Re: [Tagging] Use of crossing:island where crossings and islands are mapped separately
On 17/10/2022 19:17, Robert Skedgell wrote: 1) tactile_paving=yes on crossing ways, although none of the ways have tactile paving along their entire length. This may be a result of copying all the tags from the crossing node to the way, but could be unhelpful for any data consumers which expect tactile_paving=* to work as documented. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tactile_paving#Use_on_ways That suggested restriction: not marking up a simple crossing way with tactile_paving yes/no to indicate whether the common case for the UK, that the sidewalk endpoints do or don't have that ribbed paving - requiring micro-mapping at the level of marking up the nodes on the ends instead of the way - seems... overly prescriptive to me. -- Cheers, Jeremy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog
today I noticed some minor historic ruins and wonder whether you would consider this an archaeological site? https://twitter.com/dieterdreist/status/1582130246769610753?s=46=pMmPcybaZu9zOoWBrbE_Eg Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog
Depends entirely on the our hopefully to come definition of "archaeological site". But I don't have a solution for it yet either. But I definitely think that some of the features mapped merely as "historic" should be mapped as archaeological sites just because of the state they're in. I would think that - without having looked at them on satellite view most of the "historic=city" and "historic=town" are actually archaeological sites, because otherwise all cities and towns in the world are more or less historic. Unless one only maps the "old town" part of the town as "historic" which is still inhabited. I'd say most of the historic=shieling I would classify as archaeological sites, but I can't give a good definition why. I would suspect them to be in ruins, but I'm only guessing that from the booleys (roughly the same thing) in Ireland. I think there is an annual archaeological summer school at the one on Achill Island anyway (https://achill-fieldschool.com/). Anne On 17/10/2022 20:01, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 17 Oct 2022, at 20:30, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: Not in reply to this specific email, but I've done a bit of tidying amonst keys and values the last three days, and I've documented some of my findings which might give food for thought: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/b-unicycling/diary/400164 which alternative of the 3 available would you prefer? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog
sent from a phone > On 17 Oct 2022, at 20:30, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: > > Not in reply to this specific email, but I've done a bit of tidying > amonst keys and values the last three days, and I've documented some of > my findings which might give food for thought: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/b-unicycling/diary/400164 which alternative of the 3 available would you prefer? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog
Not in reply to this specific email, but I've done a bit of tidying amonst keys and values the last three days, and I've documented some of my findings which might give food for thought: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/b-unicycling/diary/400164 (I hope you like footnotes...:-) ) Anne On 07/10/2022 11:11, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: who cares for "in use" or "approved", the question is only whether there are alternative tags available, in which case you either have to decide or put both. The voting isn't binding, at most it could be relevant if there is an alternative value for the same key. So while this could be seen as a conceptual problem, it does not really matter IMHO for actual tagging. In practice I would not "approve" the whole chain up, just because one particular value was approved, and if I were the proponent of this tag, I would use it also if it got rejected, unless it was rejected by other people familiar with the domain or area where these occur, and they would propose a better alternative. Also because you cannot rely on the information given in the wiki. I just changed the "site_type" key to de facto, because this is what it is. Furthermore also site_type=settlement could be seen as de-facto, but I did not make this edit immediately because I see there is maybe some more wiggle room to see it still as "only" in significant use (3600 times) without alternatives proposed as far as I can see. 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] Use of crossing:island where crossings and islands are mapped separately
The same user whose edits gave rise to the post below appears to have decided to "standardise" crossing tagging on crossings in Newham, most of which I have surveyed and mapped, with the following innovations: 1) tactile_paving=yes on crossing ways, although none of the ways have tactile paving along their entire length. This may be a result of copying all the tags from the crossing node to the way, but could be unhelpful for any data consumers which expect tactile_paving=* to work as documented. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tactile_paving#Use_on_ways 2) removing crossing=no from highway=traffic_signals nodes where there is either no crossing or a crossing which is mapped as a separate node. It's not a necessary tag, but it's been used as documented in the 'How to map' section of the wiki. I've added a sentence to the wiki for crossing=no referring to highway=traffic_signals https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtraffic_signals#How_to_map_(new) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:crossing=prev=2421754 3) replacing traffic_signals=traffic_lights with the less-specific traffic_signals=signal and traffic_signals=pedestrian_crossing with the undocumented traffic_signals=crossing https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_signals I'm happy for my edits to be corrected when I make mistakes or misread the wiki, which I'm sure happens more often than I imagine. However, it's rather annoying to lose data to what appears to be an undiscussed and potentially misguided personal project. On 27/09/2022 07:42, Robert Skedgell wrote: Where there is a crossing with traffic islands, but the highways forming the crossings and crossing the islands are mapped separately, my assumption has been that crossing:island=no is the correct tagging. If a visually impaired user is being told to expect additional islands or refuges where none exist, this does not strike me as particularly safe. This wiki appears to agree with this: "Do not tag a crossing with crossing:island=yes if the crossing is explicitly mapped as multiple separate crossings; i.e., where the traffic island is not part of the footway=crossing way. This is common with larger intersections with wide traffic islands where the traffic lane in each direction is mapped separately. For clarity, the stretches of highway=footway that form part of the traffic island can be tagged with footway=traffic_island. Additionally, the footway=crossing sections can optionally be tagged with crossing:island=no. This may be useful in case you are performing a survey of all crossings in an area and wish to explicitly mark these as having separate (or no) refuge islands." https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing:island I haven't used footway|cycleway=traffic_island on the ways crossing the islands, possibly because JOSM and/or Osmose (incorrectly?) complain. Perhaps I should? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] dinosaurs
Am Mo., 17. Okt. 2022 um 10:09 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > Oct 16, 2022, 17:30 by annekadis...@web.de:Is there a way to > > implement a warning into the editors not to combine > "archaeological_site" with dinosaurs? I will replace the few I found > with geological=palaeontological_site > ( > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:geological%3Dpalaeontological_site > ). > > which tag combinations are problematic? > > how many of them? > > we cannot tell until everyone is checked ;-) This is about a tag being applied to a feature where it doesn't apply, and maybe some have additional tags, but many will probably just be wrong (if this should be a common error, around here I never encountered it) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] dinosaurs
Oct 16, 2022, 17:30 by annekadis...@web.de:Is there a way to > implement a warning into the editors not to combine > "archaeological_site" with dinosaurs? I will replace the few I found > with geological=palaeontological_site > (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:geological%3Dpalaeontological_site). > which tag combinations are problematic? how many of them? in general JOSM/iD tend to reject validator warnings affecting less than 1000 elements worldwide at time of adding them (as a rule of thumb) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
