Re: [Tagging] Tagging problem for a river running in a culvert below a track / wiki votes enforcement

[Marc Gemis]

I thought levels are just relative to one another. So we just need to
indicate which "way" is above the other. This could be with numbers
1000 and 1001 as well as 0 and 1 or -2 and 5.

It's just by convention that tunnels are typically mapped as -1
(except for building_passages under houses) and bridges as 1 (or 2,
... when there are multiple bridges).

For me they have nothing to do with ground level.

regards

m

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:53 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27/01/2016 8:50 AM, Clifford Snow wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> layer=-1 to me says this is below natural ground level. And here that is
>> not the case - the road is above natural ground level and that should be
>> tagged layer=1 .. to be absolutely technically correct.
>>
>>  But many use the layer=-1 on culverts as a convenience of less work.
>>
 tunnel=building_passage
>>>
>>> I am not understanding where that tag would be applied. What would be
>>> tagged this way?
>>
>>
>> The convention it to tag what is inside the tunnel. Similar to a bridge
>> where what is on the bridge carries the tag.
>
>
> According to the wiki:
>
> Layer provides absolutely no information about relative or absolute height
> difference of objects which do not immediately cross or overlap. A change in
> layer should not be used to indicate a change in elevation. A bridge is at
> layer 1 even if it is only several feet above sea level while the peak of
> Mount Everest is at layer 0 even though it is 8848 meters above sea level.
>
> Negative values do not imply that object is underground, use
> location=underground for this purpose.
>
> Since it is a culvert, going under a road, I use layer=-1. If you tag it
> layer=1, then you are saying the stream is above the road.
>
>
> Err no.
> I would prefer to tag the road at layer=1 as that is elevated compared to
> what naturally existed before. Note this is a 'preference'.
> I too take the path of less work compared to being absolutely technically
> correct.
>
> Which might be correct in some instances, but looking at the picture, it
> looks like it goes under the road. If you call the slab of concrete a
> bridge, then layer=1 would be correct.
>
> Clifford
>
>
>
> I think the wiki is deceptive in claim level=0 does not imply anything. I
> think it implies the"local ground level" ... examples;
>  on the peak of Everest this is 8848 meters above sea level.
> A bridge on Lake Eyre (mean 15 metres below sea level) would be layer=1 ..
> even with the bridge at 10 meters below sea level. (Note this 'lake' is a
> salt lake and dry most of the time).
>
>  The vast majority of waterways would be layer=0.
> To say that surface water, while maintaining the same elevation is suddenly
> layer=-1 when a roadway is placed over the top of it ... is technically
> incorrect .. it is the road way that has been placed above "local ground
> level"..
>
> Yes there are instances where surface water can change level .. those are
> few. Not usual for culverts, as it is the road way is constructed on top of
> what was there, the water way remains in the same place, at the same level
> therefore the same layer.
>
> It is a very minor point.
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Remove name_1 and alt_name_1 from wiki)

[moltonel 3x Combo]

tOn 26/01/2016, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> In my experience name, name:en, old_name, alt_name, alt_name:ru etc etc
> etc were always sufficient. An example where multivalue names are
> truly necessary would be interesting.

Andy has already given some good answers and I've rambled for too long
on the subject, but since you ask again I'll dig up
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5257865 again, which cannot be
satisfyingly tagged with foo_name variations. Its name_1 and name_2
tags have absolutely no semantic difference, so puting them in
foo_name and bar_name would be wrong. In fact even its name tag is
semantically at the same level as the other two.

The local knowledge comes from my in-laws, who lived there for as far
as they can trace back.

You might want to brush this example off as too rare to bother about,
but I've stumbled uppon places with many names before. I used to
agonize over the decision of what to put in which foo_name tag (alt
and loc being the most likely candidates), with the result that I was
assigning semantic value ("this name is only used locally, this one is
a bit broader") when there was actually none. I'm sure I'm not the
only one in this situation. We've trained mappers to always prefer
foo_name but this is often wrong.

We need multi-valued keys to accurately describe the world. Until the
OSM data model supports that natively, we make do with either the
suffix or the semicolon hack (plus some niche and one-off solutions).
They are not great but they are necessary, embrace them. And while
you're at it, recognize the cases where semicolons are problematic and
embrace suffied tags.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 76, Issue 56

[Mark Bradley]

> Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 05:25:16 -0600
> From: Paul Johnson 
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>   
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging scrap yards, junkyards
> Message-ID:
>q...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 3:16 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  > wrote:


[...]


> This is how I view junkyards.  I consider scrapyards a different critter, 
> though, more in
> the recycling tagging schemes than anything, as that tends to be where cars 
> that
> were once in the junkyard go when the junkyards decide it's cheaper use the 
> space for
> a more complete unit than keep the existing one on the lot.


+1

This is the point I was trying to make earlier.  They ARE different critters.  
I don't care so much what we call them, as long as we call them something 
different.  "Junkyard" and "scrapyard" may be American English.  Okay, let's 
use British English, or whatever else people want.  But they are different 
things.

Mark Bradley


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging problem for a river running in a culvert below a track / wiki votes enforcement

[Warin]

On 27/01/2016 8:50 AM, Clifford Snow wrote:


On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


layer=-1 to me says this is below natural ground level. And here
that is not the case - the road is above natural ground level and
that should be tagged layer=1 .. to be absolutely technically correct.

 But many use the layer=-1 on culverts as a convenience of less work.

tunnel=building_passage

I am not understanding where that tag would be applied. What
would be
tagged this way?


The convention it to tag what is inside the tunnel. Similar to a
bridge where what is on the bridge carries the tag.


According to the wiki:

Layer provides absolutely no information about relative or
absolute height difference of objects which do not immediately
cross or overlap. A change in layer should not be used to indicate
a change in elevation. A bridge is at layer 1 even if it is only
several feet above sea level while the peak of Mount Everest is at
layer 0 even though it is 8848 meters above sea level.

Negative values do not imply that object is underground, use
location
=underground


 for
this purpose.

Since it is a culvert, going under a road, I use layer=-1. If you tag 
it layer=1, then you are saying the stream is above the road.


Err no.
I would prefer to tag the road at layer=1 as that is elevated compared 
to what naturally existed before. Note this is a 'preference'.
I too take the path of less work compared to being absolutely 
technically correct.


Which might be correct in some instances, but looking at the picture, 
it looks like it goes under the road. If you call the slab of concrete 
a bridge, then layer=1 would be correct.


Clifford




I think the wiki is deceptive in claim level=0 does not imply anything. 
I think it implies the"local ground level" ... examples;

 on the peak of Everest this is 8848 meters above sea level.
A bridge on Lake Eyre (mean 15 metres below sea level) would be layer=1 
.. even with the bridge at 10 meters below sea level. (Note this 'lake' 
is a salt lake and dry most of the time).


 The vast majority of waterways would be layer=0.
To say that surface water, while maintaining the same elevation is 
suddenly layer=-1 when a roadway is placed over the top of it ... is 
technically incorrect .. it is the road way that has been placed above 
"local ground level"..


Yes there are instances where surface water can change level .. those 
are few. Not usual for culverts, as it is the road way is constructed on 
top of what was there, the water way remains in the same place, at the 
same level therefore the same layer.


It is a very minor point.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature proposal - Approved - Location transitions

[François Lacombe]

Hi all,

Just to inform you I've closed the vote of the location transitions proposal.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Location_transitions

According to the 14 yes votes against 2 no and 0 abst, this key is now approved.
Currently, the document is still on Post-Vote status since I can't do
cleanup for now but it will be done until this weekend.

A particular thanks to contributors who took time to give useful
feedbacks during RFC and voting.


All the best

François

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging problem for a river running in a culvert below a track / wiki votes enforcement

[Clifford Snow]

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> layer=-1 to me says this is below natural ground level. And here that is
> not the case - the road is above natural ground level and that should be
> tagged layer=1 .. to be absolutely technically correct.
>
>  But many use the layer=-1 on culverts as a convenience of less work.
>
> tunnel=building_passage
>>>
>> I am not understanding where that tag would be applied. What would be
>> tagged this way?
>>
>
> The convention it to tag what is inside the tunnel. Similar to a bridge
> where what is on the bridge carries the tag.
>

According to the wiki:

Layer provides absolutely no information about relative or absolute height
difference of objects which do not immediately cross or overlap. A change
in layer should not be used to indicate a change in elevation. A bridge is
at layer 1 even if it is only several feet above sea level while the peak
of Mount Everest is at layer 0 even though it is 8848 meters above sea
level.

Negative values do not imply that object is underground, use location
=underground

for
this purpose.

Since it is a culvert, going under a road, I use layer=-1. If you tag it
layer=1, then you are saying the stream is above the road. Which might be
correct in some instances, but looking at the picture, it looks like it
goes under the road. If you call the slab of concrete a bridge, then
layer=1 would be correct.

Clifford

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Remove name_1 and alt_name_1 from wiki)

[Tod Fitch]

> On Jan 26, 2016, at 9:24 AM, Éric Gillet  wrote:
> 
> 2016-01-26 17:52 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale  >:
> So how ARE we going to represent multi-valued attributes from real life in an 
> OSM context?
> 
> 
> I believe that if a multi-value tag system is added to the OSM API, the 
> migration would be easier from semicolumns multi-values than from _N suffixes.


+1 to both of these

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging problem for a river running in a culvert below a track / wiki votes enforcement

[Warin]

On 27/01/2016 7:30 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:


On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 20:14:48 +0100
David Marchal  wrote:




Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 18:26:55 +0100
From: matkoni...@gmail.com
To: pene...@live.fr
CC: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging problem for a river running in a
culvert below a track / wiki votes enforcement

I think that photo of this object would be useful to decide how it
should be tagged.

Indeed; here comes the picture: http://1drv.ms/1ZQJCxT

Hendrikklaas told me by a private message "Simple tagging is
tunnel=culvert-bridge and add layer=-1 to avoid crossing conflicts.
Or leave it just tunnel=building_passage like you already did just
like any other road crossing a building but remember to add layers."
Should I consider this as a building?

Thank you in advance for your help.

Regards.

I would add to path tag bridge=low_water_crossing (documented at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge ) and layer=1, without
tagging culverts, without splitting waterway polygon.


+1 to leaving the waterway at level=0 (no tag required as this is the default 
layer).



tagging this footway as bridge=low_water_crossing (documented at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge ), without
tagging culverts, without splitting waterway polygon, splitting stream
and tagging part under bridge as layer=-1 is equivalent.


layer=-1 to me says this is below natural ground level. And here that is not 
the case - the road is above natural ground level and that should be tagged 
layer=1 .. to be absolutely technically correct.

 But many use the layer=-1 on culverts as a convenience of less work.


tunnel=building_passage

I am not understanding where that tag would be applied. What would be
tagged this way?


The convention it to tag what is inside the tunnel. Similar to a bridge where 
what is on the bridge carries the tag.



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging problem for a river running in a culvert below a track / wiki votes enforcement

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 20:14:48 +0100
David Marchal  wrote:

> 
> 
> > Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 18:26:55 +0100
> > From: matkoni...@gmail.com
> > To: pene...@live.fr
> > CC: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging problem for a river running in a
> > culvert below a track / wiki votes enforcement
> > 
> > I think that photo of this object would be useful to decide how it
> > should be tagged.
> 
> Indeed; here comes the picture: http://1drv.ms/1ZQJCxT
> 
> Hendrikklaas told me by a private message "Simple tagging is
> tunnel=culvert-bridge and add layer=-1 to avoid crossing conflicts.
> Or leave it just tunnel=building_passage like you already did just
> like any other road crossing a building but remember to add layers."
> Should I consider this as a building?
> 
> Thank you in advance for your help.
> 
> Regards.

I would add to path tag bridge=low_water_crossing (documented at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge ) and layer=1, without
tagging culverts, without splitting waterway polygon.

tagging this footway as bridge=low_water_crossing (documented at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge ), without
tagging culverts, without splitting waterway polygon, splitting stream
and tagging part under bridge as layer=-1 is equivalent.

> tunnel=building_passage

I am not understanding where that tag would be applied. What would be
tagged this way?

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - recycling:coffee_capsules

[Marc Gemis]

I would just use it. It fit undoubtedly in the current tagging scheme.

regards

m

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:06 PM,   wrote:
> Hello
>
> This is a reminder. Please vote... Or maybe we'll just use it. I am not
> shure if you tried to say me that voting is useless because we can just use
> it or because it is a useless tag...
>
> Am 13. Januar 2016 03:30:51 MEZ, schrieb Dominic Coletti
> :
>>
>> Is it really worth explicitly voting on?  "recycling:blah" is well
>> established already: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=recycling
>> - why not just use it?
>>
>> I agree to an extent. I think that we should make the proposal broader.
>> Though I know OSM tagging is "tag what you want," standardization and
>> official use is, IMHO, useful to both data consumers and users alike. "Just
>> using it" can create confusion, especially among newer mappers.
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 3:56 PM Andy Townsend  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/01/2016 20:37, Ulrich Meier wrote:
>>> > ...
>>> > So here's the voting. I hope you agree with me...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/recycling:coffee_capsules
>>> >
>>>
>>> Is it really worth explicitly voting on?  "recycling:blah" is well
>>> established already: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=recycling
>>> - why not just use it?
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>> --
>> Dominic Coletti
>> President & CEO
>> 3Dreams Design
>> 205 Anamoor Dr
>> Cary, NC 27513
>> (919) 463-9554
>>
>> NOTICE: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
>> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
>> addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system
>> manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only
>> for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
>> disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender
>> immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete
>> this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are
>> notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in
>> reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.
>>
>> 
>>
>> 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] Feature Proposal - Voting - recycling:coffee_capsules

[amilopowers]

Hello

This is a reminder. Please vote... Or maybe we'll just use it. I am not shure 
if you tried to say me that voting is useless because we can just use it or 
because it is a useless tag...

Am 13. Januar 2016 03:30:51 MEZ, schrieb Dominic Coletti 
:
>Is it really worth explicitly voting on?  "recycling:blah" is well
>established already:
>http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=recycling
>- why not just use it?
>
>I agree to an extent. I think that we should make the proposal broader.
>Though I know OSM tagging is "tag what you want," standardization and
>official use is, IMHO, useful to both data consumers and users alike.
>"Just
>using it" can create confusion, especially among newer mappers.
>
>On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 3:56 PM Andy Townsend 
>wrote:
>
>> On 12/01/2016 20:37, Ulrich Meier wrote:
>> > ...
>> > So here's the voting. I hope you agree with me...
>> >
>> >
>>
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/recycling:coffee_capsules
>> >
>>
>> Is it really worth explicitly voting on?  "recycling:blah" is well
>> established already:
>http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=recycling
>> - why not just use it?
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>-- 
>Dominic Coletti
>President & CEO
>3Dreams Design
>205 Anamoor Dr
>Cary, NC 27513
>(919) 463-9554
>
>NOTICE: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
>and
>intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
>are
>addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the
>system manager. This message contains confidential information and is
>intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named
>addressee
>you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
>notify
>the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
>mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the
>intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying,
>distributing
>or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is
>strictly prohibited.
>
>
>
>
>___
>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] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Remove name_1 and alt_name_1 from wiki)

[Andy Townsend]

On 26/01/2016 19:16, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
In my experience name, name:en, old_name, alt_name, alt_name:ru etc 
etc etc were always sufficient. An example where multivalue names are 
truly necessary would be interesting.


Here's a brief summary of where I think that what we have now for names 
isn't "always sufficient":


There are places that have two or more names in different languages.  
One is not more important that the other; they're exactly equivalent.  
We don't have a way to represent that currently - only to store a list 
of names (in one format or another).  We only have one "name" tag, and 
in some places the local community have decided on the 
"Londonderry/Derry" approach because there is no correct answer to which 
of two (or more) local languages should go there.  Even then there's 
still the decision of which one to put first :)


There's also the "Abergavenny problem" (a term I invented the last time 
it came up on the lists) - there are places with multiple languages 
which are in local use, and also names in other languages not in local 
use (often but not always transliterations to a non-Latin alphabet).  We 
don't currently have a good way of differentiating between those two sets.


We also have the potential problem that if we stored every translated / 
transliterated name into every one of ethnologue.com's languages we'd 
have an unfeasibly large amount of data per place - it would make any 
data manipulation operations with OSM data significantly more 
cumbersome.  In answer to that last problem someone usually says 
"wikidata" but we don't yet have a tried, tested and scaleable way of 
combining data from wikidata with data from OSM on the fly.


Some more of the issues associated with multiple languages in a place 
were discussed in the Algerian forum:


http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=31333

There were issues raised there that I hadn't previously considered, 
including combining a left-to-right and right-to-left name in a 
"Londonderry/Derry"-style name, and what happens when the most widely 
spoken language and the official language aren't the same.


Cheers,

Andy (SomeoneElse)



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging problem for a river running in a culvert below a track / wiki votes enforcement

[Clifford Snow]

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:14 AM, David Marchal  wrote:

> Indeed; here comes the picture: http://1drv.ms/1ZQJCxT Hendrikklaas told
> me by a private message "Simple tagging is tunnel=culvert-bridge and add
> layer=-1 to avoid crossing conflicts. Or leave it just
> tunnel=building_passage like you already did just like any other road
> crossing a building but remember to add layers." Should I consider this as
> a building? Thank you in advance for your help. Regards.
>

Yes, add the layer=-1 to the stream. Make sure to adjust the riverbank to
reflect the ground truths. I probably won't add a riverbank to the stream
that goes through the culvert. The stream doesn't look as wide in your
photo as the edit appears.

Clifford


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Remove name_1 and alt_name_1 from wiki)

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 17:52:13 +0100
Colin Smale  wrote:

> Indeed, it is filling one hole with another. So how ARE we going to
> represent multi-valued attributes from real life in an OSM context? 
> 
> I am not detecting much progress on this, just negativity around all
> current attempts at doing it.

In my experience name, name:en, old_name, alt_name, alt_name:ru etc etc
etc were always sufficient. An example where multivalue names are
truly necessary would be interesting.

In case of ref on highways multivalues are necessary and ; separation
is accepted standard (with support among at least some data consumers).

In case of surface tag multivalues are evil and not necessary, despite
initial impressions.

It depends on situation.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging problem for a river running in a culvert below a track / wiki votes enforcement

[David Marchal]

> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 18:26:55 +0100
> From: matkoni...@gmail.com
> To: pene...@live.fr
> CC: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging problem for a river running in a culvert below 
> a track / wiki votes enforcement
> 
> I think that photo of this object would be useful to decide how it
> should be tagged.

Indeed; here comes the picture: http://1drv.ms/1ZQJCxT

Hendrikklaas told me by a private message "Simple tagging is 
tunnel=culvert-bridge and add layer=-1 to avoid crossing conflicts. Or leave it 
just tunnel=building_passage like you already did just like any other road 
crossing a building but remember to add layers." Should I consider this as a 
building?

Thank you in advance for your help.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Remove name_1 and alt_name_1 from wiki)

[Éric Gillet]

2016-01-26 17:52 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale :

> So how ARE we going to represent multi-valued attributes from real life in
> an OSM context?
>

I believe that if a multi-value tag system is added to the OSM API, the
migration would be easier from semicolumns multi-values than from _N
suffixes.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Remove name_1 and alt_name_1 from wiki)

[Colin Smale]

Indeed, it is filling one hole with another. So how ARE we going to
represent multi-valued attributes from real life in an OSM context? 

I am not detecting much progress on this, just negativity around all
current attempts at doing it.

//colin 

On 2016-01-26 17:21, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 01:22:25 +0100
> Hakuch  wrote:
> 
>> The voting for the proposal "Remove suffixed name-tags from wiki" has
>> started. Please involve with your vote:
>> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Remove_suffixed_name-tags_from_wiki
>> 
>> find discussion threads here:
>> 
>> http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=53223 (german)
>> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Removing-name-1-and-alt-name-1-from-Wiki-tp5864465.html
>> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Please-don-t-think-name-1-tags-are-errors-tp5864875.html
> 
> Note that this proposal is not merely about discouraging
> name_1/al_name_2 etc - it explicitly encourages another bad idea:
> "alt_name can be used with semicolons" and in general it replaces
> really bad idea with terrible "Semicolons instead of _1 suffixes".
> 
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Remove name_1 and alt_name_1 from wiki)

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 01:22:25 +0100
Hakuch  wrote:

> The voting for the proposal "Remove suffixed name-tags from wiki" has
> started. Please involve with your vote:
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Remove_suffixed_name-tags_from_wiki
> 
> find discussion threads here:
> 
> http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=53223 (german)
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Removing-name-1-and-alt-name-1-from-Wiki-tp5864465.html
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Please-don-t-think-name-1-tags-are-errors-tp5864875.html

Note that this proposal is not merely about discouraging
name_1/al_name_2 etc - it explicitly encourages another bad idea:
"alt_name can be used with semicolons" and in general it replaces
really bad idea with terrible "Semicolons instead of _1 suffixes".

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

Re: [Tagging] Art galleries/museums

[Andy Mabbett]

On 26 January 2016 at 14:12, Marc Zoutendijk  wrote:
>> I would like :
>> - discourage tourism=gallery
>> - subtype of tourism=museum, museum=art just like
>> museum=railway/history, and further art=painting/...
>> - also redirect towards shop=art for badly tagged items
>>
>
> +1
> This is a clear solution.

+1


-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Tagging] Art galleries/museums

[Marc Zoutendijk]

> Op 26 jan. 2016, om 10:43 heeft althio  het volgende 
> geschreven:
> 
> 
> I would like :
> - discourage tourism=gallery
> - subtype of tourism=museum, museum=art just like
> museum=railway/history, and further art=painting/...
> - also redirect towards shop=art for badly tagged items
> 

+1
This is a clear solution.

Marc.



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

Re: [Tagging] Art galleries/museums

[Holger Jeromin]

Frederik Ramm 
 Wrote in message:
> Hi,
> 
>the German word "Galerie" is often used for art showrooms where you
> can actually buy the stuff on display. (I know a couple that are not
> larger than a typical hairdresser's.) Hence I wouldn't be surprised if
> many of the 415 tourism=gallery features in Germany were such
> establishments. They're certainly not museums.

All of the gallery objects around Aachen are shops and the real
 world galleries are tagged as museums. 

Official moving to museum would be a good step imo. 

-- 
Holger


Android NewsGroup Reader
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/


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

Re: [Tagging] Formalising shoulder tagging

[Andy Mabbett]

On 26 January 2016 at 10:15, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:59 AM, Gerd Petermann
>  wrote:
>>
>> Seitenstreifen
>
> Yes, that would be what we're referring to, if Google Translate is to be
> believed.

If only there was a free online encyclopedia...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder_%28road%29

   https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stra%C3%9Fenquerschnitt#Seitenstreifen

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Jewellery shop

[Stephan Knauss]

The approved way of tagging is using the AE spelling. 
Approved by the use of the tag by thousands of mappers. 
Spelling it different could be treated as a misspelled tag. So "fixing" it is 
not that surprising. 

Bad luck for those who invented it in the wrong spelling. Now it is too late 
for changing it giving very little benefit. 

Stephan 

On January 26, 2016 12:08:59 PM GMT+01:00, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 wrote:
>2016-01-26 12:01 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer
>:
>
>> against another one with 187, then the decision has already been
>> made by the mappers.
>>
>
>
>btw: there seem to be people changing the spelling of these from BE to
>AE,
>I have in the past added shop=jewellery and looking at them now shows
>they
>have been changed in the meantime.
>
>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] Art galleries/museums

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 26.01.2016 11:27, Gerd Petermann napisał(a):

althio wrote
It brings too much confusion, I take it for a bad case of duck 
tagging.


I would like :
- discourage tourism=gallery
- subtype of tourism=museum, museum=art just like
museum=railway/history, and further art=painting/...
- also redirect towards shop=art for badly tagged items


+ 1
I've never mapped one, but I was very surprised to see
that tourism=gallery exists.


I also like this proposition. I had this problem myself in my home city 
with National Museum and public gallery of art (Zacheta), which are very 
similar in what they exhibit. Probably National Museum:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Museum,_Warsaw

shows also some non-art artifacts of historical value, but it has mainly 
art collections and "national museum" is defined in English Wikpedia as 
"museum maintained by nation", so the actual type is not necessarily 
different than national "art museum". I think that art gallery is also 
kind of museum when not selling and otherwise just the "art shop" (not 
to be confused with shops with accessories for artists).


So I think "tourism=museum + museum=art + art=*" scheme can be useful 
for distinguishing from commercial galleries ("shop=art") without going 
too deep into museum/gallery naming conventions, which can be 
misleading. It could be good to also have some tag for national museum 
(like "operator=national" or something like this).


--
"Завтра, завтра всё кончится!" [Ф. Достоевский]

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Jewellery shop

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-01-26 12:01 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

> against another one with 187, then the decision has already been
> made by the mappers.
>


btw: there seem to be people changing the spelling of these from BE to AE,
I have in the past added shop=jewellery and looking at them now shows they
have been changed in the meantime.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Jewellery shop

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-01-26 11:07 GMT+01:00 Hakuch :

> against another one with 187, then the decision has already been
> made by the mappers.
>


or by the people making the editor presets and rendering rules,
autocompletion. How many people are typing tags and override the
autocompletion suggestion, and then decide to deliberately use a tag that
is not highlighted in their editor as valid if another one with small
spelling differences is? If we get common applications (josm, iD) to render
the british spelled version, many mappers will likely follow. Fortunately
osm-carto does render both spelling variants!

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

Re: [Tagging] Art galleries/museums

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-01-26 10:43 GMT+01:00 althio :

> I would like :
> - discourage tourism=gallery
> - subtype of tourism=museum, museum=art just like
> museum=railway/history, and further art=painting/...
> - also redirect towards shop=art for badly tagged items
>


I agree we should distinguish art museums and other types of museums like
transportation, railway, aircraft, automobile, toys, "science", (sometimes
specific) ancient cultures, (e.g.) sugar, trade, military, regional
traditions, ...) and even further (optionally) art into painting, drawing,
print, sculptures, video, photo, and also put attributes for the epoch(s)
that are typically on display (if appropriate).
I would suggest to use more explicit key names than "art" for these, e.g.
museum_topic, art_type, exhibits_from_period=,... (placeholders to make the
point and likely improvable)

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

Re: [Tagging] Formalising shoulder tagging

[Gerd Petermann]

Thanks, that helps a lot:-)




Von: Martin Koppenhoefer 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Januar 2016 11:22
An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Formalising shoulder tagging


2016-01-26 10:59 GMT+01:00 Gerd Petermann 
mailto:gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com>>:
Dou you think that shoulder means what we call "Seitenstreifen" ?


yes, Standstreifen, Standspur, Seitenstreifen, Randstreifen. I've improved the 
proposal to make this clearer for non-native people (added a definition (from 
WP), added more German synonyms, images)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Art galleries/museums

[Gerd Petermann]

althio wrote
> It brings too much confusion, I take it for a bad case of duck tagging.
> 
> I would like :
> - discourage tourism=gallery
> - subtype of tourism=museum, museum=art just like
> museum=railway/history, and further art=painting/...
> - also redirect towards shop=art for badly tagged items

+ 1 
I've never mapped one, but I was very surprised to see 
that tourism=gallery exists. 

Gerd




--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Art-galleries-museums-tp5865765p5865812.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] Formalising shoulder tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-01-26 10:59 GMT+01:00 Gerd Petermann :

> Dou you think that shoulder means what we call "Seitenstreifen" ?



yes, Standstreifen, Standspur, Seitenstreifen, Randstreifen. I've improved
the proposal to make this clearer for non-native people (added a definition
(from WP), added more German synonyms, images)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Art galleries/museums

[Hakuch]

On 26.01.2016 10:43, althio wrote:
> I would like :
> - discourage tourism=gallery
> - subtype of tourism=museum, museum=art just like
> museum=railway/history, and further art=painting/...
> - also redirect towards shop=art for badly tagged items

+1



0x2E165BB0.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys


0x3CBE432B.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Formalising shoulder tagging

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:59 AM, Gerd Petermann <
gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Seitenstreifen


Yes, that would be what we're referring to, if Google Translate is to be
believed.

http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/84rYvy_hxh95K8ipF1NfVw/photo has an example
of an expressway with both a left and right shoulder.  The left shoulder is
left of the orange/yellow line to the Type K rail in the central
reservation, and the right shoulder runs from the solid white line right to
the Type T31 rail protecting the bridge pier abutting the outer edge of the
roadway.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Formalising shoulder tagging

[Warin]

On 26/01/2016 8:59 PM, Gerd Petermann wrote:

Hi,

As a German I am not sure if I understand what shoulder means.
In Germany we have a traffic_sign "Seitenstreifen nicht befahrbar"
and one with a pictogram:
http://images.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wolkdirekt.com%2Fimages%2F600%2F536052%2Fverkehrsschild-nach-stvo-typ-1-nr-388-seitenstreifen-f-mehrspurige-fahrzeuge-nicht-befahrbar.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wolkdirekt.com%2Fverkehrsschilder.html&h=600&w=600&tbnid=_olMoMJf-q2L2M%3A&docid=DQxsHaya53Mr-M&ei=10KnVt7BLsW6UaeYrIgL&tbm=isch&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=385&page=1&start=0&ndsp=49&ved=0ahUKEwieicOdm8fKAhVFXRQKHScMC7EQrQMIHjAA

Dou you think that shoulder means what we call "Seitenstreifen" ?

auto translation of 'Seitenstreifen' = 'hard shoulder'

So .. yes .. but 'shoulder' would also include 'soft' as well as 'hard'. 
So, for example, grass can be included.
There would be no sharp  'gutter' between the road and shoulder .. a 
spoon drain (a shallow trench with smooth side) would be allowed - the 
movement of a vehicle from the road to the shoulder should be easy and 
safe.



Gerd


Von: Richard Fairhurst 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Januar 2016 10:23
An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Betreff: [Tagging] Formalising shoulder tagging

Hi all,

At present there is no documented standard for tagging highway shoulders.

We have http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Shoulder with
shoulder=yes|no, which has been in 'draft (under way)' since 2010. In
Australia, cycleway=shoulder appears also to be used.

Taginfo stats are:
 shoulder = *7120, of which:
 shoulder = no   3230
 shoulder = yes  2743
 shoulder = right964
 shoulder:width = *  1794
 shoulder:right = *  1047
 width:shoulder = *  843
 cycleway = shoulder 502

There are several gazillion miles (approximate value) of roads with
shoulders around the world. We should have a way to tag them.

I'd therefore suggest simply formalising the most popular existing usage
and the one on the wiki page - that is, shoulder=yes|no. As a default,
I'd suggest shoulder=yes is presumed as the most common real-world
situation, i.e.:

 "A paved shoulder, wide enough to be used as an emergency
  refuge for cars, and for through passage by bicycles."

(Narrow shoulders can of course be tagged with shoulder:width, gravel
ones by shoulder:surface, and so on.)

There are of course many refinements one could imagine, for peak-hour
shoulder running, buses, etc. But since "the perfect is the enemy of the
good" etc., I'd like to get the basic shoulder=yes|no agreed first.

Speak now or forever hold your peace!

cheers
Richard

___
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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Jewellery shop

[Hakuch]

On 25.01.2016 23:24, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> The tag shop=jewelry is one of the few tags that use American rather
> than British English. The previous discussion seemed to indicate that
> people have strong opinions on this topic, but that there is no strong
> consensus either way.
> 
> I have therefore created a proposal page for the tag shop=jewellery.
> Hopefully this proposal, and a possible vote, will help the community
> to create an opinion on this topic.
> 
> The proposal can be found here:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Jewellery_shop
> 
> Please let me know what you think.

I think there is no sense in changing just a label, its more a kind of a
hygienic operation. If a tag is so well supported like jewelry (over
20.000) against another one with 187, then the decision has already been
made by the mappers.


0x3CBE432B.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Formalising shoulder tagging

[Gerd Petermann]

Hi,

As a German I am not sure if I understand what shoulder means.
In Germany we have a traffic_sign "Seitenstreifen nicht befahrbar"
and one with a pictogram:
http://images.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wolkdirekt.com%2Fimages%2F600%2F536052%2Fverkehrsschild-nach-stvo-typ-1-nr-388-seitenstreifen-f-mehrspurige-fahrzeuge-nicht-befahrbar.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wolkdirekt.com%2Fverkehrsschilder.html&h=600&w=600&tbnid=_olMoMJf-q2L2M%3A&docid=DQxsHaya53Mr-M&ei=10KnVt7BLsW6UaeYrIgL&tbm=isch&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=385&page=1&start=0&ndsp=49&ved=0ahUKEwieicOdm8fKAhVFXRQKHScMC7EQrQMIHjAA

Dou you think that shoulder means what we call "Seitenstreifen" ?
Gerd


Von: Richard Fairhurst 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Januar 2016 10:23
An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Betreff: [Tagging] Formalising shoulder tagging

Hi all,

At present there is no documented standard for tagging highway shoulders.

We have http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Shoulder with
shoulder=yes|no, which has been in 'draft (under way)' since 2010. In
Australia, cycleway=shoulder appears also to be used.

Taginfo stats are:
shoulder = *7120, of which:
shoulder = no   3230
shoulder = yes  2743
shoulder = right964
shoulder:width = *  1794
shoulder:right = *  1047
width:shoulder = *  843
cycleway = shoulder 502

There are several gazillion miles (approximate value) of roads with
shoulders around the world. We should have a way to tag them.

I'd therefore suggest simply formalising the most popular existing usage
and the one on the wiki page - that is, shoulder=yes|no. As a default,
I'd suggest shoulder=yes is presumed as the most common real-world
situation, i.e.:

"A paved shoulder, wide enough to be used as an emergency
 refuge for cars, and for through passage by bicycles."

(Narrow shoulders can of course be tagged with shoulder:width, gravel
ones by shoulder:surface, and so on.)

There are of course many refinements one could imagine, for peak-hour
shoulder running, buses, etc. But since "the perfect is the enemy of the
good" etc., I'd like to get the basic shoulder=yes|no agreed first.

Speak now or forever hold your peace!

cheers
Richard

___
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] Formalising shoulder tagging

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:35 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> From my travels .. I'd say the most frequent (most miles) case is
> shoulder=no.
> Of course this could be made sensitive to the highway classification ..
> motorways usually have a shoulder, driveways don't.
>

I would still safely assume that shoulder=no is the default even on
motorways.  US highways and state freeways, even grandfathered older
interstates (LA and Orange County are somewhat notorious for this, as does
Pennsylvania in at least the Philadelphia and NYC areas) completely lack
shoulders (and even might fence you into the traffic lanes).  Oklahoma's
rural turnpikes often have have no left shoulders (often being a three foot
high grass berm sperating directions of travel, running all the way up to
the orange edge of roadway delineation marking to the point restriping
trucks sometimes paint the grass).  Two lane highways both in the state and
US system in most of the country tend to have little or no hard shoulder.

In terms of miles traveled by the public, yes, hard shoulders are somewhat
common.  In terms of mappable miles of highway?  Exceptionally rare.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Art galleries/museums

[althio]

I agree there is a more fundamental problem.

This has been discussed in other places that I know of:
[french] 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-fr/2015-January/074711.html
[carto] 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/883#issuecomment-81849889

My view is :
- tourism=gallery is not a well understood tag, 5 years after the vote
- in 5 years, it didn't convert many important art museums ("false
negatives" sticking with tourism=museum)
- in 5 years, it attracted a lot of selling galleries ("false
positives", should be shop=art)

It brings too much confusion, I take it for a bad case of duck tagging.

I would like :
- discourage tourism=gallery
- subtype of tourism=museum, museum=art just like
museum=railway/history, and further art=painting/...
- also redirect towards shop=art for badly tagged items

althio


On 25 January 2016 at 23:44, Matthijs Melissen  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The wiki defines the tag tourism=gallery as 'an area or typically a
> building that displays a variety of visual art exhibitions' [1]. This
> is an officially approved tag [2]. In addition, the wiki page on
> tourism=museum [3] specifies that art galleries should be tagged as
> tourism=gallery, even if they have 'museum' in the name.
>
> However, practice shows that the tag tourism=gallery is not very
> frequently used. We have currently 54 951 instances of tourism=museum,
> versus only 1 505 instances of tourism=gallery. I had a look at some
> famous galleries: the MoMA in New York, the Uffizi in Florence, the
> National Gallery of Art in Washington DC, the Van Gogh Museum in
> Amsterdam, the Musée d'Orsay in Paris, and the Guggenheim Museum in
> Bilbao. It turned out that all of them are tagged as tourism=museum.
>
> This might be partly caused by ignorant mappers, but perhaps there is
> also a more fundamental problem. The line between a gallery and a
> museum is not always easy to draw, especially in continental Europe,
> where many museums have both historic and artistic exhibitions
> (compare for instance the Louvre). Also the fact that many galleries
> are called 'museum' does not help.
>
> How should we continue from here? Should we try to improve the tagging
> situation? Or should we discourage tourism=gallery, making it a
> subtype of tourism=museum?
>
> -- Matthijs
>
> [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dgallery
> [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Art_gallery
> [3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dmuseum
>
> ___
> 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] Formalising shoulder tagging

[Warin]

On 26/01/2016 8:23 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

Hi all,

At present there is no documented standard for tagging highway shoulders.

We have http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Shoulder with 
shoulder=yes|no, which has been in 'draft (under way)' since 2010. In 
Australia, cycleway=shoulder appears also to be used.


Taginfo stats are:
shoulder = *7120, of which:
shoulder = no3230
shoulder = yes2743
shoulder = right964
shoulder:width = *1794
shoulder:right = *1047
width:shoulder = *843
cycleway = shoulder502

There are several gazillion miles (approximate value) of roads with 
shoulders around the world. We should have a way to tag them.


I'd therefore suggest simply formalising the most popular existing 
usage and the one on the wiki page - that is, shoulder=yes|no. As a 
default, I'd suggest shoulder=yes is presumed as the most common 
real-world situation, i.e.:


"A paved shoulder, wide enough to be used as an emergency
 refuge for cars, and for through passage by bicycles."


From my travels .. I'd say the most frequent (most miles) case is 
shoulder=no.
Of course this could be made sensitive to the highway classification .. 
motorways usually have a shoulder, driveways don't.


(Narrow shoulders can of course be tagged with shoulder:width, gravel 
ones by shoulder:surface, and so on.)


There are of course many refinements one could imagine, for peak-hour 
shoulder running, buses, etc. But since "the perfect is the enemy of 
the good" etc., I'd like to get the basic shoulder=yes|no agreed first.


Speak now or forever hold your peace!

Good Luck.


cheers
Richard

___
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] Formalising shoulder tagging

[Richard Fairhurst]

Hi all,

At present there is no documented standard for tagging highway shoulders.

We have http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Shoulder with 
shoulder=yes|no, which has been in 'draft (under way)' since 2010. In 
Australia, cycleway=shoulder appears also to be used.


Taginfo stats are:
shoulder = *7120, of which:
shoulder = no   3230
shoulder = yes  2743
shoulder = right964
shoulder:width = *  1794
shoulder:right = *  1047
width:shoulder = *  843
cycleway = shoulder 502

There are several gazillion miles (approximate value) of roads with 
shoulders around the world. We should have a way to tag them.


I'd therefore suggest simply formalising the most popular existing usage 
and the one on the wiki page - that is, shoulder=yes|no. As a default, 
I'd suggest shoulder=yes is presumed as the most common real-world 
situation, i.e.:


"A paved shoulder, wide enough to be used as an emergency
 refuge for cars, and for through passage by bicycles."

(Narrow shoulders can of course be tagged with shoulder:width, gravel 
ones by shoulder:surface, and so on.)


There are of course many refinements one could imagine, for peak-hour 
shoulder running, buses, etc. But since "the perfect is the enemy of the 
good" etc., I'd like to get the basic shoulder=yes|no agreed first.


Speak now or forever hold your peace!

cheers
Richard

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