Re: [Tagging] key:drinking_water for OSM ways

[Joseph Eisenberg]

The tag content=water has been used over 24,000 times (mainly with
man_made=storage_tank, sometimes with man_made=reservoir_covered),
while content=drinking_water has only 62 times, so I would use
content=water for storage tanks and reservoirs.

I agree that the drinkability of a storage tank of water is not
readily observable, and that drinking_water=yes is generally used for
features that provide drinking water, rather than merely containing
it, as stated on the wiki page for that tag.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 2/21/20, European Water Project  wrote:
> And maybe it shouldn't be mapped that way because it is not observable.
>
> Up for discussion...
> Thanks,
>
> Stuart
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020, 08:25 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 21/2/20 6:16 pm, European Water Project wrote:
>>
>> Hi Warin,
>>
>> contents=water seems more appropriate
>>
>> That does not stipulate if it is drinking water.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Stuart
>>
>> On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 07:38, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So a water tank with drinking water cannot be tagged as drinking water
>>> because there is no local access. Fine.
>>> Then it is only tagged as a tank with contents=water, or should there be
>>> yet another value for it contents=drinking_water?
>>> Or a sub tag water=drinking water...
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21/2/20 5:10 pm, European Water Project wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Martin,
>>>
>>> There are a couple of issues I see with drinking_water=yes not having a
>>> concept of access.
>>>
>>> 1. Where is the observability  ? How can I know if a water tank has
>>> drinking quality water or just agriculture quality water ?
>>> From the wiki :
>>> "One can assume that the water is pure when many people drink it every
>>> day."
>>> This is hard to assume, and one would never know if there is water ...
>>>
>>> 2.   But there is an even bigger issue --- and I will admit that I am
>>> biased because of the European Water Project's use case.
>>> For a map feature to be useful, it should have universality. Ie. if one
>>> maps restaurants with toilets, at least customers should have access ...
>>> Someone who goes to the OSM way where there is a water tank, even with a
>>> wallet full of cash, will die of thirst before getting a drink.
>>> It's similar to toilet=yes ...   A restaurant with a toilet for
>>> employees
>>> only, probably shouldn't have the tag.
>>> Yes, there is an access tag, but in most cases access is implied.
>>>
>>> drinking_water = yes, seems to come with access in 99% of the 61,300
>>> nodes and the large majority of the 8,178 ways.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Stuart
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 19:33, Martin Koppenhoefer
>>> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 19:14 Uhr schrieb European Water Project <
 europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>:

> Dear All,
>
> I have noticed that the the key drinking_water = yes for ways is
> sometimes used in a manner not described in the wiki.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Adrinking_water
>
> The issue has to do with ways which might store drinking water which
> is
> not actually directly accessible.  I think this tag should be for
> accessible water.
>


 I don't read from the wiki description that the drinking water must be
 directly accessible. It depends on the context feature.

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

>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing
>>> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing
>> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] key:drinking_water for OSM ways

[European Water Project]

And maybe it shouldn't be mapped that way because it is not observable.

Up for discussion...
Thanks,

Stuart

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020, 08:25 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 21/2/20 6:16 pm, European Water Project wrote:
>
> Hi Warin,
>
> contents=water seems more appropriate
>
> That does not stipulate if it is drinking water.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stuart
>
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 07:38, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So a water tank with drinking water cannot be tagged as drinking water
>> because there is no local access. Fine.
>> Then it is only tagged as a tank with contents=water, or should there be
>> yet another value for it contents=drinking_water?
>> Or a sub tag water=drinking water...
>>
>>
>> On 21/2/20 5:10 pm, European Water Project wrote:
>>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> There are a couple of issues I see with drinking_water=yes not having a
>> concept of access.
>>
>> 1. Where is the observability  ? How can I know if a water tank has
>> drinking quality water or just agriculture quality water ?
>> From the wiki :
>> "One can assume that the water is pure when many people drink it every
>> day."
>> This is hard to assume, and one would never know if there is water ...
>>
>> 2.   But there is an even bigger issue --- and I will admit that I am
>> biased because of the European Water Project's use case.
>> For a map feature to be useful, it should have universality. Ie. if one
>> maps restaurants with toilets, at least customers should have access ...
>> Someone who goes to the OSM way where there is a water tank, even with a
>> wallet full of cash, will die of thirst before getting a drink.
>> It's similar to toilet=yes ...   A restaurant with a toilet for employees
>> only, probably shouldn't have the tag.
>> Yes, there is an access tag, but in most cases access is implied.
>>
>> drinking_water = yes, seems to come with access in 99% of the 61,300
>> nodes and the large majority of the 8,178 ways.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Stuart
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 19:33, Martin Koppenhoefer 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 19:14 Uhr schrieb European Water Project <
>>> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>:
>>>
 Dear All,

 I have noticed that the the key drinking_water = yes for ways is
 sometimes used in a manner not described in the wiki.

 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Adrinking_water

 The issue has to do with ways which might store drinking water which is
 not actually directly accessible.  I think this tag should be for
 accessible water.

>>>
>>>
>>> I don't read from the wiki description that the drinking water must be
>>> directly accessible. It depends on the context feature.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Martin
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing 
>> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> 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 - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

[Joseph Eisenberg]

>  In Paris there are parking shared between bicycle and motorcycle, and 
> parking shared between bicycle and dock less vehicles (scooters).

Unlike parking spaces, a motorcycle taxi stand is never shared between
motorcycles and cabs or tricycles here in Indonesia, since each type
of vehicle has different characteristics: speed, capacity, distance
that can be traveled. The markets and the prices are different.

Often a market or train station will have 3 stands for 3 types of
hired vehicles (motorcycles, taxicabs, and pedicabs/tricycles), with
each at a separate corner, or on different sides of the street.

> amenity=taxi
> taxi:motorcycle=yes
> taxi:car=yes
> taxi:tricycle=yes

This is discussed in the proposal page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:amenity%3Dmotorcycle_taxi#Why_not_use_amenity.3Dtaxi.3F

While some have proposed using {{tag|amenity|taxi}} plus the
additional tags {{tag|motorcar|no}} + {{tag|motorcycle|yes}} for
motorcycle taxi stands, this has several disadvanages:
1) It would imply that a taxicab and a hired motorcyle "ojek" are the
same feature.
2) it requires using 3 tags instead of one.
3) If only amenity=taxi is tagged, it would now become ambiguous: is
this actually a taxicab stand, or might it be a motorcycle stand which
is missing a tag?
4) It will confusing for travelers who generally expect a "taxicab" to
be 4-wheeled motorcar capable of carrying at least 4 passengers and
their luggage. This is quite different than a motorcycle which can
only carry one passenger with a small amount of baggage.
5) Many database users currently interpret {{tag|amenity|taxi}} as a
motorcar taxicab via use of a standard "taxi" icon such as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Taxi_Icon.png - this would be
broken by such a change.
6) Motorcyles have different abilities: In contrast to a family or
group which needs a 4 to 6 seat taxicab, single travelers may strongly
prefer to hire motorcycles when available, due to their lower cost and
ability to fit through smaller spaces in congested cities and rural
areas with narrow roads and paths. Motorcar taxicabs with 4 wheels in
2 tracks cannot access {{tag|highway|path}} features and narrow roads,
but motorcycles may be permitted and feasible due to their narrow
width and single track.

So a different tag is proposed to avoid confusion and more precisely
tag these features.



On 2/21/20, Florimond Berthoux  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm always suspicious about tags with underscore in it, because they often
> mix different features together.
> My examples are parking, bicycle_parking, motorcycle_parking. In Paris
> there are parking shared between bicycle and motorcycle, and parking shared
> between bicycle and dock less vehicles (scooters).
> Creating a new key for each combination would be awful.
>
> So I prefer to split the amenity "you can pay someone there to have a ride"
> and what kind of vehicles you can find there.
> That could looks like this:
> amenity=taxi
> taxi:motorcycle=yes
> taxi:car=yes
> taxi:tricycle=yes
> ...
>
> (or other more British words ;)
>
>
> Le jeu. 20 févr. 2020 à 08:50, Joseph Eisenberg
> 
> a écrit :
>
>> I would like to formally request comments on the proposal for
>> amenity=motorcycle_taxi:
>>
>> "A place where motorcycle taxis wait for passengers"
>>
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:amenity%3Dmotorcycle_taxi
>>
>> In many countries, motorcycles for hire are much more common than
>> automobile taxis.
>>
>> In these places, motorcycle drivers wait at stands, often with a small
>> shelter, and they can be hired to take one or more passengers to
>> various destinations. A fare is paid for a one-way trip. The passenger
>> usually rides behind the driver. In some countries two or even three
>> passengers can be carried on one motorcycle "taxi".
>>
>> Motorcycle taxis are also known as "motos" or "bike taxi", or by other
>> local names, such as "ojek" here in Indonesia and in Singapore,
>> "boda-boda" in Uganda, and "okada" in Nigeria.
>>
>> While some have proposed using amenity=taxi plus additional tags for
>> motorcycle taxi stands, this is quite confusing for travelers who
>> generally expect a "taxi" to be 4-wheeled motorcar capable of carrying
>> 4 people and luggage. So a different tag is proposed to avoid
>> confusion and more precisely tag these features.
>>
>> - Joseph Eisenberg
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> --
> Florimond Berthoux
>

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

Re: [Tagging] key:drinking_water for OSM ways

[Warin]

On 21/2/20 6:16 pm, European Water Project wrote:

Hi Warin,

contents=water seems more appropriate

That does not stipulate if it is drinking water.


Thanks,

Stuart

On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 07:38, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


So a water tank with drinking water cannot be tagged as drinking
water because there is no local access. Fine.
Then it is only tagged as a tank with contents=water, or should
there be yet another value for it contents=drinking_water?
Or a sub tag water=drinking water...


On 21/2/20 5:10 pm, European Water Project wrote:

Hi Martin,

There are a couple of issues I see with drinking_water=yes not
having a concept of access.

1. Where is the observability  ? How can I know if a water tank
has drinking quality water or just agriculture quality water ?
From the wiki :
"One can assume that the water is pure when many people drink it
every day."
This is hard to assume, and one would never know if there is
water ...

2.   But there is an even bigger issue --- and I will admit that
I am biased because of the European Water Project's use case.
For a map feature to be useful, it should have universality. Ie.
if one maps restaurants with toilets, at least customers should
have access ...
Someone who goes to the OSM way where there is a water tank, even
with a wallet full of cash, will die of thirst before getting a
drink.
It's similar to toilet=yes ...   A restaurant with a toilet for
employees only, probably shouldn't have the tag.
Yes, there is an access tag, but in most cases access is implied.

drinking_water = yes, seems to come with access in 99% of the
61,300 nodes and the large majority of the 8,178 ways.

Best regards,

Stuart






On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 19:33, Martin Koppenhoefer
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 19:14 Uhr schrieb European Water
Project mailto:europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>>:

Dear All,

I have noticed that the the key drinking_water = yes for
ways is sometimes used in a manner not described in the wiki.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Adrinking_water

The issue has to do with ways which might store drinking
water which is not actually directly accessible.  I think
this tag should be for accessible water.



I don't read from the wiki description that the drinking
water must be directly accessible. It depends on the context
feature.

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



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


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



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

Re: [Tagging] key:drinking_water for OSM ways

[European Water Project]

Hi Warin,

contents=water seems more appropriate

Thanks,

Stuart

On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 07:38, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> So a water tank with drinking water cannot be tagged as drinking water
> because there is no local access. Fine.
> Then it is only tagged as a tank with contents=water, or should there be
> yet another value for it contents=drinking_water?
> Or a sub tag water=drinking water...
>
>
> On 21/2/20 5:10 pm, European Water Project wrote:
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> There are a couple of issues I see with drinking_water=yes not having a
> concept of access.
>
> 1. Where is the observability  ? How can I know if a water tank has
> drinking quality water or just agriculture quality water ?
> From the wiki :
> "One can assume that the water is pure when many people drink it every
> day."
> This is hard to assume, and one would never know if there is water ...
>
> 2.   But there is an even bigger issue --- and I will admit that I am
> biased because of the European Water Project's use case.
> For a map feature to be useful, it should have universality. Ie. if one
> maps restaurants with toilets, at least customers should have access ...
> Someone who goes to the OSM way where there is a water tank, even with a
> wallet full of cash, will die of thirst before getting a drink.
> It's similar to toilet=yes ...   A restaurant with a toilet for employees
> only, probably shouldn't have the tag.
> Yes, there is an access tag, but in most cases access is implied.
>
> drinking_water = yes, seems to come with access in 99% of the 61,300 nodes
> and the large majority of the 8,178 ways.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Stuart
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 19:33, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>> Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 19:14 Uhr schrieb European Water Project <
>> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> I have noticed that the the key drinking_water = yes for ways is
>>> sometimes used in a manner not described in the wiki.
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Adrinking_water
>>>
>>> The issue has to do with ways which might store drinking water which is
>>> not actually directly accessible.  I think this tag should be for
>>> accessible water.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I don't read from the wiki description that the drinking water must be
>> directly accessible. It depends on the context feature.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Martin
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> 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] key:drinking_water for OSM ways

[Warin]

So a water tank with drinking water cannot be tagged as drinking water 
because there is no local access. Fine.
Then it is only tagged as a tank with contents=water, or should there be 
yet another value for it contents=drinking_water?

Or a sub tag water=drinking water...


On 21/2/20 5:10 pm, European Water Project wrote:

Hi Martin,

There are a couple of issues I see with drinking_water=yes not having 
a concept of access.


1. Where is the observability  ? How can I know if a water tank has 
drinking quality water or just agriculture quality water ?

From the wiki :
"One can assume that the water is pure when many people drink it every 
day."

This is hard to assume, and one would never know if there is water ...

2.   But there is an even bigger issue --- and I will admit that I am 
biased because of the European Water Project's use case.
For a map feature to be useful, it should have universality. Ie. if 
one maps restaurants with toilets, at least customers should have 
access ...
Someone who goes to the OSM way where there is a water tank, even with 
a wallet full of cash, will die of thirst before getting a drink.
It's similar to toilet=yes ...   A restaurant with a toilet for 
employees only, probably shouldn't have the tag.

Yes, there is an access tag, but in most cases access is implied.

drinking_water = yes, seems to come with access in 99% of the 61,300 
nodes and the large majority of the 8,178 ways.


Best regards,

Stuart






On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 19:33, Martin Koppenhoefer 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 19:14 Uhr schrieb European Water Project
mailto:europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>>:

Dear All,

I have noticed that the the key drinking_water = yes for ways
is sometimes used in a manner not described in the wiki.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Adrinking_water

The issue has to do with ways which might store drinking water
which is not actually directly accessible.  I think this tag
should be for accessible water.



I don't read from the wiki description that the drinking water
must be directly accessible. It depends on the context feature.

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



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

Re: [Tagging] key:drinking_water for OSM ways

[European Water Project]

Hi Martin,

There are a couple of issues I see with drinking_water=yes not having a
concept of access.

1. Where is the observability  ? How can I know if a water tank has
drinking quality water or just agriculture quality water ?
>From the wiki :
"One can assume that the water is pure when many people drink it every
day."
This is hard to assume, and one would never know if there is water ...

2.   But there is an even bigger issue --- and I will admit that I am
biased because of the European Water Project's use case.
For a map feature to be useful, it should have universality. Ie. if one
maps restaurants with toilets, at least customers should have access ...
Someone who goes to the OSM way where there is a water tank, even with a
wallet full of cash, will die of thirst before getting a drink.
It's similar to toilet=yes ...   A restaurant with a toilet for employees
only, probably shouldn't have the tag.
Yes, there is an access tag, but in most cases access is implied.

drinking_water = yes, seems to come with access in 99% of the 61,300 nodes
and the large majority of the 8,178 ways.

Best regards,

Stuart






On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 19:33, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 19:14 Uhr schrieb European Water Project <
> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I have noticed that the the key drinking_water = yes for ways is
>> sometimes used in a manner not described in the wiki.
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Adrinking_water
>>
>> The issue has to do with ways which might store drinking water which is
>> not actually directly accessible.  I think this tag should be for
>> accessible water.
>>
>
>
> I don't read from the wiki description that the drinking water must be
> directly accessible. It depends on the context feature.
>
> 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] Tagging venues which give away free condoms?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 21:45 Uhr schrieb Rory McCann :

> Some places give away free condoms to fight the spread of STDs (incl.
> HIV/AIDS). Is there a good way to map that in OSM?
>


there's likely yet to invent a way to map it.



> I suggest `free:condoms=yes/no`, since it's descriptive, matches the
> `sells:X=yes/no` scheme.



seems reasonable




> And the `vending:X=yes/no` scheme.
> `vending:condoms=yes/no` has 17 uses, but `vending=condoms` has 1800
> uses. "vending" implies a _machine_.



and payment. If it's free, vending is not a suitable term.


> There is `medical_service:condom_distribution=yes/no` with 94 uses,
> which reads too medical.

A nighclub with a bowl of free condoms doesn't
> seem like a "medical service", and doesn't sound like a "distribution
> centre".
>


indeed :)
go for it.


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

[Tagging] Tagging venues which give away free condoms?

[Rory McCann]

Hello fellow tagging fans,


Some places give away free condoms to fight the spread of STDs (incl.
HIV/AIDS). Is there a good way to map that in OSM?

I suggest `free:condoms=yes/no`, since it's descriptive, matches the
`sells:X=yes/no` scheme. And the `vending:X=yes/no` scheme.
`vending:condoms=yes/no` has 17 uses, but `vending=condoms` has 1800
uses. "vending" implies a _machine_. But what I imagine is a place with
a pile of free condoms ready to take. Either bars, or sexual health
clinics might have this.

`free=condoms` doesn't read as obvious as `Free Condoms? Yes!"
(`free:condoms=yes`). A tagging scheme which data consumers can easy
"deduce" when a human reads the text is a good tagging scheme IMO.

There is `medical_service:condom_distribution=yes/no` with 94 uses,
which reads too medical. A nighclub with a bowl of free condoms doesn't
seem like a "medical service", and doesn't sound like a "distribution
centre".

Clearly if the `free:condoms` tag is missing, you should presume it's
the same a `free:condoms=no`.

Any feedback? Thoughts? (Hopes? Fears? Dreams? )


--
Rory

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

Re: [Tagging] Expressway=yes/no versus new tags "dual_carriageway=yes/no", "limited_access=", "grade_separated"=?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

20 Feb 2020, 09:54 by vosc...@gmail.com:

> This tag is a tag with very strong local restriction: 2823 of a world total 
> of 3166 are in the Polish city of Krakow.
>
And used by a single person (me).
> The vast majority of dual-carriageway roads elsewhere are not tagged in this 
> way.
> This fact should be clearly stated prominently on the wiki page
>
I added this info to the page.
> I think that the tag itself is a bad idea, 
>
Why?
> and as it is used essentially only in Krakow, maybe the best thing is to 
> eliminate those local  occurrences and also declare "duel_carriageway=*" > 
> deprecated.as >  quickly as possible.
>
I am against this.

It is niche and not very important
information but at least give some reason
before you propose mass reverts.

This information is both not
feasible to automatically derive from 
other tags and geometries and it is
actually used (probably just by me,
but still it is used).

This information is also verifiable,
has clear meaning and is not 
causing problems, as far as I know.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

[Florimond Berthoux]

Hi,

I'm always suspicious about tags with underscore in it, because they often
mix different features together.
My examples are parking, bicycle_parking, motorcycle_parking. In Paris
there are parking shared between bicycle and motorcycle, and parking shared
between bicycle and dock less vehicles (scooters).
Creating a new key for each combination would be awful.

So I prefer to split the amenity "you can pay someone there to have a ride"
and what kind of vehicles you can find there.
That could looks like this:
amenity=taxi
taxi:motorcycle=yes
taxi:car=yes
taxi:tricycle=yes
...

(or other more British words ;)


Le jeu. 20 févr. 2020 à 08:50, Joseph Eisenberg 
a écrit :

> I would like to formally request comments on the proposal for
> amenity=motorcycle_taxi:
>
> "A place where motorcycle taxis wait for passengers"
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:amenity%3Dmotorcycle_taxi
>
> In many countries, motorcycles for hire are much more common than
> automobile taxis.
>
> In these places, motorcycle drivers wait at stands, often with a small
> shelter, and they can be hired to take one or more passengers to
> various destinations. A fare is paid for a one-way trip. The passenger
> usually rides behind the driver. In some countries two or even three
> passengers can be carried on one motorcycle "taxi".
>
> Motorcycle taxis are also known as "motos" or "bike taxi", or by other
> local names, such as "ojek" here in Indonesia and in Singapore,
> "boda-boda" in Uganda, and "okada" in Nigeria.
>
> While some have proposed using amenity=taxi plus additional tags for
> motorcycle taxi stands, this is quite confusing for travelers who
> generally expect a "taxi" to be 4-wheeled motorcar capable of carrying
> 4 people and luggage. So a different tag is proposed to avoid
> confusion and more precisely tag these features.
>
> - Joseph Eisenberg
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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

Re: [Tagging] decide on a meaning for what is not documented [way: Expressway=yes/no versus new tags "dual_carriageway=yes/no", "limited_access=", "grade_separated"=?]

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

20 Feb 2020, 13:02 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com:

> But
> perhaps we will decided that database users should interpret the
> geometry and name=/ref= tags of parallel highway ways to add this
> information in post-processing. Does anyone know if that is feasible?
>
AFAIK no, I tried to do this and failed.

I also asked others and noone was aware
about reliable way to do this.

That is why I used this tag in my city
(I needed it for listing of roads that are
missing contraflow for cyclists, 
obviously dual carriageways need to
be excluded in such listing).___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] key:drinking_water for OSM ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 19:14 Uhr schrieb European Water Project <
europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>:

> Dear All,
>
> I have noticed that the the key drinking_water = yes for ways is sometimes
> used in a manner not described in the wiki.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Adrinking_water
>
> The issue has to do with ways which might store drinking water which is
> not actually directly accessible.  I think this tag should be for
> accessible water.
>


I don't read from the wiki description that the drinking water must be
directly accessible. It depends on the context feature.

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

[Tagging] key:drinking_water for OSM ways

[European Water Project]

Dear All,

I have noticed that the the key drinking_water = yes for ways is sometimes
used in a manner not described in the wiki.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Adrinking_water

The issue has to do with ways which might store drinking water which is not
actually directly accessible.  I think this tag should be for accessible
water.

For example - I found a lot of storage tanks in Tahiti ...

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/728937078#map=18/-17.53753/-149.52708


Any thoughts on this?

Best regards,

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 9:13 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> Oh, here in Indonesia you can find motorcycle taxis (ojek) everywhere,
> including in all the towns where bicycle rickshaws / pedicabs operate.
>
> For example, all of the markets in my town have a pangkalan ojek
> (motorcycle taxi stand) and a separate pangkalan becak (pedicab
> stand), usually near the main entrance.
>
> I prefer the pedicabs when I have luggage, since there is a nice wide
> bench which can carry more cargo than can fit on a motorcycle, and
> they are quiet and slower. But the motorcycles are faster, so if you
> are in a hurry or have a long trip, they are the better choice.
>

Hmmm. It seems that your ojeks are a different sort of public
transportation to our tricycles/pedicabs in the Philippines. If I
understand your description correctly, ojeks seem to be like regular
4-wheeled taxis in many respects except for the use of motorcycles, but in
the Philippines, tricycles/pedicabs are never used for long-distance travel
and are usually used for the "last-mile" travel typically to get to a
particular house from a main highway (or to get from the house to the
highway). These tricycles/pedicabs usually have "service areas" (often a
gated subdivision, or a village, or a close cluster of hamlets) and they
only provide transportation within that area and cannot bring you anywhere
unlike regular taxis.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - drinking_water:refill_scheme

[European Water Project]

Hello,

As per yesterday's note, I would like to make the following tweek to the
tag pair as per the suggestion from Kovposch for the final write-up.

drinking_water:refill=yes/drinking_water:refill=no
drinking_water:refill:network=network-name1;network-name2;network-name3;

instead of :

drinking_water:refill=yes/drinking_water:refill=no
drinking_water:refill_scheme=scheme-name1;scheme-name2;scheme-name3;

Does anyone believe another round of voting is necessary for this small
change ?  I don't mind.

Best regards,

Stuart

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 09:33, European Water Project <
europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Again,
>
> In addition to the previous email regarding voting outcome, I think it is
> worth discussing the suggestion of  Kovposch to make refill a namespace and
> use the word network.
>
> This would change the second tag of the tag pair to
> drinking_water:refill:network=network-name1;network-name2;network-name3;
>
>
> Does anyone have an opinion on this? I personally prefer this namespace
> convention because of I find it more generic and I find the word "network"
> clearer than "scheme".
>
> Best regards,
>
> Stuart
>
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 09:27, European Water Project <
> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> The proposal for tagging bars, restaurants, cafés, kiosks, which refill
>> water bottles for free as part of a refill scheme or as an independent
>> passes with 13 positive votes and three abstentions.  Please note, that to
>> be tagged drinking_water:refill = yes, it is imperative that a sign is
>> evident so that the tag is verifiable.
>>
>> The tag that has been voted positively takes into account the clear
>> preference for delimiting individual scheme names with semicolons - which
>> is common with other tags.
>>
>>
>>- drinking_water:refill
>>
>> 
>>=yes
>>
>> 
>>/drinking_water:refill
>>
>> 
>>=no
>>
>> 
>>- drinking_water:refill_scheme
>>
>> 
>>=scheme-name
>>
>> 
>>1; scheme-name
>>
>> 
>>2;scheme-name3;
>>
>>
>> Can someone please guide me on next steps ?
>>
>>
>>- Create the permanent feature description page:
>>
>>
>>- A new page for the feature should be created and the relevant map 
>> features
>>template
>> 
>> (depending
>>on whether it is a key, a value, or a relation) should be applied. Follow
>>the standard set by the Key:highway
>> key and its values.
>>- Add a link back to the proposal by using the *statuslink* parameter
>>of the feature template.
>>- Add a link to the permanent feature page in the proposal page using 
>> Template:Approved
>>feature link
>>.
>>- Archive the proposal using Template:Archived proposal
>>.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Stuart
>>
>> On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 14:43, European Water Project <
>> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Joseph,
>>>
>>> Understood.
>>>
>>> I will start a discussion on the proposal amendment/tweek after the vote
>>> finishes tomorrow.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Stuart
>>>
>>> On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 13:23, Joseph Eisenberg <
>>> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 > For 2) What is the best way to proceed?

 Make another proposal to discuss that particular tag.

 - Joseph Eisenberg

 On 2/17/20, European Water Project 
 wrote:
 > Tomorrow is the last day of voting.  The proposal has positive
 support ..
 > 10 + and 2 Abs
 >
 > There are two comments which are worth noting :
 >
 > 1 . It seems there is a strong preference for semicolon delimited
 scheme
 > names as a preferred alternative to refill_scheme = multiple. Untess
 there
 > are voiced objections, I will amend the proposal after the final vote
 to
 > take this into consideration.
 >
 > 2. Kovposch
 > <
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kovposch=edit=1
 >
 > suggested
 > making refill a namespace and changing refill_scheme to
 refill:network.
 > Intutitvely, this suggestion seems to be a 

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 02:49, Joseph Eisenberg
 wrote:
>
> I would like to formally request comments on the proposal for
> amenity=motorcycle_taxi:
>
> "A place where motorcycle taxis wait for passengers"
> ...
> While some have proposed using amenity=taxi plus additional tags for
> motorcycle taxi stands, this is quite confusing for travelers who
> generally expect a "taxi" to be 4-wheeled motorcar capable of carrying
> 4 people and luggage. So a different tag is proposed to avoid
> confusion and more precisely tag these features.

We could credit travellers with some knowledge of local norms, and use
secondary tags to clarify when necessary.

As a Canadian, a restaurant will always give free tap water if I am a
dining there. When I travel in Europe, that's not necessarily the
case. Should I suggest a tag amenity=restaurant_with_paid_water?

Similarly I would not expect people to suggest a
highway=secondary_but_extremely_bicycle_unfriendly tag for when they
visit Canada and are used to western European norms of what
highway=secondary looks like. Some of the differences can be tagged
with secondary tags, like cycleway=no, maxspeed, width, lanes...

Ideas of what constitutes a bus station, a train halt, a doctor's
office, toilets, supermarkets, etc will similarly also differ
worldwide.

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Oh, here in Indonesia you can find motorcycle taxis (ojek) everywhere,
including in all the towns where bicycle rickshaws / pedicabs operate.

For example, all of the markets in my town have a pangkalan ojek
(motorcycle taxi stand) and a separate pangkalan becak (pedicab
stand), usually near the main entrance.

I prefer the pedicabs when I have luggage, since there is a nice wide
bench which can carry more cargo than can fit on a motorcycle, and
they are quiet and slower. But the motorcycles are faster, so if you
are in a hurry or have a long trip, they are the better choice.

On 2/20/20, Eugene Alvin Villar  wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 8:28 PM Martin Koppenhoefer, 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 13:21 Uhr schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar <
>> sea...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> The only difference is one is human-powered while the other is
>>> engine-powered.
>>>
>>
>>
>> IMHO, if we distinguish automobile taxis from motorcycle taxis, we should
>> also distinguish both from human powered vehicles. They may all fulfill
>> similar necessities, but from this "only difference" there are following
>> many consequences (speed, noise, range, etc.) so it would definitely be
>> worth make a distinction.
>>
>
> Just to clarify, these public transport services are either exclusively
> using motorcycles or exclusively using bicycles in a particular locale. As
> a commuting passenger, you generally have no choice whether you want the
> bicycles instead of motorcycles or vice versa. So the difference (human vs.
> engine) is a pedantic difference instead of a practical difference. That
> said, it is perfectly fine to use different secondary tags or subtags to
> differentiate between the two, just not have different top-level tags.
>
>>
>

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

Re: [Tagging] decide on a meaning for what is not documented [way: Expressway=yes/no versus new tags "dual_carriageway=yes/no", "limited_access=", "grade_separated"=?]

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 13:47 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:

> Often it looks similar to the current highway=trunk rendering at in
> the German map style used at openstreetmap.de - and I believe
> "highway=trunk" is always for dual-carriageway "expressways" there.
>
>
yes, in Germany, but also in other countries like Italy, trunk is used for
roads which are similar to motorways, but are not legally classified as
motorways (different signs) and may or may not have access restrictions for
slower vehicles and pedestrians (expressed with the motorroad property).



> Also, a dual carriageway road might be preferred in routing when all
> else is equal.
>


if the road is oneway, but the counter direction is not served (in
proximity), it does not make a difference effectively. (This situation
sometimes occurs e.g. in mountain areas, where the tunnels and viaducts are
distant even several kilometers, so it isn't (I guess) strictly speaking a
dual carriageway). Usually for routing, highway=trunk with oneway=yes can
be treated the same, regardless of a carriageway for the other direction.



>
> > limited_access
>
> I should explain this further. In American traffic literature at
> least, we talk about whether a road has frequent access to adjacent
> properties and parking lots. Sometime this is called "controlled
> access".
>

> If there are lots of service roads entering, that will increase the
> risk of collisions and slow down traffic. Roads called "expressways"
> usually have no or very few service roads entering, so they have
> "partial access control"  and most motorways have "full access
> control" - you can only merge on to the motorway from a link
> (on-ramp).
>



I see, around here, this is implicit with highway=trunk. Whether there is
full access control, or almost full access control, is already present in
the grid information (in OSM you can see whether there are generally
accessible non-link roads that enter the highway or not, and how many of
them ).




>
>
> My understanding is that not all highway=trunk roads have full or even
> partial access control in most countries. Certainly in the United
> States this varies greatly.
>


not sure about many countries, I was only aware of the UK where trunk had a
different meaning than "in the rest of the world", but you could be right
that the situations that I know are actually the exception, I have not
checked it.




> > replacing "expressway" with "trunk"
>
> Do you mean retagging all ways with key:expressway as highway=trunk?
>


yes, if they aren't motorways.



>
> That would be treating highway=trunk in the German way, as a property
> which combines a number of characteristics.



"expressway" is also combining a number of characteristics, from what I
thought, the same, no?



> But in Alaska, Oregon,
> California etc, many mappers prefer to use highway=trunk for the top
> level of intercity roads which are not motorways, without considering
> number of lanes, access control, etc



That's where we use "primary" around here. There is still plenty of
hierarchy with secondary, tertiary, unclassified, so that it wasn't
perceived as a problem so far. My guess is that the reason is that
rendering rules are optimized for European situation, so in less
dense/vaster areas, the zoom level when primary is displayed, is too late,
and trunk was chosen because it rendered earlier.



> - in remote forest areas even the
> busiest road does not need grade separations.

And also, expressway=*
> is used differently in some States, as mentioned on the wiki page:
> sometimes it is about limited access, other times it's about grade
> separation.
>


this is something that should be worked on, having the same tag with
different meaning is generally a problem.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 8:32 PM Joseph Eisenberg, 
wrote:

> > I think using "motorcycle_taxi" as a tag value would be confusing.
>
> Unfortunately, the English language terminology for these things is
> not very established, since they are not used in Britain or North
> America (except for the tourist pedicabs as mentioned), which makes it
> harder to pick a good tag value which will work everywhere.
>
> Are you aware of any alternative phrase or word which would be clearer?
>

Well, in Philippine English (English is an official language in the
Philippines), the standard English term is "tricycle" as can be seen in
everyday usage and in laws that regulate these forms of public
transportation. Unfortunately, I know that "tricycle" is ambiguous if you
look at global English usage so I have no real good alternative.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 8:28 PM Martin Koppenhoefer, 
wrote:

>
>
> Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 13:21 Uhr schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar <
> sea...@gmail.com>:
>
>> The only difference is one is human-powered while the other is
>> engine-powered.
>>
>
>
> IMHO, if we distinguish automobile taxis from motorcycle taxis, we should
> also distinguish both from human powered vehicles. They may all fulfill
> similar necessities, but from this "only difference" there are following
> many consequences (speed, noise, range, etc.) so it would definitely be
> worth make a distinction.
>

Just to clarify, these public transport services are either exclusively
using motorcycles or exclusively using bicycles in a particular locale. As
a commuting passenger, you generally have no choice whether you want the
bicycles instead of motorcycles or vice versa. So the difference (human vs.
engine) is a pedantic difference instead of a practical difference. That
said, it is perfectly fine to use different secondary tags or subtags to
differentiate between the two, just not have different top-level tags.

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

Re: [Tagging] decide on a meaning for what is not documented [way: Expressway=yes/no versus new tags "dual_carriageway=yes/no", "limited_access=", "grade_separated"=?]

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> Why would it matter to someone that there is another highway going into the 
> opposite direction of where they want to go, that someone considers to be 
> part of the "same road"?

Besides statistical purposes, it could be used for rendering at mid
zoom levels.

Many highway maps in the United States have a different rendering for
"divided highways" aka "dual carriageway" roads.

Often it looks similar to the current highway=trunk rendering at in
the German map style used at openstreetmap.de - and I believe
"highway=trunk" is always for dual-carriageway "expressways" there.

Also, a dual carriageway road might be preferred in routing when all
else is equal.

> limited_access

I should explain this further. In American traffic literature at
least, we talk about whether a road has frequent access to adjacent
properties and parking lots. Sometime this is called "controlled
access".

If there are lots of service roads entering, that will increase the
risk of collisions and slow down traffic. Roads called "expressways"
usually have no or very few service roads entering, so they have
"partial access control"  and most motorways have "full access
control" - you can only merge on to the motorway from a link
(on-ramp).

Motorways are almos always fully "grade separated".

My understanding is that not all highway=trunk roads have full or even
partial access control in most countries. Certainly in the United
States this varies greatly.

> replacing "expressway" with "trunk"

Do you mean retagging all ways with key:expressway as highway=trunk?

That would be treating highway=trunk in the German way, as a property
which combines a number of characteristics. But in Alaska, Oregon,
California etc, many mappers prefer to use highway=trunk for the top
level of intercity roads which are not motorways, without considering
number of lanes, access control, etc - in remote forest areas even the
busiest road does not need grade separations. And also, expressway=*
is used differently in some States, as mentioned on the wiki page:
sometimes it is about limited access, other times it's about grade
separation.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 2/20/20, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 13:07 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:
>
>>
>> If people are interested in using it, I might make a proposal. But
>> perhaps we will decided that database users should interpret the
>> geometry and name=/ref= tags of parallel highway ways to add this
>> information in post-processing. Does anyone know if that is feasible?
>
>
>
> I guess it is possible to do it, but I cannot imagine a usecase for this
> kind of information, besides statistics maybe. Why would it matter to
> someone that there is another highway going into the opposite direction of
> where they want to go, that someone considers to be part of the "same
> road"? Isn't it sufficient to know the amount of lanes, oneway property,
> highway class, etc. for most practical usecases?
>
> As to the "limited_access" key in the thread title: it doesn't appear to be
> in use, likely it would express the same concept as "motorroad"?
>
> What about replacing "expressway" with "trunk", is there any information
> loss or is this only about which term is better understood in a certain
> context?
>
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> they use (pedaled) bicycles instead. These are called pedicabs...

Yes, Indonesia has many of these too: we call them "becak," passengers
sit up front on a bench, unlike in India bicycle rickshaws.

There are even "bemo" which are motorized tricycles, where the bicycle
part (in the back) has been replaced with half a motorcycle, which I
suppose are more similar to your motorcycle+sidecar ride hailing
services.

My plan was to propose "amenity=pedicab" for locations where you can
hire a pedal-powered (or electric) tricycle "pedicabs" or "bicycle
rickshaws", but I have not gotten around to writing up that proposal
yet.

> I think using "motorcycle_taxi" as a tag value would be confusing.

Unfortunately, the English language terminology for these things is
not very established, since they are not used in Britain or North
America (except for the tourist pedicabs as mentioned), which makes it
harder to pick a good tag value which will work everywhere.

Are you aware of any alternative phrase or word which would be clearer?

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 2/20/20, Eugene Alvin Villar  wrote:
> As a person from the Philippines who uses these "motorcycle taxis" (we call
> them tricycles here and they are basically motorcycles with an attached
> sidecar for passengers), I am in favor of having a new top-level tag for
> these "taxi" stations. The reason why we used "taxi" here is that this was
> the closest comparable equivalent tag for such public transport amenities.
>
> However, I would prefer a value that is something else than
> "motorcycle_taxi" and that is because in some other areas, instead of
> motorcycles, they use (pedaled) bicycles instead. These are called pedicabs
> (but in other parts of the country, tricycles may be called pedicabs as
> well) and are effectively equivalent to the traditional motorcycle
> tricycles as a form of public transportation. The only difference is one is
> human-powered while the other is engine-powered.
>
> Furthermore, we actually have "real" motorcycle-based ride-hailing taxi
> services here (one such service is called Angkas: https://angkas.com/ ) and
> I think using "motorcycle_taxi" as a tag value would be confusing.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 3:50 PM Joseph Eisenberg
> 
> wrote:
>
>> I would like to formally request comments on the proposal for
>> amenity=motorcycle_taxi:
>>
>> "A place where motorcycle taxis wait for passengers"
>>
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:amenity%3Dmotorcycle_taxi
>>
>> In many countries, motorcycles for hire are much more common than
>> automobile taxis.
>>
>> In these places, motorcycle drivers wait at stands, often with a small
>> shelter, and they can be hired to take one or more passengers to
>> various destinations. A fare is paid for a one-way trip. The passenger
>> usually rides behind the driver. In some countries two or even three
>> passengers can be carried on one motorcycle "taxi".
>>
>> Motorcycle taxis are also known as "motos" or "bike taxi", or by other
>> local names, such as "ojek" here in Indonesia and in Singapore,
>> "boda-boda" in Uganda, and "okada" in Nigeria.
>>
>> While some have proposed using amenity=taxi plus additional tags for
>> motorcycle taxi stands, this is quite confusing for travelers who
>> generally expect a "taxi" to be 4-wheeled motorcar capable of carrying
>> 4 people and luggage. So a different tag is proposed to avoid
>> confusion and more precisely tag these features.
>>
>> - Joseph Eisenberg
>>
>> ___
>> 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 - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 13:21 Uhr schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar <
sea...@gmail.com>:

> The only difference is one is human-powered while the other is
> engine-powered.
>


IMHO, if we distinguish automobile taxis from motorcycle taxis, we should
also distinguish both from human powered vehicles. They may all fulfill
similar necessities, but from this "only difference" there are following
many consequences (speed, noise, range, etc.) so it would definitely be
worth make a distinction.

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

Re: [Tagging] Expressway=yes/no versus new tags "dual_carriageway=yes/no", "limited_access=", "grade_separated"=?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> I think that the tag itself is a bad idea

Could you state why? The tag seems to have a clear use and meaning,
and it is verifiable.

Is the problem that it is redundant? Do you think database users
should preprocess the parallel ways to determine dual carriageway
status prior to rendering, routing, or data analysis?

> This fact should be clearly stated prominently on the wiki page
> Also the wording would need changing

I agree, that is worth mentioning.

Please feel free to edit the page, no need to ask permission or
discuss it first if you find something that can be improved.  Or I can
do it if you don't have time...

> The expressway key is only very rarely used outside of the US, and there is 
> no need for it outside the US.

I understand if you would prefer to add something like
"limited_access=yes/no" + "grade_separated=yes/no" instead.

If a highway=trunk is not defined as an expressway in a particular
country (e.g. in Britain, Spain, Indonesia, Australia...), there is a
benefit to having some other tag or tags that express how the road is
constructed.

On 2/20/20, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 01:41, Joseph Eisenberg 
> wrote:
>
>> I updated the Key:expressway page to have a global focus,
>>
>> I looked at this. The expressway key is only very rarely used outside of
> the US, and there is no need for it outside the US.
> It appears sporadically in the UK (some five roads in total)  and in France
> (many of these few occurrences are expressway=no on otherwise perfectly
> tagged ways)
>
> I would suggest to the contrary, i.e. to state on the wiki page clearly
> that this a US-specific tag, not to be used elsewhere.
>
> Volker
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

As a person from the Philippines who uses these "motorcycle taxis" (we call
them tricycles here and they are basically motorcycles with an attached
sidecar for passengers), I am in favor of having a new top-level tag for
these "taxi" stations. The reason why we used "taxi" here is that this was
the closest comparable equivalent tag for such public transport amenities.

However, I would prefer a value that is something else than
"motorcycle_taxi" and that is because in some other areas, instead of
motorcycles, they use (pedaled) bicycles instead. These are called pedicabs
(but in other parts of the country, tricycles may be called pedicabs as
well) and are effectively equivalent to the traditional motorcycle
tricycles as a form of public transportation. The only difference is one is
human-powered while the other is engine-powered.

Furthermore, we actually have "real" motorcycle-based ride-hailing taxi
services here (one such service is called Angkas: https://angkas.com/ ) and
I think using "motorcycle_taxi" as a tag value would be confusing.


On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 3:50 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> I would like to formally request comments on the proposal for
> amenity=motorcycle_taxi:
>
> "A place where motorcycle taxis wait for passengers"
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:amenity%3Dmotorcycle_taxi
>
> In many countries, motorcycles for hire are much more common than
> automobile taxis.
>
> In these places, motorcycle drivers wait at stands, often with a small
> shelter, and they can be hired to take one or more passengers to
> various destinations. A fare is paid for a one-way trip. The passenger
> usually rides behind the driver. In some countries two or even three
> passengers can be carried on one motorcycle "taxi".
>
> Motorcycle taxis are also known as "motos" or "bike taxi", or by other
> local names, such as "ojek" here in Indonesia and in Singapore,
> "boda-boda" in Uganda, and "okada" in Nigeria.
>
> While some have proposed using amenity=taxi plus additional tags for
> motorcycle taxi stands, this is quite confusing for travelers who
> generally expect a "taxi" to be 4-wheeled motorcar capable of carrying
> 4 people and luggage. So a different tag is proposed to avoid
> confusion and more precisely tag these features.
>
> - Joseph Eisenberg
>
> ___
> 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] decide on a meaning for what is not documented [way: Expressway=yes/no versus new tags "dual_carriageway=yes/no", "limited_access=", "grade_separated"=?]

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 13:07 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:

>
> If people are interested in using it, I might make a proposal. But
> perhaps we will decided that database users should interpret the
> geometry and name=/ref= tags of parallel highway ways to add this
> information in post-processing. Does anyone know if that is feasible?



I guess it is possible to do it, but I cannot imagine a usecase for this
kind of information, besides statistics maybe. Why would it matter to
someone that there is another highway going into the opposite direction of
where they want to go, that someone considers to be part of the "same
road"? Isn't it sufficient to know the amount of lanes, oneway property,
highway class, etc. for most practical usecases?

As to the "limited_access" key in the thread title: it doesn't appear to be
in use, likely it would express the same concept as "motorroad"?

What about replacing "expressway" with "trunk", is there any information
loss or is this only about which term is better understood in a certain
context?


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Not all of these actually are in real-world use.

The only 4 options in common use today are:

1) motorcar, 4 wheels, enclosed (amenity=taxi)
2) motorcycle, 2 wheels, open (amenity=motorcycle_taxi)
3) pedicabs / 3-wheel tricycles (amenity=pedicab?) - non-motorized
4) autorickshaws, 3 wheels, enclosed (could be amenity=taxi or perhaps
amenity=autorickshaw - but these are not common where I live, though I
know they are common in Thailand, India and some other countries).

There used to be human-pulled rickshaws, but these no longer exist.
They were take over by pedicabs / aka bicycle rickshaws, since those
are much more efficient.

I will consider proposing the other 2 tags later, but motorcyle taxis
are by far the most common. I would bet there are more "ojek" stands
in Indonesia than taxi stands in all of Europe.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 2/20/20, marc marc  wrote:
> Le 20.02.20 à 12:45, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
>> Can't we have an easy to use top-level feature tag, instead of having
>> to add 3 tags like amenity=taxi + motorcar=no + motorcycle=yes to
>> define one very common, unique feature?
>
> did we need to have a top-level feature for every "unique" combination
> of the same service ?
> if yes, we need a lot of them
> amenity=foot_taxi
> amenity=moto_taxi
> amenity=sidecar_taxi
> amenity=taxi_low_local_pollution
> amenity=taxi_powered_by_renewable_energy etc.
> but all of these are part of the same type of service,
> regardless of the number of wheels and the driving force.
> ___
> 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 - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 12:47 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:

> This is a very common feature in Southeast Asia, Africa and parts of
> central and south America: there are hundreds of thousands of them.
>
> Can't we have an easy to use top-level feature tag, instead of having
> to add 3 tags like amenity=taxi + motorcar=no + motorcycle=yes to
> define one very common, unique feature?



It seems you are the only person discussing here who has actual on the
ground knowledge with this kind of service. They do not exist here (there
are horse drawn carriages here, but they are kind of a tourist attraction
and not considered taxis or generally, public transport, and while in
Berlin bicycle based rickshaws are not uncommon, they are also not seen as
public transport, nor as taxis (I guess), but rather as some kind of
tourist attraction more similar to the horse drawn carriages).

FWIW, if you believe they should get their own main tag, because tagging
them as (subtype of) taxis would be a misrepresentation and not lead to
useful user experience, I would be fine with a new main tag, provided there
is no significant opposition from other mappers who are familiar with them.

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

Re: [Tagging] decide on a meaning for what is not documented [way: Expressway=yes/no versus new tags "dual_carriageway=yes/no", "limited_access=", "grade_separated"=?]

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Taginfo shows that the tag has been used in just a few places (mostly
one city in Poland) so it's not very well established, in spite of
several thousand uses:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/dual_carriageway#map

There are a couple similar tags that are a little less common:
* https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/carriageway=dual (688 uses,
the value =single is more common)
* https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/type=dual_carriageway (1144
uses, mainly relations - so this appears to be a type of relation,
perhaps meant to group together the 2 directions of a dual carriageway
highway?)

But fortunately the key name has a clear meaning in British English: a
"dual carriageway" should be a road where the lanes in each direction
are separated by a central reservation or barrier, aka a "divided
highway" in American English.

As pages like Key:highway and Tag:highway=trunk have long recommended,
these sort of highways are usually mapped as 2 separate ways +
oneway=yes.

As we can see in taginfo (combinations), the key dual_carriageway=* is
always used with highway=* and almost always with oneway=yes, so that
works: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/dual_carriageway#combinations

Checking overpass-turbo shows that the tag is used on pairs of ways
which are parallel, as expected. For example
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QTv (try Poland for the biggest number)

It also shows that most occurences of "dual_carriageway=no" are with
highway=trunk (or rarely highway=motorway or highway=primary), and
almost all "dual_carriageway=yes" are highway=primary, =secondary,
=tertiary or =trunk.

So, that's what I've based the page text on. I have not added mention
of this tag to any other wiki pages or Map features.

If people are interested in using it, I might make a proposal. But
perhaps we will decided that database users should interpret the
geometry and name=/ref= tags of parallel highway ways to add this
information in post-processing. Does anyone know if that is feasible?

On 2/20/20, marc marc  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Le 20.02.20 à 07:41, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
>> I've created a page for Key:dual_carriageway based on existing usage
>> in the database:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:dual_carriageway
>
> how did you proceed? is the tag added by only one contributor to whom
> you asked the question to create the page based on his answer?
> or did several contributors suing this tag answer consistently ?
>
> Because I noticed it with the depreciation of the undocumented tag
> camp_site=camp_pitch : when a tag is undocumented, the real meaning of
> the objects in the database depends on what was going through the heads
> of the different contributors (for this particular tag, we have found 5
> meanings each used more than 100x and it took hours and numerous
> messages to ).
>
> The great advantage of an undocumented tag is that we know that the
> meaning is not documented. the contributors aiming at quality can
> therefore avoid it. the users of the data too.
> Conversely, a tag documented "by hidden guessing" degrades the quality :
> Some people will believe that this is really the meaning of the objects
> in the database when it's only a guess. at the very least, it would
> require a big banner "a contributor guess that the meaning of the tag"
>
> Regards,
> Marc
> ___
> 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 - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

[marc marc]

Le 20.02.20 à 12:45, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
> Can't we have an easy to use top-level feature tag, instead of having
> to add 3 tags like amenity=taxi + motorcar=no + motorcycle=yes to
> define one very common, unique feature?

did we need to have a top-level feature for every "unique" combination
of the same service ?
if yes, we need a lot of them
amenity=foot_taxi
amenity=moto_taxi
amenity=sidecar_taxi
amenity=taxi_low_local_pollution
amenity=taxi_powered_by_renewable_energy etc.
but all of these are part of the same type of service,
regardless of the number of wheels and the driving force.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> use amenity=taxi with motorcycle=yes, motorcar=no for motorbike based taxi 
> stands.

That combination has only been used 145 times, in spite of being
including in the Phillipines tagging guidelines and previously on
Tag:amenity=taxi: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QTu

There are more places with name="Pangkalan Ojek" + name="Motorcycle
Taxi" + name="Boda-Boda*" and similar improper uses of the name tag to
describe an Ojek/Boda-Boda/Motorcycle Taxi stand.

This is a very common feature in Southeast Asia, Africa and parts of
central and south America: there are hundreds of thousands of them.

Can't we have an easy to use top-level feature tag, instead of having
to add 3 tags like amenity=taxi + motorcar=no + motorcycle=yes to
define one very common, unique feature?

- Joseph

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

[Joseph Eisenberg]

This new tag is meant for motorcycles (2 wheeled vehicles), not
3-wheel tuk-tuks and similar vehicles, which are enclosed and provide
a separate seating are for passengers. They are more similar to
4-wheel motorcar taxis than to motorcycles.

Yes, some places (like the Phillipines) have suggested using
amenity=taxi for motorcycles, 3-wheeled bicycles, 3-wheeled motor
vehicles etc, so that they will be rendered, but I believe this is
misusing the term "taxi", which is widely understood to refer to a
motorcar taxi in most countries and languages.

That would be similar to using highway=bus_stop for taxis by arguing
that they are both publically available forms of passenger
transportation, even though a bus runs on a fixed schedule and route
and carries many different people, while a taxi is hired privately and
goes directly to your destination.

- Joseph Eisenberg



On 2/20/20, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 10:23 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt
> >:
>
>> Do we have any idea how many amenity=taxi already in OSM are in fact
>> toctocs or similar?
>> I suspect that this number is huge, and introducing a new tag for them
>> will only create confusion, as we have no way of migrating the toktoks
>> tagged as taxies to the new key.
>>
>
>
> until someone decided to discourage it, the wiki stated to use amenity=taxi
> with motorcycle=yes, motorcar=no for motorbike based taxi stands.
>
> Cheers
> Martin
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Landfills timespan

[Jez Nicholson]

> Lately in my area old landfills from the 60ies and 70ies have been
> opened again for maintenance. They are forest by now but all trees have
> been removed beforehand. So those landfills are now observable.

Yes, you _could_ observe and map them nowand as soon as they cover them
over again they are no longer observable and no longer applicable to OSM in
the normal run of things.

The data is great. Really useful. But does it belong in OSM? You need to
provide a very strong argument to go against the maxims.

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:44 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 11:34 Uhr schrieb Jez Nicholson <
> jez.nichol...@gmail.com>:
>
>> in the UK at least, people just didn't keep records because "out of
>> sight, out of mind".
>>
>
>
>
> that's what they tell you...
>
>
> ___
> 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 - in-kind_donation

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mi., 19. Feb. 2020 um 23:50 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:

> My concern is still that it might be hard to translate "donation in
> kind" from English into some languages, and that people with limited
> English vocabulary might not understand the phrase.
>
> Automated translations by Google from "donation in kind" gets this:
>

I got the same with deepl.com (for French, German, Spanish, Dutch)



> German: "Sachspende"
>


is a precise and accurate term (no wonder, the OP has translated this to
English).



>
> Dutch: "donatie in natura" literally "donation in nature", from French?
>
> French: "don en nature" - literally "gift in nature/kind" which seem
> to be a phrase
>
> So "donation in kind" will work for western European languages (and
> Indonesian), though it would be nice if someone can check how it works
> in Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, etc.
>
> However, "donation of goods" works as well or better in most of these
> languages:
>
> "Donation of goods" translates to:
> = "sumbangan barang" (Indonesian)
> = "donación de bienes" (Spanish)
> = "don de biens" (French)
> = "donatie van goederen" (Dutch)
> = "Spende von Waren" (German)
>


no, "Spende von Waren" is not an established term, it doesn't sound natural
(but would probably be understood anyway), the perfect term is
"Sachspende". My guess is that also for the other languages, particularly
Roman languagues with their reference to "nature", the established term is
that and not the second alternative. No idea about Indonesian obviously ;)

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

Re: [Tagging] Landfills timespan

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 11:34 Uhr schrieb Jez Nicholson <
jez.nichol...@gmail.com>:

> in the UK at least, people just didn't keep records because "out of sight,
> out of mind".
>



that's what they tell you...
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Landfills timespan

[Florian Lohoff]

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:32:05AM +, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> Mapping of things that cannot be verified on-the-ground has to be a very
> special case. Such as underground power cables.
> 
> A currently active landfill and a completed/capped-off landfill are not the
> same thing. One is verifiable on-the-ground, the other is not. One has a
> [surface] landuse of being a waste dump, the other has been returned to
> another landuse such as building or using as a park. Sure, under the
> surface there is some waste, but I don't believe the purpose of OSM is to
> map the subsurface.
> 
> Ex-landfills are notoriously difficult to spot and, in the UK at least,
> people just didn't keep records because "out of sight, out of mind".
> Geodata for ex-landfills is much prized in the property environmental risk
> industry.

Lately in my area old landfills from the 60ies and 70ies have been
opened again for maintenance. They are forest by now but all trees have
been removed beforehand. So those landfills are now observable.

I'd like to map them now - so i see the issue of mapping closed
landfills.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Landfills timespan

[Jez Nicholson]

Mapping of things that cannot be verified on-the-ground has to be a very
special case. Such as underground power cables.

A currently active landfill and a completed/capped-off landfill are not the
same thing. One is verifiable on-the-ground, the other is not. One has a
[surface] landuse of being a waste dump, the other has been returned to
another landuse such as building or using as a park. Sure, under the
surface there is some waste, but I don't believe the purpose of OSM is to
map the subsurface.

Ex-landfills are notoriously difficult to spot and, in the UK at least,
people just didn't keep records because "out of sight, out of mind".
Geodata for ex-landfills is much prized in the property environmental risk
industry.

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:05 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 10:54 Uhr schrieb Cascafico Giovanni <
> cascaf...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I've an OSM compatible dataset that helps me to spot landfills. Older
>> ones are already covered by grass and/or trees.
>>
>> IMHO could be useful to save landfill locations for a future possible use.
>> Does it make sense tag the ones with surface alterations with level=-1 ?
>>
>>
>
> IMHO, landuse is not stacked, at least not in a case like this (there may
> be some exceptional situations, eventually). The fact that the landfill is
> overgrown still makes it a landfill, and all the toxic stuff is still
> there, just covered by a thin layer of soil and vegetation.
>
>
>
> Or shall I consider landuse=landfill as a functional tagging, hence
>> tagging them abandoned:landuse=landfill?
>
>
>
> that's a good question. Landuse is not completely consistent. There are a
> few landuses like quarry, landfill and even "harbour" which do not
> integrate well with the other landuses because these mentioned are
> typically used _also_ for features (i.e. if you split a landuse=quarry, you
> will have 2 quarries, opposed to e.g. landuse=residential, which simply
> says this area is used as residential area, and if you split it, the
> meaning remains the same, i.e. it is a property about the use of land).
>
> A possible solution would be the introduction of feature tags for these
> outliers, e.g. man_made=quarry, man_made=landfill / waste_dump, seaway=port
> / cargo_port / fishing_port etc.
>
> 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] Landfills timespan

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 10:54 Uhr schrieb Cascafico Giovanni <
cascaf...@gmail.com>:

> Hello,
>
> I've an OSM compatible dataset that helps me to spot landfills. Older
> ones are already covered by grass and/or trees.
>
> IMHO could be useful to save landfill locations for a future possible use.
> Does it make sense tag the ones with surface alterations with level=-1 ?
>
>

IMHO, landuse is not stacked, at least not in a case like this (there may
be some exceptional situations, eventually). The fact that the landfill is
overgrown still makes it a landfill, and all the toxic stuff is still
there, just covered by a thin layer of soil and vegetation.



Or shall I consider landuse=landfill as a functional tagging, hence
> tagging them abandoned:landuse=landfill?



that's a good question. Landuse is not completely consistent. There are a
few landuses like quarry, landfill and even "harbour" which do not
integrate well with the other landuses because these mentioned are
typically used _also_ for features (i.e. if you split a landuse=quarry, you
will have 2 quarries, opposed to e.g. landuse=residential, which simply
says this area is used as residential area, and if you split it, the
meaning remains the same, i.e. it is a property about the use of land).

A possible solution would be the introduction of feature tags for these
outliers, e.g. man_made=quarry, man_made=landfill / waste_dump, seaway=port
/ cargo_port / fishing_port etc.

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

[Tagging] Landfills timespan

[Cascafico Giovanni]

Hello,

I've an OSM compatible dataset that helps me to spot landfills. Older
ones are already covered by grass and/or trees.

IMHO could be useful to save landfill locations for a future possible use.
Does it make sense tag the ones with surface alterations with level=-1 ?

Or shall I consider landuse=landfill as a functional tagging, hence
tagging them abandoned:landuse=landfill?

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 10:23 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt :

> Do we have any idea how many amenity=taxi already in OSM are in fact
> toctocs or similar?
> I suspect that this number is huge, and introducing a new tag for them
> will only create confusion, as we have no way of migrating the toktoks
> tagged as taxies to the new key.
>


until someone decided to discourage it, the wiki stated to use amenity=taxi
with motorcycle=yes, motorcar=no for motorbike based taxi stands.

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

Re: [Tagging] decide on a meaning for what is not documented [way: Expressway=yes/no versus new tags "dual_carriageway=yes/no", "limited_access=", "grade_separated"=?]

[marc marc]

Hello,

Le 20.02.20 à 07:41, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
> I've created a page for Key:dual_carriageway based on existing usage
> in the database:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:dual_carriageway

how did you proceed? is the tag added by only one contributor to whom
you asked the question to create the page based on his answer?
or did several contributors suing this tag answer consistently ?

Because I noticed it with the depreciation of the undocumented tag
camp_site=camp_pitch : when a tag is undocumented, the real meaning of
the objects in the database depends on what was going through the heads
of the different contributors (for this particular tag, we have found 5
meanings each used more than 100x and it took hours and numerous
messages to ).

The great advantage of an undocumented tag is that we know that the
meaning is not documented. the contributors aiming at quality can
therefore avoid it. the users of the data too.
Conversely, a tag documented "by hidden guessing" degrades the quality :
Some people will believe that this is really the meaning of the objects
in the database when it's only a guess. at the very least, it would
require a big banner "a contributor guess that the meaning of the tag"

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

[Volker Schmidt]

Do we have any idea how many amenity=taxi already in OSM are in fact
toctocs or similar?
I suspect that this number is huge, and introducing a new tag for them will
only create confusion, as we have no way of migrating the toktoks tagged as
taxies to the new key.

Volker


On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 08:50, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> I would like to formally request comments on the proposal for
> amenity=motorcycle_taxi:
>
> "A place where motorcycle taxis wait for passengers"
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Expressway=yes/no versus new tags "dual_carriageway=yes/no", "limited_access=", "grade_separated"=?

[Volker Schmidt]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 01:41, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> I updated the Key:expressway page to have a global focus,
>
> I looked at this. The expressway key is only very rarely used outside of
the US, and there is no need for it outside the US.
It appears sporadically in the UK (some five roads in total)  and in France
(many of these few occurrences are expressway=no on otherwise perfectly
tagged ways)

I would suggest to the contrary, i.e. to state on the wiki page clearly
that this a US-specific tag, not to be used elsewhere.

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

Re: [Tagging] Expressway=yes/no versus new tags "dual_carriageway=yes/no", "limited_access=", "grade_separated"=?

[Volker Schmidt]

I am not happy with this new page.

This tag is a tag with very strong local restriction: 2823 of a world total
of 3166 are in the Polish city of Krakow.
The vast majority of dual-carriageway roads elsewhere are not tagged in
this way.
This fact should be clearly stated prominently on the wiki page

Also the wording would need changing.
" whether or not a highway is a dual carriageway or divided highway" >>> "
whether or not a highway=* is *part of of* a dual carriageway or divided
highway"
The problem is that a real-world dual-carriageway "highway" corresponds in
OSM to at least two ways tagged with the key "highway" and you are not
intending to say, that by adding "dual_carriageway=yes" to a highway=* in
in OSM that way were to represent what normally in OSM is represented with
two ways.
But this confusion is fuelled by stating that you can use
dual_carriageway=no to indicate that a way does not represent a
dual-carriageway real-world road.

I think that the tag itself is a bad idea, and as it is used essentially
only in Krakow, maybe the best thing is to eliminate those local
occurrences and also declare "duel_carriageway=*" deprecated.as quickly as
possible.

Volker

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 07:42, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> I've created a page for Key:dual_carriageway based on existing usage
> in the database:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:dual_carriageway
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 20.02.2020 o 08:48, Joseph Eisenberg pisze:
> I would like to formally request comments on the proposal for
> amenity=motorcycle_taxi:
>
> "A place where motorcycle taxis wait for passengers"
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:amenity%3Dmotorcycle_taxi


I propose to use more precise key "public_transport" for this kind of
objects.


-- 
"Rzeczy się psują – zęby, spłuczki, kompy, związki, pralki" [Bisz]


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

Re: [Tagging] Expressway=yes/no versus new tags "dual_carriageway=yes/no", "limited_access=", "grade_separated"=?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 20. Feb 2020, at 07:42, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> I've created a page for Key:dual_carriageway based on existing usage
> in the database:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:dual_carriageway


you wrote this was also a key for divided carriageways in general (i.e. 
including roads with more than 2 carriageways). Isn’t it a misnomer for these 
cases?

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

Re: [Tagging] Expressway=yes/no versus new tags "dual_carriageway=yes/no", "limited_access=", "grade_separated"=?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 20. Feb 2020, at 01:41, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> While all expressways are major roads designed for high-speed motor
> vehicle traffic, they are not often "motorroad=yes", because most
> States allow motorcycles and pedestrians on all roads that are not
> motorways (and western States allow bicycles on rural motorways even).


in some countries, roads with the properties that you describe are tagged as 
„trunk“.

Please note that motorroad=yes does not prevent access for motorcycles. In case 
pedestrians and slower vehicles are allowed on a trunk, we could add an 
explicit motorroad=no (42k uses/26%)



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