Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

[John Willis]

Javbw

> On May 10, 2018, at 9:19 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm tagging a 'disabled parking area' - these are fairly common in my country.

I know I am just jumping in - but this is also something I am interested in. 

I know if we have a big parking lot waiting the a few disabled spots along an 
isle near the store entrance, than capacity:disabled=4 added to a normal 
parking lot is appropriate.

But the instances I am trying to map are large disabled-only lots. They 
(sometimes) have a gate that the security guard opens, allowing anyone with a 
disabled plackerd to enter. It is a separately mappable lot near the normal 
access=customers. Most of them are physically separated from any other parking 
by kerbs and shrubs. 

I really think access=disabled is appropriate for this parking lot. All others 
are denied. 

Having to map space-by-space to just show that this *lot* is disabled-only 
seems weird. 

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

Re: [Tagging] type=route tagged on a way?

[Yves]

I think that's not an error per de, but a 'add as many tag as possible to be 
sure to do thevright thing'.
I think data consumers shouldn't encourage this though.
Osm2pgsql users probably don't make a difference between a way and a relation 
if is has type=route. It could matter if other tools have to follow to properly 
exploit the data, but I don't know.
Yves 

Le 17 mai 2018 18:36:29 GMT+02:00, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au a écrit :
>Well, if this particular way of tagging things is generally supported
>by data consumers, then I would consider it a documentation error
>instead of a tagging error.
>
> 
>
>But if it’s not used by data consumers in this form (while the same
>information on a relation is), and clearly the people creating these
>tags intended them to be usable, then I would consider a tagging error.
>
> 
>
>So, yeah, I would say that “tagging error” IS in a part defined by data
>consumers.
>
> 
>
>The “correct” way of tagging something is in the end defined by a
>somewhat nebulous consensus between the way people tag and the way data
>consumers interpret that data.
>
> 
>
>From: Mateusz Konieczny  
>Sent: Friday, 18 May 2018 01:51
>To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
>
>Subject: Re: [Tagging] type=route tagged on a way?
>
> 
>
>17. May 2018 15:11 by osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au
> :
>
>So my question is, is this type of tagging actually supported by data
>consumers, or are these 9000 tagging errors?
>
> 
>
>"tagging error" is not defined by whatever something is used by data
>consumers or not
>
> 
>
>In Poland I see some route=emergency_access that seems to be OK (though
>there may be 
>
>a better way to tag this and type=route in this case is pointless).

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

Re: [Tagging] type=route tagged on a way?

[Peter Elderson]

Looks like it's done on roundabouts in Australia?

2018-05-17 15:11 GMT+02:00 :

> I’ve noticed there are 9377 cases of type=route tagged on ways instead of
> relations:
>
>
>
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/type=route
>
>
>
> I’ve been unable to find any documentation of this tagging approach on the
> wiki.
>
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Route_types_.28route.29
> seems to indicate that certain route=* values can be tagged on ways in
> addition to relations, specifically ferry, mtb, and nordic_walking.
>
>
>
> But even in that case, type=route on a way seems to be wrong?
>
>
>
> An overpass query excluding these 3 route types shows that the majority of
> these 9377 ways don’t fall into these specific route categories:
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/yTU
>
>
>
> So my question is, is this type of tagging actually supported by data
> consumers, or are these 9000 tagging errors?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Thorsten
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] type=route tagged on a way?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 17. May 2018, at 18:36,  
>  wrote:
> 
>  
> 
> So, yeah, I would say that “tagging error” IS in a part defined by data 
> consumers.
> 


I agree that type on a way is a tagging error, type is kind of a „reserved“ tag 
and should be applied only to relations. On the other hand, it doesn’t harm 
because you can see it is a way and not a relation. 

Cheers,
Martin 



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

Re: [Tagging] type=route tagged on a way?

[osm.tagging]

Well, if this particular way of tagging things is generally supported by data 
consumers, then I would consider it a documentation error instead of a tagging 
error.

 

But if it’s not used by data consumers in this form (while the same information 
on a relation is), and clearly the people creating these tags intended them to 
be usable, then I would consider a tagging error.

 

So, yeah, I would say that “tagging error” IS in a part defined by data 
consumers.

 

The “correct” way of tagging something is in the end defined by a somewhat 
nebulous consensus between the way people tag and the way data consumers 
interpret that data.

 

From: Mateusz Konieczny  
Sent: Friday, 18 May 2018 01:51
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] type=route tagged on a way?

 

17. May 2018 15:11 by osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
 :

So my question is, is this type of tagging actually supported by data 
consumers, or are these 9000 tagging errors?

 

"tagging error" is not defined by whatever something is used by data consumers 
or not

 

In Poland I see some route=emergency_access that seems to be OK (though there 
may be 

a better way to tag this and type=route in this case is pointless).

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

Re: [Tagging] type=route tagged on a way?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

17. May 2018 15:11 by osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
:
> So my question is, is this type of tagging actually supported by data 
> consumers, or are these 9000 tagging errors?




"tagging error" is not defined by whatever something is used by data consumers 
or not




In Poland I see some route=emergency_access that seems to be OK (though there 
may be 


a better way to tag this and type=route in this case is pointless).

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

[Tagging] type=route tagged on a way?

[osm.tagging]

I've noticed there are 9377 cases of type=route tagged on ways instead of
relations:

 

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/type=route

 

I've been unable to find any documentation of this tagging approach on the
wiki.

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Route_types_.28route.29
seems to indicate that certain route=* values can be tagged on ways in
addition to relations, specifically ferry, mtb, and nordic_walking.

 

But even in that case, type=route on a way seems to be wrong?

 

An overpass query excluding these 3 route types shows that the majority of
these 9377 ways don't fall into these specific route categories:
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/yTU

 

So my question is, is this type of tagging actually supported by data
consumers, or are these 9000 tagging errors?

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

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