Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path
Greg Troxel wrote Ilpo Järvinen lt; ilpo.jarvinen@ gt; writes: It's not just about paved/unpaved. What I mean that there are two kinds of not paved trails through forest. Those which come with man applied surface, even if we tag them as surface=unpaved (typically surface=fine_gravel to be more precise), which tends to be rather level and easy to walk on and reasonably free from obstacles, and those where the conditions are close to unknown (given unfamiliar terrain), might be easy/ok but might as well require negotiating tricky parts or even backtracking. It's important aspect for (non-computerized) routeplanning to know this difference. That's fair, but I think it's not really about artificial surface. It's about whether someone with some familiarity with hiking in general is going to be able to follow the trail without too much trouble. But I'm afraid that this is a continuum more than a yes/no sort of thing. To characterize a path/footway extensively we have - beside surface, width, incline, smoothness ... sac_scale http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale mtb:scale http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale geow -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/highway-footway-Advanced-definition-Distinction-footway-vs-path-tp5851506p5851874.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] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path
On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Greg Troxel wrote: Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi writes: It's not just about paved/unpaved. What I mean that there are two kinds of not paved trails through forest. Those which come with man applied surface, even if we tag them as surface=unpaved (typically surface=fine_gravel to be more precise), which tends to be rather level and easy to walk on and reasonably free from obstacles, and those where the conditions are close to unknown (given unfamiliar terrain), might be easy/ok but might as well require negotiating tricky parts or even backtracking. It's important aspect for (non-computerized) routeplanning to know this difference. That's fair, but I think it's not really about artificial surface. It's about whether someone with some familiarity with hiking in general is going to be able to follow the trail without too much trouble. But I'm afraid that this is a continuum more than a yes/no sort of thing. Indeed, it's true that some set of trails can (and likely are) passable for many but there are more variable which affect their usability. It's about providing reasonable set of ways that _at minimum_ is likely is reasonable conditions (obviously there still can be problems with those but it's much easier to predict with common sense than with forest trails). -- i.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 9:58 AM, John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote: Sent from my iPhone On Aug 7, 2015, at 3:59 PM, geow ks...@web.de wrote: multi-use-path Highway=cycle-ped_path Done! Lets render it with purple dots (blue+red). Or we could just render it as a sidewalk, as that is what it is. A Sidewalk. Highway=footway+footway=sidewalk. Which conveniently already exists and is rendered and is used 192k times. So lets stick with that. And depreciate =path. For Belgium we follow this convention: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Eimai/Belgian_Roads#Paths It's full of highway=path examples. You'll give us a lot of work if we have to revisit and retag them all. :-) regards m ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path
sent from a phone Am 07.08.2015 um 09:50 schrieb John Willis jo...@mac.com: And their rules on =trunk through =secondary definitions are different than most other countries mapped in OSM because they follow Japanese mapping convention where the legal name /shield designation of the road what is this legal name/ shield designation about, the relative importance of the highway as a connection in the road network? Or something else like who maintains the road (typically more politics and history than traffic logics)? is the *only* information for determining which kind of road it is tagged as - 1.5 lane primary road a hundred years old next to a 4 lane tertiary bypass built 10 years ago to go around the narrow primary is common. being an island, it won't bother people outside Japan, but it sounds neither reasonable, nor beneficial for anyone, and it is clearly contradicting the documentation and the community consensus globally - will result likely in routing problems like suboptimal routes and increased computation time. IMHO it is probably a sign of immature mapping that will be solved by the time when people acknowledge the problems it creates. Adopting some arbitrary national classification (usually there are several systems and classes for roads used by the public entities for planning, designing, construction and maintenance, but the system the mappers choose is always the signposted refs) is the simplest way of mapping that doesn't require further thinking or interpretation and avoids discussions. It is therefore often used in the beginning of mapping when people are shy of making decisions. Be bold, analyze the situation and go by common sense: if you know an area, it is not so difficult to create/recognize a road hierarchy (unless you're in Tokyo maybe). Then start applying your findings and iterate in the following time until you come to some sort of more stable consensus. It's worth it. cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path
quote author=quot;johnwquot; The difference between a cycleway, a footway, and a trail can be access rules, but mostly its *the built condition of the way* and that *will* vary from a 1st world to 3rd would country - and from continent to continent.lt;/quote Therefore proper tags on the individual way would be helpful like surface, width, incline, smoothness, sac_scale, mtb:scale etc. quote author=quot;johnwquot; Tagging implies the built condition - and assumptions made from that tagging affect rendering - which therefore affects routing decisions or user choice of ways. lt;/quote Rendering should never rely on assumptions but on physical values. quote author=quot;johnwquot; And representing the quot;duckinessquot; of the way is extremely important in the top key : is it a trail through the forest (where you could walk or bike), a narrow sidewalk covered with poles and driveway entrances (but can still legally bike on as you go to the market) or a nice cycleway along the river (that you can also walk on as you go from village to village)? Is the only difference surface, width, and legality? *Absolutely not!* lt;/quote I get the impression, you overestimate the importance of duck tagging. It's not that intuitive and explicit as you think, non-native English mappers may have different assumptions of what is semantically implied or what is usable according to their region. quote author=quot;johnwquot; In places where almost every footway is for bicycle and foot, and horses are non-existent (they are more concerned about motor_scooter=no [or whatever scooter access is]), trying to show its usage with surface (all are paved in urban settings), width (footway can vary greatly in just 100m, so no help there) - the duckiness has to be found in the top tag - as it is for road values - which =path is *useless* for. lt;/quote A footway opend to bicycles is a multi-use-path and should be distinguished from a footway or even sidewalk restricted exclusively to pedestrians. geow -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/highway-footway-Advanced-definition-Distinction-footway-vs-path-tp5851506p5851877.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] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path
On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, geow wrote: quote author=quot;johnwquot; The difference between a cycleway, a footway, and a trail can be access rules, but mostly its *the built condition of the way* and that *will* vary from a 1st world to 3rd would country - and from continent to continent.lt;/quote Therefore proper tags on the individual way would be helpful like surface, width, incline, smoothness, sac_scale, mtb:scale etc. Fair enough, but if the rendering/router/whatever won't differentiate based on those tags, it won't help any the map user. Thus your point is moot if e.g. the rendering is based solely on surface=* (or actually, any particular subset of those helpful tags). quote author=quot;johnwquot; Tagging implies the built condition - and assumptions made from that tagging affect rendering - which therefore affects routing decisions or user choice of ways. lt;/quote Rendering should never rely on assumptions but on physical values. But this footway/path/trail controversy is about not rendering object that are physically very much different the same. -- i. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Contact:* prefix
sent from a phone Am 07.08.2015 um 00:38 schrieb Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com: For some tag developments i can see the benefits, but I'm struggling with this one I'm afraid. +1 while in the addr:-namespace all keys are actually address components, this can be contested for the contact: namespace. A website for instance is not primarily a means of contact, sometimes it might not be suitable at all for contact purposes, but still there are generally good reasons to add website tags (further information and context). These discussions are going on for years (eg on talk-it), and truth is the contact prefixed tags are always less and their numbers are growing slower. Contact-advocates are usually replying this was due to the non-prefixed tags used in the editor presets, and they might be right that this is part of the reason, still it should be admitted that this proposal didn't gain sufficient support to overtake the non-prefixed form and it doesn't look like it ever will. cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path
Sent from my iPhone On Aug 7, 2015, at 3:59 PM, geow ks...@web.de wrote: Rendering should never rely on assumptions but on physical values Theres no *physical* value separating a primary, secondary, tertiary, unclassified, or service road. I can find one of each that the exact same width, surface, smoothness, length, lanes, incline, lighting, poodle=yes - everything - here within 5miles of my location. its all about purpose or legal definition - So purpose is best - the duckiness. Why purposely make tagging non-car ways different and make it massive hinderance to new mappers when a single tag could do it? An existing single tag! It is a total mystery to me. You can tag all of those grade/sac/smoothness attributes on *any* non-carway - but the root highway=* tag does more to say what it is than any other tag. Im not going to tagging SAC scale on a sidewalk because the tag creators were too myopic to make proper tags. We're trapped in a sea of subtags that pretends to define main tags, when they don't. They are *further attributes* of the way. The main highway=tag is king. For car and non-car ways. Javbw. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path
Sent from my iPhone On Aug 7, 2015, at 3:59 PM, geow ks...@web.de wrote: multi-use-path Highway=cycle-ped_path Done! Lets render it with purple dots (blue+red). Or we could just render it as a sidewalk, as that is what it is. A Sidewalk. Highway=footway+footway=sidewalk. Which conveniently already exists and is rendered and is used 192k times. So lets stick with that. And depreciate =path. Javbw. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path
On Aug 7, 2015, at 6:07 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: what is this legal name/ shield designation about, the relative importance of the highway as a connection in the road network? Or something else like who maintains the road (typically more politics and history than traffic logics)? basically national roads are trunks, regionals are primary, and local numbered roads are secondary. the un-numbered ones with a center line are tertiary. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Japan_tagging http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Japan_tagging This wouldn’t be too big a deal if they moved the designations to the bypasses, but they don’t, and “roads” make right turns at intersections - which is really odd to me, but that is Japan. People have a very different expectation when using a visual map - they are familiar with this odd road pattern (no other map - Google, Apple, Bing, Mapple, Mapion, Zenrin, and car GPS and others present the data in any other way), and count traffic lights from the train station or other central city landmark for completely relative directions - as there are no road names on tertiary and below nor sequential house address numbers on any building, so the odd shape of the road grid colors and traffic light mapping is the most important part of the rendered map (we still cant agree to have one signal icon per intersection so it breaks this too). - but it really screws with routing. Javbw___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path
sent from a phone Am 07.08.2015 um 13:05 schrieb Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com: So if it's a 2m paved path with pedestrians and cyclists allowed, you call it highway=cycleway if it's got a blue/white sign, and highway=path+various other tags if it's got a red/white/black sign. I'm sorry, that's just a muddle. IMHO it is accurate, together with the country specific default access situation cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path
sent from a phone Am 07.08.2015 um 01:15 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi: unpaved paths is actually built-up recretional route whereas the others are just tiny, some even faintly visible, forest trails. there are the tags width, trail visibility and maybe others, that address this problem In theory this prominance problem might be solved by informal=yes but in practice I expect at least the mapnik stylesheet guys to stonewall on this because of the extra data column that will be needed to make them less prominant Osm carto is about to activate the hstore extension which will remove the requirement of a column for every key... Informal is not a key about visual prominence but rather a way to distinguish built ways from those that emerge by pure usage cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path
On Aug 7, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote: For Belgium we follow this convention: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Eimai/Belgian_Roads#Paths http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Eimai/Belgian_Roads#Paths It's full of highway=path examples. You'll give us a lot of work if we have to revisit and retag them all. :-) I know path is in heavy use, but a few proper mechanical edits (how are those done?) for certain tag combos and a couple years elapsed would eventually take care of it. I don’ think it is something that could be done easily or with a simple edit - but it could be depreciated and retired in a few years. Leave it to the noisy American living abroad to cause trouble in Belgium! Javbw___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path
On Fri, 7 Aug 2015, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 07.08.2015 um 01:15 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi: unpaved paths is actually built-up recretional route whereas the others are just tiny, some even faintly visible, forest trails. there are the tags width, trail visibility and maybe others, that address this problem The problem is not that we don't have tags to these. The issue is that when all this information is spread to n tags hardly any renderer/router/whatever takes advantage of all these helpful tags and therefore the information won't appear to the end user at all or is seriously limited. In theory this prominance problem might be solved by informal=yes but in practice I expect at least the mapnik stylesheet guys to stonewall on this because of the extra data column that will be needed to make them less prominant Osm carto is about to activate the hstore extension which will remove the requirement of a column for every key... Oh, that's nice to hear, finally. :-) :-) Informal is not a key about visual prominence but rather a way to distinguish built ways from those that emerge by pure usage I agree, it's not 100% match. However, I think it still present hierarcy that has basis on common sense (remember what you wrote about Japan's road hierarcy ;-)) and would be the easiest way to render them with less prominance. Arguably it would also cause some extremely strong informal shortcut trail to look less usable than it is based on physical appearance but I think it would still be useful compromise (similar misdimensioning issues occur time to time anyway with car network too and we don't make big fuzz about it every time). In theory even that could be fixed by looking the other keys too but I doubt that, e.g., default mapnik will (or even should try) to make sense out of all sac_scale, smoothness, path visibility, etc. tags, it would just get too specific and there are just too many tags to create sensible combined styling out of all of them. -- i.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote: For Belgium we follow this convention: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Eimai/Belgian_Roads#Paths It's full of highway=path examples. You'll give us a lot of work if we have to revisit and retag them all. :-) So if it's a 2m paved path with pedestrians and cyclists allowed, you call it highway=cycleway if it's got a blue/white sign, and highway=path+various other tags if it's got a red/white/black sign. I'm sorry, that's just a muddle. I'd also note that there are a lot more surface values that just paved/unpaved nowadays - which kinda indicates the problem with relying on subkeys: their values tend to get more complicated, making it impossible to use them reliably to subdivide the main key. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path
Whilst hstore will make keys available, it won't make the SQL to use a plethora of new keys any less horrible. The code to handle certain highway=path as either cycleways and footways is more convoluted than it would otherwise be already. Something like lua processing of keys at import would simplify things, but I suspect isn't an option for the main site (because of the requirement to do a database reload if you change the lua script). Cheers, Andy Original Message From: Ilpo Järvinen Sent: Friday, 7 August 2015 11:23 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Reply To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path On Fri, 7 Aug 2015, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 07.08.2015 um 01:15 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi: Osm carto is about to activate the hstore extension which will remove the requirement of a column for every key... Oh, that's nice to hear, finally. :-) :-) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] oil binding agent?
Note the subtle spelling difference between absorption and adsorption: http://www.integrityabsorbents.com/content/abvsad.php ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path
sent from a phone Am 07.08.2015 um 13:05 schrieb Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com: I'd also note that there are a lot more surface values that just paved/unpaved nowadays - which kinda indicates the problem with relying on subkeys: their values tend to get more complicated, making it impossible to use them reliably to subdivide the main key. paved/unpaved are completely insufficient for many cases: For example: sett and cobblestone are paved values but you'd want to avoid them with bikes the unpaved surfaces are very different: some are smooth and others are very rough, together with water (rain), frost, etc. different surfaces will behave very differently cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] oil binding agent?
So if it swells less than 50%, it is adsobent. I learned a new word today. Javbw On Aug 8, 2015, at 5:54 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: Note the subtle spelling difference between absorption and adsorption: http://www.integrityabsorbents.com/content/abvsad.php ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
