Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer
On 4/10/2012 4:38 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote: Martijn van Exel wrote: A sidewalk is not a lane and it should not be tagged as such. Doing so would be utterly confusing. Does the lanes proposal (which I think is horribly overwrought to begin with) not exclude sidewalks? Not explicitly. And while it is true that the examples don't include sidewalks, they do include cycleways, where we have basically the same debate whether or not they should be separate ways. That just makes it more confusing then. If you're going to use an example that clearly shows a sidewalk in the aerial image, you should also include it in the tagging example. Anyway, I see no reason to exclude sidewalks here. No matter whether you think of a sidewalk when you hear the word "lane", the requirements are the same as for other "stripes" of the highway: They run parallel to the highway centreline, you want to define their relative ordering, they share properties of the highway such as its name, but you also want to be able to add tags to them individually sometimes. I disagree. If you're going to include sidewalks and cycleways that run parallel to the roadway but are not part of them, the key should not be 'lane' but 'road_element' or something abstract like that. How are you going to gain adoption for a proposal that violates the natural language use of the word and makes mapping more confusing for so many people? A sidewalk=left/right/both fails when you want to define the relative ordering, and separate footway=cycleway fail in practice because no renderer is actually able to puzzle the highway back together from unconnected parallel ways. What is the use case for being able to do that? What can you do that you can't with a separate geometry for a sidewalk that may be as much as 6 feet from the main roadway? All in all, I think that this entire lanes proposal over-complicates things by aiming to be a catch-all for too many situations. To me, it violates the prime directive of OSM (well half of it): 'have fun' - and you won't see me use it for that reason alone. -- Martijn van Exel ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer
Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 4/10/2012 6:38 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote: >> Not explicitly. And while it is true that the examples don't include >> sidewalks, they do include cycleways, where we have basically the same >> debate whether or not they should be separate ways. > > Are you talking about bike lanes or sidepaths? I am talking about bicycle lanes that are not physically separate from the car lanes. These should be mapped as cycleway=lane (or variants thereof, such as cycleway:left/right=lane), but some micromappers seem to like mapping them as individual ways for some reason. While cycleway=lane is fine as a start, I would suggest that these should also be added to the *:lanes list _if_ you use a proposal such as the one I linked to earlier. Otherwise, some situations cannot be adequately modelled. Tobias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer
On 4/10/2012 6:38 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote: Not explicitly. And while it is true that the examples don't include sidewalks, they do include cycleways, where we have basically the same debate whether or not they should be separate ways. Are you talking about bike lanes or sidepaths? The latter is a separate roadway, and can be either mapped as such or with cycleway=track. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer
Martijn van Exel wrote: > A sidewalk is not a lane and it should not be tagged as such. Doing so > would be utterly confusing. Does the lanes proposal (which I think is > horribly overwrought to begin with) not exclude sidewalks? Not explicitly. And while it is true that the examples don't include sidewalks, they do include cycleways, where we have basically the same debate whether or not they should be separate ways. Anyway, I see no reason to exclude sidewalks here. No matter whether you think of a sidewalk when you hear the word "lane", the requirements are the same as for other "stripes" of the highway: They run parallel to the highway centreline, you want to define their relative ordering, they share properties of the highway such as its name, but you also want to be able to add tags to them individually sometimes. A sidewalk=left/right/both fails when you want to define the relative ordering, and separate footway=cycleway fail in practice because no renderer is actually able to puzzle the highway back together from unconnected parallel ways. Tobias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer
On 4/10/2012 2:15 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote: Martijn van Exel wrote: Consider this situation: a road on an incline, the sidewalk follows the road but has steps in some places. You would want to capture the steps for accessibility reasons, and you can't by just adding a sidewalk tag to the main way feature. Except if you use one of the more general approaches for mapping lanes as tags (such as [1]). Then you can add arbitrary tags to each lane, including any that identify them as steps. Tobias [1] http://wiki.osm.org/Proposed_features/lanes_General_Extension ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging A sidewalk is not a lane and it should not be tagged as such. Doing so would be utterly confusing. Does the lanes proposal (which I think is horribly overwrought to begin with) not exclude sidewalks? It should. The sidewalks are not tagged in any of the examples: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/lanes_General_Extension#Examples -- Martijn van Exel ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer
Martijn van Exel wrote: > Consider this situation: a road on an > incline, the sidewalk follows the road but has steps in some places. You > would want to capture the steps for accessibility reasons, and you can't > by just adding a sidewalk tag to the main way feature. Except if you use one of the more general approaches for mapping lanes as tags (such as [1]). Then you can add arbitrary tags to each lane, including any that identify them as steps. Tobias [1] http://wiki.osm.org/Proposed_features/lanes_General_Extension ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer
> Well. We have a similar situation with "highway=cycleway" or > "cycleway=track". Not everybody is ready to trace multiple parallel > ways just for micromapping. If someone isn't ready - fine, just wait for active mapper to come. In Minsk, we've come to agreement that highway=* are just routing lines, with highway=footway as a part of routing graph for pedestrians, and highway=cycleway - for cyclists. It's possible to have pedestrian routing without separate ways for sidewalks, but it's nicer when it shows you where you can actually cross the road. These represent "how people actually move", and doesn't try to follow some idiom like "sidewalk is/isn't a part of the road" and "if it's a single bridge, it should be single line". We've got almost all sidewalks mapped as separate highway=footway lines. For those who wish to "join the road back" we're starting to map area:highway polygons. http://www.openstreetmap.by/?zoom=18&lat=53.868776&lon=27.65056 The highway=footway is the main part of the pedestrian graph, footway=sidewalk is just some tag I find no use for. -- Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski OSM BY Team - http://openstreetmap.by/ xmpp:m...@komzpa.net mailto:m...@komzpa.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer
On 4/10/2012 12:42 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Nobody said you have to draw sidewalks. I'm going a little off-topic here, but I just wanted to throw in my argument for mapping sidewalks separately, because I know there are a lot of opponents to this practice. Consider this situation: a road on an incline, the sidewalk follows the road but has steps in some places. You would want to capture the steps for accessibility reasons, and you can't by just adding a sidewalk tag to the main way feature. -- Martijn van Exel ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Extension of the "payment:*" keys
I recently found myself inconvenienced by turning up for lunch at a pub that only took cash, when I had only card money on me (something that I gather a growing number of people make a habit of doing), and immediately thought that would be a good thing to be able to warn about on OSM. So now I've had a look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Payment, and there's no concise way of doing this: I'd have to mark it as "payment:=no" for every type of card. So I'd like to suggest either: (1) a "payment:cards" key, intended specifically for use with the value "no", to indicate that a shop / pub / whatever doesn't take electronic payment; or (2) a "payment:other" key, intended specifically for use with the value "no", to indicate that a shop / pub / whatever takes only the forms of payment that have been listed with other keys. I think I prefer (2), as being more flexible, but would be interested to hear others' opinions on this. __John ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer
On 4/10/2012 2:26 PM, Pieren wrote: On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 4/10/2012 12:38 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: The suggested tagging is IMHO "tagging for the renderer". For tagging sidewalks it would be sufficent to tag them with footway=sidewalk without the highway-tag. In analogy to this tagging we would optionally be mapping an ordinary street as dual carriageway and tag each with highway=residential, oneway=yes, residential=lane. Well, no. Sidewalks are generally separated from the roadway by at least a curb. Well. We have a similar situation with "highway=cycleway" or "cycleway=track". Not everybody is ready to trace multiple parallel ways just for micromapping. Nobody said you have to draw sidewalks. The question is whether highway=footway is appropriate when a sidewalk is drawn. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 4/10/2012 12:38 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> The suggested tagging is IMHO "tagging for the renderer". For tagging >> sidewalks it would be sufficent to tag them with footway=sidewalk >> without the highway-tag. In analogy to this tagging we would >> optionally be mapping an ordinary street as dual carriageway and tag >> each with highway=residential, oneway=yes, residential=lane. > > > Well, no. Sidewalks are generally separated from the roadway by at least a > curb. > Well. We have a similar situation with "highway=cycleway" or "cycleway=track". Not everybody is ready to trace multiple parallel ways just for micromapping. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer
Hi Martin. You are right in that highway=footway is obsolete from a pure data point of view, IF the application supports it. On the other hand, it might be very likely, that the corresponding street then gets a foot=no, as that's often the case, if you look at the street without the footway. From my point of view, highway=footway could be omitted as you suggest, but on the other hand, that would break routing for pedestrians, because the legacy/compatibility attribute highway=footway is missing. The question is: is more data basically good or bad? Are applications/developers asked to adapt their code to a changing tagging system, or has the tagging system keep track of compatibility issues with more or less outdated software? In this case IMHO forcing devs (of software and styles) to adapt to the new possibilities is better as the maps gets more and more cluttered for software, that is not aware of the change. Software/Style, that is up to date can cope with that, at outdated software it's visible that things go wrong and people will complain about it, until it's changed. If in turn we remove the highway=footway tag, devs simply ignore good ideas and features, because they are probably even not aware of the possibilities inside. regards Peter Am 10.04.2012 18:38, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: I am coming back to a topic we had some time ago: sidewalks. According to this page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway%3Dsidewalk sidewalks should be tagged with highway=footway footway=sidewalk While I agree that for complex situations it is helpful to have dedicated geometry in OSM, I fail to understand why this should be tagged "highway=*". Usually a distinct highway should be drawn only in the case of a separated carriageway. The suggested tagging is IMHO "tagging for the renderer". For tagging sidewalks it would be sufficent to tag them with footway=sidewalk without the highway-tag. In analogy to this tagging we would optionally be mapping an ordinary street as dual carriageway and tag each with highway=residential, oneway=yes, residential=lane. New tags should be constructed in a way that doesn't change the meaning of existing tags, but only adds detail to the existing meaning in the case of a suggested tag-combination. In the case of sidewalks dataconsumers that don't evaluate the footway=sidewalk tag will get those highway=footway, which are tagged like this, wrong. cheers, Martin ___ 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] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer
On 4/10/2012 12:38 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: The suggested tagging is IMHO "tagging for the renderer". For tagging sidewalks it would be sufficent to tag them with footway=sidewalk without the highway-tag. In analogy to this tagging we would optionally be mapping an ordinary street as dual carriageway and tag each with highway=residential, oneway=yes, residential=lane. Well, no. Sidewalks are generally separated from the roadway by at least a curb. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer
2012/4/10 Martin Koppenhoefer > I am coming back to a topic we had some time ago: sidewalks. > > According to this page > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway%3Dsidewalk > > sidewalks should be tagged with > highway=footway > footway=sidewalk > > While I agree that for complex situations it is helpful to have > dedicated geometry in OSM, I fail to understand why this should be > tagged "highway=*". Usually a distinct highway should be drawn only in > the case of a separated carriageway. > You can add only a tag on the existing highway. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sidewalk cheers, > Martin > Stefano > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer
I am coming back to a topic we had some time ago: sidewalks. According to this page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway%3Dsidewalk sidewalks should be tagged with highway=footway footway=sidewalk While I agree that for complex situations it is helpful to have dedicated geometry in OSM, I fail to understand why this should be tagged "highway=*". Usually a distinct highway should be drawn only in the case of a separated carriageway. The suggested tagging is IMHO "tagging for the renderer". For tagging sidewalks it would be sufficent to tag them with footway=sidewalk without the highway-tag. In analogy to this tagging we would optionally be mapping an ordinary street as dual carriageway and tag each with highway=residential, oneway=yes, residential=lane. New tags should be constructed in a way that doesn't change the meaning of existing tags, but only adds detail to the existing meaning in the case of a suggested tag-combination. In the case of sidewalks dataconsumers that don't evaluate the footway=sidewalk tag will get those highway=footway, which are tagged like this, wrong. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal for some additional power line tags
Le lun. 09 avril 2012 à 22:23 +0200, Ole Nielsen a ecrit : > On 09/04/2012 21:11, Guillaume Allegre wrote: > >Please add a tag to specify that a specific tower is the point where the line > >comes from underground to aerial. I previously proposed "raiser=yes", but it > >didn't > >seem to match exactly what I meant. > > Somebody has already proposed 'tower=air_to_ground' and > 'pole=air_to_ground', see > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Power_lines thanks, I didn't notice that. -- ° /\Guillaume AllègreOpenStreetMap France /~~\/\ allegre.guilla...@free.fr Cartographie libre et collaborative / /~~\tél. 04.76.63.26.99 http://www.openstreetmap.fr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
