Re: [Tagging] Proper way to tag highways located in "dangerous" areas

[Andy Townsend]

On 17/11/2016 20:15, Janko Mihelić wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016, 20:44 Paul Johnson, > wrote:



Don't.  Too subjective, and tends to highlight some kinds of
bigotry while basically giving a pass to other kinds.


How is it subjective if you take data from the local police?


Funnily enough, this news item was on the TV news bulletin at midday today:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/courts-prison-justice-racism-black-asian-white-conviction-a7419426.html

With any data from anywhere you have to ask yourself - can I trust 
this?  What's the evidence that it actually shows what it claims to show?


Best Regards,

Andy

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

Re: [Tagging] Proper way to tag highways located in "dangerous" areas

[Andy Townsend]

On 16/11/2016 15:36, Dave F wrote:


On 16/11/2016 01:04, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:

Other group (including me) find that this is wrong: we should not tag
streets considered dangerous in OSM (specially when "dangerous" is
subjective).


+1

As this is clearly subjective, it should not be mapped at all, no 
matter what tag.
Are they suggesting tagging areas they consider 'safe' as "lovely"? 


Indeed there's a history of this sort of thing not working particularly 
well:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28712227

Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of Country Names

[Andy Townsend]

On 28/10/2016 10:51, Sven Geggus wrote:
There might be another option. Given a hstore database or wikidata 
column it

would be very easy to build a query_wikidata psql function which will query
wikidata like this:

select query_wikidata(tags->'wikidata') from planet_osm_point where ...;

This would be only a few lines of pl/pgsql wrapper code using pgcurl:
https://github.com/Ormod/pgcurl


The problem that was identified the last time that this was discussed 
was that we weren't able to find a scaleable way of querying wikidata:


https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2015-May/072993.html

Obviously that's much less of an issue for countries (228 values) than 
for "all names in OSM" (53,258,173 values)


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of Country Names

[Andy Townsend]

Straying from the point slightly, but what would be really, really nice would 
be a worked example of a way of obtaining wikidata information‎ as part of map 
data processing (e.g. to fit in with osm2pgsql's lua style file processing or 
osmandmapcreator, or whatever else you're using to both import and update osm 
data).

Cheers,
Andy


  Original Message  
From: Andy Mabbett
Sent: Thursday, 27 October 2016 12:13
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Reply To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging of Country Names

On 26 October 2016 at 23:23, David Bannon  wrote:

> As has been suggested, a database of names in every conceivable language
> would be a ideal, then a renderer can deliver a map readable in an
> appropriate language. That does sound like wikidata 

Indeed.

As a matter of interest, how many countries are currently tagged with
their Wikidata ID?

If not many, would people like a bot to add such tags?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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] Tagging of Country Names

[Andy Townsend]

On 26/10/2016 19:50, Simon Poole wrote:

  @andy
btw the whole is about making easier to express local preference, not
harder.


... which is great, and was exactly what I was worried about. However it 
wasn't the impression that I got from e.g. the comment "the french name 
has to go" upthread - that sounded like someone in "authority" in OSM 
would try and decide what name mappers in a country were allowed to 
apply to their own country, which doesn't sound like the way to go at all.


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of Country Names

[Andy Townsend]

On 26/10/2016 10:04, Sven Geggus wrote:

My intention is to remove english names in the generic "name" tag
in countries where english is neither an official nor otherwise
important langage to the country in question.


OK - another googly* for you - what do you think should be in the "name" 
tag for India**?


As I understand it in OSM the Indian OSM community has made a conscious 
decision to use English there (see 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/304716#map=4/21.90/82.79 ), 
though someone from that community could no doubt provide more detail.


Best Regards,
Andy

* http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/skills/4173812.stm

** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_with_official_status_in_India



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of Country Names

[Andy Townsend]

So what do _you_ think should be in the "name" tag for Algeria then?

If you think there's a simple answer, I'd suggest that you haven't quite got to 
the nub of the problem yet...


  Original Message  
From: Sven Geggus
Sent: Tuesday, 25 October 2016 20:14
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Reply To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging of Country Names

Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As has already been said this _ought_ to be a job for wikidata.

Thus one would need an additional external database to render a proper map!
I don't think that this is the way to go in such a simple case.

Frankly I don't care that much about the proper name tag itself, but I don't
think that there is a single valid argument for tagging an english or french
name in addition to the local one if this langage is not common a particular
country.

The only argument I could think of here ist tagging for the
renderer. As I already said, such stuff is making it very difficult to
render a proper localized map.

Regards

Sven

-- 
"Thinking of using NT for your critical apps?
Isn't there enough suffering in the world?"
(Advertisement of Sun Microsystems in Wall Street Journal)
/me is giggls@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web

___
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] Tagging of Country Names

[Andy Townsend]

‎> I think we should come up with a common sense rule what name should usually
contain‎

I suspect that it might take some time before consensus is reached on that one 
:)

There have been a number of discussions about "what should be in a name" 
worldwide, and getting people within one country to agree is hard enough, 
especially in countries without official languages and within countries where 
"official" isn't the same as "most used". There's an ongoing discussion on 
talk-it about Sardinia, and the Algerian forum discussion from some time ago 
highlights a number of the problems with "combined names" (especially 
containing multiple character sets and both rtl and ltr script).

(re the proposed rendering) I  had thought of doing something ‎similar myself, 
but via lua at database load/update time - find the first name:xy that matches 
a substring of "name" and use that as "a local name in a local language". Never 
got around to actually doing it for real though.

As has already been said this _ought_ to be a job for wikidata. Normally 
scalability of wikidata queries would be an issue (if any can think of a 
workaround to that it'd be great to share) but the number of countries is 
limited enough to make that approach workable here perhaps?

Cheers,
Andy


  Original Message  
From: Sven Geggus
Sent: Tuesday, 25 October 2016 19:00
Reply To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging of Country Names

Chris Hill  wrote:

> How would you propose making this change?

I think we should come up whith a common sense rule what name should usually
contain (hence this discussion) and thus the tagging can be changed by
mappers accordingly.

Currently the state is inconsistent (see Egypt vs. Thailand example).

I could also live with an "english-name native-name" rule because I could
remove the english name automatically for my map. All I want to get rid of
is the current inconsistency.

Regards

Sven

-- 
"Das Einzige wovor wir Angst haben müssen ist die Angst selbst"
(Franklin D. Roosevelt)

/me is giggls@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web

___
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] Proposal : amenity=baking_oven

[Andy Townsend]

On 13/10/2016 12:05, Yvan Masson wrote:

Hi list,

I just proposed the introduction of the "baking_oven" tag on https://wi
ki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/amenity%3Dbaking_oven


Just in case you're not already aware, the tag's already in use a bit, 
mainly in France:


https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/amenity=baking_oven

Whilst it's great to use a wiki page to explain what a feature is 
(especially to cultures which aren't familiar with it) there's no need 
to wait for tag approval before using it.


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Bar vs Pub vs Restaurant in the US?

[Andy Townsend]

On 30/09/2016 20:32, yo paseopor wrote:
In Spain is worse: meanings of these two words (pub and bar) are 
exchanged each other. What can we do?


Have another beer?

Cheers,

Andy



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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] non-temporary usage of highway=road

[Andy Townsend]

On 27/09/2016 18:37, Aun Johnsen wrote:


The use of highway=road would not be an issue if people used it to 
mark off an area where they are going to do survey or gather more 
information. It becomes an issue when people use it to map an entire 
town, and check it off as completed.


I'd suggest talking to the users concerned - the easiest way is via a 
changeset discussion comment.  If they're unsure what road category to 
use, you can point at other nearby examples in the imagery and say "I'd 
map that as residential" or similar.


During my cleanup rush I have seen examples of this where the roads 
haven’t been further edited for 10 months. The result is that the town 
continues to remain unmapped for data consumers, i.e., my downloaded 
Garmin maps will still not route to the town, but looking at Mapnik 
hows it has been mapped.


Well your Garmin maps are under your control; you can choose to treat 
highway=road as routable if you want to!  I do.





iD, JOSM, and other editors should warn about this situation,


JOSM warns about _everything_ already.  You've had the conversation with 
iD's maintainer and have yet to persuade.


and validating tools such as KeepRight and Maproulette should 
highlight it as incomplete, so that they doesn’t remain as 
highway=road for extended time.


Plenty do already, surely?

Best Regards,
Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] Sport pitch surfaces: artificial/man_made

[Andy Townsend]

On 24/09/2016 13:15, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

'tartan' seems the most used, 'artificial_turf' is also used quite a lot


"Tartan" is also a trade name as I understand it.

Cheers,

Andy

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

Re: [Tagging] Discarding converted_by

[Andy Townsend]

On 23/09/2016 04:06, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:

Hi!

Do we have any need for "converted_by"
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/converted_by#values or it could
be discarded while modifying an object, exactly what we already do
with "created_by" and some other tags? (ie, we won't mass remove the
tag, but only drop it while editing an object with this tag).

I am asking this because it seems to be as unimportant as created_by
(it doesn't add any useful information).


It seems to have been used where people have converted GPS tracks to OSM 
ways without visual review, so I'd expect it to be extremely useful for 
checking where wayward GPS traces need to be straightened out.


Obviously, once a way has been aligned based on all the best available 
sources (other GPS traces, imagery, whatever else is available) it would 
make sense to remove it manually.


Cheers,
Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

[Andy Townsend]

  I've certainly used "_oneway_=yes" on inland waterways to document signed traffic flow control, so a blanket removal would make no sense.There may be places where a previous mapper has tried to use it in error to indicate water flow direction, but you'd need to ask whoever the previous mapper was in each case (or use a bit of common sense).Cheers,AndyFrom: LeTopographeFouSent: Saturday, 17 September 2016 13:17To: tagging@openstreetmap.orgReply To: Tag discussion, strategy and related toolsSubject: [Tagging] Use of _oneway_=yes on waterways
  


  
  
Hi
According to the waterway=stream wiki page
  (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dstream):

  If a flow exists, the direction of the way must be
  downstream (i.e. the way direction follows the flow)

As of today there is a very small percentage of streams (17593
  ways according to taginfo, 0.23%) with _oneway_=yes.
Is there any undocumented purpose? Is it ok and safe to delete
  _oneway_=yes tags for streams?

The same question can apply to drains, ditches, canals...
Yours,


-- 
LeTopographeFou
  



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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for standardization of sidewalk schema (+ import)

[Andy Townsend]

On 08/08/2016 21:43, Meg Drouhard wrote:


We've been drafting a longer response that we wanted to share with 
everyone to give more context (for those also following the import 
list-serve, there is a separate post there that goes through 
import-specific challenges).  ...




Hi,

Thanks for this.  I had a go at using "separate ways" to describe the 
situation in a small area here:


http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/54.0092/-1.0546

(turn the data layer on or edit it to see it, obviously).  some of the 
infrastructure was already mapped "separately" and that was just copied 
from OSM to the api06 server)


By doing that, a couple of points became very clear:

1) It's actually quite time-consuming to do this (as expected, as 
there's more data to be added, and care needs to be taken to see where 
there are actually dropped kerbs and where there aren't. Quite a few of 
the useful sidewalk to road accesses here are former house and field 
access; it's doubtful whether even the canonical local authority map has 
them.


2) There are a few major "blockers" to wheeled access in this area, and 
I'm not sure how best to represent some of them:


One (the lack of dropped kerbs northbound on 
http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/way/4301670266#map=19/54.01168/-1.05244=D 
) is straightforward.  The others are less so:


http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/way/4301669135#map=19/54.00464/-1.05499=D

Here the fences designed to slow down suicidal cyclists are wide enough 
to accommodate a mobility scooter, but there's so much traffic on the 
road that, unless it's gridlocked or 3am in the morning an unaccompanied 
mobility scooter user would struggle to cross here*.  I don't really see 
how we can (or even if we should) capture that in OSM.


http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/way/4301709029#map=19/54.01155/-1.05757=D

Here (and I've drawn it from memory rather than survey, so it might not 
be in quite the right place) there's a gap that's too small for mobility 
scooters, not because it's not wide enough, but because the right angles 
close together make it impossible to negotiate. "maxwidth" or 
"maxwidth:physical" doesn't really work here; any suggestions?


Also - can anyone suggest a router (online or off) that could work with 
this data?  Also, what about "this road is too busy to cross unless 
gridlocked" information?


Best Regards,

Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse)

* source is my father, who lives round here.

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for standardization of sidewalk schema (+ import)

[Andy Townsend]

On 04/08/2016 02:35, Mike Thompson wrote:


I tested out the proposed mapping/tagging scheme in my local area 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/40.49192/-105.05655 - not 
claiming I did it perfectly). I didn't think it was especially 
difficult. Drawing the additional ways took a little more time, but 
offered the advantage that you received a good visual as to whether 
all the sidewalks had been correctly mapped.


Thanks for sharing that.  One question though - would it make sense to 
use "sidewalk=separate" (see 
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/sidewalk#values ) on 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33496127 ?  That way it's clear to all 
data consumers that http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33496127 exists as 
a sidewalk for it.


I'm guessing that there may be some connections (and possibly kerbs) 
missing, so that a foot router that navigated people over kerbs wouldn't 
use:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot=40.49172%2C-105.05390%3B40.49167%2C-105.05421#map=18/40.49184/-105.05462

but take a more direct route across the intersection and along a bit?

Cheers,

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for standardization of sidewalk schema (+ import)

[Andy Townsend]

On 04/08/2016 06:15, markus schnalke wrote:


The visibility is surely an advantage. (btw: Is there a map style
that shows sidwalk=*?)



I wrote about one here:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/38136

The basic idea is:

1) Split secondary, tertiary, and unclassified roads with sidewalks into 
new values such as "secondary_sidewalk" etc.:


https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/sidewalk/style.lua#L230

2) Render "secondary_sidewalk" etc. with a narrower fill (and hence 
wider casing)


https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/openstreetmap-carto-AJT/blob/sidewalk/roads.mss#L1114

Other approaches are also possible (e.g. do it all in SQL) - I remember 
pnorman writing about that recently.


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for standardization of sidewalk schema (+import)

[Andy Townsend]

On 02/08/2016 23:24, Ilya Zverev wrote:


In Russia it has been the norm for a long time. Not that we have 
mapped every sidewalk, but using the sidewalk=* tag is frowned upon. 


Maybe, but a quick look at some random Russian places suggests that the 
normal way to map sidewalks there is "not at all":


https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/55.8526/38.4328

https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=58.2=68.27=12#map=15/58.2299/68.2747

https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=63.57=53.7=12#map=16/63.5649/53.6731

https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=42.880278=47.638333=12#map=15/42.8863/47.6341

A few major roads have sidewalks (especially where they're large 
boulevards) but most don't have anything at all.  That's just a sample 
from the middle of the page of 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_and_towns_in_Russia_by_population 
.  Not that places elsewhere are likely to be better (the UK, where I'm 
from, certainly isn't).


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for standardization of sidewalk schema (+ import)

[Andy Townsend]

On 02/08/2016 14:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


legally you can't cross anywhere you like but have to use crossings as long as 
they are in proximity.


Your government may restrict where you can cross the road, but around 
the world many do not.


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - learner driver

[Andy Townsend]

On 28/06/2016 14:30, Greg Troxel wrote:


True, but in OSM it's currently at best awkward to have a complicated
set of defaults, because then that information has to be encoded into
all renderers and routers.   We either need to have a single global
default or to have some machine-readable specification of default values
based on admin_level regions.   Given that so many rules are different,
and that we don't have enough explicit tagging, I think the
machine-readable specification approach is the only workable one.


In OSM whenever there's been a choice between "making things harder for 
routers/renderers" or "making things harder for mappers" it's the former 
that tends to be chosen, because map consumers can at least automate 
what they do, and new mappers are hard to come by.


To take another example - should a router for GB assume that 
highway=track is public access, all other things being equal?  I'd say 
that it depends - yes for Scotland, no for England and Wales. This has 
to be a decision taken by the data consumer since the wiki isn't much 
help, as 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#United_Kingdom 
doesn't mention "track" and 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines is 
a bit of a pudding rewritten by someone who didn't really understand 
access rules.  This means that data consumers need to come up with a 
"best guess" as to what mappers (most of which won't have ever read the 
wiki of course) actually meant.


It's the same for learner drivers - if it's going to give sensible 
advice, any router simply must have an understanding of local laws when 
it comes to edge cases like this.


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] Laundromat and parcel box (vending machines)

[Andy Townsend]

On 16/06/2016 16:42, Daniel Koć wrote:

W dniu 16.06.2016 17:30, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a):


are you tagging single washing machines or businesses where they can
be found? Is this about indoor mapping?


Outdoor, definitely =} :

http://spedycje.pl/images/artykuly/2014/Image/sept014/Pralniomat.jpg 


Erm - I think it's worth splitting the thread into "washing machines 
(and potentially vending of washing powder for them)" and "parcel 
boxes".  People (including me) seem to be getting confused...


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] Subject: Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=social_path

[Andy Townsend]

On 15/06/2016 15:03, John Willis wrote:



On Jun 15, 2016, at 9:56 PM, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
 wrote:

if two paths have identical surface and width
characteristics

The issue I have is that they do not have similar characteristics, yet get 
rendered the same.


So tag the different characteristics (surface, width, etc.), and let 
renderers decide whether to render the difference or not?


I have to say I'm really struggling to see the problem here.

Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] Subject: Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=social_path

[Andy Townsend]

On 15/06/2016 13:10, John Willis wrote:
So SAC scale and being outside a park polygon/relation is good enough 
to allow a data consumer and the folks over in -carto to render a 
"footway" and a "trail" differently and reliably enough? What happens 
when I have a strong mix of =pedestrian, =footway, and ="trail"? In 
the same park area?


Before answering that, let's take a step back and have a think about 
what we're trying to do here:


o People tag stuff so that the essential nature of what's on the ground 
is capture.  That might be "is mainly designed for use by foot traffic" 
(highway=footway), "has a gravel surface" (surface=gravel) or "is part 
of some sort of route relation" (appropriate relation membership).  Data 
consumers occasionally grumble about specific tagging choices, but 
usually if the data's there, they can somehow deal with it.


o Renderers have a limited number of ways that they can render stuff 
without things becoming _way_ too complicated.  If you look at osm-carto 
you can see that for linear features such as roads and tracks it uses:


1) feature width
2) feature colour
3) casing width
4) casing colour
5) How it's actually rendered (continuous line, dots, dashes, whatever)
6) Some text printed alongside the feature

Those are basically the degrees of freedom you've got.

"osm-carto" uses 6 for names, and chooses to use just lines for 
footpaths and tracks (we'll leave highway=pedestrian out as it's 
rendered - correctly in my view - as a road), which basically leaves you 
with 1, 2 and 5.  Of those, the combination of 1 and 2 need to be 
carefully adjusted together so that a particular feature has the right 
level of "importance" in a particular rendering at a particular zoom 
level.  "osm-carto" de-emphasises footways at the expense of other 
features; other styles (see the two examples below) emphasise them more.


Of the available choices "osm-carto" currently uses 1 and 2 to 
distinguish between footway, bridleway, cycleway and track (and I 
believe puts "path" in one of the first two buckets based on other 
tags).  It uses 5 to show paved vs unpaved (see 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/53.21858/-1.49726 ).  It doesn't 
show relation membership.


Other styles do things slightly differently.  Thunderforest Outdoor 
doesn't show the surface difference, de-emphasises roads but does show 
relation membership:


https://c.tile.thunderforest.com/outdoors/15/16247/10641.png

I use a style based on OSM-carto that doesn't show surface explicitly on 
these features (or relation membership) but does show England and Wales 
legal status (using colour) and track width (using dashes instead of dots):


http://i.imgur.com/sjytRiy.png

So data consumers have choices, and there's a limit to the differences 
in the data that they can render.  If someone asked me 'to render a 
"footway" and a "trail" differently' my first question would be, apart 
from tags that I already understand such as surface, tracktype, 
smoothness, etc., what's the difference?  In my view if there's a muddy 
flat 1m-wide path in a city centre and a muddy flat 1m-wide path miles 
away, then they should be rendered the same - apart from relationship 
membership of course, if a style renders that.




It seems to me -  as a person who is a Kountry Kilometer away from 
being data consumer - that using a subtag or similar to let mappers 
tag trails and other rough footways (the "track" end of footway) is a 
much more straightforward and direct solution to get trails to render 
differently than more casual and easily traversed footways found in a 
city park or rose garden.


I am really having trouble understanding the reasoning behind the 
resistance when it removes uncertainty and confusion while tagging.


Clearly there is confusion about tagging these sorts of features (this 
disussion wouldn't exist if there wasn't) but I'm really struggling to 
see any difference between a "footway" and a "trail" that can't be 
expressed in other, more frequently used tags.  To take a random 
example, what should I infer about 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/372458198 ?  How wide is it?  What 
surface does it have?  What are the access rights for various sorts of 
traffic?


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] Subject: Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=social_path

[Andy Townsend]

On 13/06/2016 06:17, John Willis wrote:


Something, *anything* to separate hiking trails from sidewalks and 
other footways. It is, in the literal meaning of the word, 
incomprehensible to me that there is no way to separate sidewalks and 
hiking routes.


You could start with a "surface" tag...

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

Re: [Tagging] Should greenhouse et al have building=yes? (was building=digester)

[Andy Townsend]

On 21/05/2016 06:37, Marc Gemis wrote:

No, I wouldn't expect that, but I would expect e.g. windmill,
watermill and lighthouse to be displayed as building as well. I
couldn't find those in your style. I'm talking about mills where work
and living are often combined into one. Maybe this is a country
specific view ?


When I looked at the data (in the UK) those items either already had 
building=yes tagged on them or were just mapped as nodes (where a 
building tag is essentially irrelevant for rendering).


Cheers,

Andy


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

[Tagging] Should greenhouse et al have building=yes? (was building=digester)

[Andy Townsend]

Can I ask a silly question at this stage - taking something like a 
greenhouse, would someone ever treat it differently depending on whether 
it has a building tag or not?


In my case when trying to figure out how to render things like this the 
answer was "no":


https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L608

but in some cases a building tag was used as a cue for some other rendering:

https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L1502

If a greenhouse is a greenhouse, regardless of whether or not it has a 
building tag in OSM, surely it doesn't matter whether or not it is 
tagged building=yes?


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] Suggested way to map disputed country borders

[Andy Townsend]

On 07/05/2016 10:34, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Rory McCann > wrote:


Hi,

The subject of disputed country borders came up on help.osm.org

again[1], specifically about India and the Kashmir area. There
might be
a way to solve this issue. Currently OSM tags the de facto country
borders. But what if we also mapped the borders of country X according
to country Y?


I've handled this with the long simmering (or is it a pot that's been 
cooking so long everything's burned off and broke the stove at this 
point?) dispute between Canada and Denmark thusly 
.




So there you've got the Canadian border to the north of the island via 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34315996 and the Greenland border to 
the south of the island via http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/52872490 .  
Where are the bottles of whisky / schnapps that each side leaves for 
each other*?


Cheers,

Andy

* 
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/12/21/canada-and-denmark-keep-relations-warm-in-arctic-island-dispute.html
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Education 2.0

[Andy Townsend]

On 15/04/2016 11:31, Шишкин Александр (Shishkin Aleksandr) wrote:

 This all similar to power=* group of tags,


That's pretty much the poster child for "how not to design a tagging 
system", in a couple of different areas*.


I'm sure that you had nothing to do with that mess, but I wouldn't use 
it as an example.


Cheers,

Andy

* the loss of large vs small power lines as useful navigational 
features, people mistagging former plants as operational because they 
want to "fill in the details", and confusion over whatever the tagging 
structure is for solar farms this week.



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

Re: [Tagging] Is it a man_made=mast?

[Andy Townsend]

On 04/04/2016 14:45, Andreas Labres wrote:

...
AFAICT man_made=mast corresponds to the usage of the German "Mast"
...


Not for the first time I think it's a shame that OSM wasn't invented in 
Germany.  Tagging would be so much more _precise_  :)


As this isn't rod-shaped it shouldn't be called a "mast". It should 
rather be some advertising=billboard kind of thing. IMO. Also think of 
that high McDonald's "M" advertising towers (that can be seen from 
highways far away),


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mcd_IMGP3581_wp.jpg

 either that should be tagged as kind of tower or as kind of 
advertising (I'd prefer the latter).


man_made=abomination , perhaps?  :)

Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] Is it a man_made=mast?

[Andy Townsend]

On 04/04/2016 12:31, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

On wiki man_made=mast is described as "usually a small tower of only a
few meters
height" ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dmast )



As previously discussed in Feb 2016, Feb 2015 and Feb 2013 ...

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-February/012937.html

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-February/021914.html

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-February/028632.html

The last twice it came up people suggested that the height restriction 
was rubbish.


Can a wikignome perhaps do a wikiblame-equivalent and find out where 
that statement in the wiki actually came from (and maybe just change it*).


Cheers,

Andy

* yes, it's a wiki, and yes, anyone can edit it, but in OSM people 
generally add and curate stuff that they care about.  I leave the wiki 
to other people...


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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Andy Townsend]

On 19/03/2016 07:41, johnw wrote:
OSM is for gathering data - lots of lots of locally based knowledge of 
things. Mountains are no different.


Great!  Let's gather lots of data about each place...

Trying to decide what mountains are worth labeling at different zooms 
via some GIS data is ridiculous.


No, as Andy and Richard have already pointed out it's the _exact 
opposite_ of that.  Richard's already mentioned how he gives pubs 
different prominence depending on where they're located; many of the 
"specialist maps created with OSM data" use some other data (relevant to 
that map) to decide what to render and when (e.g. historical tags, 
railway tags, whatever).




So we render them all equally - which is equally as ridiculous.


Who's this "we"?  There are lots of maps made with OSM data; there are 5 
different ones on osm.org.  A related issue that I've been thinking for 
a while now how to make natural=peak render sensibly when there are lots 
of them together, like here for example:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/52.9348/-3.5334

Even by the "does it look impressive from the road" measure, some of 
those "natural=peak" I suspect are really very prominent, some of them 
are not, and some probably aren't really peaks at all (we've had a bit 
of an issue in GB with a keen but somewhat misguided mapper adding 
spot-heights from historic maps as "peaks", some of which have since 
become quarries).


What isn't going to work is deciding that some of them are, by some 
measure, "important".  We got to that problem (via a different route) 
with individual trees and lots of problems ensued.  According to 
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=natural%3Dpeak there are 
over 14k natural=peak in GB; it's very likely that be any global 
"importance" measure _none_ of those in that map view are.  Even some 
local measure isn't going to work as I'm certainly not going to review 
14k bits of data and with no local knowledge try and come up with some 
"importance" value.


What we need to do instead is come up with a way of using other 
verifiable data, perhaps from OSM, perhaps from other sources, that 
allows maps to decide whether it is, in their eyes "important".


Cheers,

Andy

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

Re: [Tagging] AirBnB

[Andy Townsend]

On 19/03/2016 04:41, Dave Swarthout wrote:
I'm looking for a consistent way to tag AirBnB locations. It's 
probably sufficient to tag them as tourism=guest_house but personally 
as one who frequently uses AirBnB


It'll depend on the individual location, won't it?  Some I'm sure will 
be essentially normal guest houses who just happen to do most or all of 
their business via AirBnB; some will be occasionally-let rooms in 
private houses that most certainly aren't.  Presumably the usual OSM 
guidelines apply - when you visit a place you decide how best to 
categorise it?


Cheers,
Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] shop=marine RFC

[Andy Townsend]

On 14/03/2016 11:48, Richard wrote:

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 07:20:46AM +, Malcolm Herring wrote:

The common name for such shops is "chandler". This is more specific to the
type of shop you want to tag. "marine" is too broad a term

this meaning is not even in wiktionary. How many of those shops
would even know they are called chandler?



It is - read https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chandler again.

I wouldn't trust everything you read there though (a chandler is not 
primarily "A person who makes or sells candles").  The main English 
English use of "chandler" is in the sense of "ship's chandler" - someone 
who sells all sorts of stuff that might be useful to someone on a boat.


The wider sense ("someone who sells all sorts of stuff") is used, but 
more rarely.  There's an example in 
http://halfmanhalfbiscuit.uk/90-bisodol-crimond/descent-of-the-stiperstones/ 
(which exists and is http://www.bunners.co.uk/ ), for example. That's in 
OSM as http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/489847395 (and "shop=hardware" 
there is correct, I think).


Although it's in the etymology, I've never heard of a modern 
candle-maker being described as a chandler.


Cheers,

Andy




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

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

[Andy Townsend]

On 23/02/2016 12:32, markus schnalke wrote:

Aren't the ones who vote those who care for what the actual
tagging is?


As we've seen in at least one answer in this thread already, they've 
never actually mapped one but do "care about tagging" (i.e. in this case 
they want to tell _other people_ how to tag things that they haven't 
mapped themselves).



Because, if the others would care, why don't they
vote? ;-)


Maybe they're out mapping :)

Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

[Andy Townsend]

On 23/02/2016 10:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


It was provisionally rejected with 40 votes for, 18 votes against and 
4 abstentions.
Approval rate: 68.97%. Less than required 74% so provisional 
rejection; proposer to make final call.


The tricky bit of course is that those percentages are "of the people 
who voted".


Taginfo reckons objects with the key "shop" were last edited by 105 030 
different users, and there are 1,976,690 shops, of which 20,851 are 
jewelry and 215 jewellery, which suggests (finger in the air) around 
1100 individual mappers last edited a jewellery shop. Taking that as the 
base, the "approval rate" of a little under 4%, based on a "voter 
turnout" or a little under 6%*.


It's pretty difficult to extrapolate any sort of "approval" or 
"rejection" based on those numbers.


Cheers,

Andy

* 6% is actually an overestimate of course - it's a guess at the "last 
edited" rather than the "have ever edited" figure.  It'd be interesting 
to know if anyone's got any stats on the latter (not necessarily for 
jewellery shops) - presumably that'd need a full history planet (or an 
extract of one) to do the analysis?





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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Government offices

[Andy Townsend]

On 27/01/2016 13:26, Matthijs Melissen wrote:

This didn't get any responses yet on the list. II would be interested
to hear what other mappers think of this proposal!

-- Matthijs

On 26 January 2016 at 00:13, Matthijs Melissen  wrote:

Hi all,

I have created a proposal to use the tag office=government for the
tagging of government offices. The proposal also replaces/discourages
a number of tags, amongst which is amenity=public_building.

The proposal can be found here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Government_offices

Please let me know what you think.



I'm not convinced that a wiki page that perpetuates the myth that OSM 
deprecates tags (except in very unusual cases such as highway=byway and 
highway=ford on ways, where the nature of the feature is obscured by 
what should be an attribute) is a good idea. "Discouraging the use of" 
amenity=public_building makes sense though, for the reasons already 
discussed - I couldn't make much sense of its usage when I looked at it 
in the UK.


I have no idea why you have included:

amenity=register_office (1044 instances)
office=administrative (8807 instances)
office=register (137 instances)
office=tax (354 instances)

on that page, without any suggested detailed tagging.  Information will 
be lost if people change e.g. "register offices" to be merely 
"government office".


As an aside, when I looked at "office" use in the UK a month or so ago 
while trying to work out what to render as what, I came up with this list:


https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L1421

Obviously that's a much wider net than you're looking at here, but there 
are some synonyms in there you might want to think about.


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Remove name_1 and alt_name_1 from wiki)

[Andy Townsend]

On 26/01/2016 19:16, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
In my experience name, name:en, old_name, alt_name, alt_name:ru etc 
etc etc were always sufficient. An example where multivalue names are 
truly necessary would be interesting.


Here's a brief summary of where I think that what we have now for names 
isn't "always sufficient":


There are places that have two or more names in different languages.  
One is not more important that the other; they're exactly equivalent.  
We don't have a way to represent that currently - only to store a list 
of names (in one format or another).  We only have one "name" tag, and 
in some places the local community have decided on the 
"Londonderry/Derry" approach because there is no correct answer to which 
of two (or more) local languages should go there.  Even then there's 
still the decision of which one to put first :)


There's also the "Abergavenny problem" (a term I invented the last time 
it came up on the lists) - there are places with multiple languages 
which are in local use, and also names in other languages not in local 
use (often but not always transliterations to a non-Latin alphabet).  We 
don't currently have a good way of differentiating between those two sets.


We also have the potential problem that if we stored every translated / 
transliterated name into every one of ethnologue.com's languages we'd 
have an unfeasibly large amount of data per place - it would make any 
data manipulation operations with OSM data significantly more 
cumbersome.  In answer to that last problem someone usually says 
"wikidata" but we don't yet have a tried, tested and scaleable way of 
combining data from wikidata with data from OSM on the fly.


Some more of the issues associated with multiple languages in a place 
were discussed in the Algerian forum:


http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=31333

There were issues raised there that I hadn't previously considered, 
including combining a left-to-right and right-to-left name in a 
"Londonderry/Derry"-style name, and what happens when the most widely 
spoken language and the official language aren't the same.


Cheers,

Andy (SomeoneElse)



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging problem for a river running in a culvert below a track / wiki votes enforcement

[Andy Townsend]

On 25/01/2016 13:40, David Marchal wrote:

...  it isn't a bridge, ...


Would 2 separate riverbank polygons, separated by the culvert, perhaps 
by more "correct" here?


Cheers,

Andy

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

Re: [Tagging] wetland=bog, why only "receive their water and nutrients from rainfall"?

[Andy Townsend]

What does "fen" means to you?

I've a fairly good idea what I think it means, and I'd never or almost never 
tag it as a natural feature (though it may have a name, and the natural 
features within it may have names).

I'm a native English speaker (though not native to a fenland area)..

Could you come up with some examples of things that are currently tagged as 
bogs but shouldn't be, or aren't tagged as fens but should be (in the UK and 
Ireland would be helpful to me, as that's what I'm going to be most familiar 
with, but obviously other places will be helpful to other people).

Cheers,

Andy (SomeoneElse)

  Original Message  
From: Christoph Hormann
Sent: Sunday, 24 January 2016 15:47
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Reply To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] wetland=bog, why only "receive their water and nutrients 
from rainfall"?

On Sunday 24 January 2016, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>
> > Mires fed by
> > groundwater or water inflow from the outside are usually not bogs.
> > See:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mire
>
> That's contradicted by:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bog

Well - I don't want to pass judgement here on the articles - I only 
provided the link because it contains a well readable description of 
the differences. That being said the bog article is quite clearly not 
a shining example of quality in Wikipedia.

The established values for wetland=* in OSM are mostly based on wetland 
classification schemes common in North America which generally make the 
distinction between bogs and fens as indicated. You can find this for 
example on:

http://www.water.ncsu.edu/watershedss/info/wetlands/types3.html
http://www.epa.gov/wetlands/wetlands-classification-and-types
http://www.env.gov.yk.ca/animals-habitat/documents/canadian_wetland_classification_system.pdf

which is of course somewhat biased towards the types of wetland common 
in the region. There would be no problem in using more precise tags 
more clearly distinguishing the nuances in wetland types. There is 
already some limited use of wetland=string_bog/palsa_bog/raised_bog.

Current tag use indicates severe underuse of wetland=fen and overuse of 
wetland=bog. Probably more than half of what is tagged wetland=bog is 
actually incorrect.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
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] Tagging scrap yards, junkyards

[Andy Townsend]

On 20/01/2016 17:19, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
On 20 January 2016 at 02:03, Dave Swarthout > wrote:



I'm trying to decide how to tag what we in the U.S. refer to as
junkyards.




...

Would amenity=waste_transfer_station be an option? See 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dwaste_transfer_station 
. Perhaps this makes more sense for scrapyards that make most of their 
money from selling the iron used in cars.


I'd have thought that a "waste transfer station" was something else?  
Scrapyards round here tend to major not so much in selling iron but in 
car parts (though obviously that'll vary with commodity prices and local 
area).  I think I've seen at least one "waste transfer station" 
somewhere in the county though what that's tagged as I wouldn't like to 
say.   It didn't look very scrapyardish (though I can see how there 
might be overlap of edge cases).


Cheers,

Andy

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging scrap yards, junkyards

[Andy Townsend]

On 20/01/2016 09:16, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


2016-01-20 2:03 GMT+01:00 Dave Swarthout >:


After consulting Taginfo I've come up with these two tags for now:
landuse=industrial
industrial=scrap_yard

Opinions, suggestions?




I'd prefer a "feature" tag, rather than a refinement of the landus 
attribute.

What about man_made=scrap_yard?



taginfo suggests "amenity=scrapyard" actually (60, as opposed to 20 
industrial=scrap_yard).


Cheers,

Andy

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

Re: [Tagging] Removing name_1 and alt_name_1 from Wiki

[Andy Townsend]

On 19/01/2016 18:02, Hakuch wrote:

On 10.01.2016 22:29, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:

Actually to my human eyes, both semicolons and suffixes are equally
ugly (but pragmatic). It's for processing that suffixes are supperior:
* Spliting by semicolons (no regexp needed :p) is easy but naive,
because semicolons are sometimes part of the actual value.
* One workaround is to use some kind of escape character, but this is
an impementation/spec minefield that we'll never get right.
* Another is to maintain a whitelist of tags that can be split by
semicolon, but it's extra work and everybody'll have a different list.

actually, I just found that we have a solution for this in Wiki:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semi-colon_value_separator#Escaping_with_.27.3B.3B.27

It might not be used by that much developers,


It's not used by anyone as far as I can see:

http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=%3B%3B

(unless taginfo is doing some special filtering)


but they can find it in
Wiki if they want to care for their data


Data consumers (or at least, _this_ data consumer) don't view the 
"official use" as all the information they need about how to interpret 
OSM data.  For example, if I see a highway=residential in the middle of 
a desert in the USA I don't think "residential road" I think "unfixed 
TIGER data".


Basically you (and some other people) have a different view as to the 
best way to represent multiple names compared to Vincent (and some other 
people).  It doesn't matter who is "right" or "wrong"; the thing to take 
away is that "actually, it's a fairly complicated issue".  Rather than 
telling everyone else how to map, I'd suggest that you move on and map 
the rest of the world that isn't mapped yet.


Cheers,

Andy



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - recycling:coffee_capsules

[Andy Townsend]

On 12/01/2016 20:37, Ulrich Meier wrote:

...
So here's the voting. I hope you agree with me...

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/recycling:coffee_capsules



Is it really worth explicitly voting on?  "recycling:blah" is well 
established already: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=recycling 
- why not just use it?


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] Public buildings

[Andy Townsend]

‎With a "data consumer" hat on, I did look at the usage of 
"amenity=public_building" in the UK over Christmas. I really wasn't able to 
read anything into it - its use locally included public toilets and "government 
functions" that are actually outsourced to a third-party, as well as the 
bandstands that you mention. 

What might be interesting (and what I didn't do unfortunately) would be to 
sample a bunch of them and suggest better alternatives - maybe in changeset 
discussions?

  Original Message  
From: Matthijs Melissen
Sent: Saturday, 9 January 2016 21:24
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Reply To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: [Tagging] Public buildings

Hi all,

The tag amenity=public_building has been marked as 'Don't use' on the
wiki since 2010 (see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dpublic_building ). As
far as I know, marking the tag as 'Don't use' has not been discussed
extensively, and the tag is still very commonly used (111 941 times
currently). I therefore think it would be worth to discuss this tag
once more.

Initially I didn't have much problems with this tag, and I have used
it commonly to mark government buildings. However, when I started
looking at how this tag is used (with Overpass), I discovered that it
is indeed use for quite a variety of things. It saw it being used for
government buildings, train stations, expo halls, art centres,
municipal sport centres, and band stands, amongst others. Nearly all
of these have more specific other tags.

In particular, potential replacement tags for government tags are
office=administrative (26 836 times in use) for central government and
office=administrative (8 725) for local government.

I think we have a choice of two options:
1. Accept the tag - in that case we'd need to come up with a clear
definition, and decide how it compares to the office=administrative
and office=administrative tags.
2. Reject the tag and mark it as discouraged on the wiki..

The tag is currently supported by JOSM, but not by iD. If we decide to
approve this tag, it would make sense to ask iD to support it. On the
other hand, if we decide to discourage it, it would make sense to ask
JOSM to remove the preset, and preferably, even add a deprecation
warning to the validator.

What do you think? Which way would you prefer to go?

-- Matthijs

___
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] Question reg. wheelchair mapping

[Andy Townsend]

On 08/01/2016 08:45, Gerd Petermann wrote:


I'd like to see that the existing highway=access_ramp

are changed to the well known

highway=footway

wheelchair=yes

in combination with

incline=x%




The explicit "wheelchair=yes" would definitely be needed with those tags 
as they don't make it clear that it's suitable for negotiation by a 
"large wheeled object" - a steep footpath with corners that weren't 
negotiable by a wheelchair could still be tagged with an incline like that.


Have you tried contacting any of the consumers of the "access_ramp" 
data?  I'm assuming that none (or almost none) of them will read the 
tagging list; the DE forum will find a few, but a small portion of the 
number internationally.


Cheers,

Andy

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=bicycle_repair_station

[Andy Townsend]

On 30/11/2015 06:15, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:

Any quick comments on this schema, before I write it up?

amenity=self_serve_tool_station
brand=Dero Fixit
operator=Metro Country Trails
opening_hours=24/7
self_serve_tool_station:bicycles=yes
self_serve_tool_station:snow_sports=no
self_serve_tool_station:ice_skates=no
self_serve_tool_station:skateboards=no
service:bicycle:pump=yes
service:bicycle:chain_tool=no
last_check:status=All tools vandalized
last_check=2015-01-01





My first thought is that even fewer people will understand what this is 
than understand what a "bicycle repair station" is.  As I said back in 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-November/027436.html 
I'd suggest that you try and understand what's happening rather than 
just picking another key name and hoping for the best.


Have you looked at the statistics associated with people adding 
amenity=bicycle_repair_station, both correctly and incorrectly, and 
compared them with (say) shop=bicycle or shop=car_repair?


I suspect you might see a bias towards iD compared with the other two 
tags because a search for "repair" comes up with car_repair and 
bicycle_repair_station, but not shop=bicycle (which is where most people 
take their bike if they can't fix it themselves).  You've already logged 
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/2845 against iD; once a fix 
for that is incorporated and goes live we could see if any bias towards 
iD continues.


In your 26/11/2015 04:48 post (the parent to the one above) you wrote:

> I could mechanically tag the problematic "bicycle_repair_station" to 
fit within something like this:


It's perhaps at this stage worth mentioning 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct .  
Any mechanical edit would need to be discussed with the wider OSM 
community outside the tagging list, and there's no guarantee that it 
would be accepted.


Poorly designed and poorly located imports are unhelpful to 
OpenStreetMap.  Based on the data that you tried to import in the UK, 
your bicycle repair station import was both of those things. Mechanical 
edits without proper consideration are also unhelpful; please don't do 
that too.


Best Regards,

Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse)


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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - tag: office=adoption_agency

[Andy Townsend]

On 30/11/2015 22:20, Tom Pfeifer wrote:


Yes. Anyway, the proposal is a bit complicated for a simple thing
as the value of an office key. Nobody objected. From my perspective,
just document it and use it.


That makes sense to me.  Don't try and overthink what keys other mappers 
might want to use with this value, just use it and map things near you.  
I'd also suggesting using taginfo* to find out what other mappers have 
mapped human "adoption" places as and suggesting to them that they might 
want to consider using your new value.


People can use any keys and values they like in OSM; they aren't 
restricted to "proposed" or "accepted" ones.


Best Regards,

Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse)

* http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=adoption#values

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

[Tagging] Suggested tagging (was: bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?)

[Andy Townsend]

On 26/11/2015 10:35, Volker Schmidt wrote:

Two situtions where I have doubts on correct tagging



In addition to the textual answers already provided, I'd certainly find 
it really useful if people could link to an area that is already mapped 
and tagged as per a particular suggestion.  As well as here it'd be 
useful to help visualise the "sidewalk tagging for routing" issues too.


Cheers,

Andy (SomeoneElse)


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

Re: [Tagging] Relevance or otherwise of the wiki

[Andy Townsend]

On 24/11/2015 16:47, Gerd Petermann wrote:

Gerd Petermann wrote

Andy Townsend wrote

On 20/11/2015 18:49, Gerd Petermann wrote:

What am I getting wrong here? Did someone remove the
preferred way of tagging from the wiki and nobody noticed
it for years?


It doesn't surprise me that something documented with certainty in the
wiki simply doesn't describe what mappers actually do.  For example, I

I think in the case of traffic_calming
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_calming
the current wiki describes exactly what most
mappers do, that's why I asked the question you cited.
I think the only missing point is the explicit hint that
highway=traffic_calming should NOT be used and
removed when found similar to the hint for ford
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ford#Deprecated_Tags

Gerd

Nobody oposed so I'll change the wiki as suggested
tomorrow.

Gerd



I believe that the "highway=ford" text is "wrong" in that it does not 
explain why "highway=ford" on a node should not be used.  It also 
doesn't explain the good reasons why "highway=ford" shouldn't be used on 
a way (because it removes the chance for an informative highway type to 
be used).


The wiki gets it wrong when it "tells people how to map". It gets it 
right when it "describes how people map" and (even better) explains why.


Cheers,

Andy (SomeoneElse)




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

[Tagging] Relevance or otherwise of the wiki (was: improve tagging of traffic_calming)

[Andy Townsend]

On 20/11/2015 18:49, Gerd Petermann wrote:


What am I getting wrong here? Did someone remove the
preferred way of tagging from the wiki and nobody noticed
it for years?



It doesn't surprise me that something documented with certainty in the 
wiki simply doesn't describe what mappers actually do.  For example, I 
noticed the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:healthcare page only 
very recently** - someone who expects the wiki to document how other 
mappers tag things might think from reading that that they should use 
e.g. "healthcare=dentist" instead of "amenity=dentist", which not borne 
out by actual usage figures (there are 30k amenity=dentist and <900 
healthcare=dentist).


We (all mappers, not just new ones) simply can't rely on the wiki for 
"how to map X" until this sort of "creative wiki editing" is more under 
control*.


Cheers,

Andy (SomeoneElse)


* actually it's worse than this - see 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1981#issuecomment-158634575 
for the full problem.


** and I'm actually subscribed to this list and see the discussions 
going on here related to potential tagging changes and suggestions. What 
chance someone not subscribed to this daily catalogue of delights? :)




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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=bicycle_repair_station

[Andy Townsend]

On 10/11/2015 02:41, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
amenity=bicycle_repair_station has a problem: it's attracting lots of 
active tagging
of shops offering bicycle repair.  For example: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3772809894

and http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/337421757


That was not the intent.  amenity=bicycle_repair_station was meant for 
unattended

tool stands, often outdoors, often 24/7, generally public.

I'm seeking support for a mechanical edit to a new tag name.
There are known automated clients of this tag, and I am in contact 
with both.




An alternative suggestion - lobby the authors of iD to include the word 
"repair" in the "bicycle shop" description, or otherwise influence the 
search results.  If you search for "bicycle", bicycle shop is ahead of 
bicycle repair station.  If you search for "repair", you get "Car repair 
shop", "bicycle repair station", "bookbinder".


A mechanical edit would just confuse all the humans (me included) who 
have just learnt what a "bicycle repair station" is.


Cheers,
Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=bicycle_repair_station

[Andy Townsend]

On 10/11/2015 02:41, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
amenity=bicycle_repair_station has a problem: it's attracting lots of 
active tagging
of shops offering bicycle repair.  For example: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3772809894

and http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/337421757




Have you asked why?  I don't see any discussion on 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34441015 , for example.


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Sunset ref=* on ways in favor of relations

[Andy Townsend]

On 07/11/2015 23:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


Are multiple relations for (pieces of) the same route really a big problem? We 
could have multiple relations until they meet and then merge them.



The problem isn't that we can't merge multiple relations later, it's 
that we can't stop them being created in the first place.  Also "we can 
merge" might need a survey to resolve differing tag issues, as the the 
knowledge of "how to merge relations" and "what it's actually like on 
the ground" will likely be in different people.


Cheers,

Andy (SomeoneElse)



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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Sunset ref=* on ways in favor of relations

[Andy Townsend]

On 06/11/2015 13:44, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com 
<mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Obviously in places where a road can have multiple equivalent
references (such as the US) route relations perfect sense (as does
figuring out which routes are actually signed on which bits of
road) but in places where there's only one real ref per piece of
tarmac (such as the UK) there's no need to force mappers to start
maintaining relations as well as just recording the reference.


Well, I believe impetus for route relations was Sustrans networks.  
These tags went from the ways to relations years ago already, so call 
me skeptical that there's no multiplexes in the UK (especially since 
without any real effort inside 30 seconds, just randomly scrolling by 
hand to the UK, I see that the A24 and RCN CS7 are multiplexed).  I 
honestly don't see why we should be treating tags related to 
route=road any different than we're already treating route=bicycle.




Sure - there are lots of route relations (such as Sustrans' cycle 
networks) in the UK, but (over here) that's separate from the reference 
of the road.  It's also fair to say that Sustrans' route labelling can 
be "variable", to the point where "the signs on the ground", "the route 
they'd like to use" and "the official current sustrans route" can be 
three different things.  As an aside, Sustrans recently changed their 
official route for some routes just south of where I live to match the 
signs on the ground (and therefore OSM, which was mapped from those) as 
what OSM had was actually more a more sensible route than what they 
had.  Where there is this variability in signing, you can't always 
expect someone (especially a new mapper) to fill in all the details of 
cycle routes that a bit of road is part of, though a cycling fan can 
usually come along and fill in the gaps.  However a new mapper can read 
the reference on normal road signs and should be able to fill in the 
"ref" on the way without difficulty.  The tricky bit (in the US) is 
having a UI in e.g. iD that can guide them through the "add to existing 
nearby route relation".


Both iD and P2 can show nearby relations, but for example at 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/53.07007/-2.04161 both also show in 
the relations that you might want to add to a way the relations that a 
way is already part of, and super-relations of other relations (which it 
doesn't need to be added to).


None of this is easy, and iD (correctly in my view) tries to hide 
relation functionality if it can.  I'm just suggesting to try and keep 
it simple where its possible to do so (i.e. don't create route relations 
where it's possible to express the same concept in a simpler way).


Cheers,

Andy (SomeoneElse)




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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[Andy Townsend]

On 25/10/2015 15:06, Richard wrote:

agreed. But this is open-STREET-map so perhaps the streets should
be fixed first. Does not make much sense to map culverts with
sub-meter precission while freeways are still linear ways.


I'd respectively disagree with that - this is open-STREET-map in name 
only; realistically it's 
"open-whateveryouwanttomapprovidedthatotherpeoplecanverifyit-map" :)


Cheers,

Andy




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

Re: [Tagging] how to tag a "highway" that doesn't exist?

[Andy Townsend]

On 23/10/2015 14:34, GerdP wrote:

Andy Townsend wrote

Now, as so many before, I try to find a good tag to express this.
Using a line with only a note tag is no good idea as QA tools
will not like them.

I'd suggest that if a QA tool objects to that, it's a problem with that
QA tool. :)

Well, yes and no. When I start to change all these ways with strange highway
tags to ones with only a note and they pop up in tools like JOSMs validator
it is
likely that the next mapper will invent a new tag or revert my change.




JOSM displays an "untagged ways commented" warning on e.g. 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/376520283 .  What should happen then is 
that the mapper reads the warning, understands it, and clicks ignore.  
If they just blithely change all data to suppress QA warnings without 
engaging their brain then in my opinion they shouldn't be mapping.


It could be argued that perhaps JOSM shouldn't display this as a warning 
in the first place (though I can see both sides of that argument).  
However, whenever I've raised issues in the past about "what should be a 
validation warning" with JOSM's developers I've always found them very 
responsive.


Cheers,

Andy (SomeoneElse)


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

Re: [Tagging] how to tag a "highway" that doesn't exist?

[Andy Townsend]

On 22/10/2015 11:18, Colin Smale wrote:


On 2015-10-22 11:27, Andy Townsend wrote:



I'd agree with that.  I can think of more than a few examples of "the 
road/path used to go here, but now it doesn't", and even if the 
imagery gets updated, underlying GPS traces won't.
Has anyone thought of a way of limiting returned GPS traces to a 
certain date range? So you can look at traces since or before a 
certain change in the road layout?




It's tricky, since the traces involved aren't just the OSM ones - they 
also include Strava and potentially others.


With regard to OSM ones, in JOSM you can get information on some traces 
trace-by-trace, but it's a bit clumsy to use regularly. Traces in P2 and 
iD's "GPS traces tiles" such as 
http://gps-b.tile.openstreetmap.org/lines/15/16256/10660.png via 
https://github.com/ericfischer/gpx-updater are one-way I believe - GPS 
traces go in, but never come out.


Cheers,

Andy

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

Re: [Tagging] how to tag a "highway" that doesn't exist?

[Andy Townsend]

On 22/10/2015 06:29, GerdP wrote:

Hi all,

I've contacted a few mappers and it seems that there is a need
to keep some of the ways for the reason described by Mateusz below.


I'd agree with that.  I can think of more than a few examples of "the 
road/path used to go here, but now it doesn't", and even if the imagery 
gets updated, underlying GPS traces won't.



Now, as so many before, I try to find a good tag to express this.
Using a line with only a note tag is no good idea as QA tools
will not like them.


I'd suggest that if a QA tool objects to that, it's a problem with that 
QA tool. :)



IMHO the only already used tag which looks acceptable
for this is
highway=none
in combination with a note saying why the way is no highway
maybe combined with an explicit tag
mapping_error=yes

Does that make sense?


Using a highway tag when there isn't a highway is going to cause 
problems for someone, somewhere down the line - anyone who doesn't look 
at the values and just processes "highway=*", for example (not that 
that's a good idea - but someone's going to do it).


Some sort of lifecycle tag might work in some cases (though it'd be 
interesting to see the justification for the "planned but never built, 
and now never will be built" ones), but even after that there'll always 
be a small number of odd values - possibly the least worst solution in a 
particular case.


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] Pubs with accommodation

[Andy Townsend]

On 28/09/2015 15:24, Georg Feddern wrote:

Am 28.09.2015 um 14:46 schrieb Andy Townsend:


Depends on the pub, I'd say.  Some places are both a hotel and a pub, 
some have essentially separate "hotel" and "pub" bits (for which 2 
nodes within a building might work)  and some (e.g. 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/75844692 ) are pubs that do 
accommodation, but not really hotels, so I'd use accommodation=yes 
for those.




Why not the already established tourism=guest_house for this B offer?


This particular example isn't really a guest house (or a B for that 
matter).  Handily, there's an example of a guest house just down the 
street at http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/185207730 .


So what's "guest-housy" about one vs "not-guest-housy" about the other?  
How about a quiet downstairs lounge in one vs a crowded bar full of 
welsh people trying to buy beer in the other, and a nicely maintained 
garden with some bee-hives in it vs a muddy area where the beer festival 
tent was?  FWIW the pub's an excellent pub and the guest-house is an 
excellent guest-house, but they're not really the same animal.  You 
could perhaps make a case for "tourism=bed_and_breakfast" or it's 
slightly less popular cousin "guest_house=bed_and_breakfast" for the 
pub, but that's a different argument.


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] Pubs with accommodation

[Andy Townsend]

On 28/09/2015 12:45, Philip Barnes wrote:

On Mon Sep 28 12:09:29 2015 GMT+0100, Dave F. wrote:

Hi

How should public houses (inns) that provide accommodation be tagged?
'Accommodation=*' with only 249 examples doesn't appear to to be the tag
to use. Is it acceptable to combine amenity=pub & tourism=hotel?


I think so, then whichever is searched will be returned.

The hotel also being the pub is very common.

Phil (trigpoint)


Depends on the pub, I'd say.  Some places are both a hotel and a pub, 
some have essentially separate "hotel" and "pub" bits (for which 2 nodes 
within a building might work)  and some (e.g. 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/75844692 ) are pubs that do 
accommodation, but not really hotels, so I'd use accommodation=yes for 
those.


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] Handle with care

[Andy Townsend]

On 09/09/2015 22:39, moltonel wrote:
Please run experiments like this on a test db, not on the main one. 
It's easy to point your editor to dev.openstreetmap.org for example 
(quoting from memory, not 100% sure).


While that's a good idea (the test URL I use for such things is 
http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/ btw) it's perhaps worth mentioning 
that I'm not aware of anything rendering "standard" map tiles from the 
data in there.  I'm also not aware of anyone making planet files or 
extracts from there either*.


However, for a very small area (but still big enough to show the sort of 
effects you're looking for) I suspect you'd be OK doing an API MAP call 
to get the data and throwing that into a rendering database which you 
can access in the usual "rendering server" way, or by something like 
tilemill.


I had been thinking about writing some notes about how to do this for a 
while, just haven't got the necessary "round tuit" yet :)


Cheers,

Andy

* but I'd be delighted to be proved wrong on both counts of course.



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

Re: [Tagging] Proposed mechanical edit: surface=soil to surface=dirt

[Andy Townsend]

On 31/08/15 11:33, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 10:35:24 +0100
"ajt1...@gmail.com"  wrote:


There are 32 in the UK, by only 2 mappers (both still active but
edits are from many years ago).  Extrapolating that there have only
been probably only 25 mappers using this tag worldwide.

Is there some method to automate finding who introduced tags? Doing it
manually would not be worth the effort. On the other hand - running
script to detect users (and/or relevant changesets) may be a good idea.


I'm not aware of any existing tools to do it, but that doesn't mean that 
there aren't any.  It does sound like something that could be automated 
(either on a per-way basis or a per-tag basis, though that sounds like 
it would need access to data from a full-history planet).  However it's 
just taken me longer to reply to this email than it did to find out 
where the examples in the UK came from, so in the case of very small 
usages like this finding the "full story" behind a tag needn't take long. :)


It may not be the case here (too few examples), but often any check of a 
particular tag will find "obviously garbage" values, or values that at 
first look don't make sense, until it clicks what the original mapper 
was really trying to record, and in such cases the answer might not be 
"dirt" but something else altogether.


Cheers,

Andy (SomeoneElse)

PS - as expected the ones in the UK do look like exact synonyms for 
"dirt" - I'm not sure I've ever walked any of the "soil" ones SE of 
Nottingham but I've certainly walked plenty of adjacent ones and would 
say those were "dirt".


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

Re: [Tagging] Access tags (general question, but mostly regarding bicycle)

[Andy Townsend]

On 28/08/2015 13:15, Anders Fougner wrote:


So we should consider replacing the tagging scheme with one which 
isn't misunderstood so easily.
The use of access:foot=*, access:bicycle=* has been proposed at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access_restrictions_1.5#Namespace 
but just not taken into use. It looks good, though...and wouldn't be 
so easily misunderstood, I believe.




Based on past experience, not going to happen, for all sorts of 
reasons.  Also, I suspect that access:bicycle is just as likely to be 
misunderstood as bicycle.  In addition, I suspect that most people 
making these sorts of mistakes are relatively new mappers using an 
editor that hides tag values from them, so it is also pointless.


Far better, when you see someone locally tagging incorrectly like that, 
is to talk to them, explain the problem, and suggest which tags they 
should be using.  I'm sure most cycle routers do try and take notice of 
sensible tagging (though there will sometimes be problems that need to 
be bounced to the router maintainers - 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33592375 and 
http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=32884 spring to mind).  
The surface tag is the obvious one; specifically for bikes 
*mtb:scale* http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/mtb%3Ascale is 
probably the most popular locally to me, but near you it might be 
something else.


Cheers,

Andy (SomeoneElse)

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Andy Townsend]

On 28/08/2015 13:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
as path can be sub tagged to be the same as bridleway or cycleway and 
excluding pedestrians, this is simply not true


No, it can't.  It _can_ be sub-tagged to have the same _access_ 
restrictions_ as a bridleway and cycleway, sure, and you could probably 
approach cycleway with smoothness etc., but what about bridleway?  How 
do you communicate the essential bridlewayness of a bridleway using 
subtags?  How do I know that my horse* won't bang his head on the trees 
above, can fit through the gates and won't get reprimanded for, er, 
making it clear where he's been**?


Cheers,

Andy

* imaginery, like Mark Wood's, obviously.

** and rather that just making up some tags here, now show where you've 
actually tagged a highway=path bridleway with them previously :)



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

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Andy Townsend]

On 28/08/2015 15:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

horse=designated


That's an access tag.  Are you saying that access tags convey physical 
characteristics somehow?


In the absence of any other evidence you might assume that because I 
can legally ride my horse / bicycle / drive my car down there I will 
physically be able to do so but as was pointed out just this morning in 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-August/026194.html , 
that isn't always the case.


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Andy Townsend]

On 28/08/2015 17:28, ksg wrote:



Am 28.08.2015 um 16:18 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:


sent from a phone


Am 28.08.2015 um 15:01 schrieb Andy Townsend ajt1...@gmail.com:

No, it can't.  It _can_ be sub-tagged to have the same _access_ restrictions_ as a 
bridleway and cycleway, sure, and you could probably approach cycleway with smoothness 
etc., but what about bridleway?  How do you communicate the essential 
bridlewayness of a bridleway using subtags?  How do I know that my horse* 
won't bang his head on the trees above, can fit through the gates and won't get 
reprimanded for, er, making it clear where he's been**?


horse=designated



There is even horse_scale, see 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:horse_scale
Some horse whisperer may translate that to English, albeit bridleways represent 
only a very small proportion (0.007) of the total number of 9 Mio. footways and 
paths.




Thanks - that's exactly the sort of thing that I was looking for!

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/bay

It's somewhat geographically limited (due to the German text I guess) 
but I can think of a few examples near me that are legally bridleways 
but you would struggle with a horse for various reasons.


Cheers,

Andy



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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Andy Townsend]

On 27/08/2015 12:15, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
There's no point in a disused:foo=bar namespace. That's either 
historical mapping or hiding from the renderer, both of which are 
wrong in OSM. 


Er, no.  A disused:amenity=pub is something that still exists in its own 
right; it's a building that was a pub, is still a building, is probably 
still usable as a navigational aid and gets rendered on maps that want 
to show that sort of thing:


http://i.imgur.com/lxFc6ds.png

... it just doesn't sell beer.

Cheers,

Andy (SomeoneElse)

PS: That one's since re-opened (hurray!)


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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Andy Townsend]

On 26/08/2015 12:51, Dave F. wrote:


Sub tags such as disused=yes have always been the way to describe 
additional attributes of an entity. It's even the syntax used by XML: 
you collect all 'waterway=canal' items then manipulate that selection 
set. If programmers don't notice then, quite simply, they're not 
very good at they're job.


I look forward to your modifications to the OSM Carto (and other) 
stylesheets to add handling for disused=yes throughout then. :)


Your use of always above simply isn't borne out by the facts.  I 
personally have always tried to tag former things in a way that's 
appropriate to their current status, and that _might_ be disused=yes (as 
discussed in the thread above) but it might also be disused:foo=bar, 
or it might be delete the tag entirely, while trying to keep some link 
to history (see http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/364520111/history for 
an example).


Cheers,

Andy (SomeoneElse)


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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Andy Townsend]

On 26/08/2015 13:44, Dave F. wrote:

On 25/08/2015 23:20, Paul Norman wrote:

On 8/24/2015 3:35 PM, Andy Townsend wrote:
That's not so bad in lua, but imagine writing ... and not 
disused=yes into every cartocss rule! 


Fortunately, we will not have to do that in OpenStreetMap Carto, as 
we will not be supporting the style of tagging where one tag says 
what something is, then another tag saying it's not really that, but 
used to be, or will be. We do not want to encourage the use of 
disused=yes, abandoned=yes, or similar tags.


Sub tags give *extra* data about an entity.

A pub that's closed down it's still recognisable as a pub.


Not by someone who wants a beer, it can't!



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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Andy Townsend]

On 23/08/2015 16:32, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

To people using this tag: please, update and clarify documentation of
this tag on OSM wiki. For example it is even unclear whatever it should
be expected that it can be applied to canals no longer filled with
water.

used for transportation, waterpower, or irrigation so filled by water
seems intended as implied - but canal that is drained and converted
into cycleway also fits transportation.


I think that that part of the wiki's fairly clear - you've selectively 
quoted the second half of a sentence there, the part that means 
canal.  The tricky bit is what derelict means...



On the other hand name (at least for me) implies canal where earthwork
is present but is no longer filled with water.


Let's assume to start with that we're talking about things that are 
still a feature of the landscape (and leave the what if they're not 
discussion to the various railway threads).  I've tended to use it on 
those bits of canal that can't be used for their former purpose, so 
everything from:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48784326

(to which I added description=Water in places, but some trees growing 
in it - disused) through to:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/103431234

(note=Here the footpath seems to be along the old elevated canal bed)

To my mind a waterway=derelict_canal is not just a waterway=canal that 
happens to be disused - it's one where the infrastructure has 
deteriorated significantly.  So for example, this section of Cromford Canal:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/39551657

is largely disused as a canal (although the charity that's restoring it 
does run trips up and down the top end), but it still has water in it, 
and still looks to the casual observer like a canal, so I mapped it as such.


FWIW I agree completely with Chris about the problems with foo=bar + 
disused=yes.  It's a form of tagging that's really best avoided. As an 
aside, when I tried to represent dead pubs on a map I ended up doing this:


https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L368

That's not so bad in lua, but imagine writing ... and not disused=yes 
into every cartocss rule!


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] Help undoing an admin level 3 edit to Japan

[Andy Townsend]

On 11/08/2015 12:30, johnw wrote:
A few months ago, someone enabled admin level 3 on regional boundaries 
in Japan.


This is an error, but I don’t know how to deal with it.



The first thing that I'd do would be to find the change that introduced 
the problem, identify the mapper concerned (which can be tricky where 
there are lots of changes) and explain to them (via a changeset 
discussion comment is often best, because it's public) why what they did 
was incorrect.  From there I'd link to where the Japanese community 
discusses boundaries (which might be the wiki, but often is somewhere else).


You can use this to look at the history of relations:

http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=1803923

and if the changeset concerned is (as it appears to be at first glance) 
this one:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/22663880

you can mention something about accurate changeset comments too :)

It's also perhaps worth mentioning this sub-forum:

http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=29724

where as well as international boundaries, problems caused by other 
boundaries are also sometimes discussed.


Cheers,

Andy

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Andy Townsend]

‎Whilst hstore will make keys available, it won't make the SQL to use a 
plethora of new keys any less horrible. The code to handle certain highway=path 
as either cycleways and footways is more convoluted than it would otherwise be 
already.

Something like lua processing of keys at import would simplify things, but I 
suspect isn't an option for the main site (because of the requirement to do a 
database reload if you change the lua script).

Cheers,
Andy

  Original Message  
From: Ilpo Järvinen
Sent: Friday, 7 August 2015 11:23
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Reply To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction 
footway vs path

On Fri, 7 Aug 2015, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

  Am 07.08.2015 um 01:15 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi:
  
  
 
 Osm carto is about to activate the hstore extension which will remove 
 the requirement of a column for every key...

Oh, that's nice to hear, finally. :-) :-)



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

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Andy Townsend]

On 06/08/2015 10:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


Am 06.08.2015 um 11:18 schrieb Andy Townsend ajt1...@gmail.com:

Imagine in that example that bicycle access was permissive rather than yes 
- how would you tag that?

bicycle=permissive



How would anyone know that this highway=path was actually, physically, 
a cycleway?



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

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Andy Townsend]

On 06/08/2015 12:15, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

a cycleway is nothing physical, it is a legal setting. Or what do you mean with 
physically?




... since we seem to have dipped into highway=path again :)

The English word cycleway refers to a physical object - which 
archetype is this-thing-that-I'm-mapping most like, not a legal 
setting.  You're legally allowed to cycle on England-and-Wales public 
bridleways but that doesn't make them all cycleways.


Much more elquently than me, Richard Fairhurst has explained the problem 
previously in opinion pieces such as 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Duck_tagging and 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333 .


Obviously you can do stuff with surface / width / smoothness / tracktype 
/ mtb:scale / whatever else, but it's a bit like trying to describe 
something through the medium of interpretative dance - it misses the 
this is what this thing is mostly like part.  There are places where 
path really is the best description (I'm currently mapping lots of 
them in a large area of nearby woodland), but it is something of a last 
resort.


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Andy Townsend]

On 06/08/2015 09:28, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

Am 06.08.2015 um 03:50 schrieb johnw jo...@mac.com:

If I have a cycleway that is built to cycleway specs (paved, rounded turns, 
lanes, and no stairs), but peds are still allowed, then it is a cycleway with 
foot access =yes

I would never consider tagging that as =path with foot  cycle =yes.


the equivalent would be:

highway=path
bicycle=designated/official
foot=yes




I'm assuming here that you're assuming that designated or official 
in an access tag (which is what bicycle is normally) here implies a 
value of yes, though the wiki is unclear on that point*.  Imagine in 
that example that bicycle access was permissive rather than yes - 
how would you tag that?


Cheers,

Andy

* Interestingly http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access does not 
mention official at all.



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

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Andy Townsend]

On 06/08/2015 10:24, John Willis wrote:

On Aug 6, 2015, at 5:28 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:

is it a highway? Tags are not always 1:1 representations of (all) the 
meaning(s) of the words in natural language.

When we have footway, cycleway, bridleway, steps, track, and via_ferrata, 
again, why is path the odd man out?

Why does path get to stretch so far above its name and useful range?



I suspect it might help if you could explain what path means to you* - 
to my English as spoken in England sensibilities path is a broad 
term that can apply to a wide variety of physical characteristics.


Cheers,

Andy


* In fact wasn't there exactly this survey done some time ago - lots of 
pictures and how would you tag this?





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

Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki

[Andy Townsend]

On 28/07/2015 17:35, Hubert wrote:

FYI: I just took the liberty of changing the highway=footway definition back to 
the pre Feb 18th Version.



\o/

Thanks for that.


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

Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki

[Andy Townsend]

On 25/07/2015 13:43, Hubert wrote:

Am 24. Juli 2015 um 17:50 schrieb Heiko Eckenreiter 
[mailto:heiko.eckenrei...@gmx.net] :

Am 24.07.2015 um 17:24 schrieb Hubert:

But only the way with the traffic sign will be tagged with
bicycle=designated, foot=designated using the definition in the
description box

That is not logical, because both ways are still equally designated to
pedestrians and cyclist in both situations.

Today in OSM it's documented, only the ways signposted with a traffic
sign should be tagged with *=designated (as described on the cited page
access=designated and much more).

The only wiki page with such a strict formulation I could find is the highway=footway 
page [1] : highway=footway is used for signposted paths designated for pedestrians only. 
Signposted footpaths are primarily common in residential areas, but may also exist out-of-town in 
recreational environments, parks etc.. .
But in this context one must agree that highway=footway is equal to highway=path, 
foot=designated. Also this was only changed recently by Geow on June 28th.
Bevor that it read : highway=footway is mainly used for residential paths 
designated for pedestrians only.
And till Feb 18th : The tag highway=footway is used for mapping minor pathways 
which are used mainly or exclusively by pedestrians. Which is the definition I 
prefer.


I believe that the recent edits to the highway=footway page by Geow 
resulted in it not reflecting the usage of the key - it seems to be 
telling people how to use a key not documenting how they do use it. I 
did raise it with the user concerned (1) (and interestingly other users 
have raised similar problems there too) but frankly have no wish to get 
into a wiki edit war or even a discussion with someone who doesn't 
even edit the map (or at least, not in that name) (2). It's also perhaps 
worth mentioning that the 18th Feb change (which you - and I - preferred 
the previous version to) was made by a wiki editor who's since been 
blocked (3).


I only spotted the wiki change because someone spotted a large number of 
footways that I had surveyed being changed into paths without any 
information to give a clue as to physical type.  We've seen other 
similar instances where well-meaning but ignorant wiki edits have 
resulted in well-meaning but ignorant tag correctors corrupting map 
data (changing wood=deciduous to leaf_type=broadleaved was one).


Personally, to try and make sense of pages in our wiki I tend to view 
the history and look at the last edit by a sensible person, taking 
particular care to read the previous version to anything labelled e.g. 
cleanup.


Cheers,

Andy


(1) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Geow

(2) http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Geow

(3) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Xxzme


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

Re: [Tagging] Highway proposed/planned distinction

[Andy Townsend]

On 14/07/2015 18:23, Daniel Koć wrote:

Hi,

We're about to abandon rendering highway=proposed in the osm-carto 
(default OSM map style), but we think it's still good to show those 
which are closer to be really constructed:


https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1654

Is highway=planned a good choice to be rendered instead or some other 
tagging scheme would be better?




If you're going to decide to not render highway=proposed then just 
make that decision - if you render planned instead, people who want 
their pet schemes to be rendered will just change proposed to 
planned and carry on as before, just as when abandoned railways 
somehow magically became disused when abandoned was no longer 
rendered.  Some of the proposed highways* are clearly just flights of 
fancy with no timescale or money behind them.  Unlike with abandoned 
railways, there's no dirty great scar on the ground to see, so they're 
not easily verifiably either.


Cheers,

Andy

* like http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/290450974/history

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

Re: [Tagging] Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions

[Andy Townsend]

On 03/01/14 19:56, Fernando Trebien wrote:

Well, when proposing this, I'm trying to avoid these problems:
- the set of paved and the set of unpaved surfaces is not closed, and
so it would require us to continuously update Carto with new surface
types


I'm a bit confused by what you mean by carto here.  The tool itself 
just converts from a CartoCSS stylesheet (such as you can create/edit 
relatively easily with TileMill):


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CartoCSS

The stylesheet used for the OSM standard map is:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto

and for the HOT map is:

https://github.com/hotosm/HDM-CartoCSS

So there isn't just one Carto rendering.  Also, there's not likely 
ever going to be an agreement between everyone about what sort of 
suitability for X sort of traffic is represented on the standard 
map.  Personally I'd argue that the whole tracktype / path / footway / 
bridleway rendering area is too complicated now for lay users, rather 
than not complicated enough.  We've already had help questions on the 
lines of what's that brown stain on the map:


https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/13521/icon-explanation

So the answer surely has to be different rendered maps for different 
purposes - someone who's creating an MTB map can render the MTB tags, 
someone who's mapping an area where smoothness is used in a sane 
manner can map that, etc.  If someone wants to come up with a big 
x-dimensional matrix that combines various tracktype / smoothness / mtb 
/ whatever tags into a numeric value, they can do that too.


The good news is that it's actually easier than ever to do that now as 
osm2pgsql now supports external tag transformations using a lua script:


https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/28465/osm2pqsql-and-lua

https://github.com/openstreetmap/osm2pgsql/blob/master/README_lua.md

It's so easy that even someone like me (with less design expertise than 
the average three-year-old with a crayon) can do it to render other 
values instead of tracktype without changing the openstreetmap-carto 
stylesheet at all:


https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/designation-style

So if you think an extra tag makes sense (trafficability or something 
else), start using it locally, create a map using it, and ask people 
what they think.


Similarly, if you think that some numerical combination of existing or 
new tags to create a new tracktype would work, create a map using that.


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal - RFC - man_made=lamp

[Andy Townsend]

On 03/11/13 13:52, Manuel Hohmann wrote:

You can find the full proposal for a unified lamp tagging here:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/lamp

This tagging has evolved from a thorough discussion in the German OSM
forum:

http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=23041




I had a quick scan through those, but it's not immediately clear to me 
what problem you're trying to solve.  What nature of illuminated things 
are OSM mappers failing to capture in the absence of a lamp proposal?


Cheers,

Andy


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