Re: [Tagging] Ferry frequency
Am 04.10.2013 21:47, schrieb Richard Fairhurst: John F. Eldredge wrote: That brings up an issue for routing in general, not just cycle-routing. The routing algorithm needs to take into account the day of the week, and what time it will be when you reach a point with time- dependent restrictions, or only intermittent service (such as a bus or ferry). Well, yes and no. There are certainly routers that do that; the very wonderful CycleStreets has a what time are you leaving input field. But it's equally possible to make the case that, for the 2% edge case (your route includes a ferry), it's not worth cluttering up the UI for the 98% who are just, say, cycling across town to work. FWIW, I'm planning to flag up the presence of a ferry by saying route includes ferry, 5 services an hour and let the user drag the route somewhere else if that doesn't suit them. I guess currently the estimated time necessary for the calculated route is shown somewhere, e.g. like Duration: 3 hours, 4 minutes What about printing the estimated time necessary in a way like this: Duration: estimated 7 hours, 4 minutes but includes ferry which gives between 3 hours, 17 minutes and 11 hours, 23 minutes, depending on ferry schedule This would print what you want: - the necessary time without any waiting times (if the ferry would travel just for you), - the worst case time (if you just miss the ferry and have to wait for the next) - the average case, if you arrive the ferry at a random time. For calculating the best (shortest, fastest...) route, either the average case would be used. regards Peter ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small
Hi all, One of the things I noticed at SOTM was that the Aston campus has two little wind turbines, perched on top of some of the buildings. They're quite small, yet the standard OSM style shows them even at zoom level 15, as if they're significant landmarks: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.4849mlon=-1.8899#map=15/52.4849/-1.8899 The relevant tags on these items are generator:source = wind power = generator power_source = wind I've no problem with them being rendered, but I'd suggest it'd be better to show them only at finer zoom levels. However, as far as I can tell our renderers don't have much choice, because there's no tagging that distinguishes a tiny building-mounted turbine from a massive free-standing turbine. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:generator:source%3Dwind In open areas with wind-farms, the turbines are significant landmarks, so I can see it makes sense to render them then. I'm suggesting this is not a problem we can leave for the renderer, since the renderer doesn't know the turbine's significance - it doesn't know if the turbine is 5 feet high or 50 feet high. (This implies that tagging the height could be a solution... might be a bit tricky to get correct height data though...) Best Dan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small
2013/10/7 Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com (This implies that tagging the height could be a solution... might be a bit tricky to get correct height data though...) What if the wind turbine is on the roof of a buildinghttps://www.google.hr/search?q=wind+turbine+on+the+roof? That would still be high (because we tag height from the ground, not just the height of the wind turbine). Actually, all small wind turbines are usually high https://www.google.hr/search?q=small+wind+turbine. The solutions Martin suggested seem better (rotor diameter, power output), but are even harder to get. Landmark seems a bit like a tag for renderer solution to me, but it doesn't seem harmful. Another solution comes to mind. What if we started tagging values with and ? Like diameter=5. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small
On 10/7/13 9:12 AM, Janko Mihelic' wrote: What if the wind turbine is on the roof of a building https://www.google.hr/search?q=wind+turbine+on+the+roof? That would still be high (because we tag height from the ground, not just the height of the wind turbine). Actually, all small wind turbines are usually high https://www.google.hr/search?q=small+wind+turbine. The solutions Martin suggested seem better (rotor diameter, power output), but are even harder to get. Landmark seems a bit like a tag for renderer solution to me, but it doesn't seem harmful. Another solution comes to mind. What if we started tagging values with and ? Like diameter=5. or just something that's sort of observable like large and small i've only really seen two general sizes with nothing in between. large and small might be good enough for our purposes. richard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Pre-proposal: gambling
IMHO we should distinguish between real casinos and those called for instance Automaten Casino in Germany [...] I agree this distinction also makes sense in the Netherlands. I think I haven't seen comments from outside of Europe. Would for example Americans consider this distinction meaningful as well? IMHO this differentiation should be made in the main tag, not on subtag level. How would you suggest implementing this change, given that they are currently aggregated in one tag? Do you think voting and documenting the tags on the wiki would be sufficient? Note that some mappers are opposed to re(de)fining the meaning of established tags, and some believe that mappers should keep following existing use, even though voting and wiki say different. As this example shows, that makes it hard to resolve ambiguities (as here between real casinis and amusement arcades), even if the community agrees on a way to resolve the ambiguity. -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
Hey I wonder if it is useful to tag bicycle=dismount on ways. At least in Germany there is no official traffic sign despite of the existence of some. You are allowed to push your bike on every footway/pedestrian plus ways with vehicle=no. E.g. it is useless. Either you are allowed to ride (bicycle=yes/designated) or not (bicycle=no or vehicle=no) I can understand if it is used together with barrier on nodes. How is the situation in other countries ? Cheers fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
2013/10/7 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com You are allowed to push your bike on every footway/pedestrian plus ways with vehicle=no. E.g. it is useless. Either you are allowed to ride (bicycle=yes/designated) or not (bicycle=no or vehicle=no) I agree that bicycle=dismount seems useless, at least as long as you only look at public ways in Germany (and probably in most countries), but there are a lot of places where you can walk but you cannot bring your bicycle, not even pushing. E.g. in shopping malls and on private squares there might be restrictions. Then again there might be further distinctions (e.g. are you allowed to carry your bike? What if it is foldable? ...) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small
On 07.10.2013 15:12, Janko Mihelić wrote: 2013/10/7 Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com mailto:danstowell+...@gmail.com (This implies that tagging the height could be a solution... might be a bit tricky to get correct height data though...) What if the wind turbine is on the roof of a building https://www.google.hr/search?q=wind+turbine+on+the+roof? That would still be high (because we tag height from the ground, not just the height of the wind turbine). Actually, all small wind turbines are usually high https://www.google.hr/search?q=small+wind+turbine. Please note, we have ele=* for elevation (ground level) and height=* (height of the object). So tagging a turbine on the roof you would have ele=elevation of building + height of building and height would be little more than the diametre I guess. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
On 10/7/13 12:18 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2013/10/7 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com mailto:lowfligh...@googlemail.com You are allowed to push your bike on every footway/pedestrian plus ways with vehicle=no. E.g. it is useless. Either you are allowed to ride (bicycle=yes/designated) or not (bicycle=no or vehicle=no) I agree that bicycle=dismount seems useless, at least as long as you only look at public ways in Germany (and probably in most countries), but there are a lot of places where you can walk but you cannot bring your bicycle, not even pushing. E.g. in shopping malls and on private squares there might be restrictions. Then again there might be further distinctions (e.g. are you allowed to carry your bike? What if it is foldable? ...) it has implications for routing of bicycles. bicycle=no will mean that it will never be used on a bicycle route. bicycle=dismount would indicate that inclusion of the way on a bicycle route is reasonable. richard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small
2013/10/7 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com Please note, we have ele=* for elevation (ground level) and height=* (height of the object). So tagging a turbine on the roof you would have ele=elevation of building + height of building and height would be little more than the diametre I guess. Well, this is not completely clear. Why not: ele is the ground elevation (a building is not the ground), so ele won't become the elevation of the buildings roof, so when you tag a wind turbine on a building you would have to add ele and building height and wind turbine height to get the upper top of the wind turbine? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
On 07.10.2013 18:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2013/10/7 Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net mailto:rwe...@averillpark.net it has implications for routing of bicycles. bicycle=no will mean that it will never be used on a bicycle route. bicycle=dismount would indicate that inclusion of the way on a bicycle route is reasonable. bicycle=no indicates that you cannot (legally) ride your bicycle there. If you dismount and push you become a pedestrian, so you are not riding a bicycle and bicycle=no has no effect on you. +1 Otherwise the routing in Germany will not work at all. Think we need some different tag that you are not allowed to push your bicycle. fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
On 10/7/2013 12:27 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: bicycle=no indicates that you cannot (legally) ride your bicycle there. If you dismount and push you become a pedestrian, so you are not riding a bicycle and bicycle=no has no effect on you. There are wilderness trails where no wheels are allowed. When campers move through the area with a bicycle, they must pack the bicycle on their back along with their supplies. I will say that bicycle=dismount is useful for routing instructions, which give explicit dismount instructions. Sure this is tagging for the router, but what better way to convey this to map data consumers? For example http://trip.greenvilleopenmap.info/opentripplanner-webapp/index.html#/submitfromPlace=34.841472,-82.394065toPlace=34.843872,-82.400352mode=BICYCLEmin=TRIANGLEtriangleTimeFactor=0triangleSlopeFactor=0triangleSafetyFactor=1maxWalkDistance=4828walkSpeed=1.341time=12:32pmdate=10/7/2013arriveBy=falseitinID=1wheelchair=preferredRoutes=unpreferredRoutes=bannedRoutes= ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
On 07.10.2013 18:48, John F. Eldredge wrote: On some bridges that have a relatively narrow footway, I have seen signs indicating that bicyclists must dismount. So, I think that it is useful as a way of telling someone planning a cycle route you will have to move at walking speed on this section. As said above, I know these signs but I wonder if they are official. In Germany they are not and the have no judicial effect. You will always have to take care of pedestrians especially on a small way with mixed use. Maybe you might even have to stop or dismount. But if you are really only allowed to push you bicycle a bicycle=no or vehicle=no is needed. Router can work with footways or pathes and even steps and you do not need bicycle=dismount. fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
On 10/07/2013 11:59 AM, fly wrote: On 07.10.2013 18:48, John F. Eldredge wrote: On some bridges that have a relatively narrow footway, I have seen signs indicating that bicyclists must dismount. So, I think that it is useful as a way of telling someone planning a cycle route you will have to move at walking speed on this section. As said above, I know these signs but I wonder if they are official. In Germany they are not and the have no judicial effect. You will always have to take care of pedestrians especially on a small way with mixed use. Maybe you might even have to stop or dismount. But if you are really only allowed to push you bicycle a bicycle=no or vehicle=no is needed. Router can work with footways or pathes and even steps and you do not need bicycle=dismount. fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Well, it may vary by jurisdiction, but I would not be surprised if it were legally enforced in cases where riding the bicycle could be a safety hazard to pedestrians, and in some cases to the cyclist as well. I remember seeing such a cyclists must dismount on the narrow footway of a bridge over the James River, in Richmond, Virginia, USA. Not only was the footway narrow, but the railing between the footway and the river was only a little over a meter tall. This is adequate for a pedestrian, but a mounted cyclist could easily fall over the railing and into the river. Unfortunately, I am about 600 miles from Richmond at the present, so I can't show a photograph. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
On 07.10.2013 19:08, John F. Eldredge wrote: On 10/07/2013 11:59 AM, fly wrote: On 07.10.2013 18:48, John F. Eldredge wrote: On some bridges that have a relatively narrow footway, I have seen signs indicating that bicyclists must dismount. So, I think that it is useful as a way of telling someone planning a cycle route you will have to move at walking speed on this section. As said above, I know these signs but I wonder if they are official. In Germany they are not and the have no judicial effect. You will always have to take care of pedestrians especially on a small way with mixed use. Maybe you might even have to stop or dismount. But if you are really only allowed to push you bicycle a bicycle=no or vehicle=no is needed. Router can work with footways or pathes and even steps and you do not need bicycle=dismount. Well, it may vary by jurisdiction, but I would not be surprised if it were legally enforced in cases where riding the bicycle could be a safety hazard to pedestrians, and in some cases to the cyclist as well. I remember seeing such a cyclists must dismount on the narrow footway of a bridge over the James River, in Richmond, Virginia, USA. Not only was the footway narrow, but the railing between the footway and the river was only a little over a meter tall. This is adequate for a pedestrian, but a mounted cyclist could easily fall over the railing and into the river. Unfortunately, I am about 600 miles from Richmond at the present, so I can't show a photograph. Wonder if this sign would be needed if the footway would just be signed as footway (highway=path,foot=designated,vehicle=no) without any extras signs for bicycle ? cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
On Oct 7, 2013 7:00 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: On 07.10.2013 18:48, John F. Eldredge wrote: On some bridges that have a relatively narrow footway, I have seen signs indicating that bicyclists must dismount. So, I think that it is useful as a way of telling someone planning a cycle route you will have to move at walking speed on this section. As said above, I know these signs but I wonder if they are official. In Germany they are not and the have no judicial effect. Just to be clear: do you mean that you always have to dismount on footpaths, even without the sign, or do you mean that you don't need to dismount, despite the presence of the sign? -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
On 07.10.2013 19:33, Matthijs Melissen wrote: On Oct 7, 2013 7:00 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com mailto:lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: On 07.10.2013 18:48, John F. Eldredge wrote: On some bridges that have a relatively narrow footway, I have seen signs indicating that bicyclists must dismount. So, I think that it is useful as a way of telling someone planning a cycle route you will have to move at walking speed on this section. As said above, I know these signs but I wonder if they are official. In Germany they are not and the have no judicial effect. Just to be clear: do you mean that you always have to dismount on footpaths, even without the sign, or do you mean that you don't need to dismount, despite the presence of the sign? A highway=footway (same as highway=path, foot=designated, vehicle=no) in Germany needs always a sign and your are only allowed to push your bicycle. There exists an additional sign to allow bicycles on these pathes. Without a sign there are no footways but only pathes. You are allowed to ride your bicycle on these pathes. There are some restrictions on pathes in the forest/mountains but that is a different story and a totally different law. The extra sign bicycle dismount does not mean anything in a judicially way, that means it does not change anything. Depending on the other signs you either are allowed to ride or not. In Germany it gets even more special as you are forced to use official cycleways and in situations like you describe I would tell people here to not use the path but the road if possible to be on the save side of law (official statement of the German Bicycle Club). Cheers fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small
On 10/07/2013 12:33 PM, Janko Mihelic' wrote: Dana ponedjeljak, 7. listopada 2013., korisnik flylowfligh...@googlemail.com mailto:lowfligh...@googlemail.com je napisao: On 07.10.2013 15:12, Janko Mihelic' wrote: 2013/10/7 Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com mailto:danstowell%2b...@gmail.com mailto:danstowell+...@gmail.com mailto:danstowell%2b...@gmail.com (This implies that tagging the height could be a solution... might be a bit tricky to get correct height data though...) What if the wind turbine is on the roof of a building https://www.google.hr/search?q=wind+turbine+on+the+roof? That would still be high (because we tag height from the ground, not just the height of the wind turbine). Actually, all small wind turbines are usually high https://www.google.hr/search?q=small+wind+turbine. Please note, we have ele=* for elevation (ground level) and height=* (height of the object). So tagging a turbine on the roof you would have ele=elevation of building + height of building and height would be little more than the diametre I guess. Wiki says ele is height of ground above sea level, and height is height of the highest point of an object above ground. But there is min_height for height of lowest point of an object above ground. See here: http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/File:Minlevel.svg Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging As far as I know, we don't have a standard method for tagging the height of an object mounted on top of another object, as distinct from the combined heights of the objects above ground, or the elevation above sea level of the base of the object. There are likely to be other cases, in addition to wind turbines, where this distinction would be useful. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small
Dana ponedjeljak, 7. listopada 2013., korisnik John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com je napisao: As far as I know, we don't have a standard method for tagging the height of an object mounted on top of another object, as distinct from the combined heights of the objects above ground, or the elevation above sea level of the base of the object. There are likely to be other cases, in addition to wind turbines, where this distinction would be useful. I think we have a method. Say we have a 20 meter building with a 3 meter wind turbine on the roof. You would have an area tagged with building=yes + height=20 and a node tagged with power=generator + generator:source=wind + height=23 + min_height=20. It's a question if a power=generator represents the whole tower or just the generator. I would maybe add a man_made=tower to all wind turbines to remove any doubt. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
dieterdreist wrote: bicycle=no indicates that you cannot (legally) ride your bicycle there. If you dismount and push you become a pedestrian, so you are not riding a bicycle and bicycle=no has no effect on you. That may not be the case in the UK. The law allows walkers and their usual accompaniments along public footpaths. It's generally agreed that (for example) a car is not a usual accompaniment, so you can't push a car along a public footpath. It is unclear whether or not a bike is. CTC (the Cyclists' Touring Club) thinks it is, many local councils disagree. That said, for routing purposes in the UK, I treat bicycle=no the same as bicycle=dismount, because in reality the tag is often used on paths where cycling is tolerated. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Usefulness-of-bicycle-dismount-on-ways-tp5780527p5780567.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small
This ele / height discussion might show we need a simple tagging scheme to distinguish wind turbines that can be seen as a landmark. Yves Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com a écrit : Dana ponedjeljak, 7. listopada 2013., korisnik John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com je napisao: As far as I know, we don't have a standard method for tagging the height of an object mounted on top of another object, as distinct from the combined heights of the objects above ground, or the elevation above sea level of the base of the object. There are likely to be other cases, in addition to wind turbines, where this distinction would be useful. I think we have a method. Say we have a 20 meter building with a 3 meter wind turbine on the roof. You would have an area tagged with building=yes + height=20 and a node tagged with power=generator + generator:source=wind + height=23 + min_height=20. It's a question if a power=generator represents the whole tower or just the generator. I would maybe add a man_made=tower to all wind turbines to remove any doubt. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small
On 07.10.2013 21:13, Janko Mihelić wrote: Dana ponedjeljak, 7. listopada 2013., korisnik John F. Eldredgej...@jfeldredge.com mailto:j...@jfeldredge.com je napisao: As far as I know, we don't have a standard method for tagging the height of an object mounted on top of another object, as distinct from the combined heights of the objects above ground, or the elevation above sea level of the base of the object. There are likely to be other cases, in addition to wind turbines, where this distinction would be useful. I think we have a method. Say we have a 20 meter building with a 3 meter wind turbine on the roof. You would have an area tagged with building=yes + height=20 and a node tagged with power=generator + generator:source=wind + height=23 + min_height=20. No, if it is mounted on top I would say height=3 for the object. min_height is only used for building:part but not for explicit tagged objects on top of another object. Please use ele=* to specify the elevation. It's a question if a power=generator represents the whole tower or just the generator. I would maybe add a man_made=tower to all wind turbines to remove any doubt. And you tag the height of the mast/tower or the height of the generator ? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small
2013/10/7 Yves yve...@gmail.com This ele / height discussion might show we need a simple tagging scheme to distinguish wind turbines that can be seen as a landmark. we have this: landmark=yes cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 11:05 AM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.comwrote: As far as I know, we don't have a standard method for tagging the height of an object mounted on top of another object, as distinct from the combined heights of the objects above ground, or the elevation above sea level of the base of the object. There are likely to be other cases, in addition to wind turbines, where this distinction would be useful. It seems that small and large are too granular for the complexities of wind turbines. Wikipedia has numerous sizes of wind turbines. There is a classification for small, 100kw or less wind turbines, but it is not related to physical size, just power output. Tagging wind turbines should have room for type, tower height, rotor and hub size and power output. -- Clifford OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power tower and pole usefulness
Hi, Please note the update of the power transmission proposal http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_transmission_refinement 1. Removing the man_made=pole / man_made=tower introduction - Deeper work should be done both in power and telecommunication fields to find a proper way to define supports (like tower, poles, trees, buildings, whatever) in a consistent and sustainable way that proposal can't cover. - The substation refinement proposal was accepted today and it was important to be consistent with its hosted features on poles recommendations. - Things stay as now and this topic may be come back in debate in a couple of months with a new proposal 2. Replacing cables=* and wires=* by bundles=* and conductors=* for power lines phy description as suggested by polderrunner on talk. 3. Power line description is done as strings of towers. Numerical values to describe it are always given without any circuit considerations. Circuits (I.e. path used by power to from A to B) will be described as relations in the power routing proposal (which is currently draft) and will actually accept power=line ways as member. This prevent us to put useless redundancy (and consistency errors not to mention) in database. 4. power=cable deprecation remains here. power=line aims to be the only way to describe a power line whatever its location. Please keep in mind this big change is intended to improve the system approach more than any rendering or local terminology particular case... and it's hard work. You can send me any formal and constructive suggestion about that. Vote will begin shortly. Stay tuned. Cheers. *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com 2013/9/23 François Lacombe francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu Hi, I can't open voting right now since some other points are still incomplete (RFC outlined comments and it's time to find a solution). Moreover, substation refinement vote is currently opened, one thing at a time. Be sure I'm willing to propose a good solution to the multiple power instances on the same node. But it's hard work to look wide and time is currently missing for me. That's why it's not good to launch vote now too : proposal has 99% chances to be rejected regarding this point and I don't want to recap my investment to that. Sorry but the consistency thread was too big to follow it correctly :( *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com 2013/9/23 Pieren pier...@gmail.com On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 9:38 PM, François Lacombe Deprecating power=tower and power=pole was my first proposition. Many people goes against it and then I refined the proposal. For now I'm just introducing man_made=tower + tower:type=power to use it when power=* is needed to describe hosted devices. Thus, man_made=tower doesn't seem to be the perfect solution, so let's try to find it but the topic isn't to deprecate power=tower because it won't. François, another thread on this ML was opened about consensus in OSM and raised some inconsistencyies in our taging documentation. And now, you are creating a new inconsistency. You already got some advice about how to fix the power tag issue when you need the key more than once (use subtags). Please, open now a vote on your proposal to get some feedback from a larger audience and see if you are in the right direction or not. Pieren ___ 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] Wind turbines: big and small
Dana ponedjeljak, 7. listopada 2013., korisnik fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com je napisao: No, if it is mounted on top I would say height=3 for the object. min_height is only used for building:part but not for explicit tagged objects on top of another object. Please use ele=* to specify the elevation. With your logic, if a building has underground floors, they should be counted into the height, don't you think so? Anyway, wiki isn't clear on this at all, there's obviously some work to do. It's only clear with ele being elevation of ground over sea level, even if it's tagged on a node like man_made=tower. It's a question if a power=generator represents the whole tower or just the generator. I would maybe add a man_made=tower to all wind turbines to remove any doubt. And you tag the height of the mast/tower or the height of the generator ? The top of the highest point of the structure (top of the blade in the highest position). That's my proposal. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
On 07/10/2013 21:42, Richard Fairhurst wrote: dieterdreist wrote: bicycle=no indicates that you cannot (legally) ride your bicycle there. If you dismount and push you become a pedestrian, so you are not riding a bicycle and bicycle=no has no effect on you. That may not be the case in the UK. The law allows walkers and their usual accompaniments along public footpaths. It's generally agreed that (for example) a car is not a usual accompaniment, so you can't push a car along a public footpath. It is unclear whether or not a bike is. CTC (the Cyclists' Touring Club) thinks it is, many local councils disagree. That said, for routing purposes in the UK, I treat bicycle=no the same as bicycle=dismount, because in reality the tag is often used on paths where cycling is tolerated. At least in the Netherlands you have to distinguish between bicycle=no and bicycle=dismount. Some pedestrian streets are explicitly signed with no bicycle pushing. In other words you may not bring your bicycle here. Thus you need bicycle=no in its strict interpretation. In other situations bicycle=dismount is useful for routing as already mentioned. One good example is steps having a groove along the side intended for bicycle pushing. Routers would probably not suggest steps as routable for bicycles unless you indicate that fact. Ole ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small
On 07/10/2013 22:40, Clifford Snow wrote: It seems that small and large are too granular for the complexities of wind turbines. Wikipedia has numerous sizes of wind turbines. There is a classification for small, 100kw or less wind turbines, but it is not related to physical size, just power output. Tagging wind turbines should have room for type, tower height, rotor and hub size and power output. Maybe we shouldn't tag such small wind turbines as power=generator as they hardly count as power infrastructure. My suggestion is man_made=small_generator or something like that for (could also apply to rooftop solar panels). Ole ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small
2013/10/7 Ole Nielsen on-...@xs4all.nl Maybe we shouldn't tag such small wind turbines as power=generator as they hardly count as power infrastructure. My suggestion is man_made=small_generator or something like that for (could also apply to rooftop solar panels). Don't agree. The power generation model has been refined especially for that. If the device produce power, it should be tagged as power=generator, even it's small. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Power_generation_refinement#Solar_thermal_energy No need to create new values in man_made for that. *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com __**_ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagginghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small
2013/10/7 Ole Nielsen on-...@xs4all.nl Maybe we shouldn't tag such small wind turbines as power=generator as they hardly count as power infrastructure. -1, it is already done like this (also for solar power) and there is no reason why they shouldn't count as power infrastructure. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
2013/10/7 Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl Just to be clear: do you mean that you always have to dismount on footpaths, even without the sign, or do you mean that you don't need to dismount, despite the presence of the sign? you will always have to dismount, so the sign has no further indication as what is already said by the footway sign. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
2013/10/7 Ole Nielsen on-...@xs4all.nl At least in the Netherlands you have to distinguish between bicycle=no and bicycle=dismount. Some pedestrian streets are explicitly signed with no bicycle pushing. In other words you may not bring your bicycle here. Thus you need bicycle=no in its strict interpretation. the wiki says, bicycle is about cyclists (access-page). Are you a cyclist when pushing your bike? Are you maybe still a cyclist when you parked your bike and you still wear your bicycle clothing? Or when you have a bicycle at home? My suggestion would be to use something more specific when pushing a bicycle is forbidden, as you are not a cyclist when you carry or push your bike, so bicycle=no in its strict interpretation doesn't apply to you when pushing your bike as it applies to cyclists and not to bicycles. Btw.: What about monocycles? Are you alled to carry a monocycle in these streets? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
Martin Koppenhoefer: Btw.: What about monocycles? Are you alled to carry a monocycle in these streets? What would the traffic ticket claim as the offence? FWIW, our law has a clause that on a footway a pedestrian may not push a bike, moped, kicksled, ski or skate or carry a big load if it can cause considerable hindrance to others. I've only once seen a dismount sign, it was this year at a combined cycleway on a bridge that was being renovated. Had they changed to a footway sign, cyclists would have taken the main carriageway legally, but because of the circumstances they probably wanted that they'd rather be pushing their bikes on the sidewalk for that 50 meters, than have them wobbling between the buses on narrower-than-usual lanes between the guard rails. -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Consolidating tags for building attributes
2013/8/23 Vivien Deparday vivien.depar...@gmail.com Case C: For building usage, building= building:use= I am not sure what is the best between these two or do they have different goal/usage? building= seem to be a mix of usage, amenity type, structure type. building:use is for the current use of the building, building is for the type of building (architecture). In some circumstancese these are the same, but they don't have to be. Maybe an example can make this more clear: a building built as a church will remain a church building, also when desacrated (building=church, eventually further subtagged), and you can also operate a church in a residential or an office building (or open air etc.). Or a hotel, there are different types of dedicated hotel buildings (e.g. atrium-hotel has a big atrium in the center and loggias around it to got to the room) but there are also small hotels operated in residential buildings (and in this case building would not be hotel). The building:use tag would mostly be duplicates of the amenities, shops etc. inside the building, wouldn't it? There is also landuse, so I am not sure if you really need this (might be suitable for residential buildings, the rest will either be covered by amenity/shop/craft/office/etc. or we are missing a tag) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
2013/10/7 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi FWIW, our law has a clause that on a footway a pedestrian may not push a bike, moped, kicksled, ski or skate or carry a big load if it can cause considerable hindrance to others. This list doesn't contain babystrollers, does the situation change when you have a small kid on the bike? ;-) My guess is that many countries have a similar law. The question is what is considered a considerable hindrance to others. In Italy there are more or less the same laws as in Germany (regarding the traffic) but the traffic is completely different, a Roman policeman does not even consider a cyclist to be part of the traffic (and he will often also close both eyes for the rules infringement of motorcars or maybe not even notice them because he is used to). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
On 07.10.2013 23:06, Ole Nielsen wrote: On 07/10/2013 21:42, Richard Fairhurst wrote: dieterdreist wrote: bicycle=no indicates that you cannot (legally) ride your bicycle there. If you dismount and push you become a pedestrian, so you are not riding a bicycle and bicycle=no has no effect on you. That may not be the case in the UK. The law allows walkers and their usual accompaniments along public footpaths. It's generally agreed that (for example) a car is not a usual accompaniment, so you can't push a car along a public footpath. It is unclear whether or not a bike is. CTC (the Cyclists' Touring Club) thinks it is, many local councils disagree. That said, for routing purposes in the UK, I treat bicycle=no the same as bicycle=dismount, because in reality the tag is often used on paths where cycling is tolerated. At least in the Netherlands you have to distinguish between bicycle=no and bicycle=dismount. Some pedestrian streets are explicitly signed with no bicycle pushing. In other words you may not bring your bicycle here. Thus you need bicycle=no in its strict interpretation. Please use a different tag for this or is it the law in the Netherlands that you are not allowed to push a bicycle on sidewalks/footpathes ? In other situations bicycle=dismount is useful for routing as already mentioned. One good example is steps having a groove along the side intended for bicycle pushing. Routers would probably not suggest steps as routable for bicycles unless you indicate that fact. You can use ramp or ramp:bicycle and bicycle=yes/designated on the steps. Also step_count (along with incline) is nice as you might even carry your bike for some steps cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Consolidating tags for building attributes
On 07.10.2013 22:39, Vivien Deparday wrote: Thank you Tobias (sorry for the late answer), that is very useful feedback and pretty much exactly in line with our thinking on all the cases which is great. For B, we are actually also using plaster as one of the values as the values are recorded by looking at the building 'from the streets'. For C, I think we will use both building:use (for general usage categories) and building= with specific values in the cases similar to what you mentioned. The Kathmandu Living Labs Team has added a description of all the tags and values in the preset including for shape:elevation that you were asking about: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nepal/kathmandulivinglabs/exposuresurvey It is a simple way of recording the vertical shape if you cannot record all the details of each building. Hey Vivien Please change your building=* to building:use=*, Building=* is used for the type of building but not the use. This might be the same e.g. if the building was primary built as hospital and is still occupying one but you will probably find kindergardens in normal residential buildings and you will also find hospital buildings which are no building=hospital as they where built to accommodate the staff and might still be in use this way. It is usally a good pratice to tag an amenity as area once it covers more than one building. Please do not use abbreviations if possible. I do not understand icu nor opd but intensive_care. I am not sure about operator:type. Think your values would fit with simple operator=* and if you want to separate the operator of the building from the operator of the amenity I think operator:amenity would be better My 2 ct Cheers fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small
On 07.10.2013 22:53, Janko Mihelić wrote: Dana ponedjeljak, 7. listopada 2013., korisnik flylowfligh...@googlemail.com mailto:lowfligh...@googlemail.com je napisao: No, if it is mounted on top I would say height=3 for the object. min_height is only used for building:part but not for explicit tagged objects on top of another object. Please use ele=* to specify the elevation. With your logic, if a building has underground floors, they should be counted into the height, don't you think so? Mmh the underground is a real difficult problem but no, I do not want to dig and measure the height of the mast. I know buildings on steep areas which have two different ground levels so simply building height is really difficult. To state it: 1. define/tag ele=* for the object (ground) 2. measure the maxheight from this point - height=* 3. do this for each object individually (eg. an object on top of another one gets a different ele=* and its height. For underground we would need a new tag. Anyway, wiki isn't clear on this at all, there's obviously some work to do. It's only clear with ele being elevation of ground over sea level, even if it's tagged on a node like man_made=tower. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Consolidating tags for building attributes
Am 08/ott/2013 um 00:48 schrieb fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: Think your values would fit with simple operator=* and if you want to separate the operator of the building from the operator of the amenity I think operator:amenity would be better you should not use amenity and building on the same object, even if the geometry is the same you will get ambiguities. Better use a distinct object for the building and one for the hospital, and you will not need operator:amenity or building:name or tags like that, instead you can use name, operator, etc. on the object they belong to (use a multipolygon relation to reuse polygon geometry). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Consolidating tags for building attributes
I don't see the use of multipolygon relations in this manor in the wiki. Nor have I noticed it in use in the areas that I have edited. Nor do I recall answers suggesting using multiple multipoloygons on the help site. Is this a common technique that I have somehow missed? Thanks! Tod -- Sent from my mobile device. Please excuse my brevity. Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Am 08/ott/2013 um 00:48 schrieb fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: Think your values would fit with simple operator=* and if you want to separate the operator of the building from the operator of the amenity I think operator:amenity would be better you should not use amenity and building on the same object, even if the geometry is the same you will get ambiguities. Better use a distinct object for the building and one for the hospital, and you will not need operator:amenity or building:name or tags like that, instead you can use name, operator, etc. on the object they belong to (use a multipolygon relation to reuse polygon geometry). cheers, Martin ___ 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] Consolidating tags for building attributes
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: you should not use amenity and building on the same object Er, what? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
At least in the Netherlands you have to distinguish between bicycle=no and bicycle=dismount. Some pedestrian streets are explicitly signed with no bicycle pushing. I never heard of that, what sign do you mean? In which contexts is out used? Do you have a picture by any chance? -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
