Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

I do believe that uncontrolled should be deprecated in favour of marked, which iD already did. I also agree that marked/unmarked was a good improved in the crossing scheme, but it should be cleared on the wiki page, which seems to favour the uncontrolled tag. About your considerations: 1 - That d

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

Hi, crossing has been a very poor tag because it seems to be the kitchen sink for all the questions pertaining to crossings... Many of the attributes that get values in "crossing" are potentially overlapping and not mutually exclusive, causing a lot of confusion and poorly tagged crossings. Nev

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

Hi, This is yet another example why "sticking" the sidewalks onto the highway (as a tag) rather than mapping them as separate ways is appearing to be less and less practical. Please see our sidewalk schema proposal from several years ago. I think @Mark brings up really relevant width distinctio

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 2:46 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > > I must admit that I only do crossings as =traffic_signals; =marked (by > itself) for zebra crossings; & =unmarked where there is provision to cross > the road but no signage or roadway markings on any sort. > > > I do crossings as

Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 5:20 PM François Lacombe wrote: > Is that completely wrong or mappers could eventually add implied tags if > they want to? > The proposal currently states they are optional and it won't raise an > error if mappers add them beside mandatory tags. > No, it's not wrong to ad

[Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

Hi all, This proposal is currently in RFC https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Utility_poles_proposal It proposes among other points to make man_made=utility_pole + utility=power implied by power=pole (for sake of consistency with telecom utility poles which won't get a telecom=p

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

In Nederland zebra crossings are very common, and go by the name zebra.This is also the name used in legislation. Zebra crossings give priority to pedestrians crossing the street on the zebra. Hm how should this be tagged... maybe crossing=pathtocrosstheroadmarkedwithstripeslikeazebratogrant

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 20:01, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > while the very generic crossing=marked, which was quite unpopular before > (2013-2018 below 6000 uses) now went through the roof and is leading the > tagstats with more than 1 million uses. > You may find that it is partly, at least, iD'

Re: [Tagging] Addition of highway=emergency_bay and priority_road=yes to Map Features?

On 16.09.20 09:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > emergency bays are quite common in Italy and Germany when there isn’t an > emergency lane. The pertinent question isn't so much if emergency bays are common, but if this particular tagging for them is established. In my opinion, mapping what amount

Re: [Tagging] Addition of highway=emergency_bay and priority_road=yes to Map Features?

On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 18:00, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > emergency bays are quite common in Italy and Germany when there isn’t an > emergency lane. > Quite common on major highways out here as well. Very handy thing to know if e.g. you have a flat tyre & you can see that there's a stopping

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

On 15-09-2020 10:09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Mo., 14. Sept. 2020 um 20:37 Uhr schrieb Supaplex > mailto:supap...@riseup.net>>: > indeed, mapping the width generally requires measuring the width, and it > is often not practical (unless you are willing to spend a lot of time or > have very go

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID/Controversial_Decisions#Changing_crossing.3Dzebra_to_crossing.3Dmarked signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 07:02:26PM +0200, Jeroen Hoek wrote: > I wonder if it is feasible to have JOSM render the width, optionally, as > a sort of semi-transparent background beneath the way-line. JOSM can already do it: https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Styles/Lane_and_Road_Attributes -- Gr

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

On 16.09.20 10:30, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: On 15. Sep 2020, at 19:05, Jan Michel wrote: If you want to tag how much space there is for some kind of vehicle moving in some direction, there are the specific width tags like width:lanes, sidewalk:width, cycleway:width, shoulder:width, verge:wi

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

The problem, I believe is with iD's presets. When I started mapping some years ago I always marked crossings as zebras, then iD changed the preset to crossing =marked and I believe that's what you're seeing with the increasing number of this tag. Although iD presents the type selector within that

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

sent from a phone > On 16. Sep 2020, at 20:22, António Madeira wrote: > > The problem, I believe is with iD's presets. thank you for the hint, I think you’re right. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.o

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

Not until the page is finalized and accepted by the community. Until then, it is a draft, and it is frowned upon to mix such controversial drafts into the main namespace On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 4:38 PM Jez Nicholson wrote: > > "why this page resides in the main > namespace and not in the responsi

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

You misunderstood me. I don't _care_ about private swimming pools and I don't think they are public interest. I don't think that mapping them can get us trouble with GDPR. You see that's my problem with a page like this: it blurs the line between ethics, legals and recommending to map things that a

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

Please don't crossthread newsgroups. If you have to alert the few who don't subscribe to both, post a message telling them it's on another newsgroup. DaveF On 16/09/2020 14:11, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote: Mateusz Konieczny via talk: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 14:47, bkil wrote: > > Private swimming pools aren't that interesting but people seem to > enjoy tracing them. Maybe in case of emergency they could be used as a > nearby water source by the fire brigade? > Depending on the terrain, they may be visible and serve as navigat

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

"why this page resides in the main namespace and not in the responsible proposer's user space?" - it's a wiki, we are generally a libertarian group, there are no restrictions on creating a page other than wanting to be relevant. I personally find it relevant. On Wed, 16 Sep 2020, 14:47 bkil, wrot

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

Am Mi., 16. Sept. 2020 um 16:27 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > I thought the correct tag for this was crossing_ref. Have you cross > checked to see if they've been swapped instead of removed? > crossing_ref is a different kind of beast, as some people use it to te

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

On 16/09/2020 14:59, Jeremy Harris wrote: On 16/09/2020 14:26, Matthew Woehlke wrote: On 16/09/2020 05.57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I noticed that crossing=zebra tag usage is drastically shrinking while the very generic crossing=marked, which was quite unpopular before (2013-2018 below 6000

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

Am Mi., 16. Sept. 2020 um 15:26 Uhr schrieb Matthew Woehlke < mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com>: > My understanding is that crossing=zebra is deprecated in favor of > crossing=uncontrolled / crossing=traffic_signals. there are many issues with "uncontrolled", especially if you use it to intend a zebra

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

I thought the correct tag for this was crossing_ref. Have you cross checked to see if they've been swapped instead of removed? DaveF On 16/09/2020 10:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I noticed that crossing=zebra tag usage is drastically shrinking while the very generic crossing=marked, which wa

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

On 16/09/2020 14:26, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > On 16/09/2020 05.57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> I noticed that crossing=zebra tag usage is drastically shrinking while >> the >> very generic crossing=marked, which was quite unpopular before (2013-2018 >> below 6000 uses) now went through the roof a

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

Could someone perhaps clarify why this page resides in the main namespace and not in the responsible proposer's user space? > Do not name individuals in OpenStreetMap tags, unless their name is on a > business sign posted towards the street, or part of the business name and > available in public

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

On 16/09/2020 05.57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I noticed that crossing=zebra tag usage is drastically shrinking while the very generic crossing=marked, which was quite unpopular before (2013-2018 below 6000 uses) now went through the roof and is leading the tagstats with more than 1 million uses

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

Mateusz Konieczny via talk: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information > > Do you think that this page is a good description of community consensus? > > The page has > "This page is under development (May 2020). It may not yet reflect community > consensus."

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

Mateusz Konieczny via talk: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information > > Do you think that this page is a good description of community consensus? > > The page has > "This page is under development (May 2020). It may not yet reflect community > consensus."

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

sent from a phone > On 16. Sep 2020, at 14:25, Supaplex wrote: > > Do you have examples where "zebra" is changed automatically? Where and who > and why? I have seen it only sporadically and have contacted the mappers in some cases, the same for marked when there were traffic lights. I have

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

I would appreciate using crossing=zebra! (instead of crossing=marked + crossing_ref=zebra, so I have tagged it so far.) But I can't imagine that people use or change "marked" instead of "traffic_signals". Or have you observed this somewhere? For me "marked" would be something like "paved" for Key:s

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 12:40:06PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Mi., 16. Sept. 2020 um 12:36 Uhr schrieb ael : > > > Yes. ISTR that the last time I tried to mark a crossing, zebra wasn't a > > option in the presets. But my memeory may be at fault. > > > > which editor are you using? I

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

Am Mi., 16. Sept. 2020 um 12:36 Uhr schrieb ael : > Yes. ISTR that the last time I tried to mark a crossing, zebra wasn't a > option in the presets. But my memeory may be at fault. > which editor are you using? Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list T

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 11:57:58AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I noticed that crossing=zebra tag usage is drastically shrinking while the > very generic crossing=marked, which was quite unpopular before (2013-2018 > below 6000 uses) now went through the roof and is leading the tagstats with

[Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

I noticed that crossing=zebra tag usage is drastically shrinking while the very generic crossing=marked, which was quite unpopular before (2013-2018 below 6000 uses) now went through the roof and is leading the tagstats with more than 1 million uses. What do you think about it, shouldn't we be enco

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

sent from a phone > On 15. Sep 2020, at 19:05, Jan Michel wrote: > > If you want to tag how much space there is for some kind of vehicle moving in > some direction, there are the specific width tags like width:lanes, > sidewalk:width, cycleway:width, shoulder:width, verge:width > and so on.

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

> I expect the "width" of a way to be the actual width of the object it > represents. It depends on how we define "highway" in the OSM sense. You could also assume that sidewalks etc. are "sticking" on the highway merely for pragmatic reasons. Depending on the point of view, sidewalks and highways

Re: [Tagging] Addition of highway=emergency_bay and priority_road=yes to Map Features?

sent from a phone > On 16. Sep 2020, at 09:53, Alan Mackie wrote: > > Priority road definitely seems like you'd want it on the map features list if > you're in a country that uses it. > > Not sure how common emergency bays are? +1 for priority roads (although I believe the opposite is much

Re: [Tagging] Addition of highway=emergency_bay and priority_road=yes to Map Features?

On Tue, 15 Sep 2020, 07:52 Joseph Eisenberg, wrote: > Two tags were just added to the list of approved and de-facto highway > =* tags on Map features: > highway =emergency_bay >