date:20150203


On 4/02/2015 11:14 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote:

I have never seen the term "chemical disposal point"


Neither have I. Nor aires, stellplatz nor aree di sosta .. but then I 
don't drive an RV nor caravan. So I've not been looking for them. I'm 
only sharing what I've found.




On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


On 4/02/2015 9:38 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote:


There is no documentation of the waste= values .. if you want
to add them go ahead. Anything there would be an improvement.

I check on the UK terms for chemical toilets ..

http://www.campingandcaravanningclub.co.uk/helpandadvice/gettingstarted/campingequipment/toilets/

They use "On a campsite this will probably be marked as a
Chemical Disposal Point or CDP. On some sites, it might
appear as an Elsan Point." Elsan sounds like a trade name or
manufacture. So I'd include CDP.

Oh .. note their use of campsite too. Not camp ground. Lots
of power in words. 



More? http://www.motorhomeandaway.com/eu_basics.htm For
caravans/motorhomes/RVs

Has AIRES, STELLPLATZ and AREE DI SOSTA (France, Germany and
Italy) ..


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




--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com



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

Re: [Tagging] Wiki on amenity=waste_disposal Rewrite?

2015-02-03 Thread Dave Swarthout

I have never seen the term "chemical disposal point" and if I did I would
assume it referred to either household chemicals like bleach, or cleaning
aids, or to industrial chemicals, like solvents, cleaning fluids, paint and
the like. I would drive right on past if I were driving an RN with full
holding tank.

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>  On 4/02/2015 9:38 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
>
>
>  There is no documentation of the waste= values .. if you want to add them
>> go ahead. Anything there would be an improvement.
>>
>> I check on the UK terms for chemical toilets ..
>> http://www.campingandcaravanningclub.co.uk/helpandadvice/gettingstarted/campingequipment/toilets/
>>
>> They use "On a campsite this will probably be marked as a Chemical
>> Disposal Point or CDP. On some sites, it might appear as an Elsan Point."
>> Elsan sounds like a trade name or manufacture. So I'd include CDP.
>>
>> Oh .. note their use of campsite too. Not camp ground. Lots of power in
>> words.
>
>
> More? http://www.motorhomeandaway.com/eu_basics.htm For
> caravans/motorhomes/RVs
>
> Has AIRES, STELLPLATZ and AREE DI SOSTA (France, Germany and Italy) ..
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wiki on amenity=waste_disposal Rewrite?


On 4/02/2015 9:38 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote:


There is no documentation of the waste= values .. if you want to
add them go ahead. Anything there would be an improvement.

I check on the UK terms for chemical toilets ..

http://www.campingandcaravanningclub.co.uk/helpandadvice/gettingstarted/campingequipment/toilets/

They use "On a campsite this will probably be marked as a Chemical
Disposal Point or CDP. On some sites, it might appear as an Elsan
Point." Elsan sounds like a trade name or manufacture. So I'd
include CDP.

Oh .. note their use of campsite too. Not camp ground. Lots of
power in words. 



More? http://www.motorhomeandaway.com/eu_basics.htm For 
caravans/motorhomes/RVs


Has AIRES, STELLPLATZ and AREE DI SOSTA (France, Germany and Italy) ..

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

Re: [Tagging] Wiki on amenity=waste_disposal Rewrite?


On 4/02/2015 9:38 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
I think "dump station" is probably intended to refer to facilities 
intended to receive the sewage from chemical toilets on board 
recreational vehicles, and from man-portable chemical toilets 
(basically a bucket with a seat and a tight-fitting lid). These 
concrete chemical toilets you describe would be a facility of the 
campground, and a "honey truck" would come to them, rather than the 
toilets being transported to a dump station.


--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com



https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Dump_Station

Status = abandoned! No one is using it. But I agree it was intended for 
this use.


--
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dwaste_disposal

Status - In use. And it has the capability of being used for the same 
intended use of 'Dump_Station'


Going with the voters/mappers you'd have to agree 'waste_disposal wins?

-
Complication: waste_disposal rendering will have to be left upto the sub 
key 'waste=' to get the information across.





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

Re: [Tagging] Wiki on amenity=waste_disposal Rewrite?

2015-02-03 Thread John F. Eldredge

On February 3, 2015 3:45:48 PM CST, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/02/2015 5:03 PM, David Bannon wrote:
> >
> > In the context where this discussion came up, camp_sites, I'd
> suggest
> > waste=chemical_toilet is the one we are interested in. The
> > waste=excrement mentions boat. Boat facilities are distinctly
> different,
> > usually relying on a large hose connecting the two tanks and a pump.
> >
> > Chemical_toilets (in my experience) are a concrete 'bowl' about half
> a
> > square metre where the material in question is either poured or
> pumped.
> >
> > Should we start by improving the documentation there ?
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> 
> There is no documentation of the waste= values .. if you want to add 
> them go ahead. Anything there would be an improvement.
> 
> I check on the UK terms for chemical toilets .. 
> http://www.campingandcaravanningclub.co.uk/helpandadvice/gettingstarted/campingequipment/toilets/
> 
> They use "On a campsite this will probably be marked as a Chemical 
> Disposal Point or CDP. On some sites, it might appear as an Elsan 
> Point." Elsan sounds like a trade name or manufacture. So I'd include
> CDP.
> 
> Oh .. note their use of campsite too. Not camp ground. Lots of power
> in 
> words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

I think "dump station" is probably intended to refer to facilities intended to 
receive the sewage from chemical toilets on board recreational vehicles, and 
from man-portable chemical toilets (basically a bucket with a seat and a 
tight-fitting lid). These concrete chemical toilets you describe would be a 
facility of the campground, and a "honey truck" would come to them, rather than 
the toilets being transported to a dump station.

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive 
out hate: only love can do that." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wiki on amenity=waste_disposal Rewrite?


On 3/02/2015 5:03 PM, David Bannon wrote:


In the context where this discussion came up, camp_sites, I'd suggest
waste=chemical_toilet is the one we are interested in. The
waste=excrement mentions boat. Boat facilities are distinctly different,
usually relying on a large hose connecting the two tanks and a pump.

Chemical_toilets (in my experience) are a concrete 'bowl' about half a
square metre where the material in question is either poured or pumped.

Should we start by improving the documentation there ?

David




There is no documentation of the waste= values .. if you want to add 
them go ahead. Anything there would be an improvement.


I check on the UK terms for chemical toilets .. 
http://www.campingandcaravanningclub.co.uk/helpandadvice/gettingstarted/campingequipment/toilets/


They use "On a campsite this will probably be marked as a Chemical 
Disposal Point or CDP. On some sites, it might appear as an Elsan 
Point." Elsan sounds like a trade name or manufacture. So I'd include CDP.


Oh .. note their use of campsite too. Not camp ground. Lots of power in 
words.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wiki on amenity=waste_disposal Rewrite?


Done .. well at least a first attempt.

Ok.. I've hacked at the words, added some tag links and given examples 
of the waste= key on the main page just so people can see it includes 
some things they have not thought of?


I hope it is better , more inclusive - less exclusive.

Complaints, suggestions .. as always to me .. via the list or otherwise. 
We'll see if it attracts more tagging.



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

Re: [Tagging] Combining gas stations & convenience stores

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 3:44 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>
> 2014-12-12 17:28 GMT+01:00 fly :
>>
>> Am 05.12.2014 um 21:30 schrieb Paul Johnson:
>> > How about site relations?  Seems like a good use of a site relation.
>>
>> As long as it possible to draw the whole site as a single polygon, there
>> is no need of a site relation.
>>
>
>
> +1
> unless you want to express some particular relation between some of the
> members (i.e. use a role different than outer/inner).
>
>
I'm curious if we're thinking the same thing.
http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site  (granted, while it's not
my proposal, with two or three uses I've generated myself, it wouldn't
surprise me if I'm the most prolific user of it thus far...)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Combining gas stations & convenience stores

Sorry, *still* catching up on stuff after the holidays, a mental breakdown,
a car breakdown, replacing that car with a truck, not being able to tag the
truck because of the holidays for a month, a truck breakdown...

On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 4:25 AM, Philip Barnes  wrote:

> On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 11:55 -0600, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 09:46 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> > > A hybrid approach is possible also where simple is acceptable:
> > > "amenity=fuel, shop=yes"
> >
> > Shouldn't this be shop=convenience (in most cases)?
> >
> In many cases the shop will be a convenience store, but not always.
>
> There are still more traditional shops that are there primarily to take
> payment for fuel but will sell oil, bulbs, and cold soft drinks and
> sweets for the journey. It has limited use so far, but I tag these as
> shop=forecourt.
>

I'd still tend to tag these as seperate features, as (save for some Conoco
and P66 stations and virtually all independent stations, and all QuikTrip
and Murphy USA locations) the store rarely has the same name and (save for
some Valero, Tesoro and unusual P66 locations) are rarely to never under
the same roof as the fuel.  Granted, in some places, this doesn't make much
difference.  But consider a QuikTrip anywhere there's ever been a QuikTrip
for as long as there's ever been a QuikTrip, and suddenly knowing the best
way to the store as opposed to the fuel line is at least five minutes
travel and possibly not getting rammed by someone backing up blindly (for
those who don't have QuikTrip, you're kinda missing out on the best
possible and cheapest independent gas station/convenience store chain
going; people don't go to QT for gas and lunch occasionally so much as they
tithe it ritually.  amenity=place_of_worship; denomination=bodega?).  The
fuel islands that do have a shop under the same roof tend to be more of the
kiosk variety (with the largest being Circle K locations stripped down so
bad you have to wonder why they'd even let one wear the name when it
doesn't even fit their brand concept).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

I forgot about this case, too, even though it's increasingly common in the
US (ostensibly to help cyclists get out of the door zone and feel more
comfortable cycling, but inevitably this arrangement causes an inescapable
curbside door zone, pedestrians not looking to cross a lane of traffic
between the parking and the curb, people leaving cars in the bicycle lane,
people leaving garbage bins in the bicycle lane, and really everything else
you can imagine going wrong with half-assing the dutch model...

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 5:45 AM, Martin Vonwald  wrote:

> Yesterday I had the following case on a dual carriageway - lanes from left
> to right:
> * two regular lanes
> * one shoulder
> * one bicycle lane
>
> Sometimes the shoulder changes to a turning lane and back to a shoulder
> after a junction. There is no physical separation whatsoever of all those
> four lanes. Additional bicycle lanes may also be present.
>
> Regards,
> Martin
>
>
>
> 2015-02-03 12:33 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson :
>
>> Unless I'm way off, maybe a gore point?  Transition into a traditional
>> toll plaza?
>> On Feb 3, 2015 5:30 AM, "Colin Smale"  wrote:
>>
>>>  A shoulder lane in the middle of the carriageway? Maybe you can
>>> illustrate your scenario.
>>>
>>> Under normal circumstances (one way per carriageway)
>>> shoulder=left/right/both should cover it.
>>>
>>> Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by "shoulder"?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2015-02-03 12:23, Martin Vonwald wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2015-02-03 12:18 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale :
>>>
  That's an easy one: shoulder=yes.

>>> Can you please explain to me, how this answers the question WHERE the
>>> shoulder is? It does NOT have to be the leftmost or rightmost lane.
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing 
>>> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://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
>>
>>
>
> ___
> 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] How to tag a cistern?

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 9:35 AM, John F. Eldredge 
wrote:

> On February 3, 2015 3:05:53 AM CST, Paul Johnson 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 2, 2015 3:11 PM, "Clifford Snow"  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 12:54 PM, John F. Eldredge 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Once again, we are divided by a common language. In American usage, a
>> cistern is a holding tank for captured rain water, used as an alternative
>> to a well in areas where no city water supply is available. They often take
>> the form of an underground pit with a waterproof lining.
>> >
>> >
>> > I've also seen them on the coast of Alaska in above ground tanks to
>> catch rain water.
>>
>> Above ground is common in the midwest for various reasons (freezing,
>> contamination, maintenance, excavation of solid rock) that often arise.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
> It seems like an above-ground tank would be more prone to freezing, not
> less. I have lived in two houses that had cisterns, although neither one
> was still in use.
>
>
In this climate, yes, but at least you know about it in, say, January, and
can hit Southern Ag for a suitable replacement before it thaws, and don't
find out about it the hard way in, say, September during the hottest,
driest part of the year, with pretty much the only alternatives being
buying a water cooler and buying bottled water by the 5-gallon vat for a
few months or buying another cistern and a (few?) hundred gallons to refill
it with...
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] roof:shape with several connected buildings

Am 03.02.2015 um 17:37 schrieb fly:
> Hey
> 
> Can someone give me a hint how to tag two buildings which have a wall in
> common and share one roof, e.g. roof:shape=hipped for both together.
> 
> Do we have a tag for only on one side hipped ?
> 
> I have this problem with several buildings but usually one the
> first/last of the row are a problem.

Well, I found roof:shape=side_hipped [1] which seems to fit.

Cheers fly

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM-4D/Roof_table#Roofs_with_2_faces


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

[Tagging] roof:shape with several connected buildings

Hey

Can someone give me a hint how to tag two buildings which have a wall in
common and share one roof, e.g. roof:shape=hipped for both together.

Do we have a tag for only on one side hipped ?

I have this problem with several buildings but usually one the
first/last of the row are a problem.

Thanks fly

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a cistern?

2015-02-03 Thread John F. Eldredge

On February 3, 2015 3:05:53 AM CST, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2015 3:11 PM, "Clifford Snow" 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 12:54 PM, John F. Eldredge
> 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Once again, we are divided by a common language. In American usage,
> a
> cistern is a holding tank for captured rain water, used as an
> alternative
> to a well in areas where no city water supply is available. They often
> take
> the form of an underground pit with a waterproof lining.
> >
> >
> > I've also seen them on the coast of Alaska in above ground tanks to
> catch
> rain water.
> 
> Above ground is common in the midwest for various reasons (freezing,
> contamination, maintenance, excavation of solid rock) that often
> arise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

It seems like an above-ground tank would be more prone to freezing, not less. I 
have lived in two houses that had cisterns, although neither one was still in 
use.

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive 
out hate: only love can do that." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

I don't understand that comment... I am not declaring anything - at
worst I am making an incorrect assumption to catalyse a bit of a debate
(which seems to be working)... 

How do we show the difference between legal and physical restrictions?
Looking at the wiki page for the access tag, its opening sentence is:
"ACCESS VALUES are used to describe the LEGAL access for highway [1]=*s
and other facilities..." 

Further down on the same page, the physical restrictions are discussed,
where you can find this sentence: "A number of statutary restrictions
based on height, width, weight etc can also be defined." 

Both of these address what is "allowed" and not what is physically
possible. Hence you are right - access applies to both obstructed and
unobstructed routes, and the characteristics of the obstruction itself
are a different subject. 

For a bridge with maxweight=2, we have no way of telling (from current
tagging) whether a 10-ton fire truck will cause the bridge to collapse,
or if the restriction is there for political reasons to keep heavy
trucks out of residential areas or country lanes. 

On 2015-02-03 13:23, Richard Welty wrote: 

> On 2/3/15 6:14 AM, Colin Smale wrote: 
> 
>> Same as for "normal" vehicles, but ignoring the access tag and any 
>> restrictions
> but you've declared that access=no applies both to obstructed
> routes (bollards, guardrails, etc) and unobstructed routes.
> 
> richard
> 
> -- 
> rwe...@averillpark.net
> Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
> OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
> Java - Web Applications - Search

Links:
--
[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

Am 03.02.2015 um 10:34 schrieb Martin Vonwald:
> Fine. But how do you specify where this lane is or if there is a lane at
> all?

In the lanes:-tagging system it would work like:

boulder|lane|lane|boulder|turn-lane|bicycle lane

access:lanes=no|yes|yes|no|yes|no
bicycle:lanes=no|no|no|no|no|designated
turn:lanes=|||slight_right|

only problem are once again lanes*=*

Would could handle boulder lanes like bicycle lanes and not counting
them would lead to

lanes=3

my 2 ct
fly


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

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

Am 03.02.2015 um 13:23 schrieb Richard Welty:
> On 2/3/15 6:14 AM, Colin Smale wrote:
>>
>> Same as for "normal" vehicles, but ignoring the access tag and any
>> restrictions
>>
>>
> but you've declared that access=no applies both to obstructed
> routes (bollards, guardrails, etc) and unobstructed routes.

In my understanding emergency need infos like width, max physical height
and about sharp turns.

All barriers should be tag separately and tags like access and oneway on
the ways are just some more information but not the most important ones.

cu fly

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - traffic_signals (Lukas Schaus)

2015-02-03 Thread Lukas Sommer

@Javbw Indeed the problem of the traffic signal system names is still
not solved.However I would keep this separate. Lukas Schaus wants to
represent traffic signal phases (and uses – also in the new proposal –
more than one relation per traffic signal system). The traffic signal
system and its name are a different topics, and I would not merge them
in the same proposal.

In the Tagging_for_complex_junctions_or_traffic_signals_that_are_named
propsal, the part of the area was a little bit disputed for the case
of the traffic signal systems. Various people suggested that a
relation would be better for traffic signal systems. Currently, I tend
to come up with a proposal for a relation for traffic signal system
names – which would not interfer with Lukas Schaus’ proposal. @Javbw
Do you have some feedback from the japanese community? What do they
think about the usage of a relation?
Lukas Sommer


2015-02-03 2:30 GMT+00:00 johnw :
>>
>> I did a major update on my proposal regarding the mapping of traffic signals.
>
> As per the talk pageI’d like you to consider including (and documenting in 
> the proposal) rendering the name=* of the “signal” in this situation, as the 
> relation encompasses the entire set of signals - which in Japan, are named, 
> and represented with a singleTraffic_signals icon. Even without a name, the 
> single icon per complex intersection is preferred, as a signal icon at an 
> intersection - even a complex one, is the proper rendering for using relative 
> direction and counting “3 signals down is my business”, and other commonly 
> used relative directions in places with no street addressing system.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Traffic_Signals#rendering_traffic_signals_area_question
>
> thanks, Javbw
> ___
> 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] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

2015-02-03 Thread Richard Welty


On 2/3/15 6:14 AM, Colin Smale wrote:


Same as for "normal" vehicles, but ignoring the access tag and any 
restrictions




but you've declared that access=no applies both to obstructed
routes (bollards, guardrails, etc) and unobstructed routes.

richard

--
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search

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

Re: [Tagging] Electronic or 'e' cigarettes?

Am 02.02.2015 um 23:28 schrieb Andy Mabbett:
> On 22 January 2015 at 18:00, fly  wrote:
> 
>> Anyway, I do not know a single shop in my area which only sells them so
>> shop=* will never fit.
> 
> "Never"? I'm reminded of the maxim that "the singular of data is not 
> anecdote".
> 
> (There are several such shops in my home city.)

Was this really that misunderstood-able ?

Sure, this sence was writing in a subjective manner. Did not want to say
that there are no such shops but rather that I need subtags or a
different key in order to tag shops which offer them.

cu fly

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

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

 

OK so it is a kind of buffer to keep the motorised traffic out of the
way of the bikes. Are there any circumstances under which any kind of
vehicle is permitted to be in that lane (while it is not a turn lane)? 

That sounds too complex for highway=primary (or whatever) and
cycleway=lane. Leveraging the lanes tagging system, we could have
something like yield motor_vehicle:lanes=yes|yes|no|no and
bicycle:lanes=no|no|no|yes. 

On 2015-02-03 12:45, Martin Vonwald wrote: 

> Yesterday I had the following case on a dual carriageway - lanes from left to 
> right: * two regular lanes * one shoulder * one bicycle lane
> 
> Sometimes the shoulder changes to a turning lane and back to a shoulder after 
> a junction. There is no physical separation whatsoever of all those four 
> lanes. Additional bicycle lanes may also be present.
> 
> Regards, Martin
> 
> 2015-02-03 12:33 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson :
> 
> Unless I'm way off, maybe a gore point? Transition into a traditional toll 
> plaza? 
> 
> On Feb 3, 2015 5:30 AM, "Colin Smale"  wrote:
> 
> A shoulder lane in the middle of the carriageway? Maybe you can illustrate 
> your scenario. 
> 
> Under normal circumstances (one way per carriageway) shoulder=left/right/both 
> should cover it. 
> 
> Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by "shoulder"? 
> 
> On 2015-02-03 12:23, Martin Vonwald wrote: 
> 
> 2015-02-03 12:18 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale :
> 
> That's an easy one: shoulder=yes. 
> Can you please explain to me, how this answers the question WHERE the 
> shoulder is? It does NOT have to be the leftmost or rightmost lane. 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [1]

___
 Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [1]

___
 Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [1]

___
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] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

Yesterday I had the following case on a dual carriageway - lanes from left
to right:
* two regular lanes
* one shoulder
* one bicycle lane

Sometimes the shoulder changes to a turning lane and back to a shoulder
after a junction. There is no physical separation whatsoever of all those
four lanes. Additional bicycle lanes may also be present.

Regards,
Martin



2015-02-03 12:33 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson :

> Unless I'm way off, maybe a gore point?  Transition into a traditional
> toll plaza?
> On Feb 3, 2015 5:30 AM, "Colin Smale"  wrote:
>
>>  A shoulder lane in the middle of the carriageway? Maybe you can
>> illustrate your scenario.
>>
>> Under normal circumstances (one way per carriageway)
>> shoulder=left/right/both should cover it.
>>
>> Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by "shoulder"?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2015-02-03 12:23, Martin Vonwald wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 2015-02-03 12:18 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale :
>>
>>>  That's an easy one: shoulder=yes.
>>>
>> Can you please explain to me, how this answers the question WHERE the
>> shoulder is? It does NOT have to be the leftmost or rightmost lane.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing 
>> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://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
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

Unless I'm way off, maybe a gore point?  Transition into a traditional toll
plaza?
On Feb 3, 2015 5:30 AM, "Colin Smale"  wrote:

>  A shoulder lane in the middle of the carriageway? Maybe you can
> illustrate your scenario.
>
> Under normal circumstances (one way per carriageway)
> shoulder=left/right/both should cover it.
>
> Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by "shoulder"?
>
>
>
>
> On 2015-02-03 12:23, Martin Vonwald wrote:
>
>
>
> 2015-02-03 12:18 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale :
>
>>  That's an easy one: shoulder=yes.
>>
> Can you please explain to me, how this answers the question WHERE the
> shoulder is? It does NOT have to be the leftmost or rightmost lane.
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://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

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

 

A shoulder lane in the middle of the carriageway? Maybe you can
illustrate your scenario. 

Under normal circumstances (one way per carriageway)
shoulder=left/right/both should cover it. 

Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by "shoulder"? 

On 2015-02-03 12:23, Martin Vonwald wrote: 

> 2015-02-03 12:18 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale :
> 
>> That's an easy one: shoulder=yes.
> 
> Can you please explain to me, how this answers the question WHERE the 
> shoulder is? It does NOT have to be the leftmost or rightmost lane. 
> 
> ___
> 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] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

2015-02-03 12:18 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale :

>  That's an easy one: shoulder=yes.
>
Can you please explain to me, how this answers the question WHERE the
shoulder is? It does NOT have to be the leftmost or rightmost lane.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

 

That's an easy one: shoulder=yes. Access=breakdown or access=emergency
wouldn't answer your question unambiguously either. Are you concerned
about the name ("which lane is called the shoulder?") or the function
("which lane should I dump the car in if it breaks down?" or "can I use
this lane if my car is dying?")? 

On 2015-02-03 12:03, Martin Vonwald wrote: 

> Hi!
> 
> 2015-02-03 11:54 GMT+01:00 Richard Welty :
> On 2/3/15 4:36 AM, Colin Smale wrote:
> Then they are access=no (with foot=yes or whatever as appropriate) or 
> barrier=boulder. The way is blocked both for emergency services and mere 
> mortals. No need for access=emergency. then how do you create a routing 
> engine for use by emergency vehicles?
> think it through, please, think it through.

+1 
Although I wouldn't even think that far. I just want to know which lane
is the shoulder. The tag access=no doesn't tell me anything about that.

Best regards, 
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] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

Same as for "normal" vehicles, but ignoring the access tag and any
restrictions given by hgv, psv, bus, motor_vehicle etc according to what
type of emergency vehicle you are routing for. A police motorcycle is
not the same as a 10-wheel fire truck or a huge mobile crane on the
direction of the police. The vehicle either fits or it doesn't, and is
either allowed or it isn't. The first applies equally to emergency
vehicles, and the second is ignored by emergency vehicles[*1]. Emergency
vehicles also ignore oneway and turn restrictions. I don't see us
tagging oneway:emergency=no on millions of roads. 

Another scenario is a movable obstacle for which only emergency vehicles
have the "key", but that would be an attribute of the barrier
(bollard/gate or whatever) and not of the way. 

Of course this is dependent on the emergency vehicle being in an
emergency situation. I guess a cop ignoring traffic laws because he is
late for his tea has some explaining to do. 

[*1] They obviously need to respect e.g. maxwidth/maxheight/maxweight
applied for structural reasons (weak bridges etc), but not similar
restrictions applied for environmental/political reasons. How do we code
for that distinction? 

On 2015-02-03 11:54, Richard Welty wrote: 

> On 2/3/15 4:36 AM, Colin Smale wrote:
> 
>> Then they are access=no (with foot=yes or whatever as appropriate) or 
>> barrier=boulder. The way is blocked both for emergency services and mere 
>> mortals. No need for access=emergency.
> 
> then how do you create a routing engine for use by emergency vehicles?
> think it through, please, think it through.
> 
> richard
 ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

Hi!

2015-02-03 11:54 GMT+01:00 Richard Welty :

> On 2/3/15 4:36 AM, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> Then they are access=no (with foot=yes or whatever as appropriate) or
>> barrier=boulder. The way is blocked both for emergency services and mere
>> mortals. No need for access=emergency.
>>
> then how do you create a routing engine for use by emergency vehicles?
> think it through, please, think it through.
>

+1
Although I wouldn't even think that far. I just want to know which lane is
the shoulder. The tag access=no doesn't tell me anything about that.

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

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

2015-02-03 Thread Richard Welty


On 2/3/15 4:36 AM, Colin Smale wrote:


Then they are access=no (with foot=yes or whatever as appropriate) or 
barrier=boulder. The way is blocked both for emergency services and 
mere mortals. No need for access=emergency.

then how do you create a routing engine for use by emergency vehicles?
think it through, please, think it through.

richard

--
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search


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

Re: [Tagging] Draft Additions to camp_site

On 3/02/2015 7:51 PM, Tod Fitch wrote:

On Feb 1, 2015, at 5:24 PM, Warin wrote:

On 2/02/2015 10:22 AM, Tod Fitch wrote:

On Feb 1, 2015, at 2:50 PM, David Bannon wrote:
I would like to have some of the items on Extend_camp_site page brought onto
the main camp_site page. Specifically the site/pitch specific tags at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#Tagging_of_individual_pitches

While they are not widely used, I see a fairly big geographical distribution
which implies that they might be understood and universal enough to warrant
better mention.

And, of course, I used them myself when mapping a couple of U.S. Forest Service
campgrounds. :)

-Tod

I've edited the wiki page on camp sites
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site to include links
to the tags for fee, shower, laundry, firepit and water tap. Tod you could do
the same for your desired additional tags? Any complaints to me.. or just edit
the page yourself?

I just set out to edit the page per your suggestion with the thought I could
just block copy the site/pitch specific stuff from
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#Tagging_of_individual_pitches
to below your changes at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site#Additional_Features
and immediately ran into a conceptual (on my part) road block.

I think that some of the tags I would like to copy over might be conflict with yours. For example,
"Power connection point. May be connected to a caravan" (may conflict with
"camp_site:electric=yes/no").

I've reread what you wrote. The added table is to do with adding other
nodes/areas so you can see where these thing are within the camp site
(or elsewhere). 'Your' tags are characteristics of the campsite and
should go in the first table? At least that would be my interpretation
of "camp_site:electricity=yes/no" .. So there should be no conflict that
way. The second table things should be rendered as per usual, really a
way of encouraging there use and reducing the search time for them. I
don't know how yours would be rendered. Maybe things could go in a
possible third table? Don't know .. see how it looks after a day?If the
things in the second table are used .. then why added extras at all?
Might be best to leave them out? Depends on people adding the second
table tags, but that is true also for 'your' tags

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

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

Getting back on topic for a moment Hard shoulders should be
access=no, not access=breakdown or access=emergency (the last two
shouldn't even exist IMHO). The baseline is that you shouldn't be there
at all. You get away with it if you have permission (blue lights) or no
choice (breakdown) although it seems there may need to be parking
restrictions or minimum speed tags added in Oklahoma. 

There are of course hard shoulders which are opened as running lanes
during certain hours or in certain conditions. In that case they
alternate between access=no and access=yes/motor_vehicle. This is what
the access:conditional tag is for. 

On 2015-02-03 11:15, Paul Johnson wrote: 

> On Feb 3, 2015 4:11 AM, "Philip Barnes"  wrote:
>>
>> On Tue Feb 3 09:36:21 2015 GMT, Colin Smale wrote:
>> > On 2015-02-03 10:20, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Feb 3, 2015 3:06 AM, "Colin Smale"  wrote:
>> >
>> > "Preventable"? How does that look in law? Is that "Failure to maintain
>> > the vehicle" or what? What exactly will you get a ticket for?
>> >
>> Running out of fuel is certainly a case of a preventable breakdown. 
> 
> Definitely one to do the math on if there's any doubt around here, too. Since 
> you're either on a cattle chute of a motorway with no services or exits, or 
> in the middle of mountains, forests, open prairie or totally uninhabited 
> desert depending on where you travel outside of metro Tulsa or OKC here. 
> 
> ___
> 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] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

On Feb 3, 2015 4:11 AM, "Philip Barnes"  wrote:
>
> On Tue Feb 3 09:36:21 2015 GMT, Colin Smale wrote:
> > On 2015-02-03 10:20, Paul Johnson wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 3, 2015 3:06 AM, "Colin Smale"  wrote:
> >
> > "Preventable"? How does that look in law? Is that "Failure to maintain
> > the vehicle" or what? What exactly will you get a ticket for?
> >
> Running out of fuel is certainly a case of a preventable breakdown.

Definitely one to do the math on if there's any doubt around here, too.
Since you're either on a cattle chute of a motorway with no services or
exits, or in the middle of mountains, forests, open prairie or totally
uninhabited desert depending on where you travel outside of metro Tulsa or
OKC here.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

2015-02-03 Thread Philip Barnes

On Tue Feb 3 09:36:21 2015 GMT, Colin Smale wrote:
> On 2015-02-03 10:20, Paul Johnson wrote:
> 
> > On Feb 3, 2015 3:06 AM, "Colin Smale"  wrote: 
> 
> "Preventable"? How does that look in law? Is that "Failure to maintain 
> the vehicle" or what? What exactly will you get a ticket for?
> 
Running out of fuel is certainly a case of a preventable breakdown. 

Phil (trigpoint )

-- 
Sent from my Jolla
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

On Feb 3, 2015 3:37 AM, "Colin Smale"  wrote:
>
> On 2015-02-03 10:20, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>> On Feb 3, 2015 3:06 AM, "Colin Smale"  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Surely there is never a law against breaking down.
>>
>>
>> And yet, in Oklahoma and Germany, it's considered preventable and, as
such, prohibited on roads with minimum posted limits. The irony of this in
a state known for having a high number of "rez cars" isn't lost here...
that said, on most highways with minimum speeds, there's usually (but not
always) a hard shoulder (on which you're expected to use to find a good
place off the pavement to put your vehicle until it can be moved to a less
dangerous).
>
>
> "Preventable"? How does that look in law? Is that "Failure to maintain
the vehicle" or what? What exactly will you get a ticket for?

Not sure what they would write you up with in Germany, but it would be an
easy write up as failure to maintain minimum speed and possibly a parking
violation (if you didn't get it off the pavement) in Oklahoma.  About the
only way you'd get written up on roadworthiness grounds here is if the car
had a salvage title, in which the ticket for not having a valid
registration plate would be my bigger concern...
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?


On 2015-02-03 10:20, Paul Johnson wrote:


On Feb 3, 2015 3:06 AM, "Colin Smale"  wrote:


Surely there is never a law against breaking down.


And yet, in Oklahoma and Germany, it's considered preventable and, as 
such, prohibited on roads with minimum posted limits. The irony of this 
in a state known for having a high number of "rez cars" isn't lost 
here... that said, on most highways with minimum speeds, there's 
usually (but not always) a hard shoulder (on which you're expected to 
use to find a good place off the pavement to put your vehicle until it 
can be moved to a less dangerous).


"Preventable"? How does that look in law? Is that "Failure to maintain 
the vehicle" or what? What exactly will you get a ticket for?


Same thing really with emergency vehicles. There is no such thing as 
"emergency=no" - the police/ambulance etc will go wherever they need 
to if it is a real emergency. Therefore there cannot be any such thing 
as "emergency=yes", and hence "access=emergency" is effectively the 
same as "access=no". Discuss


Fixed concrete bollards, permanent barricades (used commonly at 
permanently closed level crossings), K-rails, boulders and other fixed 
barriers generally do not care if it's an emergency, they're still not 
letting you through no matter how loud your siren is. And the way 
they're blocking might still exist anyway, local example being a former 
section of the Will Rogers Turnpike near Catoosa, OK.


Then they are access=no (with foot=yes or whatever as appropriate) or 
barrier=boulder. The way is blocked both for emergency services and mere 
mortals. No need for access=emergency.




___
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] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

Fine. But how do you specify where this lane is or if there is a lane at
all?

2015-02-03 10:05 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale :

>  Surely there is never a law against breaking down. When your car dies,
> it dies. If the intention is to persuade people to try to get their dying
> vehicle as far as possible to the right (left in the UK), well, we don't
> need to tag for that because it is standard. If the intention is to go
> against the defaults under some circumstances,
>
> Same thing really with emergency vehicles. There is no such thing as
> "emergency=no" - the police/ambulance etc will go wherever they need to if
> it is a real emergency. Therefore there cannot be any such thing as
> "emergency=yes", and hence "access=emergency" is effectively the same as
> "access=no". Discuss
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

On Feb 3, 2015 3:06 AM, "Colin Smale"  wrote:
>
> Surely there is never a law against breaking down.

And yet, in Oklahoma and Germany, it's considered preventable and, as such,
prohibited on roads with minimum posted limits.  The irony of this in a
state known for having a high number of "rez cars" isn't lost here... that
said, on most highways with minimum speeds, there's usually (but not
always) a hard shoulder (on which you're expected to use to find a good
place off the pavement to put your vehicle until it can be moved to a less
dangerous).

> Same thing really with emergency vehicles. There is no such thing as
"emergency=no" - the police/ambulance etc will go wherever they need to if
it is a real emergency. Therefore there cannot be any such thing as
"emergency=yes", and hence "access=emergency" is effectively the same as
"access=no". Discuss

Fixed concrete bollards, permanent barricades (used commonly at permanently
closed level crossings), K-rails, boulders and other fixed barriers
generally do not care if it's an emergency, they're still not letting you
through no matter how loud your siren is.  And the way they're blocking
might still exist anyway, local example being a former section of the Will
Rogers Turnpike near Catoosa, OK.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Draft Additions to camp_site

On 3/02/2015 7:51 PM, Tod Fitch wrote:

On Feb 1, 2015, at 5:24 PM, Warin wrote:

On 2/02/2015 10:22 AM, Tod Fitch wrote:

-Tod

Shall I go ahead and attempt a merge of concepts based on my prejudices? How
would you like to approach this?

The tags I (and others) have added are all existing tags ... if they are
a close match to 'yours' then I'd look closely at the existing tags and
see if they are close enough or need some alteration for 'our'
purposes? Are 'your' tags currently in use?I'd avoid any conflict with
existing tags ..I like 'your' tags on number of tents etc. Perhaps
campsite:tents=yes/no/number to restrict the tag to campsites? Yes,
there would be duplication with caravan sites.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a cistern?

On Feb 2, 2015 3:11 PM, "Clifford Snow"  wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 12:54 PM, John F. Eldredge 
wrote:
>>
>> Once again, we are divided by a common language. In American usage, a
cistern is a holding tank for captured rain water, used as an alternative
to a well in areas where no city water supply is available. They often take
the form of an underground pit with a waterproof lining.
>
>
> I've also seen them on the coast of Alaska in above ground tanks to catch
rain water.

Above ground is common in the midwest for various reasons (freezing,
contamination, maintenance, excavation of solid rock) that often arise.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

Surely there is never a law against breaking down. When your car dies,
it dies. If the intention is to persuade people to try to get their
dying vehicle as far as possible to the right (left in the UK), well, we
don't need to tag for that because it is standard. If the intention is
to go against the defaults under some circumstances, 

Same thing really with emergency vehicles. There is no such thing as
"emergency=no" - the police/ambulance etc will go wherever they need to
if it is a real emergency. Therefore there cannot be any such thing as
"emergency=yes", and hence "access=emergency" is effectively the same as
"access=no". Discuss 

However, if "access=breakdown" and its derivatives were to mean "access
for tow-trucks on their way to rescue somebody", that would be a
different discussion. 

Colin 

On 2015-02-03 09:02, Martin Vonwald wrote: 

> Hi!
> 
> 2015-02-02 18:06 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson :
> 
> On Feb 2, 2015 8:47 AM, "Martin Vonwald"  wrote:
> 
> Yes - and what tag would that be for emergency stopping only? I think that is 
> my main question. Do we have one for that? 
> 
> parking:lane=emergency seems like a good value.

But those lanes are neither parking lanes nor is parking:lane=emergency
an access value nor can we use it to solve the problem, when those lanes
may be used by other vehicles like motorcycles at any time. 

2015-02-02 18:53 GMT+01:00 Heiko Eckenreiter
:

> Am 02.02.2015 um 16:31 schrieb Martin Vonwald:
>> Still the question is unanswered: if, for example, one lane is a
>> emergency/shoulder lane during night and a regular lane during day, how
>> may we map this?
>>
>> access:lanes=yes|yes|now_it_is_a_shoulder @ night
>> access:lanes=yes|yes|yes @ day
> 
> On the german motorway A 8 southeast of Munich I have seen (and continued):
> access:lanes=yes|yes|yes|peak_traffic
> which seems to be a similar concept.

This seems to be an intended replacement for access= @ condition,
because peak_traffic is no known access value. It also can not be used
for lanes, which may only be used for break-downs (at some times).
Furthermore we can not use it for lanes which might be used regularly by
other road user.

I guess we don't have a solution for this at the moment. I would suggest
to document a new access value for those, e.g. "breakdown". Or would
malfunction be better suited? Any other suggestions?

We then could tag those lanes, e.g.: 
* vehicle:lanes=|breakdown @ night + vehicle:lanes=|yes @ day 
* vehicle:lanes=|breakdown + motorcycle:lanes=|yes 

Best regards,
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] Draft Additions to camp_site

2015-02-03 Thread Tod Fitch

On Feb 1, 2015, at 5:24 PM, Warin wrote:

> On 2/02/2015 10:22 AM, Tod Fitch wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 2015, at 2:50 PM, David Bannon wrote:
>> I would like to have some of the items on Extend_camp_site page brought onto 
>> the main camp_site page. Specifically the site/pitch specific tags at 
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#Tagging_of_individual_pitches
>> 
>> While they are not widely used, I see a fairly big geographical distribution 
>> which implies that they might be understood and universal enough to warrant 
>> better mention.
>> 
>> And, of course, I used them myself when mapping a couple of U.S. Forest 
>> Service campgrounds. :)
>> 
>> -Tod
>> 
> 
> I've edited the wiki page on camp sites 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site  to include links 
> to the tags for fee, shower, laundry, firepit and water tap. Tod you could do 
> the same for your desired additional tags? Any complaints to me.. or just 
> edit the page yourself?
> 

I just set out to edit the page per your suggestion with the thought I could 
just block copy the site/pitch specific stuff from 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#Tagging_of_individual_pitches
 to below your changes at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site#Additional_Features 
and immediately ran into a conceptual (on my part) road block.

I think that some of the tags I would like to copy over might be conflict with 
yours. For example, "Power connection point. May be connected to a caravan" 
(may conflict with "camp_site:electric=yes/no").

Shall I go ahead and attempt a merge of concepts based on my prejudices? How 
would you like to approach this?

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

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?