Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 22. Sep 2020, at 00:18, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
>> unless they are further than 200m from your actual position. 
> 
> Depends on the jurisdiction.  In some parts of the US you must use a
> designated crossing (at least in built-up areas).  In the UK you are told
> "Where there is a crossing nearby, use it," but there is no definition
> of "nearby."


in Italy the law is indeed explicit about the distance, btw Volker, the limit 
is only 100m, see Art 190 CdS, 2.


Cheers Martin 

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

Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

[Clifford Snow]

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 3:03 PM Volker Schmidt  wrote:

>
> Mapping of sidewalks/sidepaths as part of the main road has all kinds of
> problems, like width and surface tagging, the relative position of foot and
> cycle paths, not to talk about roads like this
> , where any
> system breaks down.
>
> It's the type of connection, going from sidewalk or dedicated bike path,
to road where I've felt we need a highway=footway_link/cyclway_link or
maybe footway_connector/cycleway_connector, to connect separated
sidewalks/cycleways to the street in instances exactly like this.
-- 
@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] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 at 23:04, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> I think I mentioned this already in this context: in many countries you
> are not allowed to cross roads everywhere you like. In Italy, for example,
> you are by law required to use cross-walks, unless they are further than
> 200m from your actual position.
>

Depends on the jurisdiction.  In some parts of the US you must use a
designated crossing (at least in built-up areas).  In the UK you are told
"Where there is a crossing nearby, use it," but there is no definition
of "nearby."

Even so, in towns in the UK I have occasionally encountered sections of
road with a central divider and railings on that central divider making
crossing difficult but not impossible.  That's very much a rarity,
though.  So for most of the UK you can cross anywhere it seems
safe to do so (there's no definition of "safe" either).


> I know that this is very theoretical, but it could give us an idea to a
> practical solution for separately mapped foot and/or cycleways.
> 1) Map all foot/cycle crossings.
> 2) In addition map the occasional connecting driveway or side-roads to
> make reasonable foot and cycle routing possible.
>

Which might work well enough in your country but not very well in others.
In
built-up areas that is a lot of driveways.  In less built-up areas it is a
poor
approximation.  In rural areas that can leave miles between a driveway
and the next official crossing point yet people can cross anywhere
along that distance.

I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think that's it.

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

Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

[Volker Schmidt]

I think I mentioned this already in this context: in many countries you are
not allowed to cross roads everywhere you like. In Italy, for example, you
are by law required to use cross-walks, unless they are further than 200m
from your actual position.
I know that this is very theoretical, but it could give us an idea to a
practical solution for separately mapped foot and/or cycleways.
1) Map all foot/cycle crossings.
2) In addition map the occasional connecting driveway or side-roads to make
reasonable foot and cycle routing possible.

Another aspect is the mapping of unmarked pedestrian crossings near road
junctions, in those countries where by law pedestrians are allowed to cross
near road junctions even if there is no painted or signposted crossing
(implicit crosswalks).

Mapping of sidewalks/sidepaths as part of the main road has all kinds of
problems, like width and surface tagging, the relative position of foot and
cycle paths, not to talk about roads like this
, where any system
breaks down.

Volker




Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Chapel of rest)

[Peter Elderson]

I have heard mourning chapel, mourning room, funeral chapel, funeral room.
Chapel of rest does not seem right to me, though I understand how the
funeral business would like that term better.

But I'm not a native speaker. PCMIIW.

Peter Elderson


Op ma 21 sep. 2020 om 21:14 schreef :

> Dear all,
>
> As already mentioned, another ripple effect of my first proposal has
> materialised, the need to be able to properly tag chapels of rest as
> well.
>
> Therefore please comment on the following proposal:
>
> Chapel of rest: a room or building where families and friends can come
> and view someone who has died before their funeral
>
> Proposal page:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Chapel_of_rest
> Discussion page:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Chapel_of_rest
>
> Thanks!
>
> Vollis
>
>
> ___
> 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 - RFC - (Chapel of rest)

[wolle68]

Dear all,

As already mentioned, another ripple effect of my first proposal has 
materialised, the need to be able to properly tag chapels of rest as 
well.


Therefore please comment on the following proposal:

Chapel of rest: a room or building where families and friends can come 
and view someone who has died before their funeral


Proposal page: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Chapel_of_rest
Discussion page: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Chapel_of_rest


Thanks!

Vollis


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

Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

[Paul Allen]

[Apologies if this was preceded by a partial reply.  Damned laptop.  G.]

On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 at 16:11, OSM  wrote:

>
> Am 21.09.2020 um 14:54 schrieb Paul Allen:
>
> This isn't as simple as you make out.  Assume that I am at point A and
> wish to
> go to point B, which involves a "wild crossing" at some point between the
> two.
> However, there is a real crossing at point C, a mile beyond point B,  A
> router
> will direct me to travel to point C (a mile further than my destination)
> in order
> to cross the road there, so I can then walk a mile back to B.
>
>
> You really walk a mile beyond and back again, knowing your destination is
> - say 10-20 m - across the street?
>

Of course I wouldn't do that.  What I would do, if a router told me to do
that, would be complain that the router was broken.

Or do you not know that your destination is at the street you walk along?
>

If I knew the details, I wouldn't be asking a router.

Back before I had even heard of OSM, I wanted to make a bus journey.
So I went to Google Maps.  I knew the bus route.  I had found the
destination.
I knew where I was stating from.  What I received was a ridiculous answer
that involved me walking a mile unnecessarily.  That was because Google
knew where timetabled stops were but not where the untimetabled stops
were.  It also didn't know that, along most of the route, the bus would stop
upon request whether there was a bus stop there or not.  So rather than
calculating the time to where the bus went past my destination, it
calculated
the time to the nearest timetabled stop (a mile beyond) and then the time
for me to walk the mile to my destination.  It was not very useful.

>
> I call those assumes a 'theoretical island problem'.
>

I call them an "I want the correct answer, not a damned stupid answer"
problems.  I don't want a router to give me a damned stupid answer
because if it does there is no point using it.


> a) Your point A is as near at point B, that you know or can estimate where
> you have to cross.
>

Yes, I can avoid using the router because it gives damned stupid answers.

c) Most routers have a display - and the view should show your destination
> (or route path to) across the street.
>

So they'll show me a damned stupid route to my destination.  Just as Google
did all those years ago.

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

Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

[Janko Mihelić]

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 16:00 Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> if it is a power pole, why would you remove the utility tag?
> When there’s a highway=track and you remove the tracktype tag the object
> also will still be correctly tagged :)
>

You're right, I meant the whole information is still there. Oneway=no says
"I was there, and it's definitely twoway" so if you remove that tag, you
lose that. But I feel you lose nothing when you remove usage=power, because
it adds no additional meaning or even meta information. Everybody knew its
usage was power.

I would never remove the tag, I was just talking about tags in general.

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

Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 at 16:11, OSM  wrote:

>
>
> Am 21.09.2020 um 14:54 schrieb Paul Allen:
>
>
> This isn't as simple as you make out.  Assume that I am at point A and
> wish to
> go to point B, which involves a "wild crossing" at some point between the
> two.
> However, there is a real crossing at point C, a mile beyond point B,  A
> router
> will direct me to travel to point C (a mile further than my destination)
> in order
> to cross the road there, so I can then walk a mile back to B.
>
>
> You really walk a mile beyond and back again, knowing your destination is
> - say 10-20 m - across the street?
>

Of course I wouldn't

> Or do you not know that your destination is at the street you walk along?
>
> I call those assumes a 'theoretical island problem'.
> a) Your point A is as near at point B, that you know or can estimate where
> you have to cross.
> b) Your point A is so far away from point B , that there is - or at least
> should be mapped - another possible crossing before ('virtual' connection
> at a T-crossing or similar) .
> c) Most routers have a display - and the view should show your destination
> (or route path to) across the street.
>
> Maybe my view of a) and b) is a bit european centric - but I assume
> foreign cities would match and for foreign countrysides the seperate way
> problem would not apply.
>
> Georg
> ___
> 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] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

[Peter Elderson]

So we need a way to determine the crossability of a road for walkers and 
cyclists, probably using a combination of highway value of the crossed way, 
maybe the access tag (foot=yes probably can be crossed on foot) and some 
indicator tag for crossing access (foot:crossing=yes/no ?) to tag exceptions.  

Currently I do map short footways/paths where I know pedestrians will cross the 
road, even when no physically marked crossing exists. Opposite lowered kerbs or 
the fact that nearby dirt paths exists at both sides, not too far apart, 
already is a luxury.

Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 21 sep. 2020 om 14:57 heeft Paul Allen  het volgende 
> geschreven:
> 
> 
>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 at 11:06, Supaplex  wrote:
>> 
> 
>> The problem remains that physically non-existent road crossings ("wildly 
>> crossing the street"), which in reality represent a crossing possibility for 
>> many users, are still not available for routing. In my opinion, this problem 
>> is not very relevant if separate way"  are well mapped (which they often are 
>> unfortunately not!) and all essential routable connections are in the 
>> database. At the beginning and at the end of the route, people can use their 
>> brains ("destination across the street") if their routers do not solve this 
>> task for them.
> 
> This isn't as simple as you make out.  Assume that I am at point A and wish to
> go to point B, which involves a "wild crossing" at some point between the two.
> However, there is a real crossing at point C, a mile beyond point B,  A router
> will direct me to travel to point C (a mile further than my destination) in 
> order
> to cross the road there, so I can then walk a mile back to B.
> 
> -- 
> 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] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

[OSM]

Sorry sorry for the noise - I dont know, who pushed the send button that 
often ...

Georg

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

Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

[OSM]

Am 21.09.2020 um 14:54 schrieb Paul Allen:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 at 11:06, Supaplex > wrote:


The problem remains that physically non-existent road crossings
("wildly crossing the street"), which in reality represent a
crossing possibility for many users, are still not available for
routing. In my opinion, this problem is not very relevant if
separate ways are well mapped (which they often are unfortunately
not!) and all essential routable connections are in the database.
At the beginning and at the end of the route, people can use their
brains ("destination across the street") if their routers do not
solve this task for them.


This isn't as simple as you make out.  Assume that I am at point A and 
wish to
go to point B, which involves a "wild crossing" at some point between 
the two.
However, there is a real crossing at point C, a mile beyond point B,  
A router
will direct me to travel to point C (a mile further than my 
destination) in order

to cross the road there, so I can then walk a mile back to B.


You really walk a mile beyond and back again, knowing your destination 
is - say 10-20 m - across the street?

Or do you not know that your destination is at the street you walk along?

I call those assumes a 'theoretical island problem'.
a) Your point A is as near at point B, that you know or can estimate 
where you have to cross.
b) Your point A is so far away from point B , that there is - or at 
least should be mapped - another possible crossing before ('virtual' 
connection at a T-crossing or similar) .
c) Most routers have a display - and the view should show your 
destination (or route path to) across the street.


Maybe my view of a) and b) is a bit european centric - but I assume 
foreign cities would match and for foreign countrysides the seperate way 
problem would not apply.


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

Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 21. Sep 2020, at 15:36, Janko Mihelić  wrote:
> 
> or if someone outright deletes the utility tag, that power pole is still 
> correctly tagged.


if it is a power pole, why would you remove the utility tag? 
When there’s a highway=track and you remove the tracktype tag the object also 
will still be correctly tagged :)

Cheers Martin 


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

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

[Supaplex]

As a result of this discussion I would like to add a clarifying
paragraph on the corresponding wiki page. The core statement is: "To
avoid these ambiguities, some tags are in use to specify the width of
different elements: ..." See the Talk Page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:width#.22width.22_on_streets.2Fhighway

Maybe someone has time and motivation to make a proposal(?) to directly
define "width" in these cases. Since there are different opinions on
this, I would leave it at a clarifying paragraph for now.

- Alex -


Am 14.09.20 um 20:34 schrieb Supaplex:
> Hey all,
>
> again and again there are discussions about which parts of a street
> (sidewalks and cycle paths, parking lanes, carriageway) should be
> considered when determining the width of a street. There does not seem
> to be a consensus and therefore information on street widths is
> difficult to interpret or is not even mapped. The following variants are
> common/are discussed:
>
> 1) Width of the actual carriageway, without parking lanes and sidewalks
> 2) Width between curbs / edges of the road without sidewalks, but with
> parked cars when they are on street
> 3) Width including sidewalks / roadside paths
>
> I tend to option 2):
> - The width can be clearly defined and measured
> - The width of the actual carriageway can be determined by using
> "parking:lane" scheme correctly (or alternatively/supplementarily by
> specifying the width of parking lanes). "width:carriageway" (or
> "width:lanes", if there are marked lanes) also could be used to map this
> width directly.
> - The width of roadside paths can optionally be specified with
> "sidewalk:width" etc.
>
> Wouldn't it be time to document a recommendation in the Wiki to reduce
> further ambiguities? Which variant is the most recommendable? Anyway,
> the width of a street is a significant value to evaluate its suitability
> or safety for certain modes of transport or to determine the speed that
> can be expected there.
>
> Thanks for your comments,
> 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] Best practices regarding implied tags

[Janko Mihelić]

There are a lot of big power towers that carry an optical communications
line together with the power lines. Would that be
utility=power;communication?

Adding specific implied information is not wrong, but data consumers
shouldn't rely on them. If someone changes utility=power to
utility=communication;power, or if someone outright deletes the utility
tag, that power pole is still correctly tagged.

Janko

ned, 20. ruj 2020. u 20:30 Paul Johnson  napisao je:

>
>
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 11:58 AM Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The previous responses are focusing on the benefit of adding
>> explicit tags in situations where the current tagging is ambiguous.
>>
>> Certainly there is a benefit of adding "oneway=no" on all two-way roads
>> and "oneway=yes" on motorways to make the situation explicit.
>>
>> But the original question was about whether or not we should add
>> "man_made=utility_pole" + "utility=power" to current power poles.
>>
>
> Well, does narrow it down from a neighborhood pole that might have cable
> television or carry the PSTN.
> ___
> 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] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 at 11:06, Supaplex  wrote:

The problem remains that physically non-existent road crossings ("wildly
> crossing the street"), which in reality represent a crossing possibility
> for many users, are still not available for routing. In my opinion, this
> problem is not very relevant if separate ways are well mapped (which they
> often are unfortunately not!) and all essential routable connections are in
> the database. At the beginning and at the end of the route, people can use
> their brains ("destination across the street") if their routers do not
> solve this task for them.
>

This isn't as simple as you make out.  Assume that I am at point A and wish
to
go to point B, which involves a "wild crossing" at some point between the
two.
However, there is a real crossing at point C, a mile beyond point B,  A
router
will direct me to travel to point C (a mile further than my destination) in
order
to cross the road there, so I can then walk a mile back to B.

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

Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

[Supaplex]

It's centered on motorists‘ point of view as long as cars are granted
the central role as user group of streets in the traffic planning
discourse - for the time after that we already have
highway=living_street, highway=pedestrian and bicycle_road=yes.

;)



Am 21.09.20 um 12:42 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> isn’t this all centered on motorists‘ point of view? 
> What do people think about seeing it from other perspectives, e.g. 
> highway=cycleway and adding tags like primary=track (means there is an 
> implied primary road, physically separated, which is running along this 
> cycleway).
> Can also be done for sidewalks:
> highway=footway
> footway=sidewalk
> name=Highstreet
> has_road=primary
>
> is there interest in developing such complementary tagging ?
>
> 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] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

isn’t this all centered on motorists‘ point of view? 
What do people think about seeing it from other perspectives, e.g. 
highway=cycleway and adding tags like primary=track (means there is an implied 
primary road, physically separated, which is running along this cycleway).
Can also be done for sidewalks:
highway=footway
footway=sidewalk
name=Highstreet
has_road=primary

is there interest in developing such complementary tagging ?

Cheers Martin 

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

Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

[Supaplex]

This leads to another topic where there is just as much need for action.
You can find the is_sidepath-scheme here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:is_sidepath

It looks like a stub (note also the talk page), because the idea is very
simple but still solves some big problems with separate paths:

  * Separate paths are thus tagged with "is_sidepath=yes" (or simple
"sidepath=yes", need to be discussed). "footway=sidewalk" is already
in use to solve this issue on sidewalks, but there is nothing for
e.g. separate bike paths.
  * The associated highway is still tagged with
"cycleway/sidewalk=separate" (as well as the access tag
"use_sidepath" if using the sidepath is compulsory).
  * The main categories of the highway, "name" and its classification
like "primary/secondary", can be assigned to the separate way with
Keys like "sidepath:of" or "sidepath:of:name". Other values like
"lit" should anyway be tagged directly on the separate way.

What is achieved with this? Routers recognize very easily whether a
separate path is associated with a road. For example, if you want to
avoid main roads in routing, you can do so with this scheme. Routers
can, without misusing "name" on the separate way, provide a street name
("Turn right on XY street"). This variant also has advantages for
rendering. For example, at smaller zoom levels, renderers could display
"cycleway=separate" as "cycleway=track" while skipping separate paths
for better clarity.

The problem remains that physically non-existent road crossings ("wildly
crossing the street"), which in reality represent a crossing possibility
for many users, are still not available for routing. In my opinion, this
problem is not very relevant if separate ways are well mapped (which
they often are unfortunately not!) and all essential routable
connections are in the database. At the beginning and at the end of the
route, people can use their brains ("destination across the street") if
their routers do not solve this task for them. If there are major
detours on the way, routable connections or suitable access tags (e.g.
"foot=yes, wheelchair=no") are missing. Or it is a crossing possibility
which I do not want to get from a router because of its dangers. In this
context it might be more important to find a way to distinguish between
physical/formal and "wild"/informal connections and to raise awareness
for the use of access tags for different user groups (like wheelchair,
bicycle with trailer).

- Alex -


Am 19.09.20 um 00:54 schrieb Alan Mackie:
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 21:35, 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.
>>
> Was this meant to be one of the purposes of associated street relations?
>
>> 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.
>>
> I hadn't heard this one. Do you have a link to the discussion? I would
> personally prefer sidewalk_of or walkway_of if we were to go this route
> though. Sidepath sounds like something that's branching to me.
>
> Both associated street and sidepath_of still have the issue of when you're
> allowed to jump from one to the other, kerbs can be stepped over by most,
> railing less so (they're often to keep pedestrians out of blindspots). It
> must be difficult to tell if a sidewalk is separated specifically because
> the transition from one to the other is more thoroughly blocked and not
> simply as an added level of detail  with no more than the normal impediment
> to foot traffic.  The only thing I've seen discussed that might work for
> this was in a talk about way and street areas.
>
>> 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 document