map=15/48.8577/2.2333=C 
> as you can see in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLwNlVjTOKU
>
>
> I can't see the signposting of the routes in the videos, I assume because I 
> don't know where to look?

You don't need signpost to have a route.

The topic is not how to map that, but how can I tag more precisely the
purpose of a cycle route.

-- 
Florimond Berthoux

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


Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking

2020-01-09 Thread John Willis via Tagging
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/36.31737/139.61884

Here is a good example of the kind of situations I have in my area:

- a service area with two different lots, car and HGV (bus/lorry) adjacent to 
each other, with a satellite bathroom for the busses. 
- service area is segregated by motorway direction, and labeled as such. This 
makes duplicates of everything.  They are usually not adjacent, but are in this 
case.
- dedicated separated handicap parking
- separate “permissive” lots for people outside the toll system to park and 
enter on foot. 
- loading zones for deliveries (untagged). 

This one also has a motel with a separate parking lot and a single (separate) 
disabled space. 

I don’t need to worry about nested parking lots - they are easily tagged as 
separate objects (and are signed/painted as such). 

Javbw

> On Jan 9, 2020, at 8:38 AM, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> 
> It is not unusual to have one parking area with one name with dedicated areas 
> for different vehicle categories. I cannot use amenity=parking for both the 
> entire parking area and the vehicle-type-specific "sub"-areas, at least JOSM 
> does complain when you do that. We could ignore that and use nested 
> amenity=parking tags. 
> 
> .
> 
> 
>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2020, 15:52 John Willis via Tagging, 
>>  wrote:
>> If I have a sign that says all cars go here, and all HGV goes over there, 
>> and one is painted for 1000 car spots and one has 50 giant bus spots, those 
>> are designated lots. 
>> 
>> I have used parking_space when I have found A lone disabled space - but a 
>> group of 50 spots for busses is a bus lot. 
>> 
>> At least being able to say “this is the lot for busses” as an attribute of 
>> amenity=parking should be doable (with a subtag). 
>> 
>> Javbw
>> 
 On Jan 8, 2020, at 7:18 PM, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
 
>>> make use of the fact that amenity=parking_space can be used for this.
>>> Make separate parking space areas for different vehicle types.
>> ___
>> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - give box

2020-01-09 Thread Markus Peloso
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box

A small facility where people drop off and pick up various types of items in 
the sense of free sharing.

Hi

Thank you for your inputs to improve this documentation and make it easy to 
understand what this tag is all about. I have removed all references and notes 
to give away shops, because those are not helpful for a clear specification of 
this tag.

Thanks for the hint with the hiker boxes and the other type of boxes. Good to 
see that there are similar projects all over the world. I have included a 
section with suggestions on how this boxtypes could be handled with existing 
tags (the goods tag is already taken). I want this tag to be more specific then 
the reuse tag. I do not want to cover all existing variations with it. IMO 
someone like food boxes for example deserve their own tag.

Von: Markus Peloso
Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. Januar 2020 13:04
An: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Betreff: AW: 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] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Warin

I think;
Those who bicycle know why there needs to be these classes.
Those who don't ride a bicycle regularly see no need for these classes.

For those that see no need for these classes .. what harm will they do 
to the data base?


I am ignoring the 'verification' argument for the time being.

P.S. I personally see no need to specify how a power line is attached to 
a pole .. others are quite happy to map such detail.  So I have no 
objection to there mapping, I will never use it nor map it.



On 10/1/20 7:36 am, Peter Elderson wrote:
I don't see why it's not a type=route route=bicycle. Bicycle routes do 
not have to be exclusive or any particular type of road, just 
signposted as a bicycle route. You can tag extra attributes of course.


Best, Peter Elderson


Op do 9 jan. 2020 om 21:15 schreef Richard Fairhurst 
mailto:rich...@systemed.net>>:


Joost Schouppe wrote:
> In the case of cycling, it would be really useful
> for routers to be able to differentiate.

Yes - with my cycle.travel  hat on, I'd find
this very useful. Just an
optional route_type= tag on the relation would help.

I've mentioned on here a couple of times before [1] that there's a
road bike
route in North Wales that is particularly problematic: it's
signposted as a
bike route, but whereas other routes in the UK are for utility or
touring
purposes, this one is specifically for road bike training and is
wholly
unsuitable for all other purposes. (Almost all of its route is
highway=trunk
or highway=primary with no cycling provision whatsoever.) Although
it's a
signposted bike route and as such merits mapping, it is no more
akin to a
standard route=bicycle than a stretch of mountain bike singletrack is.

cheers
Richard

[1]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-October/048713.html,
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-September/047873.html



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html



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


Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Peter Elderson
Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven

> I think;
> Those who bicycle know why there needs to be these classes.
> Those who don't ride a bicycle regularly see no need for these classes. 

I wonder which of these groups you think I am in...

Hint: Nederland. 

> For those that see no need for these classes .. what harm will they do to the 
> data base?
> 
> I am ignoring the 'verification' argument for the time being.
> 
> P.S. I personally see no need to specify how a power line is attached to a 
> pole .. others are quite happy to map such detail.  So I have no objection to 
> there mapping, I will never use it nor map it. 
> 
> 
> On 10/1/20 7:36 am, Peter Elderson wrote:
>> I don't see why it's not a type=route route=bicycle. Bicycle routes do not 
>> have to be exclusive or any particular type of road, just signposted as a 
>> bicycle route. You can tag extra attributes of course.
>> 
>> Best, Peter Elderson

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


Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Andy Townsend

On 09/01/2020 23:14, Peter Elderson wrote:

Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven


I think;
Those who bicycle know why there needs to be these classes.
Those who don't ride a bicycle regularly see no need for these classes.

I wonder which of these groups you think I am in...

Hint: Nederland.


Ahem.  How can I put this tactfully - the Netherlands doesn't exactly 
have the widest variety of cycling terrain in the world, and has a 
generally good network of separated cycleways.  That isn't true 
everywhere - regularly when I'm out walking I'm asking myself "how do I 
tag this so that a poor mistaken cyclist doesn't think it'd be a good 
shortcut".  An example is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/353193650 , 
where I was on Monday - is an example.  It's a public bridleway in the 
UK, so as well as walkers, horse riders and cyclists can legally use it 
too - but any horse bigger than a small pony wouldn't fit (not without 
the rider being impaled on a tree branch), and the 45 degree angle of 
the hill, and the slippery mess on the ground, make it challenging for 
walkers never mind cyclists.


Not so far away is 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9487#map=13/54.3595/-1.2685 which 
is actually part of a cycle route.  The worst of that section is 
probably "only" mtb:scale=1, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it to a 
normal road bike user (or someone used to comfort as they're riding along).


Outside of "small" countries like the Netherlands or England other 
factors such as sheer scale come into play - for example the 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munda_Biddi_Trail that has opened between 
Perth and Albany in Australia (see 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5810814 ), or one of the long US 
routes.


Best Regards,

Andy




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


Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

2020-01-09 Thread marc marc
Le 06.01.20 à 08:47, Florian Lohoff a écrit :
> If you have HUGE Buildings i use a node with an address.

it's amazing the difference in usage.
I find that addr nodes are very problematic for hudge buildings like
shopping malls or train stations. the localisation of the node forces
the routing to go to a specific location when you may be closer to
another entrance.
By putting the address on the building, you can not only allow quality
reverse geocoding for the whole building, but also allow advanced
routing to select the closest entry instead of going to the preferred
entry of the contributor who entered the address.

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


Re: [Tagging] Fwd: amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

2020-01-09 Thread Marc Gemis
> amenity=reverse_vending_machine
> reverse_vending=bottle_return
>
> Machines may take more than one type of item. Some here take bottles and 
> bottle creates. Some take metal cans.
>
> Reverse vending machines are not the only vending machine type that’s not 
> technically a vending machine, although you are exchanging one thing for 
> another.
>
> I propose
> amenity=vending_machine
> vending=reverse_vending (or keep bottle_return as its already in use)
> recycling:glass_bottles=yes/no (already is use)
> recycling:=yes/no

Since you use recycling tags, why not use amenity=recycling with some
subtags to indicate that you get money. Why stick to vending machine?

regards

m.

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


Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

2020-01-09 Thread Marc Gemis
Recently someone told me that addresses are not important for POIs,
and perhaps he was right.
Suppose I want to navigate to a particular shop in that mall. I tell
the router I need to go to that shop. If the point of that shop is
properly mapped and all footways from the parking and indoor corridors
are mapped, the router should be able to take me there. Does it matter
that the POI has an address, or that it is put on the building,
perhaps not, as long as its coordinate are correct.

OTOH, when one of my friends lives in a large apartment building
complex, I do only have an address. So perhaps the building has
multiple entrances, which are marked with different house numbers,
groups of flat numbers, or something else. In that case, I want to be
able to navigate to the correct entrance. For that, the navigation
software needs to bring me to the correct entrance. Unlike malls,
apartment buildings often require you to choose the right entrance and
you cannot go from one part of the building to the other. So here the
address(es) should go on the entrances.

Furthermore if I want to send a mail (paper-type) to a shop, it is
interesting to know its correct address, and having only a general
address on the building does not help.

So yes, different usage might require different mapping.

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 12:06 AM marc marc  wrote:
>
> Le 06.01.20 à 08:47, Florian Lohoff a écrit :
> > If you have HUGE Buildings i use a node with an address.
>
> it's amazing the difference in usage.
> I find that addr nodes are very problematic for hudge buildings like
> shopping malls or train stations. the localisation of the node forces
> the routing to go to a specific location when you may be closer to
> another entrance.
> By putting the address on the building, you can not only allow quality
> reverse geocoding for the whole building, but also allow advanced
> routing to select the closest entry instead of going to the preferred
> entry of the contributor who entered the address.
>
> ___
> 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

2020-01-09 Thread Shawn K. Quinn
On 1/9/20 22:54, Marc Gemis wrote:
> Recently someone told me that addresses are not important for POIs,
> and perhaps he was right.
> Suppose I want to navigate to a particular shop in that mall. I tell
> the router I need to go to that shop. If the point of that shop is
> properly mapped and all footways from the parking and indoor corridors
> are mapped, the router should be able to take me there. Does it matter
> that the POI has an address, or that it is put on the building,
> perhaps not, as long as its coordinate are correct.

Having the address can ensure one has the right POI when there are other
similar ones in the area. Consider the rather infamous case of Houston's
"Starbucks across the street from a Starbucks" (2029 and 2050 West Gray
Street, near South Shepherd Drive). There are also the two different
Starbucks locations in The Galleria (usually disambiguated by floor as
one is ground level by the elevators and financial tower, one is on the
second floor closer to the ice rink) which would at minimum have
different unit numbers.

-- 
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] addresses on buildings

2020-01-09 Thread Shawn K. Quinn
On 1/10/20 00:04, Marc Gemis wrote:
> Perhaps I was not clear, what was pointed out is that it is sufficient
> to have the address on the building, there is no need to repeat it on
> the POI (besides the parts that are different such as unit_nr or
> floor).

A lot of retail buildings here are set up such that the first shop has,
say, 100, then the next one down 102, then 104, etc up to whatever
number. Other times they will get suite/unit letters or numbers and the
entire building will have one number; at least one case exists where
multiple buildings have the same address number and different buildings
have different suite/unit numbers at that same address.

Just to be sure there's no ambiguity, I repeat the parts of the address
that may be in common when I map new businesses. So far, JOSM's
validator hasn't flagged that as an error or warning as long as
something changes between each address.

-- 
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] addresses on buildings

2020-01-09 Thread Marc Gemis
Perhaps I was not clear, what was pointed out is that it is sufficient
to have the address on the building, there is no need to repeat it on
the POI (besides the parts that are different such as unit_nr or
floor).
Although I now think that person said that it would be OK to have the
address on a separate node next to the POI, which does not work if you
only see a list of nearby Foobar POIs. In that list you want to see
addresses as well.



On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 6:40 AM Shawn K. Quinn  wrote:
>
> On 1/9/20 22:54, Marc Gemis wrote:
> > Recently someone told me that addresses are not important for POIs,
> > and perhaps he was right.
> > Suppose I want to navigate to a particular shop in that mall. I tell
> > the router I need to go to that shop. If the point of that shop is
> > properly mapped and all footways from the parking and indoor corridors
> > are mapped, the router should be able to take me there. Does it matter
> > that the POI has an address, or that it is put on the building,
> > perhaps not, as long as its coordinate are correct.
>
> Having the address can ensure one has the right POI when there are other
> similar ones in the area. Consider the rather infamous case of Houston's
> "Starbucks across the street from a Starbucks" (2029 and 2050 West Gray
> Street, near South Shepherd Drive). There are also the two different
> Starbucks locations in The Galleria (usually disambiguated by floor as
> one is ground level by the elevators and financial tower, one is on the
> second floor closer to the ice rink) which would at minimum have
> different unit numbers.
>
> --
> Shawn K. Quinn 
> http://www.rantroulette.com
> http://www.skqrecordquest.com
>
> ___
> 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] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Marc Gemis
I assume those characteristics are mapped on the OSM-ways representing
the roads, not on the relation.
As far as I understand Peter's arguments, the fact that a bicycle
route is suitable for recreation, commuting, skilled MTB'ers and so
on, should be determined from the characteristics of the roads in the
relation, not from some tag on the relation.

If we go back the Joost's original question of cycle highways vs. node
network or local roundtrip routes. Do we need a tag on the relation to
distinguish one as commute and the other as recreational? Where is
this information useful?

Suppose I want a fast commute, can the router give me a ride over a
lot of bicycle highways without tags on the relation? Or can that be
done just by the characteristics of the roads in that relation? Or
because they form an almost uninterrupted straight line next to a
railway?

On the other hand, can the system give me touristic routes that allow
me to explore an area, or will it send me over cycle highways which
are not meant for that purpose? A node network or a local round trip
is meant for that.

The original question was how can we tag the difference between a
route representing a cycle highway and a note network. Peter, you
recently worked hard to introduce a new tag to distinguish cycle
networks from other routes. Can we use that tag, with a different
value, for cycle highways to separate them from the others?

But then we do not solve the problems for touristic car routes and for
the examples Florimand gave.

regards

m

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 1:08 AM Andy Townsend  wrote:
>
> On 09/01/2020 23:14, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven
> >
> >> I think;
> >> Those who bicycle know why there needs to be these classes.
> >> Those who don't ride a bicycle regularly see no need for these classes.
> > I wonder which of these groups you think I am in...
> >
> > Hint: Nederland.
>
> Ahem.  How can I put this tactfully - the Netherlands doesn't exactly
> have the widest variety of cycling terrain in the world, and has a
> generally good network of separated cycleways.  That isn't true
> everywhere - regularly when I'm out walking I'm asking myself "how do I
> tag this so that a poor mistaken cyclist doesn't think it'd be a good
> shortcut".  An example is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/353193650 ,
> where I was on Monday - is an example.  It's a public bridleway in the
> UK, so as well as walkers, horse riders and cyclists can legally use it
> too - but any horse bigger than a small pony wouldn't fit (not without
> the rider being impaled on a tree branch), and the 45 degree angle of
> the hill, and the slippery mess on the ground, make it challenging for
> walkers never mind cyclists.
>
> Not so far away is
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9487#map=13/54.3595/-1.2685 which
> is actually part of a cycle route.  The worst of that section is
> probably "only" mtb:scale=1, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it to a
> normal road bike user (or someone used to comfort as they're riding along).
>
> Outside of "small" countries like the Netherlands or England other
> factors such as sheer scale come into play - for example the
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munda_Biddi_Trail that has opened between
> Perth and Albany in Australia (see
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5810814 ), or one of the long US
> routes.
>
> 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