Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

[Jo]

It's not about the 'gear'. It's about the vehicle needing to do something
that, as far as I'm concerned, is totally unexpected on a bus route. If
they put the gear in neutral and had some slaves/volunteers there that
pushed the bus backwards (and a supervisor checking they don't run anybody
over), the situation would be exactly the same (OK, that would be even more
unexpected).

Can we make do without such a role? Sure we can. I wanted to be explicit,
rather than implicit.

It's not crucial, maybe I should just drop proposing it. Good thing I
didn't waste time describing it on the wiki then.

Jo

2018-05-29 6:04 GMT+02:00 Jo :

>
>
> 2018-05-29 1:09 GMT+02:00 Graeme Fitzpatrick :
>
>> Could you fool the routers / system by inserting an imaginary
>> mini-roundabout at the end of the cul-de-sac?
>>
>> That way the router would think that the bus drives in, goes round the
>> roundabout, then drives out again.
>>
>> Include a note that the roundabout doesn't actually exist, but is only
>> shown for this reason, so that other mappers don't then keep deleting it!
>>
>
> I really fail to see why would have to add data that doesn't exist,
> instead of describing exactly what is happening.
>
> We're talking abtout PT v2.
>
> This is the route relation:  https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/
> 7620346
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

[Jo]

2018-05-29 1:09 GMT+02:00 Graeme Fitzpatrick :

> Could you fool the routers / system by inserting an imaginary
> mini-roundabout at the end of the cul-de-sac?
>
> That way the router would think that the bus drives in, goes round the
> roundabout, then drives out again.
>
> Include a note that the roundabout doesn't actually exist, but is only
> shown for this reason, so that other mappers don't then keep deleting it!
>

I really fail to see why would have to add data that doesn't exist, instead
of describing exactly what is happening.

We're talking abtout PT v2.

This is the route relation:  https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7620346
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

[Andrew Davidson]

Are we talking about PTv1 or PTv2?

On 28/5/18 23:24, Jo wrote:

Hi,

A few days ago I helped Paul Allen with mapping some bus routes. During one
of these itineraries, the bus has to do something totally counterintuitive,
twice!


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

Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

[Johnparis]

Not a bad suggestion, but I think the point is that the driver uses reverse
gear.

The route should validate just fine, at least in JOSM. The question is
whether others will stomp on it, which is precisely what the note=* tag is
for. You could add it to the route itself, not just the way, if you think
it's a real risk.

I still can't imagine why the gear the driver uses would make the slightest
difference to the data consumer, but if you really think it's important to
use a non-standard role, I would again suggest reverse_gear rather than
reverse. The way is not traversed in a reverse direction; it is traversed
twice in opposite directions.

It would be helpful to post the route here so we can have an idea of what
we're discussing :)

John


On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 1:09 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Could you fool the routers / system by inserting an imaginary
> mini-roundabout at the end of the cul-de-sac?
>
> That way the router would think that the bus drives in, goes round the
> roundabout, then drives out again.
>
> Include a note that the roundabout doesn't actually exist, but is only
> shown for this reason, so that other mappers don't then keep deleting it!
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> On 29 May 2018 at 07:00, Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 8:38 PM, Jo  wrote:
>>
>>> I have also mapped many routes with loops, lollipops/spoons where the
>>> same ways are traversed multiple times. But I had not encountered a route
>>> where the bus needs to do parts driving backwards. I think this is mostly
>>> avoided because it's (obviously) a dangerous maneuver. (and I would say
>>> especially if you have to do it multiple times per day)
>>>
>>
>> On a tertiary road which was a through way it might be dangerous.  This
>> is a cul-de-sac which is a residential road
>> hanging off a residential road which itself hangs off a residential
>> road.  The bus going past is the high point of the
>> day. :)
>>
>> As for suggestions that it could be handled with note=*, data consumers
>> don't read notes (and mappers might not
>> read them either, even if the editor highlights them).  Mappers stand a
>> better chance of reading a description, but
>> consumers still won't see them.  However, the actual route shown on the
>> map indicates that there is something
>> unusual going on at that point.
>>
>> --
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] new role for route relations: reverse

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Could you fool the routers / system by inserting an imaginary
mini-roundabout at the end of the cul-de-sac?

That way the router would think that the bus drives in, goes round the
roundabout, then drives out again.

Include a note that the roundabout doesn't actually exist, but is only
shown for this reason, so that other mappers don't then keep deleting it!

Thanks

Graeme

On 29 May 2018 at 07:00, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 8:38 PM, Jo  wrote:
>
>> I have also mapped many routes with loops, lollipops/spoons where the
>> same ways are traversed multiple times. But I had not encountered a route
>> where the bus needs to do parts driving backwards. I think this is mostly
>> avoided because it's (obviously) a dangerous maneuver. (and I would say
>> especially if you have to do it multiple times per day)
>>
>
> On a tertiary road which was a through way it might be dangerous.  This is
> a cul-de-sac which is a residential road
> hanging off a residential road which itself hangs off a residential road.
> The bus going past is the high point of the
> day. :)
>
> As for suggestions that it could be handled with note=*, data consumers
> don't read notes (and mappers might not
> read them either, even if the editor highlights them).  Mappers stand a
> better chance of reading a description, but
> consumers still won't see them.  However, the actual route shown on the
> map indicates that there is something
> unusual going on at that point.
>
> --
> Paul
>
>
> ___
> 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] RFC proposed water property key 'ephemeral '

[Warin]

On 29/05/18 01:47, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:




28. May 2018 02:22 by 61sundow...@gmail.com 
:


Why not add the tag water=yes to all waterways and lakes etc?


Because it adds no useful info?



Adding intermittent=yes to seasonal=yes adds no usefull information either.

The seasonal=yes says it is non perennial all by it self.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] random lawns and uncontrolled shrubs tagged as leisure=garden

[Mateusz Konieczny]

28. May 2018 19:33 by pelder...@gmail.com :


> What would be the appropriate tagging for those areas? (Over here, there's 
> usually a deserted wastedump or an unexploded WW1- bomb underneath, but 
> that's another discussion).




In my mapping I would use landuse=residential, if somebody really wants to 
provide further

detail I would recommend landcover/natural tags.

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

Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 8:38 PM, Jo  wrote:

> I have also mapped many routes with loops, lollipops/spoons where the same
> ways are traversed multiple times. But I had not encountered a route where
> the bus needs to do parts driving backwards. I think this is mostly avoided
> because it's (obviously) a dangerous maneuver. (and I would say especially
> if you have to do it multiple times per day)
>

On a tertiary road which was a through way it might be dangerous.  This is
a cul-de-sac which is a residential road
hanging off a residential road which itself hangs off a residential road.
The bus going past is the high point of the
day. :)

As for suggestions that it could be handled with note=*, data consumers
don't read notes (and mappers might not
read them either, even if the editor highlights them).  Mappers stand a
better chance of reading a description, but
consumers still won't see them.  However, the actual route shown on the map
indicates that there is something
unusual going on at that point.

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

Re: [Tagging] marking shop as street vendor

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

open_air_vendor and outdoor_vendor are also problematic as my intention
>
> was to include also vendors  that operate under roofs and I expect that in
>
> some places there are pernament shops that are outdoors.
>
I'd say that open_air and outdoor are equally applicable to areas that have
rooves but lack sides.  A roof may provide protection from rain but it
doesn't
provide protection from rain.  Or from thieves.

and something like
>
> dismantable_vendor=yes or disappearing_vendor=yes or may_be_not_present=*
>
> and my other ideas were even worse.
>
The wording could be better.  And I'd go for outdoor_vender=something rather
than proliferate tags.  What those words would be don't immediately spring
to
mind, but I expect somebody will think of something (if there's actually
value to
mapping it in the first place).

There's something else to consider.  Seasonal kiosks.  There's a kiosk in my
town that sells tickets for boat trips.  The kiosk is there overnight and
has doors/
windows that can be locked (but I wouldn't leave anything valuable in it
unattended).  At some times of year it's not there at all.  It doesn't
count as
open_air or outdoor, but it's a street vendor.

It all gets so complicated.

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

Re: [Tagging] random lawns and uncontrolled shrubs tagged as leisure=garden

[Yves]

Mateusz, I don't know if you have a garden yourself, but more than often people 
have plans fot their lot, without been able to realize them :)
On the other side of the transat chair, there's also people enjoying some 
wilderness in their garden.
Honestly, I won't judge the gardening talent of the owners of the lots you 
depicted.
Yves 

Le 28 mai 2018 17:54:30 GMT+02:00, Mateusz Konieczny  
a écrit :
>Currently garden on wiki at 
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden
> is described
>as
>not just any place where plants grow but as requiring it at least
>planned.
>
>Despite that people frequently use it for areas that include nothing
>more
>than standard lawns (like at 
>https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tiny_homes_-_Davey_Crescent_-_geograph.org.uk_-_755400.jpg
>
>) or areas overgrown with random plants ( 
>https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rusinovo_dacha_02j.JPG
> 
>or 
>https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:J8320fvfRealdeCacarong_04.JPG
>
>) and generally places that does not indicate that there was any
>attempt
>to create "distinguishable planned space, usually outdoors, set aside 
>for the display, cultivation, and enjoyment of plants and other forms 
>of nature" (like 
>https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tiny-house-005.JPG
>
>).
>
>Due to popularity of this kind of tagging I will edit
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden
>
>to mention that such areas do not qualify for leisure=garden 
>(I am posting also here to make sure that my edit will be verified).

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

Re: [Tagging] random lawns and uncontrolled shrubs tagged as leisure=garden

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 28. May 2018, at 17:54, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> Currently garden on wiki at 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden is described as
> not just any place where plants grow but as requiring it at least planned.
> 
> Despite that people frequently use it for areas that include nothing more
> than standard lawns (like at 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tiny_homes_-_Davey_Crescent_-_geograph.org.uk_-_755400.jpg
> ) 



leisure=garden is used for different kind of gardens, there is a sub 
categorization available with garden:style and garden:type
most garden:types are residential: 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/garden:type#values

For this kind of garden my criterion would be that it belongs to a 
residence/dwelling. I would not insist that the garden structure is planned 
(but generally the fact that there is a space dedicated as a garden, will be 
planned).

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

Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

[Johnparis]

Replying specifically to this point:


*Sure, renderers and routers might cope with the bus going to point X and
magically*


*switching its direction of travel by 180 degrees but it's a bit puzzling
for dataconsumers.  Does the bus go out of service there?  Is it a
terminus?  Has the mapper*

*made a big mistake in the route?  Did some other mapper come along
andaccidentally delete part of the route?  Etc.*

I have mapped a fairly significant number of routes where exactly that
happens. The bus enters a way and exits the way, traversing it twice. It
seems to me to be nothing out of the ordinary.

But if this might really be a problem for consumers, you could add a
description=* tag to the way rather than the note=* that I suggested. If
this is the main reason for the proposed role, I would not be in favor of
it. The second traversal is not really "reverse" in any sense. The
traverses the way forward (south to north, say) the first time and the
other direction (north to south) the second time. The traversals are
consecutive. Totally normal in my view.






On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 3:40 PM, Erkin Alp Güney 
> wrote:
>
>> Does it have any stops in the street it reverses into?
>
>
> Not that I've seen.  But if somebody asked to get off there I'm fairly
> sure that most of the
> drivers would permit it.  And since it backs as far as a bench, I'm also
> fairly sure most
> drivers would let somebody sat on the bench waiting for the bus to board
> there.
>
>
>> If not, it is not formally a part of the route and just a convention.
>>
>
> Yes, but without it the route involves a role called "magic_turntable."
>
> If this were an end of route turnaround at a terminus then it's not
> mappable.  What
> happens when passengers are not on board and the bus is technically out of
> service
> are not part of the route.  But this is done with passengers on board in
> the middle of
> the route.
>
> Sure, renderers and routers might cope with the bus going to point X and
> magically
> switching its direction of travel by 180 degrees but it's a bit puzzling
> for data
> consumers.  Does the bus go out of service there?  Is it a terminus?  Has
> the mapper
> made a big mistake in the route?  Did some other mapper come along and
> accidentally delete part of the route?  Etc.
>
> Unless having role=reverse is going to cause big problems for renderers or
> routers I don't see any problem with having it.  I doubt it's going to get
> used
> often, so it's not a problem regarding data storage.  But I could be wrong.
>
> --
> Paul
>
>
> ___
> 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] new role for route relations: reverse

[Mateusz Konieczny]

28. May 2018 18:09 by pla16...@gmail.com :


> Sure, renderers and routers might cope with the bus going to point X and 
> magically
> switching its direction of travel by 180 degrees but it's a bit puzzling for 
> data
> consumers.  Does the bus go out of service there?  Is it a terminus?  Has the 
> mapper
> made a big mistake in the route?  Did some other mapper come along and
> accidentally delete part of the route?  Etc.




I would expect it to be more useful for other mappers than to data consumers.




Hopefully that addition will not break any data consumers.

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

Re: [Tagging] random lawns and uncontrolled shrubs tagged as leisure=garden

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 28. May 2018, at 17:54, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> and generally places that does not indicate that there was any attempt
> to create "distinguishable planned space, usually outdoors, set aside 
> for the display, cultivation, and enjoyment of plants and other forms 
> of nature" (like 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tiny-house-005.JPG
> ).


in this particular example there is actually something you might call garden: 
you can see a subtle demarcation set up with local stones in the foreground.

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

Re: [Tagging] random lawns and uncontrolled shrubs tagged as leisure=garden

[Peter Elderson]

What would be the appropriate tagging for those areas? (Over here, there's
usually a deserted wastedump or an unexploded WW1- bomb underneath, but
that's another discussion).

2018-05-28 17:54 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> Currently garden on wiki at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden is described as
> not just any place where plants grow but as requiring it at least planned.
>
> Despite that people frequently use it for areas that include nothing more
> than standard lawns (like at
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tiny_homes_-_Davey_
> Crescent_-_geograph.org.uk_-_755400.jpg
> ) or areas overgrown with random plants (
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rusinovo_dacha_02j.JPG
> or
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:J8320fvfRealdeCacarong_04.JPG
> ) and generally places that does not indicate that there was any attempt
> to create "distinguishable planned space, usually outdoors, set aside
> for the display, cultivation, and enjoyment of plants and other forms
> of nature" (like
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tiny-house-005.JPG
> ).
>
> Due to popularity of this kind of tagging I will edit
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden
> to mention that such areas do not qualify for leisure=garden
> (I am posting also here to make sure that my edit will be verified).
>
> ___
> 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] Seasonal, intermittent, and ephemeral water tags

[Selfish Seahorse]

On 28 May 2018 at 17:51, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> You may dislike this tagging scheme but  seasonal=yes + intermittent=yes
>
> is not unclear.
>
>
> It means that
>
> - presence is not pernament
>
> - presence is seasonal

You are right. Stupid me ...

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

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[Alan Grant]

>
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 14:46:09 +0200
> From: Peter Elderson 
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] roundtrip
> Message-ID:
>  gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Nice to know.
> Do they have "trailheads" as well? That is, areas with amenities like
> parking space, bicycle clamps, toilets, guideposts, infoboards, ice  cream
> vending spot, waste containers, horse food dispenser, soda machines,
> blister service, ... well, some of of those anyway, clearly meant as
> starting/ending point of one or more trails? I'm told there are official
> trailheads in the United States, and we have those in Nederland as well,
> called TOP's.
>
>
In Ireland the only thing I would typically expect to find at the official
start point of a trail is an information board. The other things can be
found in some cases, but only if the trail starts somewhere that has these
amenities for other reasons (e.g. a park, castle or other tourist
attraction). I have never heard of a blister service! When I map hiking
trails I try to map the information board if there is one, as well as
mapping the relation. I often find the other amenities, if they exists,
have already been mapped by non-hikers.

I'd say it is pretty much the same in the south of Spain where I also hike
a bit, except for the famous Caminito del Rey where entry is controlled by
tickets with timed entry slots. This is truly a oneway route. It is not
just that the waymarks only point one way: it is actually prohibited to go
backwards. You enter by the northern end and are expected to emerge at the
southern end.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC proposed water property key 'ephemeral '

[Alan Grant]

>
> > From: Mateusz Konieczny 
>
> > I consider it as an useful information to distinguish permanent
> waterways and waterbodies
>
> > from nonpernament.
>

I agree. As a point of reference, the standard 1:25000 topographic maps of
Spain produced by IGN, the national geographic institute, distinguishes
between these two categories of water course. In the legend they are
labelled as "curso de agua: permanente, intermitente". I think that is a
good indication that this is a meaningful distinction. And I believe it is
very similar to how things are already mapped in OSM.

It is fine to give mappers ways to add finer details of seasonality,
ephemerality and so on, but the basic distinction that already exists seems
to be useful in its own right.

As an aside, dictionary definitions of "intermittent" tend to say something
like  "occurring occasionally or at regular or irregular intervals" (example
from Collins) which covers all forms of non-permanence, seasonal or
otherwise. So current OSM usage of the tag, as well as being meaningful and
useful, matches usage in everyday English.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 3:40 PM, Erkin Alp Güney 
wrote:

> Does it have any stops in the street it reverses into?


Not that I've seen.  But if somebody asked to get off there I'm fairly sure
that most of the
drivers would permit it.  And since it backs as far as a bench, I'm also
fairly sure most
drivers would let somebody sat on the bench waiting for the bus to board
there.


> If not, it is not formally a part of the route and just a convention.
>

Yes, but without it the route involves a role called "magic_turntable."

If this were an end of route turnaround at a terminus then it's not
mappable.  What
happens when passengers are not on board and the bus is technically out of
service
are not part of the route.  But this is done with passengers on board in
the middle of
the route.

Sure, renderers and routers might cope with the bus going to point X and
magically
switching its direction of travel by 180 degrees but it's a bit puzzling
for data
consumers.  Does the bus go out of service there?  Is it a terminus?  Has
the mapper
made a big mistake in the route?  Did some other mapper come along and
accidentally delete part of the route?  Etc.

Unless having role=reverse is going to cause big problems for renderers or
routers I don't see any problem with having it.  I doubt it's going to get
used
often, so it's not a problem regarding data storage.  But I could be wrong.

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

[Tagging] random lawns and uncontrolled shrubs tagged as leisure=garden

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Currently garden on wiki at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden 
 is described as
not just any place where plants grow but as requiring it at least planned.

Despite that people frequently use it for areas that include nothing more
than standard lawns (like at 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tiny_homes_-_Davey_Crescent_-_geograph.org.uk_-_755400.jpg
 

) or areas overgrown with random plants ( 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rusinovo_dacha_02j.JPG 
 
or 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:J8320fvfRealdeCacarong_04.JPG 

) and generally places that does not indicate that there was any attempt
to create "distinguishable planned space, usually outdoors, set aside 
for the display, cultivation, and enjoyment of plants and other forms 
of nature" (like 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tiny-house-005.JPG 

).

Due to popularity of this kind of tagging I will edit
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden 

to mention that such areas do not qualify for leisure=garden 
(I am posting also here to make sure that my edit will be verified).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Seasonal, intermittent, and ephemeral water tags

[Mateusz Konieczny]

28. May 2018 13:56 by selfishseaho...@gmail.com 
:


> On 26 May 2018 at 15:27, Tod Fitch <> t...@fitchdesign.com 
> > > wrote:
>> ... So something like
>>
>> waterway=* (or natural=spring | water )
>> presence=perennial | seasonal | intermittent | ephemeral
>>
>> If the presence is seasonal, then the existing seasonal=* could be used to
>> describe what times of year the item is normally present.
>
> This seems to be a good idea, as unclear or contradictory tag
> combinations (like seasonal=yes + intermittent=yes) would not be
> possible.
>




You may dislike this tagging scheme but  seasonal=yes + intermittent=yes

is not unclear.




It means that  


- presence is not pernament

- presence is seasonal

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC proposed water property key 'ephemeral '

[Mateusz Konieczny]

28. May 2018 02:22 by 61sundow...@gmail.com :


> Why not add the tag water=yes to all waterways and lakes etc?
>




Because it adds no useful info?

 


> About as usefull as the tag intermittent now as it means any waterway that 
> might not have water in it .. at any time.
>
> Most waterways dry up in droughts .. so even those waterways regarded as 
> perennial can now be tagged intermittent.
>




Everything tagged in OSM is not true in extreme situation. Car crash may cause 
passable road to

not be passable, tunnel may be blocked by an avalanche, shop may be closed 
during strike,

waterway may have no water during unusual extreme drought or during some weird

hydro-engineering like dropping outflow from a dam to zero.


 

> So I now regard the intermittent tag as having no usefull information




I consider it as an useful information to distinguish permanent waterways and 
waterbodies

from nonpernament.

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

Re: [Tagging] Rock outcrops in forest

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 28. May 2018, at 14:50, Christoph Hormann  wrote:
> 
> But creating two separate geometries to document different properties of 
> the same real world objects, like the ground conditions in a 
> wood/forest, is both pretty pointless and against OSM principles.  


there are no such things as real world objects, it is all just a model of 
perception of the world, and whether the ground vegetation of a forest is 
better mapped with a different object as the trees, or together, can not be 
answered by counting “real world objects”. The “one thing one osm object”- rule 
is pointless, because the free tagging allows for infinite “things” / ways to 
look at the world.


The answer to primary vs. secondary depends on the question.

cheers,
Martin 


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

Re: [Tagging] marking shop as street vendor

[Mateusz Konieczny]

28. May 2018 01:07 by pla16...@gmail.com :


> On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 11:49 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick <> graemefi...@gmail.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> So for clarification, when there's a market that only operates on eg 
>> Saturday mornings >> 
>> https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.0861864,153.4491747,3a,75y,247.72h,87.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saCnCOKIP7GoJVWDi7JZ0yg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
>>  
>> >>
>>  , which is tagged in OSM as amenity=marketplace; opening_hours=those >> 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-28.08616/153.44888 
>> >> , should that 
>> also be tagged as street vendors, or not, as they're not actually on the 
>> "street", but are set-up under tents / pergolas etc on the School oval?
>> Same thing when the market is in a public park - street vendor or not?
>
> I'd say the same answer applies to both.  If the stalls have assigned 
> locations (rather than being placed at
> random) and the same vendor gets the same location each time then the tag 
> street_vendor would apply
> even though they're not on a street.  Arguably we need a better name for a 
> tag that covers those situations
> as well as those given in the original proposal.  But I suspect that if I 
> proposed ephemeral_vendor or
> intermittent_vendor the debate could drag on for years.  I'd suggest 
> open_air_vendor but it's stretching
> things a bit when you consider mobile catering vans.  How about 
> outdoor_vendor?
>




open_air_vendor and outdoor_vendor are also problematic as my intention

was to include also vendors  that operate under roofs and I expect that in 


some places there are pernament shops that are outdoors.




 

and something like




dismantable_vendor=yes or disappearing_vendor=yes or may_be_not_present=* 


and my other ideas were even worse.

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

Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Jo  wrote:

>
> A few days ago I helped Paul Allen with mapping some bus routes.
>

For which, many thanks.  I have a few more questions about that route (I'll
contact you privately), because it's
*weird*


> During one of these itineraries, the bus has to do something totally
> counterintuitive, twice!
>

Actually, what the bus does is entirely intuitive.  What isn't intuitive is
why they planned the route that
way in the first place.  :)


> For the streets where the bus backs up in reverse, I would like to add a
> role=reverse. This should not conflict with the recently proposed
> role hail-and-ride, as I can't imagine one would be able to board the
> vehicle while it's backing up. It will always be on a way that is in the
> relation twice, so hail-and-ride can still be set on those ways where the
> bus drives forward.
>

It's strange that you should mention hail and ride.  Once it gets out of
the town centre, that route does indeed
operate as hail and ride.  I'm not sure if that is officially condoned by
the county council or the bus operator,
but that's what the drivers do.  But you're right about not conflicting
because the segments marked as
reverse also have to be traversed in a forward direction so a passenger
could board or alight on that segment
anyway.

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

Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

[Erkin Alp Güney]

Does it have any stops in the street it reverses into? If not, it is not
formally a part of the route and just a convention.




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

[Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

[Jo]

Hi,

A few days ago I helped Paul Allen with mapping some bus routes. During one
of these itineraries, the bus has to do something totally counterintuitive,
twice!
It has to back up in reverse to get out of a cul-de-sac. The obvious way to
solve this to me is to double the way it starts reversing on, then the side
street it backs in to, then that side street again and then the sequence of
streets it followed into that pickle in reverse order.

For the streets where the bus backs up in reverse, I would like to add a
role=reverse. This should not conflict with the recently proposed
role hail-and-ride, as I can't imagine one would be able to board the
vehicle while it's backing up. It will always be on a way that is in the
relation twice, so hail-and-ride can still be set on those ways where the
bus drives forward.

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

Re: [Tagging] Rock outcrops in forest

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 28 May 2018, Ture Pålsson wrote:
> >
> > landuse=residential and landuse:secondary=retail is what is
> > happening on the ground in some places.
>
> Random thoughts:
>
> Does this really buy anything compared to overlapping polygons
> (except, obviously, where the polygons are coincident, in which case
> it saves a polygon)?

It was not my intention to push this idea here or to advocate a 
particular use case.  If you as a mapper find it useful then use it, 
otherwise don't.

But creating two separate geometries to document different properties of 
the same real world objects, like the ground conditions in a 
wood/forest, is both pretty pointless and against OSM principles.  And 
semantically it is not clear in such a case which geometry represents 
the primary characterization of the area (what the area *is* so to 
speak) and which is a secondary characterization.

In general the meaning of overlapping polygon geometries is - with the 
exception of some situations where both geometries are clearly on 
different semantic levels - fairly undefined in OSM.  In many map 
styles including the standard style most land based area types that are 
rendered are sorted by size meaning that small polygons are interpreted 
as superseeding large geometries in meaning if they overlap.  But this 
is not a rule you can rely on.  So as a general rule for mapping: If 
you want to be clear and non-ambiguous you should typically avoid 
overlapping geometries of different feature types of the same or 
similar semantic levels.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[Peter Elderson]

Nice to know.
Do they have "trailheads" as well? That is, areas with amenities like
parking space, bicycle clamps, toilets, guideposts, infoboards, ice  cream
vending spot, waste containers, horse food dispenser, soda machines,
blister service, ... well, some of of those anyway, clearly meant as
starting/ending point of one or more trails? I'm told there are official
trailheads in the United States, and we have those in Nederland as well,
called TOP's.

2018-05-28 13:02 GMT+02:00 Alan Grant :

>
>>
>> I agree that it sounds round, but looking at google results I find that
>> this use of circular route is extremely common.
>>
>>
> That doesn't surprise me in the context of hiking/cycling trails (I am not
> commenting on public transport). A specific example I am familiar with: the
> national organisation responsible for trails in the Republic of Ireland (
> irishtrails.ie) systematically labels trails as either "format: linear"
> or "format: circular". Its counterpart in Northern Ireland (walkni.com)
> similarly uses "route shape: linear" or "route shape: circular".
>
> Of course many of the linear trails are far from a geometric straight
> line, and the circular trails often do not resemble geometric circles.
> Readers are trusted to understand that "circular" means that if you follow
> the waymarks for the stated distance, you will return to the same point
> without backtracking on your own footsteps (or not much, often there may be
> a short section at the start that is covered in both directions). While
> "linear" means that if you walk the official distance you will end up some
> way from your start point. It may well be possible to return by the same
> route, but that would mean covering twice the official distance.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Seasonal, intermittent, and ephemeral water tags

[Selfish Seahorse]

On 26 May 2018 at 15:27, Tod Fitch  wrote:
> ... So something like
>
> waterway=* (or natural=spring | water )
> presence=perennial | seasonal | intermittent | ephemeral
>
> If the presence is seasonal, then the existing seasonal=* could be used to
> describe what times of year the item is normally present.

This seems to be a good idea, as unclear or contradictory tag
combinations (like seasonal=yes + intermittent=yes) would not be
possible.

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

Re: [Tagging] marking shop as street vendor

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 12:37 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> Would you tag the entire area eg https://www.google.com/
> maps/@-28.0641793,153.4386994,81m/data=!3m1!1e3 as outdoor_vendor
> though?, or is that considered implicit in it being a marketplace?
>

My understanding (which may be totally wrong) of the proposal is that
outdoor_vendor applies to
individual "shops."  I see "marketplace" as being one of several collective
nouns for outdoor_vendor/
street_vendor/whatever_we_call_it_vendor.  So, a marketplace of outdoor
vendors; a street of outdoor
vendors, a public square of outdoor vendors, etc.

Then again, maybe it's useful to be able to apply the tag to an area where
outdoor vendors congregate
but are not assigned permanent plots.  Or maybe we need a different tag (or
at least a different value
for the tag) to distinguish that case.

Having thought about it some more, maybe we need something more than =yes
to distinguish between
things like food vans that are driven away overnight and things like the
market stalls I posted pictures of
where the structures are fixed but the goods for sale are removed
overnight.  In the first case if you look
at night you won't see any sign that a vendor is ever there; in the second
case you see a structure but
(without map info) don't know what it sells.

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

Re: [Tagging] Rock outcrops in forest

[Ture Pålsson]

2018-05-28 02:00 skrev Warin:

[ ... ]
Actually there are large areas that have flats/apartments with the
ground floor as shops ... so the suggested

landuse=residential and landuse:secondary=retail is what is happening
on the ground in some places.


Random thoughts:

Does this really buy anything compared to overlapping polygons (except, 
obviously, where the polygons are coincident, in which case it saves a 
polygon)?


I’m a bit nervous that primary/secodary/tertiary is a bit too fuzzy. In 
a city, primary is street level, secondary is above, while in the 
forest, primary is the forest and secondary is what’s on the floor?


With linear objects, such as streets, we gladly chop them into umpteen 
pieces to put the right tags on each piece (this bit is no-parking, this 
stretch is a pedestrian zone, those 50 meters are one-way, all of them 
are named "Main Street"). Do we want to do that for polygons as well 
(extreme case: for every point on the surface of the planet, there is 
exactly one polygon that covers that point and holds *all* the tags that 
apply at that point) or do we want to work with overlapping polygons?



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

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[Alan Grant]

>
>
>
> I agree that it sounds round, but looking at google results I find that
> this use of circular route is extremely common.
>
>
That doesn't surprise me in the context of hiking/cycling trails (I am not
commenting on public transport). A specific example I am familiar with: the
national organisation responsible for trails in the Republic of Ireland (
irishtrails.ie) systematically labels trails as either "format: linear" or
"format: circular". Its counterpart in Northern Ireland (walkni.com)
similarly uses "route shape: linear" or "route shape: circular".

Of course many of the linear trails are far from a geometric straight line,
and the circular trails often do not resemble geometric circles. Readers
are trusted to understand that "circular" means that if you follow the
waymarks for the stated distance, you will return to the same point without
backtracking on your own footsteps (or not much, often there may be a short
section at the start that is covered in both directions). While "linear"
means that if you walk the official distance you will end up some way from
your start point. It may well be possible to return by the same route, but
that would mean covering twice the official distance.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 28. May 2018, at 11:04, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I don't think 'circular' is the best word... implies round .. and at least 
> some are not round. 
> continuous_route?
> looped_route?


continuous is less clear, loop might be ok, but circular_route IMHO doesn’t 
imply a geometric circle, the same a round trip doesn’t describe a geometry 
that is „round“


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

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[Wiklund Johan]

AFAIK Transmodel uses these terms:

- Linear: A simple linear path from an origin stop to a destination stop. It 
may be exactly symmetric i.e. be
traversed to matching stop pairs in the outbound and inbound direction. Or 
asymmetric – with differences
in the stop sequences in each direction.
- Circular : A path that returns to the origin stop as the destination. It then 
may continue round repeatedly.
There may be symmetric or asymmetric services in the clockwise or anticlockwise 
direction. The
destinations shown for such routes may vary along the way.
- Lollipop: A path that goes round a loop one way at the outbound destination 
end and then returns past
the same stops on the inbound path.
- Cloverleaf: A path that returns repeatedly to the same stop.
- Branching: Alternate paths that go one or other alternative way at either end 
of the journey.
- Eye: Alternate paths that go one or other alternative way round an 
intermediate section of the route.

From: Warin [mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com]
Sent: mandag 28. mai 2018 11.04
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

I don't think 'circular' is the best word... implies round .. and at least some 
are not round.
continuous_route?
looped_route?



On 28/05/18 18:24, Peter Elderson wrote:
I think for waymarked circular trails the UK English meaning is not too far 
off. The waymarks and often available map/leaflet/booklet/description do indeed 
bring you back to the starting point. (Remember the walking_bus discussion?)

Having said that, I think circular_route is more to-the-point, it targets the 
route itself instead of the service. I have asked the Dutch community for input 
on retagging roundtrip=yes (for foot/hiking/cycling routes) to 
circular_route=yes, and using closed_loop=yes for the purpose of validation.

2018-05-28 10:01 GMT+02:00 Jo >:
I only saw the discussion in this thread, came to the conclusion I (and 
probably many other Dutch and German speakers) had interpreted the meaning 
completely wrong.

The tag is indeed meaningless, as it stands. Especially for public transport, 
where it really doesn't matter. We're describing itineraries. For 
hiking/cycling it's a misnomer. So it would be good to phase it out.

What I'm trying to accomplish, while we're doing that is to not only replace it 
with circular_route, to indicate intent, but to also add a tag that validators 
can use to perform validation.

Jo

2018-05-28 9:54 GMT+02:00 Volker Schmidt 
>:
Have you seen the discussion on the roundtrip tag [1]?
It looks as if there are two different roundtrip concepts in use:
For hiking or cycling routes it means that the route you follow brings you back 
to the starting point with the outwards route and the return route (mostly) 
different.
in a traffic service round trip is often used to indicate a service "there and 
back"
"roundtrip=yes|no" is an unfortunate choice of key as it has wo meanings, 
mainly ccording to which side of the Atlantic Ocean you are. but its in use 
about 25k times.
It might have been better to have something like "loop=yes|no" for hiking and 
cycling routes.
For bus|underground|tram lines it might have been better to use something like 
"geometry=linear|circular|..." for transportation routes.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:roundtrip

On 28 May 2018 at 08:52, Jo > 
wrote:
From what I gathered during this discussion, roundtrip is mostly understood and 
used wrongly by mappers.

It's also not something about the route, but rather about a passenger who buys 
a ticket to come back the same way the same day/weekend and paying the return 
fare on the same ticket (aller/retour - heen- en terug).

So I went and downloaded all objects tagged with roundtrip. The one I changed 
needed major clean up in its members anyway.

So how do we get from a meaningless tag (roundtrip) to something that actually 
has meaning for itineraries?

I think that on the one hand we need a tag to describe what the user can expect 
(get back to approximate initial position) and on the other hand it would be 
nice (for validation purposes) to know if the ways in the relation are supposed 
to form a closed loop.

hence:
circular_route=yes
closed_loop=no

for that particular bus route.

Polyglot

2018-05-28 7:47 GMT+02:00 
>:
The real question, which as far as I can tell you haven’t answered, is: Does 
that same vehicle, after completing its route, start at the beginning of the 
same route again?

Based on your description, the route as mapped is A1->B->C->D->E->A2.

Can I get on at E, stay on the vehicle, and get off at B? (In which case I 
would expect that after finishing at A2, the vehicle goes to A1, and you can 
remain on board during that time. A2 may be (but doesn’t have to) an “exit 
only” and A1 and 

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[Peter Elderson]

I agree that it sounds round, but looking at google results I find that
this use of circular route is extremely common.

2018-05-28 11:04 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> I don't think 'circular' is the best word... implies round .. and at least
> some are not round.
> continuous_route?
> looped_route?
>
>
>
> On 28/05/18 18:24, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
> I think for waymarked circular trails the UK English meaning is not too
> far off. The waymarks and often available map/leaflet/booklet/description
> do indeed bring you back to the starting point. (Remember the walking_bus
> discussion?)
>
> Having said that, I think circular_route is more to-the-point, it targets
> the route itself instead of the service. I have asked the Dutch community
> for input on retagging roundtrip=yes (for foot/hiking/cycling routes) to
> circular_route=yes, and using closed_loop=yes for the purpose of validation.
>
> 2018-05-28 10:01 GMT+02:00 Jo :
>
>> I only saw the discussion in this thread, came to the conclusion I (and
>> probably many other Dutch and German speakers) had interpreted the meaning
>> completely wrong.
>>
>> The tag is indeed meaningless, as it stands. Especially for public
>> transport, where it really doesn't matter. We're describing itineraries.
>> For hiking/cycling it's a misnomer. So it would be good to phase it out.
>>
>> What I'm trying to accomplish, while we're doing that is to not only
>> replace it with circular_route, to indicate intent, but to also add a tag
>> that validators can use to perform validation.
>>
>> Jo
>>
>> 2018-05-28 9:54 GMT+02:00 Volker Schmidt :
>>
>>> Have you seen the discussion on the roundtrip tag [1]?
>>> It looks as if there are two different roundtrip concepts in use:
>>> For hiking or cycling routes it means that the route you follow brings
>>> you back to the starting point with the outwards route and the return route
>>> (mostly) different.
>>> in a traffic service round trip is often used to indicate a service
>>> "there and back"
>>> "roundtrip=yes|no" is an unfortunate choice of key as it has wo
>>> meanings, mainly ccording to which side of the Atlantic Ocean you are. but
>>> its in use about 25k times.
>>> It might have been better to have something like "loop=yes|no" for
>>> hiking and cycling routes.
>>> For bus|underground|tram lines it might have been better to use
>>> something like "geometry=linear|circular|..." for transportation routes.
>>>
>>> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:roundtrip
>>>
>>> On 28 May 2018 at 08:52, Jo  wrote:
>>>
 From what I gathered during this discussion, roundtrip is mostly
 understood and used wrongly by mappers.

 It's also not something about the route, but rather about a passenger
 who buys a ticket to come back the same way the same day/weekend and paying
 the return fare on the same ticket (aller/retour - heen- en terug).

 So I went and downloaded all objects tagged with roundtrip. The one I
 changed needed major clean up in its members anyway.

 So how do we get from a meaningless tag (roundtrip) to something that
 actually has meaning for itineraries?

 I think that on the one hand we need a tag to describe what the user
 can expect (get back to approximate initial position) and on the other hand
 it would be nice (for validation purposes) to know if the ways in the
 relation are supposed to form a closed loop.

 hence:
 circular_route=yes
 closed_loop=no

 for that particular bus route.

 Polyglot

 2018-05-28 7:47 GMT+02:00 :

> The real question, which as far as I can tell you haven’t answered,
> is: Does that same vehicle, after completing its route, start at the
> beginning of the same route again?
>
>
>
> Based on your description, the route as mapped is A1->B->C->D->E->A2.
>
>
>
> Can I get on at E, stay on the vehicle, and get off at B? (In which
> case I would expect that after finishing at A2, the vehicle goes to A1, 
> and
> you can remain on board during that time. A2 may be (but doesn’t have to)
> an “exit only” and A1 and “entry only” stop).
>
>
>
> If yes, then it is roundtrip=yes. And you shouldn’t just remove an
> existing tag that actually applies.
>
> If no, then the roundtrip=yes is wrong and should be removed.
>
>
>
> *From:* Jo 
> *Sent:* Monday, 28 May 2018 15:13
> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] roundtrip
>
>
>
> An example of a (bus) route that goes out and comes back to the same
> location. It's not circle shaped at all, but that shouldn't matter for
> circular route.
>
>
>
> I removed roundtrip=yes and replaced it 

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[Warin]

I don't think 'circular' is the best word... implies round .. and at 
least some are not round.

continuous_route?
looped_route?



On 28/05/18 18:24, Peter Elderson wrote:
I think for waymarked circular trails the UK English meaning is not 
too far off. The waymarks and often available 
map/leaflet/booklet/description do indeed bring you back to the 
starting point. (Remember the walking_bus discussion?)


Having said that, I think circular_route is more to-the-point, it 
targets the route itself instead of the service. I have asked the 
Dutch community for input on retagging roundtrip=yes (for 
foot/hiking/cycling routes) to circular_route=yes, and using 
closed_loop=yes for the purpose of validation.


2018-05-28 10:01 GMT+02:00 Jo >:


I only saw the discussion in this thread, came to the conclusion I
(and probably many other Dutch and German speakers) had
interpreted the meaning completely wrong.

The tag is indeed meaningless, as it stands. Especially for public
transport, where it really doesn't matter. We're describing
itineraries. For hiking/cycling it's a misnomer. So it would be
good to phase it out.

What I'm trying to accomplish, while we're doing that is to not
only replace it with circular_route, to indicate intent, but to
also add a tag that validators can use to perform validation.

Jo

2018-05-28 9:54 GMT+02:00 Volker Schmidt >:

Have you seen the discussion on the roundtrip tag [1]?
It looks as if there are two different roundtrip concepts in use:
For hiking or cycling routes it means that the route you
follow brings you back to the starting point with the outwards
route and the return route (mostly) different.
in a traffic service round trip is often used to indicate a
service "there and back"
"roundtrip=yes|no" is an unfortunate choice of key as it has
wo meanings, mainly ccording to which side of the Atlantic
Ocean you are. but its in use about 25k times.
It might have been better to have something like "loop=yes|no"
for hiking and cycling routes.
For bus|underground|tram lines it might have been better to
use something like "geometry=linear|circular|..." for
transportation routes.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:roundtrip


On 28 May 2018 at 08:52, Jo > wrote:

From what I gathered during this discussion, roundtrip is
mostly understood and used wrongly by mappers.

It's also not something about the route, but rather about
a passenger who buys a ticket to come back the same way
the same day/weekend and paying the return fare on the
same ticket (aller/retour - heen- en terug).

So I went and downloaded all objects tagged with
roundtrip. The one I changed needed major clean up in its
members anyway.

So how do we get from a meaningless tag (roundtrip) to
something that actually has meaning for itineraries?

I think that on the one hand we need a tag to describe
what the user can expect (get back to approximate initial
position) and on the other hand it would be nice (for
validation purposes) to know if the ways in the relation
are supposed to form a closed loop.

hence:
circular_route=yes
closed_loop=no

for that particular bus route.

Polyglot

2018-05-28 7:47 GMT+02:00
>:

The real question, which as far as I can tell you
haven’t answered, is: Does that same vehicle, after
completing its route, start at the beginning of the
same route again?

Based on your description, the route as mapped is
A1->B->C->D->E->A2.

Can I get on at E, stay on the vehicle, and get off at
B? (In which case I would expect that after finishing
at A2, the vehicle goes to A1, and you can remain on
board during that time. A2 may be (but doesn’t have
to) an “exit only” and A1 and “entry only” stop).

If yes, then it is roundtrip=yes. And you shouldn’t
just remove an existing tag that actually applies.

If no, then the roundtrip=yes is wrong and should be
removed.

*From:*Jo >
*Sent:* Monday, 28 May 2018 15:13
   

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[Peter Elderson]

I think for waymarked circular trails the UK English meaning is not too far
off. The waymarks and often available map/leaflet/booklet/description do
indeed bring you back to the starting point. (Remember the walking_bus
discussion?)

Having said that, I think circular_route is more to-the-point, it targets
the route itself instead of the service. I have asked the Dutch community
for input on retagging roundtrip=yes (for foot/hiking/cycling routes) to
circular_route=yes, and using closed_loop=yes for the purpose of validation.

2018-05-28 10:01 GMT+02:00 Jo :

> I only saw the discussion in this thread, came to the conclusion I (and
> probably many other Dutch and German speakers) had interpreted the meaning
> completely wrong.
>
> The tag is indeed meaningless, as it stands. Especially for public
> transport, where it really doesn't matter. We're describing itineraries.
> For hiking/cycling it's a misnomer. So it would be good to phase it out.
>
> What I'm trying to accomplish, while we're doing that is to not only
> replace it with circular_route, to indicate intent, but to also add a tag
> that validators can use to perform validation.
>
> Jo
>
> 2018-05-28 9:54 GMT+02:00 Volker Schmidt :
>
>> Have you seen the discussion on the roundtrip tag [1]?
>> It looks as if there are two different roundtrip concepts in use:
>> For hiking or cycling routes it means that the route you follow brings
>> you back to the starting point with the outwards route and the return route
>> (mostly) different.
>> in a traffic service round trip is often used to indicate a service
>> "there and back"
>> "roundtrip=yes|no" is an unfortunate choice of key as it has wo meanings,
>> mainly ccording to which side of the Atlantic Ocean you are. but its in use
>> about 25k times.
>> It might have been better to have something like "loop=yes|no" for hiking
>> and cycling routes.
>> For bus|underground|tram lines it might have been better to use something
>> like "geometry=linear|circular|..." for transportation routes.
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:roundtrip
>>
>> On 28 May 2018 at 08:52, Jo  wrote:
>>
>>> From what I gathered during this discussion, roundtrip is mostly
>>> understood and used wrongly by mappers.
>>>
>>> It's also not something about the route, but rather about a passenger
>>> who buys a ticket to come back the same way the same day/weekend and paying
>>> the return fare on the same ticket (aller/retour - heen- en terug).
>>>
>>> So I went and downloaded all objects tagged with roundtrip. The one I
>>> changed needed major clean up in its members anyway.
>>>
>>> So how do we get from a meaningless tag (roundtrip) to something that
>>> actually has meaning for itineraries?
>>>
>>> I think that on the one hand we need a tag to describe what the user can
>>> expect (get back to approximate initial position) and on the other hand it
>>> would be nice (for validation purposes) to know if the ways in the relation
>>> are supposed to form a closed loop.
>>>
>>> hence:
>>> circular_route=yes
>>> closed_loop=no
>>>
>>> for that particular bus route.
>>>
>>> Polyglot
>>>
>>> 2018-05-28 7:47 GMT+02:00 :
>>>
 The real question, which as far as I can tell you haven’t answered, is:
 Does that same vehicle, after completing its route, start at the beginning
 of the same route again?



 Based on your description, the route as mapped is A1->B->C->D->E->A2.



 Can I get on at E, stay on the vehicle, and get off at B? (In which
 case I would expect that after finishing at A2, the vehicle goes to A1, and
 you can remain on board during that time. A2 may be (but doesn’t have to)
 an “exit only” and A1 and “entry only” stop).



 If yes, then it is roundtrip=yes. And you shouldn’t just remove an
 existing tag that actually applies.

 If no, then the roundtrip=yes is wrong and should be removed.



 *From:* Jo 
 *Sent:* Monday, 28 May 2018 15:13
 *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <
 tagging@openstreetmap.org>
 *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] roundtrip



 An example of a (bus) route that goes out and comes back to the same
 location. It's not circle shaped at all, but that shouldn't matter for
 circular route.



 I removed roundtrip=yes and replaced it with



 circular_route=yes

 closed_loop=no



 If the last way wouldn't be in there, closed_loop would be yes. But the
 first and the last bus stops are not exactly opposite one another.



 Jo





 2018-05-27 6:22 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson :

 On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 5:41 AM, Peter Elderson 
 wrote:

 I wish you a happy trip on that bus, hope it 

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[Jo]

I only saw the discussion in this thread, came to the conclusion I (and
probably many other Dutch and German speakers) had interpreted the meaning
completely wrong.

The tag is indeed meaningless, as it stands. Especially for public
transport, where it really doesn't matter. We're describing itineraries.
For hiking/cycling it's a misnomer. So it would be good to phase it out.

What I'm trying to accomplish, while we're doing that is to not only
replace it with circular_route, to indicate intent, but to also add a tag
that validators can use to perform validation.

Jo

2018-05-28 9:54 GMT+02:00 Volker Schmidt :

> Have you seen the discussion on the roundtrip tag [1]?
> It looks as if there are two different roundtrip concepts in use:
> For hiking or cycling routes it means that the route you follow brings you
> back to the starting point with the outwards route and the return route
> (mostly) different.
> in a traffic service round trip is often used to indicate a service "there
> and back"
> "roundtrip=yes|no" is an unfortunate choice of key as it has wo meanings,
> mainly ccording to which side of the Atlantic Ocean you are. but its in use
> about 25k times.
> It might have been better to have something like "loop=yes|no" for hiking
> and cycling routes.
> For bus|underground|tram lines it might have been better to use something
> like "geometry=linear|circular|..." for transportation routes.
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:roundtrip
>
> On 28 May 2018 at 08:52, Jo  wrote:
>
>> From what I gathered during this discussion, roundtrip is mostly
>> understood and used wrongly by mappers.
>>
>> It's also not something about the route, but rather about a passenger who
>> buys a ticket to come back the same way the same day/weekend and paying the
>> return fare on the same ticket (aller/retour - heen- en terug).
>>
>> So I went and downloaded all objects tagged with roundtrip. The one I
>> changed needed major clean up in its members anyway.
>>
>> So how do we get from a meaningless tag (roundtrip) to something that
>> actually has meaning for itineraries?
>>
>> I think that on the one hand we need a tag to describe what the user can
>> expect (get back to approximate initial position) and on the other hand it
>> would be nice (for validation purposes) to know if the ways in the relation
>> are supposed to form a closed loop.
>>
>> hence:
>> circular_route=yes
>> closed_loop=no
>>
>> for that particular bus route.
>>
>> Polyglot
>>
>> 2018-05-28 7:47 GMT+02:00 :
>>
>>> The real question, which as far as I can tell you haven’t answered, is:
>>> Does that same vehicle, after completing its route, start at the beginning
>>> of the same route again?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Based on your description, the route as mapped is A1->B->C->D->E->A2.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Can I get on at E, stay on the vehicle, and get off at B? (In which case
>>> I would expect that after finishing at A2, the vehicle goes to A1, and you
>>> can remain on board during that time. A2 may be (but doesn’t have to) an
>>> “exit only” and A1 and “entry only” stop).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If yes, then it is roundtrip=yes. And you shouldn’t just remove an
>>> existing tag that actually applies.
>>>
>>> If no, then the roundtrip=yes is wrong and should be removed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Jo 
>>> *Sent:* Monday, 28 May 2018 15:13
>>> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <
>>> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] roundtrip
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> An example of a (bus) route that goes out and comes back to the same
>>> location. It's not circle shaped at all, but that shouldn't matter for
>>> circular route.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I removed roundtrip=yes and replaced it with
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> circular_route=yes
>>>
>>> closed_loop=no
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If the last way wouldn't be in there, closed_loop would be yes. But the
>>> first and the last bus stops are not exactly opposite one another.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2018-05-27 6:22 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson :
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 5:41 AM, Peter Elderson 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I wish you a happy trip on that bus, hope it has toilets and a tolerable
>>> coffee machine
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, you sweet, summer child.  Someone's never tried to take a suburban
>>> route in the US, even in a "transit oriented" American city...
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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] roundtrip

[Volker Schmidt]

Have you seen the discussion on the roundtrip tag [1]?
It looks as if there are two different roundtrip concepts in use:
For hiking or cycling routes it means that the route you follow brings you
back to the starting point with the outwards route and the return route
(mostly) different.
in a traffic service round trip is often used to indicate a service "there
and back"
"roundtrip=yes|no" is an unfortunate choice of key as it has wo meanings,
mainly ccording to which side of the Atlantic Ocean you are. but its in use
about 25k times.
It might have been better to have something like "loop=yes|no" for hiking
and cycling routes.
For bus|underground|tram lines it might have been better to use something
like "geometry=linear|circular|..." for transportation routes.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:roundtrip

On 28 May 2018 at 08:52, Jo  wrote:

> From what I gathered during this discussion, roundtrip is mostly
> understood and used wrongly by mappers.
>
> It's also not something about the route, but rather about a passenger who
> buys a ticket to come back the same way the same day/weekend and paying the
> return fare on the same ticket (aller/retour - heen- en terug).
>
> So I went and downloaded all objects tagged with roundtrip. The one I
> changed needed major clean up in its members anyway.
>
> So how do we get from a meaningless tag (roundtrip) to something that
> actually has meaning for itineraries?
>
> I think that on the one hand we need a tag to describe what the user can
> expect (get back to approximate initial position) and on the other hand it
> would be nice (for validation purposes) to know if the ways in the relation
> are supposed to form a closed loop.
>
> hence:
> circular_route=yes
> closed_loop=no
>
> for that particular bus route.
>
> Polyglot
>
> 2018-05-28 7:47 GMT+02:00 :
>
>> The real question, which as far as I can tell you haven’t answered, is:
>> Does that same vehicle, after completing its route, start at the beginning
>> of the same route again?
>>
>>
>>
>> Based on your description, the route as mapped is A1->B->C->D->E->A2.
>>
>>
>>
>> Can I get on at E, stay on the vehicle, and get off at B? (In which case
>> I would expect that after finishing at A2, the vehicle goes to A1, and you
>> can remain on board during that time. A2 may be (but doesn’t have to) an
>> “exit only” and A1 and “entry only” stop).
>>
>>
>>
>> If yes, then it is roundtrip=yes. And you shouldn’t just remove an
>> existing tag that actually applies.
>>
>> If no, then the roundtrip=yes is wrong and should be removed.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Jo 
>> *Sent:* Monday, 28 May 2018 15:13
>> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <
>> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] roundtrip
>>
>>
>>
>> An example of a (bus) route that goes out and comes back to the same
>> location. It's not circle shaped at all, but that shouldn't matter for
>> circular route.
>>
>>
>>
>> I removed roundtrip=yes and replaced it with
>>
>>
>>
>> circular_route=yes
>>
>> closed_loop=no
>>
>>
>>
>> If the last way wouldn't be in there, closed_loop would be yes. But the
>> first and the last bus stops are not exactly opposite one another.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2018-05-27 6:22 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson :
>>
>> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 5:41 AM, Peter Elderson 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I wish you a happy trip on that bus, hope it has toilets and a tolerable
>> coffee machine
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh, you sweet, summer child.  Someone's never tried to take a suburban
>> route in the US, even in a "transit oriented" American city...
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] roundtrip

[Jo]

>From what I gathered during this discussion, roundtrip is mostly understood
and used wrongly by mappers.

It's also not something about the route, but rather about a passenger who
buys a ticket to come back the same way the same day/weekend and paying the
return fare on the same ticket (aller/retour - heen- en terug).

So I went and downloaded all objects tagged with roundtrip. The one I
changed needed major clean up in its members anyway.

So how do we get from a meaningless tag (roundtrip) to something that
actually has meaning for itineraries?

I think that on the one hand we need a tag to describe what the user can
expect (get back to approximate initial position) and on the other hand it
would be nice (for validation purposes) to know if the ways in the relation
are supposed to form a closed loop.

hence:
circular_route=yes
closed_loop=no

for that particular bus route.

Polyglot

2018-05-28 7:47 GMT+02:00 :

> The real question, which as far as I can tell you haven’t answered, is:
> Does that same vehicle, after completing its route, start at the beginning
> of the same route again?
>
>
>
> Based on your description, the route as mapped is A1->B->C->D->E->A2.
>
>
>
> Can I get on at E, stay on the vehicle, and get off at B? (In which case I
> would expect that after finishing at A2, the vehicle goes to A1, and you
> can remain on board during that time. A2 may be (but doesn’t have to) an
> “exit only” and A1 and “entry only” stop).
>
>
>
> If yes, then it is roundtrip=yes. And you shouldn’t just remove an
> existing tag that actually applies.
>
> If no, then the roundtrip=yes is wrong and should be removed.
>
>
>
> *From:* Jo 
> *Sent:* Monday, 28 May 2018 15:13
> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] roundtrip
>
>
>
> An example of a (bus) route that goes out and comes back to the same
> location. It's not circle shaped at all, but that shouldn't matter for
> circular route.
>
>
>
> I removed roundtrip=yes and replaced it with
>
>
>
> circular_route=yes
>
> closed_loop=no
>
>
>
> If the last way wouldn't be in there, closed_loop would be yes. But the
> first and the last bus stops are not exactly opposite one another.
>
>
>
> Jo
>
>
>
>
>
> 2018-05-27 6:22 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson :
>
> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 5:41 AM, Peter Elderson 
> wrote:
>
> I wish you a happy trip on that bus, hope it has toilets and a tolerable
> coffee machine
>
>
>
> Oh, you sweet, summer child.  Someone's never tried to take a suburban
> route in the US, even in a "transit oriented" American city...
>
>
> ___
> 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] Rock outcrops in forest

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 28. May 2018, at 02:00, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> landuse=residential and landuse:secondary=retail is what is happening on the 
> ground in some places.



absolutely , and there might also be offices, landuse:tertiary=commercial? And 
wait, there’s a patch of unbuilt land included in the area, 
landuse:quarternary=green_field or should I better use a distinct polygon for 
this?

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

Re: [Tagging] marking shop as street vendor

[José G Moya Y .]

I forgot to include the point of my previous message -- I think that being
dismantled every night is not so important.

P.D. Enviado desde un móvil (celular). Disculpe las erratas. No veo bien la
pantalla...

El lun., 28 de mayo de 2018 7:51, José G Moya Y. 
escribió:

> Three years ago I read about rules for street vendors in my city, Madrid.
> The rules design as "street vendors" a mix of:
>
> a) Newsagent kiosks and similar (ONCE kiosks). Most of them are permanent,
> not dismantled at night.
> b) Churro/french fries/hot dog vans/kiosks. They operate on winter only,
> some of them are not dismantled.
> c) Mellon and watermellon kiosks. They operate on summer only.
> d) street markets.
> All of these have to apply in order to operate, and they are always
> "parked" at the same point. A list of all them is issued once per year.
>
> Despite this, many other "street vendors" operate out of official rules,
> either applying for a yearly event or asking permission on a per-event
> basis. These other vendors (including most hipster street food vans) are
> not considered "street vendors" on city regulations.
>
> And there are also the allegal-illegal street vendors, such piracy
> merchandise vendors and homemade tamal vendors, not covered by any
> regulation.
>
> P.D. Enviado desde un móvil (celular). Disculpe las erratas. No veo bien
> la pantalla...
>
> El lun., 28 de mayo de 2018 1:38, Graeme Fitzpatrick <
> graemefi...@gmail.com> escribió:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 28 May 2018 at 09:07, Paul Allen  wrote:
>>
>>> How about outdoor_vendor?
>>>
>>> However, both of the examples you give are the sort that usually don't
>>> have fixed assignments for vendors
>>> so you couldn't map them at stall level anyway.
>>>
>>
>> Fair enough on both counts,
>>
>> Would you tag the entire area eg
>> https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.0641793,153.4386994,81m/data=!3m1!1e3
>> as outdoor_vendor though?, or is that considered implicit in it being a
>> marketplace?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging