date:20190114

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 09:51, Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> I've even seen parties going in opposite directions arrange to exchange
> their keys at the midpoint, and then each picks up the other's car at
> the end and drives to a common meeting point. Long-distance hikers are
> a creative lot.
>

Yep, seen that one around here, where there's a very popular 25k walk
between two lodges, but which are ~80k drive apart!

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

2019-01-14 Thread Kevin Kenny

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 6:16 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
 wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 09:04, Tod Fitch  wrote:
>> Guess: Someone found it on the trail and figured it would be easier for the 
>> person missing it to find it hanging from the sign than some place along 
>> miles of trail.
> Bit of a problem when you've got to walk back the 65 klm looking for it!

Yeah, but usually when someone finds stuff on the trail and does
something like that, they'll also leave notes in the registers, and I
didn't see any.

The other thing that people sometimes do is odd car shuttles - it's
not unheard of for people with multiple cars available to have
complicated shuttles getting them to trailheads. This key could have
been from an arrangement like: hiker leaves car with shuttler in
Northville.  Shuttler and partner drive in two cars to Lake Placid,
park the hiker's car there. Shuttler and partner ride in the
shuttler's car to Long Lake, leave the key for the hiker to find, and
then return home. Hiker gets his key when he passes Long Lake and his
car is waiting in Lake Placid. (The key is much less useful to a thief
when it's 65 km from the car!) Although for those arrangements,
they'll usually choose a loss obvious cache for the key, or leave it
in trust with a shopkeeper or postmaster for the hiker to claim. I've
even seen parties going in opposite directions arrange to exchange
their keys at the midpoint, and then each picks up the other's car at
the end and drives to a common meeting point. Long-distance hikers are
a creative lot.

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

[Tagging] Route maintenance tagging

2019-01-14 Thread Jan Macura

(...) Next step: creating a webpage which lists (a selection of ) walking
> route relations sorted by survey:date ascending. Using an osm-query as data
> source.

I'll need help for that, because I probably can put a sorteable wikitable
> on a wikipage but I have no idea how to fill a table from a live query. I
> know it can be done, because I see applications do things like that all the
> time! I have no site and zero web programming skills. There, I said it!


Hello Peter and the list,

I found this thread via the WeeklyOSM #441
.
I was interested in this, 'cause it sounded like it can be easily done
with the Sophox . And here is the result of my
attempts:
http://tinyurl.com/yd4hql6a

I am not sure if this is exactly what you are looking for, but it
might put you on the road, at least.

(I know, it's not a wikitable, but you can download it as .csv and
make a wikitable of it).


Best Regards,

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

Kevin said:
I'm therefore going to stick with 'designated or customary place to
begin or end a trip on a trail.'

Me too. I've mapped many such trailheads in Alaska and almost everybody I
know would recognize the term trailhead as meaning a point of access to a
path or trail. It's fine to add other details, like parking, toilets,
registration facilities, etc. separately. I haven't followed this thread
carefully, so can't speak to the TOP situation fully but I do know a
trailhead when I see it on a map or otherwise.

Dave

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 6:16 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 09:04, Tod Fitch  wrote:
>
>>
>> Guess: Someone found it on the trail and figured it would be easier for
>> the person missing it to find it hanging from the sign than some place
>> along miles of trail.
>>
>
> Bit of a problem when you've got to walk back the 65 klm looking for it!
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Creating shop=caravan

I could live with two pages. A shop=caravan and a
shop=recreational_vehicles cross-referenced to one another. It will be
clear from the description that such recreational_vehicles contain
kitchens, bathrooms, living quarters, and are not towed while the caravan
page can specify the same but be restricted to towed, non-powered trailers.
People on both sides of the ocean will have trouble with one or the other
(both?) definitions but I don't see any other way through this semantic
stalemate.

Now, if we could only get rid of tourism_caravan_site and replace it with
tourism=campground. Sigh. That'll never happen but it should.

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 6:14 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 08:50, Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>>
>> RV may not be only American, but it's still not UK English.
>>
>
> Of course, you are correct Paul, I was forgetting for a moment that OSM is
> supposed to be British English throughout (although we all know that that's
> not really true!).
>
> Minor technicality really - main page stays as =caravan, secondary page/s
> as =recreational_vehicles etc with a description & see shop=caravan.
>
> As far as I can see, that should cover everything, shouldn't it?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 09:04, Tod Fitch  wrote:

>
> Guess: Someone found it on the trail and figured it would be easier for
> the person missing it to find it hanging from the sign than some place
> along miles of trail.
>

Bit of a problem when you've got to walk back the 65 klm looking for it!

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Creating shop=caravan

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 08:50, Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> RV may not be only American, but it's still not UK English.
>

Of course, you are correct Paul, I was forgetting for a moment that OSM is
supposed to be British English throughout (although we all know that that's
not really true!).

Minor technicality really - main page stays as =caravan, secondary page/s
as =recreational_vehicles etc with a description & see shop=caravan.

As far as I can see, that should cover everything, shouldn't it?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

2019-01-14 Thread Tod Fitch

> On Jan 14, 2019, at 2:51 PM, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 5:50 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
>  wrote:
>> What's the key dangling there for, Kev?
> 
> Absolutely no idea! I left it as I found it.
> 

Guess: Someone found it on the trail and figured it would be easier for the 
person missing it to find it hanging from the sign than some place along miles 
of trail.
Source: I’ve seen that done elsewhere.

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Creating shop=caravan

sent from a phone

> On 14. Jan 2019, at 23:43, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> OK, so take it out to the full =recreational_vehicle 

I would still consider this not obvious in meaning, recreational doesn’t convey 
that it is about sleeping, cooking, ablutions etc. in the vehicle. caravan and 
the various “home”s are clearer.

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

2019-01-14 Thread Kevin Kenny

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 5:50 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
 wrote:
> What's the key dangling there for, Kev?

Absolutely no idea! I left it as I found it.

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

Re: [Tagging] Creating shop=caravan

On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 22:45, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
>>   Except, of course, that "RV" is American English.
>>
>
> True, except:
>
> https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1=hA09XPHBBcXb9QO93ZK4Bw=rv+gold+coast+australia=rv+gold+coast+australia_l=psy-ab.3..33i22i29i30l10.15091.16965..18276...0.0..0.191.1776.0j10..01..gws-wiz...0i71j0i22i30j0i22i10i30j0i8i13i30.chv6SCpJ2eE
> so it's not *only* American! :-)
>

You can put your microtome away.  Anyway, it's not meant for splitting
hairs. :p

RV may not be only American, but it's still not UK English.

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

What's the key dangling there for, Kev?

Thanks

Graeme


On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 08:05, Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14920080943/ -
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Creating shop=caravan

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 07:24, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 21:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> type=powered / towed;
>>
>
> Except, from the definitions I've seen, it excludes static caravans.
> Which are mobile (even if only
> moved infrequently) but are not vehicles.
>

OK, include them under type=* as either =mobile_home or =static

>   Except, of course, that "RV" is American English.
>

True, except:
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1=hA09XPHBBcXb9QO93ZK4Bw=rv+gold+coast+australia=rv+gold+coast+australia_l=psy-ab.3..33i22i29i30l10.15091.16965..18276...0.0..0.191.1776.0j10..01..gws-wiz...0i71j0i22i30j0i22i10i30j0i8i13i30.chv6SCpJ2eE
so it's not *only* American! :-)

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 08:23, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> I’d like to discourage use of the term rv, it is an abbreviation and I
> believe is more difficult to understand for non natives than the other
> options.
>

OK, so take it out to the full =recreational_vehicle

which, using the example above, gives
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1=zw09XJ7xIY2f9QP2q7DACQ=recreational+vehicles+gold+coast+australia=recreationl+vehicles+gold+coast+australia_l=psy-ab.3...0.0..484369...0.0..0.0.0...0..gws-wiz.VVNuZaOLLuM
for similar, but not identical results.

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

2019-01-14 Thread Peter Elderson

I agree. I never meant to exclude any significant path to a trail, even if it’s 
‘ just’ a path, it can of course be significant because it’s the only access 
point in miles, even if it has no official name, and that’s precisely why I 
keep saying it’s up to the mappers. 

Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 14 jan. 2019 om 23:04 heeft Kevin Kenny  het 
> volgende geschreven:
> 
>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 12:16 PM Andy Townsend  wrote:
>> No - it really isn't.  That was my entire point.  I'm willing to bet a
>> small round of beer in the pub up the road that almost no-one walking
>> past that info board will say "oh look - that's a trailhead for the TPT".
> 
> On the other hand, I'll bet you a beer in Lake Placid that at least
> half the people in the bar at the Adirondack Hotel in Long Lake
> village would recognize that this sign
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14920080943/ - which simply stands
> on the roadside at a path going into the woods, with no other
> facilities right there - marks a trailhead for the Northville-Placid
> Trail. (When I say 'no other facilities right there,' what I mean is
> that there's a town about 4-5 km down the highway, and it's an easy
> walk on the shoulder(verge) or an equally easy hitch.)
> 
> It's an important trailhead. Shattuck Clearing on the sign is the site
> of a FORMER ranger station that burnt in the 1960's. Since its road
> hasn't been maintained since then, it's grown to trees and entirely
> impassable to anything on wheels, so while it serves as a landmark,
> it's not an opportunity to get help or leave the trail. If you hike in
> at that trailhead, except for a handful of spots on a lake where it
> would be possible to land a canoe or water-taxi a float plane, there's
> no other way out closer than Lake Placid. It's 58.6 km to the next
> highway, about 63 km if you're walking to the town - or to turn around
> back the way you came. "The last chance to leave the trail for the
> next two or three days" is kind of important to map!
> 
> I'm therefore going to stick with 'designated or customary place to
> begin or end a trip on a trail.'
> 
> As long as Peter is agreed that not all trailheads are anything
> resembling TOP's and not all TOP's are trailheads, I think we're in
> rough agreement. Where I get a bit prickly is at sweeping assertions
> like "a trailhead must be something more than where a path crosses a
> road."  When you're on a trail where it's 60 km between roads (the NPT
> crosses four paved roads in 222 km), you're damned right that anywhere
> that the trail crosses a road is a trailhead!
> 
> ___
> 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] Creating shop=caravan

I’d like to discourage use of the term rv, it is an abbreviation and I believe 
is more difficult to understand for non natives than the other options.

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

2019-01-14 Thread Kevin Kenny

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 12:16 PM Andy Townsend  wrote:
> No - it really isn't.  That was my entire point.  I'm willing to bet a
> small round of beer in the pub up the road that almost no-one walking
> past that info board will say "oh look - that's a trailhead for the TPT".

On the other hand, I'll bet you a beer in Lake Placid that at least
half the people in the bar at the Adirondack Hotel in Long Lake
village would recognize that this sign
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14920080943/ - which simply stands
on the roadside at a path going into the woods, with no other
facilities right there - marks a trailhead for the Northville-Placid
Trail. (When I say 'no other facilities right there,' what I mean is
that there's a town about 4-5 km down the highway, and it's an easy
walk on the shoulder(verge) or an equally easy hitch.)

It's an important trailhead. Shattuck Clearing on the sign is the site
of a FORMER ranger station that burnt in the 1960's. Since its road
hasn't been maintained since then, it's grown to trees and entirely
impassable to anything on wheels, so while it serves as a landmark,
it's not an opportunity to get help or leave the trail. If you hike in
at that trailhead, except for a handful of spots on a lake where it
would be possible to land a canoe or water-taxi a float plane, there's
no other way out closer than Lake Placid. It's 58.6 km to the next
highway, about 63 km if you're walking to the town - or to turn around
back the way you came. "The last chance to leave the trail for the
next two or three days" is kind of important to map!

I'm therefore going to stick with 'designated or customary place to
begin or end a trip on a trail.'

As long as Peter is agreed that not all trailheads are anything
resembling TOP's and not all TOP's are trailheads, I think we're in
rough agreement. Where I get a bit prickly is at sweeping assertions
like "a trailhead must be something more than where a path crosses a
road."  When you're on a trail where it's 60 km between roads (the NPT
crosses four paved roads in 222 km), you're damned right that anywhere
that the trail crosses a road is a trailhead!

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

Re: [Tagging] Creating shop=caravan

On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 21:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> Been thinking about exactly that overnight!
>
> So, change this main page to shop=rv, with type=powered / towed; sells;
> parts; rental etc etc; & also "See also" of 4WD / SUV see shop=car; quad
> bikes see shop=motorbike etc
>

Except, from the definitions I've seen, it excludes static caravans.  Which
are mobile (even if only
moved infrequently) but are not vehicles.  Which is why "mobile home" is a
better generic term
than "RV" or "motor home."

3 (?) other pages: shop=motorhome; shop=caravan; shop=travel_trailer (just
> for those people who don't speak "English English"! :-)), with no details
> except "See shop=rv"
>

Except, of course, that "RV" is American English.

Would that cover all the bases?
>
> Nope.

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

Re: [Tagging] Creating shop=caravan

On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 19:46, Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> Americans would call them travel trailers, or camper trailers, and I would
> also categorize fifth-wheel campers as trailers, despite their sometimes
> enormous size, because they are pulled by a separate vehicle.
>

Yep, agree with you

To continue exploring that suggestion, we could create a new top-level tag,
> say shop=recreational_vehicle, or shop=rv, further characterize it using
> sells=trailed;self_propelled or some similar term, and then go on to flesh
> out the details using other sub-tags as previously suggested.
> Recreation_vehicle covers all the bases, is newer a term than caravan so
> perhaps less "loaded" with historical baggage, and would work best for the
> country within which the lion's share of such vehicles are bought and sold.
>

Been thinking about exactly that overnight!

So, change this main page to shop=rv, with type=powered / towed; sells;
parts; rental etc etc; & also "See also" of 4WD / SUV see shop=car; quad
bikes see shop=motorbike etc

3 (?) other pages: shop=motorhome; shop=caravan; shop=travel_trailer (just
for those people who don't speak "English English"! :-)), with no details
except "See shop=rv"

Would that cover all the bases?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Hierarchies route=bicycle)

2019-01-14 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Axelos wrote:
> ID is not suitable for this type of contribution (relations), he knows 
> how to do it, but in a superficial and irrelevant way.
> It's not up to OSM to adapt to ID, but the opposite. Since it is not 
> up to OSM to adapt to opencyclemap but the opposite (ref = icn). 
> Potlach 2 in 2019 is a joke!  It is an outdated publisher requiring
> dangerous technology (Adobe).

Maybe don't start editor flamewars on the tagging@ list? Use another list
for that please, like, I dunno, dev-null@, or maybe a list which isn't
administrated by me and is ideally written in a language I can't read.
Thanks.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

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

Re: [Tagging] Yay, new howto map for diabilities created in wiki

2019-01-14 Thread Richard

On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 11:43:15AM +, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 22:37, Philip Barnes  wrote:

it is a howto, so I will rename it accordingly.. not quite sure yet which
name to choose:

* Howto mapping for the needs of handicapped persons
* Howto mapping for the needs of disabled persons

... better ideas?

Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] wheelchair designated parking space tagging?

2019-01-14 Thread Richard

On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 02:43:57PM +0100, althio wrote:
> Richard  wrote:
> > many parking places are fee=yes for normal users and fee=no for handicapped 
> > users.
> > How can this be mapped?
> 
> As documented on the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:fee you
> can use the conditional structure:
> > For example one may use fee:conditional=no @ customers or 
> > fee:conditional=yes @ (08:00-19:00).
> 
> So you can have:
> fee=yes
> fee:conditional=no @ disabled
> 
> and you can find some instances in the database like:
> fee:conditional=yes @ (Mo-Fr 08:00-13:00, 14:30-19:30; PH off); no @ 
> (disabled)
> fee:conditional=no @ Su,PH; no @ disabled; no @ motorcycle; no @ stay<1h

even better solution.. though the other one has been documented in the wiki 
since
a long time. Will document that in addition to the old one - how is the tool 
support
for this kind of conditional expressions?

Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

2019-01-14 Thread Peter Elderson

What Kevin said was not my aim, I have said that before. I agreed with the 
general description Kenny came up with. Those places can be (and have been) 
tagged highway=trailhead, whether these are also TOPs or not, that is the idea.

You can disagree whether particular places now marked as trailheads match this 
description, but the issue here is: tagging the places that do match it. If 
there is consensus, then we (mappers) can evaluate  individual nodes.

I agree some of the TOPs will probably not qualify, but most of them will. Not 
because they are TOPs, but because they are places visibly designed to start 
hiking or riding on one or more routes.

Let’s talk additional and localised tagging after this basic step. Did I hear 
you menton “consensus”?

Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 14 jan. 2019 om 17:24 heeft Tobias Wrede  het 
> volgende geschreven:
> 
>> Am 11.01.2019 um 15:45 schrieb Kevin Kenny:
>> 
>> Despite your repeated denials, you're continuing to try to invent a set of 
>> definitions that, at least in NL, will encompass all TOPs and nothing else. 
>> If that's your aim, then invent a tag for TOP and use it,
> 
> That's a good summary I can second. Peter, there are probably a lot of TOPs 
> that are trailheads or where a trailhead is part of them. But there are other 
> TOPs that are not trailheads in the spirit of the original proposal (to my 
> understanding) nor the consensus that has been come up in this discussion. I 
> pointed out a couple of the latter earlier (I did not search for those 
> explicitly they were the first ones that I randomly selected from an overpass 
> turbo query).
> 
> I also still stand by my earlier suggestion: Mark the trailheads as such 
> (preferably as a point on a path/track/etc.) with hw=trailhead. Mark the TOPs 
> with a separate node or in some cases better even area and a new key/value 
> pair designating it as such. Several suggestions have been made in this 
> thread (tourism=, leisure=, designation=, ...). If you must, use the same 
> node for hw=trailhead and whatever=TOPorWhatNot but I would advise against 
> 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] Trailhead tagging

2019-01-14 Thread Tobias Wrede

Am 11.01.2019 um 18:15 schrieb Andy Townsend:

On 11/01/2019 17:05, Peter Elderson wrote:

The Trans-Pennine Trail trailhead is a trailhead

No - it really isn't. That was my entire point. I'm willing to bet a
small round of beer in the pub up the road that almost no-one walking
past that info board will say "oh look - that's a trailhead for the TPT".

I wouldn't agree here. Even if your pub patrons wouldn't call it a
trailhead it is one. The TPT purposely makes a detour to the South to
meet Chesterfield station.
(https://www.google.com/maps/d/embed?mid=1u1vrqls0lVh49X3ZpT7Bh2728Q8=53.244018099803014%2C-1.4135915937870323=15
Isn't the trail mapped in OSM?) It might not have a big signpost "here
be trails" but it meets the consensus definition of a trailhead, namely
giving easy access to a trail. On top it even has an information board,
parking, rail station, toilets in the station, pub up the road, ... It's
quite a posh trailhead actually ( :-) to use some other participant's
words here).

The position of the new board you mapped is not the trailhead, though.
I'm with you that far.

The problem with trying to shoe-horn other features into a particular
definition is that it dilutes the value of the features with that tag
that have already been mapped - in this case trailheads where
"everyone" will agree that they are trailheads.

That's not to say that the features that you're trying to record
aren't very important - I'm sure that they are, and it would make
total sense for a Dutch-focused transport, cycling or
wanderroute-oriented map to show them.

Absolutely.

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

2019-01-14 Thread Tobias Wrede


Am 11.01.2019 um 15:45 schrieb Kevin Kenny:


Despite your repeated denials, you're continuing to try to invent a 
set of definitions that, at least in NL, will encompass all TOPs and 
nothing else. If that's your aim, then invent a tag for TOP and use it,


That's a good summary I can second. Peter, there are probably a lot of 
TOPs that are trailheads or where a trailhead is part of them. But there 
are other TOPs that are not trailheads in the spirit of the original 
proposal (to my understanding) nor the consensus that has been come up 
in this discussion. I pointed out a couple of the latter earlier (I did 
not search for those explicitly they were the first ones that I randomly 
selected from an overpass turbo query).


I also still stand by my earlier suggestion: Mark the trailheads as such 
(preferably as a point on a path/track/etc.) with hw=trailhead. Mark the 
TOPs with a separate node or in some cases better even area and a new 
key/value pair designating it as such. Several suggestions have been 
made in this thread (tourism=, leisure=, designation=, ...). If you 
must, use the same node for hw=trailhead and whatever=TOPorWhatNot but I 
would advise against that.




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

Re: [Tagging] Creating shop=caravan

sent from a phone

> On 14. Jan 2019, at 14:16, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> In what way is a static caravan irrevocably immobile to the extent that a 
> house made of bricks is?

I’ve a counter example, never say never, 
TRANSLOCATION KAISERSAAL
https://www.sonycenter.de/en/architecture

“During World War II, the Grand Hotel Esplanade, which was once located on what 
is now the Sony Center premises, was almost totally destroyed.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the halls that were left undestroyed 
in the building, were listed historic monuments. In order to be able to extend 
Potsdamer Strasse in width, the magnificent halls of this one-time luxury hotel 
had to be moved.

In 1996, the famous Kaisersaal went on a computer-controlled journey: The 
entire hall was moved by 75 meters in a costly and sophisticated operation.”

That was totally made of bricks.

;-)

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

Re: [Tagging] Creating shop=caravan

2019-01-14 Thread Steve Doerr


On 13/01/2019 23:42, Warin wrote:

On 14/01/19 09:07, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
Wow, so much for me naively thinking that caravan was a universal 
word! Should know better by now :-)


On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 at 21:58, Paul Allen > wrote:


However, there does appear to be a better term.  From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorhome
(the bold emphasis is mine):

Motorhomes are part of the much larger associated group of
*mobile homes* which includes
caravans, also known as tourers, and static caravans.

So mobile_home appears to cover it.


Not really, sorry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_home: "A *mobile home* (also 
*trailer*, *trailer home*, *house trailer*, *static caravan*, 
*residential caravan*) is a prefabricated 
structure, built in a 
factory on a permanently attached chassis before being transported to 
site (either by being towed or on a trailer). Used as permanent homes 
, or for holiday or temporary 
accommodation, they are left often permanently or semi-permanently in 
one place"




It would cover those things that slide in and out of utility vehicles 
and act as accommodation.


I think the 'mobile home' is an acceptable term to cover the lot. Why 
is it unacceptable?
The emphasise on 'permanent' I think is wrong, but there is enough 
vagueness to accept that 'mobile' means mobile.



Certainly in British English, 'mobile home' has a certain connotation 
which makes it unsuitable as a catch-all term. It's virtually a 
misnomer, since mobile homes, once sited, almost never move.


Caravan is better, as there is such a thing as a 'motor caravan' 
(normally denoting the kind that is simply a conversion of a commercial 
van design to provide temporary living accommodation while travelling, 
like the classic VW models 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Westfalia_Camper).



--

Steve



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Creating shop=caravan

On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 13:01, Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

>
> Mobile home simply will not work in this use case. Nobody camps or travels
> from place to place in a mobile home.
>

Yes, it's rare for people to use a generic term when a specific term is
available.  But we're trying
to find a generic term to encompass several specific terms.

In what way is a touring caravan not mobile?  In what way is a touring
caravan not a home?

In what way is a static caravan irrevocably immobile to the extent that a
house made of bricks is?

Far worse than using "mobile home" as a generic term for touring caravans,
static caravans,
RVs, etc. (a usage documented by Wikipedia at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_home) is
using the specific term "caravan" to include RVs, trailers, touring
caravans, static caravans, etc.

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

Re: [Tagging] Creating shop=caravan

Round and round we go and ne'er the twain shall meet.

Mobile home simply will not work in this use case. Nobody camps or travels
from place to place in a mobile home.

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 7:01 PM Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 at 22:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>> Wow, so much for me naively thinking that caravan was a universal word!
>> Should know better by now :-)
>>
>
> Yeah, where are the camels?  It's not a proper caravan without camels.
>
> Have a question about searching though, which was raised previously. You
>> have a place that deals in both (self-propelled) "motorhomes" & also
>> (towed) "caravans", & it's tagged as a shop=caravan, with caravan=yes &
>> also motorhome=yes (ignoring the exact wording for the moment).
>>
>
> If you search for motorhome, will it be found because the details include
>> motorhome=yes, or would you have to search for caravan, because it's tagged
>> as a shop=caravan? (Sorry, I know that's badly worded but can't think of a
>> better way of putting it)
>>
>
> Having thought about it some more, and using shop=mobile_home as the main
> tag (I know you
> don't like it, but I do), then
> mobile_home:sells=static_caravan;touring_caravan;motor_home.  Yes,
> I just mixed UK and US terms there, but it was about the best I could come
> up with on a first
> attempt (no doubt we will spend weeks arguing over those).  Maybe we ought
> to have
> "caravan" and "static_caravan."
>
> So mobile_home appears to cover it.
>
>
> Not really, sorry
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_home: "A *mobile home* (also
> *trailer*, *trailer home*, *house trailer*, *static caravan*, *residential
> caravan*) is a prefabricated
> structure, built in a
> factory on a permanently attached chassis before being transported to site
> (either by being towed or on a trailer). Used as permanent homes
> , or for holiday or temporary
> accommodation, they are left often permanently or semi-permanently in one
> place"
>
> Nothing in that excludes touring caravans.  "Used as permanent homes *or*
> for holiday
> or temporary accommodation."  "The are left *often* permanently [,..] in
> one place."  It may imply
> that the term most commonly refers to static caravans but doesn't
> explicitly exclude RVs,
> touring caravans, etc.
>
> Also, from the second paragraph of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorhome
> "Motorhomes" are part of the much larger associated group of *mobile
> homes* which includes
> *caravans, *also known as tourers, and static caravans.
>
> Not that anyone should ever take Wikipedia as gospel for anything, but
> that accords well with
> (British) English definitions of "mobile" and "home."  You can live in it
> (home) and you can
> move it around (mobile).  "Motor home" excludes towed caravans and static
> caravans (no motor) and
> really only includes RVs and similar self-propelled vehicles.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Creating shop=caravan

On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 at 22:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Wow, so much for me naively thinking that caravan was a universal word!
> Should know better by now :-)
>

Yeah, where are the camels?  It's not a proper caravan without camels.

Have a question about searching though, which was raised previously. You
> have a place that deals in both (self-propelled) "motorhomes" & also
> (towed) "caravans", & it's tagged as a shop=caravan, with caravan=yes &
> also motorhome=yes (ignoring the exact wording for the moment).
>

If you search for motorhome, will it be found because the details include
> motorhome=yes, or would you have to search for caravan, because it's tagged
> as a shop=caravan? (Sorry, I know that's badly worded but can't think of a
> better way of putting it)
>

Having thought about it some more, and using shop=mobile_home as the main
tag (I know you
don't like it, but I do), then
mobile_home:sells=static_caravan;touring_caravan;motor_home.  Yes,
I just mixed UK and US terms there, but it was about the best I could come
up with on a first
attempt (no doubt we will spend weeks arguing over those).  Maybe we ought
to have
"caravan" and "static_caravan."

So mobile_home appears to cover it.

Not really, sorry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_home: "A *mobile home* (also *trailer*
, *trailer home*, *house trailer*, *static caravan*, *residential caravan*)
is a prefabricated structure,
built in a factory on a permanently attached chassis before being
transported to site (either by being towed or on a trailer). Used as
permanent homes , or for holiday or
temporary accommodation, they are left often permanently or
semi-permanently in one place"

Nothing in that excludes touring caravans.  "Used as permanent homes *or*
for holiday
or temporary accommodation."  "The are left *often* permanently [,..] in
one place."  It may imply
that the term most commonly refers to static caravans but doesn't
explicitly exclude RVs,
touring caravans, etc.

Also, from the second paragraph of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorhome
"Motorhomes" are part of the much larger associated group of *mobile homes*
which includes
*caravans, *also known as tourers, and static caravans.

Not that anyone should ever take Wikipedia as gospel for anything, but that
accords well with
(British) English definitions of "mobile" and "home."  You can live in it
(home) and you can
move it around (mobile).  "Motor home" excludes towed caravans and static
caravans (no motor) and
really only includes RVs and similar self-propelled vehicles.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Hierarchies route=bicycle)

On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 10:38, Axelos  wrote:

The direction signs are a real problem. An alternative solution is to
> exploit the destination key
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org//search?q=destination%3Abicycle
>

However, it's an incomplete solution.  Around here, official cycle routes
have fingerposts
which show a bicycle icon and the number of the route.  It's not a
destination, just an
indication that cycle route 82 is along a particular direction.

Similarly, the UK has many public footpaths and bridleways.  Where they
join a highway there
is usually a fingerpost with an icon of either a walking person (footpath)
or a horse (bridleway).
No destination is given.  It's useful to indicate, in some way, that these
are signs for
footpaths or bridleways so that people know what they're looking for when
navigating.

Also, the town where I live relies heavily on tourism.  Several months ago
it installed four
fingerposts pointing to various destinations within the town.  I've
currently handled those in
the description but it's a very clunky way of doing it.  See, for example.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5995875128 and
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6201876775

I would welcome some way of tagging those meanings on
information=guidepost.  Maybe, as
part of figuring out the best way to handle destination signs, we could
also consider those issues.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Hierarchies route=bicycle)

2019-01-14 Thread Axelos

Hello,

Richard Fairhurst wrote
> Axelos wrote:
>> Hello, I propose a concept for contributing cycling route.
> 
> From the description on the wiki page, I'm not sure how your proposal
> differs from the practice documented at
> https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/help/rendering/hierarchies . Could you
> explain the difference?

It's the same concept.  The idea is to document the practice on the OSM Wiki
and not just on a third-party website (no matter how good).

>> Example name = Boucle de la Moselle: Toul - Pompey
> 
> Please don't do this - the name tag is for an object's commonly agreed
> name,
> and "Boucle de la Moselle: Toul - Pompey" is not the official name of any
> part of the route. You could perhaps use the description= or note= tag
> instead.
> 
> There are lots of examples of this in your proposal: "name=PAN Segment 1",
> "name=Véloroute 50 : Étapes", and so on.

Indeed this type of information can be indicated in "description".  However,
the relation of the hierarchies consists in linking the different relations
of the same route in a single relation.  The end user only sees this single
parent relation, the "superroute".  So, to indicate this type of information
in the relations child in the field "name" represents a real problem?

>> To do this effectively, you will need a powerful editor: JOSM.
> 
> This is a "tagging smell" (cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_smell).
> Any
> tagging scheme that requires a particular editor is probably a bad scheme.
> 
> As it happens, you can certainly edit relations like this with Potlatch 2
> no
> problem and I guess you can with iD too; but before any tagging scheme
> like
> this is adopted, you should create a tutorial for iD users. It shouldn't
> be
> necessary to learn a whole new editor just to be able to tag a bike route
> -
> as you yourself say, "Is the hierarchy of cycle routes reserved for
> experts?". Bear in mind too that iD users _will_ edit these routes, so the
> scheme should be intuitive and robust (of course, that should be the case
> anyway!).

In general, contributing to relations on openstreetmap (cycle, bus,
boundaries) requires a minimum of knowledge.  This is not like indicating
the location of a bench.
ID is not suitable for this type of contribution (relations), he knows how
to do it, but in a superficial and irrelevant way.
It's not up to OSM to adapt to ID, but the opposite. Since it is not up to
OSM to adapt to opencyclemap but the opposite (ref = icn). 
Potlach 2 in 2019 is a joke!  It is an outdated publisher requiring
dangerous technology (Adobe).

There is a distinction between being "expert" and being "voluntary". Using
JOSM is not just for "experts" but for people who want to go beyond
representing benches! I caricature.

Regards.

--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Hierarchies route=bicycle)

2019-01-14 Thread Axelos

Hello,


voschix wrote
> 1) The problem exists in the same way also for other routes like:
> route=road|foot|hiking|bus|trolleybus|tram|mtb|
> So the wording has to be reviewed under this aspect

Exactly, I have already made the same reflection on bus routes that take the
same path over long distances.


> 2) There is an unresolved issue with bicycle routes, i.e. that, variants
> apart, in most cases a cycle route between A and B uses a different chain
> of ways different in the direction A > B form the route B > A (due to
> things, like roundabouts, one-way streets, one-way cycle paths that are
> mapped as separate ways in OSM, and possible others). The only logically
> clean solution is to have two separate relations for the two directions
> under a super-relation. But none of the (many) cycle route relations I
> know
> follow this model. The usual approach is to include all ways in the same
> relation and use the forward|backward roles on the ways that differ. The
> consequences for the hierarchy model need to be looked at.

I think that creating two relations, one for each direction is not necessary
for a mode of travel such as cycling. This is also the case for walking. 
The needs are not the same as for public transport (bus, tram, train);  who
are obliged to follow their itineraries and their senses, and have hourly
constraints.

3) There is a tendency to include signposts in the relations. This has a
number of open issues of its own.
3a) with the one-relation-per-direction scheme the signposts that have
information for both directions, do they belong to the super-relation or do
they have to be included in both child relations?
3b) In case of more routes sharing the same string of ways, many signs
(referring to different routes) share the same physical support, i.e. they
should be tagged on the same node.


The direction signs are a real problem. An alternative solution is to
exploit the destination key 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org//search?q=destination%3Abicycle

Regards.



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

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

Re: [Tagging] Creating shop=caravan

sent from a phone

> On 14. Jan 2019, at 02:15, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> 
> The mandate to use UK English in tags breaks down when UK English
> lacks the vocabulary!

+1, we‘ve seen this in other fields as well, e.g. the distinction of „Burg“ and 
„Schloss“ in German, which somehow translate both to castle in English (but 
find equivalent terms in other languages, e.g. some slavic languages). The 
solution in this case was using castle as the umbrella term and add subtypes 
with descriptive names to it.

I would see mobile homes (movable “houses” that usually are not moved around 
all the time, because of the effort) as a different kind of beast than 
motorhomes, RVs, caravans etc.

I believe we should be able to distinguish at least:
- whether the things are sold / rent
- selfpropelled or trailers 
- custom or standard (is it a vendor or a workshop)

I know there are also companies that offer to transform all terrain military 
trucks into expedition vehicles, and there are luxury versions at prices with 
no upper limits (think Arabian princess mobile quarters including space for 
racing horses).
Basically Yachting on land for the super rich. Just ask your favorite search 
engine for some pictures to get an idea, e.g. “luxury expedition vehicles”

Cheers, Martin 

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

Re: [Tagging] Creating shop=caravan