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

2020-09-19 Thread Volker Schmidt
Some thoughts that trouble me...

To me it seems obvious that width values, independently on how they are
measured, are at best estimates, as measuring them is in most cases
dangerous or requires good technical equipment. I guess that most width
values in the database are reality estimates (I don't think that this is an
unjustified extrapolation from my own mapping - 99.9% of my width tagging
based on estimates). Estimates are relatively easy for narrow roads if you
have street-level photographs. They become much more unreliable for wider
roads. I solve this by using only lanes count for wider roads. Precise
width measurements are difficult to impossible, but fortunately they are
also less important than the lanes count for the end user.

The discussion about including/excluding sidepaths/sidewalks becomes also
irrelevant if we were only to use the lanes count as that counts only motor
traffic lanes.

Would also overcome another aspect of the width definition: If we use width
for the entire road, i.e motor-traffic lanes, shoulders, sidewalks, cycle
lanes/tracks/paths, tree rows between foot and cycleway, ... we do in the
end not know enough about the the actual widths of the different component
"lanes".

Width values are useful and easy to estimate from street-level photographs
for sidewalks, cycle paths/lanes/tracks, certainly to within 0.5m precision.

We need in any case a good system for regrouping parallel ways that belong
to the same street.
A relation seems to me the better option, but in any case, whatever
approach we pick now, we will face an nearly impossible amount of
retrofitting work. Anything we do on this from now will not make the
problem go away with the existing stock of data.

Volker









Virus-free.
www.avast.com

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

On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 22:35, Tobias Knerr  wrote:

> On 17.09.20 02:35, Taskar Center wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Your sidewalk proposal unfortunately doesn't really address the crucial
> shortcoming of separately mapped sidewalks: The lack of a reliable
> mechanism for figuring out which section of road a given sidewalk way
> belongs to.
>
> I agree that we should be able to give sidewalks their own geometry, but
> we _also_ need the relationship between sidewalk and road. So far, all
> the proposals attempting to support the former end up sacrificing the
> latter.
>
> There have been some promising discussions recently around the
> sidepath_of idea, but that's still just brainstorming. Until a practical
> solution is found and actually used in the database, sidewalk mapping
> will remain a choice between two options that are broken in different ways.
>
> As for the main issue of the thread: I would welcome a clear definition
> for the meaning of width. In my own mapping and when writing the
> relevant code in OSM2World, I have counted sidewalks etc. as part of the
> road's width if they are mapped as tags on the main way. But I would of
> course change that if there finally was a documented and widely
> agreed-upon recommendation. I don't care so much which one it is - but
> we need one.
>
> ___
> 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] Powerbank Sharing Systems

2020-09-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Sa., 19. Sept. 2020 um 13:49 Uhr schrieb Jake Edmonds via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> >> Unless anyone can point me to existing tagging, I will submit a
> proposal, based on amenity=bicycle_sharing, titled
> amenity=powerbank_sharing for tagging docking station.
> >>
> > I wouldn't worry about that - that'll just waste everyone's time.  If
> some on-the-ground infrastructure is missing from the map, just map it.
> It's perfectly possible to search by name or operator later if a consensus
> emerges about tagging.
>


by that time (consensus has emerged) you will quite probably find several
consensi having emerged, and a bunch of people each defending their
"consensus" ;-)




> Maybe a proposal that needs voting on isn’t need but is it accepted to add
> things to the wiki without one?
> It’s much nicer to find a page on the wiki than looking through tag info
> trying to decide if something already exists.
>


I agree that explicit documentation is better than searching taginfo, also
because it will encourage other people more to use the same tags, and
because you can explain what the tag means, while taginfo, as long as there
isn't documentation, will only tell you _that_ a tag is in use. IMHO you
better make a proposal than documenting tags as de facto which in reality
still have to reach this level. You could make it clear that it is a
proposal. Personally, I have made some proposals without bringing them to
voting (i.e. noones time "wasted", besides my own), because having the
proposal in the wiki was already sufficient that other people caught up.
And then you have to guard it because some people will set it to abandoned
status which is very harmful for adoption ;-)

If you are going to set up a page without a proposal, make it clear that it
is a proposal anyway (in the sense that it is not established). At that
point, why not making it a proposal straightaway?



>
> >
> >> Chimpy (linked above) appears to use docking stations and
> over-the-counter rentals. Should an additional tag, such as
> service:powerbank:rental=yes, be included for existing features?
>
> Probably not.  We don't tend to tag "everything a shop might sell".



You could do it. We do not tag everything a shop might sell, but we do have
exceptions for things that are not typically to be expected and are useful,
e.g. a convenience store which also acts as post office, or offers a
specific service (and power bank rental could be seen as this), for example
shops where you can get money from your debit card like at an atm.
Basically it is the people who decide: if there are many mappers who think
this is an interesting feature, they will map it, otherwise it will "fail"
(not be used in sufficient numbers to prove useful).

Generally, for features like this, you need 2 tags: one for the feature
(the standalone devices) and one for use as a property (a shop offers them
as service).
For the feature, it could for example be tagged as amenity=vending_machine,
vending=powerbank_sharing (automatic device selling goods or services). Or
as you said, with a dedicated top level tag like
amenity=powerbank_sharing_station (similar to amenity=photo_booth).

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


Re: [Tagging] Powerbank Sharing Systems

2020-09-19 Thread Jake Edmonds via Tagging
Understood Andy, thanks for the suggestions 

> On 19 Sep 2020, at 14:10, Andy Townsend  wrote:
> 
> On 19/09/2020 12:47, Jake Edmonds via Tagging wrote:
>> Maybe a proposal that needs voting on isn’t need but is it accepted to add 
>> things to the wiki without one? 
> 
> People certainly do do that (an example that comes to mind is 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:verge ).  I don't see a problem with 
> adding a page that says "this is how I'd suggest mapping this feature".  
> What's more problematic is adding something to "map features" that isn't 
> really an accepted tag, just one person's "good idea", or gaming taginfo 
> numbers by mechanically editing values to match a new tag (which has been 
> done in the past).  An example of a group of tags where problems were 
> reported was https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:motorcycle:theme and 
> earlier related pages - there were suggestions that the wiki was edited so 
> that it looked like "accepted tagging" when it wasn't.
> 
> If you're worried that creating a new wiki page will make it look "too 
> official" you can always create a wiki page underneath your wiki user and 
> make it clear that it's a personal page (but still a suggestion to other 
> mappers).
> 
> 
>> It’s much nicer to find a page on the wiki than looking through tag info 
>> trying to decide if something already exists.
> 
> Ultimately it's tag usage (by "real human beings" rather than imports etc.) 
> that matters - that means that lots of people have agreed that it's a good 
> idea to map a certain feature a certain way.  Any one person can add a wiki 
> page; a few more can create and accept a wiki proposal, but neither of those 
> really means that it's a widely accepted tag.  That doesn't mean that the 
> proposal process has no value at all, but it does mean that if none of X are 
> currently mapped let's at least try and map some of X before having a 
> discussion about it.
> 
> Best Regards.
> 
> Andy
> 
> PS: Sorry for double post earlier - problem was not enough coffee yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Powerbank Sharing Systems

2020-09-19 Thread Andy Townsend

On 19/09/2020 12:47, Jake Edmonds via Tagging wrote:
Maybe a proposal that needs voting on isn’t need but is it accepted to 
add things to the wiki without one? 


People certainly do do that (an example that comes to mind is 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:verge ).  I don't see a problem 
with adding a page that says "this is how I'd suggest mapping this 
feature".  What's more problematic is adding something to "map features" 
that isn't really an accepted tag, just one person's "good idea", or 
gaming taginfo numbers by mechanically editing values to match a new tag 
(which has been done in the past).  An example of a group of tags where 
problems were reported was 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:motorcycle:theme and earlier 
related pages - there were suggestions that the wiki was edited so that 
it looked like "accepted tagging" when it wasn't.


If you're worried that creating a new wiki page will make it look "too 
official" you can always create a wiki page underneath your wiki user 
and make it clear that it's a personal page (but still a suggestion to 
other mappers).




It’s much nicer to find a page on the wiki than looking through tag info trying 
to decide if something already exists.


Ultimately it's tag usage (by "real human beings" rather than imports 
etc.) that matters - that means that lots of people have agreed that 
it's a good idea to map a certain feature a certain way.  Any one person 
can add a wiki page; a few more can create and accept a wiki proposal, 
but neither of those really means that it's a widely accepted tag.  That 
doesn't mean that the proposal process has no value at all, but it does 
mean that if none of X are currently mapped let's at least try and map 
some of X before having a discussion about it.


Best Regards.

Andy

PS: Sorry for double post earlier - problem was not enough coffee yet.









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


Re: [Tagging] Powerbank Sharing Systems

2020-09-19 Thread Jake Edmonds via Tagging


> On 19 Sep 2020, at 13:26, Andy Townsend  wrote:
> 
> On 19/09/2020 11:59, Jake Edmonds via Tagging wrote:
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Powerbank-sharing_systems_by_name
>>  
>> https://heychimpy.com
>> https://www.wecharge.me
>> 
>> 
>> I can’t see any tagging related to powerbank sharing systems.
>> 
> Have you tried searching OSM data by name using Taginfo?

I have but I’m aware I might have missed something

> 
>> Unless anyone can point me to existing tagging, I will submit a proposal, 
>> based on amenity=bicycle_sharing, titled amenity=powerbank_sharing for 
>> tagging docking station.
>> 
> I wouldn't worry about that - that'll just waste everyone's time.  If some 
> on-the-ground infrastructure is missing from the map, just map it.  It's 
> perfectly possible to search by name or operator later if a consensus emerges 
> about tagging.
> 

Maybe a proposal that needs voting on isn’t need but is it accepted to add 
things to the wiki without one? 
It’s much nicer to find a page on the wiki than looking through tag info trying 
to decide if something already exists.

> 
>> Chimpy (linked above) appears to use docking stations and over-the-counter 
>> rentals. Should an additional tag, such as service:powerbank:rental=yes, be 
>> included for existing features?
> 
> Probably not.  We don't tend to tag "everything a shop might sell".  There 
> are exceptions (food, drinks), and if you want to map the availability of a 
> particular service then you are free to do so - just don't expect everyone 
> else to do it too.

I’m unsure on how many Chimpy locations are docked vs over-the-counter (for 
example) but wouldn’t it be incorrect to add a node for something that doesn’t 
exist (in the case of over-the-counter). 

I wouldn’t expect everyone to do it, but as above, it’s nice to have an example 
for mappers 

> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Powerbank Sharing Systems

2020-09-19 Thread Andy Townsend

On 19/09/2020 11:59, Jake Edmonds via Tagging wrote:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Powerbank-sharing_systems_by_name 


https://heychimpy.com
https://www.wecharge.me


I can’t see any tagging related to powerbank sharing systems.

You might be able to find some of them if you search for the name in 
taginfo - go to https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/ , search for the name 
and click the "values" tag - you'll get something like 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=chimpy#values .



Unless anyone can point me to existing tagging, I will submit a 
proposal, based on amenity=bicycle_sharing, titled 
amenity=powerbank_sharing for tagging docking station.


If there really are none of these mapped right now, and they are 
mappable (fixed things that don't move about), I'd concentrate on adding 
the ones that you know about to the map as "some new tag that you think 
is appropriate".   It's perfectly possible to search by name or operator 
later if a consensus emerges, and change the ones that you mapped 
previously to that new consensus.


I wouldn't bother with a proposal - I really don't think that it would 
add any value in a case like this.


Best Regards,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] Powerbank Sharing Systems

2020-09-19 Thread Andy Townsend

On 19/09/2020 11:59, Jake Edmonds via Tagging wrote:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Powerbank-sharing_systems_by_name 


https://heychimpy.com
https://www.wecharge.me


I can’t see any tagging related to powerbank sharing systems.


Have you tried searching OSM data by name using Taginfo?


Unless anyone can point me to existing tagging, I will submit a 
proposal, based on amenity=bicycle_sharing, titled 
amenity=powerbank_sharing for tagging docking station.


I wouldn't worry about that - that'll just waste everyone's time.  If 
some on-the-ground infrastructure is missing from the map, just map it.  
It's perfectly possible to search by name or operator later if a 
consensus emerges about tagging.



Chimpy (linked above) appears to use docking stations and 
over-the-counter rentals. Should an additional tag, such as 
service:powerbank:rental=yes, be included for existing features?


Probably not.  We don't tend to tag "everything a shop might sell".  
There are exceptions (food, drinks), and if you want to map the 
availability of a particular service then you are free to do so - just 
don't expect everyone else to do it too.


Best Regards,

Andy



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


Re: [Tagging] Powerbank Sharing Systems

2020-09-19 Thread Peter Elderson
Wouldn't that just duplicate the location systems they offer? And on top of
that,  a sizable maintenance burden to keep up with the changes? Who is
going to want this on OSM after committing to a chain?

Best, Peter Elderson


Op za 19 sep. 2020 om 13:02 schreef Jake Edmonds via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Powerbank-sharing_systems_by_name
> https://heychimpy.com
> https://www.wecharge.me
>
>
> I can’t see any tagging related to powerbank sharing systems.
>
> Unless anyone can point me to existing tagging, I will submit a proposal,
> based on amenity=bicycle_sharing, titled amenity=powerbank_sharing for
> tagging docking station.
>
> Chimpy (linked above) appears to use docking stations and over-the-counter
> rentals. Should an additional tag, such as service:powerbank:rental=yes, be
> included for existing features?
>
> Thanks
> Jake
> ___
> 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] Powerbank Sharing Systems

2020-09-19 Thread Jake Edmonds via Tagging
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Powerbank-sharing_systems_by_name 

https://heychimpy.com 
https://www.wecharge.me 


I can’t see any tagging related to powerbank sharing systems. 

Unless anyone can point me to existing tagging, I will submit a proposal, based 
on amenity=bicycle_sharing, titled amenity=powerbank_sharing for tagging 
docking station. 

Chimpy (linked above) appears to use docking stations and over-the-counter 
rentals. Should an additional tag, such as service:powerbank:rental=yes, be 
included for existing features?

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