Re: [Tagging] Proposed Feature Adoption

[Clifford Snow]

Can you save us all a lot of time and provide the link to the proposal?

Thanks,
clifford

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Dominic Coletti 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I have proposed a new tag for tagging adoption agencies:
> office=adoption_agency. It is currently in "Draft" mode, but I am seeking
> comments from the community in order to refine the proposition.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Dominic Coletti
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Proposed Feature Adoption

[Dominic Coletti]

Hi all,

I have proposed a new tag for tagging adoption agencies:
office=adoption_agency. It is currently in "Draft" mode, but I am seeking
comments from the community in order to refine the proposition.

Thanks in advance,
Dominic Coletti
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcels and national/municipal forest: how to map?

[Greg Troxel]

David Marchal  writes:

> In fact, the parcels I'm talking about have their number displayed on
> their corners, so I thought it could be useful to record them in order
> to ease orientation in forests. I'm not thinking about private,
> restricted access parts of forests, nor about their ownership, only
> the publicly-displayed number; I don't think every parcels are
> labelled as such, though. Besides, I saw that some contributors
> already started to do so, like here:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/&map=14/48.6747/6.0705 but I asked this
> question to see if there was a recommended way to do so.

(bad link)

I see.  Well then that could make sense.

>> I would do landuse=forest and then just put name= on the polygon.
>> Yes, this is a boundary, but no more so than the boundary around a
>> school or a church or a town park, and we don't use boundary for that.
> The problem is that uch forests can be fragmented, composed of several
> disconnected pieces of land, but still named and designated as a
> whole, like this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4775589
> so, again, I searched for a recommended way to do so, but I only found
> this unofficial tagging, mostly consistent for me, but I prefered
> asking for opinions on this question before using this tagging scheme.

If the name goes with a set of polygons, a relation sounds appropriate.
That seems like a general rule, not just forests.


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

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

[André Pirard]

On 2015-11-27 22:16, Georg Feddern wrote :
> Am 27.11.2015 um 15:46 schrieb André Pirard:
>> Have you noticed that some borderlines are *hexaplicated* (that they
>> appear in 6 different relations) and that *that* is unhealthy
>> redundancy that is made unnecessary by subareas?
>>
>> And that, unlike wanting to destroy an enemy, the programs I spoke of
>> would be a great help building and checking the boundary ways mess
>> using the non duplicated, simple, clean UK=England+Wales+Scotland
>> subarea definitions?
>
> Well, next usecase then:
> I want the border/outline of any of those entities ... and not the area.
> Mostly there are two sides of a view - or two views on one problem ...
An area is defined with its border.
Read a previous subarea thread where I explain how the borders can be
recursively, automatically computed from the level below but that it's
good to keep them at each level, but as a trouble-free and error-free cache.

Cheers

André.



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

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

[Georg Feddern]

Am 27.11.2015 um 15:46 schrieb André Pirard:
Have you noticed that some borderlines are *hexaplicated* (that they 
appear in 6 different relations) and that *that* is unhealthy 
redundancy that is made unnecessary by subareas?


And that, unlike wanting to destroy an enemy, the programs I spoke of 
would be a great help building and checking the boundary ways mess 
using the non duplicated, simple, clean UK=England+Wales+Scotland 
subarea definitions?


Well, next usecase then:
I want the border/outline of any of those entities ... and not the area.
Mostly there are two sides of a view - or two views on one problem ...
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcels and national/municipal forest: how to map?

[David Marchal]

> From: g...@ir.bbn.com
> To: pene...@live.fr
> CC: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Forest parcels and national/municipal forest: how to 
> map?
> Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 09:05:01 -0500
>
>
> David Marchal  writes:
>
>> 1) forest parcels: some people use a boundary relation with
>> boundary=forest_compartment, but this seems mainly used in Eastern
>> Europe, so geographically limited; others map each parcel with
>
> (We don't do this in the US, as far as I know; sounds like allotments
> for forestry?)
>
> I am guessing there is some biggish region used for forestry, and then
> within it there are specific areas leased/etc. to individuals/companies?
> I would tag landuse=forest around the whole thing.
>
> Then, representing ownership/etc. within is really just like parcels for
> houses, which so far OSM has declined to put in the db.
In fact, the parcels I'm talking about have their number displayed on their 
corners, so I thought it could be useful to record them in order to ease 
orientation in forests. I'm not thinking about private, restricted access parts 
of forests, nor about their ownership, only the publicly-displayed number; I 
don't think every parcels are labelled as such, though. Besides, I saw that 
some contributors already started to do so, like here: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/&map=14/48.6747/6.0705 but I asked this question 
to see if there was a recommended way to do so.

>> 2) national/municipal forests: numerous forests, here in France, are
>> municipal or national ones — the latter being called “forêt domaniale”
>> —; many of them are labelled as such on road signs, and they are often
>> named after this parameter — like “forêt domaniale de Dabo”, Dabo
>> being the neighboring village —, so I think they should be mapped, but
>> how? Should I, there again, use a boundary relation and tag it
>> boundary=forest? This seems to be the wider-used solution and the most
>> consistent one, but boundary=forest isn't in the uses of boundary
>> relations documented on the wiki, and I read warnings on
>> help.openstreetmap.org and MLs against such undocumented uses, so I
>> prefer asking here: should I use this solution? Another?
>
> I would do landuse=forest and then just put name= on the polygon.
> Yes, this is a boundary, but no more so than the boundary around a
> school or a church or a town park, and we don't use boundary for that.
The problem is that such forests can be fragmented, composed of several 
disconnected pieces of land, but still named and designated as a whole, like 
this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4775589 so, again, I searched 
for a recommended way to do so, but I only found this unofficial tagging, 
mostly consistent for me, but I prefered asking for opinions on this question 
before using this tagging scheme.

> We do have boundary=protected_area, but I think that's a mistake, and
> we should instead tag the properties on the closed way to denote the
> state of the inside. But the notion of a boundary vs a property of the
> inside of a polygon is semantically messy to start with.
No, I wouldn't use such tagging for this usage, it would be too far of the 
intended use to do anything more than messing with the data.

> One could argue that every area tag goo on a polygon could instead be
> boundary=foo. I don't think that's helpful.

P.S.: I resend this mail as it seems Outlook messed with its content the first 
time; sorry for the inconvenience. 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcels and national/municipal forest: how to map?

[David Marchal]

> From: g...@ir.bbn.com
> To: pene...@live.fr
> CC: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Forest parcels and national/municipal forest: how to 
> map?
> Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 09:05:01 -0500
> 
> 
> David Marchal  writes:
> 
>> 1) forest parcels: some people use a boundary relation with
>> boundary=forest_compartment, but this seems mainly used in Eastern
>> Europe, so geographically limited; others map each parcel with
> 
> (We don't do this in the US, as far as I know; sounds like allotments
> for forestry?)
> 
> I am guessing there is some biggish region used for forestry, and then
> within it there are specific areas leased/etc. to individuals/companies?
> I would tag landuse=forest around the whole thing.
> 
> Then, representing ownership/etc. within is really just like parcels for
> houses, which so far OSM has declined to put in the db.
In fact, the parcels I'm talking about have their number displayed on their 
corners, so I thought it could be useful to record them in order to ease 
orientation in forests. I'm not thinking about private, restricted access parts 
of forests, nor about their ownership, only the publicly-displayed number; I 
don't think every parcels are labelled as such, though. Besides, I saw that 
some contributors already started to do so, like here: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/&map=14/48.6747/6.0705 but I asked this question 
to see if there was a recommended way to do so. 

>> 2) national/municipal forests: numerous forests, here in France, are
>> municipal or national ones — the latter being called “forêt domaniale”
>> —; many of them are labelled as such on road signs, and they are often
>> named after this parameter — like “forêt domaniale de Dabo”, Dabo
>> being the neighboring village —, so I think they should be mapped, but
>> how? Should I, there again, use a boundary relation and tag it
>> boundary=forest? This seems to be the wider-used solution and the most
>> consistent one, but boundary=forest isn't in the uses of boundary
>> relations documented on the wiki, and I read warnings on
>> help.openstreetmap.org and MLs against such undocumented uses, so I
>> prefer asking here: should I use this solution? Another?
> 
> I would do landuse=forest and then just put name= on the polygon.
> Yes, this is a boundary, but no more so than the boundary around a
> school or a church or a town park, and we don't use boundary for that.
The problem is that uch forests can be fragmented, composed of several 
disconnected pieces of land, but still named and designated as a whole, like 
this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4775589 so, again, I searched 
for a recommended way to do so, but I only found this unofficial tagging, 
mostly consistent for me, but I prefered asking for opinions on this question 
before using this tagging scheme.

> We do have boundary=protected_area, but I think that's a mistake, and
> we should instead tag the properties on the closed way to denote the
> state of the inside. But the notion of a boundary vs a property of the
> inside of a polygon is semantically messy to start with.
No, I wouldn't use such tagging for this usage, it would be too far of the 
intended use to do anything more than messing with the data.

> One could argue that every area tag goo on a polygon could instead be
> boundary=foo. I don't think that's helpful.


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

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

[Volker Schmidt]

I'm not sure either. The crossings are a bit unclear, there are only
> pedestrian crossings, and the cycleway explicitly starts after the
> crossing,

Formally the crossing is bicycle dismount, but, as the cycleway ends and
re-starts at the pedestrian crossing, by the wonders of the Italian
laws/rules/whatever this pedestrian crossing is not a pedestrian crossng,
but a bicycle and pedestrian crossing, even though nobody knows that (all
tanks to our FIAB expert and his written enquiries with the Ministry of
Transport)



> btw., the tagging is wrong, as foot should be permissive,
>
foot=no is the correct tagging, as the path shows clearly the white bicycle
on a blue disk.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-11-27 13:22 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> Please, no. Spamming oneway=no, cycleway=no, bridge=no, toll=no,
> opening_hours=24/7 for nearly all highway=* ways is not helpful (all
> are real examples) is not helpful.
>


yes, these should not go on every highway, but there are cases where
putting them is useful, eg. in a country with toll motorways, adding a
toll=no for the exceptions is helpful. I'd see these similar to a (sic!) in
a text, a confirmation that there is a unusual situation.

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

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

[Marc Gemis]

updated query


[out:json][timeout:25];
(
  rel[admin_level=8](area:3600172385);
);

out meta;

This does not display a result in the "Map" part of overpass-turbo, as
the nodes and the ways are not included. Things can only be drawn when
they are included, Look in the "Data" tab.

I'm not sure what happens when a relation in only partially in the
surrounding area. I think it will be included.
Any examples where we can experiment with it ?  I have since queries
returning ways, even when the ways are only partially in the search
area. That's why I assume it will work here as well.

regards

m

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Colin Smale  wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Hi Marc,
>
> Thanks, that looks promising...
>
> I notice it starts from a Nominatim lookup (geocodeArea:Kent). The wiki
> indicates it uses the first result returned by Nominatim. Sometimes there
> are several entities with the same name and I need to be able to select a
> specific one. How can I start from a specific OSM relation? Then I can drill
> down from there.
>
> Is there any way to stop it returning the members of the relations? It
> currently gives all the ways in the relations, and then all the nodes in all
> the ways in the relations. I only want the relations, and Overpass Turbo
> complains that it's a lot of data (4MB when it could be 10kb or so).
>
> Any idea what happens when a lower-level relation (i.e. what I want in the
> result) is only partially within the search area?
>
> //colin
>
> On 2015-11-27 16:37, Marc Gemis wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Colin Smale  wrote:
>
> 172385
>
>
> something like http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/cY4 ?
>
> ___
> 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] boundary relations and the subarea property

[Colin Smale]

 

Hi Marc, 

Thanks, that looks promising... 

I notice it starts from a Nominatim lookup (geocodeArea:Kent). The wiki
indicates it uses the first result returned by Nominatim. Sometimes
there are several entities with the same name and I need to be able to
select a specific one. How can I start from a specific OSM relation?
Then I can drill down from there. 

Is there any way to stop it returning the members of the relations? It
currently gives all the ways in the relations, and then all the nodes in
all the ways in the relations. I only want the relations, and Overpass
Turbo complains that it's a lot of data (4MB when it could be 10kb or
so). 

Any idea what happens when a lower-level relation (i.e. what I want in
the result) is only partially within the search area? 

//colin 

On 2015-11-27 16:37, Marc Gemis wrote: 

> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Colin Smale  wrote: 
> 
>> 172385
> 
> something like http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/cY4 ?
> 
> ___
> 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] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-11-27 12:57 GMT+01:00 Volker Schmidt :

> It seems to be a nice smooth cycleway (so smooth hat it has a speed limit
> of 20km/h), but a good lawyer could earn a lot of money when it comes to
> the question whether this is a cycleway with mandatory use in case of a
> serous accident with a cyclists on the nearby street. I don't know th
> answer to the question whether this is or is not a mandatory-use cycleway.
>


I'm not sure either. The crossings are a bit unclear, there are only
pedestrian crossings, and the cycleway explicitly starts after the
crossing, but it never ends (there is no sign).
https://www.google.it/maps/@41.8523762,12.4882604,3a,45.5y,231.7h,86.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLj1pIxXD2x2ZPjVhSZDeuw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
https://www.google.it/maps/@41.852339,12.4879281,3a,20.2y,80.52h,86.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKakvcxFc8HLdy39dy_rVAw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

btw., the tagging is wrong, as foot should be permissive, they are not
allowed on this cycleway (not at the section in the links above), gonna fix
this soon (I'm not completely sure whether the signs have been replaced
since the streetview car passed).

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

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

[Marc Gemis]

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Colin Smale  wrote:
> 172385

something like http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/cY4 ?

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

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

[André Pirard]

On 2015-11-27 13:13, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote :
>
> 2015-11-27 12:02 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale  >:
>
> One concrete use case is "return the boundary relations for the
> constituent parts of a given boundary relation", for example "all
> the district councils in Kent" 
>
>
> you can do this with overpass API (if all boundaries are mapped). Of
> course you should not rely on rectangular bounding boxes but use the
> Kent-area/border for this.
>
???
For the overpass API to work, you need to connect your GPS to the Internet.
For a GPS to do that with subareas, just a few, lightning fast program
instructions are needed.
Bboxes?  Borders? In what way are they necessary to answer Colin's question:
UK=England+Wales+Scotland
 (+Ireland).
???

Cheers

André.




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

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

[Colin Smale]

 

Re: Belgium: I thought at first that the Official Language could be a
simple attribute (French, Flemish, French/Flemish bilingual, or German)
of a municipality, but I read on Wikipedia that there are actually
parliaments for the language communities, which do not exactly coincide
with the three Regions. And these parliaments/community governments
actually seem to have roles and power. There are therefore two
orthogonal hierarchies at work, one is the regional structure, and the
other is the community structure. 

I don't know for sure how it works in other multilingual countries like
Switzerland. I think the "official language" is an attribute of the
canton, with some being bilingual or trilingual, but that is not
actually an orthogonal layer of government like it is in Belgium. 

In the UK the "ceremonial counties" are kept out of the
boundary=administrative hierarchy. They are tagged as
boundary=ceremonial and have their own relations, even if they are
coterminous with administrative counties. When administrative boundaries
change, a separate process has to take place to change the boundary of
the lieutenancy areas (official name for ceremonial counties). This is
(in theory anyway) not mandatory, and may not happen at the same moment.


--colin 

On 2015-11-27 15:27, André Pirard wrote: 

> On 2015-11-27 10:06, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote : 
> 
> 2015-11-26 21:12 GMT+01:00 André Pirard :
> It is even mandatory when you have to make nested boundaries that have no 
> admin_level like the two boundary systems we have in Belgium (political and 
> linguistic). 
> can you give an example how this is modeled, e.g. a relation in osm? Having 2 
> kind of different boundary systems at first glance seems to be best modeled 
> with 2 kind of boundary types in OSM.



The boundary system we have in Belgium (that you mention).
Any other language partitioning of a country.
The ceremonial counties case.
...

Cheers 

André.

___
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] Hospital vs. Clinic refinement; Hospital departments

[Tom Pfeifer]

I would like to sync the distinctive criterion when to use amenity=hospital or 
amenity=clinic.

The hospital page says "often but not always providing for longer-term patient 
stays"
which is a bit fuzzy, while the clinic page clearly says it is a hospital when 
it
"offers inpatient care (beds for long stays)".

Thus having in-patient beds would be a good criterion, which could be clarified 
on the hospital page.

Oxford defines hospital as
   "an institution providing medical and surgical treatment and nursing care for 
sick or injured people."
thus includes the nursing care.

Or are there any clear cases of hospitals that do not have in-patients?

Another clarification that would be necessary is how to tag hospital 
departments.
The wiki discourages the repetition of amenity=hospital, and recommends to use
building=hospital on buildings.

The buildings can be used for naming departments/stations/wards. I becomes 
tricky
however when these stations are just in different levels. Maybe some tagging 
from
the healthcare proposals would help.

In any case, I would not want any amenity=[clinic|doctors|hospital] nodes within
the amenity=hospital campus area (as long as they are operated by the hospital, 
and
not e.g. a private surgery renting space there).

However I have seen mappers been tempted to tag departments as amenity=clinic,
mainly because some hospital departments like to call themselves "Clinic of ABC 
therapy".

Thoughts?


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

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

[André Pirard]

On 2015-11-27 10:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote :
>
> 2015-11-26 20:24 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale  >:
>
> I use the subarea member because it makes cross-checking easy.
> Have all the lower-level boundaries in my higher-level admin area
> been added to OSM?
>
>
> what comes next? Have all the roads in a given administrative area
> listed with an "administrates" role in the relation? Cross-checking to
> me sounds like unhealthy redundancy here. It means having to do the
> work twice and having the information stored double.

Redundancy???  Have you noticed that some borderlines are *hexaplicated*
(that they appear in 6 different relations) and that *that* is unhealthy
redundancy that is made unnecessary by subareas?

And that, unlike wanting to destroy an enemy, the programs I spoke of
would be a great help building and checking the boundary ways mess using
the non duplicated, simple, clean UK=England+Wales+Scotland subarea
definitions?

> Unfortunately the various admin levels do not always form a strict
> hierarchy. A small area at (lets say) admin_level=10 might be
> enclosed spatially by entities at level 8, 7, 6, 5 etc but it only
> has a direct administrative relationship with one of them, which
> might not be the next-highest level (next-lower number).
>
>
>
> in which way does a subarea role help here to solve real problems?
> Which administrative aspects/powers/relationships/fields are those
> that are looked at? Do you have concrete examples?
Read the messages and look at OSM.org.

Cheers

André.



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

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

[André Pirard]

On 2015-11-27 10:06, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote :
>
> 2015-11-26 21:12 GMT+01:00 André Pirard  >:
>
> It is even mandatory when you have to make nested boundaries that
> have no admin_level like the two boundary systems we have in
> Belgium (political and linguistic).
>
>
> can you give an example how this is modeled, e.g. a relation in osm?
> Having 2 kind of different boundary systems at first glance seems to
> be best modeled with 2 kind of boundary types in OSM.



The boundary system we have in Belgium (that you mention).
Any other language partitioning of a country.
The ceremonial counties case.
...

Cheers

André.



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

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

[Hubert]

Yes, agreed. A case of lost in translation. For me a cycle lane doesn’t count 
as a cycle way.

 

From: Volker Schmidt [mailto:vosc...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Freitag, 27. November 2015 13:20
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

 

@Hubert

I fully agree in case of a separate cycleway or foot-cycleway. I would already 
consider a kerb as a physical separation.
But the so called cycle lanes (only divided from the motorized traffic by a 
white line) should not be drawn as a separate way parallel to the street. And 
it's on these that I am looking for a way to express the obligation of use.

Hallo Volker.

I'd advise you to map those cycle ways as separate osm ways, even if this is 
still globally disputed. AFAIK, it is quite common in the Netherlands and 
Poland. And I'm also a fan. :)

The fragmentation of the main road way will multiply if you use many different 
tags like oneway, width, smoothness, surface, lit, incline maybe also 
traffic_sign and bicycle. You often end up this segments of only a few meters. 
Plus you would have about 18 tags with cycleway:right/left(:*)=* on the main 
road. And that doesn't even include other reasons for splitting up a way.

Yours Hubert.

On 27. November 2015 12:30 Volker Schmidt [mailto:vosc...@gmail.com] wrote:
> Martin, one of the purposes of my detailed mapping (attempts) is that I want 
> to produce a map that  can be used to improve the cycling infrastructure in 
> Padova and also to collect data that improve  routing for cyclists. When you 
> try to do that you realise al kinds of inconsistencies.
> You mention the discrepancy between the law and the reality on the roads, but 
> when you are involved
in an accident, it's the law that counts. That's why I want to insert formally 
correct data. I cannot map the fact that most cyclists even don't know that, by 
law they have to use certsin types of cycleways (and not others).
> Practical example: on one of the main bicycle traffic thoroughfares of Padova 
> (which happens to be  the street with the second highest number of serious 
> accidents in town) they provide a (mandatory)  cycleway which in many places 
> is only one meter wide and also often obstructed by trash collection  
> containers and fallen leaves. The map should contain that data (the trash 
> container and the leaves go into a separate crowdmap).





___
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] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:30:23 +0100
Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> (the trash container and the leaves go into a
> separate crowdmap).

Trash container is probably mappable also in OSM.

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

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:58:41 +0100
"Hubert"  wrote:

> Hallo Volker.
> 
> I'd advise you to map those cycle ways as separate osm ways, even if
> this is still globally disputed. AFAIK, it is quite common in the
> Netherlands and Poland. And I'm also a fan. :)

To clarify information about common tagging un Poland:

Mapping lanes (separated only by painted strip on the road) is neither
common nor accepted.

Mapping cycleways (separated from road by physical barrier) is common
and accepted.

There is a recent trend of unclear popularity and acceptance to map
separate highway=footway and highway=cycleway, instead of highway=path
+ bicycle=designated + foot=designated + segregated=yes (even in cases
  of no physical separation).

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

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:41:42 +0100
"Hubert"  wrote:

> The tag "cycleway=lane/track" already implies that the use of the
> cycle way is compulsory. If there is no cycle way, you can add
> cycleway=no, so that routers know that it's OK for bicyclist to use
> that road and fellow mappers know, that it has been checked. Though,
> this practice is highly disputed.

Please, no. Spamming oneway=no, cycleway=no, bridge=no, toll=no,
opening_hours=24/7 for nearly all highway=* ways is not helpful (all
are real examples) is not helpful.

In really rare cases oneway=no may be more useful that irritating (in
theory the same applies to other tags), but it is really rare.

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

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

[Volker Schmidt]

@Hubert

I fully agree in case of a separate cycleway or foot-cycleway. I would
already consider a kerb as a physical separation.
But the so called cycle lanes (only divided from the motorized traffic by a
white line) should not be drawn as a separate way parallel to the street.
And it's on these that I am looking for a way to express the obligation of
use.
Hallo Volker.

I'd advise you to map those cycle ways as separate osm ways, even if this
is still globally disputed. AFAIK, it is quite common in the Netherlands
and Poland. And I'm also a fan. :)

The fragmentation of the main road way will multiply if you use many
different tags like oneway, width, smoothness, surface, lit, incline maybe
also traffic_sign and bicycle. You often end up this segments of only a few
meters. Plus you would have about 18 tags with cycleway:right/left(:*)=* on
the main road. And that doesn't even include other reasons for splitting up
a way.

Yours Hubert.

On 27. November 2015 12:30 Volker Schmidt [mailto:vosc...@gmail.com] wrote:
> Martin, one of the purposes of my detailed mapping (attempts) is that I
want to produce a map that  can be used to improve the cycling
infrastructure in Padova and also to collect data that improve  routing for
cyclists. When you try to do that you realise al kinds of inconsistencies.
> You mention the discrepancy between the law and the reality on the roads,
but when you are involved
in an accident, it's the law that counts. That's why I want to insert
formally correct data. I cannot map the fact that most cyclists even don't
know that, by law they have to use certsin types of cycleways (and not
others).
> Practical example: on one of the main bicycle traffic thoroughfares of
Padova (which happens to be  the street with the second highest number of
serious accidents in town) they provide a (mandatory)  cycleway which in
many places is only one meter wide and also often obstructed by trash
collection  containers and fallen leaves. The map should contain that data
(the trash container and the leaves go into a separate crowdmap).





___
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] boundary relations and the subarea property

[Colin Smale]

 

Can you give the query for this? The relation for Kent is 172385, and I
want to retrieve the relations for the 12 Districts it contains. 

On 2015-11-27 13:13, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 

> 2015-11-27 12:02 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale :
> 
>> One concrete use case is "return the boundary relations for the constituent 
>> parts of a given boundary relation", for example "all the district councils 
>> in Kent"
> 
> you can do this with overpass API (if all boundaries are mapped). Of course 
> you should not rely on rectangular bounding boxes but use the 
> Kent-area/border for this. 
> 
> Cheers, 
> Martin
 ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-11-27 12:02 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale :

> One concrete use case is "return the boundary relations for the
> constituent parts of a given boundary relation", for example "all the
> district councils in Kent"



you can do this with overpass API (if all boundaries are mapped). Of course
you should not rely on rectangular bounding boxes but use the
Kent-area/border for this.

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

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

[Hubert]

Hallo Volker.

I'd advise you to map those cycle ways as separate osm ways, even if this is 
still globally disputed. AFAIK, it is quite common in the Netherlands and 
Poland. And I'm also a fan. :)

The fragmentation of the main road way will multiply if you use many different 
tags like oneway, width, smoothness, surface, lit, incline maybe also 
traffic_sign and bicycle. You often end up this segments of only a few meters. 
Plus you would have about 18 tags with cycleway:right/left(:*)=* on the main 
road. And that doesn't even include other reasons for splitting up a way.

Yours Hubert.

On 27. November 2015 12:30 Volker Schmidt [mailto:vosc...@gmail.com] wrote:
> Martin, one of the purposes of my detailed mapping (attempts) is that I want 
> to produce a map that  can be used to improve the cycling infrastructure in 
> Padova and also to collect data that improve  routing for cyclists. When you 
> try to do that you realise al kinds of inconsistencies.
> You mention the discrepancy between the law and the reality on the roads, but 
> when you are involved 
in an accident, it's the law that counts. That's why I want to insert formally 
correct data. I cannot map the fact that most cyclists even don't know that, by 
law they have to use certsin types of cycleways (and not others).
> Practical example: on one of the main bicycle traffic thoroughfares of Padova 
> (which happens to be  the street with the second highest number of serious 
> accidents in town) they provide a (mandatory)  cycleway which in many places 
> is only one meter wide and also often obstructed by trash collection  
> containers and fallen leaves. The map should contain that data (the trash 
> container and the leaves go into a separate crowdmap).





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

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

[Volker Schmidt]

@Martin

"loro riservate" (reserved for them): does this mean that combined
> foot/cycleways are not compulsory, because they are not reserved for
> bicycles?
>
These combined foot-cycle-ways in Italy are legally really pedestrian
sidewalks on which cyclists are tolerated (implicit speed limit fo 10km/h
for bicycles, and precedence for pedestrians). So it's consistent that they
are not compulsory for cyclists



> E.g. would it be compulsory to use this cycleway (besides it is in Rome,
> and bicycle:everything=permissive):
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23953166#map=19/41.84844/12.48337
> (in osm it is quite long currently, but maybe we have to split it in parts
> that run along the road and parts that run in a distance to the road
> through the park).
>

Your example clearly illustrates a weakness in the definition of the
mandatory use.
It seems to be a nice smooth cycleway (so smooth hat it has a speed limit
of 20km/h), but a good lawyer could earn a lot of money when it comes to
the question whether this is a cycleway with mandatory use in case of a
serous accident with a cyclists on the nearby street. I don't know th
answer to the question whether this is or is not a mandatory-use cycleway.

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

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

[Hubert]

On 27. November 2015 10:51 Volker Schmidt [mailto:vosc...@gmail.com] wrote:
> translated: cyclists have to use cycleways, where they exist. It does not 
> address the question how 
> far away the cycleway can be from a parallel road. 

That simplifies the question a lot.

The tag "cycleway=lane/track" already implies that the use of the cycle way is 
compulsory.
If there is no cycle way, you can add cycleway=no, so that routers know that 
it's OK for bicyclist to use that road and fellow mappers know, that it has 
been checked. Though, this practice is highly disputed.

And in cases of a separate drawn line (case 3. segregated foot and cycle ways) 
just add "bicycle=use_sidepath" to the road way. 

OR don't tag any cycleway=* on the road. (yes, that levees some uncertainty, 
see above.)  A separate way tagged with "highway=cycleway" OR "highway=path + 
bicycle=designated + segreagated=yes" should be interpreted a compulsory.

Yours Hubert.


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

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

[Volker Schmidt]

Martin, one of the purposes of my detailed mapping (attempts) is that I
want to produce a map that can be used to improve the cycling
infrastructure in Padova and also to collect data that improve routing for
cyclists. When you try to do that you realise al kinds of inconsistencies.
You mention the discrepancy between the law and the reality on the roads,
but when you are involved in an accident, it's the law that counts. That's
why I want to insert formally correct data. I cannot map the fact that most
cyclists even don't know that, by law they have to use certsin types of
cycleways (and not others).
Practical example: on one of the main bicycle traffic thoroughfares of
Padova (which happens to be the street with the second highest number of
serious accidents in town) they provide a (mandatory) cycleway which in
many places is only one meter wide and also often obstructed by trash
collection containers and fallen leaves. The map should contain that data
(the trash container and the leaves go into a separate crowdmap).



On 27 November 2015 at 11:19, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> 2015-11-27 10:50 GMT+01:00 Volker Schmidt :
>
>> I should have added at the beginning of this thread that I am looking, in
>> the first place, at the situation in Italy.
>> Here is what there is in terms of definition of compulsory cycleways in
>> Italy:
>> (articolo 182 comma 9 Codice della Strada)
>>
>
>
> From my own experience in Rome (which might be quite different to yours in
> Padova), the Codice della Strada is not something that is actually enforced
> for bicycles. You can do anything you like on a bike in front of a
> policeman (like riding in the wrong direction on a oneway road, pass the
> red light, ride on pavements or in a pedestrian area), s/he will not notice
> you even as part of the traffic. Therefor I suggest to use
> bicycle=permissive on everything ;-). This is very different to the
> situation in Germany, where the police would even stop you in a small town
> at 3am (i.e. void streets) and fine you for small infractions (if they were
> actually there, admittedly you have to be quite unlucky to get caught under
> these circumstances).
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> 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] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-11-27 10:50 GMT+01:00 Volker Schmidt :

> I velocipedi devono transitare sulle piste loro riservate quando esistono



"loro riservate" (reserved for them): does this mean that combined
foot/cycleways are not compulsory, because they are not reserved for
bicycles? E.g. would it be compulsory to use this cycleway (besides it is
in Rome, and bicycle:everything=permissive):
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23953166#map=19/41.84844/12.48337
(in osm it is quite long currently, but maybe we have to split it in parts
that run along the road and parts that run in a distance to the road
through the park).

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

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

[Colin Smale]

 

So these tools are recursing down into relations which are members of
the higher-level relation, and then recursing down again? Is that not
configurable 

One concrete use case is "return the boundary relations for the
constituent parts of a given boundary relation", for example "all the
district councils in Kent" or "all the counties in Wales". That won't be
reliable if rectangular bounding boxes are used, or centroids as in
"where the centroid of the lower level relation is within the polygon of
the higher level relation". The OSM boundaries in the UK are of various
vintages, and are not all present (especially at the lowest levels,
civil parishes and community councils). I am working as hard as I can on
getting the data complete and up-to-date but it is an enormous job, with
over 12,000 administrative entities. That's why the quick and simple
feedback that this parent-child link gives is so important to me. The UK
also has a number of anomalies, such as an English authority covering
some territorial waters of Wales, a ceremonial county split between two
administrative counties, and missing layers such as Berkshire where the
county still exists but the council has been abolished. I have written
some special-purpose tooling to allow me to track progress and detect
(possible) errors. Without the "subarea" link, I fear I could no longer
work with the XML from the API or regional downloads without installing
a full software stack including PostGIS etc. Did I mention I refer to
the history of the objects as well? 

//colin 

On 2015-11-27 11:05, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 

> 2015-11-27 10:54 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale :
> 
>> Can you describe some *real problems* the use of "subarea" causes? Can you 
>> provide any *workable* alternative for the parties which DO support its use? 
>> I thought that the "O" stood for "Open". Mappers who don't know about it 
>> just carry on.
> 
> the real problem (for me and other mappers in the Italian community) are 
> people coming by and adding all regions of Italy as subregions into the 
> country boundaries, continueing adding all municipalities (or better most of 
> them) into the region relations. This results in many common tools selecting 
> all contained municipalities when selecting the country and the geometry it 
> depends on (members). In Italy we don't have the problem of unprecise 
> sub-boundaries which are not integrated in the upper boundaries. It makes 
> editing of these relations much more complicated for everyone if all 
> sub-boundaries/entities which are not needed for the boundary of the country, 
> are included as well.
> 
> Workable alternatives for which problem do you require? Is it that subareas 
> are not completely spatially contained in the parent area in OSM but are in 
> the real world? Then the solution is to fix these sub-boundaries. If instead 
> the subareas aren't completely contained in the parent area in the real 
> world, then I'd question the subarea-role for these cases (they are not 
> subareas).
> 
> Cheers, 
> Martin
 ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-11-27 10:50 GMT+01:00 Volker Schmidt :

> I should have added at the beginning of this thread that I am looking, in
> the first place, at the situation in Italy.
> Here is what there is in terms of definition of compulsory cycleways in
> Italy:
> (articolo 182 comma 9 Codice della Strada)
>


>From my own experience in Rome (which might be quite different to yours in
Padova), the Codice della Strada is not something that is actually enforced
for bicycles. You can do anything you like on a bike in front of a
policeman (like riding in the wrong direction on a oneway road, pass the
red light, ride on pavements or in a pedestrian area), s/he will not notice
you even as part of the traffic. Therefor I suggest to use
bicycle=permissive on everything ;-). This is very different to the
situation in Germany, where the police would even stop you in a small town
at 3am (i.e. void streets) and fine you for small infractions (if they were
actually there, admittedly you have to be quite unlucky to get caught under
these circumstances).

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

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-11-27 10:54 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale :

> Can you describe some *real problems* the use of "subarea" causes? Can you
> provide any *workable* alternative for the parties which DO support its
> use? I thought that the "O" stood for "Open". Mappers who don't know about
> it just carry on.



the real problem (for me and other mappers in the Italian community) are
people coming by and adding all regions of Italy as subregions into the
country boundaries, continueing adding all municipalities (or better most
of them) into the region relations. This results in many common tools
selecting all contained municipalities when selecting the country and the
geometry it depends on (members). In Italy we don't have the problem of
unprecise sub-boundaries which are not integrated in the upper boundaries.
It makes editing of these relations much more complicated for everyone if
all sub-boundaries/entities which are not needed for the boundary of the
country, are included as well.

Workable alternatives for which problem do you require? Is it that subareas
are not completely spatially contained in the parent area in OSM but are in
the real world? Then the solution is to fix these sub-boundaries. If
instead the subareas aren't completely contained in the parent area in the
real world, then I'd question the subarea-role for these cases (they are
not subareas).

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

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

[Colin Smale]

 

Martin, 

I stated my point of view - I find it useful with clear added value. You
"don't see the point". Fair enough, we don't have to agree. Can you
describe some *real problems* the use of "subarea" causes? Can you
provide any *workable* alternative for the parties which DO support its
use? I thought that the "O" stood for "Open". Mappers who don't know
about it just carry on. Consumers/renderers who don't care about it just
carry on. Just moving its description/definition to the "Talk" page is
unlikely to change people's behaviour, realistically speaking. OSM data
will never be perfect, and both the data and every application which
processes OSM data is stuffed full of "workarounds" for quirks in the
data. 

Another reason it will never be perfect, is of course that we have no
way of quantifying the level of perfection. There is little consensus on
good vs. bad, or right vs. wrong. It might just be "good enough" for
various uses, and that's good enough for many people. 

//colin 

On 2015-11-27 10:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 

> 2015-11-26 20:24 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale :
> 
>> I use the subarea member because it makes cross-checking easy. Have all the 
>> lower-level boundaries in my higher-level admin area been added to OSM?
> 
> what comes next? Have all the roads in a given administrative area listed 
> with an "administrates" role in the relation? Cross-checking to me sounds 
> like unhealthy redundancy here. It means having to do the work twice and 
> having the information stored double.
> 
>> Unfortunately the various admin levels do not always form a strict 
>> hierarchy. A small area at (lets say) admin_level=10 might be enclosed 
>> spatially by entities at level 8, 7, 6, 5 etc but it only has a direct 
>> administrative relationship with one of them, which might not be the 
>> next-highest level (next-lower number).
> 
> in which way does a subarea role help here to solve real problems? Which 
> administrative aspects/powers/relationships/fields are those that are looked 
> at? Do you have concrete examples?
> 
>> Finding the boundaries of all districts within a county (UK example) becomes 
>> trivial with the explicit parent-child link.
> 
> yes, that's the one usecase that becomes easy. And all other mappers and 
> users have to care for all those subareas and have their mapping more 
> complicated just to facilitate this one usecase?
> 
>> Otherwise its like finding all boundaries with admin_level=8 which are at 
>> least 99% contained by the higher-level boundary. That sounds 
>> computationally a lot more complicated to me. Why not 100%? Because 
>> sometimes the boundaries at different levels are not imported/drawn from the 
>> same source, leading to the boundaries not being exactly coincident.
> 
> so because the data is not sufficently precise you decided not to fix the 
> data but to keep separate hierarchy lists (aka relation membership) as a 
> workaround? 
> 
> Cheers, 
> Martin
 ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

[Volker Schmidt]

can you define what a compulsory cycle lane means? Is it that when cycling
> on the road you have to use this lane? Or that you aren't allowed to use
> any other nearby way if you are on a bike? How far is the range of this
> prescription?
>

I should have added at the beginning of this thread that I am looking, in
the first place, at the situation in Italy.
Here is what there is in terms of definition of compulsory cycleways in
Italy:
(articolo 182 comma 9 Codice della Strada)
"9. I velocipedi devono transitare sulle piste loro riservate quando
esistono, salvo il divieto per particolari categorie di essi, con le
modalità stabilite nel regolamento."
translated: cyclists have to use cycleways, where they exist. It does not
address the question how far away the cycleway can be from a parallel road.
This differs form the situation in Germany, as far as I know, where a
maximum distance is defined for this case.

There are three types of compulsory cycleways in Italy:
1) Cycle lanes
What in OSM speak is a "cycle lane", in Italy is a cycleway to all effects
("pista ciclabile in carregiata"). Hence the need in OSM to indicate that
the motor-vehicle lanes of a road with cycle lanes are off-limits to
cyclists. I presume that the legal situation is similar in other countries.
example with road sign:
http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/WXI0C1RziwDrYzxgw5SATQ/photo

2) Cycleways separated from the road "Pista ciclabile in sede propria"
example with road sign:
http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/kMd45wChlKaeX4KuJPw08w/photo

3) Segregated foot-cycle-ways "Pista ciclabile contigua al marciapiede"
example with road sign:
http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/HW1ck2ERbs-KZehJtf1O3Q/photo

In addition, there is another type of way for cyclists that is not
compulsory:
non-segregated foot-cycle-way ("percorso pedonale e ciclabile")
BTW this is different from the situation in Germany where the nearly
identical road sign makes the use compulsory.
example with road sign in Italy: http://www.mapillary.com/map/

im/EQjUChD_tRXHeP0QPEJyjg/photo


Hope this makes things clearer.

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

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-11-26 21:12 GMT+01:00 André Pirard :

> It is even mandatory when you have to make nested boundaries that have no
> admin_level like the two boundary systems we have in Belgium (political and
> linguistic).




can you give an example how this is modeled, e.g. a relation in osm? Having
2 kind of different boundary systems at first glance seems to be best
modeled with 2 kind of boundary types in OSM.

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

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-11-26 20:24 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale :

> I use the subarea member because it makes cross-checking easy. Have all
> the lower-level boundaries in my higher-level admin area been added to OSM?



what comes next? Have all the roads in a given administrative area listed
with an "administrates" role in the relation? Cross-checking to me sounds
like unhealthy redundancy here. It means having to do the work twice and
having the information stored double.


Unfortunately the various admin levels do not always form a strict
> hierarchy. A small area at (lets say) admin_level=10 might be enclosed
> spatially by entities at level 8, 7, 6, 5 etc but it only has a direct
> administrative relationship with one of them, which might not be the
> next-highest level (next-lower number).
>


in which way does a subarea role help here to solve real problems? Which
administrative aspects/powers/relationships/fields are those that are
looked at? Do you have concrete examples?


Finding the boundaries of all districts within a county (UK example)
> becomes trivial with the explicit parent-child link.



yes, that's the one usecase that becomes easy. And all other mappers and
users have to care for all those subareas and have their mapping more
complicated just to facilitate this one usecase?



> Otherwise its like finding all boundaries with admin_level=8 which are at
> least 99% contained by the higher-level boundary. That sounds
> computationally a lot more complicated to me. Why not 100%? Because
> sometimes the boundaries at different levels are not imported/drawn from
> the same source, leading to the boundaries not being exactly coincident.



so because the data is not sufficently precise you decided not to fix the
data but to keep separate hierarchy lists (aka relation membership) as a
workaround?



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