Re: [Tagging] How are busways mapped, which are not guideways?

[Andrew Harvey]

When you say busway is that just a road that only busses are allowed to
use, and specifically signposted for busses? if so then the suggested you
noted of highway=* + bus=designated + access=no would be correct.

On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 17:12, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> There is an approved tag for bus guideways, where specially-designed buses
> are guided by a rail:
>
> But how should ordinary busways be mapped? Right now the suggestion on
> highway=bus_guideway is that other busways might be mapped highway=service
> + bus=designated + access=no. (See
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbus_guideway)
>
> There is also a somewhat common tag service=busway which has been used
> 2500 times, and can be added to highway=service
>
> Alternatively, the tag highway=busway has been used a couple of dozen
> times, and there is a new draft proposal to use this tag instead of
> highway=service, for standard busways:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=busway
>
> A new tag would require database users to adapt, but since guided busways
> already have a specific tag, it seems odd that other exclusive busways are
> mapped only as service roads.
>
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] How are busways mapped, which are not guideways?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

There is an approved tag for bus guideways, where specially-designed buses
are guided by a rail:

But how should ordinary busways be mapped? Right now the suggestion on
highway=bus_guideway is that other busways might be mapped highway=service
+ bus=designated + access=no. (See
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbus_guideway)

There is also a somewhat common tag service=busway which has been used 2500
times, and can be added to highway=service

Alternatively, the tag highway=busway has been used a couple of dozen
times, and there is a new draft proposal to use this tag instead of
highway=service, for standard busways:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=busway

A new tag would require database users to adapt, but since guided busways
already have a specific tag, it seems odd that other exclusive busways are
mapped only as service roads.

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

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Volker Schmidt]

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 09:46, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> Generally, I would propose to only tag crossing =* on the crossing node,
> but refrain from access like tags on this node (no bicycle or foot tags).
> The access should be derived from the crossing ways.
>

This statement is only correct if there are crossing ways using the
crossing node.
However, in practical terms it happens very often that in a first mapping
of a road the foot and/or bicycle crossings, as they are nicely visible on
aerial imaging, ar mapped, but not the crossing foot- and/or cycle-ways,
mainly because the details are not visible on aerial imagery or the mapper
is not interested, at that stage, in foot/cycling details. And the
distinction, at least in Italy, between foot-only and combined foot-cycle
crossing are well visable on satellite imagery. Also traffic-signals are
often clearly visible because of the stop lines. Hence in that first round
it is easy to map crossings and basic crossing types. The crossing way is
then often added later. To me it comes natural not to remove the existing
tagging on a crossing node when I add a crossing  way later.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 17. Oct 2020, at 21:01, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> Nevertheless some crossings were mapped using highway=cycleway and bicycle=no 
> on crossing
> nodes, probably because it is much less fiddly to map it.


Yes I know, one possible outcome of this discussion here would be agreeing that 
this representation bears some problems and that we suggest a less error prone 
alternative is chosen.

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

Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

[stevea]

There really is a time, place, realm to cleave a sensible split between public 
and private.  Choose the correct register, yes, please.  Chill jets, everyone.  
Mapping in public like we do has its difficulties.
Respect.
I know it takes time to work things out, so let's work things out!
I think we were talking about railway=station areas, yes?

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

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Oct 17, 2020, 00:17 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 16. Oct 2020, at 10:28, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> Not in cases where 
>> (1) highway=cycleway is crossing road where cyclists are obligated to 
>> dismount
>> (2) highway=footway with bicycle=yes/designated is crossing road where 
>> cyclists
>> are obligated to dismount
>>
>
>
> in these cases the cycleway ceases to exist. Or would you say pushing only 
> cycleways are ok? highway=cycleway with  bicycle=dismount?
>
Yes, in this cases cycleway is interrupted. And yes, splitting cycleway and 
mapping short section
of crossing itself as footway is possible tagging method. Maybe superior.

Nevertheless some crossings were mapped using highway=cycleway and bicycle=no 
on crossing
nodes, probably because it is much less fiddly to map it.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (More service:bicycle:school)

[Mathieu]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/More_service:bicycle:school

I propose to introduce a new attribute to the namespace service:bicycle in
order to map the bicycle school services that are often provided.

This attribute could be applied to other POIs as well: an NGO or public
administration could be tagged with service:bicycle:school=yes
It is frequent for bike shops to provide bicycle lessons. Specifically the
ones with repair services tend to have this activity. But they are not
currently identified on the map.

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

Re: [Tagging] Crossing tagged on both way and node (was: What does bicycle=no on a node means?)

[Adam Franco]

As someone who renders a driving-focused map
 of [the most twisty] roadways, I
specifically have done exactly what Volker describes (looking at
highway=crossing nodes only).

To provide an example, my renderer walks down each vehicle-legal way and
demotes the curviness weighting for a distance in each direction whenever
it encounters a highway=crossing node on that way (or nodes with
highway=stop, highway=traffic_signals, barrier=traffic_calming, etc). This
particular map doesn't care about the geometry of footways, sidewalks,
paths, or buildings, so it can look at a much reduced data-set of just
vehicle-specific highways. If highway=crossing nodes aren't available and
crossings are only indicated on intersecting ways, then I'd have to add a
preprocessing step to build a list of all nodes that are members of a
highway=crossing way and then add that to the list of nodes tagged with
highway=crossing. I guess it's not an impossible task, but it is much more
simple to just look at nodes that are also members of the
vehicle-accessible highway ways.

I know OsmAnd can be configured to alert drivers of upcoming crossings (and
stop signs), but do not know if that router works only with nodes on the
ways of the current route or also does matching on crossing ways.

On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 1:06 PM Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> I don't know what the routers need, to be honest.
> I have adopted the approach happily because of the frequent two-stage
> approach. First the main road is mapped with foot/bicycle crossings as
> nodes , and at a later stage someone else may add the foot/cycleway
> details  - I did not occur to me that there may be an advantage in removing
> at that stage the already existing crossing node.
> I would also naively assume, that a car-only router does not need to
> inspect any of the foot/cycleways in the map, and can use the
> highway=crossing nodes as an indication to add small delays inthe routing.
> Anyone in the router business listening in on this conversation?
>
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 17:39, Jmapb via Tagging 
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/13/2020 6:30 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 17:41 Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>>
>> I changed the crossing to the way we do it in many parts of Europe, i.e.
>>> a crossing node *and* a crossing way. This was described as an option
>>> on the highway=crossing wiki page until it was changed on 07:52, 3 October
>>> 2020by user Emvee  by
>>> addng the diagram and its description.
>>> If you don't like it, please change it back - I used it in place of a
>>> longish explanation.
>>>
>>
>> Both of those are better, thanks! The routers that I use for testing seem
>> to be aware of crossings without crossing nodes, so I too often forget to
>> tag them.
>>
>> I've always been surprised to see a footway=crossing/cycleway=crossing
>> way with the intersection node tagged as highway=crossing. There's only a
>> single physical crossing, so this seems contra to the
>> one-feature-one-element rule.
>>
>> A highway=crossing node makes sense in an area without mapped
>> footways/cycleways. But if the crossing ways are mapped, routing software
>> will need to examine the intersection node and scan the properties of all
>> highways intersecting there. It seems to make tagging the node itself
>> redundant.
>>
>> Are there really routers that require the node be tagged as well?
>>
>> Jason
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

17 paź 2020, 15:18 od tagging@openstreetmap.org:

>
> On 17/10/2020 09:53, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>>
>> On 15. Oct 2020, at 15:12, Dave F via Tagging  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Please send all messages to the public forum Martin.
>>>
>>
>> I will write to whoever I want, not your business.
>>
>
> Wow. The arrogant hypocrisy. (& v. short term memory)
>
It is perfectly fine to discuss things in 
private (though you should not
expect others to care about outcomes of
such discussions).

Maybe I am missing something but, why
people would be obligated to hold all
discussion in public?___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

[Dave F via Tagging]

On 17/10/2020 09:53, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


On 15. Oct 2020, at 15:12, Dave F via Tagging 
 wrote:

Please send all messages to the public forum Martin.


I will write to whoever I want, not your business.


Wow. The arrogant hypocrisy. (& v. short term memory)



You may already know it, but for the avoidance of doubt I’ll tell you 
again: every thread and all contributions can be seen here: 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-October/thread.html


Not if private or on IRC, where the discussion for 2015 wiki edit took 
place. & is what I'm referring to.




If the mail headers are confusing you can always cross check your 
inbox with the public archive.


You appear to be confusing me with someone else.



neither am I, and while I am not scared to participate under my real 
name, I understand that other people might have reasons to choose a 
pseudonym or shorten their last name, and it’s ok.


You use a nickname.
My full name is viewable.

DaveF

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

Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

[Dave F via Tagging]

On 17/10/2020 10:00, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



On 15. Oct 2020, at 16:40, Dave F via Tagging 
 wrote:


Which negates any desire to change the meaning of railway=station 
from "places where customers can access railway services or where 
goods are loaded and unloaded."



I am perfectly fine with this definition, it was you who chose to 
ignore the “where goods are loaded and unloaded” part.


The diagram's previous incarnations made no mention of this part of the 
definition.


My interpretation for railway=station is: the train station (all of 
it). I am neither a train spotter nor a buffer kisser (not sure this 
term exists in English), but it seems clear that the tag implies the 
whole railway station, regardless of its application on a node or an area.


Which doesn't include signals/points way down the track.

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

Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 at 10:03, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

buffer kisser (not sure this term exists in English)
>

I've not encountered it (but there's a lot I don't know).  This WIkipedia
article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railfan doesn't mention it either.  One of the
few mentions I've found of it is at
https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?6,1289802

All of which is going far off topic.

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

Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 15. Oct 2020, at 16:40, Dave F via Tagging  
> wrote:
> Which negates any desire to change the meaning of railway=station from 
> "places where customers can access railway services or where goods are loaded 
> and unloaded."


I am perfectly fine with this definition, it was you who chose to ignore the 
“where goods are loaded and unloaded” part. 
My interpretation for railway=station is: the train station (all of it). I am 
neither a train spotter nor a buffer kisser (not sure this term exists in 
English), but it seems clear that the tag implies the whole railway station, 
regardless of its application on a node or an area.

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

Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 15. Oct 2020, at 15:12, Dave F via Tagging  
> wrote:
> 
> Please send all messages to the public forum Martin.



I will write to whoever I want, not your business. 

You may already know it, but for the avoidance of doubt I’ll tell you again: 
every thread and all contributions can be seen here: 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-October/thread.html

If the mail headers are confusing you can always cross check your inbox with 
the public archive.


> It was a post in reply to the topic.
> 
> Unlike a few train spotters in Germany I'm not scared to have all discussions 
> be public & a matter for record.


neither am I, and while I am not scared to participate under my real name, I 
understand that other people might have reasons to choose a pseudonym or 
shorten their last name, and it’s ok.

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