Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Tag:staff_count:nurses & doctors
That should likely be FTEs (full time equivalents), not that I believe this is something that should actually be in OSM (what about wikidata?). Am 02.08.2019 um 08:08 schrieb Rory McCann: > On 01/08/2019 22:17, Mhairi O'Hara wrote: >> Voting is now open for the proposed feature staff_count:nurses >> >> "Indicates the average daily number of nurses available at a health >> facility" > > On 01/08/2019 22:17, Mhairi O'Hara wrote: > > Voting is now open for the proposed feature staff_count:doctors > > > > "Indicates the average daily number of doctors available at a health > > facility" > > Instead of “average daily” how about “whole-time equivalents”? Someone > who works full time counts as 1. 50% time (“part time”) means 0.5. So > 2 part time doctors, or 1 full-time doctor, is `staff_count:doctors=1`? > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 11:12 AM Peter Elderson wrote: > > We're on the same page. The pavement and separations argument just > illustrates how local authorities may make the same distinction, and try to > regulate traffic and safety informally. So here, I can use this for the > classification, but in the next town it would probably not work. We're stuck with the hierarchy, but it doesn't really work that well in most places other than the UK. In my area, there actually is a reasonable hierarchy that reflects the relative importance of routes: motorway - Interstate, US, and State highways that are dual carriageways with fully controlled access. (Some of the State Parkways fall in this category but are named and not numbered.) trunk - some few special cases where a multi-lane dual carriageway is only partially grade-separated from local traffic, or a 'super two' where a single-carriageway road is grade-separated from local traffic, with acceleration and deceleration ramps like a motorway. primary - my state designates most US Highways and some numbered state touring routes as primary secondary - other state touring routes, numbered and bannered. tertiary - state reference routes, or numbered and bannered county highways. State reference routes get an ´unsigned_ref=*´ since the only field-visible marks of the numbers is a roughly 20x20 cm sign showing the number and chaining. These markers have three four-digit rows rows and are next to impossible to read from a moving car. Many are collector roads that are prominently bannered, "TO NY 7", "TO US 20" etc. The lower classifications are harder. We have had many arguments about the boundaries, in rural areas, between 'unclassified', 'residential', 'service' and 'track'. When you get into the North Woods, New York has some public highways that are Pretty Darned Bad - I'm pretty sure that I've tagged a "highway=track abandoned:highway=tertiary surface=compacted tracktype=grade4 smoothness=very_bad" and decided, "No, I'm not driving my Forester on this before scouting ahead." On that particular road, there were indicia that would support any of the five classes from 'tertiary' to 'track'. I've also put reference numbers for the highway system onto 'highway=footway' - for roads that have been washed out or destroyed in rock slides, where the bannering indicates a numbered route, the actual route is marked with 'detour' signs, but the condition is semi-permanent because there's never funding to rebuild the road. There's actually a blazed long-distance hiking trail that follows some of these sections, so 'footway' is appropriate, but the sections I have in mind are impassable to anything on wheels. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy
We're on the same page. The pavement and separations argument just illustrates how local authorities may make the same distinction, and try to regulate traffic and safety informally. So here, I can use this for the classification, but in the next town it would probably not work. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op do 8 aug. 2019 om 13:43 schreef Paul Allen : > On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 12:18, Peter Elderson wrote: > >> To be practical, I think I will retag the clearly residential roads now >> tagged as 'unclassified' in my town, to 'residential'. Some roads are now >> tagged as residential, but the main function is getting through the >> village. These tend to give access to housing as well, but houses are >> separated from the road by e.g. broad pedestrian pavements, parking lanes, >> stretches of greenery, a row of trees, kerbs, and/or separate cycleways. >> > > Sounds sensible to me. Except I wouldn't let the pavements, greenery, > trees, etc. influence > me. If the main function is getting through the village then it's a > through road even though > it has houses that are barely separated from the road and don't have > pavements. There are > a few houses in my area where the front door opens straight onto the road, > which is an > officially-designated tertiary. > > >> If e.g. a bus uses such a road I will retag it as unclassified. I would >> use quaternary if I could be sure of rendering and routing, which I am not. >> > > "Quaternary" is a term used by me purely to make clear that "unclassified" > arose from the UK > through-road hierarchy of A roads (primary), B roads (secondary), C roads > (tertiary) and > U-for-unclassified roads (quaternary). Unclassified doesn't mean, as the > guy who recently > edited the wiki thought, uncategorized. It's not for roads you don't know > the purpose of, it's the > fourth level in the hierarchy with an unfortunate choice of name. If you > don't know what > the road is for and can't decide, then use highway=road. > > So I wouldn't recommend using "quaternary." I would be very happy if OSM > switched to > using quaternary instead of unclassified but, for various reasons, that is > very unlikely to > happen. Ill-conceived values like "unclassified" which are historical > accidents are one > of the reasons this list exists. Had this list existed back then we'd > probably still be > arguing whether to call the fourth level "unclassified" or "quaternary." :) > > -- > 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] Road hierarchy
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 14:51, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > +1, historically (say pre-1960ies, I’m not old enough to tell from own > experience and may be wrong) you wouldn’t have found pavements in German > hamlets and villages (or likely anywhere in the countryside), and although > most will have put them now, it really isn’t a criterion for the road > importance. > Another factor is road widening. Houses that may have had a (very) small front garden may have lost it when the road was widened to accommodate more traffic. I've only lived here ten years, so I don't know if it was always this way or the road was widened when the one-way scheme was implemented. Feidrfair is a major component of the one-way system around town. All buses heading from the north to the "bus station" at Finch Square travel along it. It's only a tertiary route now, but before the town bypass was constructed (again, before my time) it would have been a main artery for travel across the town from the surrounding areas. https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.08389&mlon=-4.65824#map=17/52.08389/-4.65824 Now look at the images.https://goo.gl/maps/AL5FAzNgPCMumHKM8 On the right the pavement is only wide enough for one person to walk (two if they're very close friends), the houses have no gardens. A little further along https://goo.gl/maps/RYiuKbC6hKbFSVDG9 and even one person will have to be careful to get past the sign post and lamp post. Further along still https://goo.gl/maps/nnumunY2txjhoqde8 and there's no pavement, just a kerb. The houses have gardens but they're relatively new build (in an old style) so whatever was there before them probably stuck out that far, because a new build wouldn't have been allowed to "steal" pavement. Ahead on the left you can see the large signage typical of a through route. As streets in this town go it's not the most densely-packed with houses but it's not far off. It's a tertiary route now but I suspect that before the bypass was constructed it was either a secondary or a primary. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy
sent from a phone > On 8. Aug 2019, at 13:41, Paul Allen wrote: > > Except I wouldn't let the pavements, greenery, trees, etc. influence > me. If the main function is getting through the village then it's a through > road even though > it has houses that are barely separated from the road and don't have > pavements. +1, historically (say pre-1960ies, I’m not old enough to tell from own experience and may be wrong) you wouldn’t have found pavements in German hamlets and villages (or likely anywhere in the countryside), and although most will have put them now, it really isn’t a criterion for the road importance. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bicycle kitchens, community centres that offer bicycle repairs etc
sent from a phone > On 7. Aug 2019, at 21:36, Morten Lange via Tagging > wrote: > > I wonder how I should tag bicycle shops that are not shops in the traditional > "buy our products" sense. around here this is also a common phenomenon, I am not sure whether they are all tagged the same, some examples: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/81943194 https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/922740369 https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/248977107 these are all places where you can repair your bicycle for free, typically you can also get parts from old bikes, or assemble a bike from old parts, but they don’t sell bikes or parts, and they may ask for a donation if you can. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bicycle kitchens, community centres that offer bicycle repairs etc
Le 07.08.19 à 21:36, Morten Lange via Tagging a écrit : > I wonder how I should tag bicycle shops that are not shops in the > traditional "buy our products" sense. one area for the community center one node inside this area for the shop > community_centre=bicycle_maintenance this only make sense if the community_center is dedicated/exist only for bicycle_maintenance I 'll avoid this tag. > ownership=private_nonprofit (or ownership=public_nonprofit) it's hard to say who own a poi. more common is operator:type Regards, Marc ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 12:18, Peter Elderson wrote: > To be practical, I think I will retag the clearly residential roads now > tagged as 'unclassified' in my town, to 'residential'. Some roads are now > tagged as residential, but the main function is getting through the > village. These tend to give access to housing as well, but houses are > separated from the road by e.g. broad pedestrian pavements, parking lanes, > stretches of greenery, a row of trees, kerbs, and/or separate cycleways. > Sounds sensible to me. Except I wouldn't let the pavements, greenery, trees, etc. influence me. If the main function is getting through the village then it's a through road even though it has houses that are barely separated from the road and don't have pavements. There are a few houses in my area where the front door opens straight onto the road, which is an officially-designated tertiary. > If e.g. a bus uses such a road I will retag it as unclassified. I would > use quaternary if I could be sure of rendering and routing, which I am not. > "Quaternary" is a term used by me purely to make clear that "unclassified" arose from the UK through-road hierarchy of A roads (primary), B roads (secondary), C roads (tertiary) and U-for-unclassified roads (quaternary). Unclassified doesn't mean, as the guy who recently edited the wiki thought, uncategorized. It's not for roads you don't know the purpose of, it's the fourth level in the hierarchy with an unfortunate choice of name. If you don't know what the road is for and can't decide, then use highway=road. So I wouldn't recommend using "quaternary." I would be very happy if OSM switched to using quaternary instead of unclassified but, for various reasons, that is very unlikely to happen. Ill-conceived values like "unclassified" which are historical accidents are one of the reasons this list exists. Had this list existed back then we'd probably still be arguing whether to call the fourth level "unclassified" or "quaternary." :) -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy
To be practical, I think I will retag the clearly residential roads now tagged as 'unclassified' in my town, to 'residential'. Some roads are now tagged as residential, but the main function is getting through the village. These tend to give access to housing as well, but houses are separated from the road by e.g. broad pedestrian pavements, parking lanes, stretches of greenery, a row of trees, kerbs, and/or separate cycleways. If e.g. a bus uses such a road I will retag it as unclassified. I would use quaternary if I could be sure of rendering and routing, which I am not. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op do 8 aug. 2019 om 12:14 schreef Paul Allen : > On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 03:18, Michael Tsang wrote: > > If the "primary purpose" of the road is through traffic, and the "driving >> experience" is like on a major road (e.g. straight, fast, no obstruction, >> no >> give way, etc.), that part of the road is still red / pink. >> >> However, if that road is built like the other residential cul-de-sac with >> a >> lot of slowing and calming features like give ways, curves, or very >> narrow >> such that it become a choke point causing serious traffic congestion >> every day, >> I will think it as residential. >> > > I think we're pretty much in agreement on this. Of course, I live in the > UK so through > routes are officially designated and guesswork doesn't need to be > applied. So for me, > it's simple: if it is an officially-designated through route then that's > how it gets tagged, > whether there are houses along it or not. For others it may be harder if > there are no > official designations for through routes, then they have to use their > judgement to see > if it quacks like a through route. In either case, if it's not a through > route and has > houses along it then it's residential (or, in some cases where the houses > are far > apart, a service road or even a track). > > There might be a case for some form of tagging that says "this is > primary/seconday/ > tertiary/quaternary route with houses along it" but I think an area tagged > with place=* > makes that clear for human data consumers. I suppose there are edge cases > where > a router could be faced with two alternative routes at the same level and > with the > same speed limits and the same distance between two given points but they > have no > way of knowing that one has houses along it but the other does not, but > it's unlikely. > Same distance is unlikely. Same distance with same speed limits is even > more > unlikely, especially if one has houses and the other does not. > > What I don't see as sensible is tagging through routes as residential > because there are > some houses. > > -- > 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] Road hierarchy
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 03:18, Michael Tsang wrote: If the "primary purpose" of the road is through traffic, and the "driving > experience" is like on a major road (e.g. straight, fast, no obstruction, > no > give way, etc.), that part of the road is still red / pink. > > However, if that road is built like the other residential cul-de-sac with > a > lot of slowing and calming features like give ways, curves, or very narrow > such that it become a choke point causing serious traffic congestion every > day, > I will think it as residential. > I think we're pretty much in agreement on this. Of course, I live in the UK so through routes are officially designated and guesswork doesn't need to be applied. So for me, it's simple: if it is an officially-designated through route then that's how it gets tagged, whether there are houses along it or not. For others it may be harder if there are no official designations for through routes, then they have to use their judgement to see if it quacks like a through route. In either case, if it's not a through route and has houses along it then it's residential (or, in some cases where the houses are far apart, a service road or even a track). There might be a case for some form of tagging that says "this is primary/seconday/ tertiary/quaternary route with houses along it" but I think an area tagged with place=* makes that clear for human data consumers. I suppose there are edge cases where a router could be faced with two alternative routes at the same level and with the same speed limits and the same distance between two given points but they have no way of knowing that one has houses along it but the other does not, but it's unlikely. Same distance is unlikely. Same distance with same speed limits is even more unlikely, especially if one has houses and the other does not. What I don't see as sensible is tagging through routes as residential because there are some houses. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
