Re: [Tagging] emergency=no on hospitals is ambiguous

[Francesco Ansanelli]

Il dom 3 nov 2019, 15:49 Martin Koppenhoefer  ha
scritto:

> what about specific emergency departments, e.g. a gynecological hospital
> which has an emergency department for gynecological emergencies only?
>

How about to mention it as healthcare speciality?

healthcare:speciality
=gynaecology

healthcare:speciality
=emergency_
gynaecology


>
> Cheers Martin
> ___
> 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] emergency=no on hospitals is ambiguous

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

what about specific emergency departments, e.g. a gynecological hospital which 
has an emergency department for gynecological emergencies only?

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Pedestrian lane

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 3 nov 2019, alle ore 09:59, Jan Michel  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> This depends on legislature. In Germany, on normal streets (not on motorways) 
> the shoulder is not only for emergency use and pedestrians, but also for all 
> slower vehicles. These should drive there to allow faster vehicles to 
> overtake them.


right, there are exceptions e.g. in Germany for slow vehicles to reduce their 
speed and wait on the shoulder so that faster vehicles can overtake them. 
Generally you may not drive there, while parking is admitted (on 
non-motorways/motorroads). 

For pedestrian lanes I would expect the opposite: you may drive on them but not 
park.


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Pedestrian lane

[Markus]

On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 at 20:37, Clifford Snow  wrote:
>
> I like your proposal but think it needs to clarify the difference between a 
> pedestrian lane and a shoulder [1]. In the US, most (many?) states allow 
> pedestrians to walk on shoulders if there is no sidewalk/footway, with the 
> exception of motorways. How would a mapper know if this is a shoulder or a 
> pedestrian lane?

Thanks for your input. I didn't think about that because here in
Switzerland shoulders only seem to exist on motorways and trunk roads
and because of their difference in appearance (shoulder: continuous
white line [1], pedestrian lane: continuous yellow line with yellow
diagonal stripes [2]). In the United States, it seems that pedestrian
lanes are marked accordingly. [3] I guess that in other countries,
pedestrian lanes are also marked or signed accordingly or have a
different appearance like in Switzerland, but when in doubt, it is
certainly better to not tag a lane as pedestrian lane. I'll add a
warning to the proposal page.

[1]: https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/vhd1RZj0JXfpHIZ1uHj0xA
[2]: https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/6NiPeYEe87G_ex49SqwFtg
[3]: 
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/small_towns/fhwahep17024_lg.pdf,
p. 102 (5-7).

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

Re: [Tagging] emergency=no on hospitals is ambiguous

[Francesco Ansanelli]

Il dom 3 nov 2019, 11:19 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> On 03/11/19 18:51, Francesco Ansanelli wrote:
>
> Hello list,
>
> I don't know is anybody wrote about this before, but I have noticed that
> the emergency tag changes meaning on hospitals and the result is weird:
> emergency tag indicate whether an emergency vehicle has access to the
> way/point, but on hospitals his value is about emergency rooms.
> I cannot imagine an hospital that disallowed access to emergency vehicles,
> but the editors by example forgot about this and indicate so...
> To avoid any ambiguity a rename could clarify the situation:
> emergency -> emergency_room
> On every hospital and we can assume emergency=yes on them (it's hard to
> me to imagine a place that is emergency=no btw).
> What do you think?
>
>
> It is not only an 'emergency room' that is required to be suitable for
> emergencies.
> Some 'hospitals' simply cannot deal with emergencies and so emergency=no
> is a good tag for them.
>
> As we all know an emergency vehicle will not pay much attention to stop
> lights etc,
> so if it suits them then emergency=no will not stop them calling into  a
> hospital. But most ambulances will already know of the hospitals capability
> and so they won't be using OSM. It is the people travelling by private
> vehicle who will not be aware of the capabilities that can be caught out.
>
>
Right, but imho it's like the tag dispensing, here in Italy we can
distinguish a pharmacy: Farmacia or parafarmacia using the dispensing flag.
For the hospital we distinguish between ospedale and 'pronto soccorso' if
we use the same tagging of other features this could be misleading...
Anyway if there is general consensus I'll open a ticket on my favourite
editors issue tracker. Cheers

>
> ___
> 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] emergency=no on hospitals is ambiguous

[Warin]

On 03/11/19 18:51, Francesco Ansanelli wrote:

Hello list,

I don't know is anybody wrote about this before, but I have noticed 
that the emergency tag changes meaning on hospitals and the result is 
weird:
emergency tag indicate whether an emergency vehicle has access to the 
way/point, but on hospitals his value is about emergency rooms.
I cannot imagine an hospital that disallowed access to emergency 
vehicles, but the editors by example forgot about this and indicate so...

To avoid any ambiguity a rename could clarify the situation:
emergency -> emergency_room
On every hospital and we can assume emergency=yes on them (it's hard 
to me to imagine a place that is emergency=no btw).

What do you think?


It is not only an 'emergency room' that is required to be suitable for 
emergencies.
Some 'hospitals' simply cannot deal with emergencies and so emergency=no 
is a good tag for them.


As we all know an emergency vehicle will not pay much attention to stop 
lights etc,
so if it suits them then emergency=no will not stop them calling into  a 
hospital. But most ambulances will already know of the hospitals 
capability and so they won't be using OSM. It is the people travelling 
by private vehicle who will not be aware of the capabilities that can be 
caught out.



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

Re: [Tagging] emergency=no on hospitals is ambiguous

[Francesco Ansanelli]

Il dom 3 nov 2019, 10:22 Martin Koppenhoefer  ha
scritto:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> Il giorno 3 nov 2019, alle ore 09:13, Jo  ha scritto:
>
> the confusion is that emergency may refer to rooms, but usually in
> OpenStreetMap it refers to access for emergency vehicles.
>
>
>
> actually emergency is a well defined key for emergency vehicle access AND
> for emergency related features
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:emergency
>

That's the meaning that I'd like to preserve... The problem is:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dhospital

If you know whether or not the hospital in question is equipped to deal
with emergencies - this is called A (accidents and emergencies) in the UK
and ER (emergency room) in the US - then you can add emergency
=* with a value of "yes"
or "no".




> Cheers Martin
> ___
> 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 - Pedestrian lane

[Jan Michel]

On 03.11.19 08:19, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

Il giorno 2 nov 2019, alle ore 20:37, Clifford Snow  
ha scritto:

I like your proposal but think it needs to clarify the difference between a 
pedestrian lane and a shoulder [1]. In the US, most (many?) states allow 
pedestrians to walk on shoulders if there is no sidewalk/footway, with the 
exception of motorways. How would a mapper know if this is a shoulder or a 
pedestrian lane?


you may not drive on the shoulder but you can drive on the pedestrian lane.


This depends on legislature. In Germany, on normal streets (not on 
motorways) the shoulder is not only for emergency use and pedestrians, 
but also for all slower vehicles. These should drive there to allow 
faster vehicles to overtake them.



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Pedestrian lane

[Michael Brandtner via Tagging]

The only pedestrian lane that I know, in my German hometown, is separated from 
the rest of the road by a solid line. So it's not legal for vehicles to drive 
on it.
Michael 

 
  Am So., Nov. 3, 2019 at 8:20 schrieb Martin 
Koppenhoefer:   

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 2 nov 2019, alle ore 20:37, Clifford Snow  
> ha scritto:
> 
> I like your proposal but think it needs to clarify the difference between a 
> pedestrian lane and a shoulder [1]. In the US, most (many?) states allow 
> pedestrians to walk on shoulders if there is no sidewalk/footway, with the 
> exception of motorways. How would a mapper know if this is a shoulder or a 
> pedestrian lane?


you may not drive on the shoulder but you can drive on the pedestrian lane.

Cheers Martin 
___
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] emergency=no on hospitals is ambiguous

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 3 nov 2019, alle ore 09:13, Jo  ha scritto:
> 
> the confusion is that emergency may refer to rooms, but usually in 
> OpenStreetMap it refers to access for emergency vehicles.


actually emergency is a well defined key for emergency vehicle access AND for 
emergency related features 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:emergency

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

Re: [Tagging] emergency=no on hospitals is ambiguous

[Jo]

the confusion is that emergency may refer to rooms, but usually in
OpenStreetMap it refers to access for emergency vehicles.

On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 8:58 AM Andrew Errington 
wrote:

> We have a local hospital. It is tiny and has no emergency room.
>
> Andrew
>
> On 03/11/2019, Francesco Ansanelli  wrote:
> > Hello list,
> >
> > I don't know is anybody wrote about this before, but I have noticed that
> > the emergency tag changes meaning on hospitals and the result is weird:
> > emergency tag indicate whether an emergency vehicle has access to the
> > way/point, but on hospitals his value is about emergency rooms.
> > I cannot imagine an hospital that disallowed access to emergency
> vehicles,
> > but the editors by example forgot about this and indicate so...
> > To avoid any ambiguity a rename could clarify the situation:
> > emergency -> emergency_room
> > On every hospital and we can assume emergency=yes on them (it's hard to
> me
> > to imagine a place that is emergency=no btw).
> > What do you think?
> > Cheers,
> > Francesco
> >
>
> ___
> 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] emergency=no on hospitals is ambiguous

[Francesco Ansanelli]

Hi Andrew,

Then you have to put emergency=no according to the wiki... Let me know if
your editor implement it right

Francesco

Il dom 3 nov 2019, 08:58 Andrew Errington  ha scritto:

> We have a local hospital. It is tiny and has no emergency room.
>
> Andrew
>
> On 03/11/2019, Francesco Ansanelli  wrote:
> > Hello list,
> >
> > I don't know is anybody wrote about this before, but I have noticed that
> > the emergency tag changes meaning on hospitals and the result is weird:
> > emergency tag indicate whether an emergency vehicle has access to the
> > way/point, but on hospitals his value is about emergency rooms.
> > I cannot imagine an hospital that disallowed access to emergency
> vehicles,
> > but the editors by example forgot about this and indicate so...
> > To avoid any ambiguity a rename could clarify the situation:
> > emergency -> emergency_room
> > On every hospital and we can assume emergency=yes on them (it's hard to
> me
> > to imagine a place that is emergency=no btw).
> > What do you think?
> > Cheers,
> > Francesco
> >
>
> ___
> 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] emergency=no on hospitals is ambiguous

[Andrew Errington]

We have a local hospital. It is tiny and has no emergency room.

Andrew

On 03/11/2019, Francesco Ansanelli  wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> I don't know is anybody wrote about this before, but I have noticed that
> the emergency tag changes meaning on hospitals and the result is weird:
> emergency tag indicate whether an emergency vehicle has access to the
> way/point, but on hospitals his value is about emergency rooms.
> I cannot imagine an hospital that disallowed access to emergency vehicles,
> but the editors by example forgot about this and indicate so...
> To avoid any ambiguity a rename could clarify the situation:
> emergency -> emergency_room
> On every hospital and we can assume emergency=yes on them (it's hard to me
> to imagine a place that is emergency=no btw).
> What do you think?
> Cheers,
> Francesco
>

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

[Tagging] emergency=no on hospitals is ambiguous

[Francesco Ansanelli]

Hello list,

I don't know is anybody wrote about this before, but I have noticed that
the emergency tag changes meaning on hospitals and the result is weird:
emergency tag indicate whether an emergency vehicle has access to the
way/point, but on hospitals his value is about emergency rooms.
I cannot imagine an hospital that disallowed access to emergency vehicles,
but the editors by example forgot about this and indicate so...
To avoid any ambiguity a rename could clarify the situation:
emergency -> emergency_room
On every hospital and we can assume emergency=yes on them (it's hard to me
to imagine a place that is emergency=no btw).
What do you think?
Cheers,
Francesco
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Pedestrian lane

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 2 nov 2019, alle ore 20:37, Clifford Snow  
> ha scritto:
> 
> I like your proposal but think it needs to clarify the difference between a 
> pedestrian lane and a shoulder [1]. In the US, most (many?) states allow 
> pedestrians to walk on shoulders if there is no sidewalk/footway, with the 
> exception of motorways. How would a mapper know if this is a shoulder or a 
> pedestrian lane?


you may not drive on the shoulder but you can drive on the pedestrian lane.

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