Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Gambling
2013/11/14 Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl Hmm, difficult to get the difference right. How would you call a place with video games and pinball machines? What if there are also claw cranes? I would draw the line when you can get more money (in cash) for less money. Getting a toy if you manage to claw it is a form of gamble, but then a restaurant is also a gamble because you can get a bad meal or a great meal for the same money. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
Am 13/nov/2013 um 22:43 schrieb Masi Master masi-mas...@gmx.de: We talk about the correct tagging here. Not about a mechanical edit, it could be a question in the future. But mechanical edit will not work in this case. Yes, excuse me if my mail looked like I might be advocating a mechanical edit, I am not. This is a tag needed only in some areas (with compulsory cycle ways) and has to be set by who knows the spot from survey (parallel is not sufficient, there might be different elevations involved etc. think of hilly areas, retaining_walls,...) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
Am 14/nov/2013 um 00:53 schrieb Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com: I don't see why you can't tag the roads you're talking about with bicycle=no (or maybe something like bicycle=restricted for the cases where more significant use is allowed) and then add a second tag along the lines of bicycle:restriction=DE:use_cycleway to capture the fact that the legal exclusion of bikes is because of X country's parallel cycleway rules. You shouldn't do it, because it would be wrong. There is no legal exclusion of bikes on the road, there is an obligation - under certain circumstances - to use the cycleway, this is a difference and should not be tagged like an exclusion of bikes on the road (e.g. like on a motorway) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
Am 14.11.2013 10:13, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: Am 14/nov/2013 um 00:53 schrieb Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com: I don't see why you can't tag the roads you're talking about with bicycle=no (or maybe something like bicycle=restricted for the cases where more significant use is allowed) and then add a second tag along the lines of bicycle:restriction=DE:use_cycleway to capture the fact that the legal exclusion of bikes is because of X country's parallel cycleway rules. You shouldn't do it, because it would be wrong. There is no legal exclusion of bikes on the road, there is an obligation - under certain circumstances - to use the cycleway, this is a difference and should not be tagged like an exclusion of bikes on the road (e.g. like on a motorway) @Martin: Your reply is only valid for the first line of the citation. @Robert: The rest of the citation sounds better than the proposed use_cycleway - at least for me. But its just the name, not the intention, which is the same for both. If there is a need for the additional tag of country-specific or if it may be as country-specific-implicit as other implications for highways already - I don't know. Georg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
Am 14/nov/2013 um 10:40 schrieb Georg Feddern o...@bavarianmallet.de: @Martin: Your reply is only valid for the first line of the citation. An approach which combines 2 tags in a way that the meaning is only true for the combination of both, but not for the single tag, does not work well IMHO. We shouldn't have tags like bicycle=no and with a second tag we say, hey, actually that is not a real no in this other tag over there. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
On 14 November 2013 09:13, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I don't see why you can't tag the roads you're talking about with bicycle=no (or maybe something like bicycle=restricted for the cases where more significant use is allowed) and then add a second tag along the lines of bicycle:restriction=DE:use_cycleway to capture the fact that the legal exclusion of bikes is because of X country's parallel cycleway rules. You shouldn't do it, because it would be wrong. There is no legal exclusion of bikes on the road, there is an obligation - under certain circumstances - to use the cycleway, this is a difference and should not be tagged like an exclusion of bikes on the road (e.g. like on a motorway) Assuming that you meet the certain circumstances, I see little practical difference between You can't cycle on the road and you must use the cycleway and not the road in terms of whether or not you are allowed to cycle along the road. Granted, crossing and turning may be slightly different, but for general riding along a stretch of road the effect will be the same -- you can't ride there. However, these slight differences are why I suggested using bicycle=restricted for when the prohibition caused by the presence of a parallel cycleway isn't so absolute. Doing this would seem to be perfectly correct -- cycling on the road is indeed restricted. Doing it this way (rather than a single tag) has the advantage of using a more general value on the access tag (that is thus more likely to be interpreted in an appropriate fashion by more routers), while still allowing (encouraging even) a more specific tag to capture the precise detail of exactly what the (country-specific) restrictions are. We then don't confuse the effect of the legal restrictions with the cause of the restrictions. By encouraging mappers to specify the precise source of the restrictions in a separate tag, we're less likely to get mappers using a bicycle=use_cycleway style tag inappropriately due to misunderstandings, and should end up with better-defined tags and more accurate data. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
And why not? What's the difference between road: you may not cycle, cyclepath: you may cycle and road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath, cyclepath: you may cycle? And if it's such an important difference, why only use this for cyclists? Why not put a motor_vehicle:use_carriageway on the cyclepath? On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Am 14/nov/2013 um 00:53 schrieb Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com: I don't see why you can't tag the roads you're talking about with bicycle=no (or maybe something like bicycle=restricted for the cases where more significant use is allowed) and then add a second tag along the lines of bicycle:restriction=DE:use_cycleway to capture the fact that the legal exclusion of bikes is because of X country's parallel cycleway rules. You shouldn't do it, because it would be wrong. There is no legal exclusion of bikes on the road, there is an obligation - under certain circumstances - to use the cycleway, this is a difference and should not be tagged like an exclusion of bikes on the road (e.g. like on a motorway) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
An approach which combines 2 tags in a way that the meaning is only true for the combination of both, but not for the single tag, does not work well IMHO. We shouldn't have tags like bicycle=no and with a second tag we say, hey, actually that is not a real no in this other tag over there. We already do so for access=no, bike=yes :). -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
Am 14.11.2013 10:47, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: Am 14/nov/2013 um 10:40 schrieb Georg Feddern o...@bavarianmallet.de: @Martin: Your reply is only valid for the first line of the citation. An approach which combines 2 tags in a way that the meaning is only true for the combination of both, but not for the single tag, does not work well IMHO. We shouldn't have tags like bicycle=no and with a second tag we say, hey, actually that is not a real no in this other tag over there. yes, you are right! The bicycle=no is missed in the first line of the citation (my fault) - but was meant by me. But my OK has gone for the bicycle=restricted instead of bicycle=use_cycleway. Georg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
What's the difference between road: you may not cycle, cyclepath: you may cycle and road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath, cyclepath: you may cycle? Because it's not road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath, but road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath if the cyclepath is going where you're headed The =use_cycleway / restricted value is closer to destination than to no. It's however with the significant difference that in these cases the destination is not anywhere along either of the tagged ways, but the road is sometimes needed for, like, turning left or right at the next intersection, i.e. the cycleway diverges away from the road before the next intersection, or does not have a legal crossing point at or before the next intersection. There might be a longer route available, by first going along the cycleway somewhere, and then approaching on the road from the other direction - or not. The first best example I found was like this intersection: http://osm.org/go/0xPnBw03o-?node=27254468 When driving east, a cyclist must always use the cycleway on the north side of the road, there are obligating signs after each crossing. However, if turning south at the next one(*), they may use the road. A cyclist driving the road all the way to the eastern end could be fined for not obeying traffic signs, in theory anyway. If the whole road Tattarisuontie was tagged bicycle=no, there would be no way to get a cyclist routed to the Jäähdytintie road southward - beyond a long detour. *) There's a phrase in the relevant paragraph: may use [conditions]... for a short distance but nobody knows what is short. -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
2013/11/14 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath if the cyclepath is going where you're headed +1 additionally there might be other factors that make it impossible to use the cycleway (and as the road is not actually forbidden you will use it), for instance in the winter there might be ice and snow on the cycleway. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Gambling
2013/11/14 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com Hmm, difficult to get the difference right. How would you call a place with video games and pinball machines? What if there are also claw cranes? I would draw the line when you can get more money (in cash) for less money. Getting a toy if you manage to claw it is a form of gamble, but then a restaurant is also a gamble because you can get a bad meal or a great meal for the same money. +1 Note that in some countries like Germany there will always be also video arcades or other games that don't allow to win money because there is a law that requests for any number of x gambling machines also one machine where you can't win (money). You don't have this necessarily in pubs (because I think if they only put 2 gambling machines they do not have to, maybe 2 is also the absolute limit for a pub in order not to be classified as a gambling place (and hence they would have to close at 10pm and couldn't sell alcoholic drinks any more)). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
Be aware that road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath if the cyclepath is going where you're headed is ambiguous. 1) if the cyclepath is going where you're headed, then (and only then) are you allowed to use the cyclepath 2) if the cyclepath is going where you're headed, you are obliged to use the cyclepath, to the exclusion of all other carriageways I think number 2) is intended here? Colin On 2013-11-14 12:08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2013/11/14 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath if the cyclepath is going where you're headed +1 additionally there might be other factors that make it impossible to use the cycleway (and as the road is not actually forbidden you will use it), for instance in the winter there might be ice and snow on the cycleway. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [1] Links: -- [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
2) if the cyclepath is going where you're headed, you are obliged to use the cyclepath, to the exclusion of all other carriageways I think number 2) is intended here? Yes, the original was an unreviewed sentence. In the original the if only applies to only, not to may. Normally in routing, the slight preference given to cycleways for a cycling route should weed out the driving on road bits with a parallel cycleway, but because the difference in the edge costs can't be too radical, without the information these tags under discussion try to convey, there are bound to be cases where one either gets illegal routes when the cycleway is somewhat longer, or long detours along cycleways if the edge cost for roads is much higher than the cost for cycleways. -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
Robert argued here that country-specific restrictions should be always expressed by tags so that routers don't need to know those specific rules/laws. He gave the maxspeed tags as an example, which we explicitly tag even if they are based on implicit laws. I think this generalization is goes too far. For the access tags (and we do discuss access tags here), it is common practice to have country-specific defaults on certain highway types as listed in the wiki [1] and only tag what contradicts those defaults. I don't see why it would be needed to switch that to explicitly tagged values. Opposed to maxspeed, we are talking a large set of different tags here where both tagging as well as legislation is in constant change. Based on these asumptions, I would argue that it would be enough to specify if a compulsory exist or not and leave the details of which type of vehicle can under which conditions use the road or not to the router, which should implement those based on national defaults. So at least the legislation changes can be implemented at a central point. (This is already the default, so no additional change needed for that.) I would prefer an additional tag over a replacement for bicycle=no, as this would allow an easier migration due to not breaking older routers. (This is why I would vote 'no' on the proposal.) I would also say that stating that there IS a compulsory cycleway is a first step, but not enough. To check for certain conditions (width, direction, reachable destination, obstacles, surface), the router would need to know WHICH way is the compulsory cycleway. We can either do this with a relation combining the highway and the cycleway(s) or with tags and self-created references. I would clearly prefer the first. I think neither storing all the information needed for those decissions in the highway tags (instead of the cycleway tags) would be a doable workaround nor pre-interpreting them by the mapper and tagging the result on the highway. As stated above, those interpretations would be based not only on (ever changing) local administration but also on very subjective opinions. As a user, I'd rather have those opinions baked into the routers I can chose, not in the map data all routers have to use. My 2 cents, Chaos [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#Germany ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
A question and some remarks Considering routers and not breaking routing. A few of you have made remark concerning breaking schemes and routers getting in to problems. I do not understand this. Ronnie Soak e.g. wrote “I would prefer an additional tag over a replacement for bicycle=no, as this would allow an easier migration due to not breaking older routers.” The definition of the tag is: This is a highway (i.e. tertiary) with a classification that allows cycling generallyhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#Germany *without* bicycle forbidden sign and *with* a parallel compulsory cycleway. This means that currently these roads (except NL) do not have a bicycle=no or a bicycle=yes tag. So this tag is NOT replacing any previous tag. If it would replace a current bicycle=no I propably would not have proposed any new tag at all ;-) The absence of any “bicycle=” tag is the reason for this proposal. So if these roads would be tagged with a bicycle=use_cycleway nothing changes in routers because they don’t know the tag and it does not replace any current tag. The first router that picks up this new tag will be able to propose a good route. So why would routers have a problem with this new tag? Restriction instead of use_cycleway Some have said not to be happy with the name “use_cycleway” and instead use something with “restriction” etc. It is true that it is a restriction but the only reason for this restriction is the fact that there is a parallel compulsary cycleway. If this cycleway would not be there, there would not be restriction. So there is a clear relation between the cycleway and the restriction on the road. I think it is best if we have a tag that refers to the cycleway. This way we and routers know that the restrictions are based on (country specific) rules. Sign on one “highway” has access implication on an other “highway” The traffic administration want to keep signs as simple as possible and right they are. Not only to keep overview but also because it is undoable to have signs for every exceptional vehicle or means of transportation. That’s why only the most common vehicles are on access traffic signs. If you drive/ride an exceptional vehicle you are supposed to know where to ride based on signs with only most common vehicles on it. I think this proposal is about a more or less strange situation. Most traffic signs we see have access information about the road on which it is placed. In this situation it is clearly different. Access information on the cycleway (compulsory) means that an ordinary bicycle has to use the cycleway (in most cases) and has no access to the main road. As far as access is concerned the 2 are linked. This would not be the case if the administration would have come up with a new traffic sign on the parallel road saying “in these situations you may use this road but apart from that, use the cycleway”. In that case I am sure we would have come up with a tag somewhere in between bicycle=no and bicycle=yes. 2013/11/14 Ronnie Soak chaoschaos0...@googlemail.com Robert argued here that country-specific restrictions should be always expressed by tags so that routers don't need to know those specific rules/laws. He gave the maxspeed tags as an example, which we explicitly tag even if they are based on implicit laws. I think this generalization is goes too far. For the access tags (and we do discuss access tags here), it is common practice to have country-specific defaults on certain highway types as listed in the wiki [1] and only tag what contradicts those defaults. I don't see why it would be needed to switch that to explicitly tagged values. Opposed to maxspeed, we are talking a large set of different tags here where both tagging as well as legislation is in constant change. Based on these asumptions, I would argue that it would be enough to specify if a compulsory exist or not and leave the details of which type of vehicle can under which conditions use the road or not to the router, which should implement those based on national defaults. So at least the legislation changes can be implemented at a central point. (This is already the default, so no additional change needed for that.) I would prefer an additional tag over a replacement for bicycle=no, as this would allow an easier migration due to not breaking older routers. (This is why I would vote 'no' on the proposal.) I would also say that stating that there IS a compulsory cycleway is a first step, but not enough. To check for certain conditions (width, direction, reachable destination, obstacles, surface), the router would need to know WHICH way is the compulsory cycleway. We can either do this with a relation combining the highway and the cycleway(s) or with tags and self-created references. I would clearly prefer the first. I think neither storing all the information needed for those decissions in the highway tags
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
2013/11/14 Ronnie Soak chaoschaos0...@googlemail.com For the access tags (and we do discuss access tags here), it is common practice to have country-specific defaults on certain highway types as listed in the wiki [1] and only tag what contradicts those defaults. I'm not sure any of the current routers uses these country specific defaults. My guess is that normal roads will always be allowed for everybody except specified explicitly differently, and motorways and roads with motorroad=yes will exclude certain slow vehicles. Cycleways will allow cycling and footways walking and usually not cycling. If some country specific defaults are different and nothing is tagged, it probably won't work. Usually mappers do add default properties explicitly on roads and ways, and the more mature a region is mapped, the more of those attributes you'd usually find. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Gambling
On 14 November 2013 11:54, Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nlwrote: Hmm, difficult to get the difference right. How would you call a place with video games and pinball machines? What if there are also claw cranes? I'd call it an amusement arcade, but that's probably just a local term. Also games arcade. Are there in fact countries where there are distinct places for gambling machines and gaming machines? Yes. In Queensland, Australia (other states may have slightly different rules) they are very distinct. However, just confuse things, the gambling machines are officially known as Gaming machines here, and their location is know as a Gaming room. Generally they are called pokies or poker machines, though, no matter what type of gambling it actually is. Gambling machines must be licensed (and there a limited number of licences for the entire state) and can only be found in casinos or in Gaming rooms in clubs or pubs. These locations are restricted by age, and always licensed premises (can serve alcohol). I've never heard of video (non-gambling) games being in one of these rooms. Non gambling machines, which include games where you get tickets/points for doing well that you can trade for prizes, are in Amusement arcades, which are often in shopping centres, near cinemas, etc. They are often have games designed for children, there are no age restrictions, and the machines do not need to be licensed in any way. Perhaps game arcade is also be a useful term? For the Americans on the list: Dave and Buster's and Chucke E. Cheese are mentioned on the wiki as examples of video arcades. What kind of games do these places offer? I suppose no gambling? -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging On 14 November 2013 11:54, Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nlwrote: On 11 November 2013 18:02, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 17:50 +0100, fly wrote: What I miss so far is a way to better describe what kind of gambling is possible, no weather what kind of place it is, similar to gambling=* Do we need a tag for each machines ? How do I tag a bar with some machines ? a backdoor room ? I agree that that would be useful to have, but I would prefer to leave it out of the scope of this proposal. I think it is important to first have the main type of venues right. After that we can always define new tags for slot machines in pubs, etc. The proposal is already quite big, so I think we should not increase the scope of the proposal for now. I would agree here, playing for pleasure does need to be distinguished from gambling. Gambling will imply age restrictions on entry, whereas playing video games does not. Hmm, difficult to get the difference right. How would you call a place with video games and pinball machines? What if there are also claw cranes? Are there in fact countries where there are distinct places for gambling machines and gaming machines? Perhaps game arcade is also be a useful term? For the Americans on the list: Dave and Buster's and Chucke E. Cheese are mentioned on the wiki as examples of video arcades. What kind of games do these places offer? I suppose no gambling? -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
