Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[John Willis via Tagging]

> On Jan 30, 2020, at 8:36 AM, Andy Townsend  wrote:
> 
> the things that we tag in OSM won't necessarily map 1 to 1 onto wikipedia 
> pages.


Generally this is true, but I think most active volcanoes - especially ones OSM 
mappers would be mapping - have wiki pages. 

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

Re: [Tagging] change bicycle_parking=floor to surface

[Thibault Molleman]

I agree, was pretty confused when I saw that as well (after I had mapped a
bunch of regular parkings and then did some bicycle ones)

On Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 07:46 John Willis via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle_parking
>
> It lists “floor” as the value for a wide open outdoor space with no stands
> or other affordances designated for parking bicycles.
>
> this seems weird to me. the ground / asphalt area next to a supermarket is
> not a “floor”.
>
> we use “surface” in car parking lots, and there are many of other types of
> indoor tags for tagging when a bike is in a building or shed (similar to
> parking=multilevel).
>
> I think that the values be standardized and the wiki changed.
>
> there is 60 uses of (undocumented) =surface and ~260 uses of (documented)
> =floor.
>
> we should standardize how we tag parking lots for any vehicle if it is
> just a flat outdoor surface.
>
> Javbw
>
>
> ___
> 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] change bicycle_parking=floor to surface

[John Willis via Tagging]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle_parking 


It lists “floor” as the value for a wide open outdoor space with no stands or 
other affordances designated for parking bicycles. 

this seems weird to me. the ground / asphalt area next to a supermarket is not 
a “floor”.

we use “surface” in car parking lots, and there are many of other types of 
indoor tags for tagging when a bike is in a building or shed (similar to 
parking=multilevel). 

I think that the values be standardized and the wiki changed. 

there is 60 uses of (undocumented) =surface and ~260 uses of (documented) 
=floor. 

we should standardize how we tag parking lots for any vehicle if it is just a 
flat outdoor surface. 

Javbw 


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

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

[Kevin Kenny]

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 5:42 PM Shawn K. Quinn  wrote:
> "Old Route 7" or "Old Highway 7" etc might be used as the actual name of
> the remaining street after the highway is realigned to run elsewhere.
> I've seen this happen in Texas a lot.

Yup. It happens near me, too, and it's the situation I'm discussing.

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 5:52 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> old_name=Old Route 7 ... perhaps this should more correctly be old_name=Route 
> 7
>
> If it does not appear on signs but locals refer to it as such then
>
> local_name=Old Route 7
>
> And then add 'comment=local name is used verbally, not on signs as yet.'
>
> ???

Uhm.  It looks pretty much like any other `highway=unclassified`. The
signs say 'Old Route 7' in the style the township uses for rural
roads. There are no shields or chaining markers to indicate that it's
a state highway. And it's been called, 'Old Route 7' for decades. This
isn't a case of the state adding 'OLD' in place of a directional
marker, this is just that the town never saw fit to name the remaining
road anything else, and put up signs showing the name as it is.  (And
I've given the wrong number, but I'm far too lazy to look up the
correct one.)
-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

[Warin]

old_name=Old Route 7 ... perhaps this should more correctly be old_name=Route 7

If it does not appear on signs but locals refer to it as such then

local_name=Old Route 7

And then add 'comment=local name is used verbally, not on signs as yet.'

???


On 31/1/20 9:22 am, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

Are we agreed that something like "Old Route 7" has become a name?

  I'd generally suggest tagging that as  noname=yes old_ref=US 7

I find that strange. It's no longer a ref. It won't have a "US 7" sign
anywhere on it, because it is not part of "US 7".

How would a map renderer label this with a ref "shield", especially if
the language is not English?

The road system in the USA is not always sensible enough to fit in a box.



There are many things that don't fit in OSM, either they are not meant to be 
fitted or there is probably some obscure tag that is what your after.



- Joseph Eisenberg

On 1/31/20, Paul Johnson  wrote:

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 3:15 PM Kevin Kenny 
wrote:


On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 2:50 PM Richard Fairhurst 
wrote:

Honestly, there is, and it's as Paul and I have described - you put the

ref

in the ref tag and leave the name tag blank. This is how it has been in

OSM

since pretty much day one. If a newbie in Europe puts a ref in the name

tag,

it gets stomped on pretty quickly.

The reason it might seem otherwise in the States is that the TIGER
import
didn't populate the ref tag, just the name tag, and a lot of the TIGER
import still hasn't been cleared up. So there's a bunch of
TIGER-derived
roads which have things like "name=County Road 23" (or Township Road,
or

"Co

Rd", or many other variations).

OK, I'll add that to the things I look for. As I said, I'd been
retaining it only when it's the only name, and I never added any new
ways with that, merely refrained from repairing that case.

It's encouraging that in this particular discussion, that's the only
detail you guys say I got wrong. 'ref' tag on the way for the
renderer; road route relation with detailed network and ref; never an
alt_name or name_1, etc. with a route reference.

Oh, and a further corner case: Are we agreed that something like "Old
Route 7" has become a name?  It's no longer a ref, because Route 7 is
now elsewhere. It appears on street signs like any other name, not on
a reference banner, and it's the 'addr:street' of the houses on it.


Eeeh, I'd generally suggest tagging that as noname=yes old_ref=US 7 (if the
old route was a US route) to retain more information.  Signing is pretty
similar, too, some places will leave the old shields up and change the
banner from a cardinal to OLD until the signs wear out as a wayfinder for
folks with outdated maps.  Much of the midwest, on nameless roads that have
routes, just put something like "SH 33" or "Hwy 412" on the finger signs as
a low-budget solution to posting a proper, potentially multicolor, die-cut,
screen-printed shield and a double-ended arrow as is MUTCD standard for
such a case.  addr:street still goes with however the post finds it.  It
helps to know the local context quite a bit when trying to sort out how
local authorities cheaped out on posting standard signs.


___
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] road names and refs

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 1/30/20 15:14, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> Oh, and a further corner case: Are we agreed that something like "Old
> Route 7" has become a name?  It's no longer a ref, because Route 7 is
> now elsewhere. It appears on street signs like any other name, not on
> a reference banner, and it's the 'addr:street' of the houses on it.

"Old Route 7" or "Old Highway 7" etc might be used as the actual name of
the remaining street after the highway is realigned to run elsewhere.
I've seen this happen in Texas a lot.

If it belongs in 'addr:street' for the buildings near it, usually it
belongs in 'name'.

-- 
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] road names and refs

[Joseph Eisenberg]

>> Are we agreed that something like "Old Route 7" has become a name?

>  I'd generally suggest tagging that as  noname=yes old_ref=US 7

I find that strange. It's no longer a ref. It won't have a "US 7" sign
anywhere on it, because it is not part of "US 7".

How would a map renderer label this with a ref "shield", especially if
the language is not English?

The road system in the USA is not always sensible enough to fit in a box.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 1/31/20, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 3:15 PM Kevin Kenny 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 2:50 PM Richard Fairhurst 
>> wrote:
>> > Honestly, there is, and it's as Paul and I have described - you put the
>> ref
>> > in the ref tag and leave the name tag blank. This is how it has been in
>> OSM
>> > since pretty much day one. If a newbie in Europe puts a ref in the name
>> tag,
>> > it gets stomped on pretty quickly.
>> >
>> > The reason it might seem otherwise in the States is that the TIGER
>> > import
>> > didn't populate the ref tag, just the name tag, and a lot of the TIGER
>> > import still hasn't been cleared up. So there's a bunch of
>> > TIGER-derived
>> > roads which have things like "name=County Road 23" (or Township Road,
>> > or
>> "Co
>> > Rd", or many other variations).
>>
>> OK, I'll add that to the things I look for. As I said, I'd been
>> retaining it only when it's the only name, and I never added any new
>> ways with that, merely refrained from repairing that case.
>>
>> It's encouraging that in this particular discussion, that's the only
>> detail you guys say I got wrong. 'ref' tag on the way for the
>> renderer; road route relation with detailed network and ref; never an
>> alt_name or name_1, etc. with a route reference.
>>
>> Oh, and a further corner case: Are we agreed that something like "Old
>> Route 7" has become a name?  It's no longer a ref, because Route 7 is
>> now elsewhere. It appears on street signs like any other name, not on
>> a reference banner, and it's the 'addr:street' of the houses on it.
>>
>
> Eeeh, I'd generally suggest tagging that as noname=yes old_ref=US 7 (if the
> old route was a US route) to retain more information.  Signing is pretty
> similar, too, some places will leave the old shields up and change the
> banner from a cardinal to OLD until the signs wear out as a wayfinder for
> folks with outdated maps.  Much of the midwest, on nameless roads that have
> routes, just put something like "SH 33" or "Hwy 412" on the finger signs as
> a low-budget solution to posting a proper, potentially multicolor, die-cut,
> screen-printed shield and a double-ended arrow as is MUTCD standard for
> such a case.  addr:street still goes with however the post finds it.  It
> helps to know the local context quite a bit when trying to sort out how
> local authorities cheaped out on posting standard signs.
>

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

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 3:15 PM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 2:50 PM Richard Fairhurst 
> wrote:
> > Honestly, there is, and it's as Paul and I have described - you put the
> ref
> > in the ref tag and leave the name tag blank. This is how it has been in
> OSM
> > since pretty much day one. If a newbie in Europe puts a ref in the name
> tag,
> > it gets stomped on pretty quickly.
> >
> > The reason it might seem otherwise in the States is that the TIGER import
> > didn't populate the ref tag, just the name tag, and a lot of the TIGER
> > import still hasn't been cleared up. So there's a bunch of TIGER-derived
> > roads which have things like "name=County Road 23" (or Township Road, or
> "Co
> > Rd", or many other variations).
>
> OK, I'll add that to the things I look for. As I said, I'd been
> retaining it only when it's the only name, and I never added any new
> ways with that, merely refrained from repairing that case.
>
> It's encouraging that in this particular discussion, that's the only
> detail you guys say I got wrong. 'ref' tag on the way for the
> renderer; road route relation with detailed network and ref; never an
> alt_name or name_1, etc. with a route reference.
>
> Oh, and a further corner case: Are we agreed that something like "Old
> Route 7" has become a name?  It's no longer a ref, because Route 7 is
> now elsewhere. It appears on street signs like any other name, not on
> a reference banner, and it's the 'addr:street' of the houses on it.
>

Eeeh, I'd generally suggest tagging that as noname=yes old_ref=US 7 (if the
old route was a US route) to retain more information.  Signing is pretty
similar, too, some places will leave the old shields up and change the
banner from a cardinal to OLD until the signs wear out as a wayfinder for
folks with outdated maps.  Much of the midwest, on nameless roads that have
routes, just put something like "SH 33" or "Hwy 412" on the finger signs as
a low-budget solution to posting a proper, potentially multicolor, die-cut,
screen-printed shield and a double-ended arrow as is MUTCD standard for
such a case.  addr:street still goes with however the post finds it.  It
helps to know the local context quite a bit when trying to sort out how
local authorities cheaped out on posting standard signs.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

[Kevin Kenny]

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 2:50 PM Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
> Honestly, there is, and it's as Paul and I have described - you put the ref
> in the ref tag and leave the name tag blank. This is how it has been in OSM
> since pretty much day one. If a newbie in Europe puts a ref in the name tag,
> it gets stomped on pretty quickly.
>
> The reason it might seem otherwise in the States is that the TIGER import
> didn't populate the ref tag, just the name tag, and a lot of the TIGER
> import still hasn't been cleared up. So there's a bunch of TIGER-derived
> roads which have things like "name=County Road 23" (or Township Road, or "Co
> Rd", or many other variations).

OK, I'll add that to the things I look for. As I said, I'd been
retaining it only when it's the only name, and I never added any new
ways with that, merely refrained from repairing that case.

It's encouraging that in this particular discussion, that's the only
detail you guys say I got wrong. 'ref' tag on the way for the
renderer; road route relation with detailed network and ref; never an
alt_name or name_1, etc. with a route reference.

Oh, and a further corner case: Are we agreed that something like "Old
Route 7" has become a name?  It's no longer a ref, because Route 7 is
now elsewhere. It appears on street signs like any other name, not on
a reference banner, and it's the 'addr:street' of the houses on it.
-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Hubert87]

Am 29.01.2020 um 21:11 schrieb Hubert87:

Just my two cents from germany:

In general

hw=cycleway  <> hw=path + bicycle=designated;
hw=footway<> hw=path + foot=designated;
hw=bridleway <> hw=path + horse=designated;

For combinded foot and cycle paths: hw=path + bicycle=designated +
foot=designated + segregated=no;

For segregated foot and cycle paths:  hw=path + bicycle=designated +
foot=designated + segregated=no;

that's segregated=yes of course.


hw=path was supposed to decrapate hw=cycleway/footway/bridleway (*that
went well*)

hw=path is not only for trials. You can use "informal=yes"
(indocumented) if it's a path by "popular demand" and not a planned one.
Path itself also does not imply anything about it's surface. For that
use "surface=ground/compacted/asphalt/concrete/etc.", (*duh*)

Of course I'm not very familiary with mapping conventions in the new
world, so please take this at your discretion.

Yours
Hubert87


Am 27.01.2020 um 16:36 schrieb Jmapb:

Hi all, just noticed this passage on the cycleway=* wiki page (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway ):


For mapping a separate path (on a separate way) dedicated to cycling
traffic use highway=cycleway. Foot traffic is restricted on these
paths.

  *  Do not use highway=cycleway on paths for both cyclist and foot
traffic (such as shared paths). Instead use highway=path with
bicycle=designated and foot=designated. Add also segregated=yes or
segregated=no) as applicable.
   * For paths where cycling is not permissible use highway=footway.
If cycling is permissible even if it is not signed but legally
permissible on a path, use highway=path (and a combination of the
segregated key and designated tag as applicable) and not
highway=footway.


(This was added by wiki user Aaronsta last May, with no change
description.)

Does anyone know if there was a discussion, here or elsewhere, that led
to this change?

My own impression over the years has been that mappers use
highway=cycleway on anything that primarily for bicycle traffic, and add
access keys for any other permitted traffic. Similarly for
highway=footway. So "highway=cycleway + foot=yes" and "highway=footway +
bicycle=designated" are quite common. Is there a general consensus that
these are better mapped as highway=path?

If so, we might want to consider standardizing the highway=cycleway and
highway=footway wiki pages with this same rule. And also editing the
highway=path page, which currently says it's not for use in urban
situations.

Thanks, Jason


___
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] road names and refs

[Kevin Kenny]

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:20 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>> (1) The `name=*` field gets the road's actual name. If the road's only
>> name is 'County Route 12' (New York consistently uses 'Route' rather
>> than 'Road' for these), to the extent that `addr:street=*` will show
>> that for the name, then `name=*` gets that name. (Yes I know that
>> there are mappers who would prefer `noname=yes` in that situation, but
>> address validation has an easier time with the way I do it.)
>
>
> Please stop.  This gets very annoying for data consumers (especially your 
> average joe just using a satnav).  Fix your validation process instead.

In my defense, there's nothing to stop. To the best of my knowledge,
I've never added such a way, merely refrained from modifying that
particular field from the TIGER import.
-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

[Richard Fairhurst]

Kevin Kenny wrote:
> I think we can both agree that in practice there is no clear 
> consensus on what to do in the specific case where a road 
> has a reference but no other name.

Honestly, there is, and it's as Paul and I have described - you put the ref
in the ref tag and leave the name tag blank. This is how it has been in OSM
since pretty much day one. If a newbie in Europe puts a ref in the name tag,
it gets stomped on pretty quickly.

The reason it might seem otherwise in the States is that the TIGER import
didn't populate the ref tag, just the name tag, and a lot of the TIGER
import still hasn't been cleared up. So there's a bunch of TIGER-derived
roads which have things like "name=County Road 23" (or Township Road, or "Co
Rd", or many other variations).

This was never an active decision to do it this way; it's just that lots of
TIGER hasn't been fixed, particularly the rural areas where unnamed County
Roads are more common. Fixing this wouldn't be a bad thing for a mechanical
edit to do.

Richard



--
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] road names and refs

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 12:38 PM Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 12:58 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:
> > No, no.  I'm not proposing addr:street on ways at all, only on things
> that actually have an address.  What I am saying is that noname=yes should
> be a trigger to validators that they can't depend on the way to handle
> address validation.  Just saying that name=County Road 34, ref=CR 34 is
> wrong; noname=yes; ref=CR 34 is the way to go.
>
> OK, and that's where we disagree - one important _suggestion_ that a
> validator can make is to point out that there's no similarly-named way
> anywhere nearby. At least once I've done the house numbers for a whole
> street without remembering to change the name of the street from the
> previous one I was working on, and I was glad that the validator
> caught it before I uploaded!
>
> (If you're now going to tell me "don't make mistakes like that!" my
> reply is, "Good luck with that one!")
>
> I think we can both agree that in practice there is no clear consensus
> on what to do in the specific case where a road has a reference but no
> other name. (That is intended as an entirely neutral statement - not
> "Kevin's right" or "Paul's right")


I disagree.  The wiki had it pretty clearly documented that names aren't
refs longer than I've been in the project.  People putting refs as names is
a more recent, value detracting, invention.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

[Kevin Kenny]

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 12:58 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:
> No, no.  I'm not proposing addr:street on ways at all, only on things that 
> actually have an address.  What I am saying is that noname=yes should be a 
> trigger to validators that they can't depend on the way to handle address 
> validation.  Just saying that name=County Road 34, ref=CR 34 is wrong; 
> noname=yes; ref=CR 34 is the way to go.

OK, and that's where we disagree - one important _suggestion_ that a
validator can make is to point out that there's no similarly-named way
anywhere nearby. At least once I've done the house numbers for a whole
street without remembering to change the name of the street from the
previous one I was working on, and I was glad that the validator
caught it before I uploaded!

(If you're now going to tell me "don't make mistakes like that!" my
reply is, "Good luck with that one!")

I think we can both agree that in practice there is no clear consensus
on what to do in the specific case where a road has a reference but no
other name. (That is intended as an entirely neutral statement - not
"Kevin's right" or "Paul's right")

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:46 AM Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 12:09 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:
> > addr:street= should be tagged anyway, and that's where you can put your
> "County Route 34".  Attempting to infer this based off the nearest street
> should be a last resort because, at least in the US, it's not uncommon for
> what the street's actually named and signed to be radically different than
> the postal address's street name for simplicity or brevity's sake.
>
> I do that, too, when I do address points or building footprints. I
> don't propose importing my county's address points (because of data
> quality issues) or its building footprints (because of licensing
> issues) so that happens manually on a catch-as-catch-can basis. If
> you're proposing 'addr:street' on the way, that's fraught with another
> set of issues - but I don't think that's what you're proposing.
>

No, no.  I'm not proposing addr:street on ways at all, only on things that
actually have an address.  What I am saying is that noname=yes should be a
trigger to validators that they can't depend on the way to handle address
validation.  Just saying that name=County Road 34, ref=CR 34 is wrong;
noname=yes; ref=CR 34 is the way to go.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

[Kevin Kenny]

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 12:09 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:
> addr:street= should be tagged anyway, and that's where you can put your 
> "County Route 34".  Attempting to infer this based off the nearest street 
> should be a last resort because, at least in the US, it's not uncommon for 
> what the street's actually named and signed to be radically different than 
> the postal address's street name for simplicity or brevity's sake.

I do that, too, when I do address points or building footprints. I
don't propose importing my county's address points (because of data
quality issues) or its building footprints (because of licensing
issues) so that happens manually on a catch-as-catch-can basis. If
you're proposing 'addr:street' on the way, that's fraught with another
set of issues - but I don't think that's what you're proposing.
-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 10:49 AM Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 10:09 AM Kevin Kenny 
> wrote:
> >> (1) The `name=*` field gets the road's actual name. If the road's only
> >> name is 'County Route 12' (New York consistently uses 'Route' rather
> >> than 'Road' for these), to the extent that `addr:street=*` will show
> >> that for the name, then `name=*` gets that name. (Yes I know that
> >> there are mappers who would prefer `noname=yes` in that situation, but
> >> address validation has an easier time with the way I do it.)
>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:20 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:
> > Please stop.  This gets very annoying for data consumers (especially
> your average joe just using a satnav).  Fix your validation process instead.
>
> I knew you were going to say that. The sentiment seems to run about
> equally between 'fix the navigation software not to read the ref
> twice,' and 'fix software that recognizes street addresses to deal
> with the fact that an address of '2367 County Route 34' might need to
> be translated to a ref=*'.
>

addr:street= should be tagged anyway, and that's where you can put your
"County Route 34".  Attempting to infer this based off the nearest street
should be a last resort because, at least in the US, it's not uncommon for
what the street's actually named and signed to be *radically* different
than the postal address's street name for simplicity or brevity's sake.

This solves both problems.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate healthcare=pharmacy and healthcare=hospital

[Jmapb]

On 1/29/2020 6:14 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

The healthcare=* tags were formally proposed and voted on 10 years ago.
Included in that proposal (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?oldid=1318635  ) was the idea
that dual-tagging some features with both amenity=*/healthcare=* would
be the norm until the healthcare=* tags had wide usage and software support.

But healthcare=pharmacy was never included in the proposal. In fact
the proposal authors originally wanted to change amenity=pharmacy to
shop=pharmacy, but changed the proposal due to negative comments.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?oldid=1318635  - link to
voted proposal

This explains why healthcare=pharmacy was unused prior to the iD
change (the other 4 tags had a small amount of use, though only a
couple percent of the amenity=hospital/doctors/clinic/dentist tags)

Note also that the voted proposal does not mention replacing
amenity=clinic with healthcare=clinic, and does not specifically state
that any tags are to be deprecated.


It's true that some values of healthcare=* were not included in the
original proposal. This is normal, new values get added to existing keys
all the time, and are documented on the relevant wiki pages if they gain
traction.  A wiki reader who's interested in the history can research it
by reading the original proposal and paging through the page versions.
We don't need to crowd the table with footnotes.

The approved proposal specifically called for replacing amenity=hospital
with healthcare=hospital, amenity=doctors with healthcare=doctor, and
amenity=dentist with healthcare=dentist. Even though the proposal did
include healthcare=clinic, it did not, as you note, specifically call
for replacement of amenity=clinic. The word "deprecate" was never used.
But if there ever *is* a time to consider deprecating amenity=hospital
etc, it certainly isn't now. Maybe we can talk about it in 10 or 20
years. Meanwhile there *will* be some dual tagging. Both
amenity=hospital and healthcare=hospital are correct tags -- one because
it's a de facto tag with over 150 thousand uses, and one because it's
been proposed, voted on, and approved.

Your current claim on the wiki that these overlapping tags are used by
only "one editor" (ie, iD) is completely false. I use them all the time,
and I avoid iD like the plague. If you're still interested in the
quality of the healthcare=* page, please have another pass at making it
factually correct, *useful* for new users, and from a neutral point of view.

Thanks, Jason


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

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

[Kevin Kenny]

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 10:09 AM Kevin Kenny  wrote:
>> (1) The `name=*` field gets the road's actual name. If the road's only
>> name is 'County Route 12' (New York consistently uses 'Route' rather
>> than 'Road' for these), to the extent that `addr:street=*` will show
>> that for the name, then `name=*` gets that name. (Yes I know that
>> there are mappers who would prefer `noname=yes` in that situation, but
>> address validation has an easier time with the way I do it.)

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:20 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:
> Please stop.  This gets very annoying for data consumers (especially your 
> average joe just using a satnav).  Fix your validation process instead.

I knew you were going to say that. The sentiment seems to run about
equally between 'fix the navigation software not to read the ref
twice,' and 'fix software that recognizes street addresses to deal
with the fact that an address of '2367 County Route 34' might need to
be translated to a ref=*'.

Either one needs a modicum of natural-language processing to recognize
that the street 'name' is actually a reference number - it's a
question of whether data consumers that read 'addr:street' or ones
that read 'name' have to do it. With the current state of the art, it
seems safer to have redundant information - the worst case is the
annoyance of "Turn right on County Route 34, County Route 34", rather
than "I can't find the street address , 2367 County Route 34". In my
mind, for this case, pragmatism trumps Platonism. I know that "a
reference number is not a name," but don't have a better answer for
"how do I deal with street addresses that use a reference number as a
surrogate for a name on a road that's otherwise nameless?"

We're agreed that if the street has a name, then the reference number
should not be 'name_1' or 'alt_name' or anything like that - and I
routinely delete those whenever I encounter them. `name="Balltown
Road" ref="NY 146"` is correct for that case. (A possible exception is
if E911 or the Postal Service insists on the ref as a name - but
that's rare on a road that actually is named.)

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 10:09 AM Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 9:51 AM Jarek Piórkowski 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 09:38, Rob Savoye  wrote:
> > > On 1/30/20 2:08 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> > > > "County Road 12" is a ref. It is not a name. People often refer to
> roads by
> > > > their ref. That's fine. I will say "I'm taking the A3400 to
> Stratford"
> > >
> > >   I'm wondering if "CR 12" or "County Road 12" (the abbreviation
> > > expanded) was the proper value for a ref. If the abbreviation is fine
> > > for the ref, should it then have a name that is expanded ? The wiki
> > > isn't clear.
> >
> > One solution I've seen advanced is that the ref in that case is just
> > 12. But that rather raises more new questions than it answers, because
> > while no one says "I'm going to take the Highways England A3400" or
> > "the British A3400", people do say "I'm going to take County Road
> > 12"...
>
> What I do:
>
> (1) The `name=*` field gets the road's actual name. If the road's only
> name is 'County Route 12' (New York consistently uses 'Route' rather
> than 'Road' for these), to the extent that `addr:street=*` will show
> that for the name, then `name=*` gets that name. (Yes I know that
> there are mappers who would prefer `noname=yes` in that situation, but
> address validation has an easier time with the way I do it.)
>

Please stop.  This gets very annoying for data consumers (especially your
average joe just using a satnav).  Fix your validation process instead.


> (3) In the US, there are so many coincidences among numbered routes
> that they're hard to work with unless you use `route=road` relations.
> Moreover, there are a number of cases where one jurisdiction's route
> crosses over into another jurisdiction's territory, but the owning
> juristiction still maintains and numbers it. There are New York State
> highways with portions in at least Connecticut, New Jersey and
> Pennsylvania. Only a route relation can identify the state on NY 120A
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/108702747 where it's a New York
> State highway on Connecticut soil.
> (Note that its postal address is also Purchase, New York, and not
> Fairfield, Connecticut, since its mail is delivered from the other
> side of the state line. Confusion abounds.)
>

Ultimately this is the way forward, worldwide.  ref on ways is a stupid way
to describe routes and ultimately it's beyond time to kill that dinosaur
(not to mention, precludes the way from having it's own ref, which every
state-owned road in Oregon and Pennsylvania at a minimum, does).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

[Kevin Kenny]

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 9:51 AM Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:
>
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 09:38, Rob Savoye  wrote:
> > On 1/30/20 2:08 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> > > "County Road 12" is a ref. It is not a name. People often refer to roads 
> > > by
> > > their ref. That's fine. I will say "I'm taking the A3400 to Stratford"
> >
> >   I'm wondering if "CR 12" or "County Road 12" (the abbreviation
> > expanded) was the proper value for a ref. If the abbreviation is fine
> > for the ref, should it then have a name that is expanded ? The wiki
> > isn't clear.
>
> One solution I've seen advanced is that the ref in that case is just
> 12. But that rather raises more new questions than it answers, because
> while no one says "I'm going to take the Highways England A3400" or
> "the British A3400", people do say "I'm going to take County Road
> 12"...

What I do:

(1) The `name=*` field gets the road's actual name. If the road's only
name is 'County Route 12' (New York consistently uses 'Route' rather
than 'Road' for these), to the extent that `addr:street=*` will show
that for the name, then `name=*` gets that name. (Yes I know that
there are mappers who would prefer `noname=yes` in that situation, but
address validation has an easier time with the way I do it.)

(2) The `ref=*` gets 'CR 12'.  This ref has to be short because that's
what OSM-Carto will put in the box that labels the route. This `ref=*`
is, in my mind, tagging for the renderer. (In the acceptable sense:
it's telling the truth; but the truth that will render lacks full
detail. It's lying to the renderer that's bad practice.) The more
complete information has to go elsewhere, so read on.

(3) In the US, there are so many coincidences among numbered routes
that they're hard to work with unless you use `route=road` relations.
Moreover, there are a number of cases where one jurisdiction's route
crosses over into another jurisdiction's territory, but the owning
juristiction still maintains and numbers it. There are New York State
highways with portions in at least Connecticut, New Jersey and
Pennsylvania. Only a route relation can identify the state on NY 120A
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/108702747 where it's a New York
State highway on Connecticut soil.
(Note that its postal address is also Purchase, New York, and not
Fairfield, Connecticut, since its mail is delivered from the other
side of the state line. Confusion abounds.)

For a county route, the relation will be tagged:

type=route
route=road
network=US:NY:Saratoga
ref=12

which also identifies what county labeled the route, letting a more
sophisticated renderer add pictorial shields.

Around here, on roads where the reference is the name, people usually
will leave out the common noun 'highway', 'route', 'road' on the
larger highways, referring to "Interstate 890", "US 9", "New York 7".
On the county roads, their speech will be loose: if a driver were to
give directions on "Route 74", "Schenectady County 74", or "County
Route 74", none of those would raise eyebrows.

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

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 8:38 AM Rob Savoye  wrote:

> On 1/30/20 2:08 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
> > You asked this back in August and the answers still apply:
>
>   That was as slightly different question about multiple names, and yes,
> still applies.
>
> > "County Road 12" is a ref. It is not a name. People often refer to roads
> by
> > their ref. That's fine. I will say "I'm taking the A3400 to Stratford"
>
>   I'm wondering if "CR 12" or "County Road 12" (the abbreviation
> expanded) was the proper value for a ref. If the abbreviation is fine
> for the ref, should it then have a name that is expanded ? The wiki
> isn't clear.
>

ref=CR 12 would be the correct value.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 09:38, Rob Savoye  wrote:
> On 1/30/20 2:08 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> > "County Road 12" is a ref. It is not a name. People often refer to roads by
> > their ref. That's fine. I will say "I'm taking the A3400 to Stratford"
>
>   I'm wondering if "CR 12" or "County Road 12" (the abbreviation
> expanded) was the proper value for a ref. If the abbreviation is fine
> for the ref, should it then have a name that is expanded ? The wiki
> isn't clear.

One solution I've seen advanced is that the ref in that case is just
12. But that rather raises more new questions than it answers, because
while no one says "I'm going to take the Highways England A3400" or
"the British A3400", people do say "I'm going to take County Road
12"...

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

[Rob Savoye]

On 1/30/20 2:08 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

> You asked this back in August and the answers still apply:

  That was as slightly different question about multiple names, and yes,
still applies.

> "County Road 12" is a ref. It is not a name. People often refer to roads by
> their ref. That's fine. I will say "I'm taking the A3400 to Stratford"

  I'm wondering if "CR 12" or "County Road 12" (the abbreviation
expanded) was the proper value for a ref. If the abbreviation is fine
for the ref, should it then have a name that is expanded ? The wiki
isn't clear.

- rob -


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

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

FWIW, here is a query results map showing all volcanoes (805 of them) in
Wikidata that already have the GVP ID:
https://query.wikidata.org/embed.html#%23defaultView%3AMap%0ASELECT%20DISTINCT%20%3Fvolcano%20%3FvolcanoLabel%20%3FGVPID%20%3Fcoords%20WHERE%20%7B%0A%20%20SERVICE%20wikibase%3Alabel%20%7B%20bd%3AserviceParam%20wikibase%3Alanguage%20%22%5BAUTO_LANGUAGE%5D%2Cen%22.%20%7D%0A%20%20%3Fvolcano%20wdt%3AP31%2Fwdt%3AP279%2a%20wd%3AQ8072%3B%20wdt%3AP1886%20%3FGVPID%3B%20wdt%3AP625%20%3Fcoords.%0A%7D%0A

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 7:26 AM Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 23:16, Clifford Snow 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Can you explain how that would work? Take the example of Mount Baker. It
>> has a wikidata Q code of  Q594387. GVP has a volcano number of 321010. What
>> would a tag look like? Please excuse my ignorance of Wikipedia. I can read
>> articles and maybe understand some, but how Wikidata works is beyond my
>> comprehension :)
>>
>
> Go to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q594387 and search the page for
> "smithsonian."   You see Smithsonian volcano ID 321010.  Dunno if that's
> been there for a long time or somebody just added it in response to your
> post
> here.
>
> Explaining how to add those iDs to other Wikidata volcanoes is beyond the
> scope of this response. :)
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Ski picnic room

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 10:26, MARLIN LUKE  wrote:

> Noticed amenity=shelter. I initially thought about combining it with
> shelter-type:picnic, but it seems too... "open" for me. Like, not a
> complete building.
>

Shelter seems "open."  But so does "picnic."  Wikipedia confirms my
understanding of "picnic" - an outdoors meal:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picnic

All I've managed to turn up on Google for "picnic room" are translations of
"salle hors sac" made by people who don't speak English as a first language.
Google Translate gives me "out of bag" for "hors sac" which in colloquial
English would be "packed meal."  And you take a packed meal on a picnic,
so "salle hors sac" turns into "picnic room."  Which is not colloquial
English
or anything a British English speaker would comprehend as being what you
want to map.

What you're describing is almost a cafeteria (which we already have a tag
for)
except that there may not be any purchasable food and, if there is
purchasable
food, it's from a vending machine whereas real cafeterias generally offer
self-service
food.  So fast_food=cafeteria is a better fit, but still not a good fit.

A better fit would be automat, although I think that's an American term with
little or no usage in British English.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automat
And, if I understand you correctly, there may not be vending machines in
some of
these places, and most real automats wouldn't let you bring your own food.

I can't think of any good term for a building which contains tables and
chairs
which you can use to eat a packed meal.  We have leisure=outdoor_seating
for consumption of meals/drinks,  but that is open, even if covered.  And
the
tag value itself doesn't convey that it's for food, you have to look at the
wiki
page or see that it is used near to somewhere serving food which is tagged
as having outdoor seating.  So inventing leisure=indoor_seating is
probably a bad idea, especially if there are no vending machines.

It probably needs something along the lines of
leisure=indoor_food_consumption
(needs a better name than that) with optional amenity=vending_machine +
vending=food|drinks nodes.  And maybe an explicit bring_your_own_food=yes
tag
(needs a better name than that).  Actually, leisure=dining_room might be a
better
name than leisure=indoor_food_consumption, except it's not really used in
British
English for a public room but for a room in a house or guest house.

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

Re: [Tagging] Ski picnic room

[MARLIN LUKE]

Noticed amenity=shelter. I initially thought about combining it with 
shelter-type:picnic, but it seems too... "open" for me. Like, not a complete 
building.

I'll use this in the meantime
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

30 Jan 2020, 10:02 by m_v...@cartong.org:
> We would like to propose a very generic tag this time to map the location of 
> refugee camps. We propose to use the tag  > place=refugee_site
>
> See the proposal wiki page : > 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Refugee_Site_Location
>
What about long term refugee camps 
that turn into villages or towns?

How one should tag such places?
Also, from proposal
"Should not apply to area when official 
camp boundaries are not available."

Where area is clear it is perfectly
fine to map it, even if there is no
available official data.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

[Richard Fairhurst]

Rob Savoye wrote:
> I was wondering about tagging roads properly. Previously it 
> was mentioned to use 'ref' for county roads, ie... "ref='CR 12'", 
> but as the road sign says "County Road 12", I was wondering 
> about the proper way to tag this. Should 'CR' be expanded in 
> the 'ref' to "County Road", or should 'ref' be 'CR 12', and then 
> "name='County Road 12'" ? This also applies to state Forest 
> Service roads as well that lack a name tag. I'm working on 
> cleaning up some ancient crap from the TIGER import...

You asked this back in August and the answers still apply:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-August/047455.html

"County Road 12" is a ref. It is not a name. People often refer to roads by
their ref. That's fine. I will say "I'm taking the A3400 to Stratford"
rather than "I'm taking Shipston Road, which becomes London Road, which
becomes Stratford Road, which becomes Shipston Road again etc. etc.". There
are signs that say A3400 and signs that say Stratford Road etc. That's fine
too. It doesn't mean the name is A3400. It just means I'm using the ref in
conversation.

Richard



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

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

[Manon Viou]

 
 
  
   
Dear all,
   
   

   
   
There is not yet a real consensus within the OSM community regarding the way to reference refugee sites in OSM. As a result, tagging is applied inconsistently which makes it quite difficult to find and use this data. In the past years there have been several attempts to improve the referencing of refugee camps in OSM but they never succeeded in finalizing a full proposal.
   
   

   
   
Humanitarian organizations working with refugees and other displaced populations are willing to open some of their data to OpenStreetMap for wider and sustainable dissemination, but a common framework aligned with OpenStreetMap standards is necessary.
   
   

   
   
Since many individuals and organizations already contribute to OpenStreetMap refugee site mapping efforts, it would benefit everyone to agree on a clear and consistent tagging schema for refugee sites.
   
   

   
   
We would like to propose a very generic tag this time to map the location of refugee camps. We propose to use the tag 
place=refugee_site
   
   

   
   
See the proposal wiki page : 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Refugee_Site_Location
   
   

   
   
Thank you for your consideration,
   
   

   
   
And please feel free to comment, preferably directly on the wiki !
   
   

   
   
Kind regards,
   
   

   Manon
  
  
   
   
 


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

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 30. Jan 2020, at 00:22, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> Most taxi and pedicab drivers recoginise one or both of these names,
> so I have used "name=Jalan Kimbim - Piramid", "alt_name=Jalan Kimbim",
> "loc_name=Jalan Piramid".


+1, adding all the variants/alternatives is the way to go.


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