Re: [Tagging] How to tag a way with several conditional access restrictions

[Mark Wagner]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 21:48:36 +0200
SelfishSeahorse  wrote:

> Note that the wiki states that wheelchair=* should be used instead of
> disabled=*. However, I think this is wrong: wheelchair=* gives
> information whether something is suitable for wheelchair users, while
> disabled=* gives information about its legal access.

"disabled=" has a clear parallel to the "capacity:disabled=" tag used
with parking lots, which is another point in favor of it.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Let's get (quite) rid of units and their multiples in OSM values

[Warin]

On 31/07/18 02:33, Kevin Kenny wrote:

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:39 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:

I did not check any numbers, but I would also expect a lot of data not 
following this definition.

[of the ele=* tag meaining EGM96]


Uhm, yeah.  I've been using NAVD88 as orthometric datum. I have the
tables loaded in my
GPS app, and it's what surveyors use locally.  But the difference
between that and EGD96
is far too small for my equipment to measure - I don't have a
survey-grade GPS, or the
patience for the integration time that using one requires.

Entering ellipsoidal height rather than orthometric elevation, though,
is Just Plain Wrong -
and I bet we have a lot of data entered that way that are off by tens of metres.

I further bet that two-thirds of the people reading this thread have
Absolutely No Idea
what we're talking about. (That isn't really a severe criticism. It's
more an indictment
of the sorry state of consumer-grade GPS that ordinary mappers would
be forced to
learn that much geodesy to get it right.)


+1 .. who has little idea of what your talking about :)

But then I don't usually play with elevation data, so I am not involved in it.




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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a way with several conditional access restrictions

[Paul Burton]

On 07/30/2018 03:48 PM, SelfishSeahorse wrote:
> Hi Paul
>
> This is not perfect, but it is how I would tag that service road:
>
> vehicle = delivery
Yes, I saw "access=delivery", but it seemed like a stretch when most
people think something else when they see that term. Still, it seems to
fit somewhat for this purpose. If there is a consensus on this, I'll go
with it.
> disabled = yes
> foot = yes
> description = "Vehicular access for launching boats only. Vehicles
> must be returned to the main parking area."
I agree with this description, although I may clarify "Motor vehicle
access ..."
> Note that the wiki states that wheelchair=* should be used instead of
> disabled=*. However, I think this is wrong: wheelchair=* gives
> information whether something is suitable for wheelchair users, while
> disabled=* gives information about its legal access.
I concur. This instance is a good example: the terrain is not suitable
for a "normal" wheelchair (i.e. without special wheels and tires). In
addition, presumably (legally speaking), anyone with an official placard
could park there, regardless of whether they use a wheelchair or not.
Again, I'll see if a consensus develops.

Thanks for your input.

-- 
Paul Burton
p...@paul-burton.com
https://paul-burton.com/keys


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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a way with several conditional access restrictions

[SelfishSeahorse]

Hi Paul

This is not perfect, but it is how I would tag that service road:

vehicle = delivery
disabled = yes
foot = yes
description = "Vehicular access for launching boats only. Vehicles
must be returned to the main parking area."

Maybe someone else has a better idea.

Note that the wiki states that wheelchair=* should be used instead of
disabled=*. However, I think this is wrong: wheelchair=* gives
information whether something is suitable for wheelchair users, while
disabled=* gives information about its legal access.

Cheers

Markus

On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 at 15:53, Paul Burton  wrote:
>
> A local fishing lake has a parking area for all users, then a gravel
> service road that leads from the parking area to the lake shore. Signage
> on the service road indicates that the road is for use by:
>
> * Vehicular access for launching boats only (explicitly stating that the
> boat-carrying vehicle must be returned to the main parking area and the
> user(s) must walk back to the lake)
>
> * Vehicular access by disabled users (who are then presumably allowed to
> park their vehicles near the lake shore for the duration of their visit)
>
> * Pedestrian access for all other users
>
> The wiki goes into some detail about conditional access tag values, but
> given the specific nature of this situation, I'm unsure how to proceed.
> Any advice is welcome.
>
> --
> Paul Burton
> p...@paul-burton.com
> https://paul-burton.com/keys
>
>
> ___
> 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] Let's get (quite) rid of units and their multiples in OSM values

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:39 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
> I did not check any numbers, but I would also expect a lot of data not 
> following this definition.
[of the ele=* tag meaining EGM96]


Uhm, yeah.  I've been using NAVD88 as orthometric datum. I have the
tables loaded in my
GPS app, and it's what surveyors use locally.  But the difference
between that and EGD96
is far too small for my equipment to measure - I don't have a
survey-grade GPS, or the
patience for the integration time that using one requires.

Entering ellipsoidal height rather than orthometric elevation, though,
is Just Plain Wrong -
and I bet we have a lot of data entered that way that are off by tens of metres.

I further bet that two-thirds of the people reading this thread have
Absolutely No Idea
what we're talking about. (That isn't really a severe criticism. It's
more an indictment
of the sorry state of consumer-grade GPS that ordinary mappers would
be forced to
learn that much geodesy to get it right.)

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

Re: [Tagging] default access tag for driveways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 30. Jul 2018, at 16:06, Anton Klim  wrote:
> 
> Is there a reason to add access tags to the way, when you have a barrier node 
> that should already hold these tags (lift gate, bollard)?
> Seems over complicated


access tags on a node apply to this node, in some cases you might be able to 
approach the barrier from both sides, but not cross it (e.g. a locked gate). In 
many cases (typical for private driveways) it should indeed be sufficient for 
routing purposes to add access restrictions on the access barrier (gate) if it 
is the only way to go there, but from a data point of view that would be 
incomplete (e.g. the renderer would not show the way behind the gate as private 
access, a query for all private ways would not find the way, etc.).


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

Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 5:56 AM Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> I would make the distinction bub from a map-data end-user's point of view: 
> can I walk/drive up to the place and obtain a permit on the fly, with or 
> without paying a "fee". The on-the-fly payment may include payment of 
> membership of some kind on first entry, or similar arrangements. If access 
> requires prior membership in a club or an association, I would suggest to use 
> access=members. Admittedly there is a soft border with "customers", for 
> example in case of access to the car park of shops that requires membership 
> (e.g. REI in the US).

You're right, that's certainly a consideration. In my mind, it's at
the next level after 'is permission routinely offered to the general
public, or do I have to have a reason for being there?'

One use case for wanting to know that:  Let's say that I want to plan
a trip to climb North Dome, Balsam Mountain and Mount Sherrill - which
cluster around https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/357607470. None of
these has an established trail. I can access North Dome from the north
by one of several narrow strips of foot=yes land that border County
Road #6. I cannot access from the south over the abandoned logging
road, because Camp Timber Lake is access=members and does NOT welcome
visitors. I can access Balsam Mountain from CR6 to the north as long
as I've brought my (free of cost) permission card, because the general
public routinely has access to
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6304793. In fact, the city
recently changed that unit from foot=permit to foot=yes, so I don't
even need to remember the card.

For what it's worth, on the actual trip, I started from
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/292018893, followed the survey line
north of North Dome until it intersected the northern spur of the
mountain, and got to the summit from there, and eventually emerged at
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20093167. That way is mismapped
(thanks, TIGER!), but my GPS was wonky just then, and I haven't been
back down that way since, so I left it alone. It's a service way that
goes to a shaft associated with the water tunnel. There's parking for
climbers and hunters there.

I'm a long way from mapping 'access=members' recreational areas.  I
have my hands full with public ones!

By the way, REI doesn't require a membership to enter or to shop (and
incidentally sells the membership in-store). Most shoppers there are
members, because there are discounts, dividends, and extended
warranties on purchases that they find to be worth the small fee for
becoming a member. But there are stores with the model that you
imagine - usually they're wholesalers that aren't set up to collect
general sales tax, so require their customers to have a membership
(with a business licence and reseller number on file). Some of these
have branched out into direct-to-consumer sales but continue a
membership requirement.

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

Re: [Tagging] default access tag for driveways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 30. Jul 2018, at 12:11, joost schouppe  wrote:
> 
> So I think I can safely conclude that driveway does not imply any access 
> restrictions by itself, and that a private or destination tag is to be 
> welcomed, depending on the context. But it only really mathers if the way is 
> connected to the road network in two places. 
> I'll adapt the wiki to explicitly state that. 


+1

Please also note that “private road“
does not imply private access in all circumstances/jurisdictions, it describes 
ownership and maybe liability. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Let's get (quite) rid of units and their multiples in OSM values

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 30. Jul 2018, at 10:18, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> Where it is written on Wiki?


ele tag definition 


> Nobody is really following that.


I did not check any numbers, but I would also expect a lot of data not 
following this definition.


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

Re: [Tagging] default access tag for driveways

[joost schouppe]

Op ma 30 jul. 2018 16:07 schreef Anton Klim :

> Is there a reason to add access tags to the way, when you have a barrier
> node that should already hold these tags (lift gate, bollard)?
> Seems over complicated.
>

Then it might indeed not be necessary. These are very often not mapped or
not even there in many cases in my area.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] default access tag for driveways

[Anton Klim]

Is there a reason to add access tags to the way, when you have a barrier node 
that should already hold these tags (lift gate, bollard)?
Seems over complicated. 

Anton

> 30 июля 2018 г., в 9:07, Mateusz Konieczny  
> написал(а):
> 
> 27. Lipiec 2018 18:07 od joost.schou...@gmail.com:
> 
> You would only add "private" if there is signage, and only something else if 
> there is a right of way or something.
> 
> 
> I am adding access=private not only for cases with explicit signage but also 
> when access
> 
> is blocked (typically by a gate) or road is clearly private and used solely 
> to access given house.
> 
> 
> 
> At least in Poland explicit signage is extremely rare.
> 
> ___
> 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] How to tag a way with several conditional access restrictions

[Paul Burton]

A local fishing lake has a parking area for all users, then a gravel
service road that leads from the parking area to the lake shore. Signage
on the service road indicates that the road is for use by:

* Vehicular access for launching boats only (explicitly stating that the
boat-carrying vehicle must be returned to the main parking area and the
user(s) must walk back to the lake)

* Vehicular access by disabled users (who are then presumably allowed to
park their vehicles near the lake shore for the duration of their visit)

* Pedestrian access for all other users

The wiki goes into some detail about conditional access tag values, but
given the specific nature of this situation, I'm unsure how to proceed.
Any advice is welcome.

-- 
Paul Burton
p...@paul-burton.com
https://paul-burton.com/keys


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

Re: [Tagging] landuse=clearing

[Warin]

On 30/07/18 18:21, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

29. Lipiec 2018 12:37 od pla16...@gmail.com :

It's a matter of minutes to add a relation to the wood, transfer
the tags from
the wood to relation, then add one of the clearings to the
relation and see what happens.


In JOSM with "create multipolygon"/"update multipolygon" (select outer 
and inner, use that


function) it takes seconds.



It takes hours to mark out the outside of the tree extent! Unless you 
are very rough.

And then the present landuse=clearings have shared ways, touching edges ..
And then some of them are intersecting the edges of the trees and so 
they have to be combined.


Tagging and relationships is the easy part.

Of course not all the inner holes have been entered by the HOT team.
So there are a few of the larger ones that really need to be plotted.

Then there are some fields that abut the tree area too. And some of the 
landuse=clearing are now trees ..
Some of it follows the coast line, except when it brakes away and then 
comes back.
It all needs to be checked. It takes time. If a reasonable job is 
wanted. I'd certainly not want to author any thing less than good.


I'm working on it.. but it will not be done for a few days. It is not 
the first time I have done it and it just takes time.



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

Re: [Tagging] Let's get (quite) rid of units and their multiples in OSM values

[Jo]

There is a relatively simple solution that could satisfy everybody. (Except
maybe the people paying for the storage, but let's say tags are cheap)

For each tag that describes a measurement, add a counterpart tag with the
values converted to SI units, meter, second, km/h (or even m/s, everybody
equally out of their depth), Volt, Ah, Watt, kg.

Then it becomes trivial to compare them, and if you need them in another
unit, you can convert. It also makes it possible to validate the values.

Of course editors like JOSM and iD would help with adding those tags.

Polyglot

Op ma 30 jul. 2018 om 10:24 schreef Mateusz Konieczny <
matkoni...@tutanota.com>:

> 30. Lipiec 2018 01:00 od dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
>  elevations should be with respect to the EGM96 sea level
>
>
> Where it is written on Wiki? Nobody is really following that.
> ___
> 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] default access tag for driveways

[joost schouppe]

So I think I can safely conclude that driveway does not imply any access
restrictions by itself, and that a private or destination tag is to be
welcomed, depending on the context. But it only really mathers if the way
is connected to the road network in two places.
I'll adapt the wiki to explicitly state that.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

[Volker Schmidt]

I would make the distinction bub from a map-data end-user's point of view:
can I walk/drive up to the place and obtain a permit on the fly, with or
without paying a "fee". The on-the-fly payment may include payment of
membership of some kind on first entry, or similar arrangements. If access
requires prior membership in a club or an association, I would suggest to
use access=members. Admittedly there is a soft border with "customers", for
example in case of access to the car park of shops that requires membership
(e.g. REI in the US).

On Mon, 30 Jul 2018, 00:46 marc marc,  wrote:

> Le 29. 07. 18 à 22:35, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
>
> >> On 27. Jul 2018, at 17:53, marc marc wrote:
> >> I didn't understand how getting a license in your example is different
> >> from getting a license from a sports club.
>
> > I would understand that the permit will be obtained by everybody
> following the application rules, while the sports club doesn’t give you a
> “license”, it requires you to be a member, where it is usually at the
> discretion of the other members if they take you or not.
>
> maybe for a golf sport club.
> but for all other sport club I have or I had be a member,
> no other members have to (dis)agree or not.
> I only need to fill a form, follow the rule and sometime pay a fee
>
> So I now understand that what somebody call a permit is
> a license for somebody else :)
>
>  > I would certainly not call the visitors “customers of the castle”.
>  > Similarly, the members of a sports club are not “customers”
>
> so who are the customers of a POI ?
> how to map a "for customers only" ?
> I often see this tagged as "access=customers"
> ___
> 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] landuse=scrub

[Mateusz Konieczny]

25. Lipiec 2018 00:56 od 61sundow...@gmail.com :


> But in principle I think this should be done. Any thoughts?
>




I think that it is desirable to make a mechanical edit proposal (that

involves checking at least some of them to confirm that it is mistagging of 
natural=scrub) 


and retag them.

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

Re: [Tagging] Let's get (quite) rid of units and their multiples in OSM values

[Mateusz Konieczny]

30. Lipiec 2018 01:00 od dieterdre...@gmail.com :


>  elevations should be with respect to the EGM96 sea level




Where it is written on Wiki? Nobody is really following that. 

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

Re: [Tagging] default access tag for driveways

[Mateusz Konieczny]

28. Lipiec 2018 00:20 od graemefi...@gmail.com :


> On 28 July 2018 at 03:33, Mike H <> 1jg...@gmail.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>> service=driveway isn't just for residential driveways. It is also used for 
>> other driveways. Here is an example of a driveway to a church. >> 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/100946154 
>> >>    I would agree that 
>> residential driveways should probably be implied as access=private.
>
> But people are allowed to use your driveway in some circumstances eg 
> tradesmen, couriers, family or friends coming to your house. I think that 
> access=destination would still allow them to visit, but stop routers from 
> sending other people up your garden path? :-)




access=destination excludes only transit traffic. For private driveways 
access=private is better,

as owner may grant access to whoever (s)he wishes and access is not assumed OK 
without 


permission from owner.

Note that there are also cases of driveways accessible to public, I would not 
tag them asaccess=private (typical in for example rural areas). 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] landuse=clearing

[Mateusz Konieczny]

29. Lipiec 2018 12:37 od pla16...@gmail.com :


> It's a matter of minutes to add a relation to the wood, transfer the tags from
> the wood to relation, then add one of the clearings to the relation and see 
> what happens.




In JOSM with "create multipolygon"/"update multipolygon" (select outer and 
inner, use that

function) it takes seconds.

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

Re: [Tagging] landuse=clearing

[Mateusz Konieczny]

28. Lipiec 2018 04:31 od 61sundow...@gmail.com :


> I think the basic tag is trying to show that the surrounding area (usually 
> trees) stops around this area. So why not tag the trees as a multipoygon and 
> use these tagged clearings are inners?




 In cases like this it is clearly mistagging - switching to multipolygons seems 
to be a good idea. 

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

Re: [Tagging] default access tag for driveways

[Mateusz Konieczny]

27. Lipiec 2018 18:07 od joost.schou...@gmail.com 
:


> You would only add "private" if there is signage, and only something else if 
> there is a right of way or something.




I am adding access=private not only for cases with explicit signage but also 
when access

is blocked (typically by a gate) or road is clearly private and used solely to 
access given house.




At least in Poland explicit signage is extremely rare.

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

Re: [Tagging] Let's get (quite) rid of units and their multiples in OSM values

[Andrew Hain]

I disagree in the specific case of maxheight and maxwidth:

An important use of these tags is to compare the dimension of a vehicle with 
the limits. Also the format maxheight=12'11" imposes a particular cognitive 
load on subsequent mappers and data users who may not be familiar with the 
format.

--
Andrew

From: Philip Barnes 
Sent: 27 July 2018 17:52:31
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Let's get (quite) rid of units and their multiples in 
OSM values



On 27/07/2018 16:20, marc marc wrote:
> I agree maybe with the exeption of case like maxspeed
And maxheight and maxwidth.

Phil (trigpoint)

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