Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Section numbers in hiking routes

[Peter Elderson]

Thanks for the examples. I will leave the splitting and punctuation issue
for now, I think it's fine as it is.
In the second example, the stage numbers should not be in the name unless
the names are actually shown like that on the signs. See
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

Assuming that is not the case, I would like a separate tag in the stage
relation to store the "official" stage number. That's all I am after at the
moment. If we can agree on a suitable key, my plan is:
1. add the he tag to a bunch of foot routes in Nederland.
2. ask developers to handle this as appropriate for their applications and
tools
3. once tools and applications handle the tag, I will remove
stage/section/segment/leg numbers form the name.

What about section_ref= ?

To qualify as a ref, the section/stage/segment numbers or codes should be
listed somewhere by the operator.
The tag could be applied to all officially segmented routes with section
refs.

Best, Peter Elderson


Op zo 24 mei 2020 om 10:18 schreef s8evq :

> First example:
>
> Superrelation GR5 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4580796)
> consists of the following 8 relation members:
>
> GR 5 Netherlands (9176775)
> GR 5 Belgium, Flanders (3121667)
> GR 5 Belgium, Wallonia (3121668)
> GR 5 Luxembourg (2790499)
> GR 5 Lorraine (2029679)
> GR 5 Vosges (1956165)
> GR 5 Jura (6095322)
> GR 5 Alpes Côte d'Azur (2704286)
>
> Similar how Kevin Kenny organised the Long Path (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/919642), they are split up by
> geographic region. In the case of the Long Path, it's by county.
>
> Peter, would you find this acceptable? Do you want to try reach some
> consensus on the splitting? Do you want to go even further and try to align
> the punctuation? (we use comma, dash, brackets etc...). I think it should
> be at least possible to find a consensus between Belgium and The
> Netherlands on that.
>
>
> Second example:
> Superrelation Monte Rosa Tour (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10353523) is split up in stages.
> As far as I can tell, this relation is split up in daily stages, each time
> starting and ending at a mountain hut.
>
> Monte Rosa tour stage 1 (958608)
> Monte Rosa tour stage 2 (9214075)
> Monte Rosa tour stage 3 (9234148)
> Monte Rosa tour stage 4 (9234975)
> Monte Rosa tour stage 5 (9235092)
> Monte Rosa tour stage 6 (9237283)
> Monte Rosa tour stage 7 (9242908)
> Monte Rosa tour stage 8 (9243123)
> Monte Rosa tour stage 9 (9243530)
> Monte Rosa tour stage 10 (9231294)
>
> Is it possible that this information is actually copyright protected, if
> it's copied from a guidebook? Nevertheless, it's useful information. Peter,
> would you want to move this "stage x" information in a separate tag?
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 23 May 2020 20:37:39 +0200, Peter Elderson 
> wrote:
>
> > For now, I just want an alternative for the section/segment/leg numbers
> or
> > refs that are often in the name tag now.
> > They are there to get neat ordered lists in tools and applications. That
> > seems to work fine, but it abuses the name tag, which I am told is a
> > problem for searching routines. A name tag should contain a proper name
> as
> > found on the street, and nothing else, that's the short version of some
> > very long rants I have encountered...
> >
> > At the moment, I move comments, descriptions, distance and trail refs to
> > the appropriate tags.
> > From-via-to information I copy to the from, via and to tags.
> > I just need a nice and intuitive tag to copy the ordering information to.
> >
> > Vr gr Peter Elderson
> >
> >
> > Op za 23 mei 2020 om 19:59 schreef Jo :
> >
> > > oh, I'm mapping public transport too much. I actually did mean to write
> > > superroute.
> > >
> > > Jo
> > >
> > > On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 7:44 PM Yves  wrote:
> > >
> > >> While the original question was about a good tag to record the section
> > >> number, whick look like a reference, I would be tempted to answer Jo
> that
> > >> to know which country you're in, you should look at Your OSM Database!
> > >> Joke aside, such a cross border route makes a good candidate for a
> super
> > >> route.
> > >> Yves
> > >>
> > >> Le 23 mai 2020 18:49:31 GMT+02:00, Jo  a écrit :
> > >>>
> > >>> So in the case of a route that passes through The Netherlands,
> Belgium
> > >>> and France, the part in The Netherlands and Flanders will have the
> same
> > >>> name (in Dutch)? And the parts in Wallonia and France will have the
> same
> > >>> name as well, but in French instead? No indication which
> country/region
> > >>> they are passing through?
> > >>>
> > >>> Jo
> > >>>
> > >>> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 6:42 PM Peter Elderson 
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> >  Hold on to your hat In the name tag I will store...The Name Of
> The
> >  Route!
> > 
> >  Op za 23 mei 2020 om 18:18 schreef Jo :
> > 
> > > In the end, what will be left in the name tag exactly?
> > >
> > > Polyglot
> > >
> > > On Sat, May 23, 

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Andrew Harvey]

On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 16:29, Daniel Westergren  wrote:

> Great discussion! I think we're discussing two different things here. One
> is about differentiating *trail* (not necessarily hiking trail) from
> other kinds of highway=path and the other is about *difficulty of a
> (hiking) trail* in terms of how technical and demanding it is (and thus
> who can use it and how it will affect walking/hiking/running pace).
>
> I'd like to elaborate on the suggestion *path=trail*, which I think is
> super!!
>
> According to the Cambridge dictionary, a trail is "*a path through a
> countryside, mountain, or forest area, often made or used for a particular
> purpose:*
> *- a forest/mountain trail*
> *- a walking/snowshoeing/cross-country skiing trail*"
>
> Other dictionaries use "*beaten path*", "*a track made by passage
> especially through a wilderness*" or similar.
>
> To me, the main difference is between a *beaten path vs a path that has
> been purposely groomed*.
>
> Could path=trail be used for this distinction? Unlike path=mtb, it would
> not be for trails created for a specific purpose, but any beaten path,
> usually in a forest or mountaineous region.
>

There are a few hiking tracks around mapped as highway=footway, at first I
was "that's wrong", but reading the wiki I couldn't find any fault since
they are designated walking paths.

What are you ultimately trying to distinguish from highway=path?

A very high percentage of the trails near me are all "groomed", they do
this to prevent erosion and track degradation, so while that could be an
indicator for how built up a track is it's not at all an indicator of a
hiking trail.

"Tracktype is a measure of how well-maintained a track or other minor road
is," https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype is basically how
"groomed" a track/road is, are you looking for something similar for paths?


>  Regarding *trail difficulty*, I agree that sac_scale is more for
> different levels of alpinism (and not really relevant for non-mountain
> trails) and that other measures are needed to separate everything that on
> the SAC scale would simply be hiking.
>

> One challenge here is about verifiability. Another is about basing such a
> tag on a scale that is only used in a small part of the world. For people
> in the Alps it may be easy to use the SAC scale, because they walk on
> trails where it's used IRL. Similar with the other suggested scales (what's
> "bush" for someone outside of Australia?).
>

"bush" in Australia is what you'd probably call "woods" or "forest", so
bushwalking (AU) = hiking = tarmping (NZ) = backpacking, etc.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Section numbers in hiking routes

[s8evq]

First example: 

Superrelation GR5 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4580796) consists of 
the following 8 relation members:

GR 5 Netherlands (9176775)
GR 5 Belgium, Flanders (3121667)
GR 5 Belgium, Wallonia (3121668)
GR 5 Luxembourg (2790499)
GR 5 Lorraine (2029679)
GR 5 Vosges (1956165)
GR 5 Jura (6095322)
GR 5 Alpes Côte d'Azur (2704286)

Similar how Kevin Kenny organised the Long Path 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/919642), they are split up by 
geographic region. In the case of the Long Path, it's by county.

Peter, would you find this acceptable? Do you want to try reach some consensus 
on the splitting? Do you want to go even further and try to align the 
punctuation? (we use comma, dash, brackets etc...). I think it should be at 
least possible to find a consensus between Belgium and The Netherlands on that.


Second example:
Superrelation Monte Rosa Tour (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10353523) 
is split up in stages. As far as I can tell, this relation is split up in daily 
stages, each time starting and ending at a mountain hut. 

Monte Rosa tour stage 1 (958608)
Monte Rosa tour stage 2 (9214075)
Monte Rosa tour stage 3 (9234148)
Monte Rosa tour stage 4 (9234975)
Monte Rosa tour stage 5 (9235092)
Monte Rosa tour stage 6 (9237283)
Monte Rosa tour stage 7 (9242908)
Monte Rosa tour stage 8 (9243123)
Monte Rosa tour stage 9 (9243530)
Monte Rosa tour stage 10 (9231294)

Is it possible that this information is actually copyright protected, if it's 
copied from a guidebook? Nevertheless, it's useful information. Peter, would 
you want to move this "stage x" information in a separate tag?




On Sat, 23 May 2020 20:37:39 +0200, Peter Elderson  wrote:

> For now, I just want an alternative for the section/segment/leg numbers or
> refs that are often in the name tag now.
> They are there to get neat ordered lists in tools and applications. That
> seems to work fine, but it abuses the name tag, which I am told is a
> problem for searching routines. A name tag should contain a proper name as
> found on the street, and nothing else, that's the short version of some
> very long rants I have encountered...
> 
> At the moment, I move comments, descriptions, distance and trail refs to
> the appropriate tags.
> From-via-to information I copy to the from, via and to tags.
> I just need a nice and intuitive tag to copy the ordering information to.
> 
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
> 
> 
> Op za 23 mei 2020 om 19:59 schreef Jo :
> 
> > oh, I'm mapping public transport too much. I actually did mean to write
> > superroute.
> >
> > Jo
> >
> > On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 7:44 PM Yves  wrote:
> >
> >> While the original question was about a good tag to record the section
> >> number, whick look like a reference, I would be tempted to answer Jo that
> >> to know which country you're in, you should look at Your OSM Database!
> >> Joke aside, such a cross border route makes a good candidate for a super
> >> route.
> >> Yves
> >>
> >> Le 23 mai 2020 18:49:31 GMT+02:00, Jo  a écrit :
> >>>
> >>> So in the case of a route that passes through The Netherlands, Belgium
> >>> and France, the part in The Netherlands and Flanders will have the same
> >>> name (in Dutch)? And the parts in Wallonia and France will have the same
> >>> name as well, but in French instead? No indication which country/region
> >>> they are passing through?
> >>>
> >>> Jo
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 6:42 PM Peter Elderson 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Hold on to your hat In the name tag I will store...The Name Of The
>  Route!
> 
>  Op za 23 mei 2020 om 18:18 schreef Jo :
> 
> > In the end, what will be left in the name tag exactly?
> >
> > Polyglot
> >
> > On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 5:53 PM Peter Elderson 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I am trying to improve on the name-tag mess in the many hiking/foot
> >> routes in Nederland. All kinds of information is packed in those 
> >> names. I
> >> am not doing any cleaning (yet) until all this information can be 
> >> stored in
> >> proper tags and is handled or scheduled by significant renderers/data
> >> users/tools. There must be reasons for this (ab)use, because it is 
> >> done all
> >> over the globe.
> >>
> >> It's very common to store - and sometimes  in the name
> >> tag. That's an easy one: we have from=*, via=*, to=*.
> >>
> >> Sometimes a complete description, a comment or a note (.e.g. about a
> >> temporary detour) is added to the name. Easy: we have description=, 
> >> note=*,
> >> comment=*.
> >>
> >> A ref in the name: store in ref=*.
> >>
> >> Another item is *section number*. This is often used when the route
> >> is split in sections, often according to the sectioning given by the
> >> operator/website. So firstly it's a sort of reference, secondly its an
> >> ordering and sorting mechanism.
> >> Sometimes sections have their own name. I 

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Sarah Hoffmann]

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 09:58:50PM -0400, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 9:52 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
>  wrote:
> > We have a similar system here
> >
> > The Australian Walking Track Grading System
> >
> > Grade 1 is suitable for the disabled with assistance
> > Grade 2 is suitable for families with young children
> > Grade 3 is recommended for people with some bushwalking experience
> > Grade 4 is recommended for experienced bushwalkers, and
> > Grade 5 is recommended for very experienced bushwalkers
> 
> And all five of those grades are sac_scale=hiking, which is why I say
> that's an impossible scale to use for the purpose we're considering.

That's not correct. If you have a look at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale
you'll notice that only from sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking the
scale starts to have the requirement "basic alpine expericence" and
"good hiking shoes".

So: Only Grade 1 and 2 are clear sac_scale=hiking. Grade 4 would map
to sac_scale=mountain_hiking and Grade 5 to sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking.
Grade 3 is a bit inbetween but I'd probably put it under
sac_scale=mountain_hiking to be on the safe side.

The SAC scale grades 1-3 are quite helpful. It's just the blue scales 4-6
which are not really applicable in OSM because very few routes of that
scale would fall under the highway=path classification (even under the
catch-all definition of OSM).

Sarah

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

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[John Willis via Tagging]

The sac=scale is a attribute of trails. 

Yet we do not explicitly state “this is a trail” 

We should have a path=trail subtag. 

The presence or absence of a sac_scale Tag shouldn’t mean it is a trail. 

Imagine we had no highway=track. That we dumped all tracks into 
highway=service. That is what we are doing now with trails. 

Would you want to depend on the tracktype=* tag for denoting that it is, in 
fact, a track? At least track type has “track” in the key name.
If someone didn’t set it, it would map like the parking lots and alleyways in 
cities. Madness. 

Sac_scale is an arcane attribute for hiking nerds - it is great to have, but 
shouldn’t be the tag that differentiates a hiking trail from a sidewalk in OSM. 
That should have been a separate tag from day one, but we are now stuck with 
the monstrosity that is path=.

At least subkey it. 


Javbw

> On May 24, 2020, at 10:03 AM, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 07:42, John Willis via Tagging 
>>  wrote:
>> =path is such a horrible catch-all tag and one that is extremely entrenched 
>> - I am surprised no one has implemented a path=trail subtag, similar to 
>> sidewalk, so we can separate all the hiking trails and other “hiking” paths, 
>> and then apply different hiking limitations you wouldn’t expect to find on a 
>> sidewalk or playground way. 
> 
> Right now you can use 
> sac_scale=hiking,mountain_hiking,demanding_mountain_hiking to indicate if a 
> path is a hiking trail. Though you can't really currently say something is 
> not a hiking trail. 
> 
>> On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 10:01, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
>> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 5:42 PM John Willis via Tagging
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > =path is such a horrible catch-all tag and one that is extremely 
>> > entrenched - I am surprised no one has implemented a path=trail subtag, 
>> > similar to sidewalk, so we can separate all the hiking trails and other 
>> > “hiking” paths, and then apply different hiking limitations you wouldn’t 
>> > expect to find on a sidewalk or playground way.
>> >
>> > Mixing trails and sidewalks in the path key is as horrible as mixing up 
>> > runways and train tracks in a “highway=not_car” way.
>> 
>> Yeah. But it's so entrenched that trolltags are probably the only way
>> out of the mess. And sac_scale is _surely_ not the right trolltag! The
>> problem with sac_scale is that it's an impossible scale. I'm told that
>> https://youtu.be/VKsD1qBpVYc?t=533 is still only a 2 out of 6 on that
>> scale, and that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y5_lbQZJwQ is still
>> only a 3. Note that one misstep on either of those trails can easily
>> mean death.
> 
>  https://youtu.be/VKsD1qBpVYc?t=533 I would tag as 
> sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking, my rule of thumb is anything where the 
> average person would need to use their hands to get over an obstacle is 
> demanding_mountain_hiking. This is what the wiki says too "exposed sites may 
> be secured with ropes or chains, possible need to use hands for balance".
> 
> Anything that doesn't need hands, but has a fall hazard/is exposed would be 
> sac_scale=mountain_hiking (assuming it's not alpine).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Adding values healthcare=dispensary and healthcare=community_care?

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 02:39, Claire Halleux 
wrote:

>
> Agreed. Although, I'm not even sure if we should still need
> amenity=healthcare or just go without it at some point.
>

There is a reason why it is still needed.

>
> Next: let's get them rendered on the map too.
>

And that's the reason amenity=healthcare is still needed.

Ideally, OSM would put all its excrement in one sock, but we never seem to
achieve that goal.

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

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Daniel Westergren]

Well said John. When we now have highway=path, we need a subtag.

Question is, on what criteria would we differentiate a trail from another
"path"? Groomed vs beaten may not be specific enough. But by using some
combination of dictionary definitions of trail, in the sense of path, could
we come up with some verifiable criteria for when such a subtag should be
used? What I'm looking for is to differentiate forest and mountain paths
from urban paths or groomed, smooth paths. When people have been clearing
forest to make a path more visible and passable, that's still a beaten path
to me.

And yes, path=trail would probably need to be used for trails tagged as
footway too, although I personally see footway as an urban path and always
use path for a trail.

Whatever subtag , we're still stuck with all those cases when highway=path
is not combined with any other tag (whether it should be path=trail or
anything else). How would we treat those? Obviously we can't take it for
granted that those cases should have path=trail.


   1. Can we agree on whether or not we need a subtag like path=trail?
   Since it's probably too late for highway=trail, which by all means would
   have been the best option.
   2. If we introduce path=trail, what would be the criteria for when it
   should be used?
   3. What about all the cases of highway=path that don't have and will not
   have path=trail? Old or new. Some probably should (like when
   surface=ground), others should never have path=trail. It will still make it
   difficult to render those cases and for data consumers to choose a fallback
   value for those cases.
   4. What about edge cases? It may have been a beaten path that has been
   groomed with better surface material to make it more accessible for
   example. Would it still be considered for path=trail?


/Daniel

Den sön 24 maj 2020 kl 16:05 skrev John Willis via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> The sac=scale is a attribute of trails.
>
> Yet we do not explicitly state “this is a trail”
>
> We should have a path=trail subtag.
>
> The presence or absence of a sac_scale Tag shouldn’t mean it is a trail.
>
> Imagine we had no highway=track. That we dumped all tracks into
> highway=service. That is what we are doing now with trails.
>
> Would you want to depend on the tracktype=* tag for denoting that it is,
> in fact, a track? At least track type has “track” in the key name.
> If someone didn’t set it, it would map like the parking lots and alleyways
> in cities. Madness.
>
> Sac_scale is an arcane attribute for hiking nerds - it is great to have,
> but shouldn’t be the tag that differentiates a hiking trail from a sidewalk
> in OSM. That should have been a separate tag from day one, but we are now
> stuck with the monstrosity that is path=.
>
> At least subkey it.
>
>
> Javbw
>
> On May 24, 2020, at 10:03 AM, Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
> 
>
>
> On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 07:42, John Willis via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> =path is such a horrible catch-all tag and one that is extremely
>> entrenched - I am surprised no one has implemented a path=trail subtag,
>> similar to sidewalk, so we can separate all the hiking trails and other
>> “hiking” paths, and then apply different hiking limitations you wouldn’t
>> expect to find on a sidewalk or playground way.
>>
>
> Right now you can use
> sac_scale=hiking,mountain_hiking,demanding_mountain_hiking to indicate if a
> path is a hiking trail. Though you can't really currently say something is
> not a hiking trail.
>
> On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 10:01, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
>
>> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 5:42 PM John Willis via Tagging
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > =path is such a horrible catch-all tag and one that is extremely
>> entrenched - I am surprised no one has implemented a path=trail subtag,
>> similar to sidewalk, so we can separate all the hiking trails and other
>> “hiking” paths, and then apply different hiking limitations you wouldn’t
>> expect to find on a sidewalk or playground way.
>> >
>> > Mixing trails and sidewalks in the path key is as horrible as mixing up
>> runways and train tracks in a “highway=not_car” way.
>>
>> Yeah. But it's so entrenched that trolltags are probably the only way
>> out of the mess. And sac_scale is _surely_ not the right trolltag! The
>> problem with sac_scale is that it's an impossible scale. I'm told that
>> https://youtu.be/VKsD1qBpVYc?t=533 is still only a 2 out of 6 on that
>> scale, and that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y5_lbQZJwQ is still
>> only a 3. Note that one misstep on either of those trails can easily
>> mean death.
>>
>
>  https://youtu.be/VKsD1qBpVYc?t=533 I would tag
> as sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking, my rule of thumb is anything where
> the average person would need to use their hands to get over an obstacle
> is demanding_mountain_hiking. This is what the wiki says too "exposed sites
> may be secured with ropes or chains, possible need to use hands for
> balance".
>
> Anything that 

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Daniel Westergren]

Great discussion! I think we're discussing two different things here. One
is about differentiating *trail* (not necessarily hiking trail) from other
kinds of highway=path and the other is about *difficulty of a (hiking)
trail* in terms of how technical and demanding it is (and thus who can use
it and how it will affect walking/hiking/running pace).

I'd like to elaborate on the suggestion *path=trail*, which I think is
super!!

According to the Cambridge dictionary, a trail is "*a path through a
countryside, mountain, or forest area, often made or used for a particular
purpose:*
*- a forest/mountain trail*
*- a walking/snowshoeing/cross-country skiing trail*"

Other dictionaries use "*beaten path*", "*a track made by passage
especially through a wilderness*" or similar.

To me, the main difference is between a *beaten path vs a path that has
been purposely groomed*.

Could path=trail be used for this distinction? Unlike path=mtb, it would
not be for trails created for a specific purpose, but any beaten path,
usually in a forest or mountaineous region.


Regarding *trail difficulty*, I agree that sac_scale is more for different
levels of alpinism (and not really relevant for non-mountain trails) and
that other measures are needed to separate everything that on the SAC scale
would simply be hiking.

One challenge here is about verifiability. Another is about basing such a
tag on a scale that is only used in a small part of the world. For people
in the Alps it may be easy to use the SAC scale, because they walk on
trails where it's used IRL. Similar with the other suggested scales (what's
"bush" for someone outside of Australia?).

I started the other tread about trail technicality for this particular
reason. But maybe we can separate the discussions and keep this one about
how to differentiate trail from other highway=path?

/Daniel

Den sön 24 maj 2020 04:00Kevin Kenny  skrev:

> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 9:52 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
>  wrote:
> > We have a similar system here
> >
> > The Australian Walking Track Grading System
> >
> > Grade 1 is suitable for the disabled with assistance
> > Grade 2 is suitable for families with young children
> > Grade 3 is recommended for people with some bushwalking experience
> > Grade 4 is recommended for experienced bushwalkers, and
> > Grade 5 is recommended for very experienced bushwalkers
>
> And all five of those grades are sac_scale=hiking, which is why I say
> that's an impossible scale to use for the purpose we're considering.
>
> --
> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
>
> ___
> 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] oneway=yes on motorways

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 5/24/20 15:26, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> I just noticed an apparent contradiction regarding the use of the oneway
> tag between the wiki pages key:oneway
>  and motorway
>  .
> The former states:
> "Some tags (such as junction
> =roundabout
> , highway
> =motorway
>  and others)
> imply oneway=yes and therefore the oneway tag is optional,
> the latter states:
> "These ways should all point direction of travel and be tagged with
> oneway =yes"
> 
> 
> What is the agreed standard, if any?

It can't hurt to specify oneway=yes. I have noticed that the JOSM style
that shows lane counts and lane use will sometimes not show ways
properly if oneway=yes isn't there, but that's probably a bug in the
style more than an indictment of implying oneway=yes.

-- 
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] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

This was originally sent to the Talk mailing list, but it is better if it
is discussed on the Tagging mailing list:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

I agree that razed, completely demolished railways, where all traces of the
former track-bed have been removed, should be removed from OpenStreetMap.

It is still considered acceptable to map abandoned railways, where the old
railway grade remains, even though the metal rails have been removed.

However, note that there are some people who are very committed to mapping
historical and abandoned railways, so there may be resistance to removing
these features.

See the long discussions about rendering railway=abandoned at
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542 and
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/586 for example.

Also see the previous discussion at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Railways#Abandoned_railways_where_all_evidence_has_been_removed

– Joseph Eisenberg

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 9:40 PM Jack Armstrong 
wrote:

> Greetings.
>
>
> Recently, a user mapped “razed” railways inside a construction zone (link
> below). These rails had been removed by our local mappers since they don’t
> exist anymore. Using the latest imagery (Maxar), you can see the rails have
> been completely removed from “Project 70”, a $1.2 billion Denver-area
> transportation corridor construction project.
>
>
> I think this mapper has good intentions, but what is the point of mapping
> something that does not exist? Doesn’t this clearly contradict the OSM Good
> Practice wiki in regards the sections, “Verifiability”, “Map what's on the
> ground” and “Don't map historic events and historic features”? The last
> section states, "*Do not map objects if they do not exist currently*."
>
>
> Should we tag (invisible) razed sidewalks? Should we leave (invisible)
> destroyed buildings in place, tag them as razed and then create new
> buildings on top of them?
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/39.78016/-104.94562
>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> t...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Change of wiki page Key:access

[Warin]

On 25/5/20 8:28 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:




May 24, 2020, 23:42 by vosc...@gmail.com:

The strict wording introduced by Florian is simply not practically
applicable here.
My questions are:
Is Italy the only country with this problem?

Poland used to be similar, though police sometimes setup trap where 
they were fining people -
in sudden campaigns with several traps appearing for several hours 
every few months.


Favorite traps included cycleways crossing roads, where cyclists were 
obligated by law to dismount

due to missing cyclist crossings.
Some routes had such crossing every 200 - 250m, nobody was following 
that law.
bicycle=dismount I have used, despite common practice not to dismount. 
Similar to maxspeed, sign posted and legal yet many go faster.


I was tagging legal status, and had some discussions with other mappers
whatever it is desirable to do it this way.

Currently most of missing cyclist crossings are added[1], signs (for 
example in forests)
more commonly explicitly allow bicycles, oneway:bicycle=no is becoming 
more common

at least in some cities...

[1] It turned out that blocker was completely idiotic law requiring 
pedestrian + cyclist crossings
to be at least 7 m wide, for smaller ones including cyclist crossing 
was against rules.


Is there any better proposal for tagging the situation "from all I
can see on the ground, you are allowed ride through with your bicycle"

Not sure what I would do in cases where access law as written and 
access law as executed

would completely diverge.

Setup new tags specially to allow to tag both verifiable legal status 
and verifiable

de facto status?

bicycle=no
bicycle:de_facto=permissive

(even bicycle=permissive, bicycle:ignored_law=no would be an 
improvement over

current state of not tagging legal status)

It is out of OSM scope but I also had some successes with requests to 
add missing
"except bicycles" under various traffic signs (on average in last 
years - about one added every month),
in some cases it was simpler than inventing fitting tagging scheme for 
really absurd cases.



"Rules are for the guidance of the wise, and the obedience of fools."

The law cannot recognize the wise so all are deemed fools.

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

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[John Willis via Tagging]

> "Path (is) a trail for the use of, or worn by, pedestrians". 
> So path=trail does not work semantically anyway.

Path: tied to man-made landuses& amenities in general. 

Trail: tied to natural landuses, in general. 



A path is tied to urban/suburban/rural landuses: an urban route for 
pedestrians, or part of regular man-made infrastructure: a sidewalk, a walkway, 
or other man-made route between urban and suburban features  A sidewalk, a path 
in a park, or other another route that is supplementary to the road 
infrastructure/man-made amenity. 

A trail is tied to a natural landuse: a rural or wilderness route through 
terrain that is not supplementary of the existing road network. It is a route 
that is meant for pedestrians to cross wilderness or geologic features on 
trails that may have walking hazards or other impediments to walking (grade, 
surface, Maintenance, smoothness). What those are or their severity can be left 
to other tags. Why they cross those features may be out of necessity - the only 
way to reach a remote shrine or hilltop; recreation - a walking route around a 
mountain or swamp to see nature; or transportation, connecting remote outposts. 
They may be remote and barely maintained or immensely busy, but the 
surface+Area it traverses denotes weather it is a path or a trail, extremely 
similar to “track or esidential/service” 

A person may have a gravel driveway, but because it is a urban/suburban/rural 
driveway, we tag it as highway surface. 

A gravel track up the side of a mountain may be easy enough to drive a minivan 
on, but it is a fire break road and tagged as highway=track and 
tracktype=grade2.

The road itself may be identical. The usage and location set the purpose. 

Under track is the bottom catch-all for 2wheeled vehicles - rutted fire roads 
passable only by tracked vehicles. 

Trail has rocky, steep, difficult - almost impassable - routes used by 
mountaineers. 

Yet both track and trail contain a vast amount of easily passable ways - it’s 
just they are farming tracks or routes through a nature preserve. 

Treating trail as we do track is easy and essential for path-trail separation. 

Occasionally, trails exist in an urban environment which are informal or 
purposefully designed to be trails, and if their surface and usage fits, then 
tag it at a trail. 


> Creating a new path=trail tag will not do any good, as it will be practically 
> impossible to re-tag all the existing "highwa=path"
> 
It is possible for all major hiking routes to be properly tagged in a year 
globally. 

The point is to staunch the bleeding! People are mapping new trails everyday - 
lets stop mismapping them ASAP! 

People who love trails and use OSM for trails will chew on it. 

I work on mapping cycleways in my area where few mappers do - it is possible 
for a single mapper to make a big difference. Trail mappers can handle existing 
trails in a large city pretty easily. A place like Yosemite or John Muir 
wilderness would take a while, but Mt Fuji or another “single mountain” (Cowles 
Mtn in San Diego, Golden Gate Park, point Rayes) can be done in an an hour or 
two in a single sitting by one mapper.

Mapping “where the sidewalk ends” and the trails begin is vital to keep people 
from being routes where grandma could have a heart attack Climbing a difficult 
route or break her leg crossing a stream because we routed her on a trail down 
a ravine rather than on the longer, yet safer sidewalks down along the roads or 
paths through a local park because there is no way to say “THIS IS A TRAIL, not 
a walkway through a playground” in OSM. 

JAVBW. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

[Warin]

Local to me the 'Great North Walk' is signposted in many different ways.

e.g.
Post with directional arrows 
http://thegreatnorthwalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ww_photo_Looking-into-Mulbinga-Street.jpg
Some of these posts have no name plate so those may not be recognized by 
those unfamiliar.


Signboard 
http://thegreatnorthwalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ww_photo_GNW-sign-on-the-Lyrebird-Trail.jpg


Register 
http://thegreatnorthwalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ww_photo_GNW-walkers-register.jpg


There are signboards indicating ways to the Great North Walk .. 
unfortunately labeled 'Great North Walk' leaving off the 'To the' so 
leading to miss-tagging of these paths/tracks - they are 'approach' 
paths/tracks/roads.



On 21/5/20 11:34 pm, Volker Schmidt wrote:
This wikipedia "Trail blazing" 
 article (which takes 
trailblazed and wayarked as meaning the same thing), has a nice 
picture collection of way markings.


On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 15:22, Andy Townsend > wrote:


On 21/05/2020 13:48, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:




May 21, 2020, 14:17 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com
:

It's still tricky. Around here, few trails are actually
signposted;
some don't have a sign anywhere! They're marked with paint
blazes in
the woods, guideposts in the fields, and cairns above the
tree line.

Not a native speaker, but I thought that paint blazes,
guideposts, cairns, signs, surface markings, special traffic signs,
information boards, markings by cutting on trees, ribbons,
wooden poles etc all may be used to signpost a trail.


My 2p from England:

I suspect it'd vary around the world but I'd certainly say "that
trail is signposted" if all there was was a characteristic paint
blaze that "everyone recognises" as matching a particular trail.

Best Regards,

Andy



_



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

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-ml] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

[Warin]

On 4/5/20 1:12 am, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:


So, this discussion gravitates towards using landuse=common for those 
African urban freely accessible multipurpose open spaces, which I 
fully support.


Implementing this change requires the following actions:

- Editing the leisure=common wiki page, in French and in English (I'll 
do that)




You will need to be very clear what a 'common' is and how it is 
different from other tags such as amenity=marketplace, leisure=park.



To me? Something like...

A 'common' is an area available for use by the local community. Examples 
include a weekly market (daily markets should be tag 
amenity=marketplace), community meetings/celebrations. A 'leisure=park' 
is more appropriate for areas set aside for individual or small group 
rest and recreation.


- Reinstating the rendering of leisure=common in downstream 
cartographic styles, would be even better if the color matched the 
surface=* so that sandy surfaces don't appear green.


- Reinstating the rendering of leisure=common in JOSM's default style 
(it recently changed to grey to mark deprecation). (I'll open a JOSM 
ticket


- Altering QA rules (JOSM Validator and Osmose) so that the 
leisure=common deprecation only applies to the United Kingdom of Great 
Britain, where commons have a legal definition and designation=common 
must be used for them. (I'll open a JOSM ticket but if someone has 
prior experience interacting with the Osmose people, that would be nice)



On 5/3/20 4:19 PM, severin.menard via Tagging wrote:
Je suis d'accord avec Pierre : le tag landuse=common convient bien à 
ces espaces ouverts dans les villages et villes africaines et un parc 
n'a pas grand-chose à voir avec.


I agree with Pierre: the tag landuse=common is well suited to these 
open spaces in African villages and towns and a park has little to do 
with it.



‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
Le mercredi 29 avril 2020 21:59, Pierre Béland via Talk-ml 
 a écrit :


Like others, I did map many of these. I can tell you that we often 
see a common space in center of african villages, often near the 
school,  and  it is surely not green and have no facilities like in 
the Nordic countries parks.


People have to understand that there are often no infrastructures in 
African villages. But young people still gather and play.


I dont think that the OSM tagging schema should reflect the legal 
status in specific countries like UK. Various tags can reflect 
various realities.  And leisure=common seems to be quite well 
adapted to Africa and dont exist to stretch the legal defininition 
of UK.


When the tag is used in UK, I would understand that the UK 
contributors want to follow a certain rule particular to their country.


But I dont agree to deprecate the the leisure=common tag for Africa.



Le mercredi 29 avril 2020 15 h 34 min 57 s UTC−4, Jean-Marc Liotier 
 a écrit :



Here is a 360° picture of a square in Dakar:
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/jYNQFMwHiNEZRCnpi71heA - larger than a
street (it occupies a whole city block), used as a multipurpose common
area (pickup soccer games are a staple but parking or lounging around
also occur, and the occasional popular event) and usually surfaced with
sand or whatever the ground is.

We have long tagged it leisure=common (389 ways in Senegal and 486 in
Mali according to http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/TqN) - which is a bit of
stretch from the British legal definition, but worked well enough and
did not conflict with its British usage. But leisure=common is now
deprecated

So, what should we use instead ?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dcommon suggests using
leisure=park - which isn't too much of a stretch functionally but 
evokes

greenery that does not occur here (though British commons are just as
green and we were happy with leisure=common)... Any other ideas ? Or 
I'm

going to use leisure=park+surface=sand !






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

Re: [Tagging] Change of wiki page Key:access

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

May 24, 2020, 23:42 by vosc...@gmail.com:

> The strict wording introduced by Florian is simply not practically applicable 
> here. 
> My questions are: 
> Is Italy the only country with this problem? 
>
Poland used to be similar, though police sometimes setup trap where they were 
fining people -
in sudden campaigns with several traps appearing for several hours every few 
months.

Favorite traps included cycleways crossing roads, where cyclists were obligated 
by law to dismount
due to missing cyclist crossings.
Some routes had such crossing every 200 - 250m, nobody was following that law.

I was tagging legal status, and had some discussions with other mappers
whatever it is desirable to do it this way.

Currently most of missing cyclist crossings are added[1], signs (for example in 
forests)
more commonly explicitly allow bicycles, oneway:bicycle=no is becoming more 
common 
at least in some cities...

[1] It turned out that blocker was completely idiotic law requiring pedestrian 
+ cyclist crossings 
to be at least 7 m wide, for smaller ones including cyclist crossing was 
against rules.

> Is there any better proposal for tagging the situation "from all I can see on 
> the ground, you are allowed ride through with your bicycle"
>
Not sure what I would do in cases where access law as written and access law as 
executed
would completely diverge.

Setup new tags specially to allow to tag both verifiable legal status and 
verifiable 
de facto status?

bicycle=no
bicycle:de_facto=permissive

(even bicycle=permissive, bicycle:ignored_law=no would be an improvement over
current state of not tagging legal status)

It is out of OSM scope but I also had some successes with requests to add 
missing
"except bicycles" under various traffic signs (on average in last years - about 
one added every month),
in some cases it was simpler than inventing fitting tagging scheme for really 
absurd cases.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Andrew Harvey]

On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 11:54, Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 8:01 PM John Willis via Tagging
>  wrote:
> > Mapping “where the sidewalk ends” and the trails begin is vital to keep
> people from being routes where grandma could have a heart attack Climbing a
> difficult route or break her leg crossing a stream because we routed her on
> a trail down a ravine rather than on the longer, yet safer sidewalks down
> along the roads or paths through a local park because there is no way to
> say “THIS IS A TRAIL, not a walkway through a playground” in OSM.
>
> We do have that: `sac_scale=hiking`; as I understand it, few trails go
> beyond 'hiking', so that's at least better than nothing. (It still may
> suffer from underestimating the trail, leading city folk to the
> sketchy rock scrambles when they're expecting a nice level dirt path,
> so try to get the scale at least reasonable.)
>
> What we don't have - at all - is the complement: 'THIS IS INDEED A
> PATH'.  When we see 'highway=path', we don't know whether it's indeed
> a path, or a hiking trail where the mapper didn't assign an
> `sac_scale`.  We need a way to assert 'THIS IS A PATH' that doesn't
> depend on the absence of a trolltag.
>
> I can't stress enough that as long as we have the ambiguity, the only
> way to 'fail soft' is to support the assertion 'this is relatively
> safe', because we can deduce nothing from the absence of a 'this is
> dangerous' assertion.
>
> Incomplete information should 'fail soft'.
>
> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 8:32 PM Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
> > Agreed, the biggest question is how do you define that criteria for what
> is going to be tagged a a hiking trail and not a hiking trail.
> >
> > Eg. if you have a smooth paved track through the rainforest that the
> authorities created for grandparents and strollers, is that a hiking trail
> just because it's in a forest area? What about a stroll through the hills
> of grasslands that have no forest or mountains, is that marked as a hiking
> trail?
>
> No, just being in a forest doesn't make something a trail.  I think
> that it's pretty safe to assume that 'surface=compacted
> smoothness=intermediate wheelchair=yes` with a connection to a highway
> or parking area not strictly a hiking trail, and there are some trails
> near me- even in Wild Forest areas- that are constructed in such a way
> to offer wildland access to persons with disabilities. I'd be happy
> considering those trails on an equal footing with urban paths.
>
> A hiking trail can be an easy trail through the lowlands. (Those are
> rare near me, because the lowlands are mostly either settled and
> subdivided, or else sucking swamp, so the mountains are what is left
> for hiking trails to go.) I already mentioned that sac_scale discounts
> hazards other than mountains (and focused on water, but Graeme can
> surely fill in a number of deadlies that are specific to his
> continent).
>
> A lot of it comes down to, "would you route mobility-impaired people
> or folks with small children in tow down this?"  A wrong decision for
> some ambiguous corner case will be mostly harmless. Not having the
> information for a dangerous trail might be deadly.
>

Yeah right now you can use sac_scale=hiking, but I agree we are lacking a
tag to say this is not considered hiking.


>
> > I think it's too hard to have a reliable criteria for this which can be
> objectively surveyed, it's much easier to tag each attribute individually
> on their own independent scale.
>
> The _reductio ad absurdum_: by the same token, because there is
> controversy in many locales over which highways should be
> `highway=trunk` and which should be `highway=primary`, or which should
> be `highway=service` and which should be `highway=track`, all highways
> should be tagged just `highway=road` and the relevant attributes
> (surface, smoothness, speed limit, number of lanes, ...) should be
> mapped instead. Few if any of us think that would be appropriate. Why
> can cars get a hierarchy of ways, while hikers, equestrians and
> cyclists cannot?
>

If you can come up with a proposal I'd love to see it, of course I want to
see it happen to, but I just can't see what the hierarchy should be. For
roads the hierarchy is based on importance of the road in the road network
(eg is it a major connection between cities or just a road used to access a
drive through car wash). Things like surface, smoothness etc don't affect
the road hierarchy. So how would you decide a hierarchy for hiking trails?
How popular the track is? How well built the track is? How technical is the
track? How physically difficult is the track? How well signposted is the
track? How remote is the track?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

>> On 24. May 2020, at 23:54, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> I am aware of the histroy - I only wanted to bring up the contradiction 
> between the two wiki pages before changing the wiki.


The situation is different for roundabouts and motorways. In both cases in 
absence of the tag oneway it is assumed to be yes for these elements, but you 
should add a oneway tag explicitly for motorways (for roundabouts not).

Looking at taginfo confirms that 99,64% of all motorways have a oneway tag: 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=motorway#combinations

i.e. adding the tag is recommended and also done in reality.

From all junction =roundabout only 18% are combined with the oneway tag 

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

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Andrew Harvey]

On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 00:31, Daniel Westergren  wrote:

> Well said John. When we now have highway=path, we need a subtag.
>
> Question is, on what criteria would we differentiate a trail from another
> "path"? Groomed vs beaten may not be specific enough. But by using some
> combination of dictionary definitions of trail, in the sense of path, could
> we come up with some verifiable criteria for when such a subtag should be
> used? What I'm looking for is to differentiate forest and mountain paths
> from urban paths or groomed, smooth paths. When people have been clearing
> forest to make a path more visible and passable, that's still a beaten path
> to me.
>
> And yes, path=trail would probably need to be used for trails tagged as
> footway too, although I personally see footway as an urban path and always
> use path for a trail.
>
> Whatever subtag , we're still stuck with all those cases when highway=path
> is not combined with any other tag (whether it should be path=trail or
> anything else). How would we treat those? Obviously we can't take it for
> granted that those cases should have path=trail.
>
>
>1. Can we agree on whether or not we need a subtag like path=trail?
>Since it's probably too late for highway=trail, which by all means would
>have been the best option.
>2. If we introduce path=trail, what would be the criteria for when it
>should be used?
>3. What about all the cases of highway=path that don't have and will
>not have path=trail? Old or new. Some probably should (like when
>surface=ground), others should never have path=trail. It will still make it
>difficult to render those cases and for data consumers to choose a fallback
>value for those cases.
>4. What about edge cases? It may have been a beaten path that has been
>groomed with better surface material to make it more accessible for
>example. Would it still be considered for path=trail?
>
>
Agreed, the biggest question is how do you define that criteria for what is
going to be tagged a a hiking trail and not a hiking trail.

Eg. if you have a smooth paved track through the rainforest that the
authorities created for grandparents and strollers, is that a hiking trail
just because it's in a forest area? What about a stroll through the hills
of grasslands that have no forest or mountains, is that marked as a hiking
trail?

I think it's too hard to have a reliable criteria for this which can be
objectively surveyed, it's much easier to tag each attribute individually
on their own independent scale.

Anything should work with both highway=footway and highway=path, since one
at the core of the definition on the wiki highway=footway is for primary
walking (which most designated hiking trails are), and highway=path is for
mixed use or unspecified usage paths (which some hiking trails are).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Change of wiki page Key:access

[Florian Lohoff]

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 11:42:09PM +0200, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> -- Forwarded message -
> The OpenStreetMap Wiki page Key:access has been changed on 24 May 2020
> by Flohoff, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access for the
> current revision.

This follows HUGE changes to that article currently discussed on talk@osm
which introduced a ton of issues.

> To view this change, see
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:access=next=1994688
> -
> In my country (Italy) there are literally thousands of ways where it is
> most likely legal to pass by bicycle, but there is no (practical) way of
> finding out.
> Essentially two classes:
> 
>- plenty of ways that look from the layout like combined foot-cycle
>paths but have  no signage at all
>- plenty of service roads which show the "no transit for any vehicle"
>sign , but in reality you
>can happily pass with your bicycle and no policeman will ever say anything,
>or even know that "no vehicle" legally includes "no bicycle", There are
>plenty of cases where even signposted cycle routes follow such roads.
> 
> I am consistently using bicycle=permissive in these cases, well being aware
> that I do not know of he owner has given permission. Basically any
> cycle-routing would come to a halt without this trick.
> 
> The strict wording introduced by Florian is simply not practically
> applicable here.
> My questions are:
> Is Italy the only country with this problem?
> Is there any better proposal for tagging the situation "from all I can see
> on the ground, you are allowed ride through with your bicycle"

But from the point of expectation. Could a OSM User expect the 
tagging in OSM to be legally perfect? I suggest we as OSM would
not send people through roads we are not shure are legally usable.

And if you are unshure if a cyclist is allowed to go there shouldnt
you avoid sending others there? At least if you are in serious doubt.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Access tag abuse examples

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

moved from talk list as it become more suitable for tagging

May 25, 2020, 00:36 by f...@zz.de:

>
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 11:16:14PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
>
>> > - To use access restrictions as simple and minimal as possible.
>> >
>> Can you find a good example for that? I was unable to find one that
>> would not be ridiculous, so despite of desire of including something
>> like that I skipped it.
>>
>
> Found the code to extract all access restrictions in a pbf file - Just
> for 4 small countys in Germany - thats what mappers produce - Top 50 in
> length. Its redundant, contradicting and most of the time plain wrong.
>
Wrong tagging is not interesting by itself.

I was looking for real-world situation where 

(1) there is some seemingly good overcomplicated tagging
(2) there is a good and simpler replacement
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 05:05, Kevin Kenny  wrote:

>
>
> At the higher levels of difficulty, the page focuses on mountain
> hazards. There's no consideration for slippery or unstable bog
> bridging, stream crossings (rock-hop or ford: and how deep or
> fast-moving is the water?); deep mud or quicksand, likelihood of
> encroaching vegetation, or beaver activity. All of these present
> objective hazards (falls, drowning, hypothermia) that come into
> assessing a trail's level of difficulty and danger.
>
> At the higher grades, there is a lot of assessment of snow and ice
> conditions.  Is there a way to tag seasonally-varying conditions?



> The Australians are similarly confused - even the so-called Australian
> Alps are subalpine.
>

Thanks for your very detailed breakdown, Kevin!

Totally agree that our "mountains" wouldn't even get a second glance in
most areas of the world, & even in them, in winter, there is only a very
limited amount of cross-country skiing or walking happening.

You mentioned that every year, you have people die of exposure.

We have exactly the same problem here but the cause is the exact opposite -
heat!

Every year, we have people die while walking / hiking due to being
unprepared for the conditions, then suffering heat exhaustion & eventually
dieing of thirst :-(

How do we map a trail tag to include

" Users require previous experience in the outdoors and a high level of
specialised skills such as navigation skills. Users will generally require
a map and navigation equipment to complete the track. Users need to be
self-reliant, particularly in regard to emergency first aid and possible
weather hazards."

or

 "Take enough water, food, equipment & first aid supplies

   - At least 2L of water per person
   - Waterproof and windproof clothing to keep you warm
   - Plenty of food and snacks
   - Hat and sunscreen
   - Topographic map and compass (know how to use them) plus download the NSW
   National Parks app .
   - Matches and a torch
   - First aid kit
   - Insect repellent
   - Your mobile phone or a satellite phone. Download the Emergency+
    app before you go.
   - A Personal Locator Beacon (PLB) to use as a last resort"

No, they're not really an OSM problem, but we should have some way of
marking that track / trail as potentially hazardous.

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] [Tagging-fr] [Talk-ml] [Talk-sn] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

[Rafael Avila Coya]

Unless you demonstrate me that I am wrong, the tag leisure=common was 
deprecated without any agreement with the community. So it's clearly not 
a deprecated tag. Another thing is what you actually think about the tag 
itself.


Cheers,

Rafael.

O 23/05/20 ás 20:49, Marc M. escribiu:

Agree on what?
That leisure=common needs a replacement ? Yes.
that replacement must be different from what needs to be replaced ?
it seems logical to me but some people think that replacing a
depreciated tag by itself will solve the problems that led to its
depreciation.


Le 22.05.20 à 15:46, Jean-Marc Liotier a écrit :

So, we are actually all in agreement, aren't we ?

Nous sommes donc tous d'accord, non ?


On 5/3/20 6:00 PM, severin.menard wrote:

Oui désolé, en effet je me suis trompé sur la clé !

Yes sorry, my mistake regarding the right key!



‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
Le dimanche 3 mai 2020 17:54, Pierre Béland via Talk-ml
 a écrit :


Fr

Oups un instant Jean-Marc. Erreur sans doute de la part de Séverin,
je disais bien
  leisure=common

En

Oops a moment Jean-Marc. Probably a mistake on Séverin's part, I did
say...
  leisure=common
*/ /*


Le dimanche 3 mai 2020 11 h 13 min 40 s UTC−4, Jean-Marc Liotier
 a écrit :


So, this discussion gravitates towards using landuse=common for those
African urban freely accessible multipurpose open spaces, which I
fully support.

Implementing this change requires the following actions:

- Editing the leisure=common wiki page, in French and in English
(I'll do that)

- Reinstating the rendering of leisure=common in downstream
cartographic styles, would be even better if the color matched the
surface=* so that sandy surfaces don't appear green.

- Reinstating the rendering of leisure=common in JOSM's default style
(it recently changed to grey to mark deprecation). (I'll open a JOSM
ticket

- Altering QA rules (JOSM Validator and Osmose) so that the
leisure=common deprecation only applies to the United Kingdom of
Great Britain, where commons have a legal definition and
designation=common must be used for them. (I'll open a JOSM ticket
but if someone has prior experience interacting with the Osmose
people, that would be nice)


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



___
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] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Kevin Kenny]

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 8:01 PM John Willis via Tagging
 wrote:
> Mapping “where the sidewalk ends” and the trails begin is vital to keep 
> people from being routes where grandma could have a heart attack Climbing a 
> difficult route or break her leg crossing a stream because we routed her on a 
> trail down a ravine rather than on the longer, yet safer sidewalks down along 
> the roads or paths through a local park because there is no way to say “THIS 
> IS A TRAIL, not a walkway through a playground” in OSM.

We do have that: `sac_scale=hiking`; as I understand it, few trails go
beyond 'hiking', so that's at least better than nothing. (It still may
suffer from underestimating the trail, leading city folk to the
sketchy rock scrambles when they're expecting a nice level dirt path,
so try to get the scale at least reasonable.)

What we don't have - at all - is the complement: 'THIS IS INDEED A
PATH'.  When we see 'highway=path', we don't know whether it's indeed
a path, or a hiking trail where the mapper didn't assign an
`sac_scale`.  We need a way to assert 'THIS IS A PATH' that doesn't
depend on the absence of a trolltag.

I can't stress enough that as long as we have the ambiguity, the only
way to 'fail soft' is to support the assertion 'this is relatively
safe', because we can deduce nothing from the absence of a 'this is
dangerous' assertion.

Incomplete information should 'fail soft'.

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 8:32 PM Andrew Harvey  wrote:

> Agreed, the biggest question is how do you define that criteria for what is 
> going to be tagged a a hiking trail and not a hiking trail.
>
> Eg. if you have a smooth paved track through the rainforest that the 
> authorities created for grandparents and strollers, is that a hiking trail 
> just because it's in a forest area? What about a stroll through the hills of 
> grasslands that have no forest or mountains, is that marked as a hiking trail?

No, just being in a forest doesn't make something a trail.  I think
that it's pretty safe to assume that 'surface=compacted
smoothness=intermediate wheelchair=yes` with a connection to a highway
or parking area not strictly a hiking trail, and there are some trails
near me- even in Wild Forest areas- that are constructed in such a way
to offer wildland access to persons with disabilities. I'd be happy
considering those trails on an equal footing with urban paths.

A hiking trail can be an easy trail through the lowlands. (Those are
rare near me, because the lowlands are mostly either settled and
subdivided, or else sucking swamp, so the mountains are what is left
for hiking trails to go.) I already mentioned that sac_scale discounts
hazards other than mountains (and focused on water, but Graeme can
surely fill in a number of deadlies that are specific to his
continent).

A lot of it comes down to, "would you route mobility-impaired people
or folks with small children in tow down this?"  A wrong decision for
some ambiguous corner case will be mostly harmless. Not having the
information for a dangerous trail might be deadly.

> I think it's too hard to have a reliable criteria for this which can be 
> objectively surveyed, it's much easier to tag each attribute individually on 
> their own independent scale.

The _reductio ad absurdum_: by the same token, because there is
controversy in many locales over which highways should be
`highway=trunk` and which should be `highway=primary`, or which should
be `highway=service` and which should be `highway=track`, all highways
should be tagged just `highway=road` and the relevant attributes
(surface, smoothness, speed limit, number of lanes, ...) should be
mapped instead. Few if any of us think that would be appropriate. Why
can cars get a hierarchy of ways, while hikers, equestrians and
cyclists cannot?

Since the possible set of attributes is open-ended, the result of not
having some sort of categorization is a nightmare for data consumers,
trying to determine how to render a road, or whether the road is
routable in the current circumstances, or where there are 'trails for
hiking near here'. No sensible symbology can map all the possible
attributes, and no sensible router can take all of them into account.
At some point, _someone_ has to make the call of what is considered
suitable, and punting that decision all the way to the end user is
what leads to the sort of accidents that Graeme, John and I have been
discussing.

Even an 'objective' attribute often turns into a controversial
position; consider 'car=no' versus 'car=private'. A lot of mappers
think that 'no' should be reserved for ways on which it's physically
impossible to drive a car: What about the corner case of ways that
could accept only a car with high ground clearance, or a way that a
skilled stunt driver could manage but most drivers could not?  So now
we need to come up with separate tagging indicating the legal status,
versus the physical status, and a detailed physical model of how the
way affects the 

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Volker Schmidt]

Path and trail are confusingly near in meaning.
The first Google search result  on
the difference between the meaning of path and trail says
*: *"*Pat**h** (is) a trail* for the use of, or worn by, pedestrians".
So path=trail does not work semantically anyway.

Creating a new path=trail tag will not do any good, as it will be
practically impossible to re-tag all the existing "highwa=path" ways that
fall into the new category. Which means the only effect it will have that
routers and renderers need to ad this as an additional possible tagging to
their already complicated evaluation

This proposal is not going to fly, unfortunately. As I said before the big
issue, at least in central Europe, is the massiv use of highway=path (with
the additional "designated" tags) for foot-cycleways. We will have to live
with that. The non-foot-cycle "paths" can be handled by surface, smootness,
and sac-scale tags.





On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 16:33, Daniel Westergren  wrote:

> Well said John. When we now have highway=path, we need a subtag.
>
> Question is, on what criteria would we differentiate a trail from another
> "path"? Groomed vs beaten may not be specific enough. But by using some
> combination of dictionary definitions of trail, in the sense of path, could
> we come up with some verifiable criteria for when such a subtag should be
> used? What I'm looking for is to differentiate forest and mountain paths
> from urban paths or groomed, smooth paths. When people have been clearing
> forest to make a path more visible and passable, that's still a beaten path
> to me.
>
> And yes, path=trail would probably need to be used for trails tagged as
> footway too, although I personally see footway as an urban path and always
> use path for a trail.
>
> Whatever subtag , we're still stuck with all those cases when highway=path
> is not combined with any other tag (whether it should be path=trail or
> anything else). How would we treat those? Obviously we can't take it for
> granted that those cases should have path=trail.
>
>
>1. Can we agree on whether or not we need a subtag like path=trail?
>Since it's probably too late for highway=trail, which by all means would
>have been the best option.
>2. If we introduce path=trail, what would be the criteria for when it
>should be used?
>3. What about all the cases of highway=path that don't have and will
>not have path=trail? Old or new. Some probably should (like when
>surface=ground), others should never have path=trail. It will still make it
>difficult to render those cases and for data consumers to choose a fallback
>value for those cases.
>4. What about edge cases? It may have been a beaten path that has been
>groomed with better surface material to make it more accessible for
>example. Would it still be considered for path=trail?
>
>
> /Daniel
>
> Den sön 24 maj 2020 kl 16:05 skrev John Willis via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
>
>> The sac=scale is a attribute of trails.
>>
>> Yet we do not explicitly state “this is a trail”
>>
>> We should have a path=trail subtag.
>>
>> The presence or absence of a sac_scale Tag shouldn’t mean it is a trail.
>>
>> Imagine we had no highway=track. That we dumped all tracks into
>> highway=service. That is what we are doing now with trails.
>>
>> Would you want to depend on the tracktype=* tag for denoting that it is,
>> in fact, a track? At least track type has “track” in the key name.
>> If someone didn’t set it, it would map like the parking lots and
>> alleyways in cities. Madness.
>>
>> Sac_scale is an arcane attribute for hiking nerds - it is great to have,
>> but shouldn’t be the tag that differentiates a hiking trail from a sidewalk
>> in OSM. That should have been a separate tag from day one, but we are now
>> stuck with the monstrosity that is path=.
>>
>> At least subkey it.
>>
>>
>> Javbw
>>
>> On May 24, 2020, at 10:03 AM, Andrew Harvey 
>> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 07:42, John Willis via Tagging <
>> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>
>>> =path is such a horrible catch-all tag and one that is extremely
>>> entrenched - I am surprised no one has implemented a path=trail subtag,
>>> similar to sidewalk, so we can separate all the hiking trails and other
>>> “hiking” paths, and then apply different hiking limitations you wouldn’t
>>> expect to find on a sidewalk or playground way.
>>>
>>
>> Right now you can use
>> sac_scale=hiking,mountain_hiking,demanding_mountain_hiking to indicate if a
>> path is a hiking trail. Though you can't really currently say something is
>> not a hiking trail.
>>
>> On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 10:01, Kevin Kenny 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 5:42 PM John Willis via Tagging
>>>  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > =path is such a horrible catch-all tag and one that is extremely
>>> entrenched - I am surprised no one has implemented a path=trail subtag,
>>> similar to sidewalk, so we can 

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Kevin Kenny]

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 5:42 AM Sarah Hoffmann  wrote:
> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 09:58:50PM -0400, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> [Australian grading of hiking trails]
> > And all five of those grades are sac_scale=hiking, which is why I say
> > that's an impossible scale to use for the purpose we're considering.
>
> That's not correct. If you have a look at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale
> you'll notice that only from sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking the
> scale starts to have the requirement "basic alpine expericence" and
> "good hiking shoes".
>
> So: Only Grade 1 and 2 are clear sac_scale=hiking. Grade 4 would map
> to sac_scale=mountain_hiking and Grade 5 to 
> sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking.
> Grade 3 is a bit inbetween but I'd probably put it under
> sac_scale=mountain_hiking to be on the safe side.
>
> The SAC scale grades 1-3 are quite helpful. It's just the blue scales 4-6
> which are not really applicable in OSM because very few routes of that
> scale would fall under the highway=path classification (even under the
> catch-all definition of OSM).

The first problem with the sac_scale is that it's not got anything at
the low end. For trails in urban and suburban areas, we want to know,
for instance, whether the trail might be accessible to the disabled or
to small children. That's actually the single biggest problem here.
Without delving into a ton of auxiliary information, there's no
difference between an urban footway and a wilderness trail!  For that
reason, 'surface' and 'smoothness' and 'incline' and 'sac_scale' are
all trolltags: they destroy fundamental expectations (at least to
urbanites) of what a 'path' is. (Those false expectations are
responsible for many outdoor accidents in my part of the world - I'm
close enough to several large cities that we get many unprepared
tourists.)

I agree that highway=path and highway=footway are too entrenched, so
we're going to be stuck with trolltags.  In that case, we need fairly
clear and repeatable guidelines for both mappers and data consumers -
right now, trying to figure out, 'do I have an urban footpath or a
wilderness trail' is a complex endeavour, and mappers aren't really in
a position to help. While you can add 'sac_scale' to flag that a path
is unsuitable to small children, disabled people, or less-skilled
hikers, how do we flag that a path _is_ suitable? (The absence of a
tag cannot be the answer, because the absence of a tag conveys at
best, "I don't know." It's best never to draw any conclusion at all
from the absence of a tag.)

Those who aren't hiking geeks may stop reading here, the rest gets
more technical:

One-line summary: I clearly don't understand sac_scale, but my
discussions with the OSMers have done little to clarify it in my mind.

I just reread the `sac_scale` page yet again . I'm afraid that I don't
find it quite as helpful as you do, even in the domain for which it's
intended. It appears to have been awkwardly machine-translated to
English from another language. For example, 'acclivity' and 'facile'
are both Latinate words that a native speaker would use only when
writing in an affected academic style. My university-educated (but
geologically-ignorant) wife didn't even know the word 'acclivity'
without looking it up!

At the higher levels of difficulty, the page focuses on mountain
hazards. There's no consideration for slippery or unstable bog
bridging, stream crossings (rock-hop or ford: and how deep or
fast-moving is the water?); deep mud or quicksand, likelihood of
encroaching vegetation, or beaver activity. All of these present
objective hazards (falls, drowning, hypothermia) that come into
assessing a trail's level of difficulty and danger.

The phrase 'single plainly climbing up to second grade' comes across
as word salad. I have no idea what the word, "single" refers to. What
is "plainly" climbing? I presume that "second grade" is on someone's
scale of rock- or ice-climbing difficulty, but have no idea what scale
to look at to translate to the YDS that's pretty universal in the US.
If it's the UIAA scale, then I can sort of make sense of it: grade II
is roughly equivalent to 5.3 on the Yosemite scale. A hiking trail at
the technical end of things might have a 5.3 move somewhere, if it's
not exposed. If I'm doing anything beyond class 4 (YDS) in an exposed
position, I want a belay and a helmet, and that's no longer hiking!
[Afterthought - I finally found the original German. 'einzelne
einfache Kletterstellen'. Then the following grade (Schwieriges
Alpinwandern) says 'Kletterstellen bis II UIAA', so I guessed right on
UIAA. I suppose that if you're unaware of the context, 'einzeine'
could be single and 'einfache' could be 'plainly', but the translation
of the whole phrase on the Wiki is nonsense. Any objections if I edit
it to something like: "Isolated easy climbing pitches, up to class 2
on the UIAA scale?" If I were to do that, I'd try to clean up the
translation throughout.]

The emphasis on 

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Kevin Kenny]

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 12:53 PM Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> This proposal is not going to fly, unfortunately. As I said before the big 
> issue, at least in central Europe, is the massiv use of highway=path (with 
> the additional "designated" tags) for foot-cycleways. We will have to live 
> with that. The non-foot-cycle "paths" can be handled by surface, smootness, 
> and sac-scale tags.

The point is that you can't draw any inference from the absence of a
tag. We can't assume that because a mapper didn't tag sac_scale, that
a path is passable to small children or disabled people. We might have
to deal with the 'unknown' state for quite a while (and a router can
try to guess from some combination of the other tags), but eventually
we need to enable mappers to make the positive assertion that a path
_is_ accessible to people who aren't skilled hikers - at least to the
extent that urban footways usually are.

The absence of a tag `potrzebie=*` doesn't mean 'there's no potrzebie
here'; it means only `the mapper didn't say anything about potrzebie.'
Drawing the conclusion that 'there's no potrzebie' would require an
explicit `potrzebie=no` or some such.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

[Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

[Volker Schmidt]

I just noticed an apparent contradiction regarding the use of the oneway
tag between the wiki pages key:oneway
 and motorway
 .
The former states:
"Some tags (such as junction
=roundabout
, highway
=motorway
 and others)
imply oneway=yes and therefore the oneway tag is optional,
the latter states:
"These ways should all point direction of travel and be tagged with oneway
=yes"


What is the agreed standard, if any?

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

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 20:15, Kevin Kenny  wrote:

The absence of a tag `potrzebie=*` doesn't mean 'there's no potrzebie
> here'; it means only `the mapper didn't say anything about potrzebie.'
> Drawing the conclusion that 'there's no potrzebie' would require an
> explicit `potrzebie=no` or some such.
>

Do you feel there is a need to tag potrebie?  That might make some people
mad.

Anyway, it was more of a running gag than a hiking joke.

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

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

[Florian Lohoff]

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 10:26:19PM +0200, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> I just noticed an apparent contradiction regarding the use of the oneway
> tag between the wiki pages key:oneway
>  and motorway
>  .
> The former states:
> "Some tags (such as junction
> =roundabout
> , highway
> =motorway
>  and others)
> imply oneway=yes and therefore the oneway tag is optional,
> the latter states:
> "These ways should all point direction of travel and be tagged with oneway
> =yes"
> 
> 
> What is the agreed standard, if any?

In ancient OSM history roundabouts and motorways had oneways. This has
since been obsoleted and implicitly assumed on those ways.

At least thats my memories from 1 1/2 decades.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

[Volker Schmidt]

PS: The standard rendering assumes junction=roundabout, highway=motorway,
and highway=motorway_link to be oneway=yes by default
(https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1363)

On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 22:26, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> I just noticed an apparent contradiction regarding the use of the oneway
> tag between the wiki pages key:oneway
>  and motorway
>  .
> The former states:
> "Some tags (such as junction
> =roundabout
> , highway
> =motorway
>  and others)
> imply oneway=yes and therefore the oneway tag is optional,
> the latter states:
> "These ways should all point direction of travel and be tagged with oneway
> =yes"
> 
>
> What is the agreed standard, if any?
>
> Volker
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Change of wiki page Key:access

[Volker Schmidt]

I would like to bring this up in the list.
I am not happy with the recent change of the key:access page of the wiki

-- Forwarded message -
The OpenStreetMap Wiki page Key:access has been changed on 24 May 2020
by Flohoff, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access for the
current revision.

To view this change, see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:access=next=1994688
-
In my country (Italy) there are literally thousands of ways where it is
most likely legal to pass by bicycle, but there is no (practical) way of
finding out.
Essentially two classes:

   - plenty of ways that look from the layout like combined foot-cycle
   paths but have  no signage at all
   - plenty of service roads which show the "no transit for any vehicle"
   sign , but in reality you
   can happily pass with your bicycle and no policeman will ever say anything,
   or even know that "no vehicle" legally includes "no bicycle", There are
   plenty of cases where even signposted cycle routes follow such roads.

I am consistently using bicycle=permissive in these cases, well being aware
that I do not know of he owner has given permission. Basically any
cycle-routing would come to a halt without this trick.

The strict wording introduced by Florian is simply not practically
applicable here.
My questions are:
Is Italy the only country with this problem?
Is there any better proposal for tagging the situation "from all I can see
on the ground, you are allowed ride through with your bicycle"
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Change of wiki page Key:access

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 17:42, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> In my country (Italy) there are literally thousands of ways where it is most 
> likely legal to pass by bicycle, but there is no (practical) way of finding 
> out.
> Essentially two classes:
>
> - plenty of ways that look from the layout like combined foot-cycle paths but 
> have  no signage at all

How are these ways tagged currently - highway=path? footway?
pedestrian? What is the default bicycle access if no tag is present?

> - plenty of service roads which show the "no transit for any vehicle" sign, 
> but in reality you can happily pass with your bicycle and no policeman will 
> ever say anything, or even know that "no vehicle" legally includes "no 
> bicycle", There are plenty of cases where even signposted cycle routes follow 
> such roads.

This gets tricky. To give an obvious example, if vast majority of
drivers exceeds a posted speed limit and a driver would never get
pulled over for going anything less than 15 km/h above posted speed
limit, what if anything should we tag for maxspeed=*?

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

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

[Volker Schmidt]

I am aware of the histroy - I only wanted to bring up the contradiction
between the two wiki pages *before* changing the wiki.

On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 23:11, Florian Lohoff  wrote:

> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 10:26:19PM +0200, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> > I just noticed an apparent contradiction regarding the use of the oneway
> > tag between the wiki pages key:oneway
> >  and motorway
> >  .
> > The former states:
> > "Some tags (such as junction
> > =roundabout
> > , highway
> > =motorway
> >  and others)
> > imply oneway=yes and therefore the oneway tag is optional,
> > the latter states:
> > "These ways should all point direction of travel and be tagged with
> oneway
> > =yes"
> > 
> >
> > What is the agreed standard, if any?
>
> In ancient OSM history roundabouts and motorways had oneways. This has
> since been obsoleted and implicitly assumed on those ways.
>
> At least thats my memories from 1 1/2 decades.
>
> Flo
> --
> Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
> UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away
> ___
> 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] oneway=yes on motorways

[Florian Lohoff]

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 11:52:54PM +0200, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> I am aware of the histroy - I only wanted to bring up the contradiction
> between the two wiki pages *before* changing the wiki.

Feel free - The "new" (Most likely a decade old) way is that motorways
and roundabouts have an implicit oneway=yes and dont need it.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging