Re: [Tagging] tunnel=building_passage or covered=yes

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 11.09.2016 17:53, Dave F napisał(a):

Well, OK. 'Classification' then (which gives indications to who can use 
it).


I still hold my position. Classification doesn't tell who can use it, 
rather the purpose. Service road and corridor are clear about it: first 
is for "last mile" servicing roads (and not who can drive there), the 
second one is for connecting rooms inside the building.



How are they second class?



This is where secondary tags become useful. If renderers wants to


This is exactly why it is a second class citizen - it needs a secondary 
tagging.


What would you say if we had:

highway=road
road:class=primary
road:link=yes

instead of highway=primary_link? And this sub-type has only 250k of 
uses.


Highway=path may be as generic as say highway=road, highway=pedestrian 
is more or less as luxury as motorway - and we have highway=footway for 
all the other uses. Even path/footway difference is not clear, so we try 
to fix it with adding surface.



show, for instance, all paths in one style, they easily can by
filtering just highway=footway* If they want to differentiate
different surfaces*, access restrictions etc, they can do that by
referring to secondary tags.


But you can also use surface for roads to differentiate them. Yet we 
mainly rely on roads purpose, not the surface.


Pedestrian ways can be also serving different purposes (and so they 
should have different rendering, as we do for roads):

- corridors
- cemetery, park and allotments alleys
- long-distance outdoor hiking trails
- sidewalk
- crossing
- via ferrata

and probably some other specific types for which we even have a proper 
name for.


--
"To co ludzie zwą marskością wątroby/ Tak naprawdę jest śmiercią z 
tęsknoty" [Afro Kolektyw]


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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=building_passage or covered=yes

[Dave F]

On 11/09/2016 15:24, Daniel Koć wrote:

W dniu 11.09.2016 15:48, Dave F napisał(a):

On 10/09/2016 12:43, Daniel Koć wrote:


BTW: There's also another interesting and quite established tag - 
highway=corridor, which I've found lately:


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcorridor


Oh Great Scott.
It doesn't tell anyone who can travel along it. It's useless. All
descriptions of a highway should be in secondary tags.


For me that's what the access=* tag is for.


Well, OK. 'Classification' then (which gives indications to who can use it).



We have dozen primary types and subtypes (_link) of roads defined and 
all the pedestrian squeezed into just 3 general types with no clear 
distinction - I think this is not healthy to treat them as a second 
class citizens any longer.


How are they second class?



On standard style (osm-carto) you have all the colors to know the road 
class just by looking at it, while we have still no clue when the path 
should be rendered earlier (outdoor) or later (indoor) than standard, 
and this would be very useful, even if still using just one color.


This is where secondary tags become useful. If renderers wants to show, 
for instance, all paths in one style, they easily can by filtering just 
highway=footway* If they want to differentiate different surfaces*, 
access restrictions etc, they can do that by referring to secondary tags.


* On a suggestion by Richard Fairhurst the OSM carto now emphasises a 
footway if it has a surface=" sub-tag


Dave F.



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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=building_passage or covered=yes

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 11.09.2016 15:48, Dave F napisał(a):

On 10/09/2016 12:43, Daniel Koć wrote:


BTW: There's also another interesting and quite established tag - 
highway=corridor, which I've found lately:


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcorridor


Oh Great Scott.
It doesn't tell anyone who can travel along it. It's useless. All
descriptions of a highway should be in secondary tags.


For me that's what the access=* tag is for.

We have dozen primary types and subtypes (_link) of roads defined and 
all the pedestrian squeezed into just 3 general types with no clear 
distinction - I think this is not healthy to treat them as a second 
class citizens any longer.


On standard style (osm-carto) you have all the colors to know the road 
class just by looking at it, while we have still no clue when the path 
should be rendered earlier (outdoor) or later (indoor) than standard, 
and this would be very useful, even if still using just one color.


--
"To co ludzie zwą marskością wątroby/ Tak naprawdę jest śmiercią z 
tęsknoty" [Afro Kolektyw]


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

Re: [Tagging] Typo fix for tunnel=building_passage and how to proceed in the future

[Dave F]

On 10/09/2016 13:21, LeTopographeFou wrote:


By the way the subject of the mail was "Typo fix for 
tunnel=building_passage and how to proceed in the future" and not a 
discussion on which tag to choose, so I restore it to not confuse 
people. Please don't associate with my question something else ;-) .




I changed the subject so it wouldn't confuse.

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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=building_passage or covered=yes

[Dave F]

On 10/09/2016 12:43, Daniel Koć wrote:


BTW: There's also another interesting and quite established tag - 
highway=corridor, which I've found lately:


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcorridor


Oh Great Scott.
It doesn't tell anyone who can travel along it. It's useless. All 
descriptions of a highway should be in secondary tags.


Dave F.

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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=building_passage or covered=yes

[Richard]

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 11:46:36AM +0100, Dave F wrote:
> But it's *not a tunnel*

that makes 2 votes for covered=building_passage and phasing out
tunnel=building_passage

Richard

> 
> On 10/09/2016 12:23, Simone Saviolo wrote:
> >Yes, an obvious one: a building_passage *goes through a building* :)
> >
> >Semantically it is quite important to distinguish between a
> >colonnade/arcade and a building passage (BTW, also arcades and colonnades
> >have their own tag). covered=yes just implies that the building is over
> >the highway, but it might even mean that a protruding balcony "covers" the
> >way.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Simone
> >
> >2016-09-10 13:09 GMT+02:00 Dave F  >>:
> >
> >Hmm...
> >The building_passage tag (65 445) is a new one to me.
> >http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/tunnel=building_passage
> >
> >
> >Looking at the wiki it's very similar to covered=yes (254 624)
> >http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/covered
> >
> >
> >I thought there was a discussion here where it was agreed to be a
> >tunnel it would need to be below natural ground (ie a mountain or
> >river bed).
> >These 'building_passage' all appear to be at ground level.
> >
> >Is there a difference I'm not aware of?
> >
> >Dave F.
> >
> >On 10/09/2016 11:42, LeTopographeFou wrote:
> >>
> >>Hello,
> >>
> >>I've noticed several typo errors in tag values. I would like to
> >>fix them when it is obvious. When they all came from one user,
> >>it's easy to contact him and agree on a fix. When it's worldwide
> >>and multi contributors it becomes difficult to identify the right
> >>contributor for each tag and contact them one by one (unless
> >>there is a tool to say "this value for this key of this/those
> >>object(s) have been assigned by Xxx, Yyy..."). In all cases I
> >>want to document the edit in the wiki. But do I have to ask for a
> >>vote/discussion for automated typo edits? The wiki is unclear on
> >>this point.
> >>
> >>So I've made a proposal here for a first edit:
> >>
> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits/LeTopographeFou#.23002_-_Typos_with_tunnel.3Dbuilding_passage
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >>Thank you for your feedback
> >>
> >>  * vote is ok
> >>  * don't worry, document and do when it's obvious
> >>  * edit one by one/contact authors one by one
> >>  * do nothing and let the time do his work
> >>  * are you silly? automated edits are evil for typos!
> >>  * ... ?
> >>
> >>
> >>Yours,
> >>-- LeTopographeFou
> >>
> >>
> >>___
> >>Tagging mailing list
> >>Tagging@openstreetmap.org  
> >>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging  
> >> 
> >
> >
> >___
> >Tagging mailing list
> >Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >___
> >Tagging mailing list
> >Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 

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


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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=building_passage or covered=yes

[Dave F]

But it's *not a tunnel*

On 10/09/2016 12:23, Simone Saviolo wrote:

Yes, an obvious one: a building_passage *goes through a building* :)

Semantically it is quite important to distinguish between a 
colonnade/arcade and a building passage (BTW, also arcades and 
colonnades have their own tag). covered=yes just implies that the 
building is over the highway, but it might even mean that a protruding 
balcony "covers" the way.


Regards,

Simone

2016-09-10 13:09 GMT+02:00 Dave F >:


Hmm...
The building_passage tag (65 445) is a new one to me.
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/tunnel=building_passage


Looking at the wiki it's very similar to covered=yes (254 624)
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/covered


I thought there was a discussion here where it was agreed to be a
tunnel it would need to be below natural ground (ie a mountain or
river bed).
These 'building_passage' all appear to be at ground level.

Is there a difference I'm not aware of?

Dave F.

On 10/09/2016 11:42, LeTopographeFou wrote:


Hello,

I've noticed several typo errors in tag values. I would like to
fix them when it is obvious. When they all came from one user,
it's easy to contact him and agree on a fix. When it's worldwide
and multi contributors it becomes difficult to identify the right
contributor for each tag and contact them one by one (unless
there is a tool to say "this value for this key of this/those
object(s) have been assigned by Xxx, Yyy..."). In all cases I
want to document the edit in the wiki. But do I have to ask for a
vote/discussion for automated typo edits? The wiki is unclear on
this point.

So I've made a proposal here for a first edit:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits/LeTopographeFou#.23002_-_Typos_with_tunnel.3Dbuilding_passage



Thank you for your feedback

  * vote is ok
  * don't worry, document and do when it's obvious
  * edit one by one/contact authors one by one
  * do nothing and let the time do his work
  * are you silly? automated edits are evil for typos!
  * ... ?


Yours,
-- 
LeTopographeFou



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




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





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


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

Re: [Tagging] Typo fix for tunnel=building_passage and how to proceed in the future

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 10 set 2016, alle ore 15:35, "ajt1...@gmail.com" 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> In the case of "tunnel=buildig_passage" it's pretty obvious what the previous 
> mapper meant.


+1, I would expect a more detailed list which tags/typos should be corrected to 
which other tag. Just "fixing typos" can mean a lot of different things to 
different people 


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