Re: [Tagging] Canopy Walkways

[Volker Schmidt]

The footway= approach isn't so good. A canopy walkway is more a bridge type.

On Fri, 21 Aug 2020, 00:28 Graeme Fitzpatrick, 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 at 07:50, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Or maybe footway=canopy_walkway? highway= Footway and bridge=yes seem
>> essential for a basic description.
>>
>
> The combination of the three of them seems like a good, simple solution!
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - kerb=regular

[80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging]

>in the united states it is Curb.
>
> 
>>Thursday, August 20, 2020 6:20 PM -05:00 from Martin Koppenhoefer < 
>>dieterdre...@gmail.com >:
>> 
>>
>>
>>sent from a phone
>> 
>>> On 21. Aug 2020, at 01:05, Clifford Snow < cliff...@snowandsnow.us > wrote:
>>>
>>> Martin - does that suggest that over 12,000 existing raised kerbs will need 
>>> to be resurveyed?
>>
>>that’s how I read it, and there are actually 28.4K raised kerbs affected 
>>(because you have to look at the ways as well).
>>
>>Cheers Martin
>>
>>
>>___
>>Tagging mailing list
>>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
> 
> 
> 
>  
 
 
 
 ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - kerb=regular

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 21. Aug 2020, at 01:05, Clifford Snow  wrote:
> 
> Martin - does that suggest that over 12,000 existing raised kerbs will need 
> to be resurveyed?


that’s how I read it, and there are actually 28.4K raised kerbs affected 
(because you have to look at the ways as well).

Cheers Martin 


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - kerb=regular

[Clifford Snow]

On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 2:33 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> Worth mentioning that the proposal intends to redefine the tag kerb=raised
> , true?
>

Martin - does that suggest that over 12,000 existing raised kerbs will need
to be resurveyed? I've done hundreds of raised curbs in my county. While
many would fit in the regular proposed definition, without visiting each
and every one I can't just blindly change them. This proposal doesn't even
address how to treat the existing raised kerbs.

Supaplex - I urge you to come up with a complete recommendation on how you
plan to deal with revising the definition of kerb=raised. Until then I will
vote a strong NO.

Best,
Clifford

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

Re: [Tagging] Canopy Walkways

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 at 07:50, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> Or maybe footway=canopy_walkway? highway= Footway and bridge=yes seem
> essential for a basic description.
>

The combination of the three of them seems like a good, simple solution!

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Canopy Walkways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 20. Aug 2020, at 23:18, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> What's wrong with "bridge" ?


it’s ok, but not sufficient when you want to search them.
Maybe something like leisure=canopy_walkway or tourism=canopy_walkway (in 
addition)?
Or maybe footway=canopy_walkway? highway= Footway and bridge=yes seem essential 
for a basic description.

Cheers Martin 



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - kerb=regular

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Worth mentioning that the proposal intends to redefine the tag kerb=raised , 
true?

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

Re: [Tagging] Canopy Walkways

[Volker Schmidt]

What's wrong with "bridge" ?


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 19:03, Jake Edmonds via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> I can’t find any references to canopy walkways in the wiki or on Taginfo.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canopy_walkway
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Canopy_walkways
>
> Currently, many are tagged as bridge=yes or highway=footway.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/352398702
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/121881927
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/418596115
>
> The wiki entry for bridge=boardwalk suggests it is used for structures
> close to the ground.
>
> Any thoughts?
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - Voting - kerb=regular

[Supaplex]

Voting is now open for the tag kerb=regular:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/kerb%3Dregular

I intend to add the tag /kerb=regular/ to explicitly distinguish
kerbs/curbs with "normal" standard height from /kerb=raised/ to solve a
lack of clarity in the differentiation between raised and regular
("normal", neither lowered nor raised) kerbs. There is a relevant
difference not only for wheelchair users, but also for other mobility
groups and routing purposes that should be reflected in the categories
of the key. Read more on the proposal page.

Thanks for your previous comments and your future votes.

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

[Tagging] StreetComplete: summary of re-survey quests and how they will be tagged

[Tobias Zwick]

Hi there,

for your information, here is a summary of all re-survey enabled quests
with intervals, element selection and notes what will be tagged now:

https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/issues/1998#issuecomment-677825912

Cheers
Tobias


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

Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges

[Topographe Fou]

  then why not using addr:interpolation=no to state that the hyphen in addr:housenumber does not define a range ? I think everyone would be happy and it will not break current tagging schema. QA tools would raise a warning if there is an hyphen and no addr:interpolation tag. Default rule might be that an hyphen denotes (or not... Or both... I don't care) a range. LeTopographeFou   De: tagging@openstreetmap.orgEnvoyé: 20 août 2020 6:35 PMÀ: andrew.harv...@gmail.comRépondre à: tagging@openstreetmap.orgCc: matkoni...@tutanota.com; tagging@openstreetmap.orgObjet: Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges  Aug 20, 2020, 15:50 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com:And it may be useful to have tag to mark "yes this is actually a single housenumber despitethat includes hyphen or something else that suggests range"  I would assume that to be the default, when there are multiple addresses best to mark them all out individually or use a linear way with the address at the start and end nodes and addr:interpolation on the line (as a first pass before mapping them out individually) But given that addr:housenumber=1-3  may represent either case it would be nice to be able to state this.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Canopy Walkways

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

I can’t find any references to canopy walkways in the wiki or on Taginfo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canopy_walkway 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Canopy_walkways 


Currently, many are tagged as bridge=yes or highway=footway.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/352398702 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/121881927 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/418596115 


The wiki entry for bridge=boardwalk suggests it is used for structures close to 
the ground.

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

Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Aug 20, 2020, 15:50 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com:

>>>
>>>
>> And it may be useful to have tag to mark "yes this is actually a single 
>> housenumber despite
>> that includes hyphen or something else that suggests range"  
>>
>
> I would assume that to be the default, when there are multiple addresses best 
> to mark them all out individually or use a linear way with the address at the 
> start and end nodes and addr:interpolation on the line (as a first pass 
> before mapping them out individually) 
>
But given that addr:housenumber=1-3  may represent either case it would be nice 
to be able to state this.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges

[Andrew Harvey]

>
>
> And it may be useful to have tag to mark "yes this is actually a single
> housenumber despite
> that includes hyphen or something else that suggests range"
>

I would assume that to be the default, when there are multiple addresses
best to mark them all out individually or use a linear way with the address
at the start and end nodes and addr:interpolation on the line (as a first
pass before mapping them out individually)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 20. Aug 2020, at 15:29, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> And it may be useful to have tag to mark "yes this is actually a single 
> housenumber despite
> that includes hyphen or something else that suggests range" 


referring to addresses or to housenumbers, or both?

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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete: no re-survey for speed limits

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 20. Aug 2020, at 14:29, Tobias Zwick  wrote:
> 
> I am not sure what is the message of your statement. Is this just a
> general opinion regarding speed limits or is this somehow referring to
> the explanation I linked in the thread starter?


I have commented on your points, but it did not go through the list (>40kB) so 
I posted it in github (unfortunately it screwed up the formatting)


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

Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Aug 19, 2020, 10:46 by lon...@denofr.de:

> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:29:50PM +0200, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> I think you misunderstand hyphenated addresses in Queens. The second
>> part of the hyphenation is not a flat/apartment number. As an example,
>> the Dunkin Donuts at the corner of 31st St and 36th Ave has an address
>> of 31-02 36th Ave, with no apartment number. The US Postal Service
>> considers this to be equivalent to 3102 36th Ave, and will deliver mail
>> to the same place regardless of whether you include the hyphen, though
>> the address written on the entrance is hyphenated. Most building numbers
>> in Queens have a hyphen before the last two digits. 
>>
>> Thanks for the explanation.. It is indeed a while ago since I was there.
>> Any idea how this is structured in IT systems? Is "house number"
>> alphanumeric? Are the two parts stored separately? Or is it simply a
>> question of formatting, inserting a "-" before the final two digits? 
>>
>> Maybe we should use a different character to indicate a range, such as a
>> slash?
>>
>
> No matter what character you suggest, there will be some place in the world
> where that is a valid addition to a house number.
>
> Lets be honest, the main reason why we keep discussing how to get a range into
> the addr:housenumber tag is good old tagging for the renderer:
> addr:housenumber gets rendered on the map, a different tag doesn't. I've
> even had people arguing that they must use housenumber ranges because single
> housenumbers do not fit the map[1]. This is a slippery slope to go down.
> It makes the tag less and less useful for uses beyond rendering.
>
> [1] https://github.com/osm-search/Nominatim/issues/565#issuecomment-315131285
>
> I'm strongly in favour of coming up with a new tag for ranges on 
> building/nodes.
> I'd be happy to quickly add such a tag to be searchable and I'm sure it would 
> also be
> fairly simple to convince the carto people to add support for an additional 
> tagging
> schema here.
>
> Martin's suggestion of addr:housenumber:start/addr:housenumber:end wasn't 
> half way bad.
> Something like addr:housenumber_range=- with an explicit definition 
> of the
> hyphen as separator would work as well but add the restriction that you can't 
> have
> hyphened housenumbers in interpolation ranges (probably rare enough to be 
> okay).
>
And it may be useful to have tag to mark "yes this is actually a single 
housenumber despite
that includes hyphen or something else that suggests range"  

> We'd also need a new tag to indicate the interpolation steps odd/even/all. 
> It's not really
> a good idea to reuse addr:interpolation because on a building outline it 
> becomes ambigious:
> you'd have to check for the presence of other tags to figure out if the way 
> denotes an
> interpolation line or an address range on a building.
>
> Sarah
>
> ___
> 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] StreetComplete: no re-survey for speed limits

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Aug 20, 2020, 01:08 by o...@westnordost.de:

> Hey guys,
>
> I just wanted to inform you that unfortunately, StreetComplete will not
> offer a re-survey for speed limits in the upcoming "Map Maintenance with
> StreetComplete" feature but probably never anyway.
>
> Short explanation: It is impossible to implement a re-survey without
> creating conflict with tagging practices, because there are many
> competing ones, each locally established, but none globally. Also, none
> of the current tagging practices for implicit speed limits are actually
> eligible to be used globally.
>
What if some local community would be OK with retagging to
scheme used by StreetComplete? 

I can try talking with local community (Poland) as it seems to me that
this tagging scheme is the based on the most through research, 
consistent and potentially usable worldwide.

It would be probably a good idea to document also on the wiki - would you
be OK with copying this text into wiki or would you prefer to just link to it?

I ask for two reasons
- copyright issues of text itself
- if copied partially or fully to OSM wiki, on some page describing maxspeed,
people may obviously edit it as it would be on wiki

> Long explanation is here:
> https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/issues/1998#issuecomment-676787192
>
> I post this to the tagging mailing list, as the reason for this is
> really just an issue with the tagging scheme. For obvious reasons, I can
> not take the initiative in solving this issue, I would just like that
> more people are made aware of it.
>
> Cheers
> Tobias
>
>
> ___
> 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] StreetComplete: no re-survey for speed limits

[Tobias Zwick]

I am not sure what is the message of your statement. Is this just a
general opinion regarding speed limits or is this somehow referring to
the explanation I linked in the thread starter?

If the latter, and you think after all it would be possible to implement
such a re-survey for speed limits without stirring conflict, I'd be
happy to hear your suggestions on how to solve each of the 7 issues
mentioned in the explanation.

For anyone reading here but not inclined to read that long explanation
(which very much originitated from the concrete problems observed when
trying to implement it), I can try to give a shorter and more pointed
summary of the main issues why I can't implement it in StreetComplete.

Cheers
Tobias

On 20/08/2020 01:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I feel that the actual tags for implicit limits are less important than the 
> accuracy of the information. From surveys, in different countries (but 
> clearly random samples and no systematic research), it’s not super rare to 
> find implicit limits tagged where there are (lower) signed speed limits on 
> the ground. Resurvey would make sense, retagging the same with different tags 
> much less so.
> 
> 
> 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