Re: [Tagging] Understanding links

2014-09-23 Thread Satoshi IIDA
If you got any communication loss during the contact, I'll support it.
But I think he/she is able to understand English.
I saw he/she many time in wiki translation and other OSM related software
translation acts.




2014-09-23 2:25 GMT+09:00 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com:

 Am 22.09.2014 15:06, schrieb johnw:
  I have a question on highway link roads.
 
  I came across some trunk_links that seemed really out of place today,
 but they were recently added by a tagger that usually knows what they are
 doing.
 
  https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/36.30046/139.19574
 
  The frontage road for local access to the buildings along the road is
 marked as trunk link.
 
  As I understand it, the local access roads would be an unclassified road
 with bollards or a kind of barrier at each end, and with trunk links, (or
 one way unclassified roads?) that lead onto the actual new trunk road.
 
  This seems like an incorrect use of trunk_links for the frontage road
 along the buildings and maybe for the little entrance exit driveways that
 connect it to the trunk roads.

 +1

 I would tag the small links between the parallel highways with
 trunk_link and the outside highways look like residential/unclassified
 or even service.

 Looks like a tagging mistake, did you get into contact with the user ?

 cu fly


 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




-- 
Satoshi IIDA
mail: nyamp...@gmail.com
twitter: @nyampire
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Understanding links

2014-09-23 Thread Lukas Sommer
 As I understand it, the local access roads would be an unclassified road
with bollards or a kind of barrier at each end, and with trunk links, (or
one way unclassified roads?) that lead onto the actual new trunk road.

There is not much documentation on the wiki. The only thing that I found
was a statement at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dservice
that says that highway=service is wrong, but everything else is okay.

I agree that *_link is not good. (Also because you can often use the
frontage road with smaller/slower cars than the main road.)

As frontage roads are quite common in some countries, I think it would be
useful to create a wiki page with some documentation and a best practice
guide.

Proposal for the content:

– frontage roads are never highway=*_link nor highway=service
– frontage roads have usually a lower level than the main road (which one
is up to the mapper to decide)

Example: If the main road is secondary, the frontage road must be one of
“tertiary” or “unclassified” or “residential”.

Could this be a useful guide?

Lukas Sommer

2014-09-23 7:23 GMT+00:00 Satoshi IIDA nyamp...@gmail.com:


 If you got any communication loss during the contact, I'll support it.
 But I think he/she is able to understand English.
 I saw he/she many time in wiki translation and other OSM related software
 translation acts.




 2014-09-23 2:25 GMT+09:00 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com:

 Am 22.09.2014 15:06, schrieb johnw:
  I have a question on highway link roads.
 
  I came across some trunk_links that seemed really out of place today,
 but they were recently added by a tagger that usually knows what they are
 doing.
 
  https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/36.30046/139.19574
 
  The frontage road for local access to the buildings along the road is
 marked as trunk link.
 
  As I understand it, the local access roads would be an unclassified
 road with bollards or a kind of barrier at each end, and with trunk links,
 (or one way unclassified roads?) that lead onto the actual new trunk road.
 
  This seems like an incorrect use of trunk_links for the frontage road
 along the buildings and maybe for the little entrance exit driveways that
 connect it to the trunk roads.

 +1

 I would tag the small links between the parallel highways with
 trunk_link and the outside highways look like residential/unclassified
 or even service.

 Looks like a tagging mistake, did you get into contact with the user ?

 cu fly


 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




 --
 Satoshi IIDA
 mail: nyamp...@gmail.com
 twitter: @nyampire

 ___
 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] Understanding links

2014-09-23 Thread johnw

On Sep 23, 2014, at 7:39 PM, Lukas Sommer sommer...@gmail.com wrote:

  As I understand it, the local access roads would be an unclassified road 
  with bollards or a kind of barrier at each end, and with trunk links, (or 
  one way unclassified roads?) that lead onto the actual new trunk road.
 
 There is not much documentation on the wiki. The only thing that I found was 
 a statement at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dservice that 
 says that highway=service is wrong, but everything else is okay.

highway=service  service=alley sounds really good to me - parallel to the main 
road, narrow, and for local access only - at least in this instance (and a ton 
of others here)

 
 I agree that *_link is not good. (Also because you can often use the frontage 
 road with smaller/slower cars than the main road.)

Set it to unclassified currently for my example 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=18/36.34904/139.28130 I quickly mapped 
out a frontage road along the secondary.
 
 As frontage roads are quite common in some countries, I think it would be 
 useful to create a wiki page with some documentation and a best practice 
 guide.

I'm surprised to see so many new large roads here in Japan planned with 
extensive (and narrow, dead-ending near intersections) frontage roads. Every 
new major road in my area made int he last 2-3 years has them now. they all 
look similar to the one linked originally and my example. 

+1 

 
 Proposal for the content:
 
 – frontage roads are never highway=*_link nor highway=service
 – frontage roads have usually a lower level than the main road (which one is 
 up to the mapper to decide)

if it is not of (severely) lower importance, it isn't a frontage road. 

 
 Example: If the main road is secondary, the frontage road must be one of 
 “tertiary” or “unclassified” or “residential”.
 

Tertiary max, if not unclassified max . I mean, a big road often parallels a 
major way, but this is mostly discussing local access being separated from the 
faster, adjacent road for traffic management reasons. 
I don't think there are going to be many beyond unclassified, as they are just 
chopped up little pieces of road just for local access to driveways and alleys.

That might be a good test - if you think it is tertiary, it probably is't a 
frontage road, as these scream local access and nothing more.


 Could this be a useful guide?
 
 Lukas Sommer


Thanks for all the work.


Javbw___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] New key proposal - paved=yes/no

2014-09-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2014-09-23 1:12 GMT+02:00 David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net:


 Zoom in a bit at OSM and pop out the Key, it shows how unsurfaced roads
 are rendered. But you don't see that on the map. Current model does not
 work ! We can continue to argue is OK anyway or we can fix it. Choose.




here we are on the tagging mailing list, to discuss tagging of objects in
the OSM database. With current tags it is indeed possible to say whether a
road is paved or not according to your own definition. The fact that a
particular rendering (carto osm) doesn't currently display the paved
attribute of a road has nothing to do when the question is whether current
tagging works or not. In fact, the maintainers of carto osm have recently
been discussing how to display unpaved roads differently from paved ones,
so this could come in the future. This is really not an argument for the
introduction of a new tag.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] New key proposal - paved=yes/no

2014-09-23 Thread Richard Fairhurst
David Bannon wrote:
 The truth is the paved/unpaved state of a road is being widely 
 ignored or incorrectly interpreted. The map at osm.org illustrates 
 my point, perhaps as well as an XKCD cartoon :-)

Yep, absolutely. But the way to fix that is to get the map at osm.org to
render surfaces, using the existing tags. (And I agree, that would be a
great enhancement.)

I was about to point you to
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/110 but then I
noticed that you're all over it already. :)

cheers
Richard





--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/New-key-proposal-paved-yes-no-tp5817998p5818261.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] (Soapy) Massage Parlour

2014-09-23 Thread Pieren
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Mishari Muqbil mish...@mishari.net wrote:

 I've also been advised that Thailand is not the only country with this
 legal concept and that as we should be mindful and cautious of this.

But in OSM we map what's on the ground. Create a new tag like
amenity=brothel_even_if_it_is_not_legal_to_say_it_is_one or
brothel=dont_tell_anyone

Pieren

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] (Soapy) Massage Parlour

2014-09-23 Thread Guttorm Flatabø
Hi Mishari,

2014-09-23 16:56 GMT+02:00 Mishari Muqbil mish...@mishari.net:

 I had an interesting conversation with legal today.


I'm assuming legal is a department at your workplace.


 Even if it's the truth, it's criminal libel if you state it as a
 brothel. There's an interesting saying which you can Google that goes


That is too bad for you in Thailand. Makes me wonder what other facts you
are prohibited from stating.

The people who will be liable under the Computer Crimes Act are those
 who enter the information, those who host and those who display the
 information. So for example, website A shows a map containing a POI in
 Thailand tagged as a brothel, a police report can be filed to have owner
 of website A prosecuted.


I understand better why you are concerned then. In reality it makes you
unable (/criminal) to map certain things because you are in Thailand. Even
if these parlours were to be mapped as amenity=brothel on OSM, a Thai
online map service could still show them as soapland on a map. One could
perhaps also argue that you as a Thai user perhaps could tag these as
amenity=brothel + brothel=soapland and not be libelous because you were
using the International OSM definition of brothel and not the Thai
version of brothel (which is unlawful and therefore does not exist)? If
every online map service in Thailand is to be liable for everything that
the map displays, to such a degree, it makes it very hard to use OSM data
in Thailand.

I've also been advised that Thailand is not the only country with this
 legal concept and that as we should be mindful and cautious of this.


I am pretty sure that for most free countries this isn't much of an issue,
at least not for the OSM user doing the tagging. Civil liberties isn't
where Thailand does best...

--
Guttorm Flatabø
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] (Soapy) Massage Parlour

2014-09-23 Thread Mateusz Konieczny
2014-09-23 16:56 GMT+02:00 Mishari Muqbil mish...@mishari.net:

 Even if it's the truth, it's criminal libel if you state it as a
 brothel. There's an interesting saying which you can Google that goes
 the greater the truth, the greater the libel.


Libel is defined as false statement that harms the reputation of
somebody/something.
Are you serious that in Thailand they have something like criminal libel
defined as
any statement that harms the reputation of somebody/something?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] (Soapy) Massage Parlour

2014-09-23 Thread Matthijs Melissen
On 23 Sep 2014 16:29, Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com wrote:
 Are you serious that in Thailand they have something like criminal
libel defined as
 any statement that harms the reputation of somebody/something?

In the Netherlands, this is the case as well. It is, basically, a criminal
offence to harm someones honour unless doing so is in the public interest.

http://www.wetboek-online.nl/wet/Sr/261.html

 In fact, I have the same problem with tagging Gentlemen's Clubs in
 England. How do other mappers tag these? From the outside, it's often
 hard to decide whether they should be tagged as leisure=social_club
 (typically not...), amenity=stripclub, or amenity=brothel. In England,
 brothelkeeping is illegal, so tagging them as amenity=brothel without
 evidence might again be risky from a legal perspective.

I still wonder how other mappers deal with this.

-- Matthijs
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Understanding links

2014-09-23 Thread Lukas Sommer
 There is not much documentation on the wiki. The only thing that I found
 was a statement at
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dservice that says that
 highway=service is wrong, but everything else is okay.


 highway=service  service=alley sounds really good to me - parallel to the
 main road, narrow, and for local access only - at least in this instance
 (and a ton of others here)


Yes. I also do not see why we should exclude highway=service as a
possiblity.

It’s just raw guess, but maybe the intention of the statement at the wiki
page was not to exclude highway=service, but to avoid mixing up concepts.
Because sometimes frontage roads are called “service roads”, people might
think that this was the _only_ valid tagging for frontage roads. However,
in OSM highway=service is defined differently. So other values may be more
usefull – overall highway=residential. Probably the wiki statement would
just say this.


 as these scream local access and nothing more.


Sometimes you have frontage roads who mostly don’t give local access.
Example
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=39.47925mlon=-0.45146#map=17/39.47925/-0.45146
Here the mapper decided to use “tertiary”. The road has mostly
through-traffic. I would not make a strict rule for all cases, but just
leave this up to the local mappers to decide.

Wiki page at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Frontage_road
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Understanding links

2014-09-23 Thread johnw

 Sometimes you have frontage roads who mostly don’t give local access. Example 
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=39.47925mlon=-0.45146#map=17/39.47925/-0.45146
  Here the mapper decided to use “tertiary”. The road has mostly 
 through-traffic. I would not make a strict rule for all cases, but just leave 
 this up to the local mappers to decide.

Ah, I understand. A frontage road is any parallel road for local access, which 
is normally bypassed by the larger road. Tertiary is perfect for your example.  
I guess these frontage alleys in Japan are really small and cut up (less than 
100m or so long, and dead-end to nothing). 

Javbw


 
 Wiki page at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Frontage_road
 ___
 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] Forest vs Wood

2014-09-23 Thread Greg Troxel

Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl writes:

 On 20 August 2014 18:45, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote:
 Wood: Woodland with no forestry
 Forest: Managed woodland or woodland plantation.

 How do you define forestry or 'managing' forests?

 Most forests in the Netherlands are managed by Staatsbosbeheer, the
 national forest trust.
 They have as policy (at least for some of their forests) not to
 intervene in their forests unless there is danger to visitors. The
 forests are typically planted by humans centuries ago, but I can
 imagine most of the trees nowadays have grown naturally (although I
 have no way to verify this). How would you classify these?

That is landuse=conservation.



I think the right thing to do is to look to professional geography.
There, there are two separate concepts

  land use: what humans do with the land

  land cover: what is actually there


So landuse=forest is appropriate for land which is being managed for
production, even if it is little pulp trees.

And natural=wood (or we should move to landcover=wood, really) for areas
that are dominated by trees.

So land that is wooded that is *intentionally* being left in a natural
state so that future generations will still have access is
landuse=conservation, not landuse=forest.  And then it needs landcover
tags to describe where trees/grass/etc. are.

There are areas in the US which are national forests which people can
get permission to cut trees, and to graze cattle.  Not all of the area
in them is wooded; there are fields and roads.  (I just drove through
one and had to stop for cows in the road, with both sides meadow.)

So the big sticking point is that people have to get over but in my
country forest means X.   We need to have a global definition of what
the tags mean, and then not worry that local usage of those words has a
vast number of differences.

The key point is to separate landuse, which is what are humans doing
with the land and what's actually there.


pgpJtlNPPdecd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Unification of google-plus links

2014-09-23 Thread Greg Troxel

I don't think we should have tags for particular proprietary services.

Instead, a URL to various pages can be given in the url tag, with ; if
necessary.


pgpejuxb2fe5M.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] New key proposal - paved=yes/no

2014-09-23 Thread Warin

On 24/09/2014 1:27 AM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 15:43:07 +0200 From: Martin Koppenhoefer 
dieterdre...@gmail.com To: Tag discussion, strategy and related 
tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] New key 
proposal - paved=yes/no Message-ID: 
cabptjtd7kbdbxzs9p8kz-anrnb-d9g91d3hk1tfmsnk+dmh...@mail.gmail.com 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 2014-09-23 1:12 GMT+02:00 
David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net:


here we are on the tagging mailing list, to discuss tagging of objects 
in the OSM database. With current tags it is indeed possible to say 
whether a road is paved or not according to your own definition. The 
fact that a particular rendering (carto osm) doesn't currently display 
the paved attribute of a road has nothing to do when the question is 
whether current tagging works or not. In fact, the maintainers of 
carto osm have recently been discussing how to display unpaved roads 
differently from paved ones, so this could come in the future. This is 
really not an argument for the introduction of a new tag. cheers, 
Martin -- next part


Message: 3 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 07:54:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard 
Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net To: Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] New key proposal - paved=yes/no Message-ID: 
1411484083204-5818261.p...@n5.nabble.com Content-Type: text/plain; 
charset=us-ascii David Bannon wrote:

The truth is the paved/unpaved state of a road is being widely
ignored or incorrectly interpreted. The map at osm.org illustrates
my point, perhaps as well as an XKCD cartoon :-)

Yep, absolutely. But the way to fix that is to get the map at osm.org to
render surfaces, using the existing tags. (And I agree, that would be a
great enhancement.)

I was about to point you to
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/110 but then I
noticed that you're all over it already. :)

cheers
Richard



One more point against that I have not seen (yet)  ..  with this 
additional tag you can get conflicts e.g.


Paved=yes
Surface=Unpaved

Oh .. you want to exclude paved/unpaved from surface? Ok, then we get

Paved=yes
Surface=sand

As per Peewee post - the definition of 'paved' vs 'unpaved' is open to 
interpretation. But I don't think anyone would accept 'sand' as being 
'paved'?


Some might consider 'gravel' to be 'paved' .. most won't. It is an 
improvement over say sand, but then any track is an improvement over 
virgin territory. Much better to get the detail of the surface. I do tag 
surface=unpaved where the surface is made up of multiple things - one 
length would be sand, another dirt .. and probably some bits of 
bulldust, gibber and salt lake. Where it is substantially on type then 
I'll put that surface down. Then the renderer can decide what is 'paved' 
... anything else (including unknowns) should be classified as 'unpaved' 
... this is the safe way as more people selecting paved may not be able 
to use unpaved .. where as those selecting unpaved would be capable of 
using paved. (And as points out it is a rendering/routing problem that 
should be addressed by them, not the taggers).


Suggest the proposal is retracted, and other courses taken to rectify 
this issue?





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging