Re: [Tagging] Areas of bare soil (clay, silt, loam) such as badlands?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

That sounds right. So natural=badlands could be used on a node, or on
an area covering the heavily-eroded, bare soil area of the landform?

On 10/21/19, Mark Wagner  wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 09:19:10 +0900
> Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:
>
>> How should areas of bare soil, such as badlands, be tagged?
>>
>> Currently there are documented tags for dry areas of bedrock, stones
>> and sand:
>>
>> natural=bare_rock, natural=shingle,  natural=scree, and natural=sand
>>
>> For tidal areas, beaches and wetlands there's also natural=beach,
>> natural=shoal and wetland=mud
>>
>> However, there's no documented, common tag for dry areas of exposed
>> clay, silt or mixed soil.
>>
>> natural=badlands has been used 5 times, but this is rather specific
>> and may not be well-known outside of North America:
>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=badlands
>
> "Badlands" is a specific landform.  It's not sufficient for the area to
> be clear of vegetation; it needs to be heavily eroded, making it "a bad
> place to travel".
>
> --
> Mark
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> Whatever else may have been changed in this proposal, the number format
wasn't one of those changes

Sorry, I didn't realize this. I was reading the proposal and assumed
that the "Content" section was supposed to be different.

Valor Naram, could you clarify what specific changes will be made to
the page, based on approval of this proposal? Is it just rewording, or
are there any significant changes to how the tag is used?

- Joseph

On 10/21/19, Paul Allen  wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 00:58, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 21/10/19 09:52, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>> >
>> > For example, requiring the country code in all phone numbers would not
>> > be standard practice in Indonesia or the USA, since people in these
>> > countries very rarely make phone calls to other countries.
>>
>> It is not 'standard practice' in Australia, New Zealand either.. but it
>> is
>> what is done in OSM to enable people from outside that country to call
>> that
>> number.
>>
>
> I've been mapping for around 2 years now, and the wiki for phone=*
> specified ITU format
> back then.  Whatever else may have been changed in this proposal, the
> number format
> wasn't one of those changes.
>
> --
> Paul
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 00:58, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 21/10/19 09:52, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> >
> > For example, requiring the country code in all phone numbers would not
> > be standard practice in Indonesia or the USA, since people in these
> > countries very rarely make phone calls to other countries.
>
> It is not 'standard practice' in Australia, New Zealand either.. but it is
> what is done in OSM to enable people from outside that country to call that
> number.
>

I've been mapping for around 2 years now, and the wiki for phone=*
specified ITU format
back then.  Whatever else may have been changed in this proposal, the
number format
wasn't one of those changes.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

[Warin]

On 21/10/19 09:52, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

I'm in favor of deprecating contact:phone now (and the other
contact:XXX duplicates later), but I don't know about your other
proposed changes.

For example, requiring the country code in all phone numbers would not
be standard practice in Indonesia or the USA, since people in these
countries very rarely make phone calls to other countries.


It is not 'standard practice' in Australia, New Zealand either.. but it is what 
is done in OSM to enable people from outside that country to call that number.
So in the Australian Tagging Guidelines that are instructions on how to tag 
phone numbers in OSM using +61.
See 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Phone_Numbers

I would suggest similar guides for Indonesia and America.
Where a phone number in OSM does not start with a '+' that can mean it needs 
some attention, with some exceptions as a few phone numbers are not accessible 
from outside the particular country.



- Joseph

On 10/21/19, Valor Naram via Tagging  wrote:

Hey,

I finally opened the voting "Make `phone` Tag default for tagging
telephone numbers in OSM and deprecating contact:phone`. Please place
your voice at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone.
The Voting will be closed at 5th Novembre 2019. Please read the Proposal
page carefully before waiting because the specification (everything in the
`content` section) there will be the specification shown in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone

Proposal description:
This proposal tends to make Key:phone the official
tag for tagging phone numbers and to deprecate the tag contact:phone
which is used less. It's bad to have two keys for the exact same
purpose in use.





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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag pedestrian lanes?

[John Willis via Tagging]

> On Oct 21, 2019, at 2:08 AM, Markus  wrote:
> 
>  * It doesn't make sense: if it doesn't have a kerb (or any other
> physical barrier) it isn't a sidewalk.

This is the most important information. 

it should be tagged as a “footway lane” or “pedestrian lane” or similar. 


Javbw

a "sidewalk lane” implies a regular kerb separated sidewalk. ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

[Kevin Kenny]

On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 6:54 PM Joseph Eisenberg
 wrote:
> For example, requiring the country code in all phone numbers would not
> be standard practice in Indonesia or the USA, since people in these
> countries very rarely make phone calls to other countries.

Including the country code in the US, though, is Mostly Harmless,
since 1 is widely used as a dialing prefix. A leading 1 digit flags to
a lot of USA phone systems that the number to follow is ten digits
(rather than a 7-digit local number). Most USAians are therefore
familiar with seeing a phone number written like 1-800-555-1212. +1
800 555 1212 doesn't look overly weird to a USAian, the only thing
that would raise eyebrows is the plus sign.

Where I've mapped USA phone numbers, I've used the country code.


-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I'm in favor of deprecating contact:phone now (and the other
contact:XXX duplicates later), but I don't know about your other
proposed changes.

For example, requiring the country code in all phone numbers would not
be standard practice in Indonesia or the USA, since people in these
countries very rarely make phone calls to other countries.

- Joseph

On 10/21/19, Valor Naram via Tagging  wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I finally opened the voting "Make `phone` Tag default for tagging
> telephone numbers in OSM and deprecating contact:phone`. Please place
> your voice at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone.
> The Voting will be closed at 5th Novembre 2019. Please read the Proposal
> page carefully before waiting because the specification (everything in the
> `content` section) there will be the specification shown in
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone
>
> Proposal description:
> This proposal tends to make Key:phone the official
> tag for tagging phone numbers and to deprecate the tag contact:phone
> which is used less. It's bad to have two keys for the exact same
> purpose in use.
>
> --
> Cheers
>
> ~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram,
>
>
> Developer of the Babykarte - https://babykarte.github.io
> Participating in MapDiscover project - https://mapdiscover.org
>
>
> ___
> 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] How to tag pedestrian lanes?

[Volker Schmidt]

I think in bicycle-OSM we have kind of an tacitly agreed approach: bicycle
lanes (divided from motorised traffic by a painted line) are generally
mapped on the road way whereas separate parallel cycleways are tagged
either on the road way or as separate way, with the former often being the
first, fast mapping and the latter being considered the more advanced
mapping.

On Sun, 20 Oct 2019, 23:24 Clifford Snow,  wrote:

> I'm not familiar with the laws of the country the picture [1] listed in
> the first post on this thread, but the diagonal yellow lines look to me
> like a don't park here rather than a sidewalk. Even the one pedestrian in
> the picture isn't walking the diagonal yellow lines. Can someone confirm
> that those yellow lines indicate a pedestrian way?
>
> The second concern I'd like to raise is the two not exactly compatible
> methods we have for mapping sidewalks. In the original method, sidewalks
> were mapped as attributes of streets. If the goal is to map sidewalks as an
> attribute of streets, then yes mapping them as a Marcus proposes, 
> pedestrian_lane= or as Martin points out, sidewalk:right=lane would be appropriate.
>
> However, since the introduction of mapping sidewalks as separate ways was
> introduced, shared use with a street will require thinking about not only
> how to tag, but also how the geometry is connected. The purpose of mapping
> sidewalks as separate ways is to allow pedestrian routing. If pedestrians
> share the street how should they be mapped. I'd probably show the sidewalk
> connecting to the street to the shared section. The connection would
> include kerb ramps and tactile pads that exist. I'd like to add that I
> don't see a civil engineer ever designing such an unsafe arrangement, but
> then, my city is just now starting to fix all of their crappy kerb cuts
> that they installed a decade or so before. I should add, I've switched over
> to mapping sidewalks as separate ways, after tagging all of the streets
> with sidewalk=left/right/both :-)
>
> Best,
> Clifford
>
> [1]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pedestrian_lane.jpg
>
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 11:52 AM Markus  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 19:52, Jan Michel  wrote:
>> >
>> > I also prefer this kind of tagging. I don't see a reason to invent a
>> > fully new tag for this - it is an area meant just for pedestrians just
>> > like a sidewalk. [...]
>>
>> I don't know how it is elsewhere, but in Switzerland vehicles are
>> allowed to drive on the pedestrian lane as long as pedestrians aren't
>> impeded. However, they aren't allowed to drive on sidewalks. (Aside
>> from the fact that it's not really possible.) Therefore, "an area
>> meant just for pedestrians just like a sidewalk" isn't true here.
>>
>> > For me, a kerb is not a necessary feature of a sidewalk, e.g. here
>> > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/Hx17IpF-pZWl6AakpYUc2g
>> > There is no kerb or other barrier at all, but still it's obviously a
>> > sidewalk.
>>
>> I wouldn't call that a sidewalk and thus wouldn't tag it sidewalk=*.
>>
>> > I don't see how a 2-3 cm high kerb provides any kind of safety for a
>> > pedestrian.
>>
>> Not much, but luckily most kerbs (at least those i came across) are
>> much higher (usually 10 cm and more). They are only lowered at
>> pedestrian crossings or at driveways. Cars and buses sometimes
>> accidentally touch kerbs while driving (on narrow roads) and then get
>> thrown in the other direction. So i'd say that they definitely provide
>> some safety to pedestrians.
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> --
> @osm_washington
> www.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
> ___
> 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] How to tag pedestrian lanes?

[Clifford Snow]

I'm not familiar with the laws of the country the picture [1] listed in the
first post on this thread, but the diagonal yellow lines look to me like a
don't park here rather than a sidewalk. Even the one pedestrian in the
picture isn't walking the diagonal yellow lines. Can someone confirm that
those yellow lines indicate a pedestrian way?

The second concern I'd like to raise is the two not exactly compatible
methods we have for mapping sidewalks. In the original method, sidewalks
were mapped as attributes of streets. If the goal is to map sidewalks as an
attribute of streets, then yes mapping them as a Marcus proposes,
pedestrian_lane=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pedestrian_lane.jpg

On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 11:52 AM Markus  wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 19:52, Jan Michel  wrote:
> >
> > I also prefer this kind of tagging. I don't see a reason to invent a
> > fully new tag for this - it is an area meant just for pedestrians just
> > like a sidewalk. [...]
>
> I don't know how it is elsewhere, but in Switzerland vehicles are
> allowed to drive on the pedestrian lane as long as pedestrians aren't
> impeded. However, they aren't allowed to drive on sidewalks. (Aside
> from the fact that it's not really possible.) Therefore, "an area
> meant just for pedestrians just like a sidewalk" isn't true here.
>
> > For me, a kerb is not a necessary feature of a sidewalk, e.g. here
> > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/Hx17IpF-pZWl6AakpYUc2g
> > There is no kerb or other barrier at all, but still it's obviously a
> > sidewalk.
>
> I wouldn't call that a sidewalk and thus wouldn't tag it sidewalk=*.
>
> > I don't see how a 2-3 cm high kerb provides any kind of safety for a
> > pedestrian.
>
> Not much, but luckily most kerbs (at least those i came across) are
> much higher (usually 10 cm and more). They are only lowered at
> pedestrian crossings or at driveways. Cars and buses sometimes
> accidentally touch kerbs while driving (on narrow roads) and then get
> thrown in the other direction. So i'd say that they definitely provide
> some safety to pedestrians.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag pedestrian lanes?

[Markus]

On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 19:52, Jan Michel  wrote:
>
> I also prefer this kind of tagging. I don't see a reason to invent a
> fully new tag for this - it is an area meant just for pedestrians just
> like a sidewalk. [...]

I don't know how it is elsewhere, but in Switzerland vehicles are
allowed to drive on the pedestrian lane as long as pedestrians aren't
impeded. However, they aren't allowed to drive on sidewalks. (Aside
from the fact that it's not really possible.) Therefore, "an area
meant just for pedestrians just like a sidewalk" isn't true here.

> For me, a kerb is not a necessary feature of a sidewalk, e.g. here
> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/Hx17IpF-pZWl6AakpYUc2g
> There is no kerb or other barrier at all, but still it's obviously a
> sidewalk.

I wouldn't call that a sidewalk and thus wouldn't tag it sidewalk=*.

> I don't see how a 2-3 cm high kerb provides any kind of safety for a
> pedestrian.

Not much, but luckily most kerbs (at least those i came across) are
much higher (usually 10 cm and more). They are only lowered at
pedestrian crossings or at driveways. Cars and buses sometimes
accidentally touch kerbs while driving (on narrow roads) and then get
thrown in the other direction. So i'd say that they definitely provide
some safety to pedestrians.

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

[Valor Naram via Tagging]

Hey,

I finally opened the voting "Make `phone` Tag default for tagging
telephone numbers in OSM and deprecating contact:phone`. Please place
your voice at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone. 
The Voting will be closed at 5th Novembre 2019. Please read the Proposal page 
carefully before waiting because the specification (everything in the `content` 
section) there will be the specification shown in 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone

Proposal description:
This proposal tends to make Key:phone the official
tag for tagging phone numbers and to deprecate the tag contact:phone
which is used less. It's bad to have two keys for the exact same
purpose in use.

--
Cheers

~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram,


Developer of the Babykarte - https://babykarte.github.io
Participating in MapDiscover project - https://mapdiscover.org


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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag pedestrian lanes?

[Jan Michel]

On 20.10.19 12:40, Tobias Zwick wrote:

I have seen this kind of sidewalk that is just a marked lane in Germany as 
well, usually as part of parking lots or larger company grounds.

How about:

sidewalk=right
sidewalk:right:kerb=no
sidewalk:right:surface=asphalt


I also prefer this kind of tagging. I don't see a reason to invent a 
fully new tag for this - it is an area meant just for pedestrians just 
like a sidewalk. In this way, it's fully backwards compatible, only 
additional information is added by the tag mentioning the kerb.


For me, a kerb is not a necessary feature of a sidewalk, e.g. here
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/Hx17IpF-pZWl6AakpYUc2g
There is no kerb or other barrier at all, but still it's obviously a 
sidewalk.


On 19.10.19 21:44, Markus wrote:
> While a sidewalk provides some safety for
> pedestrians, a pedestrian lanes does not.

I don't see how a 2-3 cm high kerb provides any kind of safety for a 
pedestrian.



On 19.10.19 23:01, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

or e.g.sidewalk:right=lane


That would be an option, very much alike the tagging for cycleways - but 
this is a tag that needs to be clearly defined and worked into all the 
existing tools that make use of sidewalks in one way or the other.




Jan


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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag pedestrian lanes?

[Markus]

On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 12:24, Georg Feddern  wrote:
>
> Why not in analogy to cycleway=track|lane|...
> sidewalk=track|lane|...

This would require a huge amount of retagging. (There are currently
over 1.5 millions uses of sidewalk=*.)

On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 19:11, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>
> We have a widely used scheme for tagging cycle lanes/paths on the road way:
> cycleway=lane|track with variants.
> Extrapolating from that for the pedestrian "lane" seems obvious to me:
> sidewalk=lane (plus variants).
> For separate sidewalks there is
> sidewalk=yes (plus variants)
>
> Why invent something different?

"yes" isn't the only value of sidewalk=*, there's also "right",
"left", "both", "no" (plus "none") and "separate". [1] This isn't
compatible with sidewalk=lane.

Why not inventing something different for a different feature? :)

[1]: As well as some less useful values like "this" (156 uses!?),
"bad", "both;right", "right;none", "10" or "forest". :D

Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag pedestrian lanes?

[Markus]

On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 12:42, Tobias Zwick  wrote:
>
> How about:
>
> sidewalk=right
> sidewalk:right:kerb=no

I dislike using these tags for pedestrian lanes for the following
reasons (sorry if i repeat myself):

  * It doesn't make sense: if it doesn't have a kerb (or any other
physical barrier) it isn't a sidewalk.

  * Blind people are able to make out a sidewalk, but not a pedestrian lane.

  * It's misleading: Data users may not know the tag
sidewalk:right:kerb=no and thus may make wrong assumptions. For
example, a navigation application may guide a pedestrian along a route
with only pedestrian lanes instead of safer route with sidewalks.

  * pedestrian_lane= is simpler for mappers and data users.

  * The distinction between physical separation or road markings is
already made for cycleways.

As sidewalk:right:kerb=no sidewalk:left:kerb=no has only been used 4
and 9 times respectively, almost no retagging were required.

> The most important thing is to tag whether there is a sidewalk or not. 
> Regardless of whether it has a keen [kerb] or not.

I disagree: as already written, a sidewalk offers some safety for
pedestrians because of the kerb, while a pedestrian lane doesn't.

Regards

Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag pedestrian lanes?

[Volker Schmidt]

We have a widely used scheme for tagging cycle lanes/paths on the road way:
cycleway=lane|track with variants.
Extrapolating from that for the pedestrian "lane" seems obvious to me:
sidewalk=lane (plus variants).
For separate sidewalks there is
sidewalk=yes (plus variants)

Why invent something different?

On Sun, 20 Oct 2019, 12:42 Tobias Zwick,  wrote:

> I have seen this kind of sidewalk that is just a marked lane in Germany as
> well, usually as part of parking lots or larger company grounds.
>
> How about:
>
> sidewalk=right
> sidewalk:right:kerb=no
> sidewalk:right:surface=asphalt
>
> The most important thing is to tag whether there is a sidewalk or not.
> Regardless of whether it has a keen or not.
>
> According to taginfo, sidewalk:right:kerb is already used a few times:
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/sidewalk%3Aright%3Akerb#overview
>
> Tobias
>
> On October 20, 2019 8:39:14 AM GMT+02:00, John Willis via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Oct 20, 2019, at 4:44 AM, Markus 
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> However i think that a sidewalk requires a physical separation to the
> >> roadway
> >
> >
> >I agree with you, and I tag all separated standard sidewalks as
> >“sidewalks” (iD preset).
> >
> >however, there are a lot of narrow roads in Japan where the side of the
> >road (between the white lane border line and the barrier wall along the
> >road) is painted with a (thin) green stripe, and is considered a
> >pedestrian path - usually around schools where children walk. The
> >infrastructure in the area is very old, and they cannot widen the roads
> >to be safer, so they paint the green line on to remind drivers to be
> >safe and keep the pedestrians on one side. this is only around schools
> >with narrow roads. New roads all have separated sidewalks, so no
> >painted area is necessary.
> >
> >I tag the green line as a highway=path and add a note=* to the way.
> >
> >One example I have seen is much larger, and is a new “lane” created by
> >converting a 2-way road to 1-way and giving the margin to pedestrians.
> >https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/667338935
> >.
> >
> >I do not think this is ideal, but it does properly map the marking and
> >the routing that should be used for pedestrians. usually many roads in
> >the area are narrow, and the designated way is best.
> >
> >If some method is standardized, I will correct my mapping.
> >
> >Note: these are not the blue cycle-lanes or cycle arrows in the road
> >found on many narrow high traffic roads.
> >
> >
> >Javbw
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 12:43, Vɑdɪm  wrote:

> I think you guys forgot one thing: the OSM is not specifically about UK,
> Australia or any other country. It's a global map.
>

I didn't forget that.  I'm pretty sure some of the others didn't forget
that either.

>
> In your region you may perhaps you may not have any dedicated areas for
> sunbathing, so -- don't use the tag. On the other hand I could imagine
> there
> are some countries you could be jailed if you'd try to sunbathe in the
> fields. You may also find something in the middle.
>

It's the bit in the middle that is the problem.  You seem determined to
write a
proposal that suggests it is OK to map unverifiable sunbathing areas.  I,
for one,
will vote against a proposal which encourages mapping unverifiable
sunbathing
areas.

>
> Here and then I've found some areas designated for sunbathing, and I wanted
> to map it accordingly.
>

Great.  Write your proposal around those designated areas.  Put photos of
the signage
in the proposal, if you have them.  I'm happy to believe there are places
with signs
saying sunbathing is prohibited whether you have examples or not, because
I've read
reports of such areas where tourists were penalized for sunbathing in areas
where
it was prohibited.

>
> Tag:leisure=fishing simply says "Place for fishing", that's it literally.
> So
> probably you use your *personal assumptions* if using this tag which could
> not be obvious for the others.
>

My personal assumption is that something must be verifiable to be
mappable.  I'm more
flexible than some here.  Some would insist on signage on the ground, I'd
accept regulations
on an official website or the statement of a property owner, or the
statement of a club which
has fishing rights to a stretch of river.  What I would not do is notice a
pond in the UK with
some fish in it and assume that fishing is permitted.  Other countries may
have other rules,
but unless I were sure of those rules I wouldn't map a pond with fish in it
as leisure=fishing
unless I could find evidence that were the case.  It's not enough to see
somebody fishing
there as it may be the owner of the pond and the owner is the only one
permitted to fish there.

But if you stick to the dedicated areas (which the leisure=fishing currently
> does not require) it becomes much easier to verify it. That's what I'm
> using
> in the proposal.
>

The wiki page for leisure=fishing doesn't require verifiability because
that is an underlying
assumption of  OSM.  Nor does it say "map ponds with fish in them as
leisure=fishing"
because that would be as bad as "if you see sunshades that's a sunbathing
area."

>
> leisure=swimming_area as per the wiki a signage is not required, buoys,
> etc.
> are optional. It just needs to be an "officially designated place".
>

Yes.  Officially designated.  Verifiable.  Not "there's some water so you
can swim in it" or even
"I once saw somebody swimming there."

amenity=lounger -- could be a movable and seasonal object.
>

Could be.  But in a public area probably relatively stable for long periods
of time.  Still
a physical object, though, and intrinsically verifiable.  We don't put
amenity=lounger on
an area where somebody might one day put a lounger.

leisure=outdoor_seating in some countries could be just a part of a street
> in a good weather.
>

Could be.  Mappers ought to have some idea of local conventions and not
make assumptions.
However, outdoor seats are physical objects.  Many countries have laws
about putting seats
on sidewalks.  I'm confident that the outdoor seating I've mapped is stable
in the long-term
because I've observed it over a period of years, and that it will be there
as long as the operator
remains in business.

Tag:leisure=dance could be not only dance halls, but also "other venues
> which offer social dancing or participation dancing". Again a signage is
> not
> required.
>

How do you know those venues offer social or participation dancing without
signage or
the operator's website saying so?  Again, it comes down to verifiability.
I mentioned only
signage because by that stage I thought I'd made my point about
VERIFIABILITY.  I hadn't
realized I was dealing with somebody who couldn't understand VERIFIABILITY.

Your proposal doesn't have to explicitly mention verifiability because that
is an underlying
principle of OSM.  But if it encourages guesswork then I will vote against
it, and I expect
some others will too.  Your choice.

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

Re: [Tagging] Using Corine Land Cover definitions for land cover in OSM?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Landcover classification systems do not match directly with current
OpenStreetMap data and tagging. Our tagging system developed
organically, based on what people would call map features in ordinary
British English, so we have tags like natural=wood, rather than
natural=wetland, natural=heath, rather than =dra

If you check the wiki page
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landcover you can see how the
current tags fit with a couple of systems: NLCD92 (National Land Cover
Database) and LCCS (Land Cover Classification System ) - neither are a
very close match. It looks like the CLC (Corine_Land_Cover) system is
a mix of landuse and landcover classes, and it's less specific than
many of the current Openstreetmap tags.

"Sparsely vegetated area" could be scrub, sparse heath, or other types
of vegetation like sparse grasses, or if it's really sparse we could
map the underlying minera: natural=sand, natural=scree,
natural=bare_rock, or bare soil. See
https://land.copernicus.eu/user-corner/technical-library/corine-land-cover-nomenclature-guidelines/html/index-clc-333.html

The CLC is based on 1:100.000 scale satellite imagery, so it can't be
as specific as what OpenStreetMap users can tag with local knowledge
and aerial imagery.

The areas I'm thinking of are eroded, bare soil (a mix of sand, silt,
small stones and sometimes clay) without vegetation. They fit under
LCCS B16." Bare Areas", specifically "A5. Bare Soil" - but since such
areas are rare in most of Europe, and are usually found in sparsely
populated areas, they have rarely been mapped.

I'm thinking that natural=badlands is good to describe the whole area
of eroded terrain, which also implies lack of vegetation and exposed
soil (not solid rock, stones or sand), but I also think it might be
good to have a general tag for natural areas of exposed, dry soil.

On 10/20/19, Alessandro Sarretta  wrote:
> I'm not against natural=badlands for areas that are covered by a non
> vegetated surface in an erosive context with steep slopes (as per
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badlands). Anyway they seem to be a more
> specific case than a "simple" bare soil.
>
> I think that, in general, when dealing with land cover things in
> OpenStreetMap, we should really try and use some knowledge from standard
> definitions, e.g. Corine Land Cover CLC). I see that there is already a
> page defining connections between OSM elements and CLC classes [1]
>
> In the case of /badlands/, they are mentioned as one of the examples in
> /3.3.3. Sparsely vegetated areas/ [2].
>
> I'm quite new in discussions about land cover in OSM, but wouldn't it be
> useful to add, in addition to OSM-specific tags like natural=bare_rock,
> natural=shingle,  natural=scree, ... a tag to reference standard land
> cover classification?
>
> I see that a tag /CLC:code /[3] already exists and used more than 30
> times, but it seems to be used only in case of imports and it is
> suggested (with a very weak motivation, IMHO) to be deleted after
> editing those areas after import.
>
> In the example of badlands, would it be useful to have both
> /natural=badlands /(or any other agreed OSM-spefici tag) + /CLC:code=333
> and//or /land_cover=sparsely_vegetated_areas /?
>
> I see many useful uses coming from this.. but I could be wrong...
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Ale
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Corine_Land_Cover
>
> [2]
> https://land.copernicus.eu/user-corner/technical-library/corine-land-cover-nomenclature-guidelines/html/index-clc-333.html
>
> [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:CLC:code
>
>
> On 20/10/19 07:31, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>> Perhaps the term “badlands” is only used in a North America. Wikipedia
>> has a description:
>>
>> "Badlands are a type of dry terrain where softer sedimentary rocks and
>> clay-rich soils have been extensively eroded by wind and water. ...
>> They are characterized by steep slopes, minimal vegetation" and thin
>> soil - but not exposed bedrock, usually.
>>
>> Photo examples:
>>
>> 1) Chinle Badlands, Utah:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chinle_Badlands.jpg
>> 2) Badlands near Coober Pedy in central Australia:
>> https://www.alamy.com/the-badlands-area-near-coober-pedy-in-central-australia-image67285952.html
>> 3) Drum Badlands, Alberta:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drumbadlands.jpg
>> 4) Las Médulas, Spain:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Panorámica_de_Las_Médulas.jpg
>> 5) Valle de la Luna, Argentina:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:P1010357_1.JPG
>> 6) Badlands National Park, South Dakota:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Badlands00503.JPG
>>
>> - Joseph
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 11:14 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 20/10/19 11:19, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
 How should areas of bare soil, such as badlands, be tagged?

 Currently there are documented tags for dry areas of bedrock, stones and
 sand:

 natural=bare_rock, natural=shingle,  natural=scree, and natural=sand

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

[Vɑdɪm]

I think you guys forgot one thing: the OSM is not specifically about UK,
Australia or any other country. It's a global map.

In your region you may perhaps you may not have any dedicated areas for
sunbathing, so -- don't use the tag. On the other hand I could imagine there
are some countries you could be jailed if you'd try to sunbathe in the
fields. You may also find something in the middle.

Here and then I've found some areas designated for sunbathing, and I wanted
to map it accordingly.

Re: other tags. I didn't put my reasoning hence probably your reaction. In
the essence, please try to look not only outside your window.

Tag:leisure=fishing simply says "Place for fishing", that's it literally. So
probably you use your *personal assumptions* if using this tag which could
not be obvious for the others.

I could imagine that in UK you may only fish at the marked areas and you'd
be fined if you go fishing anywhere else. In other regions you can go
fishing nearly everywhere except the nature reserves (also depends on how
you do your fishing). So in the latter case you may say that leisure=fishing
is vague and useless.

But if you stick to the dedicated areas (which the leisure=fishing currently
does not require) it becomes much easier to verify it. That's what I'm using
in the proposal.

As for the others...

leisure=swimming_area as per the wiki a signage is not required, buoys, etc.
are optional. It just needs to be an "officially designated place".

amenity=lounger -- could be a movable and seasonal object.
leisure=outdoor_seating in some countries could be just a part of a street
in a good weather.

Tag:leisure=dance could be not only dance halls, but also "other venues
which offer social dancing or participation dancing". Again a signage is not
required.

In all these cases you, as a responsible mapper need to ask your judgement
if indeed your tagging could be verified by others. 

BTW please excuse my English if it matters.



--
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] How to tag pedestrian lanes?

[Tobias Zwick]

I have seen this kind of sidewalk that is just a marked lane in Germany as 
well, usually as part of parking lots or larger company grounds.

How about:

sidewalk=right
sidewalk:right:kerb=no
sidewalk:right:surface=asphalt 

The most important thing is to tag whether there is a sidewalk or not. 
Regardless of whether it has a keen or not.

According to taginfo, sidewalk:right:kerb is already used a few times:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/sidewalk%3Aright%3Akerb#overview

Tobias 

On October 20, 2019 8:39:14 AM GMT+02:00, John Willis via Tagging 
 wrote:
>
>
>> On Oct 20, 2019, at 4:44 AM, Markus 
>wrote:
>> 
>> However i think that a sidewalk requires a physical separation to the
>> roadway
>
>
>I agree with you, and I tag all separated standard sidewalks as
>“sidewalks” (iD preset).
>
>however, there are a lot of narrow roads in Japan where the side of the
>road (between the white lane border line and the barrier wall along the
>road) is painted with a (thin) green stripe, and is considered a
>pedestrian path - usually around schools where children walk. The
>infrastructure in the area is very old, and they cannot widen the roads
>to be safer, so they paint the green line on to remind drivers to be
>safe and keep the pedestrians on one side. this is only around schools
>with narrow roads. New roads all have separated sidewalks, so no
>painted area is necessary. 
>
>I tag the green line as a highway=path and add a note=* to the way. 
>
>One example I have seen is much larger, and is a new “lane” created by
>converting a 2-way road to 1-way and giving the margin to pedestrians. 
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/667338935
>.
>
>I do not think this is ideal, but it does properly map the marking and
>the routing that should be used for pedestrians. usually many roads in
>the area are narrow, and the designated way is best. 
>
>If some method is standardized, I will correct my mapping. 
>
>Note: these are not the blue cycle-lanes or cycle arrows in the road
>found on many narrow high traffic roads. 
>
>
>Javbw

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag pedestrian lanes?

[Georg Feddern]

Am 20.10.2019 um 11:24 schrieb Markus:

On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 at 23:02, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:

+1, or e.g. sidewalk:right=lane
there are a few instances tagged like this: 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/sidewalk%3Aright=lane

18 out of 30 are additionally tagged sidewalk=right. I think it's
better to keep "sidewalk" out, otherwise it gets too confusing.


Why not in analogy to cycleway=track|lane|...
sidewalk=track|lane|...
sidewalk=yes (as synonym for kerb) was thought too short ... again.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag pedestrian lanes?

[Markus]

On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 at 23:02, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
> +1, or e.g. sidewalk:right=lane
> there are a few instances tagged like this: 
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/sidewalk%3Aright=lane

18 out of 30 are additionally tagged sidewalk=right. I think it's
better to keep "sidewalk" out, otherwise it gets too confusing.

On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 08:41, John Willis via Tagging
 wrote:
>
> I tag the green line as a highway=path and add a note=* to the way.
>
> One example I have seen is much larger, and is a new “lane” created by 
> converting a 2-way road to 1-way and giving the margin to pedestrians.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/667338935.

Mapping a lane as a separate way isn't ideal, because this separates
the lane from the rest of the roadway, leading to routing problems:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_foot=36.40695%2C139.33347%3B36.40655%2C139.33423

Cheers

Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag pedestrian lanes?

[John Willis via Tagging]

> On Oct 20, 2019, at 4:44 AM, Markus  wrote:
> 
> However i think that a sidewalk requires a physical separation to the
> roadway


I agree with you, and I tag all separated standard sidewalks as “sidewalks” (iD 
preset).

however, there are a lot of narrow roads in Japan where the side of the road 
(between the white lane border line and the barrier wall along the road) is 
painted with a (thin) green stripe, and is considered a pedestrian path - 
usually around schools where children walk. The infrastructure in the area is 
very old, and they cannot widen the roads to be safer, so they paint the green 
line on to remind drivers to be safe and keep the pedestrians on one side. this 
is only around schools with narrow roads. New roads all have separated 
sidewalks, so no painted area is necessary. 

I tag the green line as a highway=path and add a note=* to the way. 

One example I have seen is much larger, and is a new “lane” created by 
converting a 2-way road to 1-way and giving the margin to pedestrians. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/667338935 
.

I do not think this is ideal, but it does properly map the marking and the 
routing that should be used for pedestrians. usually many roads in the area are 
narrow, and the designated way is best. 

If some method is standardized, I will correct my mapping. 

Note: these are not the blue cycle-lanes or cycle arrows in the road found on 
many narrow high traffic roads. 


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

[Tagging] Using Corine Land Cover definitions for land cover in OSM?

[Alessandro Sarretta]

I'm not against natural=badlands for areas that are covered by a non 
vegetated surface in an erosive context with steep slopes (as per 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badlands). Anyway they seem to be a more 
specific case than a "simple" bare soil.


I think that, in general, when dealing with land cover things in 
OpenStreetMap, we should really try and use some knowledge from standard 
definitions, e.g. Corine Land Cover CLC). I see that there is already a 
page defining connections between OSM elements and CLC classes [1]


In the case of /badlands/, they are mentioned as one of the examples in 
/3.3.3. Sparsely vegetated areas/ [2].


I'm quite new in discussions about land cover in OSM, but wouldn't it be 
useful to add, in addition to OSM-specific tags like natural=bare_rock, 
natural=shingle,  natural=scree, ... a tag to reference standard land 
cover classification?


I see that a tag /CLC:code /[3] already exists and used more than 30 
times, but it seems to be used only in case of imports and it is 
suggested (with a very weak motivation, IMHO) to be deleted after 
editing those areas after import.


In the example of badlands, would it be useful to have both 
/natural=badlands /(or any other agreed OSM-spefici tag) + /CLC:code=333 
and//or /land_cover=sparsely_vegetated_areas /?


I see many useful uses coming from this.. but I could be wrong...

Any ideas?

Ale

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Corine_Land_Cover

[2] 
https://land.copernicus.eu/user-corner/technical-library/corine-land-cover-nomenclature-guidelines/html/index-clc-333.html


[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:CLC:code


On 20/10/19 07:31, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

Perhaps the term “badlands” is only used in a North America. Wikipedia
has a description:

"Badlands are a type of dry terrain where softer sedimentary rocks and
clay-rich soils have been extensively eroded by wind and water. ...
They are characterized by steep slopes, minimal vegetation" and thin
soil - but not exposed bedrock, usually.

Photo examples:

1) Chinle Badlands, Utah: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chinle_Badlands.jpg
2) Badlands near Coober Pedy in central Australia:
https://www.alamy.com/the-badlands-area-near-coober-pedy-in-central-australia-image67285952.html
3) Drum Badlands, Alberta: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drumbadlands.jpg
4) Las Médulas, Spain:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Panorámica_de_Las_Médulas.jpg
5) Valle de la Luna, Argentina:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:P1010357_1.JPG
6) Badlands National Park, South Dakota:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Badlands00503.JPG

- Joseph

On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 11:14 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 20/10/19 11:19, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

How should areas of bare soil, such as badlands, be tagged?

Currently there are documented tags for dry areas of bedrock, stones and sand:

natural=bare_rock, natural=shingle,  natural=scree, and natural=sand

For tidal areas, beaches and wetlands there's also natural=beach,
natural=shoal and wetland=mud

However, there's no documented, common tag for dry areas of exposed
clay, silt or mixed soil.

natural=badlands has been used 5 times, but this is rather specific
and may not be well-known outside of North America:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=badlands

natural=desert is common, but includes all kinds of vegetated and
unvegetated arid areas; many of these can be tagged with natural=
grassland, heath, scrub, sand, scree etc.

Desert is a climate, not a land cover nor a land form. Some deserts include 
'lakes'.

The key natural has climate, land form and land cover all in the one tagging 
scheme, I don't think is is a good scheme and would be better separated into 
the individual things it is trying to tag.


natural=clay has been used twice:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=clay

natural=earth has been used 20 times:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=earth

natural=bare_earth has 23 uses:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=bare_earth

There's also natural=pebbles with 67 uses
(https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=pebbles)
and natural=gravel 90 times -
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=gravel

But most of those could be scree or shingle, which would be more specific.

Would it be best to describe the type of soil, like natural=clay,
=silt, =earth, =pebbles, =gravel?

Better to tag specific things rather than a group.


Should mappers use surface=* without another top-level tag?

No.


Should natural=bare_earth be used in general for clay and other bare soils?

Or is natural=badlands best to describe the specific feature of an
arid area where the bare soil is exposed due to erosion?

I have no idea of what 'badlands' are .. from your information it is not single 
land cover nor a land form.
So it is a climate? A climate that causes erosion to a bare surface? No 
vegetation?






___
Tagging