Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread António Madeira

I do believe that uncontrolled should be deprecated in favour of marked,
which iD already did. I also agree that marked/unmarked was a good
improved in the crossing scheme, but it should be cleared on the wiki
page, which seems to favour the uncontrolled tag.
About your considerations:

1 - That depends on the country. For example, in Portugal, all crossings
have right of way over vehicles. So, marking a crossing is the same
whatever the type you map (besides unmarked, of course)

2 - I think there area already tags for all that. You can check them
here under "Additional tags":
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing

3 - Same as previous point.

4 - In the same page, under "Mode of transport"

5 - There's also reference to that in the page, but I agree this is not
very clear and is scattered in several wikis, like this:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway%3Dcrossing

Regards,
António


Às 21:40 de 16/09/2020, Taskar Center escreveu:

Hi,

crossing has been a very poor tag because it seems to be the kitchen
sink for all the questions pertaining to crossings...
Many of the attributes that get values in "crossing" are potentially
overlapping and not mutually exclusive, causing a lot of confusion and
poorly tagged crossings. Nevertheless, specifying crossings is very
important because it's a highly contested street region.

The crossing tag has held many values that may overlap, and we should
once and for all split out all these different tags so we can be
mapping what we mean and mean what we map.
Questions we should be answering when mapping a crossing:
1) How is this shared space controlled? A crossing is a high risk
environment where traversal is shared between cars and pedestrians
(they are of unequal footing). So the type of 'control' and 'right of
way' in that space is important to specify. 'uncontrolled' is a very
bad tag in this direction because it has an actual legal,
non-intuitive meaning and many mappers mistakenly think a crossing
that has no traffic signal is uncontrolled- so that's a really bad tag.
crossing_control= ?

2) How is the space demarcated? A crossing may be demarcated by a
number of different ground markers, it may also be physically
demarcated from other street environments by raised footway, tactile
paving or reflectors.
crossing_ref=? (for visual demarcation)
additional tag for physical demarcation?
(I'm in disagreement with those saying it's superfluous or hard to tag
this way)

3) How can a pedestrian call up the signal and how can they sense
whose right of way is currently allowed?
Is there a call button? Does it chirp, speak out, vibrate?

4) who is sharing the way (also a bicycle crossing, animal crossing, etc)?

5) How is the space connected to the rest of the transportation layer?
to the pedestrian layer? Crossings should really only extend from curb
to curb, so that the kerb could be properly tagged for its physical
characteristics. The habit of extending crossings all the way into and
overlapping with sidewalk spaces is a pretty bad idea considering
those are protected pedestrian spaces and have very semantic meaning
to pedestrians than the high risk crossing environment.

I think crossing=marked/unmarked was a really good step in the
direction of getting resolution and refinement on at least one of
these questions above. We should now move together to refine the
definitions and values for these other questions...

Best,
Anat



Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 4:41 PM Clifford Snow mailto:cliff...@snowandsnow.us>> wrote:



On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 2:46 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:




I must admit that I only do crossings as =traffic_signals;
=marked (by itself) for zebra crossings; & =unmarked where
there is provision to cross the road but no signage or roadway
markings on any sort.


I do crossings as crossing=marked/unmarked. I believe software
should be able to identify if the crossing has a stop sign or
traffic signal. Pedestrian walk/don't walk are low on my radar
right now.

I stopped using zebra since they seemed more appropriate for a
crossing in England than where I live in the US.
Crossing=marked/unmarked the only thing I see where I map them.

BTW - I believe in the US hitting a pedestrian in a marked
crossing is illegal most everywhere. In some cities, drivers seem
to believe they have the right of way over pedestrians, even if
they are in a marked crossing.

In another country I've spent some time in, cars definitely have
the right of way over pedestrians.
--
@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] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Taskar Center
Hi,

crossing has been a very poor tag because it seems to be the kitchen sink for 
all the questions pertaining to crossings...
Many of the attributes that get values in "crossing" are potentially 
overlapping and not mutually exclusive, causing a lot of confusion and poorly 
tagged crossings. Nevertheless, specifying crossings is very important because 
it's a highly contested street region.

The crossing tag has held many values that may overlap, and we should once and 
for all split out all these different tags so we can be mapping what we mean 
and mean what we map.
Questions we should be answering when mapping a crossing:
1) How is this shared space controlled? A crossing is a high risk environment 
where traversal is shared between cars and pedestrians (they are of unequal 
footing). So the type of 'control' and 'right of way' in that space is 
important to specify. 'uncontrolled' is a very bad tag in this direction 
because it has an actual legal, non-intuitive meaning and many mappers 
mistakenly think a crossing that has no traffic signal is uncontrolled- so 
that's a really bad tag.
crossing_control= ?

2) How is the space demarcated? A crossing may be demarcated by a number of 
different ground markers, it may also be physically demarcated from other 
street environments by raised footway, tactile paving or reflectors.
crossing_ref=? (for visual demarcation)
additional tag for physical demarcation?
(I'm in disagreement with those saying it's superfluous or hard to tag this way)

3) How can a pedestrian call up the signal and how can they sense whose right 
of way is currently allowed?
Is there a call button? Does it chirp, speak out,  vibrate?

4) who is sharing the way (also a bicycle crossing, animal crossing, etc)?

5) How is the space connected to the rest of the transportation layer? to the 
pedestrian layer? Crossings should really only extend from curb to curb, so 
that the kerb could be properly tagged for its physical characteristics. The 
habit of extending crossings all the way into and overlapping with sidewalk 
spaces is a pretty bad idea considering those are protected pedestrian spaces 
and have very semantic meaning to pedestrians than the high risk crossing 
environment.

I think crossing=marked/unmarked was a really good step in the direction of 
getting resolution and refinement on at least one of these questions above. We 
should now move together to refine the definitions and values for these other 
questions...

Best,
Anat



Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 4:41 PM Clifford Snow  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 2:46 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I must admit that I only do crossings as =traffic_signals; =marked (by 
>> itself) for zebra crossings; & =unmarked where there is provision to cross 
>> the road but no signage or roadway markings on any sort.
> I do crossings as crossing=marked/unmarked. I believe software should be able 
> to identify if the crossing has a stop sign or traffic signal. Pedestrian 
> walk/don't walk are low on my radar right now.
> 
> I stopped using zebra since they seemed more appropriate for a crossing in 
> England than where I live in the US. Crossing=marked/unmarked the only thing 
> I see where I map them. 
> 
> BTW - I believe in the US hitting a pedestrian in a marked crossing is 
> illegal most everywhere. In some cities, drivers seem to believe they have 
> the right of way over pedestrians, even if they are in a marked crossing. 
> 
> In another country I've spent some time in, cars definitely have the right of 
> way over pedestrians. 
> -- 
> @osm_washington
> www.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

2020-09-16 Thread Taskar Center
Hi,

This is yet another example why "sticking" the sidewalks onto the highway (as a 
tag) rather than mapping them as separate ways is appearing to be less and less 
practical. Please see our sidewalk schema proposal from several years ago.

I think @Mark brings up really relevant width distinctions, and I believe that 
once we agree that sidewalks require their own geometry, we should have a 
similar discussion about the interpretation of width in the sidewalks context. 

I look at this issue from the perspective of routing. Routers are interested in 
functional width (which would be Mark's 'driven path' option). Even with the 
consideration of transiency of both of the last two of Mark's definitions, 
'maintained' and 'driven path' width, this is a much better approximation for 
additional considerations than routing- it can be an indicator of traffic 
stress, it can provide information for the 'slow streets' movement, it can also 
provide a means of reconciling improper imports that labeled all roads as 
'primary' when they should not. 

My last comment has to do with the separation of sidewalks from streets- in 
that in many locales the responsibility of street maintenance falls on a 
different entity than sidewalk maintenance (for example, in Seattle, the 
sidewalk is the responsibility of the homeowner, rather than the municipality 
who IS responsible for the street infrastructure). So it is actually 
advantageous to have these mapped as separate entities so we can keep track of 
infrastructure maintenance.

Best regards,

Anat



Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 1:23 AM Supaplex  wrote:
>> I expect the "width" of a way to be the actual width of the object it 
>> represents.
> It depends on how we define "highway" in the OSM sense. You could also assume 
> that sidewalks etc. are "sticking" on the highway merely for pragmatic 
> reasons. Depending on the point of view, sidewalks and highways represent 
> different entities. (There is no law definition here, I only find a German 
> court decision that deals with street widths and thus means the distance 
> between the curbs, with carriageway and parked vehicles, so as definition 2 
> above.)
> 
> But I agree that it would be better to always specify which width is meant 
> exactly when mapping widths on streets (especially to use "width:carriageway" 
> for the rating of traffic suitability). Nevertheless, a default, which 
> meaning of "width" is meant without a prefix/suffix, would still be helpful. 
> Fun Fact: On the wiki highway page - in contrast to what is discussed here - 
> it says since 2012 that "width" means the width of the carriageway (but it 
> does not look like this paragraph has ever been discussed): 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highways#Surface.2C_width_and_lighting
> 
> Alex
> ___
> 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] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Clifford Snow
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 2:46 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> I must admit that I only do crossings as =traffic_signals; =marked (by
> itself) for zebra crossings; & =unmarked where there is provision to cross
> the road but no signage or roadway markings on any sort.
>
>
> I do crossings as crossing=marked/unmarked. I believe software should be
able to identify if the crossing has a stop sign or traffic signal.
Pedestrian walk/don't walk are low on my radar right now.

I stopped using zebra since they seemed more appropriate for a crossing in
England than where I live in the US. Crossing=marked/unmarked the only
thing I see where I map them.

BTW - I believe in the US hitting a pedestrian in a marked crossing is
illegal most everywhere. In some cities, drivers seem to believe they have
the right of way over pedestrians, even if they are in a marked crossing.

In another country I've spent some time in, cars definitely have the right
of way over pedestrians.
-- 
@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] Best practices regarding implied tags

2020-09-16 Thread Paul Johnson
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 5:20 PM François Lacombe 
wrote:

> Is that completely wrong or mappers could eventually add implied tags if
> they want to?
> The proposal currently states they are optional and it won't raise an
> error if mappers add them beside mandatory tags.
>

No, it's not wrong to add implied tags explicitly.  It's actually
encouraged in some cases where the implicit tag is not consumable by
automated system (such as the "none" default for turn:lanes tends to be
ambiguous between "you can't turn from this lane" and "you can't use this
lane" and "there's an implicit but unspecified implication that isn't
painted on the ground"), or access defaults (such as in the US where
bicycle=* and foot=* varies a lot on highway=motorway)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


[Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

2020-09-16 Thread François Lacombe
Hi all,

This proposal is currently in RFC
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Utility_poles_proposal

It proposes among other points to make man_made=utility_pole +
utility=power implied by power=pole (for sake of consistency with telecom
utility poles which won't get a telecom=pole because they're not a telecom
feature)

A good point is raised in Talk regarding this implication.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Utility_poles_proposal
It's clear that implied tags won't be mandatory on osm features but what
about actually adding them ?
Is that completely wrong or mappers could eventually add implied tags if
they want to?
The proposal currently states they are optional and it won't raise an error
if mappers add them beside mandatory tags.

Let me know if a common practice is already established.

All the best

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


Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Peter Elderson
In Nederland zebra crossings are very common, and go by the name zebra.This is 
also the name used in legislation. Zebra crossings give priority to pedestrians 
crossing the street on the zebra. Hm how should this be tagged... maybe 
crossing=pathtocrosstheroadmarkedwithstripeslikeazebratograntprioritytopedestrians?

Peter Elderson

>> Op 16 sep. 2020 om 23:47 heeft Graeme Fitzpatrick  
>> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 20:01, Martin Koppenhoefer  
>> wrote:
>> while the very generic crossing=marked, which was quite unpopular before 
>> (2013-2018 below 6000 uses) now went through the roof and is leading the 
>> tagstats with more than 1 million uses.
> 
> You may find that it is partly, at least, iD's "fault"? Crossings now "error" 
> in iD to say that "this street crosses an unmarked crossing", despite the 
> crossing being mapped & tagged? eg 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-28.06439/153.43854
> 
> The "fix" inserts an "Unmarked Crossing" node on the junction of the street & 
> crossing.
> eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7914347813
> 
>> What do you think about it, shouldn't we be encouraging people to use more 
>> specific tags like crossing=zebra or crossing=traffic_signals instead?
> 
> I must admit that I only do crossings as =traffic_signals; =marked (by 
> itself) for zebra crossings; & =unmarked where there is provision to cross 
> the road but no signage or roadway markings on any sort.
> 
> 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] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 20:01, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> while the very generic crossing=marked, which was quite unpopular before
> (2013-2018 below 6000 uses) now went through the roof and is leading the
> tagstats with more than 1 million uses.
>

You may find that it is partly, at least, iD's "fault"? Crossings now
"error" in iD to say that "this street crosses an unmarked crossing",
despite the crossing being mapped & tagged? eg
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-28.06439/153.43854

The "fix" inserts an "Unmarked Crossing" node on the junction of the street
& crossing.
eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7914347813

What do you think about it, shouldn't we be encouraging people to use more
> specific tags like crossing=zebra or crossing=traffic_signals instead?
>

I must admit that I only do crossings as =traffic_signals; =marked (by
itself) for zebra crossings; & =unmarked where there is provision to cross
the road but no signage or roadway markings on any sort.

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Addition of highway=emergency_bay and priority_road=yes to Map Features?

2020-09-16 Thread Tobias Knerr
On 16.09.20 09:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> emergency bays are quite common in Italy and Germany when there isn’t an 
> emergency lane.

The pertinent question isn't so much if emergency bays are common, but
if this particular tagging for them is established.

In my opinion, mapping what amounts to a short lane (no physical
separation) as a separate way is contrary to what we usually do, e.g.
with bus bays. And seeing how the tag currently has less than a thousand
uses on ways, I feel that the practice of using highway=emergency_bay on
ways should not be recommended on Map Features.

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


Re: [Tagging] Addition of highway=emergency_bay and priority_road=yes to Map Features?

2020-09-16 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 18:00, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> emergency bays are quite common in Italy and Germany when there isn’t an
> emergency lane.
>

Quite common on major highways out here as well.

Very handy thing to know if e.g. you have a flat tyre & you can see that
there's a stopping bay 300m away rather than stopping to change it "right
here" :-(

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

2020-09-16 Thread Jeroen Hoek
On 15-09-2020 10:09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Mo., 14. Sept. 2020 um 20:37 Uhr schrieb Supaplex
> mailto:supap...@riseup.net>>:
> indeed, mapping the width generally requires measuring the width, and it
> is often not practical (unless you are willing to spend a lot of time or
> have very good aerial imagery at hand).

It will vary a lot per country and the available resources. In the
Netherlands we are blessed to have both yearly 25cm satellite imagery,
and municipal topography outline layers available. Those two, combined
are really quite nice to have.

In JOSM it looks like this:

http://jeroenhoek.nl/temp/josm-dutch-bgt.png

Measuring the width of a street (option 2) is often trivial with these;
in this case it seems to be a neat 6m.

I wonder if it is feasible to have JOSM render the width, optionally, as
a sort of semi-transparent background beneath the way-line. It would
make aligning these to the middle of the street even easier, and tagging
the width less error prone too due to the visual feedback.

Jeroen Hoek

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


Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Grzegorz Szymaszek
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID/Controversial_Decisions#Changing_crossing.3Dzebra_to_crossing.3Dmarked


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


Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

2020-09-16 Thread Grzegorz Szymaszek
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 07:02:26PM +0200, Jeroen Hoek  
wrote:
> I wonder if it is feasible to have JOSM render the width, optionally, as
> a sort of semi-transparent background beneath the way-line.

JOSM can already do it:
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Styles/Lane_and_Road_Attributes

-- 
Grzegorz


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


Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

2020-09-16 Thread Jan Michel

On 16.09.20 10:30, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

On 15. Sep 2020, at 19:05, Jan Michel  wrote:

If you want to tag how much space there is for some kind of vehicle moving in 
some direction, there are the specific width tags like width:lanes, 
sidewalk:width, cycleway:width, shoulder:width, verge:width
and so on.


following your initial statement (all parts), you would include the verges in 
the width?


That's a difficult point. I'm not a friend of the 'verge' tag at all (as 
opposed to the 'shoulder' which is an area traffic can make use of). It 
was somehow invented and put to use in 2016, but as far as I know never 
discussed. I definitely prefer to tag verges as separate objects - even 
one of the examples in the Wiki shows a ~5m wide park like area with 
trees to be tagged as verge. I think it's really far-fetched to call 
this a part of the highway.


To answer your question - no, because I don't see verges as part of the 
road.




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


Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread António Madeira via Tagging

The problem, I believe is with iD's presets.
When I started mapping some years ago I always marked crossings as
zebras, then iD changed the preset to crossing =marked and I believe
that's what you're seeing with the increasing number of this tag.
Although iD presents the type selector within that element, with
"uncontrolled", "traffic_signs", "unmarked", "zebra", "no", "toucan",
"pelican" and others, most mappers just leave the first value, which is
"marked".


Às 11:33 de 16/09/2020, Martin Koppenhoefer escreveu:



Am Mi., 16. Sept. 2020 um 16:27 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>>:

I thought the correct tag for this was crossing_ref. Have you
cross checked to see if they've been swapped instead of removed?



crossing_ref is a different kind of beast, as some people use it to
tell whether there are zebra markings (can also apply to traffic light
controlled crossings).

Frankly, I do not like the tag for zebra crossings, because this
approach requires me to set 3 tags (one of crossing=zebra / marked /
uncontrolled(?)  +, crossing_ref=zebra + highway=crossing, on every
zebra crossing while I could use 2 and be done (highway=crossing with
crossing=zebra).


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] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 16. Sep 2020, at 20:22, António Madeira  wrote:
> 
> The problem, I believe is with iD's presets.



thank you for the hint, I think you’re right.

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


Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

2020-09-16 Thread bkil
Not until the page is finalized and accepted by the community. Until
then, it is a draft, and it is frowned upon to mix such controversial
drafts into the main namespace

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 4:38 PM Jez Nicholson  wrote:
>
> "why this page resides in the main
> namespace and not in the responsible proposer's user space?" - it's a wiki, 
> we are generally a libertarian group, there are no restrictions on creating a 
> page other than wanting to be relevant. I personally find it relevant.
>
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2020, 14:47 bkil,  wrote:
>>
>> Could someone perhaps clarify why this page resides in the main
>> namespace and not in the responsible proposer's user space?
>>
>> > Do not name individuals in OpenStreetMap tags, unless their name is on a 
>> > business sign posted towards the street, or part of the business name and 
>> > available in public records.
>> >
>>
>> What if the name of the operator is printed on each receipt when you
>> shop there or a certificate is placed on the wall that shows it? We
>> usually add that to operator=*.
>>
>> Indeed I think that the article confuses mapped things that are
>> worthless and mapped things that are dangerous (according to GDPR).
>>
>> For example, the reason why we don't map private washing machines is
>> that its location and capacity is not information that is in public
>> interest (hence why it is not a POI). Another reason that it fails the
>> verifiability criterion: if I want to check that the position and type
>> information of the washing machine is still accurate, I need to ring
>> the doorbell and be invited in to see for myself, but it is not
>> realistic that an owner would invite dozens of potentially malicious
>> random people into their house just for this.
>>
>> Even if the object would be visible from the outside, it is of no use
>> to 99.% of individuals if the owner does not let me do my laundry
>> there. If a TV is fully and clearly visible from the outside through
>> the window, it _may_ serve a public utility of entertainment if you
>> can lip read, but you need to ring the doorbell each time you want to
>> switch channels...
>>
>> Private parking and driveways are acceptable because it hints at which
>> way the entrance is - helping delivery personal and guests alike. I've
>> mapped some very interesting hilly terrain where this can be
>> especially useful, as roads were pretty dense and the road towards
>> where the entrance is was not trivial and a failed guess could cost
>> you a few more minutes of walking or driving for each house.
>>
>> Private swimming pools aren't that interesting but people seem to
>> enjoy tracing them. Maybe in case of emergency they could be used as a
>> nearby water source by the fire brigade?
>>
>> From the privacy section, am I reading correctly that you suggest that
>> you find it acceptable to map each tomb in a cemetery by name?
>>
>> I think a lot of considerations are missing in this article other than
>> those stemming from the GDPR, like military and national
>> considerations. You also do not mention that there exist regions where
>> mapping activities are forbidden by the law and punishable by prison
>> sentence. And anyway other than describing "what is worthless to map",
>> I think you are trying to basically gather "mapping ethics", and maybe
>> this should be better be done in Wikipedia because it does not only
>> concern OpenStreetMap, but any mapping provider.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 3:15 PM Niels Elgaard Larsen  wrote:
>> >
>> > Mateusz Konieczny via talk:
>> > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information
>> > >
>> > > Do you think that this page is a good description of community consensus?
>> > >
>> > > The page has
>> > > "This page is under development (May 2020). It may not yet reflect 
>> > > community consensus."
>> > > and I would like to check whatever it matches community consensus well 
>> > > or mismatches it.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I think we should avoid language such as "There is no need to split 
>> > residential
>> > landuse into individual plots".
>> >
>> > Of course there is a need for someone somewhere to tag just about 
>> > everything.
>> > For example, if you want to buy a house you would want to see where the 
>> > plot is.
>> >
>> > This is not about needs, but about privacy, and maybe data quality.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Niels Elgaard Larsen
>> >
>> > ___
>> > 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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

2020-09-16 Thread bkil
You misunderstood me. I don't _care_ about private swimming pools and
I don't think they are public interest. I don't think that mapping
them can get us trouble with GDPR. You see that's my problem with a
page like this: it blurs the line between ethics, legals and
recommending to map things that add the greatest value to the largest
number of users. I think these should have their separate pages.

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 4:39 PM Paul Allen  wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 14:47, bkil  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Private swimming pools aren't that interesting but people seem to
>> enjoy tracing them. Maybe in case of emergency they could be used as a
>> nearby water source by the fire brigade?
>
>
> Depending on the terrain, they may be visible and serve as navigational
> references.  "If I'm where I think I am, there should be a house with a
> swimming pool in that direction."
>
> Also, swimming pools are not people and have no right to privacy under
> the GDPR.
>
> Also, aerial imagery exists.  People can look at such imagery in Google
> Maps, Bing Maps, etc.  If you don't want people knowing you have
> a swimming pool then build a cover over it or bribe all the aerial imagery
> companies to doctor their images so your swimming pool isn't visible.
>>
>>
>> From the privacy section, am I reading correctly that you suggest that
>> you find it acceptable to map each tomb in a cemetery by name?
>
>
> I've mapped a few tombs by name.  They're large, elaborate, and
> (most importantly) are "listed buildings" meaning they are of
> cultural significance and protected by law.  I wouldn't bother
> mapping any other tombs in a cemetery, not unless I ran out
> of things to map (that isn't going to happen).
>
>> I think you are trying to basically gather "mapping ethics", and maybe
>> this should be better be done in Wikipedia because it does not only
>> concern OpenStreetMap, but any mapping provider.
>
>
> And what if OSM feels those generic mapping ethics are too lax?
> We'll end up with our own, one way or another.  Even if it's only
> guidance as to how to interpret generic ethics in the context of
> the OSM mapping model.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> 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] [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

2020-09-16 Thread Dave F via Tagging

Please don't crossthread newsgroups.
If you have to alert the few who don't subscribe to both, post a message 
telling them it's on another newsgroup.


DaveF


On 16/09/2020 14:11, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote:

Mateusz Konieczny via talk:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information

Do you think that this page is a good description of community consensus?

The page has
"This page is under development (May 2020). It may not yet reflect community 
consensus."
and I would like to check whatever it matches community consensus well or 
mismatches it.



I think we should avoid language such as "There is no need to split residential
landuse into individual plots".

Of course there is a need for someone somewhere to tag just about everything.
For example, if you want to buy a house you would want to see where the plot is.

This is not about needs, but about privacy, and maybe data quality.





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


Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

2020-09-16 Thread Paul Allen
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 14:47, bkil  wrote:

>
> Private swimming pools aren't that interesting but people seem to
> enjoy tracing them. Maybe in case of emergency they could be used as a
> nearby water source by the fire brigade?
>

Depending on the terrain, they may be visible and serve as navigational
references.  "If I'm where I think I am, there should be a house with a
swimming pool in that direction."

Also, swimming pools are not people and have no right to privacy under
the GDPR.

Also, aerial imagery exists.  People can look at such imagery in Google
Maps, Bing Maps, etc.  If you don't want people knowing you have
a swimming pool then build a cover over it or bribe all the aerial imagery
companies to doctor their images so your swimming pool isn't visible.

>
> From the privacy section, am I reading correctly that you suggest that
> you find it acceptable to map each tomb in a cemetery by name?
>

I've mapped a few tombs by name.  They're large, elaborate, and
(most importantly) are "listed buildings" meaning they are of
cultural significance and protected by law.  I wouldn't bother
mapping any other tombs in a cemetery, not unless I ran out
of things to map (that isn't going to happen).

I think you are trying to basically gather "mapping ethics", and maybe
> this should be better be done in Wikipedia because it does not only
> concern OpenStreetMap, but any mapping provider.
>

And what if OSM feels those generic mapping ethics are too lax?
We'll end up with our own, one way or another.  Even if it's only
guidance as to how to interpret generic ethics in the context of
the OSM mapping model.

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


Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

2020-09-16 Thread Jez Nicholson
"why this page resides in the main
namespace and not in the responsible proposer's user space?" - it's a wiki,
we are generally a libertarian group, there are no restrictions on creating
a page other than wanting to be relevant. I personally find it relevant.

On Wed, 16 Sep 2020, 14:47 bkil,  wrote:

> Could someone perhaps clarify why this page resides in the main
> namespace and not in the responsible proposer's user space?
>
> > Do not name individuals in OpenStreetMap tags, unless their name is on a
> business sign posted towards the street, or part of the business name and
> available in public records.
> >
>
> What if the name of the operator is printed on each receipt when you
> shop there or a certificate is placed on the wall that shows it? We
> usually add that to operator=*.
>
> Indeed I think that the article confuses mapped things that are
> worthless and mapped things that are dangerous (according to GDPR).
>
> For example, the reason why we don't map private washing machines is
> that its location and capacity is not information that is in public
> interest (hence why it is not a POI). Another reason that it fails the
> verifiability criterion: if I want to check that the position and type
> information of the washing machine is still accurate, I need to ring
> the doorbell and be invited in to see for myself, but it is not
> realistic that an owner would invite dozens of potentially malicious
> random people into their house just for this.
>
> Even if the object would be visible from the outside, it is of no use
> to 99.% of individuals if the owner does not let me do my laundry
> there. If a TV is fully and clearly visible from the outside through
> the window, it _may_ serve a public utility of entertainment if you
> can lip read, but you need to ring the doorbell each time you want to
> switch channels...
>
> Private parking and driveways are acceptable because it hints at which
> way the entrance is - helping delivery personal and guests alike. I've
> mapped some very interesting hilly terrain where this can be
> especially useful, as roads were pretty dense and the road towards
> where the entrance is was not trivial and a failed guess could cost
> you a few more minutes of walking or driving for each house.
>
> Private swimming pools aren't that interesting but people seem to
> enjoy tracing them. Maybe in case of emergency they could be used as a
> nearby water source by the fire brigade?
>
> From the privacy section, am I reading correctly that you suggest that
> you find it acceptable to map each tomb in a cemetery by name?
>
> I think a lot of considerations are missing in this article other than
> those stemming from the GDPR, like military and national
> considerations. You also do not mention that there exist regions where
> mapping activities are forbidden by the law and punishable by prison
> sentence. And anyway other than describing "what is worthless to map",
> I think you are trying to basically gather "mapping ethics", and maybe
> this should be better be done in Wikipedia because it does not only
> concern OpenStreetMap, but any mapping provider.
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 3:15 PM Niels Elgaard Larsen 
> wrote:
> >
> > Mateusz Konieczny via talk:
> > >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information
> > >
> > > Do you think that this page is a good description of community
> consensus?
> > >
> > > The page has
> > > "This page is under development (May 2020). It may not yet reflect
> community consensus."
> > > and I would like to check whatever it matches community consensus well
> or mismatches it.
> >
> >
> >
> > I think we should avoid language such as "There is no need to split
> residential
> > landuse into individual plots".
> >
> > Of course there is a need for someone somewhere to tag just about
> everything.
> > For example, if you want to buy a house you would want to see where the
> plot is.
> >
> > This is not about needs, but about privacy, and maybe data quality.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Niels Elgaard Larsen
> >
> > ___
> > 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] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 16. Sept. 2020 um 16:27 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> I thought the correct tag for this was crossing_ref. Have you cross
> checked to see if they've been swapped instead of removed?
>


crossing_ref is a different kind of beast, as some people use it to tell
whether there are zebra markings (can also apply to traffic light
controlled crossings).

Frankly, I do not like the tag for zebra crossings, because this approach
requires me to set 3 tags (one of crossing=zebra / marked /
uncontrolled(?)  +, crossing_ref=zebra + highway=crossing, on every zebra
crossing while I could use 2 and be done (highway=crossing with
crossing=zebra).


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


Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Dave F via Tagging



On 16/09/2020 14:59, Jeremy Harris wrote:

On 16/09/2020 14:26, Matthew Woehlke wrote:

On 16/09/2020 05.57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

I noticed that crossing=zebra tag usage is drastically shrinking while
the
very generic crossing=marked, which was quite unpopular before (2013-2018
below 6000 uses) now went through the roof and is leading the tagstats
with
more than 1 million uses. What do you think about it, shouldn't we be
encouraging people to use more specific tags like crossing=zebra or
crossing=traffic_signals instead?

My understanding is that crossing=zebra is deprecated in favor of
crossing=uncontrolled / crossing=traffic_signals. In particular, my
understanding is that they are synonymous for (almost¹) all practical
purposes. (Also, that crossing=marked is not desired either...)

Please explain how crossing=marked is "very generic" and what value
crossing=zebra adds.

In the UK, at least, there is a legal distinction: motor traffic
is required to give way to pedestrians *waiting to cross* at a
zebra crossing; this does not apply for crossings that are marked
(and have feature useful to pedestrians such as refuge islands
and dropped kerbs).


Indeed; which is why crossing_ref=zebra (which is the correct tag for 
this) should not be tagged as 'uncontrolled'. The presence of a 
pedestrian controls the motor traffic.


DaveF




I could imagine, for example, sight-challenged pedestrians wanting
to know about zebra-crossings specifically.





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


Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 16. Sept. 2020 um 15:26 Uhr schrieb Matthew Woehlke <
mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com>:

> My understanding is that crossing=zebra is deprecated in favor of
> crossing=uncontrolled / crossing=traffic_signals.



there are many issues with "uncontrolled", especially if you use it to
intend a zebra crossing (as road markings are a kind of control).
crossing=zebra and traffic_signals are not synonymous.

What strikes me is the raise of "marked", which used to be a niche tag for
crossings that were somehow marked but were not describable with the other
tags, and now it is the leading value for "crossing".



>
> Please explain how crossing=marked is "very generic" and what value
> crossing=zebra adds.
>


crossing=zebra is about a zebra crossing, which is a typical kind of
pedestrian crossing in many countries (i.e. no traffic lights, zebra
markings, possibly zebra crossing signs, according to jurisdiction).
crossing=marked is about any marked crossing.



>
> Additionally, crossing=zebra is not an approved tag (according to the
> wiki),

and "It is not always clear what the intended meaning is when
> used outside of the UK". This doesn't seem like a tag we should be
> encouraging.
>


the wiki should be updated. It means a zebra crossing, and I do not believe
there is ambiguity in this, in the UK or in Europe.


> (¹ Pedantically, I suppose you could argue that crossing=zebra refers to
> a specific *form* of marking, i.e. repeated white stripes, while the
> approved crossing=uncontrolled could include crossings marked only by
> two parallel white lines. However, I would question the value added by
> mapping that distinction.)



the "approved" crossing=uncontrolled has bugged many mappers for years, and
I believe the current idea about the tag is that it should be avoided. The
word implies without markings (although a different meaning is defined).

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


Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Dave F via Tagging
I thought the correct tag for this was crossing_ref. Have you cross 
checked to see if they've been swapped instead of removed?


DaveF

On 16/09/2020 10:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I noticed that crossing=zebra tag usage is drastically shrinking while 
the very generic crossing=marked, which was quite unpopular before 
(2013-2018 below 6000 uses) now went through the roof and is leading 
the tagstats with more than 1 million uses. What do you think about 
it, shouldn't we be encouraging people to use more specific tags like 
crossing=zebra or crossing=traffic_signals instead?


___
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] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Jeremy Harris
On 16/09/2020 14:26, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> On 16/09/2020 05.57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> I noticed that crossing=zebra tag usage is drastically shrinking while
>> the
>> very generic crossing=marked, which was quite unpopular before (2013-2018
>> below 6000 uses) now went through the roof and is leading the tagstats
>> with
>> more than 1 million uses. What do you think about it, shouldn't we be
>> encouraging people to use more specific tags like crossing=zebra or
>> crossing=traffic_signals instead?
> 
> My understanding is that crossing=zebra is deprecated in favor of
> crossing=uncontrolled / crossing=traffic_signals. In particular, my
> understanding is that they are synonymous for (almost¹) all practical
> purposes. (Also, that crossing=marked is not desired either...)
> 
> Please explain how crossing=marked is "very generic" and what value
> crossing=zebra adds.

In the UK, at least, there is a legal distinction: motor traffic
is required to give way to pedestrians *waiting to cross* at a
zebra crossing; this does not apply for crossings that are marked
(and have feature useful to pedestrians such as refuge islands
and dropped kerbs).

I could imagine, for example, sight-challenged pedestrians wanting
to know about zebra-crossings specifically.


-- 
Cheers,
  Jeremy

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


Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

2020-09-16 Thread bkil
Could someone perhaps clarify why this page resides in the main
namespace and not in the responsible proposer's user space?

> Do not name individuals in OpenStreetMap tags, unless their name is on a 
> business sign posted towards the street, or part of the business name and 
> available in public records.
>

What if the name of the operator is printed on each receipt when you
shop there or a certificate is placed on the wall that shows it? We
usually add that to operator=*.

Indeed I think that the article confuses mapped things that are
worthless and mapped things that are dangerous (according to GDPR).

For example, the reason why we don't map private washing machines is
that its location and capacity is not information that is in public
interest (hence why it is not a POI). Another reason that it fails the
verifiability criterion: if I want to check that the position and type
information of the washing machine is still accurate, I need to ring
the doorbell and be invited in to see for myself, but it is not
realistic that an owner would invite dozens of potentially malicious
random people into their house just for this.

Even if the object would be visible from the outside, it is of no use
to 99.% of individuals if the owner does not let me do my laundry
there. If a TV is fully and clearly visible from the outside through
the window, it _may_ serve a public utility of entertainment if you
can lip read, but you need to ring the doorbell each time you want to
switch channels...

Private parking and driveways are acceptable because it hints at which
way the entrance is - helping delivery personal and guests alike. I've
mapped some very interesting hilly terrain where this can be
especially useful, as roads were pretty dense and the road towards
where the entrance is was not trivial and a failed guess could cost
you a few more minutes of walking or driving for each house.

Private swimming pools aren't that interesting but people seem to
enjoy tracing them. Maybe in case of emergency they could be used as a
nearby water source by the fire brigade?

From the privacy section, am I reading correctly that you suggest that
you find it acceptable to map each tomb in a cemetery by name?

I think a lot of considerations are missing in this article other than
those stemming from the GDPR, like military and national
considerations. You also do not mention that there exist regions where
mapping activities are forbidden by the law and punishable by prison
sentence. And anyway other than describing "what is worthless to map",
I think you are trying to basically gather "mapping ethics", and maybe
this should be better be done in Wikipedia because it does not only
concern OpenStreetMap, but any mapping provider.

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 3:15 PM Niels Elgaard Larsen  wrote:
>
> Mateusz Konieczny via talk:
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information
> >
> > Do you think that this page is a good description of community consensus?
> >
> > The page has
> > "This page is under development (May 2020). It may not yet reflect 
> > community consensus."
> > and I would like to check whatever it matches community consensus well or 
> > mismatches it.
>
>
>
> I think we should avoid language such as "There is no need to split 
> residential
> landuse into individual plots".
>
> Of course there is a need for someone somewhere to tag just about everything.
> For example, if you want to buy a house you would want to see where the plot 
> is.
>
> This is not about needs, but about privacy, and maybe data quality.
>
>
> --
> Niels Elgaard Larsen
>
> ___
> 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] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Matthew Woehlke

On 16/09/2020 05.57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

I noticed that crossing=zebra tag usage is drastically shrinking while the
very generic crossing=marked, which was quite unpopular before (2013-2018
below 6000 uses) now went through the roof and is leading the tagstats with
more than 1 million uses. What do you think about it, shouldn't we be
encouraging people to use more specific tags like crossing=zebra or
crossing=traffic_signals instead?


My understanding is that crossing=zebra is deprecated in favor of 
crossing=uncontrolled / crossing=traffic_signals. In particular, my 
understanding is that they are synonymous for (almost¹) all practical 
purposes. (Also, that crossing=marked is not desired either...)


Please explain how crossing=marked is "very generic" and what value 
crossing=zebra adds.


Additionally, crossing=zebra is not an approved tag (according to the 
wiki), and "It is not always clear what the intended meaning is when 
used outside of the UK". This doesn't seem like a tag we should be 
encouraging.


(Feel free to disagree with the above, but in that case, the correct 
solution is to a) seek approval for the tag and b) clarify the 
documentation.)


(¹ Pedantically, I suppose you could argue that crossing=zebra refers to 
a specific *form* of marking, i.e. repeated white stripes, while the 
approved crossing=uncontrolled could include crossings marked only by 
two parallel white lines. However, I would question the value added by 
mapping that distinction.)


--
Matthew

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


Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

2020-09-16 Thread Niels Elgaard Larsen
Mateusz Konieczny via talk:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information
> 
> Do you think that this page is a good description of community consensus?
> 
> The page has
> "This page is under development (May 2020). It may not yet reflect community 
> consensus."
> and I would like to check whatever it matches community consensus well or 
> mismatches it.



I think we should avoid language such as "There is no need to split residential
landuse into individual plots".

Of course there is a need for someone somewhere to tag just about everything.
For example, if you want to buy a house you would want to see where the plot is.

This is not about needs, but about privacy, and maybe data quality.


-- 
Niels Elgaard Larsen

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


Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

2020-09-16 Thread Niels Elgaard Larsen
Mateusz Konieczny via talk:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information
> 
> Do you think that this page is a good description of community consensus?
> 
> The page has
> "This page is under development (May 2020). It may not yet reflect community 
> consensus."
> and I would like to check whatever it matches community consensus well or 
> mismatches it.



I think we should avoid language such as "There is no need to split residential
landuse into individual plots".

Of course there is a need for someone somewhere to tag just about everything.
For example, if you want to buy a house you would want to see where the plot is.

This is not about needs, but about privacy, and maybe data quality.


-- 
Niels Elgaard Larsen

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


Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 16. Sep 2020, at 14:25, Supaplex  wrote:
> 
> Do you have examples where "zebra" is changed automatically? Where and who 
> and why?


I have seen it only sporadically and have contacted the mappers in some cases, 
the same for marked when there were traffic lights. I have been writing here 
because of the bend in the tagging curve:
https://taghistory.raifer.tech/#***/crossing%20/&***/crossing/zebra

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


Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Supaplex
I would appreciate using crossing=zebra! (instead of crossing=marked +
crossing_ref=zebra, so I have tagged it so far.) But I can't imagine
that people use or change "marked" instead of "traffic_signals". Or have
you observed this somewhere? For me "marked" would be something like
"paved" for Key:surface: a value which could be specified more exactly
in most cases (especially using "zebra" instead).

Do you have examples where "zebra" is changed automatically? Where and
who and why?

In rare cases, however, there are still crossings with special
structural forms, where "marked" could be a useful value for greater
generalisation, e.g. in this case:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:%C3%9Cberwegmarkierung_B%C3%BCrgerstra%C3%9Fe.jpg
(because of the surface, not the markings - and it's not a traffic calming)

In Berlin we are experimenting with a few extensions, by the way, see
[de]:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Berlin/Verkehrswende/Fu%C3%9Fwege#Gehweg.C3.BCberg.C3.A4nge

Alex


Am 16.09.20 um 11:57 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> I noticed that crossing=zebra tag usage is drastically shrinking while the
> very generic crossing=marked, which was quite unpopular before (2013-2018
> below 6000 uses) now went through the roof and is leading the tagstats with
> more than 1 million uses. What do you think about it, shouldn't we be
> encouraging people to use more specific tags like crossing=zebra or
> crossing=traffic_signals instead?
>
>
> ___
> 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] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread ael
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 12:40:06PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Mi., 16. Sept. 2020 um 12:36 Uhr schrieb ael :
> 
> > Yes. ISTR that the last time I tried to mark a crossing, zebra wasn't a
> > option in the presets. But my memeory may be at fault.
> >
> 
> which editor are you using?

I should have said josm. But I just checked and zebra was available as a
subtag. I was mapping a crossing with traffic lights so zebra was not
appropriate there. So my memory was at fault. Apologies for the noise.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 16. Sept. 2020 um 12:36 Uhr schrieb ael :

> Yes. ISTR that the last time I tried to mark a crossing, zebra wasn't a
> option in the presets. But my memeory may be at fault.
>


which editor are you using?

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


Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread ael
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 11:57:58AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I noticed that crossing=zebra tag usage is drastically shrinking while the
> very generic crossing=marked, which was quite unpopular before (2013-2018
> below 6000 uses) now went through the roof and is leading the tagstats with
> more than 1 million uses. What do you think about it, shouldn't we be
> encouraging people to use more specific tags like crossing=zebra or
> crossing=traffic_signals instead?

Yes. ISTR that the last time I tried to mark a crossing, zebra wasn't a
option in the presets. But my memeory may be at fault.

ael


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


[Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
I noticed that crossing=zebra tag usage is drastically shrinking while the
very generic crossing=marked, which was quite unpopular before (2013-2018
below 6000 uses) now went through the roof and is leading the tagstats with
more than 1 million uses. What do you think about it, shouldn't we be
encouraging people to use more specific tags like crossing=zebra or
crossing=traffic_signals instead?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

2020-09-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 15. Sep 2020, at 19:05, Jan Michel  wrote:
> 
> If you want to tag how much space there is for some kind of vehicle moving in 
> some direction, there are the specific width tags like width:lanes, 
> sidewalk:width, cycleway:width, shoulder:width, verge:width
> and so on.


following your initial statement (all parts), you would include the verges in 
the width?


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


Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

2020-09-16 Thread Supaplex
> I expect the "width" of a way to be the actual width of the object it
> represents. 
It depends on how we define "highway" in the OSM sense. You could also
assume that sidewalks etc. are "sticking" on the highway merely for
pragmatic reasons. Depending on the point of view, sidewalks and
highways represent different entities. (There is no law definition here,
I only find a German court decision that deals with street widths and
thus means the distance between the curbs, with carriageway and parked
vehicles, so as definition 2 above.)

But I agree that it would be better to always specify which width is
meant exactly when mapping widths on streets (especially to use
"width:carriageway" for the rating of traffic suitability).
Nevertheless, a default, which meaning of "width" is meant without a
prefix/suffix, would still be helpful. Fun Fact: On the wiki highway
page - in contrast to what is discussed here - it says since 2012 that
"width" means the width of the carriageway (but it does not look like
this paragraph has ever been discussed):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highways#Surface.2C_width_and_lighting

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


Re: [Tagging] Addition of highway=emergency_bay and priority_road=yes to Map Features?

2020-09-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 16. Sep 2020, at 09:53, Alan Mackie  wrote:
> 
> Priority road definitely seems like you'd want it on the map features list if 
> you're in a country that uses it.
> 
> Not sure how common emergency bays are?


+1 for priority roads (although I believe the opposite is much more common: 
adding giveway and stop restrictions to crossing roads)

emergency bays are quite common in Italy and Germany when there isn’t an 
emergency lane.

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


Re: [Tagging] Addition of highway=emergency_bay and priority_road=yes to Map Features?

2020-09-16 Thread Alan Mackie
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020, 07:52 Joseph Eisenberg, 
wrote:

> Two tags were just added to the list of approved and de-facto highway
> =* tags on Map features:
> highway =emergency_bay
>  and
> priority_road =yes
> .
> Both have mainly been used in Germany and nearby areas of central Europe.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:priority_road
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Demergency_bay
>
> I question whether these tags are established enough to merit inclusion on
> the Highway map features page and the main Map Features list. Thoughts?
>

Priority road definitely seems like you'd want it on the map features list
if you're in a country that uses it.

Not sure how common emergency bays are?

>
> - 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