Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 16. Jul 2020, at 16:29, Matthew Woehlke  wrote:
> 
> If I remove it from the areas, however, at least iD no longer thinks they are 
> parking lots.


I am not sure about iD because I use it rarely, but some years ago it did 
manage to make sense of multipolygon relations, it should work.


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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag minor commercial roads?

[Tod Fitch]

> On Jul 16, 2020, at 10:22 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 12:17 PM Matthew Woehlke  > wrote:
> I'm wondering what, if anything, I should do with
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/351516889 
> . It doesn't seem to meet the
> definition of a highway=residential, but I'm not convinced it is a lowly
> highway=service, either, but I also can't easily demonstrate it is
> highway=tertiary.
> 
> How should I classify this?
> 
> Unclassified?  It's the de-facto step down from tertiary.

It looks like it only services that one building/complex. I’d classify it as 
“service” if I were mapping it.




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

Re: [Tagging] Finger- or guide-post text

[Sarah Hoffmann]

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 07:24:25PM +0100, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> I am mapping a fingerpost, aka guidepost:
> 
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:information%3Dguidepost
> 
> I would like to add the inscription, for each of the three fingers,
> with their compass points. I note:
> 
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:destination
> 
> is similar but "destination:forward" and "destination:backward" are
> meaningless in this context; and many finger posts have more than four
> fingers, or fingers not at 90-degree angles to each other, or to
> North. I propose something like:

Please have a look at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign

That's what it looks like in the wild:
https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=3673098550

The schema is a bit verbose but it has the advantage that you can clearly mark 
which
way the finger points to instead of giving compass degree approximations.

Sarah

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

Re: [Tagging] Finger- or guide-post text

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 at 19:26, Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

 I propose something like:
>
>destination:NNW=foo
>
> or, using degrees:
>
>destination:337.5:=foo
>
> If this would cloud the use of "destination", we could use, say:
>
>inscription:337.5:=foo
>
> What do folk think?
>

We need something along those lines.  Knowing a fingerpost is there is
good, but knowing what it says on each arm and where the arm is pointing
is better.

For lack of a specific tag I've put stuff like that in the description.
Better
than nothing and fairly easy to figure out what to put if better tagging
comes along.

While you/re there...  Some fingerposts point to public footpaths or
bridleways.  They might have words, or a symbol, or both.  It would
be useful to have a way of tagging those, especially the ones that
only have a symbol.

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

[Tagging] Finger- or guide-post text

[Andy Mabbett]

I am mapping a fingerpost, aka guidepost:

   https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:information%3Dguidepost

I would like to add the inscription, for each of the three fingers,
with their compass points. I note:

   https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:destination

is similar but "destination:forward" and "destination:backward" are
meaningless in this context; and many finger posts have more than four
fingers, or fingers not at 90-degree angles to each other, or to
North. I propose something like:

   destination:NNW=foo

or, using degrees:

   destination:337.5:=foo

If this would cloud the use of "destination", we could use, say:

   inscription:337.5:=foo

What do folk think?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag minor commercial roads?

[Jmapb]

On 7/16/2020 1:17 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:

I'm wondering what, if anything, I should do with
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/351516889. It doesn't seem to meet
the definition of a highway=residential, but I'm not convinced it is a
lowly highway=service, either, but I also can't easily demonstrate it
is highway=tertiary.

How should I classify this?


The exact definition of highway=service is a little murky, but I think
of it as a way intended to serve a particular feature (or set of them)
as opposed to a way that is part of the general public road network
(which would be residential and up.)

This looks like highway=service to me, as does that circle and the
adjacent segment of Wharton Drive.

J



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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag minor commercial roads?

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 12:17 PM Matthew Woehlke 
wrote:

> I'm wondering what, if anything, I should do with
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/351516889. It doesn't seem to meet the
> definition of a highway=residential, but I'm not convinced it is a lowly
> highway=service, either, but I also can't easily demonstrate it is
> highway=tertiary.
>
> How should I classify this?
>

Unclassified?  It's the de-facto step down from tertiary.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] How to tag minor commercial roads?

[Matthew Woehlke]

I'm wondering what, if anything, I should do with 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/351516889. It doesn't seem to meet the 
definition of a highway=residential, but I'm not convinced it is a lowly 
highway=service, either, but I also can't easily demonstrate it is 
highway=tertiary.


How should I classify this?

--
Matthew

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

[Volker Schmidt]

My idea was only trying to avoid to invent tag values for OSM without
consulting what other, technically more competent bodies, have done before.
Looks as the FAO classification could have  served as template for OSM
tagging approach years back. But we now are only after tag value for bare
soil, not a whole new table of  landcover values.

On Thu, 16 Jul 2020, 12:06 Michael Montani,  wrote:

> According to the document you shared
> , bare soil is
> mentioned in:
> *Primarily non-vegetated > Terrestrial > Bare areas*
>
> And within *Bare areas*, *Bare soil* is an available category, being
> distinguished by *Bare rock* whether the terrain is consolidated or not.
> Within *Bare soil*, further classification is made depending on a
> "stoniness" percentage (5 to 40% *Stony*, >40% *Very stony*) and on soil
> macropatterns (II level).
>
> I think this could be useful material for us to make a decision.
> *natural=bare_soil *targeting all the areas of unconsolidated ground
> material could be used whether or not a groundy area hasn't already a tag
> that suits better its representation (e.g. *natural=wetland +
> intermittent=yes*, *landuse=quarry*...).
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> *Michael Montani*
> GIS Consultant, *Client Solutions Delivery Section*
> *Service for Geospatial Information and Telecommunications Technologies*
> United Nations Global Service Centre
> United Nations Department of Operational Support
>
> Brindisi | Phone: +39 0831 056985 | Mobile: +39 3297193455 | Intermission:
> 158 6985
> E-mail: michael.mont...@un.org  | www.ungsc.org
>
> --
> *Da:* Martin Koppenhoefer 
> *Inviato:* mercoledì 15 luglio 2020 10:08
> *A:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools  >
> *Oggetto:* Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)
>
>
>
> Am Mi., 15. Juli 2020 um 09:45 Uhr schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com>:
>
> If you are interested in reading some interesting thoughts about landcover
> classification, there is the FAO landcover classification system, thought
> to be useful globally:
> http://www.fao.org/3/X0596E/X0596e00.htm
>
>
>
>
> there are only 8 main classes:
> http://www.fao.org/3/X0596E/X0596e10.gif
>
> and you can easily determine them through a decision matrix:
> 1. primarily vegetated or primarily non-vegetated?
> 2. terrestrial or aquatic/flooded regularly?
> 3. cultivated/man made/artificial or natural?
>
> then they add additional properties like life forms, crops, leaf types,
> climate, ...
>
> From the combination of these properties and classes, detailed land cover
> classes are determined:
>
>
> http://www.fao.org/3/x0596e/X0596e02a.htm#P1974_116516
>
> E.g. here:
>
> TABLE 3.4
> *Example of the formation of land cover classes*
>
> *EXAMPLE: "NATURAL AND SEMI-NATURAL TERRESTRIAL VEGETATION" (A12)*
>
> *Classifiers used*
>
> *Boolean formula*
>
> *Standard class name*
>
> *Code*
>
> Life form and cover
>
> A3A10
>
> Closed forest
>
> 20005
>
> Height
>
> A3A10B2
>
> High closed forest
>
> 20006
>
> Spatial distribution
>
> A3A10B2C1
>
> Continuous closed forest
>
> 20007
>
> Leaf type
>
> A3A10B2C1D1
>
> Broad-leaved closed forest
>
> 20095
>
> Leaf phenology
>
> A3A10B2C1D1E2
>
> Broad-leaved deciduous forest
>
> 20097
>
> 2nd layer: LF, C, H
>
> A3A10B2C1D1E2F2F5F7G2
>
> Multi-layered broad-leaved deciduous forest
>
> 20628
>
> 3rd layer: LF, C, H
>
> A3A10B2C1D1E2F2F5F7G2
>
> Multi-layer broad-leaved deciduous forest with emergents
>
> 20630
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> PS: And the best: LCCS comes as a run time application, you do not need to
> have virtual basic installed !!11!!!
>
> ___
> 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] site relations for city walls?

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 15/07/2020 17.10, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

On 15. Jul 2020, at 16:17, Matthew Woehlke wrote:

Do you mean having that on both the relation and the areas?

>
yes, you should have it only on the relation 


If I remove it from the areas, however, at least iD no longer thinks 
they are parking lots.



Generally I would agree with Paul, maxstay of a few minutes isn’t actually a 
„parking“


I think you and I must have different definitions of "parking".

- Did you shut off the engine?
- Did you engage the parking brake?
- Did you exit and lock the vehicle?
- Are your hazard flashers *not* on?

If the answer to any of the above is 'yes', you may be "parked". If the 
answer to *all* of the above is 'yes', you are almost surely parked.


Note that there is nothing in that list about how *long* you expect to 
be away.


If you stop at a rest area, expecting to only run in and use the 
facilities and then leave again (so, less than ten minutes), do you say 
your vehicle is "parked" when you walk away from it?


For that matter, the signs themselves even say "15 minute *parking*" or 
"*parking* for to-go only" (emphasis added).


As Paul notes, these are spots where you are allowed to "park" and go 
inside to get your food. I'm inclined to agree with that distinction. (I 
might add to that "...for non-emergency purposes". A shoulder on a 
highway isn't "parking" even though you may need to leave your vehicle 
to go get help if your car breaks down.)


FWIW, 
https://www.myparkingsign.com/MPS/No-Parking-No-Standing-No-Stopping.aspx 
roughly defines "parking" as "leaving the vehicle unattended". That 
said, legal definitions can and do vary.


--
Matthew

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

[mbranco2]

natural=bare_soil  sounds good to me, maybe it should be useful to set a
maximum vegetation percentage (30% ?)
If not, someone could say "Hey, there are two bushes in that area, it's not
bare soil"


<#m_-8688031786923632378_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 at 04:57, Yves  wrote:

> Le 15 juillet 2020 23:10:52 GMT+02:00, Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> >Generally I would agree with Paul, maxstay of a few minutes isn’t
> actually a „parking“
>
> I doesn't agree.
>

I agree with you that a short maxstay doesn't necessarily disqualify it as
parking
(for reasonably short values of maxstay).  What differentiates pick-up zones
at drive-throughs from parking is the ability to get out of the car and
leave it
unoccupied.  If you can (within the law/rules of the space) leave the car
unoccupied (even for a maxstay of five minutes) then it is parking.
However,
if you are required (or even just expected) to remain within your car then
it isn't (to my mind) parking but waiting.

There are probably edge cases, but that's the distinction for me.  If you
are
supposed to wait in the car then it isn't parking.  If you can leave the car
unoccupied then it's parking.

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

[Michael Montani]

According to the document you 
shared, bare soil is 
mentioned in:
Primarily non-vegetated > Terrestrial > Bare areas

And within Bare areas, Bare soil is an available category, being distinguished 
by Bare rock whether the terrain is consolidated or not.
Within Bare soil, further classification is made depending on a "stoniness" 
percentage (5 to 40% Stony, >40% Very stony) and on soil macropatterns (II 
level).

I think this could be useful material for us to make a decision. 
natural=bare_soil targeting all the areas of unconsolidated ground material 
could be used whether or not a groundy area hasn't already a tag that suits 
better its representation (e.g. natural=wetland + intermittent=yes, 
landuse=quarry...).

Thanks,

--
Michael Montani
GIS Consultant, Client Solutions Delivery Section
Service for Geospatial Information and Telecommunications Technologies
United Nations Global Service Centre
United Nations Department of Operational Support

Brindisi | Phone: +39 0831 056985 | Mobile: +39 3297193455 | Intermission: 158 
6985
E-mail: michael.mont...@un.org | 
www.ungsc.org


Da: Martin Koppenhoefer 
Inviato: mercoledì 15 luglio 2020 10:08
A: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Oggetto: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)



Am Mi., 15. Juli 2020 um 09:45 Uhr schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>>:
If you are interested in reading some interesting thoughts about landcover 
classification, there is the FAO landcover classification system, thought to be 
useful globally:
http://www.fao.org/3/X0596E/X0596e00.htm




there are only 8 main classes:
http://www.fao.org/3/X0596E/X0596e10.gif

and you can easily determine them through a decision matrix:
1. primarily vegetated or primarily non-vegetated?
2. terrestrial or aquatic/flooded regularly?
3. cultivated/man made/artificial or natural?

then they add additional properties like life forms, crops, leaf types, 
climate, ...

>From the combination of these properties and classes, detailed land cover 
>classes are determined:


http://www.fao.org/3/x0596e/X0596e02a.htm#P1974_116516

E.g. here:

TABLE 3.4
Example of the formation of land cover classes

EXAMPLE: "NATURAL AND SEMI-NATURAL TERRESTRIAL VEGETATION" (A12)

Classifiers used

Boolean formula

Standard class name

Code

Life form and cover

A3A10

Closed forest

20005

Height

A3A10B2

High closed forest

20006

Spatial distribution

A3A10B2C1

Continuous closed forest

20007

Leaf type

A3A10B2C1D1

Broad-leaved closed forest

20095

Leaf phenology

A3A10B2C1D1E2

Broad-leaved deciduous forest

20097

2nd layer: LF, C, H

A3A10B2C1D1E2F2F5F7G2

Multi-layered broad-leaved deciduous forest

20628

3rd layer: LF, C, H

A3A10B2C1D1E2F2F5F7G2

Multi-layer broad-leaved deciduous forest with emergents

20630

Cheers,
Martin

PS: And the best: LCCS comes as a run time application, you do not need to have 
virtual basic installed !!11!!!

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

Re: [Tagging] Intermittent highways?

[Jez Nicholson]

I believe there was a recent discussion on showgrounds and temporal events.
"temporal" as opposed to "temporary" as in "happens regularly every
week/month/year for a set period of time at the same location". Up until
recently, OSM has been strongly against temporal objects, but German
Christmas markets have slipped through and the world has not ended.
Personally, I would be interested in having temporal features such as
Glastonbury Festival as it would make the map more usable for the general
public and be a differentiator against other maps. However, I hope that
people are careful because this opens the floodgates for weekly food
markets, pop-up food vans, etc.

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 1:59 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 15/7/20 5:07 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 15. Jul 2020, at 00:49, Justin Tracey 
>  wrote:
>
> If the festival is held at some date expressible using the opening hours
> syntax, you could use the "open hours" tag[0] or add conditions to the
> "access" tags
>
>
>
> I would not use opening_hours tag to represent the temporary existence of
> ways if this should mean that the ways are only there some weeks of the
> year.
>
> If the thing is permanently scheduled event then it is not a temporary
> event.
>
> Temporary: Lasting for only a limited period of time; not permanent.
> Source - Oxford Dictionary.
>
> Opening hours have no restriction to being more or less than some
> proportion of a year.
>
>
> Similarly, access is about legal access and not physical existence. With
> the established schemes, you could use conditional on the highway, like
> highway:conditional=footway/service/path @ Time
> it is not common, but someone else already had this idea as well:
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/highway%3Aconditional
>
>
> As you say - not common and probably not rendered/used by any application.
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging