Re: [Tagging] Tagging from fire_service_areas - landuse:emergency

[SRZ]

Hello Supaplex

Thank you very much for your explanation for others. It's exactly what I meant. 
It's areas especially designed for emergency vehicles, e.g a ladder which will 
reach most of the areas from a bulding. I think parking would be the wrong 
approach, because it's not really a parking, more a working are. I like 
emergency=service_area or better emergency=rescue_area.

I made the mentioned military area to the real situation with your taggings: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/860308598
What do you think about?

Kind regards

Christian

Freundliche Grüsse
Christian Nüssli
Applikationsverantwortlicher ELZ

Stadt Zürich
Schutz & Rettung
Direktwahl +41 44 411 22 85

Schutz & Rettung Zürich ist Top Employer 2020!
Weitere Infos: 
www.stadt-zuerich.ch/srz-top-employer
Von: Supaplex 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 28. Oktober 2020 00:40
An: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Tagging from fire_service_areas - landuse:emergency


We (or Christian) are talking about areas that must be kept free, especially 
near buildings, so that fire brigade vehicles can stand and work there in case 
of an emergency. For example, it is not allowed to park there, no objects may 
be placed there etc. In German-speaking countries it is very common to find 
areas that are specially designated for this use (I don't know what the 
situation is like in other countries). These areas can be e.g. paved areas or 
just grass, sometimes with surface=grass_paver (these areas must be able to 
carry vehicles weighing up to 16 tons). I think tagging of these areas is very 
useful for use by rescue services, as Christian apparently intends to do, or 
for micro mapping purposes.

How about "emergency = rescue_area" (very rarely in use)? I agree that landuse 
should not be used in this case, but we have "emergency" for this. For fire 
fighters access ways there is already "highway = service" + "service = 
emergency access" in use (see 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service%3Demergency_access).

(Another question I ask myself in this context: How do you mark footways/path 
that serve as fire fighter access - i.e. are designated, suitable and wide 
enough for this purpose? I have already used "highway = footway" + 
"motor_vehicle = emergency" in these cases.)

Am 28.10.20 um 00:05 schrieb Robert Delmenico:

I'm not sure what you're referring to but I'll put some options here to

discuss:



Fire districts: used for declaring total for bans in Australia

https://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/warnings-restrictions/find-your-fire-district





Neighbourhood safer places in Victoria - where you can go as a last resort

in a bushfire situation

https://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/plan-prepare/neighbourhood-safer-places





There are also administrative fire service regions/districts in Victoria

but there would be minimal value in mapping these.

https://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/about/where-we-are





There are training grounds used solely for training emergency service

personnel

https://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/about/victorian-emergency-management-training-centres







 There is land which the fire stations sit on

amenity=fire_station

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dfire_station





Then there is the fire stations

building=fire_station

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dfire_station



Kind regards,



Rob





On Wed, 28 Oct 2020, 9:20 am Graeme Fitzpatrick, 


wrote:







Hi Christian



On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 at 18:35, Nüssli Christian (SRZ) <

christian.nues...@zuerich.ch> wrote:



I wanted to ask you if there's a correct mapping of fire service areas.

That's areas in fire protection guidelines that will be reserved for

emergency vehicles.





Sorry, but what do you mean by "fire service areas", & "reserved for

emergency vehicles"?



Are you referring to fire stations & emergency lanes?



I found quite a few that are tagged as landuse=military which is in my

opinion – the incorrect way.





No, not even knowing for sure what we're talking about, but I can see that

would be wrong!



Thanks



Graeme



___

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] Tagging from fire_service_areas - landuse:emergency

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Oct 28, 2020, 03:22 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com:

> On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 at 13:20, Jonathon Rossi <> j...@jonorossi.com> > wrote:
>
>> We've got emergency=landing_site for helicopters, maybe just 
>> emergency=parking?
>>
>
> I like that, areas set aside for parking by emergency vehicles. 
>

amenity=parking access=no emergency=yes
seems a better fit to me
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging from fire_service_areas - landuse:emergency

[Andrew Harvey]

On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 at 13:20, Jonathon Rossi  wrote:

> We've got emergency=landing_site for helicopters, maybe just
> emergency=parking?
>

I like that, areas set aside for parking by emergency vehicles.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging from fire_service_areas - landuse:emergency

[Jonathon Rossi]

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 12:02 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 at 09:43, Supaplex  wrote:
>
>> How about *"emergency = rescue_area"* (very rarely in use)? I agree that
>> landuse should not be used in this case, but we have "emergency" for this.
>>
>  As I say, I've never looked at it, but would emergency=clear_area work?
>

I've seen "ambulance only" and "no parking emergency vehicle only" painted
on the ground in shopping centre car parks near entrances and in front of
large buildings here in Australia. I assume the intent for this tag isn't
just firies?

We've got emergency=landing_site for helicopters, maybe just
emergency=parking?

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging from fire_service_areas - landuse:emergency

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 at 09:43, Supaplex  wrote:

> We (or Christian) are talking about areas that must be kept free,
> especially near buildings, so that fire brigade vehicles can stand and work
> there in case of an emergency.
>
Thanks, Supa - it's not a concept that I've ever heard of in Australia! Our
firies just park in the street as needed!

>  I think tagging of these areas is very useful for use by rescue services,
>
Yes, probably would be.

> How about *"emergency = rescue_area"* (very rarely in use)? I agree that
> landuse should not be used in this case, but we have "emergency" for this.
>
 As I say, I've never looked at it, but would emergency=clear_area work?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

[Supaplex]

In this case you can simply use "parking:lane:right = parallel". Since
it is a simple parking lane, it has nothing to do with street_side as
suggested in the proposal.

(The question is rather how to tag the bike lane - a suggestion is for
example is
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/cycleway:protection)


Am 27.10.20 um 05:09 schrieb Phake Nick:
> See "Parking-Protected Bike Lanes | The City of Portland, Oregon":
> https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/77882
>
> 在 2020年10月27日週二 01:45，Supaplex  寫道：
>
>> Do you have an example picture/mapillary or similar of such a street? You
>> call this case yourself "parking lane" and the way you describe it, it
>> sounds like a typical case for parking:lane:* =
>> parallel/diagonal/perpendicular, but not for
>> parking:lane:*/parking=street_side. "street_side" is intended for cases
>> where the parking spaces are structurally (especially structured by curbs)
>> located on one side of the carriageway. (That means, if - hypothetically -
>> no vehicles were parked there, you could still not drive there because curb
>> extensions or street furniture would block a continuous drive.)
>>
>> A cycleway located behind this parking area is no longer part of the
>> roadway and would therefore not be "lane" but "track". But maybe I
>> misinterpreted the case you meant?
>>
>>
>> Am 26.10.20 um 15:49 schrieb Paul Johnson:
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 6:40 AM Supaplex  
>>  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> I would like to invite you to discuss a proposal for "parking =
>> street_side" for areas suitable or designated for parking, which are
>> directly adjacent to the carriageway of a road and can be reached directly
>> from the roadway without having to use an access 
>> way:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/parking%3Dstreet_side
>>
>> The proposed tagging can be used on separate parking areas as well as with
>> the parking:lane-scheme. It aims not only to differentiate such
>> street-accompanying parking areas from others, especially
>> "parking=surface", but also addresses a contradiction in the current use of
>> the amenity=parking and parking:lane-scheme, which I would like to mention
>> briefly at this point: the use of "layby"/"lay_by".
>>
>> The value "layby" was originally intended for forms of resting places, as
>> they seem to be especially common in rural areas of Great Britain, Ireland
>> or the US: short-stop rest-areas along through-traffic roads intended for
>> breaks during a car-trip (see Wikipedia for a 
>> definition:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rest_area#Lay-bys). On areas with
>> "amenity=parking" this key is also used in this sense (and mostly in Great
>> Britain).
>>
>> Within the parking:lane-schema, however, the value "lay_by" (written with
>> an underscore) has gained acceptance. According to the Wiki, this value is
>> defined identically to the layby's mentioned above. Its actual use,
>> however, differs from this and includes mainly street-side parking, as we
>> address them in our proposal.
>>
>>
>> How does this work out when the parking lane is not the curb lane?  This
>> arrangement is increasingly common in North America, where the parking
>> isn't at the side of the road, one or more bicycle lanes are.
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing 
>> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://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
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging from fire_service_areas - landuse:emergency

[Supaplex]

We (or Christian) are talking about areas that must be kept free,
especially near buildings, so that fire brigade vehicles can stand and
work there in case of an emergency. For example, it is not allowed to
park there, no objects may be placed there etc. In German-speaking
countries it is very common to find areas that are specially designated
for this use (I don't know what the situation is like in other
countries). These areas can be e.g. paved areas or just grass, sometimes
with surface=grass_paver (these areas must be able to carry vehicles
weighing up to 16 tons). I think tagging of these areas is very useful
for use by rescue services, as Christian apparently intends to do, or
for micro mapping purposes.

How about *"emergency = rescue_area"* (very rarely in use)? I agree that
landuse should not be used in this case, but we have "emergency" for
this. For fire fighters access ways there is already "highway = service"
+ "service = emergency access" in use (see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service%3Demergency_access).

(Another question I ask myself in this context: How do you mark
footways/path that serve as fire fighter access - i.e. are designated,
suitable and wide enough for this purpose? I have already used "highway
= footway" + "motor_vehicle = emergency" in these cases.)


Am 28.10.20 um 00:05 schrieb Robert Delmenico:
> I'm not sure what you're referring to but I'll put some options here to
> discuss:
>
> Fire districts: used for declaring total for bans in Australia
> https://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/warnings-restrictions/find-your-fire-district
>
>
> Neighbourhood safer places in Victoria - where you can go as a last resort
> in a bushfire situation
> https://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/plan-prepare/neighbourhood-safer-places
>
>
> There are also administrative fire service regions/districts in Victoria
> but there would be minimal value in mapping these.
> https://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/about/where-we-are
>
>
> There are training grounds used solely for training emergency service
> personnel
> https://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/about/victorian-emergency-management-training-centres
>
>
>
>  There is land which the fire stations sit on
> amenity=fire_station
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dfire_station
>
>
> Then there is the fire stations
> building=fire_station
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dfire_station
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Rob
>
>
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2020, 9:20 am Graeme Fitzpatrick, 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Christian
>>
>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 at 18:35, Nüssli Christian (SRZ) <
>> christian.nues...@zuerich.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> I wanted to ask you if there's a correct mapping of fire service areas.
>>> That's areas in fire protection guidelines that will be reserved for
>>> emergency vehicles.
>>>
>> Sorry, but what do you mean by "fire service areas", & "reserved for
>> emergency vehicles"?
>>
>> Are you referring to fire stations & emergency lanes?
>>
>> I found quite a few that are tagged as landuse=military which is in my
>>> opinion – the incorrect way.
>>>
>> No, not even knowing for sure what we're talking about, but I can see that
>> would be wrong!
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Tagging from fire_service_areas - landuse:emergency

[Robert Delmenico]

I'm not sure what you're referring to but I'll put some options here to
discuss:

Fire districts: used for declaring total for bans in Australia
https://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/warnings-restrictions/find-your-fire-district


Neighbourhood safer places in Victoria - where you can go as a last resort
in a bushfire situation
https://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/plan-prepare/neighbourhood-safer-places


There are also administrative fire service regions/districts in Victoria
but there would be minimal value in mapping these.
https://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/about/where-we-are


There are training grounds used solely for training emergency service
personnel
https://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/about/victorian-emergency-management-training-centres



 There is land which the fire stations sit on
amenity=fire_station
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dfire_station


Then there is the fire stations
building=fire_station
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dfire_station

Kind regards,

Rob


On Wed, 28 Oct 2020, 9:20 am Graeme Fitzpatrick, 
wrote:

>
>
> Hi Christian
>
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 at 18:35, Nüssli Christian (SRZ) <
> christian.nues...@zuerich.ch> wrote:
>
>> I wanted to ask you if there's a correct mapping of fire service areas.
>> That's areas in fire protection guidelines that will be reserved for
>> emergency vehicles.
>>
>
> Sorry, but what do you mean by "fire service areas", & "reserved for
> emergency vehicles"?
>
> Are you referring to fire stations & emergency lanes?
>
> I found quite a few that are tagged as landuse=military which is in my
>> opinion – the incorrect way.
>>
>
> No, not even knowing for sure what we're talking about, but I can see that
> would be wrong!
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> ___
> 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] Tagging from fire_service_areas - landuse:emergency

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Hi Christian

On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 at 18:35, Nüssli Christian (SRZ) <
christian.nues...@zuerich.ch> wrote:

> I wanted to ask you if there's a correct mapping of fire service areas.
> That's areas in fire protection guidelines that will be reserved for
> emergency vehicles.
>

Sorry, but what do you mean by "fire service areas", & "reserved for
emergency vehicles"?

Are you referring to fire stations & emergency lanes?

I found quite a few that are tagged as landuse=military which is in my
> opinion – the incorrect way.
>

No, not even knowing for sure what we're talking about, but I can see that
would be wrong!

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging from fire_service_areas - landuse:emergency

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 27. Oct 2020, at 09:35, Nüssli Christian  
> wrote:
> I wanted to ask you if there's a correct mapping of fire service areas. 
> That's areas in fire protection guidelines that will be reserved for 
> emergency vehicles.
> 
> I found quite a few that are tagged as landuse=military which is in my 
> opinion – the incorrect way.
> 
>  
> 
> I would like to propose a tag like this: landuse:emergency=fire_service_area 
> or landuse:emergency=fire_department
> 


I would not make a landuse of these. My suggestion would be for using a 
different key for it, maybe “emergency”? No idea about the correct term in 
english, deepl suggests fire brigade area.

Cheers Martin 

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

[Jeroen Hoek]

On 27-10-2020 09:30, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> because in OpenStreetMap everything is “valid”, but both approaches
> are not equally good. In this specific case, as soon as
> landuse=highway is mapped as an area, having connected the adjacent
> landuses to the middle of the street will become utterly wrong and
> will have to be fixed, up to then, it just means generalizing at the
> expense of having everything on the road and sidewalks misrepresented
> as lying on the neighbouring areas.

Perhaps I could have better phrased that by stating that both approaches
are in common use, and from the perspective of our proposal both
approaches should work.

Personally, I agree.

In the example graphics we do focus on the separately drawn method where
the explicitly mapped method is discussed.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 27. Oct 2020, at 08:17, Jeroen Hoek  wrote:
> 
> Both approaches are valid


because in OpenStreetMap everything is “valid”, but both approaches are not 
equally good. In this specific case, as soon as landuse=highway is mapped as an 
area, having connected the adjacent landuses to the middle of the street will 
become utterly wrong and will have to be fixed, up to then, it just means 
generalizing at the expense of having everything on the road and sidewalks 
misrepresented as lying on the neighbouring areas.


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

[Tagging] Tagging from fire_service_areas - landuse:emergency

[SRZ]

Hi all,

I wanted to ask you if there's a correct mapping of fire service areas. That's 
areas in fire protection guidelines that will be reserved for emergency 
vehicles.
I found quite a few that are tagged as landuse=military which is in my opinion 
- the incorrect way.

I would like to propose a tag like this: landuse:emergency=fire_service_area or 
landuse:emergency=fire_department

Looking forward to your opinions, thank you very much.

Kind regards

Christian

Freundliche Grüsse
Christian Nüssli
Applikationsverantwortlicher ELZ

Stadt Zürich
Schutz & Rettung
Direktwahl +41 44 411 22 85

Schutz & Rettung Zürich ist Top Employer 2020!
Weitere Infos: 
www.stadt-zuerich.ch/srz-top-employer
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

[Jeroen Hoek]

On 26-10-2020 21:24, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> If parking is on both sides of the street, the parking area already
> crosses the street, and even if it doesn't, logically the parking area
> *does* connect to the street. I disagree with the argument that mapping
> thus is somehow "wrong", and indeed, I usually map parking that way.

I'm afraid there is no consensus on how to map features along a street
exactly. Similar to how some mappers glue landuse=relational (etc.) to
the street and some use the boundary of the combined plots of the block.

Both approaches are valid; the latter is more suitable where highly
accurate boundary data is freely available along with high resolution
satellite imagery (e.g., the Netherlands) and mappers.

Personally, extending the parking area over the carriage way feels like
mapping for the router, in that I would be drawing a parking area where
there is none just to reach the highway-line in the middle of the street.

You are right about mapping the spaces of course; I do so when possible.

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