Re: [Tagging] How to map "piers" on land?
Jul 29, 2020, 02:39 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > & for one that IMHO is quite correctly tagged as a pier over it's full length: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/18776776#map=17/-27.93856/153.43009 > > https://www.abc.net.au/news/image/10370420-3x2-700x467.jpg > +1 See also (open licensed but worse examples) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Totto_Park_Koshima02.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kirnbergsee_1040748.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kanal_Augutowski_July_2013_13.JPG https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pier.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seebr%C3%BCckeAhlbeck1.JPG I was sadly unable to find nice example like yours that would be on open license. Piers on seas/oceans over beach are not ideal examples due to tides, but I failed to find something from lake or over clearly not tidal area. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2019/05/Category:Piers has "A raised structure which sticks out perpendicular to the shore." definition that has other problems, but not this one. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Map maintenance with StreetComplete - Preferred tagging
Due to some concerns expressed in here (bloatness, discrepancies), I've been wondering... Wouldn't it be enough to ask randomly about some properties to be checked? For example, let's say I'm using SC to do some mapping, and from a 100 quests, I get whatever proportions of maintenance quests selected randomly. While this wouldn't provide information that I did check to OSM database (if data is accurate), it still ensures that the DB is correct. As someone stated, with a proper number of users, the concepts of having a last date of check might be obsolete, so having people do random checks (could still be prioritized based on actual element) on top of filling new stuff might be enough in the long run. De : ael Envoyé : dimanche 26 juillet 2020 23:56 À : tagging@openstreetmap.org Objet : Re: [Tagging] Map maintenance with StreetComplete - Preferred tagging On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 10:03:17PM +0100, Cj Malone wrote: > On Sat, 2020-07-25 at 16:42 +0200, Tobias Zwick wrote: > > > > So in a nutshell, the topic of how to find things based on old > > sources is also very relevant for remote mappers. > > Technically there is survey:date and source:date that may be on the > object, or (preferred now?) the changeset. So a quality assurance tool Adding such source tags to a changeset seldom makes sense. Most of my changesets are a mixture of local knowledge, surveys, gps, photographic and video. I even occasionally use satellite imagery... So the source data needs to be fine grained on the elements themselves. Furthermore, when updating an element, I can see any source tags right there. I am not normally going to all the faff of looking up the history, finding the changesets and consulting those except for unusual cases. Of course, changesets need to have some overall source infomation, but that is necessarily coarse except for small cahnges perhaps. ael ___ 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] How to map "piers" on land?
On 28/07/2020 16.09, Paul Allen wrote: On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 20:44, Matthew Woehlke wrote: Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/651244930. This is a pier with a platform on land that extends into the water. Carto cuts off the part that is on land. There is no part of a pier on land. Not according to the wiki: "A pier is a raised walkway over water..." Really? Let's look at some pictures: https://mediaassets.ksby.com/cordillera-network/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/04/26205653/PierToday-e1556337486552.jpg https://cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/raycom/X3EB5BF765G5TFHPOBGNDEJIJQ.jpg https://arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-pmn.s3.amazonaws.com/public/AY3CHTOCXNDWDHJJD2A73ICBF4.jpg https://www.fishanywhere.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/crystal-coast17-229.jpg What you are saying (okay, maybe what the wiki is saying) is that all of these magically cease to be piers at the coastline and become... what? I don't think most people share that view. BTW, Wikipedia defines a pier as "a raised structure that rises above a body of water *and usually juts out from its shore*" (emphasis added). I would expect that most people would interpret the "pier" in the above images as being the entire contiguous surface from the end in the water until either a) where the support framework ceases, or at least b) the narrower section ends at a wider deck. I have to agree with others; the wiki is wrong. (And I think carto is also wrong about the render order; military areas certainly can have piers, so rendering in a way which makes them impossible to see is unhelpul.) On 28/07/2020 18.23, Paul Allen wrote: > Or maybe I've seen floating piers. :) Even floating piers may have sections on land: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0056/4376/3801/products/10x8_Aluminum-Framed_Floating_Dock_with_Pond_King_Sport_Mini_Pontoon_Boat_grande.jpeg https://chesapeakedock.com/app/uploads/2020/02/garido-floating-pier-1.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/736x/e0/c5/0a/e0c50a27ceaf9b3ef12a54f6571284ff.jpg https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0056/4376/3801/products/8x8-8ft-walkway_grande.jpg https://www.goldenboatlifts.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/IMG_0092.jpg ...unless you insist on separately modeling the connecting section as a bridge. (Which I will concede is feasible in *some* cases. Even in my example, if I knew how to tag the on-land part, but less so in the examples given above in this message.) (On a related note, this makes me think we should have pier type tags...) So... back to my *other* question: how should a raised wooden platform on land be tagged? For example: https://www.pitztal.com/sites/default/files/styles/adaptive/public/thumb_5101_lightbox.jpeg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Laguna_Mountains%2C_California%2C_observation_area_2015.jpg -- Matthew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Map maintenance with StreetComplete - Preferred tagging
The problem is that someone actively mapping in a given area would be irritated by completely pointless checks and repeated checks of the same objects. Jul 29, 2020, 12:34 by luke.mar...@viacesi.fr: > Due to some concerns expressed in here (bloatness, discrepancies), I've been > wondering... > Wouldn't it be enough to ask randomly about some properties to be checked? > > For example, let's say I'm using SC to do some mapping, and from a 100 > quests, I get whatever proportions of maintenance quests selected randomly. > While this wouldn't provide information that I did check to OSM database (if > data is accurate), it still ensures that the DB is correct. > > As someone stated, with a proper number of users, the concepts of having a > last date of check might be obsolete, so having people do random checks > (could still be prioritized based on actual element) on top of filling new > stuff might be enough in the long run. > > > > De :> ael > > Envoyé :> dimanche 26 juillet 2020 23:56 > > À :> tagging@openstreetmap.org > > Objet :> Re: [Tagging] Map maintenance with StreetComplete - Preferred > tagging> > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 10:03:17PM +0100, Cj Malone wrote: > > On Sat, 2020-07-25 at 16:42 +0200, Tobias Zwick wrote: > > > > > > So in a nutshell, the topic of how to find things based on old > > > sources is also very relevant for remote mappers. > > > > Technically there is survey:date and source:date that may be on the > > object, or (preferred now?) the changeset. So a quality assurance tool > > Adding such source tags to a changeset seldom makes sense. > Most of my changesets are a mixture of local knowledge, surveys, gps, > photographic and video. I even occasionally use satellite imagery... > So the source data needs to be fine grained on the elements themselves. > > Furthermore, when updating an element, I can see any source tags right > there. I am not normally going to all the faff of looking up the > history, finding the changesets and consulting those except for unusual > cases. > > Of course, changesets need to have some overall source infomation, but > that is necessarily coarse except for small cahnges perhaps. > > ael > > > ___ > 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] How to map "piers" on land?
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 09:47, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > So... back to my *other* question: how should a raised wooden platform > on land be tagged? For example: > > https://www.pitztal.com/sites/default/files/styles/adaptive/public/thumb_5101_lightbox.jpeg > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Laguna_Mountains%2C_California%2C_observation_area_2015.jpg There is bridge=boardwalk https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bridge%3Dboardwalk which would seem to match at least the second image to me. The first is a bit of a stretch since it's not exactly a far walk, but seems to be related closely enough? I'd probably mark it as a short bridge way with a viewpoint at end node, or a bridge area with the viewpoint tag on the entire area (highway=pedestrian + area=yes + bridge=boardwalk + tourism=viewpoint?) and a bench node in the middle. --Jarek ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to map "piers" on land?
On 29/07/2020 10.57, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 09:47, Matthew Woehlke wrote: So... back to my *other* question: how should a raised wooden platform on land be tagged? For example: https://www.pitztal.com/sites/default/files/styles/adaptive/public/thumb_5101_lightbox.jpeg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Laguna_Mountains%2C_California%2C_observation_area_2015.jpg There is bridge=boardwalk https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bridge%3Dboardwalk which would seem to match at least the second image to me. The first is a bit of a stretch since it's not exactly a far walk, but seems to be related closely enough? I'd probably mark it as a short bridge way with a viewpoint at end node, or a bridge area with the viewpoint tag on the entire area (highway=pedestrian + area=yes + bridge=boardwalk + tourism=viewpoint?) and a bench node in the middle. The connecting platforms *might*, in some cases, be bridges. The terminal platforms aren't bridges by any reasonable definition *I* know. For one, they don't *go* anywhere. Do we really not have a way to tag *platforms*? -- Matthew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised
Hey all,
I started mapping detailed sidewalk information in my area, including
crossing and kerb information. It seems that there is a lack of clarity
in the differentiation between raised and regular ("normal", neither
lowered nor raised) kerbs. "kerb=regular" is already in use but is
undocumented and should be explicitly distinguished from "kerb=raised".
There is a relevant difference not only for wheelchair users, but also
for other mobility groups (cargo bikes, strollers, pedestrians with
reduced mobility…).
So I propose adding "kerb=regular" to the tagging list in the wiki as
well as suitable descriptions for height, use… and an example image. I
made a suggestion in the wiki (since there has been no reaction so far I
post it here):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:kerb#kerb.3Dregular_vs._raised_--_add_.22regular.22_example
Is there a reason not to add this? Otherwise I’ll do that.
Greets, Alex
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised
Problem: what is "regular" ?
(and hence: what is "raised" and "lowered" ?)
See for example:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-standard-curb-height-in-the-United-States-and-how-is-that-height-decided-on
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 20:58, Supaplex wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I started mapping detailed sidewalk information in my area, including
> crossing and kerb information. It seems that there is a lack of clarity in
> the differentiation between raised and regular ("normal", neither lowered
> nor raised) kerbs. "kerb=regular" is already in use but is undocumented and
> should be explicitly distinguished from "kerb=raised". There is a relevant
> difference not only for wheelchair users, but also for other mobility
> groups (cargo bikes, strollers, pedestrians with reduced mobility…).
>
> So I propose adding "kerb=regular" to the tagging list in the wiki as well
> as suitable descriptions for height, use… and an example image. I made a
> suggestion in the wiki (since there has been no reaction so far I post it
> here):
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:kerb#kerb.3Dregular_vs._raised_--_add_.22regular.22_example
>
> Is there a reason not to add this? Otherwise I’ll do that.
>
> Greets, Alex
> ___
> 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] How to map "piers" on land?
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 02:50, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > Do we really not have a way to tag *platforms*? > We do have man_made=platform https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/573403125, but it doesn't render in any way :-( https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.120497,153.4735093,3a,15y,56h,87.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQZ7zLLgVP6df0JlAaueAzQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:57 AM Supaplex wrote:
> I started mapping detailed sidewalk information in my area, including
> crossing and kerb information. It seems that there is a lack of clarity in
> the differentiation between raised and regular ("normal", neither lowered
> nor raised) kerbs. "kerb=regular" is already in use but is undocumented and
> should be explicitly distinguished from "kerb=raised". There is a relevant
> difference not only for wheelchair users, but also for other mobility
> groups (cargo bikes, strollers, pedestrians with reduced mobility…).
>
The wiki has a raised kerb as any kerb greater than 3cm in height. Your
definition of a regular kerb is one greater than or equal to 10cm. A
raised kerb is a barrier to wheelchair and others with mobility issues just
as one that is 10cm or higher. I'm not sure what is gained by adding
another classification since the ability to add kerb:height already exist.
I can see adding a comment to the wiki page stating that the typical height
of a raised kerb is around 10cm - assuming there is some research stating
that.
> So I propose adding "kerb=regular" to the tagging list in the wiki as well
> as suitable descriptions for height, use… and an example image. I made a
> suggestion in the wiki (since there has been no reaction so far I post it
> here):
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:kerb#kerb.3Dregular_vs._raised_--_add_.22regular.22_example
>
> Is there a reason not to add this? Otherwise I’ll do that.
>
>
> My recommendation would be not to add a new classification that will only
confuse mappers and data consumers.
Best,
Clifford
--
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?
Cureently, the wiki say the admin_level=1 tag is for supernational border like EU, but it have not be tagged as such in the OSM database itself. Should it the tag be applied this way? Also, another thing is taginfo seems to be showing a number of current use of the tag admin_level=1 on different features. Are they all incorrectly applied? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised
sent from a phone > On 30. Jul 2020, at 00:03, Clifford Snow wrote: > > The wiki has a raised kerb as any kerb greater than 3cm in height. Your > definition of a regular kerb is one greater than or equal to 10cm when reading the term raised kerb I’d rather think about something like 25-40cm, while 4 cm surely wouldn’t be considered “raised” I agree that introducing regular kerbs would only make sense if the raised kerb would change its definition (or be deprecated). eg this is pretty raised http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/29/article-2380778-1B0CC26E05DC-458_634x386.jpg Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to map "piers" on land?
sent from a phone > On 29. Jul 2020, at 18:50, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > Do we really not have a way to tag *platforms*? only for public transport, otherwise you could tag them with highway=pedestrian and area=yes Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Map maintenance with StreetComplete - Preferred tagging
sent from a phone > On 26. Jul 2020, at 23:58, ael wrote: > > Adding such source tags to a changeset seldom makes sense. > Most of my changesets are a mixture of local knowledge, surveys, gps, > photographic and video. I even occasionally use satellite imagery... > So the source data needs to be fine grained on the elements themselves. maybe you should upload more often and less things at a time. I sometimes add several sources like aerial imagery and survey to the same changeset. FWIW, I believe the most relevant information is: di you know the area (local knowledge or not) and have you been there to gather the information you are adding or is it based on aerial imagery. > > Furthermore, when updating an element, I can see any source tags right > there. and what are you doing with them when you modify the object? Do you keep them, remove them, amend them, change them? Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised
Às 20:45 de 29/07/2020, Martin Koppenhoefer escreveu: eg this is pretty raised http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/29/article-2380778-1B0CC26E05DC-458_634x386.jpg Cheers Martin lol ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 19:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> On 30. Jul 2020, at 00:03, Clifford Snow wrote: >> The wiki has a raised kerb as any kerb greater than 3cm in height. Your >> definition of a regular kerb is one greater than or equal to 10cm > > when reading the term raised kerb I’d rather think about something like > 25-40cm, while 4 cm surely wouldn’t be considered “raised” You have to consider the purpose of the tag. To a wheelchair user, there might not be a lot of practical difference between 25 and 10 cm, because both are impassable. > I agree that introducing regular kerbs would only make sense if the raised > kerb would change its definition (or be deprecated). > > eg this is pretty raised > http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/29/article-2380778-1B0CC26E05DC-458_634x386.jpg I would suggest that's a low retaining wall --Jarek ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised
sent from a phone > On 30. Jul 2020, at 02:17, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > You have to consider the purpose of the tag. To a wheelchair user, > there might not be a lot of practical difference between 25 and 10 cm, > because both are impassable. wheelchair users are not the only addressee of kerb tags, and not every wheelchair user has a problem with a 4 cm kerb. Just 2 levels of kerbs, up to 3cm and everything above, are clearly leading to a lack of basic information (people are rarely measuring the precise height, which would be an alternative). IMHO there would be room for a regular kerb - if there wasn’t the “raised kerb” at 31mm. True raised kerbs may pose an obstacle even to pedestrians, particularly to those with reduced mobility. On the other hand they might provide more safety to pedestrians. Or might facilitate boarding and off boarding public transport vehicles. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised
Agreed that is beyond being a curb, it is a wall of sorts. For it to be a curb in my opinion, it should be passable by a fit (non-disabled) person easily, Once it becomes too tall to pass it is a wall On Thu, 30 Jul 2020, 01:17 Jarek Piórkowski, wrote: > On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 19:46, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > >> On 30. Jul 2020, at 00:03, Clifford Snow > wrote: > >> The wiki has a raised kerb as any kerb greater than 3cm in height. Your > definition of a regular kerb is one greater than or equal to 10cm > > > > when reading the term raised kerb I’d rather think about something like > 25-40cm, while 4 cm surely wouldn’t be considered “raised” > > You have to consider the purpose of the tag. To a wheelchair user, > there might not be a lot of practical difference between 25 and 10 cm, > because both are impassable. > > > I agree that introducing regular kerbs would only make sense if the > raised kerb would change its definition (or be deprecated). > > > > eg this is pretty raised > > > http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/29/article-2380778-1B0CC26E05DC-458_634x386.jpg > > I would suggest that's a low retaining wall > > --Jarek > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
