Re: [Tagging] Amenity swimming_pool (was Amenity parking)
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 23:56, Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/1/11 Ben Johnson tangarar...@gmail.com: For a public access pool (eg run by a local government authority, or even a private operator who's main business is the swimming pool) usually charge an entry fee and have opening hours, so i'd use [access=permissive] - likewise for tennis clubs with public access for a fee, with set operating hours. Is permissive what we're looking for? I don't think so. access=permissive means you shouldn't go there, but I'll turn the other way and pretend I don't see you. No it means you are free to go here but this is not public land. From wiki: Open to general traffic until such time as the owner revokes the permission which they are legally allowed to do at any time in the future. And that's how I've seen it used. /erik ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity parking
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: actually this is a recent wiki fiddling attempt. The default for missing information is: missing information. Come on, Martin. We are both from enough time on this project to know that original parking proposal was intended for public parking lots on surface. You cannot call this 'wiki fiddling' just because you might disagree. And eidtors and data consumers can consider default values when they are clearly documented (e.g. oneway on roundabouts). Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity parking
access=private is a modifying tag - if it is used in conjuction with an amenity=parking area then it means that the parking is private (and nothing else). I guess you could use something more specific like parking=private, but there are 1000s of uses of access=private in this context, so it's unlikely to catch on. access tags normally modify ways (as opposed to areas), and for routing purposes you need to have ways across the land if the data is to be usable (just around the periphery if there's no obvious paths across the middle). So put in appropriate access tags (eg access=private+foot=yes) on the ways. If the area is (for example) a field on which a handful of people have parking rights, and never occupy more than a fraction of it, I'd have said just mark a small parking area where they're most likely to park, and don't put parking tags on the field as a whole. Richard On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 23:51, Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.comwrote: 2012/1/11 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2012/1/11 Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com: I will gladly change my amenity=parking to what ever you decide. Does access=private work? The parking lots aren't private it's just that you can't park there. access=private doesn't say that something is private, it means that the right to access is private / given on an individual basis. Current tagging practice (access=private AFAIK, also rendered differently in Mapnik) does indeed seem wrong if you can access the parking (e.g. you can cross it on foot or bike) but cannot park there. Er, sorry? It seems to me that access=private is exactly what is needed, and your own definition falls into place easily: the stall is phisically accessible, but the right to access is private. The fact that you can walk on it is irrelevant: actually, since it's a parking, it should be interdicted from traffic (ok, walking is not a good example, but for example you shouldn't drive your car through it) This is IMHO. To be clear I'm talking about huge parking lots in suburbs which for all practical reasons are public land if you ask the people living around it. There is a big problem with adding PRIVATE PROPERTY to something like that just because you can't park your car there without a parking permit. access seems to mean that access is private or permissive. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity swimming_pool (was Amenity parking)
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote: On the one hand I wouldn't bother tagging them, but for the ones that you did tag, I think you should go back and tag them private. The tennis courts too. Agreed --- I'll do that (although fairly gradually). Every time I see solar panels shining on Bing, my fingers itch to tag them as power plants, but I don't think it makes a lot of sense to do so... It's borderline privacy transgression, isn't it? Again, agreed. I wasn't sure whether to tag pools at first, but they're even more obvious than houses (on Bing etc) and if we count it as privacy transgression, perhaps we should count the exact size and shape of a house as a similar transgression, and simply map all houses as single points (so that likely affluence can't be inferred from the house size, as well as it not being inferred from presence or absence of swimming pool or tennis court in the garden). Also, if eventually such features are mapped consistently all over the place (country / world) it could be useful for those calculating social statistics (human geography) which I see as a use for OSM-as-database (e.g. quality-of-life by county, etc). I just hope such data doesn't get used for directed marketing; but if it does, the marketing industry is probably going to come up with the data anyway before long (I don't think it would be difficult for a swimming pool accessories company to get software written for spotting swimming pools on Bing / Google Maps, correlating it with address data (perhaps by outsourcing to a country with cheap labour -- or perhaps the pool-spotting could be done that way anyway), and mailshot all pool owners) so not mapping such features isn't really going to protect privacy that much. __John ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity swimming_pool (was Amenity parking)
On 1/12/2012 5:35 AM, John Sturdy wrote: I just hope such data doesn't get used for directed marketing; but if it does, the marketing industry is probably going to come up with the data anyway before long (I don't think it would be difficult for a swimming pool accessories company to get software written for spotting swimming pools on Bing / Google Maps, correlating it with address data (perhaps by outsourcing to a country with cheap labour -- or perhaps the pool-spotting could be done that way anyway), and mailshot all pool owners) so not mapping such features isn't really going to protect privacy that much. Depending on where you live, the government may already have such data available: http://www.ocpafl.org/searches/ParcelSearch.aspx?pid=282316389901790 PL3 - Large Elaborate Pool ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity parking
2012/1/12 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: actually this is a recent wiki fiddling attempt. The default for missing information is: missing information. Come on, Martin. We are both from enough time on this project to know that original parking proposal was intended for public parking lots on surface. Excuse me Pieren, for calling you a wiki-fiddler. I am sure you acted with good intentions. I am not sure whether this was initially only for parkings on surface (I had thought it would have been for all kind of parkings, so also underground and multistorey) and I don't recall that there had been some agreement (or even thought) if there was a fee or parking was free of charge (btw.: most _public_ parking lots in dense urban areas do charge a fee, public and fee are orthogonal information). Besides from what was orginally intended we have to be aware that it is for a very long time used for all kinds of parkings, so encouraging the mappers to omit information by telling them this information would be implicitly there (default) is not a good idea IMHO. And eidtors and data consumers can consider default values when they are clearly documented (e.g. oneway on roundabouts). Data consumers, especially those dealing with OSM-data, have to decide how to handle missing information, I agree. But again: that's not a good reason to encourage mappers to omit information they can easily provide. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity swimming_pool (was Amenity parking)
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: Depending on where you live, the government may already have such data available: http://www.ocpafl.org/searches/ParcelSearch.aspx?pid=282316389901790 PL3 - Large Elaborate Pool Hmmm... my first thought was that's scary, but then, according to some of the punditry sector, these large elaborate pools, best quality fountains, boat docks, etc will all have their own IPv6 addresses eventually, I guess ;-) __John ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity parking
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: But again: that's not a good reason to encourage mappers to omit information they can easily provide. Sure. But I fear about this trend asking more and more attributes in editors like P2 and JOSM. You and me know that all is optionnal but in the other way, editors are suggesting the opposite. And more you ask to newcomers and less your newcomers will contribute. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity parking
Hi, On 01/12/12 13:26, Pieren wrote: Sure. But I fear about this trend asking more and more attributes in editors like P2 and JOSM. You and me know that all is optionnal but in the other way, editors are suggesting the opposite. And more you ask to newcomers and less your newcomers will contribute. +1 - it takes a certain amount of audacity to leave all those beckoning input fields blank. No, sorry, I *only* want to map the fact that there's a tram line, I don't know operator, voltage, lines, operating rules, or gauge... But that could be solved on the user interface side by splitting tags in this tag is really important for this kind of feature (like name for a street), and these tags are optional. Bye Frederik ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity parking
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I am not sure whether this was initially only for parkings on surface (I had thought it would have been for all kind of parkings, so also underground and multistorey) The surface default was part of the proposal that introduced the surface/underground/multi-storey distinction: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approved_features/Parking So imo at least this default should be put back onto the page. We can discuss whether it should be abolished, but it clearly wasn't just a later addition. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity parking
2012/1/12 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de: Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I am not sure whether this was initially only for parkings on surface (I had thought it would have been for all kind of parkings, so also underground and multistorey) The surface default was part of the proposal that introduced the surface/underground/multi-storey distinction: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approved_features/Parking OK, but is the voting of a bunch of people on a wiki proposal sufficient to ensure that all amenity=parking by then were surface parkings? Introducing defaults afterwards is a fail in any case - as long as you don't check all entities which are in the map and make sure every mapper by then gets knowledge of the newly introduced default. So imo at least this default should be put back onto the page. We can discuss whether it should be abolished, but it clearly wasn't just a later addition. It's a wiki, go ahead. Btw.: Personally I'd also consider parking=surface a reasonable default fallback for the case of a missing parking key (but I do enter parking=surface on the map for surface parkings, because it is unambigous, and I won't encourage people to omit this - what basically happens if you write defaults into the wiki). So, +1 to the suggestion to abolish this default. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity swimming_pool (was Amenity parking)
On 12/01/2012, at 19:10, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 23:56, Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/1/11 Ben Johnson tangarar...@gmail.com: For a public access pool (eg run by a local government authority, or even a private operator who's main business is the swimming pool) usually charge an entry fee and have opening hours, so i'd use [access=permissive] - likewise for tennis clubs with public access for a fee, with set operating hours. Is permissive what we're looking for? I don't think so. access=permissive means you shouldn't go there, but I'll turn the other way and pretend I don't see you. No it means you are free to go here but this is not public land. From wiki: Open to general traffic until such time as the owner revokes the permission which they are legally allowed to do at any time in the future. @simone Hi... Thanks! I've read that explanation elsewhere before and I can definitely see the usefulness of a tag that says that. If permissive is in widespread use for that purpose then that's all fine with me. I would've thought [access=unofficial] might be more appropriate for clandestine / sneaky access. Actually sounds like fun... I can see someone extracting these permissive ways and using them in an app for thrill-seeking adventurists!!! :-) For my take on permissive, the best example I can think of is rural properties where you need to literally drive through private farms to get to your destination (which is usually another farm). In such cases, landowners grant permissive access to cross their private property. They may stipulate rules like: leave the gate closed / leave the gate how you found it / no shooting, no fruit picking, etc... I'm not sure about their legal right to revoke access - especially if the only way in/out of your farm is to cross theirs, so they may have a legal obligation to always permit access. So my take on permissive is its something generally publicly accessible, but you must adhere to the local rules they set otherwise you may be ejected. That's why i consider it maybe reasonable to use it for (gated) public amenities like swimming pools and tennis clubs which people can access under permission granted by the owner/operator/club. Im totally with you that the fee is a different thing altogether and applies to a variety of things. @Erik my use of it blurs the not public land aspect of things. Example - a swimming pool can be on public land operated by a local government authority, but the public land is fenced off from free access. Or a group of tennis courts, on public land, fenced off - and maintained by a local community tennis club, but can be used by the general public for a fee. Likewise I've seen examples public swimming pools (usually ocean baths) and tennis courts (usually vandalized and poorly maintained) which are unfenced and unrestricted. Im probably thinking about it all too much... I guess it shows what a complex world we live in and how surprisingly hard it is to neatly classify everything. BJ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity swimming_pool (was Amenity parking)
2012/1/12 Ben Johnson tangarar...@gmail.com: For my take on permissive, the best example I can think of is rural properties where you need to literally drive through private farms to get to your destination (which is usually another farm). those usually aren't permissive (at least in the areas that I know of), instead there is usually a right of way (the owner of the land that has to be crossed _has the obligation_ to let the other (including postman, visitors, etc.) pass his property (this is often something that is written in the land register). Permissive on the other hand would mean that the owner could revoke the right to pass his ground any time. I'm not sure about their legal right to revoke access - especially if the only way in/out of your farm is to cross theirs, so they may have a legal obligation to always permit access. exactly Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity swimming_pool (was Amenity parking)
On 13/01/2012, at 11:49 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2012/1/12 Ben Johnson tangarar...@gmail.com: For my take on permissive, the best example I can think of is rural properties where you need to literally drive through private farms to get to your destination (which is usually another farm). those usually aren't permissive (at least in the areas that I know of), instead there is usually a right of way (the owner of the land that has to be crossed _has the obligation_ to let the other (including postman, visitors, etc.) pass his property (this is often something that is written in the land register). Permissive on the other hand would mean that the owner could revoke the right to pass his ground any time. I'm not sure about their legal right to revoke access - especially if the only way in/out of your farm is to cross theirs, so they may have a legal obligation to always permit access. exactly Cheers, Martin Hi Martin, Okay that explains it very well. I have a friend with a farm who explained a little to me and the obligation makes perfect sense. But would you tag such ways as private or just leave them as default access? Farms aside, I struggle to think of examples of permissive ways. The only thing I can think of is something like a pedestrian shortcut across a golf course, or a pedestrian way through an arcade or shopping centre. BJ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity swimming_pool (was Amenity parking)
2012/1/13 Ben Johnson tangarar...@gmail.com: Okay that explains it very well. I have a friend with a farm who explained a little to me and the obligation makes perfect sense. But would you tag such ways as private or just leave them as default access? this depends on the situation. It might be private/destination or maybe permissive (if anybody can go there). We don't currently have a method to indicate special rights of certain people (B has to let pass A, we don't have a way to tag this). Farms aside, I struggle to think of examples of permissive ways. The only thing I can think of is something like a pedestrian shortcut across a golf course, or a pedestrian way through an arcade or shopping centre. permissive would be any way where you can go (=nobody will shout at you) but you don't have a legal right to do so, the owner simply doesn't care or tolerates the use. The wiki says: permissive: Open to general traffic until such time as the owner revokes the permission which they are legally allowed to do at any time in the future. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity swimming_pool (was Amenity parking)
On 1/12/2012 9:01 PM, Ben Johnson wrote: Farms aside, I struggle to think of examples of permissive ways. The only thing I can think of is something like a pedestrian shortcut across a golf course, or a pedestrian way through an arcade or shopping centre. Think of a large development (e.g. a mall) that has roads that quack like public roads, but are in reality privately-owned and maintained. As long as there are no signs prohibiting through traffic, these roads would be permissive. Another example would be a big military base with a road across. Generally the road is open to the public, but the military can close it at any time. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
