Re: [Tagging] Climbing access path
2014-08-08 10:21 GMT+01:00 k4r573n k4r5...@googlemail.com: On 07.08.2014 12:05, Tom Pfeifer wrote: If I understand Karsten correctly, the limitation is not about payment, it is to limit the number of people using this path. This would be typical for climbing crags in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conservation areas. A typical example is the sandstone climbing in Saxonia/Germany, which is in a national park that even has a core zone. http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1595534 The agreement between the protectionists and the climbing associations is that only people destined to climb should leave the hiking paths marked for the general public and use those narrow access paths. Thus it would be possible to tag access=destination which could then be specified with destination=climbing Tom - yes you understood me right :) There is no one who check whether your a climber or not or want to have a fee - but these path are not aimed to be used by the general public. I admit that access=customers doesn't fit here so summed up we have these approaches: access=destination destination=climbing or access=climbers or access=no climbing=yes I'm ok with each of them but which one should be documented in the wiki I'd vote for the first one (destination). I'm not keen on the third one since climbing=* would need to become widely recognised as an access tag, which doesn't feel very scaleable. Best Dan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging
On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 05:58:01PM +0200, Volker Schmidt wrote: Good old Wiipedia helps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge#Types_of_bridges http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_bridge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_bridge wikipedia is clear on that but if you look at swing bridge at google images there is a lot of people who confuse it, also native english speakers apparently. Obviously bridge=swing has a huge confusion potential so looking for better alternatives. My idea was * abandon bridge=swing in favor of bridge=movable which could provide subtyping if someone really needed it. * introduce bridge=suspension bridge=simple_suspension Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Climbing access path
Dan S wrote, on 2014-08-08 11:31: 2014-08-08 10:21 GMT+01:00 k4r573n k4r5...@googlemail.com: Tom - yes you understood me right :) Thanks There is no one who check whether your a climber or not or want to have a fee - but these path are not aimed to be used by the general public. I admit that access=customers doesn't fit here so summed up we have these approaches: access=destination destination=climbing Just to reinforce the opinion, access=destination forbids through traffic, in this case general hikers taking a short cut. This is what we want, and using an established tag for this purpose. The second tag explains the details. or access=climbers While climbing is already an established value from sport=climbing, climbers would be a new one with very low usage numbers, thus less likely to be evaluated in routers/renderers. or access=no climbing=yes As Dan said, this would introduce a new tag with little usage. Tom I'm ok with each of them but which one should be documented in the wiki I'd vote for the first one (destination). I'm not keen on the third one since climbing=* would need to become widely recognised as an access tag, which doesn't feel very scaleable. Best Dan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Climbing access path
Am 08/ago/2014 um 11:31 schrieb Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com: I'd vote for the first one (destination). I'm not keen on the third one since climbing=* would need to become widely recognised as an access tag, which doesn't feel very scaleable. I agree mostly, from these suggestions it seems the best alternative, but generally I am not convinced that any of these are actual legal restrictions (climber is not a category of users foreseen by the law in Germany). I also believe that climbers are indeed a subgroup of the general public (it is sufficient to declare yourself a climber and you will be entitled to use the path, but you generally won't do this nonetheless for the practical reason that the paths will normally be dead ends, and this is also a reason why these paths won't create much trouble for routing regardless of their access tags) Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging
Am 08/ago/2014 um 11:35 schrieb Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: My idea was * abandon bridge=swing in favor of bridge=movable which could provide subtyping if someone really needed it. * introduce bridge=suspension bridge=simple_suspension I suggest to also look at previous discussions on this topic. Movable is clearly an attribute that can apply to different bridges types (unless your categorization goes: movable / unmovable but this does not seem the case). Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Climbing access path
On 08.08.2014 11:51, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 08/ago/2014 um 11:31 schrieb Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com: I'd vote for the first one (destination). I'm not keen on the third one since climbing=* would need to become widely recognised as an access tag, which doesn't feel very scaleable. I agree mostly, from these suggestions it seems the best alternative, but generally I am not convinced that any of these are actual legal restrictions (climber is not a category of users foreseen by the law in Germany). I also believe that climbers are indeed a subgroup of the general public (it is sufficient to declare yourself a climber and you will be entitled to use the path, but you generally won't do this nonetheless for the practical reason that the paths will normally be dead ends, and this is also a reason why these paths won't create much trouble for routing regardless of their access tags) especially in this area [1] climbing paths are often beautiful bypasses, so I think we need some access tags to distinguish. But you are right if you want to use them you just need to carry some climbing equipment with you. In my opinion these paths shouldn't be used by default and we need a tag to ensure routers and renders have a possibility to do so. access=destination destination=climbing seams to be the best possibility Karsten [1] http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4uP ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Climbing access path
On 08.08.2014 12:07, Tom Pfeifer wrote: access=destination destination=climbing Just to reinforce the opinion, access=destination forbids through traffic, in this case general hikers taking a short cut. This is what we want, and using an established tag for this purpose. The second tag explains the details. access=destination makes sense. That second tag isn't established, though, nor is the concept of explaining the details through a destination=* subtag. access=no climbing=yes As Dan said, this would introduce a new tag with little usage. That's true, and in this case access=destination (without a subtag) is probably the best idea. However, if there are paths where only climbers are permitted and where destination does not fit, I believe this would be the only appropriate solution. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Climbing access path
Am 08/ago/2014 um 12:47 schrieb k4r573n k4r5...@googlemail.com: In my opinion these paths shouldn't be used by default and we need a tag to ensure routers and renders have a possibility to do so. access=destination destination=climbing seams to be the best possibility If there are legally binding signs, yes, if the legal significance of the signs is something like:it would be kind if you won't use this path, because it is narrow and there is no room for many tourists to go along, as well as the wildlife will be disturbed by high frequentation, so even if you might legally go there, please consider not doing it., then this tagging is tagging for the routers in the original meaning: abusing an established tag for something different in order to achieve the desired outcome. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging
On 08.08.2014 11:35, Richard Z. wrote: My idea was * abandon bridge=swing in favor of bridge=movable which could provide subtyping if someone really needed it. We already have an approved proposal that provides this subtyping: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Bridge_types * introduce bridge=suspension bridge=simple_suspension Said proposal also introduces bridge:structure=suspension. So I think the only problem is to get people to use these tags instead of the problematic bridge=swing. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging
agreed That means producing a revised bridge wiki page that combines all info. Who does the work? :-( On 8 August 2014 13:07, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: On 08.08.2014 11:35, Richard Z. wrote: My idea was * abandon bridge=swing in favor of bridge=movable which could provide subtyping if someone really needed it. We already have an approved proposal that provides this subtyping: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Bridge_types * introduce bridge=suspension bridge=simple_suspension Said proposal also introduces bridge:structure=suspension. So I think the only problem is to get people to use these tags instead of the problematic bridge=swing. ___ 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] Climbing access path
Tobias Knerr wrote, on 2014-08-08 12:55: access=destination makes sense. That second tag isn't established, though, nor is the concept of explaining the details through a destination=* subtag. At least it helps the fellow mapper why the access was tagged so, and is easier than a note= Am 08/ago/2014 um 12:47 schrieb k4r573n k4r5...@googlemail.com: [1] http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4uP german Elbi, sag ich doch :-) german In my opinion these paths shouldn't be used by default and we need a tag to ensure routers and renders have a possibility to do so. access=destination destination=climbing seams to be the best possibility Martin Koppenhoefer wrote, on 2014-08-08 13:01: If there are legally binding signs, yes, if the legal significance of the signs is something like:it would be kind if you won't use this path, because it is narrow The legality would come from the code of conduct in the National Park not to leave the marked paths, thus no need for physical signs, http://www.nationalpark-saechsische-schweiz.de/besucherinformation/verhalten/ however there might be unambiguous signs as well: http://www.nationalpark-saechsische-schweiz.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/13-Verhalten.jpg Tom (just learned the difference between the green and the black triangle) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Climbing access path
concluded there are areas where behavior guidelines (see links below) introduce paths not for general public but for climbers. (Tom thanks for the links) therefore we definitely should use: access=destination This single tag might be sufficient. And an other tag would just simplify rendering... Anyway - what are your thoughts about path=climbing_access (about 391 occurrences according to taginfo) it might be used to show a main usage of a path Karsten On 08.08.2014 13:38, Tom Pfeifer wrote: Tobias Knerr wrote, on 2014-08-08 12:55: access=destination makes sense. That second tag isn't established, though, nor is the concept of explaining the details through a destination=* subtag. Martin Koppenhoefer wrote, on 2014-08-08 13:01: If there are legally binding signs, yes, if the legal significance of the signs is something like:it would be kind if you won't use this path, because it is narrow The legality would come from the code of conduct in the National Park not to leave the marked paths, thus no need for physical signs, [3] http://www.nationalpark-saechsische-schweiz.de/besucherinformation/verhalten/ however there might be unambiguous signs as well: [2] http://www.nationalpark-saechsische-schweiz.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/13-Verhalten.jpg Tom (just learned the difference between the green and the black triangle) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging
Volker, There was a rather inconspicuous sentence at the end of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge linking to the additional bridge:... keys. I've reordered the introductory material in that page somewhat to make it more clear that these additional options exist for adding detail about bridges. I'm sorry I didn't follow up on this more promptly when the proposal closed, but I think the wiki is in pretty good shape now. If there's something that needs more detail, let me know. I've also asked for http://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/440 to be reopened to get proper cartographic support for what's now in the wiki, including bridge=movable. Yours, -- Chris Hoess On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 7:10 AM, Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com wrote: agreed That means producing a revised bridge wiki page that combines all info. Who does the work? :-( On 8 August 2014 13:07, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: On 08.08.2014 11:35, Richard Z. wrote: My idea was * abandon bridge=swing in favor of bridge=movable which could provide subtyping if someone really needed it. We already have an approved proposal that provides this subtyping: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Bridge_types * introduce bridge=suspension bridge=simple_suspension Said proposal also introduces bridge:structure=suspension. So I think the only problem is to get people to use these tags instead of the problematic bridge=swing. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
