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

[Mark Wagner]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 14:17:49 +0900
John Willis  wrote:

> Javbw
> 
> On Jun 13, 2016, at 8:22 AM, Greg Troxel  wrote:
> 
> >> Highway=trail  
> > 
> > I don't think we need to change path to trail.  It's basically the
> > same thing.  
> 
> Path=trail
> Path:trail=main 
> 
> 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. 

"highway=path" (or =footway, whichever you prefer) plus "surface=dirt",
and perhaps a suitably poor "smoothness=".  In my experience, the
defining characteristic of a trail is that it isn't paved.

-- 
Mark 

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

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

[Mark Wagner]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 07:59:18 -0400
Greg Troxel  wrote:

> Martin Koppenhoefer  writes:
> 
> > sent from a phone
> >  
> >> Il giorno 13 giu 2016, alle ore 01:22, Greg Troxel
> >>  ha scritto:
> >> 
> >> I agree there should be some tag to show that a trail/path is the
> >> main one.  
> >
> > do we need a tag, or is it evident by the routes that use the
> > ways?  
> 
> I think we need a tag.
> 
> There are certainly a few routes that go long distances over multiple
> trails, but around me that's the exception.  A typical example is a
> 250 acre (100 ha) conservation area with a main loop trail, a few
> access trails from parking areas at the edges, one or two connecting
> trails across, and then a number of trails that are definitely
> lesser.  It is true that the lesser ones tend to be unblazed.
> 
> I see this as sort of similar to
> highway=primary/secondary/tertiary/unclassified in the trail network.
> We tag width, surface and speed, so in some sense the classification
> is not necesssary.  But it's an important clue about main-ness.
> There is no authority that designates them that way, but in any local
> area there is usually a concept of which trails are higher rank.

I've been mentally trying to apply this to the parks I've mapped, and
it's just not working.

Palisades Park (2.5 sq. km) has two trails that are clearly "main".
However, they're both maintained as access roads for brush-fire trucks,
so I've mapped them as "highway=track" plus appropriate access tags.

Riverside State Park (30+ sq. km) has the headline Centennial Trail
that runs the length of the well-known part of the park.  However, it's
usually not the best (or most popular) way to reach any given section of
the other 90+ km of hiking trails.  It's also a "highway=cycleway,
surface=asphalt, foot=yes" rather than a hiking trail.

Slavin Conservation Area (2.5 sq. km) was intended to have a main loop
trail, but the wetland restoration project was a little too successful
and a section of the loop is now under water.  The trail network that
developed as a result does clearly have a "main" section, but it
doesn't reach the parking lot -- there are three routes of roughly
equal popularity to cover the kilometer from the parking lot to the
main trail.

I'm just getting started at Mount Spokane State Park (50+ sq. km), but
the official trail network is looking like a hub-and-spoke system,
where most of the hubs are parking lots (or former parking lots).
There are some trails that are "main" in the sense that I'll use them
when giving directions to a lost hiker, but that's due to their "can't
miss them" status rather than being the best, shortest, or most popular
route to go somewhere.

"trail=main" might work as a concept for smaller parks with a few
high-attraction features and a well-designed trail system, but for
larger parks, especially where the trail network evolved rather than
being designed, it doesn't.

-- 
Mark

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

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

[Mark Wagner]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 00:00:13 +0800
Michael Tsang  wrote:

> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/learner_driver
> 
> The proposed feature learner driver is to tag the legal access of a
> highway by a vehicle driven by a learner driver. It is similar to
> Key:access#Transport mode restrictions for tagging the legal access
> by transport mode.
> 

Are these restrictions something you'd see on signs, or is it something
you find by looking at the local law books?

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] reviving an abandoned proposal

[Mark Wagner]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 15:55:58 +0200
Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> 2016-07-23 15:21 GMT+02:00 ael :
> 
> > OTOH, some of the deep historic cuttings illustrated earlier don't
> > seem to me to fit the description hollow_way, which was perhaps the
> > point.
> >  
> 
> 
> yes, there are different kind of historic road tags around, e.g.
> historic=
> 
> roman_road 2540
> hollow_way 1462
> road 330
> ancient_road 86
> way 69
> Altstraße 67
> highway 52
> 
> this suggests people like being specific.
> 
> +1 to historic=hollow_way for actual hollow ways. -1 to cutting for
> hollow ways.

"highway=path" (or whatever) + "cutting=yes" + "historic=hollow_way"
seems like it would satisfy both likely sets of data consumers: those
who need to know what sort of terrain they're dealing with but don't
care how it got that way, and those who want to map the history of the
area.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=services & "Road Stations" - subtag requested.

[Mark Wagner]

On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 12:58:39 +
Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 25/01/2017 12:28, tomoya muramoto wrote:
> > I think "Michi-no-eki" is not a kind of highway=services,
> > because usually it does not have a car specific service, like a gas 
> > station or a car maintainance.
> >
> > A typical Michi-no-eki has
> > * local food shop
> > * cafe
> > * tourist information
> > * 24/7 parking and toilet  
> 
> In English, I'd call that a "rest area", personally.

In American, I'd call that a "travel plaza" (one with limited
services, since it doesn't have fuel). A "rest area" would have
parking, toilets, probably some picnic tables, usually a state highway
map, and perhaps a vending machine or two.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] landuse=industrial with industrial=port

[Mark Wagner]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 16:17:12 +0100
Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> 2017-02-22 15:01 GMT+01:00 Malcolm Herring
> :
> 
> > In general ports are not of singular usage. Some shipping services
> > may terminate at a particular port, but others may not. There may
> > also be differing service types carried on at one port.
> >
> > Therefore any attribute tags must allow for multiple values.
> >  
> 
> 
> OK, I was not sure, so I will change the cargo port types to several
> cargo handling capability tags (I had this already in mind, although
> the pictures I had looked at seemed to refer to quite specialized
> facilities). Is this applying to cruise ship / ferries as well? Are
> there fishing ports which also have cruise ships or ferries leaving /
> arriving? I haven't seen this so far, but my experiences with ports
> are somehow limited.
> 
> Maybe we could also have some capacity tags here? Like the maximum
> cargo / passengers a port is able to handle in a given time?
> 
> Are there mixed cargo / passenger ports? Of course you might find them
> close to each other, but wouldn't it make sense to map 2 ports in
> these cases, one for cargo and one for passengers?

Estimating from aerial photos, the Port of Seattle stretches along
about six miles of waterfront plus another five miles of the Duwamish
River.  It's got facilities for handling bulk cargo, containerized
cargo, oil, and natural gas.  It's got at least two cruise-line
terminals, three public marinas, a number of sightseeing-cruise docks,
one ferry dock (cars and passengers), at least one ro-ro dock for
trains, a coast-guard station, facilities to handle things like
airplane parts being shipped to Boeing, and I'm sure there's at least
one fish-processing plant in there somewhere.  There are at least two
drydocks, support docks for various specialist ships, what looks like a
gas station for freighters, and similar facilities.

A modern industrial port is a very complicated place.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] self-service laudry machines a camp and caravan sites

[Mark Wagner]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 10:28:17 +0900
John Willis  wrote:

> Javbw
> 
> Side note: 
> 
> I imagine laundromats could have a whole 
> 
> Laundromat:foobar=n  scheme. 
> 
> Laundromat:10kg_dryer=8
> Laundromat:20kg_dryer=2
> Laundromat:10kg_sidewasher=3
> Laundromat:20kg_sidewasher=1
> Laundromat:shoe_washer=1
> Laundromat:shoe_dryer=1 
> 
> Would be the closest laundromat to my house, Kg are approx. 

That wouldn't work too well in the US.  Here, capacities are
typically measured in notional "loads": the average laundromat would
have a large number of "single-load" machines, a few "double-load" or
"triple-load" machines, and possibly a side-loading "five-load" machine
for things like quilts or sleeping bags.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] lanes=3 + lanes:forward/backward=1 for "semi-divided" roads?

[Mark Wagner]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 23:39:00 -0500
Albert Pundt  wrote:

> Consider High Street in downtown Carlisle, PA. It is one lane each
> way, with a wide space as wide as a travel lane in the middle, but
> not used for anything such as a center turning lane. Tagging this
> with just lanes=2 seems wrong since it fails to take into account the
> lane width separating the two travel lanes, and since there is no
> raised physical divider, it doesn't seem right to mark it as a
> dual-carriageway road either. I've seen lanes=3 used along with
> lanes:forward=1 and lanes:backward=1, but that seems like it might be
> confusing.
> 
> What, if anything, is the proper way to tag roads like this?

I'd consider mapping it as a dual carriageway.  I don't know what the
law is in Pennsylvania, but here in Idaho, a doubled double-yellow
line is the legal equivalent of a physical barrier: you are not allowed
to drive across it for any reason.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging floodplain

[Mark Wagner]

In the United States, this is usually defined as the "X years
floodplain", indicating how frequently it's expected to flood.  For
example, the 100-year floodplain is the area around a river is the area
that's expected to flood an average of once every hundred years.

-- 
Mark

On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 12:48:10 +0200
Colin Smale  wrote:

> Where would the boundary be? How could we describe it objectively? In
> low lying areas such as the Netherlands there are sometimes so called
> winter dykes which give a sharp edge to the flood plain. Otherwise it
> would all be a bit vague around the edges. //colin
> 
> On 25 September 2016 12:30:50 CEST, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >There is a draft to tag floodplains using the key natural.
> >
> >
> >http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/floodplain
> >
> >
> >My thinking is that this would lead to conflicts with other
> >'natural' tags .. like natural=scrub than may be applied to the same
> >area.
> >
> >
> >So .. what would be the best key to use for this feature/value?
> >
> >I am thinking that as it is associated with a waterway (it must start
> >to 
> >flood from somewhere and that is usually a waterway) that the key 
> >waterway should be used. It would have rendering similar to a lake -
> >but 
> >'intermittent' so dashed lines rather than a solid colour.
> >
> >
> >Thoughts?
> >
> >
> >{There is presently flooding in some areas of Australia, why my
> >thoughts 
> >have turned to this. All too soon it will turn to bushfires}
> >
> >
> >___
> >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] Busways

[Mark Wagner]

On Sat, 5 Nov 2016 16:42:47 +0100
Tijmen Stam  wrote:

> On 03-11-16 11:55, Yves wrote:
> > @Tijmen, IMHO there is very little chance to convince people to
> > change the way we tag highways because of buses using them or not.
> > Yves  
> 
> This saddens me, because I don't propose to "change the way of
> tagging", but to "formalize the current main practice of tagging".
> As I have shown, highway=service is used about 7 times as much as 
> highway=unclassified, thereby diversifying the ways of tagging
> similar situations.

How sure are you that the situations are similar?  A bus-only driveway
giving access to a transit center and a bus-only road through a city
are both "access=no, psv=designated", but they're not similar sorts of
things.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] railway=rail vs. railway=subway

[Mark Wagner]

On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 07:45:04 -0800 (PST)
Michael Tsang  wrote:

> > I don't follow this.  light rail is about the cars being lighter and
> > perhaps the rails being built to a lower weight limit, and it isn't
> > about grade crossings.  Around me there is real rail with fll-sized
> > enginers and is fully freight capable that has level crossings.
> > Definteliy not light_rail because of crossings.  
> 
> I should clarify that the level crossing of light rails should be not
> actively protected, i.e. do not have fences which come down before
> the train passes. One of the major criteria between tram / light rail
> and metro / full-size train is the ability to run within other
> traffic.
> 
> Do you have any examples where a freight train have to wait for a red
> light at a street intersection, or runs on a stretch of street with
> motor traffic?

It's not a red light, but there's a stretch of Whitman Street in
Palouse, Washington, where a freight line runs down the middle of the
road.  No idea if the trains need to obey the stop signs, though.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a private/membership club

[Mark Wagner]

On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 13:22:48 -0500
Andrew Wiseman  wrote:

> Hey all,
> 
> Myself and a few other folks in the US have been looking into a way
> to tag private or membership clubs -- things like the Elks Club,
> Fraternal Order of Eagles, Veterans of Foreign Wars club (which are
> sometimes open to the public) and the fancier private clubs (called
> gentlemen's clubs in the UK) ones that are members-only, or members
> and their guests -- like the Yale Club, Cosmos Club, and so on in the
> US, for example. It seems like the wiki is not very clear.
> 
> club=* doesn't have anything specific about this:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:club and it seems to be more
> of the place where a meeting of a club happens, rather than a
> specific type of facility.
> 
> Taginfo says amenity=social_club only has two uses, but I don't think
> that's accurate, I've found about 10 uses myself just searching
> around for the American Legion, another type of these clubs
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/social_club#overview
> 
> American Legion, a widespread one in the US, is tagged variously as
> social facility, social centre, bar, social club and others just in a
> quick search. Social facility is common but seems wrong, as it's more
> for social services, while these places are more like a
> bar/restaurant where meetings and events are sometimes held -- but
> usually not open to the public, unless there's a concert or
> something. The club members often do charity work as well.
> 
> To me social_club seems like the best option but there's not
> agreement on the wiki. What do others think?

First, you're mis-interpreting the Taginfo results.  There are only two
"social_club=*" tags, but 500 "amenity=social_club" (as well as 498
"leisure=social_club", 2 "office=social_club", 2 "club=social_club",
and a scattering of "historic=", "disused:amenity=", and
"old_amenity=" tags).

Second, "amenity=social_club" sounds good to me.  It's what I've been
using for VFW posts, Moose lodges, and one strangely-placed Hells
Angels clubhouse.

-- 
Mark 

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

Re: [Tagging] Landuse=grass - boots on change to wiki

[Mark Wagner]

On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 12:28:37 +1100
Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Following on from the discussion on "Wrong use of
> landuse=village_green 
> - but what else to use?" and subsequently bring up the wiki on 
> landuse=grass I have made a major change to landuse=grass to what I 
> think it should be
> 
> 
> Some will be upset by this .. fine. However I think they are mapping
> a land cover ..not a land use.
> 
> 
> For instance green areas in roundabouts, highway medians  ... are
> used by the highway ... and should be tagged similar to railways ... 
> landuse=highway!
> 
> If the grassed area needs to be tagged then tag WHAT IS THERE ... 
> landcover=grass (or natural=grass) ... the land is use in a highway 
> situation to provide safety for the highway users .. it is not for
> the use of the grass!
> 

Are you volunteering to fix the two million now-incorrect uses of the
tag?

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Spillways

[Mark Wagner]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 10:44:17 +0900
John Willis  wrote:

> How do you tag an emergency spillway? 
> 
> I am tagging a giant flood control reservoir in my region. The “lake”
> is surrounded by giant man-made embankments on all sides, surrounded
> by an additional  set of embankments, with gates to let the water
> out. There is no dam per se, because there is ~200 km of this
> man-made 10-20m tall earthen embankment (levee) around the entire
> river system - it is part of that. 
> 
> When this levee system fails uncontrollably (like it did downstream
> from me in 2015), it is really bad.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hfs3OeqiqRk
>  
> 
> This reservoir system catches water during a typhoon from a smaller
> river, then releases it slowly after the peak flooding into the
> larger river. this reduces the chance of flooding further
> downstream.  
> 
> However, it has 2 sets of emergency spillways (each about 1Km long)
> to let water out of both sets of embankments, so where it “fails" can
> be controlled. it is 5 m lower than rest of the embankments
> surrounding the reservoirs. These were recently added. 
> 
> I made a polygon on one such spillway.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/481898093#map=14/36.2115/139.6880
>  .
> the heart-shaped lake is the reservoir, and most of the surrounding
> green areas are part of the flood control basin made by the second
> set of levees. 
> 
> These *emergency* spillways are considered safety features of most
> large water control projects - if the human-controlled gates o the
> normal spillway jam shut, the emergency spillways will keep the
> dam/embankments from being over-topped in unexpected places. I know
> these are a major mappable feature of large dams, but they are not
> mentioned on the Dam wiki page. Maybe I am looking at it wrong. 
> 
> As these are not a weir, nor a normal path for water to go, I
> wouldn’t tag them as a weir nor as a object normally associated with
> a waterway line running through it. 
> 
> is there an existing tag or another name for these features that I
> don’t know of? How do I tag these emergency spillways (and heck -
> these huge levee embankments!) correctly? 

For what it's worth, Oroville Dam
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/39.54412/-121.49263) currently
has its emergency spillway tagged as a weir.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] historic=tank and surprises with tags like car-sharing

[Mark Wagner]

On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 01:31:45 +0200
"André Pirard"  wrote:

> And what's the problem with tank anyway, is there anything like a
> historic liquid container anyway?

Yes: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/428396108

(Should probably be a "ruins=storage_tank", since it's not very
tower-like.)

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Orientation of an adit?

[Mark Wagner]

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 09:34:51 -0500
Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> I can just now hear, nevertheless, a chorus asserting that the
> information is available by other means and therefore does not belong
> in OSM. An adit or a cave entrance (that isn't a sinkhole) pretty
> much has to go into a hillside, and a waterfall or a dam flows
> downhill, so with information about local topography, the direction
> can be determined.

Thing is, the information *isn't* available by other means.  Adits
don't always go straight in -- of the two I'm aware of, both are at
rather sharp angles to the (very local) slope of the hill.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Day/night speed limits

[Mark Wagner]

On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 09:27:21 -0700
Tod Fitch  wrote:

> There are a number of roads in Arizona, and perhaps elsewhere, that
> have different speed limits for night vs day. You can see some
> examples with this search [1]. These are not based on wall clock time
> as they vary with the time of sunrise and sunset. Suggestions on how
> to tag the speed limits on the roads affected?

I've been using "maxspeed:conditional=65 mph @ (dusk-dawn)" for Montana
highway speed limits.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Waterways classification

[Mark Wagner]

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:13:57 +0200
Daniel Koć  wrote:

> Definition:
> 
> Classification of waterways using "stream order" systems
> 
> Proposal page:
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Waterways_classification
> 
> This is proposition of tagging "stream order" systems only. There can
> be other systems too, but this one is simple and used in cartography,
> so it's good to have a tagging standard for it.

Posted here because I'm tired of fighting ReCaptcha.  If someone who
has *real* wiki editing privileges could put it on the wiki talk page
signed as "Carnildo", I'd appreciate it.

None of the proposed methods of classifying waterways seems appropriate
for OSM:

* "Classic" can be determined from an incomplete data set, which makes
  it possible to add it to OSM.  But by the same token, an end-user can
  easily compute it from the OSM dataset, which means we shouldn't
  include it.  (We don't include things like the lengths of roads or
  the areas of farms for exactly this reason.)
* "Strahler" and "Shreve" require a complete set of a river's
  tributaries to compute.  The vast majority of OSM's river networks
  are incomplete, so unless a mapper has an ODbL-compatible outside
  source, they can't add correct information. In the cases where the
  network ''is'' complete, the same objection to the "classic" ordering
  applies.

Yes, we need a way of differentiating the Mississippi River from the
Elm River, or distinguishing a stream you can cross without breaking
stride from one where you're going to get your feet wet, but this isn't
it.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Power Tower Landuse = ?

[Mark Wagner]

On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 09:49:07 -0400
"Mark Bradley"  wrote:

> > Message: 1
> > Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2017 12:14:11 +0100
> > From: Philip Barnes 
> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> > 
> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Power Tower Landuse = ?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 4 July 2017 11:07:04 BST, Martin Koppenhoefer
> >  wrote:  
> > >2017-07-04 1:56 GMT+02:00 John Willis :
> > >  
> > >> it seems like other long-term infrastructure (power towers,  
> > >communication  
> > >> towers) are suggested to be landuse=industrial.
> > >>
> > >> I really think there should be some kind of subtag then, because
> > >> not  
> > >only  
> > >> can you define what and why you are tagging, but it allows
> > >> presets to  
> > >be  
> > >> easily created in iD and searched by new taggers.
> > >>
> > >> industrial=power, industrial=communication, etc.
> > >>  
> > >
> > >
> > >I agree that a formalization of industrial subtags would be really
> > >desirable. There are many different kind of things that get this
> > >same landuse property, e.g. warehouses, production facilities,
> > >logistical infrastructure (ports, distribution centres, ...).
> > >
> > >For the German context (but likely also for other places), there
> > >should be also a distinction for "light industry" (Gewerbe).
> > >
> > >Then it seems strange we don't have yet a standardized list of
> > >typical top level categories (e.g. automotive, textile,
> > >semiconductors, electronics, energy, machinery, mining, ...)
> > >  
> > The correct English term is pylon.
> > 
> > Although I am a little confused by the purpose of this thread, the
> > presence of pylons does not in my experience change the landuse, if
> > they cross farmland the land beneath them is still farmland or in
> > the case of this photo natural=wood.
> > 
> > https://flic.kr/p/V8pLyS
> > 
> > Phil (trigpoint)  
> 
> 
> 
> In American English most people would call the structure a tower, but
> according to the convention of OSM using British English, I would
> defer to the word "pylon."
> 
> I agree with you Phil; I don't think the small area under a pylon
> should have its own landuse.  I don't think most people think in
> terms of such a small area when they hear the term "landuse."  I
> think that giving a pylon area a separate landuse is overkill and
> misleading.

Just wondering: how would you tag something like this?
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.9591891,-118.9945941,334m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e4

It's a paved and fenced area measuring about 30 meters by 250 meters,
containing two heavily-braced pylons where a major powerline goes over
the crest of a hill.

Or this one, four tightly-spaced pylons carrying lines from Bonneville
Dam to the substation across the river:
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.6430068,-121.9514778,174m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e4

Some of these "small areas" are fairly substantial.  Yes, *most* pylons
don't need a separate landuse mapping, but some do.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

[Mark Wagner]

On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 16:37:52 +0200
Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> sent from a phone
> 
> > On 7. Aug 2017, at 10:51, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> > 
> > I agree that some sort of river classification might be helpful but
> > you cannot expect a mapper standing before a river to first analyse
> > a large dataset before they can find the right classification tag -
> > that would totally run counter of "on the ground verification".  
> 
> 
> I don't buy this argument because the situation for roads is the same
> and we do expect from mappers to analyze the network.

At least in developed countries, you can get an idea of a road's
classification in the network just by looking at how it's constructed.
I can stand beside Sprague Avenue, see that it's a one-way road with
five lanes, and judge that it's probably a primary road.  I can turn to
my right, see that Sunderland Court doesn't even have a stripe down the
middle, and know that it's about as minor as a road can get.

You can do the same in rural areas: US-195 near Steptoe has two wide
lanes, center and edge markings, and broad shoulders, so it's probably
a primary road.  In the same area, Hume Road has narrow lanes and no
shoulders, but at least it's paved and striped, so it's probably
tertiary.

You can't do the same with rivers.  The Clark Fork River and
the Colorado River have similar average flows, but the Colorado would
have a higher classification by any of the proposed measures.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] siphon underpass

[Mark Wagner]

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 15:40:23 +0200
Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> I am looking into how to tag a frequent feature in my area, i.e. a
> siphon underpass, known in Italian as "botte a sifone" or "botte
> sifone" and in French as "pont siphon". This is a non.connecting
> waterway crossing where the lower waterway passes through a U-shaped
> siphon. The bottom part of the U is a tunnel that is lower as the
> normal level of the waterway. Up to now I have mapped them as tunnel=
> yes, and more recently as tunnel=culvert, but they are so frequent,
> and different from a culvert, that I would like to start tagging them
> with tunnel=siphon_underpass. They are also used to pass
> non-navigable waterways under roads and other obstacles.
> There are hundreds or more in Northern Italy and I presume in other
> flat parts of the world where there are many artificial waterways. I
> remember to have seen them on drinking_water canals in California,
> but don't remember where.
> 
> I could not find any tagging schemes for this in OSM, but I may have
> missed them in ignorance of the proper technical terms.
> 
> A locally famous example dates from the 16. century: il ponte canale
> Montaigne:
> http://osm.org/go/0IA2uooQI?m=

The English term appears to be "siphon" (or "inverted siphon" if you're
being pedantic).  It's not always flat land, either: the Bacon Siphon[1]
carries the Columbia Basin Project's main irrigation canal across a
small canyon.

-- 
Mark

  [1]: http://digital.lib.uidaho.edu/cdm/ref/collection/crbproj/id/1039

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

Re: [Tagging] Time is now: tag ALL traffic signs in OSM

[Mark Wagner]

On Sun, 21 May 2017 22:23:12 +0900
John Willis  wrote:
> 
> Warning signs - not restriction signs - such as stop ahead, curve
> ahead, falling rock, animals, etc do present a chance for the
> presence of the sign's node to offer a notice to whatever is parsing
> the way Data and present that to the driver/user when in proximity to
> said warning. 
> 
> "Stop ahead" signs in Japan are really strong  in some places
> because perpendicular roads meet in rice fields where people may be
> used to being on the road with others stopping for them. Having the
> mapped sign *could* be beneficial to a way because the warning is
> usually for that spot.  
> 
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/javbw/11091338426/in/album-72157638113676925/
> 
> (To-ma-re, like putting S-T-O-P on 4 signs before the triangle-shaped
> stop sign) 
> 
> But even that could be a property of the way rather than inferred by
> the point proximity of the sign (because I assume the sign node  will
> be placed with precision not where it is actually located, rather
> than on road's way, because this is micromapping, after all) 

This use of warning signs runs into the problem that data consumers
don't have a good way of figuring out which signs go with which
directions of which roads.  Yes, the 90% solution is to say "the sign
is associated with the road it is closest to, and the direction of
travel corresponding to the side of the road it is on", but there are
exceptions, both common and unusual.

Probably the most common exception in the United States is "no
passing" signs (a common pattern is to have the sign on *both* sides of
the road, so that someone in the process of passing a large truck will
still see it), and the second-most-common is advisory speed limit signs
placed on the outside of the corresponding curve.  Various
clarification signs in close proximity to confusing intersections would
have issues with "which road" rather than "which direction".

Warning signs are something that data consumers could certainly make
use of, but we need some way of explicitly coding which direction of
which road they apply to.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] phone validity - phone "preset"

[Mark Wagner]

It would help even more if the editors understood local phone number
formats, and could automatically turn (202)-456-1414 or 041 58 460 55
11 into the appropriate international format.

-- 
Mark

On Tue, 5 Sep 2017 19:01:44 +
Lukas Sommer  wrote:

> It would likely yet help a lot if th editors would simply check if
> 
> - the number does not start with “+”
> - the number (after the starting “+” sign) contains other characters
> then digits, spaces (and maybe dashes).
> 
> This is quite simple and could nevertheless catch yet a lot of issues…
> 
> 2017-09-05 16:51 GMT, marc marc :
> > Hello,
> >
> > on the french-speaking mailing, a contributor noticed a high rate
> > of incorrect value for the tag "phone". the most common error is
> > using the national format number instead of the international
> > format.
> >
> > A monthly project 'll maybe fix some of those errors.
> > Some quality tool can help those fix.
> >
> > But the best would be to avoid the mistake when a user fill
> > in the data in iD, josm or whatever.
> >
> > Is anyone aware of a kind of "preset" that can be used for phone ?
> > Otherwise it would be useful to create with local communities a wiki
> > page containing a list of valid prefixes example + 322xxx is
> > valid, +331 also but 01 is not valid in France.
> > Or using something like
> > https://github.com/googlei18n/libphonenumber/
> > https://github.com/googlei18n/libphonenumber/blob/master/FAQ.md#where-do-we-get-information-from-to-determine-if-a-number-range-is-valid
> >
> > Would it also be useful to put a corrective suggestion?
> > for example 01 #+331
> >
> > Of course, I am not talking about the exact form of the list,
> > nor the fact that some countries will have a list,
> > while others not.
> > nor the difficulty when a poi has several corresponding numbers
> > attached several countries.
> > I 'm talking about the general guideline.
> >
> > The aim is not to forbid some values but to allow
> > common editor to guide the user to avoid a very common error.
> > ___
> > 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] How to tag "agricultural centers"

[Mark Wagner]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:26:38 +0300
Safwat Halaby  wrote:

> shop=garden_centre is already established.
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dgarden_centre
> 

This isn't a garden center.  A garden center is where you'd go to get a
half-kilo bag of pre-mixed fertilizer, or a tray of seedlings, or
similar small-scale items.  A farming-supply business is where you'd go
to get a tank-trailer of anhydrous ammonia, or a thousand kilos of
wheat seed, or the like.  They're simply not equipped for transactions
on a smaller-than-truckload scale.

Google Street View of a local example:
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6802384,-117.8791573,3a,70.9y,283.42h,84.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx7H1Ke3SsdEQ740SSg8oQw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m2!1e4!1e1

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping hotels on buildings or areas around buildings

[Mark Wagner]

On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 17:02:37 +0200
Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> sent from a phone
> 
> > On 29. Sep 2017, at 16:50, Bryan Housel 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > So if we collectively decide to change `tourism=*` tags to be
> > property outlines (like hospitals and schools),   
> 
> 
> +1, I’d see it like this for all “functions”, regardless of the key
> (amenity, man_made, tourism, shop, historic, etc.)

It's reasonable to map a hotel as any of

1) A point (the 35th through 40th floors of a skyscraper).

2) A building (a hotel that occupies a full city block, with various
attached amenities such as parking, swimming pool, restaurant inside
the building).

3) An area (a hotel consisting of two disconnected towers, with an
outdoor swimming pool, an associated restaurant in its own building,
surrounded by parking lots).

I've seen all three situations.  (I've also seen their counterparts for
schools.)  A reasonable solution would be to say that your "function"
tags *can be* property outlines rather than buildings, not that they
*are* outlines rather than buildings.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Additional sub tags for survey mark

[Mark Wagner]

On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 09:25:52 +1100
Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 21-Nov-17 04:12 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 21 November 2017 at 12:48, Andrew Harvey
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure, I've only seen two types the brass disk in the
> > footpath, gutter, road etc. and the rock or cement pillar with a
> > plate on top, sometimes with a black mental circle which can be
> > seen from a distance. Your proposed tags provides a way to
> > distinguish these.
> >
> >
> > Sometimes slight variation in that the disk has been set into a 
> > concrete block on a hill etc, but the same for mapping purposes.
> >  
> 
> I am reminded of Cameron's Corner where a concrete pillar has been 
> erected with a large brass plaque on to reporting it as the junction
> of 3 Australian states.
> In fact this is a tourist attraction and not the true survey mark.
> The true survey mark was subject to vandalism/souvenir and has been
> hidden to prevent further costs.
> For this reason I would support not rendering benchmarks.

Most survey marks are not of interest to anybody other than surveyors,
much less tourists seeking to take them as souvenirs.  There are only a
few places such as Cameron's Corner, or Four Corners in the US, where
theft would be a problem.

If anyone wants to steal a National Geodetic Survey marker, the NGS
website provides a complete map of them at
https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/NGSDataExplorer/

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Additional sub tags for survey mark

[Mark Wagner]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 10:47:30 +1100
Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> There have been attempts in the past to add sub tags to 
> man_made=survey_point 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dsurvey_point
> 
> To me there are 2 'types'. they are quite different;
> 
> Triangulation (or 'trig point') that are visible over quite some
> distance (say over 2 km), used to triangulate a position without
> having to go to the mark. Usually a pole standing on top of a
> rise/hill.
> 
> Benchmarks that are visible on the surface but cannot be sighted at
> any distance. They can be small brass plaques fastened to the ground
> or engraved into stone. These are used by surveyors by placing a
> tripod over the mark, thus have to be locally approached.
> 
> If consideration is given to
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/Categories_of_Objects#Control_Points_.28CATCTR.29
> 
> then expanding survey_point in a similar manner could be
> 
> survey_point:configuration=triangulation/benchmark
> 
> I use 'configuration' rather then 'type' or 'category' as it is more
> specific as to what is meant.
> 
> Any thoughts?
> Are there any other configurations?

Survey marks in the US tend to come in three types:

1) Benchmarks, which are typically a bronze disk solidly attached to
the top of something.  Both the horizontal and vertical positions are
usually well-surveyed.
2) Vertical control points, which are typically a bronze disk affixed
to the side of something.  The vertical position is well-surveyed, but
the horizontal position is only recorded well enough to let a surveyor
find it.
3) Reference marks.  Typically, a bronze disk attached to something
that gives directions to a nearby survey mark.  The position isn't
recorded beyond what's needed to find it, if that.

(There are also horizontal control points, but these tend to be things
like flagpoles and smokestacks which have been surveyed and documented
for use as survey marks.)

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Metro Mapping

[Mark Wagner]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 13:23:47 +0100
Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> IMHO you should try to solve it on a political/administrative level,
> rather than map this particular shortcoming in OSM.

One of the things I like about OSM is that it maps the world as it is,
not the world as the map-maker wishes it was.  I've spent enough time
trying to follow hiking trails that a park manager wished they had the
funds to build, or being side-tracked by logging roads they wished
didn't exist to really appreciate a reality-based map.

If you can't go from Line 1 to Line 6 in a wheelchair without paying,
*map it*.  Sure, a policy change would be ideal, but until it's
changed, map things as they are, not as you wish they were.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] winter tyres

[Mark Wagner]

On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 09:03:16 +0100
Michal Fabík  wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 10:29 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > possibly something like 'motor_vehicle:conditional=winter_equipment
> > @ winter'  
> 
> Technically, this looks fine, but is it really necessary to specify
> that winter equipment is required in winter? Besides, I'm not sure
> about the precise meaning of "winter" when using the opening times
> syntax, but in many countries, the restriction applies roughly from
> mid-autumn to mid-spring. If a consumer decides to interpret "winter"
> literally (21st Dec - 20 Mar), it's going to be off by a long margin.

"Winter" is quite useful for situations where the times *aren't*
precise.  For example, roads around here come in three varieties:

1) Those maintained for winter travel.  In the cases I'm aware of,
winter equipment is only legally required when a sign beside the road
says so.

2) Those that are explicitly closed during the winter.  This closure
generally extends from the first deep snowfall to whenever the road
department can schedule a snowplow to go through in the spring.  It's
impossible to give precise dates for this.

3) Those not maintained for winter travel (and generally signed that
way).  It's legal to travel on one of these roads at any time, but a
wheeled vehicle is likely to get stuck, and you won't get a tow-truck
to pull you out until spring, making it a de-facto closure.  Unlike the
explicitly closed roads, these don't get plowed in spring, so the
effective opening date is wildly variable (and varies between vehicles).

A way of expressing "this road is impassible during a vaguely-defined
period of time" is quite useful to cover cases (2) and (3), while
"winter equipment may be required at certain unknown-in-advance times"
would be useful to cover case (1).

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] confusing wiki on emergency

[Mark Wagner]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 10:44:09 +
Adam Snape  wrote:

> Might access tags for emergency service personnel be a solution for a
> non-existant problem? Are there really many places which the emergency
> services are explicitly legally prohibited from accessing?

There may not be legal prohibitions, but there certainly are physical
ones.  A jersey barrier doesn't care if you're driving an ambulance.

There are also situations where it's helpful to make it explicit that
emergency vehicles have access.  For example, local motorways have
crossover roads connecting the two sides that are designated for use by
emergency vehicles only.  It's useful to have a way of expressing that.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] opening_hours:sign=no - RFC

[Mark Wagner]

On Thu, 24 May 2018 09:23:43 +1000
Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Most websites have some copyright thing .. that makes some nervous.
> I usually only tag things that interest me, and stuff I like to
> support.

In the United States, at least, opening hours are uncopyrightable.  You
can only copyright creative expression, not facts, and "Joe's
Barbershop is open 9 to 5 on weekdays" is about as "fact" as you can
get.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Feature Proposal - Voting - Dog poop area (dog_toilet)

[Mark Wagner]

On Sun, 10 Jun 2018 14:50:33 +0200
joost schouppe  wrote:

> I've removed the reference to "pets", however in the real world dog
> toilets are the actual thing and any pet willing to use it is
> allowed. So I' don't really see the problem.
> 
> The four options could be moved somewhere else; I just left them for
> reference. What should I do with them? I'd hate to just delete it.
> 
> I could not find a decent open licensed picture, but here's a
> not-so-good Mapillary shot:
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=50.851731=4.343399=17=photo=QXnwWxC2cNEp2fGim9PEvQ=0.4984805493143327=0.6635432755750141=0
> 
> And here's a decent random picture I found:
> http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2420/844/320/Hondentoilet.jpg
> 
> If anyone finds something better, let me know or add it yourself.

A picture I took many years ago (and why I prefer the tag "pet_toilet":
https://imgur.com/2658fkr

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

[Mark Wagner]

On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:04:57 +0100
Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> sent from a phone
> 
> > On 3. Jan 2018, at 23:06, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > I have moved some disused:railway=* from OSM to OHM as railway=*
> > with start and end dates .. that records what was there then, not
> > its present state ...  
> 
> 
> disused:railway is about something that is there (a disused railway
> element like tracks or a station), abandoned:railway is also about
> disused railways, but in a state of degradation (e.g. trees growing
> between the tracks). razed railways would typically not be mapped in
> osm, as they are no longer there. IIRR there is also the proposed
> concept of dismantled railways where the tracks are removed but it is
> still perceivable as former railway (e.g. embankments and tunnels,
> bridges). While disused and abandoned are states that are not
> disputed for inserting in osm (afaik), dismantled and razed are.
> Personally I’d accept dismantled railways as long as there is
> something, even if it requires additional knowledge or experience to
> understand that what you see is a former railway.

Where do you draw the line between "there" and "not there" for a former
railroad?

1. A railroad, still with tracks, with grass growing between the rails.
You can't tell if it's been used recently or not.
2. A railroad, still with tracks, that's been overgrown by brush and
small trees.  It clearly hasn't been used in the past few years.
3. A gravel railbed with occasional maintenance debris (discarded
spikes, cracked signal footings, rotted ties).
4. A railroad right-of-way that has had the ballast removed and
replaced by asphalt, turning it into a bicycle route.
5. A cutting through a rock outcropping leading to a collapsed tunnel.
Any residual ballast has been buried by wind-blown dirt and overgrown
by trees.
6. A curved line stretching two miles through a city without a single
building crossing it.
7. A railroad whose only remnant is a line on a topographic map dating
from 1901.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Let's get (quite) rid of units and their multiples in OSM values

[Mark Wagner]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 22:33:10 +0200
François Lacombe  wrote:

> Well okay
> Given problem is how can we query maxspeed like :
> [Maxspeed>25] ?  
>

Which situation do we want to optimize for?  The rare case, or the
common case?

It's common to want to document legal restrictions such as "speed limit
25 miles per hour", "no trucks over 2.5 meters tall", or "maximum
weight 3500 kilograms".  It's rare to want to query ranges of speeds,
heights, or weights, particularly without regard to the units in use in
a given country.

We should make it easy for people to enter and interpret these legal
restrictions, and if it means query software gets a bit more
complicated, so be it.  For every person who wants to find roads
worldwide with speed limits greater than 25 km/h, there are probably
a thousand who don't want to deal with making sure the rounding is
correct when displaying US speed limits in miles per hour.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a way with several conditional access restrictions

[Mark Wagner]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 21:48:36 +0200
SelfishSeahorse  wrote:

> Note that the wiki states that wheelchair=* should be used instead of
> disabled=*. However, I think this is wrong: wheelchair=* gives
> information whether something is suitable for wheelchair users, while
> disabled=* gives information about its legal access.

"disabled=" has a clear parallel to the "capacity:disabled=" tag used
with parking lots, which is another point in favor of it.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Upcoming removal of power=station and power=sub_station in the standard style

[Mark Wagner]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 10:27:01 +1100
Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 23/10/18 05:04, Yves wrote:
> > Daniel, Mateusz and others: if nobody care to review those sub 
> > stations, this means they need care.
> > That's more a concern than an old tag in the DB.
> > You want them re tagged, then advertise for this and bring other 
> > people into this, like in 'build a community' .
> > Or do it automatically and let them rot.  
> 
> If nobody cares then a simply auto edit. These same nobodies will not 
> care if any errors of the past get replicated into the future.
> 
> Of the ones I have just reviewed, some 56 of them - 2 were potential 
> errors .. one looks to have been caused by an automatic edit that was 
> then incorrectly reverted .. not certain what happens there! There
> other looks to be a human error .. a turning circle and a substation
> on the same node?
> 
> So about a 4% error rate if unchecked. It is a small sample size ..
> so an error rate of, say, 8% could be forecast?

4-8% seems about right.  Of the 29 "power=station" that I just checked,
two are probably substations, but might be small-scale generating
plants instead, while two didn't look like part of the power
infrastructure at all.  Since I couldn't tell from aerial imagery what
the correct tag was, I left all four at the clearly incorrect
"power=station" so that a future user could easily identify what needs
work.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Wastewater Plants

[Mark Wagner]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 08:20:03 -0700
Clifford Snow  wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 6:05 AM Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> >
> > It has the disadvantage that it doesn't make sense.  At least not
> > to me, as a native speaker of
> > British English (which is the normal language for defining OSM
> > tags) and as somebody who
> > doesn't work in sanitation.  Maybe a British sanitation engineer
> > would use basin or a non-British
> > speaker would use basin but I most definitely would not.
> >
> > Firstly, I don't think of a settling tank or clarifier as a basin.
> > A porcelain object for washing hands
> > in a bathroom is a basin and a geological depression in which water
> > collects is a basin, and a
> > man-made depression for holding water might be a basin but a
> > clarifier isn't.  I can see the
> > commonalities in all of those but a clarifier just isn't a basin.
> > Other than bathroom porcelain,
> > a basin requires a depression in the ground.
> >  
> 
> There are some wastewater treatment facilities that use settling
> basins. The ones I've mapped all use more advanced technology. Where
> I have heard of settling basins is those used by large farm
> operations. The one that comes to mind is during the flooding in the
> US Southeast where pig farmers settling basins were covered by flood
> waters which resulted in tons of waste flowing into the area.
> 
> If the wastewater plant used settling basins then they should be
> mapped as such. But as I said, all of the plants I've seen use
> clarifiers and digesters.

You should visit the other side of the state, then.  Virtually every
small town here has a group of two to six settling ponds, usually on the
downwind side.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Another multipolygon question

[Mark Wagner]

On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 09:49:57 -0500
Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> Not only legitimate,  but recommended!
> 
> If you haven't stumbled on it yet, another useful procedure is to map
> areas of landuse use or landcover by drawing each border only once,
> and having each area be a multipolygon with the shared border way as
> a member. With that approach there's no need to retrace an irregular
> boundary. You just add it to the multipolygon on either side.

Works great, right up until you need to maintain it.  So, you've got
your "natural=wood" multipolygon sharing a way with an adjoining
"natural=scrub".  And then, some inconsiderate developer bulldozes his
way across the boundary and puts up a housing development.  Now what do
you do?  You can't unglue the boundary and shrink the two affected
areas to make room for the "landuse=residential" because there's only
one way.

The only option I've found is to remove the affected section of
boundary from one of the multipolygons, move it to the new location,
create a new boundary way for the other multipolygon in the proper
place and add it, create a new multipolygon for the development and add
the relevant boundary ways to it, and then confirm that you haven't
broken any of the multipolygons involved.  It's painful enough that
it's usually faster and easier just to delete everything and re-create
them from scratch as ordinary closed ways.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Mark Wagner]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 20:19:58 +0200
SelfishSeahorse  wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 19:34, Martin Koppenhoefer
>  wrote:
> >  
> > > I think it's better to stick to either a common or a technical
> > > definition.  
> >
> >
> > it doesn’t have to be the British definition of terms, has it?  
> 
> It would already be helpful if there actually were a common definition
> to distinguish masts from towers.
> 
> By the way, i've written a message to the person who added the
> definition to the wiki that 'a tower is accessible and provides
> platforms, whereas a mast only offers ladder steps to climb it' [1]
> and asked him where this definition comes from and what 'accessible'
> exactly means (a ladder also provides access).

I suspect it comes from observing European-style radio towers (for
example, Fernsehturm Berlin[1]).  The confusion comes from the fact
that these are virtually unknown outside of Europe and Asia -- there's
only one in the Western Hemisphere, and none in Africa.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernsehturm_Berlin

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] My "weirdly unnatural aversion to relations"

[Mark Wagner]

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 17:01:33 +0100
Paul Allen  wrote:

> Even if a multipolygon can have many disconnected outers, it seems
> I'd have to make each university
> building an outer.  And then there are no inners.  So even if it can
> be done that way, it seems like
> an abuse of the concept, which I thought was to be able to punch
> exclusionary holes in areas.

"Many outers, few if any inners" is a *very* common way to map
complicated geometry.  A quick look at my local area shows a half-dozen
parks, a campground, a school, and a military base, as well as a town
that would be such a multipolygon if the "boundary" type didn't exist.

Punching holes in an area is a common use of multipolygons, because it
can't be done any other way, but it's hardly the only use.

(It's also very common outside of OSM.  My county's land-ownership
database has thousands of these, where a parcel is split by the
right-of-way for a public road.)

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Greengrocer vs grocery vs shop=food?

[Mark Wagner]

No.  Sometimes, all I know about a store is what it says on the sign
out front.  If the store calls itself "Empire Foods", it's a good bet
it sells food.

-- 
Mark

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:04:39 +0900
Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:

> Highway=road and building=yes are used when adding features based on
> satellite imagery.
> 
> If you know that a shop sells “food”, you can also say if it sells
> fresh food or nonperishables or prepared food, no?
> 
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 12:42 PM Daniel Koć  wrote:
> 
> > W dniu 11.10.2018 o 05:08, John Willis pisze:  
> > > the definition of shop=food is way way way to vague to have
> > > meaning. it needs to be much narrower.
> > >
> > > it is like shop=goods. we don’t need that either.  
> >
> > It's much more precise than shop=yes (which is used a lot) and I
> > know what food is, even if I don't know shop type details.
> >
> > We also use building=yes and highway=road and we need them. They are
> > very useful to not cheat that a mapper knows more than she really
> > does. It's always better to have more precise data, but declining
> > more general categories is not a way to achieve this, it's just
> > sweeping problem under the rug.
> >
> > --
> > "Excuse me, I have some growing up to do" [P. Gabriel]
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] maxspeed:type vs source:maxspeed // StreetComplete

[Mark Wagner]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 08:09:12 +0200
Florian Lohoff  wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:24:00AM -0700, Mark Wagner wrote:
> > My point is that no such guarantee exists for roads without speed
> > limit signs.  Yes, the numeric limit for something like Glenwood
> > Road might be 50 mph, but the road was designed around farm trucks
> > going no more than 20 mph, and has the tight curves, short sight
> > lines, and poor surface quality you'd expect for that speed.  
> 
> Sign posted speeds dont are not telling you "this is the speed which
> is safe for 100% of the vehicles" but this is the maximum allowed. 
> You are still required to drive safely.

That's not what I said.  To repeat, my point is that, at least locally,
a signposted speed limit *is* a guarantee that, for an ordinary vehicle
traveling under ordinary conditions, the speed is reasonable.  An
unsigned speed limit, on the other hand, does *not* carry that
guarantee.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] maxspeed:type vs source:maxspeed // StreetComplete

[Mark Wagner]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 13:54:47 +0200
Tobias Zwick  wrote:

> This does not present a problem:
> 
> > The first set  
> 
> Well, as you write yourself, they may be authorized to set own speed
> limits, but they need to signpost it.
> 
> > The second  
> 
> So these are the type of regulations I mean with "default speed
> limits".
> 
> > The third law  
> 
> As Martin Koppenhoefer stated on another discussion branch, this kind
> of paragraph in legislation is not specific to the US. All/most
> legislations have a sentence like this - it only differs how a breach
> of this is persecuted. But well, Martin Koppenhoefer and Colin Smale
> already wrote what there is to say about it.

RCW 46.61.405, 46.61.410, and 46.61.415 all require that an engineering
study be performed before setting the speed limit.  Thus, for the vast
majority of roads with signed limits, a highway engineer has determined
that the signed limit is a "reasonable and prudent" speed under
ordinary conditions.

My point is that no such guarantee exists for roads without speed limit
signs.  Yes, the numeric limit for something like Glenwood Road might
be 50 mph, but the road was designed around farm trucks going no more
than 20 mph, and has the tight curves, short sight lines, and poor
surface quality you'd expect for that speed.

--
Mark

> On 19/09/2018 07:15, Mark Wagner wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 20:36:06 +0200
> > Tobias Zwick  wrote:
> >   
> >> From your anecdote, it seems, an implicit speed limit tagging
> >> scheme is even more important in the US than for example in the
> >> UK  
> > 
> > In my part of the US, a meaningful implicit speed limit tagging
> > scheme is impossible, due to the three sets of laws regarding speed
> > limits.
> > 
> > The first set is RCW 46.61.405, 46.61.410, 46.61.415, and 46.61.419,
> > which give various people the authority to set signed speed limits,
> > obedience to which is required by RCW 46.61.050.
> > 
> > The second is RCW 46.61.400(2), which establishes default speeds of
> > 25 MPH on city streets, 50 MPH on county roads, and 60 MPH on state
> > highways.  This would seem rather comprehensive, except for:
> > 
> > The third law: RCW 46.61.400(1).  "No person shall drive a vehicle
> > on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent
> > under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential
> > hazards then existing."
> > 
> > As a highway engineer pointed out to me recently, most county roads,
> > especially unpaved ones, are designed around a speed limit of
> > "reasonable and prudent".  The 50 MPH limit established by RCW
> > 46.61.400(2)(b) simply sets a firm upper boundary; it's quite
> > possible to get a speeding ticket at a lower speed.
> > 
> > Sure, you can put a number on any road.  But for most rural roads
> > without speed-limit signs, the number is unrelated to how fast you
> > can drive on that road.
> >   
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Trailhead tagging

[Mark Wagner]

On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 20:57:04 +0100
Peter Elderson  wrote:

> Copying from an earlier response: Designated starting point for
> multiple routes into a nature area.  There is a designed marking pole
> or stele, information boards, seats or benches, free parking space
> nearby. This one is in a small village:
> https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.4336993,6.834158,3a,75y,191.07h,84.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sby0P5NTeyqR3fyrgDNqCOA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
> 
> Here is another one, with emphasis on Parking. On the left behind the
> parking is the actual access point to the trails.
> https://www.google.nl/maps/@51.6284198,5.0889629,3a,76.4y,32.53h,96.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy3HdYWJ2zZ1rw1ozqJyrXw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
> 
> The operators are governmental bodies. They publish the lists on
> recreation websites. Each province has its own list. VVV of course
> lists/presents them as well.
> 
> These points are designed for trail access.
> 

There's a definite disconnect in definitions here.

Looking at "Nationaal Park De Loonse en Drunense Duinen", there are
nearly a dozen places that that I would probably call trailheads:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63153/5.06300
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.65683/5.07140
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.65623/5.08233
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.66740/5.08273
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.67192/5.07931
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.66658/5.14424
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.65640/5.15269
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63970/5.14803
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63535/5.11149
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63125/5.09456
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.62901/5.08933

only two of which appear to be designated as such.  I also found
about as many locations where I'd expect to find a trailhead, informal
or otherwise.

Compare to the main section of Riverside State Park, a park in the
western United States of comparable size and urban-ness, with nine named
trailheads and about a dozen unnamed ones:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/47.7429/-117.5226

None of them meets the Netherlands definition of a trailhead.   Sontag
Park trailhead probably comes the closest, lacking only a marking
pole/stele.  The rest are paid parking, and most of them lack benches
and information boards as well as markers.

(Incidentally, if you insist on "starting point" rather than "access
point", only two of them are trailheads: Nine Mile, the starting point
for the Spokane Centennial Trail, and the equestrian-area trailhead,
starting point for 25-Mile Trail.)

-- 
Mark


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

Re: [Tagging] Creating shop=caravan

[Mark Wagner]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 11:59:35 +
Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 at 22:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick
>  wrote:
> 
> > Wow, so much for me naively thinking that caravan was a universal
> > word! Should know better by now :-)
> >  
> 
> Yeah, where are the camels?  It's not a proper caravan without camels.
> 
> Have a question about searching though, which was raised previously.
> You
> > have a place that deals in both (self-propelled) "motorhomes" & also
> > (towed) "caravans", & it's tagged as a shop=caravan, with
> > caravan=yes & also motorhome=yes (ignoring the exact wording for
> > the moment). 
> 
> If you search for motorhome, will it be found because the details
> include
> > motorhome=yes, or would you have to search for caravan, because
> > it's tagged as a shop=caravan? (Sorry, I know that's badly worded
> > but can't think of a better way of putting it)
> >  
> 
> Having thought about it some more, and using shop=mobile_home as the
> main tag (I know you
> don't like it, but I do), then
> mobile_home:sells=static_caravan;touring_caravan;motor_home.  Yes,
> I just mixed UK and US terms there, but it was about the best I could
> come up with on a first
> attempt (no doubt we will spend weeks arguing over those).  Maybe we
> ought to have
> "caravan" and "static_caravan."

If you use "shop=mobile_home" as the top-level tag, it'll almost never
be tagged correctly in the United States.  In the US, a
"shop=mobile_home" is this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6569665,-117.1913666,3a,75y,178.32h,84.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su-rt9eFWO6uME-Fp1q55pw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m2!1e4!1e1

not this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@47.7544292,-117.3971911,3a,75y,94.69h,83.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_nrIACSV63imX4CAPXUfWg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m2!1e1!1e4

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

[Mark Wagner]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 15:21:28 -0600
Paul Johnson  wrote:

> Not to mention in practice, this is something of a misnomer for most
> tribes in the US.  WaPo has an op-ed
> 
> about a pending SCOTUS case on this, that has a nonzero chance of
> redrawing state lines and affecting national autonomy for tribes..

The Supreme Court is pretty good at avoiding rulings with this sort
of broad effect, while still having the desired outcome for the
individuals involved. See, for example, the ruling in Hollingsworth v.
Perry and the refusal to review various related circuit-court decisions,
before a circuit split forced them to take up Obergefell v. Hodges.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

[Mark Wagner]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 09:55:11 +0900
Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:

> > do you mean, 1) it is impossible to invent a tag for it which better
> > describes its nature, or 2) that nobody has yet invented and
> > documented such a tag?
> >  
> 
> 1) is probably not possible
> 2) would be good
> I’m just not able to think of any examples.

Yellowstone National Park has attracted a fair few bare
"tourism=attraction" objects.  How would you tag the following:

* Boiling River and Firehole Swimming Area, naturally-heated stretches
  of river that are popular for swimming.

* Petrified Tree, a large, petrified section of tree trunk.

* Soda Butte, the rock formation left behind by a long-extinct geyser.

* Norris Geyser Basin, Upper Geyser Basin, Artist Paint Pots, Fountain
  Paint Pots, and other named groups of thermal features.

* Roaring Mountain, a hillside that contains a large number of steam
  vents.

All of these are well-known, named places in the park, and any
reasonable park map needs to include them. Upper Geyser Basin in
particular is the main reason people come to the park (it's the one
that contains Old Faithful).

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Creating shop=caravan

[Mark Wagner]

On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 07:54:00 +1000
Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:

> Possibly something like caravan:type=caravan / motorhome / Winnebago /
> camper trailer etc, but then you get to the problem of what is
> difference between a camper van, motorhome & Winnebago?

In the (US) industry, the terminology for self-propelled RVs is "Class
A", "Class B", and "Class C":

Class A: An integrated unit with the driving area being part of the
living area, usually built on a custom or bus chassis.  I think this
corresponds to your "Winnebago".

Class B: Sometimes referred to as a "van conversion", this, as the
name implies, usually uses a full-sized van as the starting point for
construction. I think this corresponds to your "camper van".

Class C: Built on a truck chassis with little or no connection between
the driving and living areas.  I think this corresponds to your
"motorhome".

On the non-self-propelled side of things, the split is (roughly) "Fifth
wheel", "travel trailer", and "popup".

Fifth wheel: Connects to the tow vehicle via a fifth-wheel hitch.
Usually the largest and heaviest trailers.

Travel trailer: A hard-sided trailer that connects to the tow vehicle by
a ball hitch.

Popup: A collapsible, usually soft-sided trailer that connects to the
tow vehicle by a ball hitch.

The self-propelled/non-self-propelled split is important enough to be
worth tagging.  It's also, at least in the US, very common for a dealer
to sell one or the other, but not both.  On the other hand, it's very
common for a dealer to sell both Class A and Class C units, or both
fifth-wheels and travel trailers.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] landuse=landfill : for regular/irregular ones

[Mark Wagner]

On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 18:41:19 +
Sérgio V.  wrote:

> Many times in Brazil we found irregular landuse=landfill for urban
> waste disposals. Many times they are simple trash grounds uncontroled.
> Guess only 10% of them in Brazil are regularized.
> 
> There are 2 fundamental classes according to its situation:
> A) "Sanitary Landfill" (in Brazil "Aterro Sanitário") : regular;
> officiall, controled, made according to health and environmental
> standards; B) Simple "dumping grounds" ("Lixão") : irregular;
> unofficial and uncontroled, poluting waterways and underground
> waters, soil, etc.
> 
> Perhaps it's not common in Europe to have this distinction. But I
> suppose it's the default situation in most of the rest of the world.
> I've seen in sattelite images many similars in many other parts of
> the underdeveloped world, it's easy to find it around - or inside -
> urban areas. They are not covered with any protective materials like
> successive regular layers of soil, but just open air trashes.
> 
> We've been talking many times in Brazil that we would need a tag (or
> sub-tag) to them, they are well known and distinguished. How could we
> tag this important difference? I think that using "landuse=landfill"
> + "landfill=regular/irregular" would be pretty enough. Would it be ok?
> 
> Or perhaps  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landfill:waste
> landfill:waste=regular/irregular?
> But seems it's for specifying the materials on waste, and not for the
> condition of the landfill, its official environmental control.

Would adding "informal=yes" to the dumping grounds work?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:informal

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag access restriction on interstate highway crossovers?

[Mark Wagner]

On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 18:06:26 -0500
Xavier  wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 11:38:26PM +0100, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> >On Sun, 30 Dec 2018, 22:31 Xavier  >> By "interstate highway crossovers" I mean small bits of road that
> >> connect the two carriage ways of a US interstate highway and are
> >> signed as "Authorized Vehicles Only" (at least in Virginia they
> >> are signed this way).
> >>
> >> An example is here:
> >>
> >> http://openstreetcam.org/details/1253343/475/track-info
> >>
> >> ...  
> >What about
> >access=emergency
> >?  
> 
> That could work, except it is marked "Abandoned" in the wiki:
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/emergency_vehicle_access
> 
> emergency vehicle access
> Status: Abandoned (inactive)

Doesn't mean it's not in use.  According to TagInfo, "access=emergency"
has 2700 uses, while the related "emergency=yes" has 66,500.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] maxspeed:type vs source:maxspeed // StreetComplete

[Mark Wagner]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 20:36:06 +0200
Tobias Zwick  wrote:

> From your anecdote, it seems, an implicit speed limit tagging scheme
> is even more important in the US than for example in the UK

In my part of the US, a meaningful implicit speed limit tagging scheme
is impossible, due to the three sets of laws regarding speed limits.

The first set is RCW 46.61.405, 46.61.410, 46.61.415, and 46.61.419,
which give various people the authority to set signed speed limits,
obedience to which is required by RCW 46.61.050.

The second is RCW 46.61.400(2), which establishes default speeds of
25 MPH on city streets, 50 MPH on county roads, and 60 MPH on state
highways.  This would seem rather comprehensive, except for:

The third law: RCW 46.61.400(1).  "No person shall drive a vehicle on a
highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the
conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then
existing."

As a highway engineer pointed out to me recently, most county roads,
especially unpaved ones, are designed around a speed limit of
"reasonable and prudent".  The 50 MPH limit established by RCW
46.61.400(2)(b) simply sets a firm upper boundary; it's quite possible
to get a speeding ticket at a lower speed.

Sure, you can put a number on any road.  But for most rural roads
without speed-limit signs, the number is unrelated to how fast you can
drive on that road.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] I have been tagging mosques wrong all along

[Mark Wagner]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 09:38:09 +1100
Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 24/03/19 21:15, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> > sent from a phone
> >  
> >> Am 23.03.2019 um 15:12 schrieb Jean-Marc Liotier :
> >>
> >> Mosque complex: tag the whole plot (often the perimeter is also
> >> barrier=wall): amenity=place_of_worship + religion=muslim
> >>
> >> So, no landuse=religious anymore at all and no building=mosque for
> >> the buildings inside a mosque complex (building=yes - or, for the
> >> adventurous, multipart buildings with distinct minaret and dome)  
> >
> > +1, I’ve always considered landuse=religious unnecessary, specific
> > features will have religion=*  
> 
> 
> So the parking lot associated with a church has a religion? :)

Certainly:
https://www.google.com/search?q=violators+will+be+baptized=isch

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Grain Storage Centre

[Mark Wagner]

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 16:38:56 +
Philip Barnes  wrote:

> On Friday, 5 April 2019, Richard Welty wrote:
> > On 4/5/19 11:19 AM, Cédric Mélac wrote:  
> > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Grain_Storage_Centre
> > > Defintion: A large site with many silos and barns which
> > > concentrates crops from farms around before selling at best
> > > prices.  
> > 
> > these are commonly called Elevators in the US. i don't know what
> > british usage is.  
> 
> British usage is silo.
> 
> They are in my experience, I live in a rural area, found on
> individual farms rather than in any facility. Farms will tend to
> store grain themselves. 
> 
> Farming around here, certainly arable, is on an industrial scale. I
> imagine these are associated with  co-operatives and relatively small
> farms.
> 

American English grain elevator:
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.7591426,-118.5290499,3a,74.6y,153.92h,101.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSQUMNc9VimuAS_gMyyJmog!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1

American English silo (a small one, and probably not used for storing
grain. Places that have standalone silos tend not to be places that
have Google StreetView):
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.0046952,-117.3503996,3a,28.2y,217.27h,89.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sthnyTWcsvnaxCW6uM7Xe_w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Runway Holding Positions

[Mark Wagner]

On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 13:27:23 -0400
Steven Estes  wrote:

> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/runway_holding_position
> 
> Proposing the addition of runway holding position markings (commonly
> called hold lines). Runway holding position markings are painted
> markings on an airport surface that identify the runway safety area.
> At controlled airports, these markings indicate where an aircraft is
> to stop if the aircraft does not have permission to enter the runway.
> When exiting a runway, an aircraft is not considered clear of that
> runway until all parts of the aircraft have crossed the holding
> position marking. The runway holding position is painted across the
> runway or taxiway and consists of two solid lines on the side that is
> clear of the runway safety area and two dashed lines on the other
> side.
> 
> Greatly appreciate any comments folks have.

How does this differ from aeroway=holding_position
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aeroway%3Dholding_position),
with 9300 uses
(https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/aeroway=holding_position)?

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Mark Wagner]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 09:23:52 +0100
Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> sent from a phone
> 
> > On 27. Feb 2019, at 08:56, Mark Wagner 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > The best way I've found to identify "real" hamlets is the presence
> > of a cemetery.
> 
> 
> in Europe hamlets will typically not have their own cemetery, here it
> is a characteristic of a village (traditionally it will be
> churchyards, i.e. a burial place within the sacred area of a church,
> hamlets don’t have churches (around here).

That's another Europe/US difference.  In the United States, a cemetery
almost never has a church, and a church almost never has a place to
perform burials.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Mark Wagner]

On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 02:05:46 +0100
Sergio Manzi  wrote:

> On 2019-03-02 01:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> > sent from a phone
> >  
> >> On 1. Mar 2019, at 13:45, Mateusz Konieczny
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >> I would tag max weight, I would not tag emergency=no.  
> >
> > +1, it will not exclude all kinds of emergency services anyway,
> > only those in vehicles that are too heavy, for example there could
> > be police on bicycles who could cycle on the bridge like
> > pedestrians can walk on it.
> >
> >
> > Cheers, Martin  
> 
> 
> I really-really-really like to know of a place where emergency
> vehicles are *legally *not allowed to go...

It's not "legally not allowed to go", but on Fairchild Air Force Base,
civilian emergency vehicles are subject to the same "with permission
only" restriction as everyone else.  I suspect the same is true of most
if not all other military bases in the United States.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Mark Wagner]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 17:58:51 -0300
Fernando Trebien  wrote:

> I queried place=hamlet in Washington State using Overpass Turbo and
> compared it with the current classification in OSM. Indeed, many such
> places lie next to major highways, as is the pattern in other
> countries (small communities tend to sprout near them). But there are
> many that do not. For example, Nilles Corner [1] and Osborne Corner
> [2] in Douglas County do not. What is generally expected is that the
> main route between them is made of ways whose class is
> highway=unclassified or higher. The route may overlap with routes
> between more important places, say Niles Corner to Fairview [3] whose
> main route overlaps with the tertiary WA-17 highway, which (as
> generally expected from highway=tertiary) is the main route between a
> pair of place=village: Bridgeport [4] and Coulee City [5]. What's
> interesting about the roads that connect Nilles Corner and Osborne
> Corner is that they do not connect any pair of place=village or
> higher, so there's no reason to classify them as any higher than
> unclassified. There could be a really nice multi-lane highway between
> them, but very few people would be using it. (Of course, there is none
> because the demand is very low.)

When you did your query for hamlets, I'm afraid you ran headlong into a
quirk of American political geography.  Historically, the postal service
would only deliver mail to buildings within a certain distance of a
post office, while people further away would be responsible for
visiting the post office to pick their mail up.  As a result, it was
quite common for a group of farmers or ranchers to get together and
have themselves declared a community in order to get a post office.

There are thousands of these "paper communities" scattered across the
country, and they don't exist to any degree beyond the minimum
necessary to make someone else responsible for delivering the mail.
Many of them don't even exist to that extent any more, and are merely
names on the map.

(It's also somewhat misleading to say that Del Rio Road and Y Road
connect Nilles Corner to Osborne Corner.  Rather, they were built
to connect the farms in the area to the Grand Coulee/Coulee Dam/Electric
City area, incidentally providing access between Nilles Corner and
Osborne Corner.)

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Mark Wagner]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 17:52:19 -0300
Fernando Trebien  wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 3:46 AM Mark Wagner 
> wrote:
> > When you did your query for hamlets, I'm afraid you ran headlong
> > into a quirk of American political geography.  Historically, the
> > postal service would only deliver mail to buildings within a
> > certain distance of a post office, while people further away would
> > be responsible for visiting the post office to pick their mail up.
> > As a result, it was quite common for a group of farmers or ranchers
> > to get together and have themselves declared a community in order
> > to get a post office.  
> 
> Pardon my ignorance, do those hamlets typically correspond to OSM's
> description (100-200 inhabitants), in contrast with other possible
> values (place=locality for no inhabitants, place=isolated_dwelling for
> less than 3 households)? I'm seeing from Bing imagery that Osborne
> Corner has several households, as does Nille Corner. They are close to
> the generic threshold for being considered isolated dwellings, but
> still pass. I'm not familiar with the exact details of how place=* is
> assigned in the US. In Brazil we still use the "generic" rules for
> place=* (even though I've tried pushing the adoption of our national
> Geography Institute's criteria).

I'd estimate the Nilles Corner area as having four farmsteads and one
abandoned farmstead, for a total of seven houses.  Osborne Corner
appears to have three farmsteads and five houses.  I suspect that much
of what you're seeing as "households" are actually farm outbuildings.

The best way I've found to identify "real" hamlets is the presence of a
cemetery.  A group of people who consider themselves a community will
usually have their own cemetery, while a group of people who are filing
paperwork for personal advantage won't.  See Anatone[1] (population 48)
or the smaller Lone Pine[2] for examples of a real hamlet.

> So, using this area as an example, what would be a more sensible
> highway classification for you? I don't think it is correct (based on
> the original intention) to classify roads that have only a few houses
> spread between farms as highway=residential. The wiki says (and I
> agree) that residential streets typically have lower speed limits and
> sometimes traffic calming devices, designed to ensure the safety of
> dwellers. As such, highway=residential typically shows up in more
> dense urban areas, even small ones, but not over large expanses of
> farms.

Most of them are mis-tagged as residential; I'd consider them to be
unclassified. Some of them, especially the unnamed ones, are probably
tracks.  Leahy Road/P Road between WA-17 and Nilles Corner, and Y Road
between WA-174 and Osborne Corner might be tertiary, since they look
like improved collector roads for the farms in the area.  There's
probably a mis-tagged driveway or two in the area, but I haven't really
looked closely.

 [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/150974010
 [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/150932853

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging laboratories

[Mark Wagner]

On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 14:03:37 +1100
Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 04/03/19 21:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> > Am Mo., 4. März 2019 um 09:37 Uhr schrieb Warin
> > <61sundow...@gmail.com >:
> >
> >
> >
> > These can be commercialfirms, part of the government, or part
> > of a university etc.
> >
> > They usually specialise in one field so will need sub tags.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I would question whether we put all kind of "laboratory" into the
> > same category and distinguish them by subtags. There are too many
> > different kind of things that could be subsummized as "laboratory".
> > Think about eletronic laboratories, chemistry research labs,
> > biochemical labs, labs for human healtcare analytics, etc.
> > First distinction could be "research lab" vs. "analytical lab" vs. 
> > maybe more types, and these should IMHO become main tags, not
> > subtags.
> >
> > There is also some potential confusion with the word "laboratory" 
> > being used as a hyped name for workspace where you would not expect 
> > it, e.g. software laboratory, architectural design laboratory, art 
> > laboratory, etc.
> > So we would need some definition, what the criterion for
> > "laboratory" is (or is it the name?).  
> 
> To me a true 'laboratory' has controlled environmental conditions, 
> usually temperature is tightly controlled, the better labs have
> humidity control probably not as tight.
> They may have other things controlled too - such as radio
> interference, dust.

I guess the mechanical-testing laboratory I worked at in college
doesn't count as a "true" laboratory: as long as the temperature within
10 degrees F of 75, we could keep running tests.  That's a far wider
range than you'd normally find in an office environment.

(Other environmental conditions weren't any more tightly controlled.
Aluminum and steel don't really care what you're subjecting them to,
and the measuring instruments we were using were similarly robust.)

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

[Mark Wagner]

Tracks are often "access=private" for everyone, so there's no reason to
call out foot access in particular.

-- 
Mark

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 19:27:44 +
Dave F via Tagging  wrote:

> Why do you exclude tracks?
> Legal access to them are often denied as they're on private land 
> (example: farms)
> 
> Why ford?
> Why oneway?
> 
> Cheers
> DaveF
> 
> On 15/02/2019 11:50, Tobias Wrede wrote:
> > As far as I am concerned roads that are most likely to merit a
> > foot=no are
> >
> > - all highway road types except tracks and except where foot=no is 
> > regionally implied
> >
> > - where there is no sidewalk
> >
> > any that have one of:
> > - bridge=yes
> > - tunnel=yes
> > - ford=yes
> > - oneway=yes
> > - bicycle=no/private/...
> > - bicycle_road=yes (?) Not sure if there are countries where a 
> > bicycle_road would forbit foot traffic in absence of sidewalks
> >
> > you could also exclude highways that are part of a hiking route
> > (might be difficult with relations and might overdo it).
> >
> > lit=* is to fuzzy in my opinion to be useful.
> >
> > Tobias
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging  
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

[Mark Wagner]

In the United States, the rules aren't quite as permissive (for
example, authorities are allowed to forbid foot traffic), but in
practice, I'm not aware of a single case where a residential street
actually prohibits foot traffic.  (I'm aware of one near me that's
*tagged* as such, but I think it's a double tagging error: it's not a
residential street, and the user who tagged it misinterpreted a "don't
cross" sign at the intersection as "foot traffic prohibited".)

If you want to make this useful in the US, limit it to the situations
where foot traffic is likely to be prohibited: things like bridges,
tunnels, cuttings, and embankments.

-- 
Mark

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 16:05:56 +0100
Rory McCann  wrote:

> I can't find any issue on Github for this feature.
> 
> But in Ireland (& I think UK), all public roads except motorways, are 
> foot=yes. Legally you can walk on the road, even if there is not 
> footpath ("sidewalk"). I think this adds bloat and quests which will 
> annoy mappers.
> 
> On 14/02/2019 10:26, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > i am seeing a growing number of changesets setting foot=yes
> > on all kinds of roads e.g. residential
> > 
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/403719315
> > 
> > Commit message is:
> > 
> > "Add whether roads are accessible for pedestrians"
> > 
> > All residentials are accessible to pedestrians so i a bit puzzled
> > what this challenge is good for. It just adds redundant tags to
> > all roads.
> > 
> > Flo  
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Drain vs ditch

[Mark Wagner]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 15:28:00 +0300
Eugene Podshivalov  wrote:

> >
> > пн, 4 февр. 2019 г. в 02:55, Martin Koppenhoefer
> >  > >:  
> > there is established tagging for buried man made waterways
> > (tunnel=culvert and man_made=pipeline)  
> 
>  tunnel=culvert is supposed to be used with waterway=*, isn't it?

And anything else that's goes through a culvert.  They're a common way
of running farm and service roads under motorways in the western United
States, for example.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] tree rows vs individual trees

[Mark Wagner]

On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 15:55:50 +0200
Tomas Straupis  wrote:

>   Two things to add:
>   1. At least in Lithuania cartographic (topographic) "tree row" is
> defined as "a row of trees groing alongside a road or railway". That
> is random trees somewhere in a field do not become a "tree row" even
> if they are in a row.
>   2. If (1) is true in other countries, maybe "tree_row" should be an
> attribute of a road/railroad? Say
> highway=residential+tree_row=left|right|both. This way it would be
> much more convenient to create cartographically correct maps in 25k
> 50k scales without resorting to complex generalisation operations like
> displacement?
> 

Tree rows in the United States are usually planted as windbreaks.  As
such, they're usually either perpendicular to the prevailing winds, or
run along the edge of someone's property line.  Occasionally they're
planted for shade purposes, in which case they run east-west.  Tree
rows planted parallel to a road are uncommon.

"tree_row" as an attribute of a road might make sense, in the
same way as "sidewalk" tags do.  As a replacement for
"natural=tree_row", it excludes a lot of the existing uses.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Micronations

[Mark Wagner]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 10:54:16 +1000
Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:

> Does OSM recognise, & allow the mapping of, micronations as defined
> areas? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronation
> 
> Was looking for something completely different :-) & just found this
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/653287455#map=15/38.0034/-87.6183
> showing the "nation" of Pitchfork Union
> https://micronations.wiki/wiki/Pitchfork_Union, complete with it's
> Government Headquarters, Town Hall, military training areas, network
> of roads, toll booths on the public roads giving access to the area,
> 6m tall city wall & so on, none of which is visible in any overhead
> or street level imagery I can find.
> 
> Everything has been created by one user over the last couple of
> months.
> 
> Before contacting them to confirm that any of this stuff actually
> exists, I thought I'd check to see if what they've done is allowed,
> or if it counts as vandalism?
> 
> Is there another way of handling this?

My usual approach to micronations and fictional countries is to delete
them, warn the user about mapping things that don't exist (yes, it's a
form of vandalism), and point them at https://opengeofiction.net/

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

[Mark Wagner]

My copy of the Oxford English Dictionary has about a page of
definitions for "ditch" and "drain", and not a hint that either of them
needs to be lined.

-- 
Mark

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 01:28:10 +0100
Sergio Manzi  wrote:

> I know, that's why I asked for a good one...
> 
> On 2019-02-02 01:23, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> > Dictionary.com usually provides definitions in American English, so
> > it wouldn’t be a good source.
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 8:35 AM Sergio Manzi  > > wrote:
> >
> > Please point me to a dictionary defining "drain" as a "lined
> > ditch" or in any way stating that a drain must be lined, because I
> > tried and I failed.
> >
> > Best I found is in dictionary.com   that
> > (/under /"/Physical Geography/") define it as
> >
> >  1. an artificial watercourse, as a ditch or trench.
> >  2. a natural watercourse modified to increase its flow of
> > water.
> >
> >
> > On 2019-02-01 23:46, Paul Allen wrote:  
> >> On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 at 22:43, Sergio Manzi  >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> So, how do you tag drains which are not lined?
> >>
> >>
> >> Ditch.   Because, physically, that's what it is.
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> Paul
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging  
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

[Mark Wagner]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 11:19:52 +0900
Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:

> I have reviewed all the features tagged as place=locality in 2 places
> in the USA and 2 in Europe, and found that 3 out of 4, place=locality
> is usually used for features that could be tagged with a more specific
> tag.

>...

> Out of the remaining 47 nodes, several have names that suggest they
> should have other tags:
> - 8 are named “* Beach” (=> natural=beach)
> - 2 “* Point” (natural=cape or natural=peninsula)
> - 2 road junctions: “Four Corners” and “Old Saddle Road Junction”
> (highway=junction)
> - 1 may be a lake (“Green Lake”) (natural=water water=lake)

I checked the local situation, and found the following:

Spring Valley: is it a valley?  No, it's a former rural railway stop.
Hutton Settlement: is it a hamlet?  No, it's an orphanage.
Hazelwood: is it a forest?  No, it's a former hamlet.
Ohio Junction: Is it a highway junction?  No, it's where the
century-abandoned Ohio Match railway line met what is now the Union
Pacific railway line.

My point is that you can't tell what sort of thing something is from
its name (or worse, from a translation of its name).

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag for a plateau or tableland?

[Mark Wagner]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 09:44:33 +0200
Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> sent from a phone
> 
> > On 17. Apr 2019, at 06:55, Joseph Eisenberg
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > I searched taginfo for "tableland", "table_land", "table-land",
> > "plateau" and "mesa".
> > 
> > There are 94 natural=plateau and 3 natural=mesa.
> > I found no uses of natural=table or table_land or tableland or
> > tableland  
> 
> 
> there are also 52 natural=plain and no *=high_plain nor * table_mount
> or flat-top_mount
> 
> Would you see a tableland different from table_mount or synonymous?
> After all these are different words.
> 
> Maybe there is overlap?
> 
> Generally I would prefer to use an English English term, rather than
> a Spanish or French English term.

I don't think there's an English English term for them -- England
barely has any topographical relief at all.  They even had to import
"mountain" from the French.  Unless there's something I'm missing,
we're going to need to pick an English import from one of the countries
that does have plateaus, mesas, or buttes.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Idea for a new tag: amenity=power_supply

[Mark Wagner]

On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 01:23:35 +0100
Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 at 23:56, Graeme Fitzpatrick
>  wrote:
> 
> >
> > On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 at 04:53, Paul Allen  wrote:
> >  
> >> Having power_supply=yes indicates that the socket type is unknown,
> >>  
> >
> > But wouldn't that default as the country you're in? If you're in
> > Britain, it's a British socket, so you need a "British" plug (or an
> > International adaptor!) to plug in, in Australia an Oz socket & so
> > on. 
> 
> It's not that simple.  Indoors in the UK it's a BS1363 socket.
> Outdoors on a camp site it will most
> likely be a CEE 17 blue single-phase.  But it's possible you might
> get CEE 17 red three-phase
> in some situations.  I've a vague memory there are other connectors
> used in marine applications.
> Also, although BS1363 connectors are for indoor usage, it's possible
> to get weatherproof
> housings for external use.  So even in just the UK, if a camp site
> says power hook-ups are
> available you can't be sure what connector is used.  Most likely CEE
> 17 blue, but maybe not.
> 
> Things get worse in Germany and France, as far as the indoor
> connectors go.  See
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_power_plugs_and_sockets#CEE_7_standard
> and try to guess what you might get in either country.  I expect they
> also have weatherproof
> housings for external use.
> 
> Hence power_supply=yes means there is a hook-up but the mapper
> doesn't know what it is.
> 

In the United States, a "power_supply=yes" is virtually certain to have
a NEMA 5-15 or NEMA 5-20 socket (120-volt, 15-amp or 20-amp).  However,
knowing that is of limited value, since most RVs have either a NEMA
TT-30 (120-volt, 30-amp) or NEMA 14-50 (240 volt split-phase, 50 amp)
plug.  A camp site may have one, both, or neither in addition to the
NEMA 5 socket.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] wheelchair = hiking

[Mark Wagner]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 13:57:25 -0700
Nick Bolten  wrote:

> > IMO wheelchair=yes means accessible for most basic wheelchairs.  
> 
> Yes, but it's something that is frequently difficult to estimate. 

After learning that the trail from the Old Faithful viewing area to
Castle Geyser isn't considered wheelchair-accessible, I've given up on
the idea that wheelchair-accessibility is something that mere mortals
are capable of determining.  To my untrained eye, it's nearly perfect:
four meters wide, quality asphalt paving, no cross slope, and
effectively flat.  But apparently that "effectively" isn't good enough:
an elevation gain of five meters over the course of a 700-meter run is
enough to defeat a wheelchair user.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[Mark Wagner]

On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 19:10:24 -0600
brad  wrote:
 
> Unfortunately, the wiki for highway, in the section for track says: "
> To describe the quality of a track, see tracktype 
> =*. "
> But, as described in the wiki,  tracktype is not very relevant to the 
> western US, since the first sentence of the description is 
> Solid/Mostly*/Soft.  Perhaps relevant to the English countryside, but 
> the roads around here are usually Solid, but could be 
> smoothness:very_horrible.   It seems redundant with surface=* also.
> It looks like the common usage is to just use tracktype intuitively 
> (grade5 is 4wd even if it's Solid), and ignore the wiki & the
> smoothness tag.  Unfortunately its usage is inconsistent.  I see
> roads that are clearly (by onsite inspection) 4wd, tagged as grade2
> and some graded gravel roads tagged as grade2.
> Tracktype could be sufficient if clarified, and if we were starting
> from scratch that's what I would prefer.
> 
> As I see it, two paths forward to improve this situation.
> 1) Change the wiki for highway so it mentions Smoothness=*, and 
> de-emphasize  tracktype=*
> 2) Take the leading sentence mentioning Solid/Soft out of the
> tracktype description (or de-emphasize it), and add more verbage
> about high clearance or 4 wheel drive.    There is some discussion on
> the key:tracktype discussion page about adding grade6+.
> 3) Ignore the wiki, and just use tracktype.   I see in the discussion 
> page that is what many are doing.

Option 3 won't work.  Locally, tracks come in two basic types:

1) A logging road created by a work crew with a bulldozer.  Cut down
any trees, scrape off any remaining vegetation, level the road
side-to-side, and call it done.  These roads range in quality from
"easily passable by a passenger car" to "high-clearance
four-wheel-drive vehicle required".

2) A ranch road created by a truck driving the same route repeatedly
for years.  These are generally fairly smooth, but the older ones are
only passable by a high-clearance truck because of the central ridge
between the tracks.

According to the wiki, these are uniformly "grade5" ("Almost always an
unpaved track lacking additional materials, same surface as surrounding
terrain."), although calling them "soft" is misleading, since the local
soil produces a rock-hard surface during the summer and fall (and a
muddy one during spring melt). They're tagged pretty much at random as
anything from "grade1" to "grade5".

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

[Mark Wagner]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 13:25:14 +0200
Christoph Hormann  wrote:

> place=locality is currently used as a generic tag for anything with a 
> name for which no established more precise tag exists.
> 
> This kind of contradicts the idea of OSM which would normally suggest
> to invent a new tag then for the type of feature you have.
> Subtagging the generic tag to make it less generic would kind of take
> this to a whole new level.  You could take this even further and
> suggest tagging everything in OSM something like 'feature=thing' and
> then differentiating only through 'thing=*'.
> 
> Long story short - to better differentiate what is currently tagged 
> place=locality the way to go is IMO to create more specific top level 
> tags (or use existing ones like the mentioned "disused:/abandonded:").

There's a "place=locality" near me called "Seven Mile Airstrip".  Now,
that's an interesting choice of names for the place, because there's no
evidence that it was ever used for aviation.  The best guess I've seen
for where the name came from is that it was intended as an auxiliary
runway for Spokane Army Air Depot during World War II, and after
construction was canceled, the name stuck around.

What tag would you recommend for "thing people believe is the abandoned
construction site for a runway that was never built"?

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] bear box in campground ?

[Mark Wagner]

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 11:44:41 -0600
Rob Savoye  wrote:

>   Many western state campgrounds have metal bear proof food storage
> boxes in each campsite, but not all of them. At certain times of the
> year this can be important. :-) Around here the bears will destroy
> your car if there is food left inside. I see zero instances of this
> type of data, at least not in Colorado. My guess would
> 'amenity='bear_box' ? (looking at amenity=bbq as an example)

That's how I've mapped the five I've added to the map.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

[Mark Wagner]

Which is likely to cause confusion, because in the United States, an
"international airport" is one that's got customs facilities.  John F.
Kennedy International (New York City's largest airport) and Eckhart
International (a small grass strip near the Idaho-Canada border) are
both considered international airports.

-- 
Mark

On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 19:10:52 +0900
Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:

> The tag aerodrome=international was meant for airports that have
> regularly scheduled commercial passenger flights to another country.
> 
> On 9/10/19, Chris Hill  wrote:
> > On 10 September 2019 08:35:42 BST, Joseph Eisenberg
> >  wrote:  
> >>I've started a new proposal for Key:aerodrome.
> >>
> >>See
> >>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome
> >>
> >>This proposal uses aerodrome=* for classification of an
> >>aeroway=aerodrome as an international airport, other commercial
> >>airport, general aviation aerodrome, private aerodrome, or airstrip.
> >>
> >>It would deprecate aeroway=airstrip and aerodrome:type=*
> >>
> >>Values to be approved:
> >>* aerodrome=international - already common
> >>* aerodrome=commercial  - new tag
> >>* aerodrome=general_aviation  - new tag (default type)
> >>* aerodrome=private  - already common
> >>* aerodrome=airstrip
> >>
> >>Currently the IATA code is quite helpful for finding commercial
> >>airports which offer scheduled passenger flights, but a few
> >>aerodromes with an IATA code do not have commercial flights.
> >>
> >>It would be helpful to know which airports have international
> >>flights, and the tag aerodrome=international has already been used
> >>over 1000 times.
> >>
> >>aerodrome=airstrip is better than aeroway=airstrip, because an
> >>airstrip is still a type of aerodrome.
> >>
> >>aerodrome=private is already widely used, but I'm also recommending
> >>adding access=*
> >>
> >>Comments? I still need to add some examples.
> >>
> >>- Joseph Eisenberg
> >>
> >>___
> >>Tagging mailing list
> >>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging  
> >
> > Any airfield, no matter how small, can make international flights.
> > I have used an air taxi service from a small, registered airfield
> > to fly from the UK to France. The airfield had no commercial or
> > regular flights, it was used by private pilots for fun (usually
> > termed 'general aviation') and for a few ad-hoc commercial flights:
> > specialist cargo, on-off passenger runs, a base for filming flights
> > etc. Private pilots make international flights from all kinds of
> > airfields all the time, so I'm not sure that's a useful
> > distinction. People generally want to know if they can get a
> > scheduled or charter flight to or from an airport. --
> > Chris Hill
> > ( OSM: chillly)  
> 
> ___
> 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] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Mark Wagner]

On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 18:29:04 +0200
Janko Mihelić  wrote:

> pet, 13. ruj 2019. u 17:31 Paul Allen  napisao je:
> 
> > On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 09:45, Janko Mihelić 
> > wrote:
> >
> > The correct way to group them is with a relation.  If we don't have
> > a suitable type of  relation then propose one.
> >  
> 
> My idea was to expand the general "part:wikidata=*" to more specific
> tags. For example, give all peaks and ridges of a mountain the
> mountain:wikidata=* tag, instead of part:wikidata=*. Part is just the
> first, nondescript step. If we decide on a better tag, we replace the
> part:wikidata with the new XXX:wikidata=*

"Part of" is frequently ill-defined.  To take your "mountain:" example,
mountain-climbers consider Little Tahoma to be a mountain, while
geologists consider it to be a satellite peak of Mount Rainier.  Given
that, how do you decide if Fryingpan Glacier is a
"mountain:wikidata=Q1367080" or a "mountain:wikidata=Q194057"?

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Subkeys like payment:*=yes/no? | Re: Country code value prefix? | Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - Tag:insurance:health

[Mark Wagner]

Won't work in the US, as values have a size limit of 255 bytes, and
there are more *insurance plans* than that in the US.  You might be
able to pack everything in by treating the value as a bitfield.

-- 
Mark

On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 16:52:22 +0900
Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:

> I’m normally not in favor of semi-colon separated values, but this
> seems like a situation where it is better, since there would be
> hundreds or thousands of keys otherwise.
> 
> eg =Medicare;Medicaid;Blue_Cross (USA)
> =BPJS_Kesehatan;Papua_Sehat (Indonesia)
> 
> It will still be hard to keep this sort of data maintained, either
> way, in some countries, but it may work ok in places with only a
> handful of insurance options.
> 
> Joseph
> 
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 4:41 PM Simon Poole  wrote:
> 
> >
> > Am 02.08.2019 um 09:26 schrieb Rory McCann:  
> > > On 02/08/2019 08:42, Warin wrote:  
> > >> It is possibly that some will only accept certain insurance
> > >> firms and reject others. I am thinking of insurance firms that
> > >> run some medical facilities.  
> > >
> > > We use subkeys for payment types (`payment:american_express=no`),
> > > wouldn't this work for insurance companies? `insurance:vhi=no`, or
> > > `insurance:health:vhi=no`?  
> >
> > The problem with this, just as with payment, that it creates a
> > (practically) unbounded list of keys, that rely on being able to do
> > a search on keys to be discoverable.
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >  
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Tagging mailing list
> > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging  
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >  


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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Mark Wagner]

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 09:35:41 +0300
Tomas Straupis  wrote:

> Hello
> 
>   Road hierarchy is needed for a number of things:
>   * deciding which classes of roads to display on different scales in
> a map
>   * performing road network validation
>   * other tasks (f.e. typification of buildings - orientation)
> 
>   Hierarchy would be different in different context: motorcar,
> bicycle, pedestrian etc. For the time being I'm only asking about
> motorcars.
> 
>   There is non written (or I could not find in wiki) or "de facto"
> hierarchy:
>   * motorway
>   * trunk
>   * primary
>   * secondary
>   * tertiary
>   * unclassified
>   * residential
>   * living_street
>   In some regions unclassified has a higher position in hierarchy, in
> other regions unclassified, residential and living_street have the
> same position. This is fine for the time being.
>   I'm also intentionally skipping _link classes.

The hierarchy is 

* Trunk
* Primary
* Secondary
* Tertiary
* Unclassified/Residential are more or less at the same level.  They're
  minor enough that any difference between them is a matter of local
  opinion.  In general, if you want a complete-looking map, you should
  draw both or neither.

Motorways are defined by their construction standards or legal
classification: think the Autobahn in Germany or Interstates in the US.
They're effectively at the top of the hierarchy, but this is an effect
of the things that make them motorways, not the cause.

Tracks, service roads, and living streets are outside the hierarchy.
Like motorways, they're defined by their attributes, not their
importance, though in this case, the effect of those attributes is to
tend to put them at the bottom of the hierarchy.

Deciding when and how to draw them is a matter of the needs of a map:
for example, a mountain-bike map for US National Forests might
emphasize tracks over hierarchy roads, while a driving map for farm
country might omit them entirely.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] maxstay=0

[Mark Wagner]

On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 13:33:46 +0200
joost schouppe  wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> The most common value for maxstay=* is 0. There is no guidance on the
> wiki on how to interpret this. However, the below is used to explain
> that you cannot use the parking on Sunday and public holidays.
> 
> maxstay:conditional=0 @ (Su,PH)
> 
> Looking at the data around me, I think maxstay=0 is used by mappers
> to say there is no signposted maxstay. So that would be synonymous
> with saying it is "default". Which we generally don't map. So I would
> just remove them in my area.

Looking at the instances in the US, apart from a cluster of parking
lots in Boston, every "maxstay=0" was added by a different user.
Additionally, there's no obvious consistency of meaning.  The best
thing to do is to define "maxstay=0" as a mapping error, with no
meaning.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] "not:brand" to mark a shop that isn't part of a chain?

[Mark Wagner]

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 10:52:01 -0400
Jmapb via Tagging  wrote:

> On 9/14/2019 10:53 AM, Tim Magee wrote:
> > I would absolutely agree with this use case. Especially for cases
> > such as the regularly mentioned Burger King. If somebody from out
> > of town is either traveling through or armchair mapping they could
> > be confused. If they are using the ID editor, it suggests that you
> > "upgrade the tags" which could lead to a "Burger King" that is not
> > part of the international Burger King tag having the same
> > brand:wikidata tag.  
> 
> Personally I have a problem with the asymmetry of work that this
> requires from mappers who need to protect their work from iD versus
> mappers who blindly "upgrade" using iD.

It's not just iD that's the problem.  There's an industrial-supply
store I've been monitoring called "Safway", and even before the
invention of the name-suggestion index, well-meaning armchair mappers
would turn it into a grocery store called "Safeway".  A "not:brand" tag
would reduce the workload by letting iD cue mappers that no, this isn't
the well-known grocery store.

(There's also a "Maxwell House", but thankfully, most people realize
that the coffee brand doesn't operate restaurants.)

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] New tag proposal: 'addr=milestone'

[Mark Wagner]

On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 09:01:06 +0200
Colin Smale  wrote:

> On 2019-10-01 08:18, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> 
> > Hi Jorge,
> > 
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 08:15:37PM -0600, Jorge Aguirre wrote: 
> >   
> >> Throughouthe entire Latin American region and some other parts of
> >> the world, it is quite common to find the kilometer (Km.)
> >> information, as may be found on the "highway:milestone", as part
> >> of the actual addresses. Mostly used in suburban and rural areas,
> >> which may usually not even have any visible references or even
> >> house numbers, the use of the milestone is widely utilized to find
> >> an address in these regions.  
> > 
> > We have such addresses in Germany too. They are pretty rare though.
> > sometimes really rural mobile masts or copper distribution
> > street cabinets and stuff carry addresses like this.  
> 
> I may be mistaken but I seem to remember mile markers being used in
> rural areas of the USA to indicate linear position along a main road.

It's extremely rare to use it directly as an address.  Instead, linear
position gets turned into a house number.  For example, a building
eight and a half miles from the start of Long Road might be "850 Long
Road". 

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Colby's "Instructions for the Interior Survey of Ireland" (Was: Strange tags)

[Mark Wagner]

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 12:42:38 +
Philip Barnes  wrote:

> On Monday, 30 September 2019, Paul Allen wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 12:41, Andrew Davidson 
> > wrote: 
> > > On 30/9/19 9:24 pm, Paul Allen wrote:  
> > > >
> > > > I can't remember where I saw it, or even what I was looking for
> > > > that led me there.  
> > >
> > > It in many places but this one will do:
> > >
> > > https://maps.nls.uk/os/6inch/os_info3.html  
> > 
> > 
> > That wasn't the one I saw, but it did remind me that the one I saw
> > was somewhere on the
> > NLS site.  Close enough to make the same point, though.
> > Ultimately, the official names
> > derive from going around and asking locals.
> >   
> Which is how we end up with River Avon, avon (afon in welsh) meaning
> river hence River River.

Could be worse: the mythical Torpenhow Hill could have made it onto the
map.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

[Mark Wagner]

On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 10:26:14 +
marc marc  wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Le 06.11.19 à 19:55, Mark Wagner a écrit :
> > There are places like federal Wilderness Areas in the United States
> > where possession of a bicycle is forbidden  
> 
> can you share the a picture of this traffic sign ?
> 

It's a sign for a state natural area rather than a federal wilderness
area, and the situation is a little fuzzy on walking bicycles (it
depends on what "operate" means), but the sign, if present, might
look something like this: https://imgur.com/4qOuNmf

It's also possible that the sign would simply be something like
"entering Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness" with a standard "no bicycles"
symbol, with "no bicycles" being understood to mean "no possession of
bicycles" rather than "no riding bicycles".

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

[Mark Wagner]

On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 16:13:49 -0500
Jmapb via Tagging  wrote:

> On 11/7/2019 2:09 PM, Mark Wagner wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 10:26:14 +
> > marc marc  wrote:
> >  
> >> ere possession of a bicycle is forbidden
> >> can you share the a picture of this traffic sign ?
> >>  
> > It's a sign for a state natural area rather than a federal
> > wilderness area, and the situation is a little fuzzy on walking
> > bicycles (it depends on what "operate" means), but the sign, if
> > present, might look something like this: https://imgur.com/4qOuNmf
> >
> > It's also possible that the sign would simply be something like
> > "entering Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness" with a standard "no bicycles"
> > symbol, with "no bicycles" being understood to mean "no possession
> > of bicycles" rather than "no riding bicycles".  
> 
> This is a typical US wilderness area
> sign:https://i.imgur.com/7YQOhgIl.jpg
> <https://i.imgur.com/7YQOhgIl.jpg>
> 
> Here's a pictographic variation: https://i.imgur.com/K5afLpOl.jpg
> 
> In neither case is the ride/push distinction called out. But if forest
> rangers see me with a bike, telling them "I was just pushing it" isn't
> going to prevent a hefty fine.

The sign in your first example is a summarized version of 16 USC 1133.
The actual text of the law specifies "...no use of motor vehicles,
motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other
form of mechanical transport,..."  That "other form of mechanical
transport" clause has been interpreted to cover anything with wheels.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Mark Wagner]

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 18:47:39 +1100
Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 27/1/20 6:24 pm, John Willis via Tagging wrote:
> > I agree with you that this is the scale that volcanologists use,
> > but people want to draw a distinction between something that
> > erupted recently compared sometime in the last 200 years
> >
> > Perhaps it is easier to just apply the “active” and “Frequently 
> > active” tags via this third-party data source,  
> 
> "frequently active " means what?
> 
> If it erupted last year .. but not for 200 years before that I'd not 
> call it 'frequent'.
> 
> 
> > but it would completely remove mapper’s ability to add a mountain
> > to this list via tagging.  
> 
> 
> Possibly "last_eruption=" if that is what you want???
> 

"last_eruption" isn't that useful for determining activity: the
majority of the world's volcanoes are cinder cones, which almost never
erupt twice or more.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Mark Wagner]

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 09:02:17 +1100
Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 27/1/20 1:32 am, Paul Allen wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 20:44, Kevin Kenny  > > wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:38 PM Paul Allen  > > wrote:  
> > > But "active" is too broad a term to be meaningful, I think.  
> >
> > Well, then, let's clarify the intention, narrow the definition,
> > choose a more appropriate keyword if necessary, wikify the narrowed
> > definition, and use that, rather than rejecting the idea out of
> > hand.
> >
> >
> > Good idea.  So I did some digging.  There are no
> > scientifically-agreed definitions of the terms.  It's more of a
> > folksonomy that scientists sometimes
> > use when talking to "folks."  See 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano#Volcanic_activity
> > (it's fairly representative of other definitions I've found).  It's 
> > messy.  There's a
> > "it hasn't erupted in X years so it's dormant" definition in there, 
> > but supervolcanoes
> > like Yellowstone are excluded.  Iceland's volcanoes are very 
> > interconnected.  Etc.
> >
> > About the only characteristic I've seen so far upon which there is
> > broad agreement (and is verifiable by ordinary mappers) is the
> > presence of a lava
> > lake (which many people probably think of when they see the term
> > "active volcano").  That's mappable, in my opinion.  
> 
> 
> I would suggest using a constant tag to go along with what is being
> mapped.
> 
> 
> If lava is visible then, perhaps, lava=yes... lava=visible???
> 

This isn't a very useful tag for deciding if a volcano is active: most
eruptions produce steam explosions or ash columns, not lava flows.
There are three or maybe four volcanoes in the world that have
persistent lava lakes right now (Erta Ale is a bit hazardous to
survey), and I think just one that's producing long-lived lava flows.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] key damage and HOT

[Mark Wagner]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 08:12:17 +
Paul Allen  wrote:
 
> Lifecycle prefixes prevent rendering of the feature.  They are
> equivalent to deleting the feature tag and adding a note to the
> effect that the object is a disused .  Except that the word
> "disused" might not appear in the note and a synonym or
> circumlocution might be used instead.  Having
> disused:amenity=hospital allows database queries to pick out
> hospitals (used or disused), disused hospitals, or functioning
> hospitals.  Removing the amenity=hospital tag completely prevents the
> object appearing in queries for hospitals, or for disused hospitals.

Lifecycle prefixes don't prevent rendering, they prevent rendering *by
renderers that don't understand them*.  OsmAnd, for example,
understands the "abandoned:" prefix on roads just fine.  Knowing
that the trail fork you've come to is an abandoned logging road rather
than a hiking trail that hasn't yet had its spring cleaning is quite
useful.

(It might also understand "abandoned:" on other things, but I haven't
yet had a reason to use it.)

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

[Mark Wagner]

On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 15:23:59 -0600
Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 3:15 PM Kevin Kenny 
> wrote:
> 
> > Oh, and a further corner case: Are we agreed that something like
> > "Old Route 7" has become a name?  It's no longer a ref, because
> > Route 7 is now elsewhere. It appears on street signs like any other
> > name, not on a reference banner, and it's the 'addr:street' of the
> > houses on it. 
> 
> Eeeh, I'd generally suggest tagging that as noname=yes old_ref=US 7
> (if the old route was a US route) to retain more information.
> Signing is pretty similar, too, some places will leave the old
> shields up and change the banner from a cardinal to OLD until the
> signs wear out as a wayfinder for folks with outdated maps.  Much of
> the midwest, on nameless roads that have routes, just put something
> like "SH 33" or "Hwy 412" on the finger signs as a low-budget
> solution to posting a proper, potentially multicolor, die-cut,
> screen-printed shield and a double-ended arrow as is MUTCD standard
> for such a case.  addr:street still goes with however the post finds
> it.  It helps to know the local context quite a bit when trying to
> sort out how local authorities cheaped out on posting standard signs.

We're talking about things like this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.9476496,-116.6987819,3a,48.7y,88.67h,85.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjR-Dn3KbBuH4y79suqVilg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

US 95 was re-aligned as part of upgrading it to Interstate standards
(the overpass in the background is the new routing). The old route has
ordinary street signs showing the name "North Old Highway 95" and no
shields.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Mark Wagner]

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 14:04:21 +0100
Cascafico Giovanni  wrote:

> vHello ML!
> this query [1] is supposed to display active volcanes. I made some
> research using Sentinel-2 browser, but it happens that most volcanoes
> doesn't have an infrared response [2].
> 
> Which is the criteria to tag volcanoes as volcano:status=active?

"Active" is too vague to be mapped.  For example, geologists would
consider Mount Rainier to be active because it's producing the
occasional earthquake swarm or steam vent, while the average person
would say it's dormant because it hasn't erupted since 1854.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] What values of 'emergency=' should be on the main Map features page?

[Mark Wagner]

On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 22:18:10 +0900
Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:

> Should we remove some of the rare values of "emergency=" which have
> got into Map Features?

> ) =fire_hose "A high-pressure hose used to carry water or other fire
> retardant (such as foam) to a fire to extinguish it." - 1115 uses
> - Uncertain: rather rare tag, though it does not seem to have any
> problems

Keep it.  Fixed hoses are quite common in large buildings.  However,
like most indoor features, they're not mapped very often.

> ) =landing_site "Preselected flat area for a helicopter to land in an
> emergency" 2543 uses
> - Uncertain: the tag aeroway=helipad is more common, and the
> distinction  is unclear

This is an emergency=landing_site: it's a section of parking lot that's
been surveyed as having sufficient clearance for a medivac helicopter
to land.
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.7487547,-117.5297687,75m/data=!3m1!1e3

This is an aeroway=helipad: it's a dedicated helicopter landing area,
designed and marked as such.
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6518063,-117.4240817,61m/data=!3m1!1e3

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - traffic_signals=crossing_on_demand

[Mark Wagner]

On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 18:42:42 +0200
lukas-...@web.de wrote:

> The second goal my proposal wants to message is to deprecate tagging
> "crossing=traffic_signals" together with "highway=traffic_signals" on
> the same node. Especially if you're saying this is a full crossing
> mapped. It breaks the highway=crossing - tagging scheme we use for
> all other types of crossing (except crossing=no). Some mappers
> use "crossing=traffic_signals" together with
> "highway=traffic_signals" on the same node als a shortcut for "lane
> traffic signal" and "foot traffic signal" because it is rendered as
> two traffic signals in JOSM. Or for mapping traffic signals for
> crossing cyclists. But I think in every case it is better to use two
> different (nearby) nodes for that. What do you think about it?

I think you should split it up into two proposals.
"highway=traffic_signals;crossing=traffic_signals" is so widely used
there's not a chance you'll get agreement to forbid it.  If you tie
your proposed "traffic_signals=crossing_on_demand" tagging to it, all
that will happen is that "traffic_signals=crossing_on_demand" will be
rejected as well.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

[Mark Wagner]

On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 10:53:57 -0400
Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 5:12 AM Volker Schmidt 
> wrote:
> >
> > If a highway is mtb:scale=2 it is definitely not a cycleway. It is
> > a highway=path with mtb:scale=2 If this were to encounter a
> > "cycleway" with mtb:scale=2 , I would consider this an error and
> > retag it as highway=path without hesitation.
> >
> > I agree, that this is not explicitly stated in the bicycle wiki
> > page, and should be added there, but I would assume that this is
> > the common understanding. Anything else would cause major problems
> > with the huge stock of existing highway=cycleway in OSM that have
> > no mtb:scale tag. Routers for non-MTB bicycles would all need to
> > change and evaluate the mtb:scale tag.
> >
> > There is already a similar problem with the OpenCycleMap rendering
> > in the sense that it renders a dedicated cycle path in the same way
> > as a path with bicycle=yes. This has the effect that many MTB
> > friends have added bicycle=yes to "normal" hiking paths to make
> > them appear as MTB friendly on the map, but also with the problem
> > that when I look at that map I wrongly see a cycle paths where I
> > would never be able to pass with my loaded touring bike.
> >
> > Please keep paths that can only be used by MTB clearly different
> > from cycleways that can be used non-MTB bicycles.  
> 
> A key issue is that mtb:scale can't be the only indication. Otherwise,
> we're falling into a trap - which has been a common trap in the past.
> It's a trolltag https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Trolltag - a
> second tag that negates or massively changes the meaning of another
> tag. "This isn't what you were expecting of a highway=cycleway: it's a
> wilderness trail for highly skilled and adventurous MTB riders!"

But "highway=path, bicycle=yes" has the same issue.  From a legal
standpoint, this is a "highway=path, foot=yes, bicycle=yes, horse=yes,
ski=yes, snowmobile=yes".  From a practical standpoint, however, it's
"ski=yes, snowmobile=yes, foot=difficult, bicycle=carry,
horse=nope".

https://help.openstreetmap.org/upfiles/RoughTrail.jpg

There isn't any top-level tag to indicate that trees have fallen across
the trail creating a waist-high barrier, and that it's only easy to
traverse once there's three feet of snow on the ground.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

[Mark Wagner]

On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 12:08:22 +0200
Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> Am Do., 30. Apr. 2020 um 11:59 Uhr schrieb Warin
> <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
> 
> > On 30/4/20 7:29 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Am Do., 30. Apr. 2020 um 11:18 Uhr schrieb Jean-Marc Liotier <  
> > j...@liotier.org>:  
> >  
> >> The concept they are closest to is "plaza"
> >> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaza) - which, by the way, does
> >> not seem to have currency in Openstreetmap.  
> >
> >
> >
> > place=square
> >
> > Needs to have a name, many of these have no names.
> >  
> 
> 
> if these are significant open areas that are used for recreation and
> to meet each other, it seems improbable that they do not have names.
> Can you back your claim with real world examples?

In most of the world, things only get names when there's some ambiguity
about which one is being referred to.  Real-world example from North
America: when I was growing up, if someone came by and told me there
was a hockey game forming, there was no need to specify where.
Everyone knew that the neighborhood kids used a certain stretch of side
road as their hockey field.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

[Mark Wagner]

On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 16:45:48 -0400
Greg Troxel  wrote:

> Mike Thompson  writes:
> 
> > I have always been under the impression that the highway tag should
> > be based off of function.  Recently I have come across a number of
> > cases where driveways and residential roads were tagged
> > "highway=track" (perhaps because they are unpaved?), e.g. [0].
> > Before I change these, I wanted to check with the rest of the
> > community.  
> 
> I agree with those who say driveways should be highway=service
> service=driveway, unless they are so difficult to drive on that they
> are really not recommended in a passengar car.
> 
> Not really germane to driveways, but a major distinction, at least
> around me (ma.us) is that
> 
>   a road is a legal thing, with its own parcel
> 
>   a track is an agricultural road, or old time logging road, within a
>   parcel
> 
> However, drivways are also not legally roads in terms of separate
> parcels.

Around me (eastern Washington), being within a parcel is a strong
indication that something is a track (or a driveway), but it's not
required. There are a number of places where gaps for roadbuilding were
left between parcels, but the road was never built.  Instead, a track
formed as farmers used the right-of-way to get access to the adjacent
properties.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC ele:regional

[Mark Wagner]

On Sun, 3 May 2020 14:16:09 +0200
Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> sent from a phone
> 
> > On 3. May 2020, at 13:06, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> > 
> > When I see an elevation value on the ground I do not see any
> > reference to the reference system, so I cannot know, as a mapper,
> > what reference system is at the base of the informaton that I find
> > on the ground. In that respect the proposal is not at all clear
> > from a practical perspective  
> 
> 
> the idea is you do not even have to know, simply copy the value from
> the sign. 

What about regions where two or more reference systems are in common
use?  If I copy an elevation from a USGS benchmark and put it in
"ele:regional", how does an end-user know if it's a recent benchmark
measured in NAVD 88 or an older benchmark measured in NVGD 29?

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Mark Wagner]

On Tue, 12 May 2020 23:53:52 +0800
Phake Nick  wrote:

> Except capacity is only one of many differences between common taxi
> and motorcycle taxi.

Are there any differences that can't be explained by the fact that a
motorcycle taxi uses a motorcycle to carry the passengers?

For example, in the United States, we've got what are called "airport
shuttles".  These look and act a lot like a taxi, but either the start
point or the end point of the journey must be the airport -- you can't
use them as general point-to-point transportation like you could a taxi.

-- 
Mark

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

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

[Mark Wagner]

On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 10:09:17 +0200
Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> on unpaved
> roads, measure the extent of the maximum width that vehicles actually
> use, on a medium to narrow part of the highway (i.e. do not add the
> smallest width to a long stretch of highway if it only occurs for a
> short part, rather split the highway in this case of tag the narrow
> exceptions explicitly while using a medium value for longer
> stretches).

In my experience, unpaved roads don't have a well-defined width.
Typically, you've got the following options, roughly from widest to
narrowest:

1) Obstacle-free width: the distance that's clear of fences, trees,
ditches, brush, boulders, and other obstacles.  Not well-defined for
roads in farm country, which may be obstacle-free all the way
to the next road, and misleading in ranch country, where the nearest
obstacle is usually the fence marking the edge of the right-of-way.

2) Vegetation-free width: the distance clear of any vegetation.
Usually the easiest to spot and measure, but may include things such as
spoil from road maintenance which are unsuitable for driving on.

3) Maintained width: the distance that's kept smooth, level, and firm
through regular maintenance.  This is probably the closest to the
"curb-to-curb" or "edge-to-edge" width of a paved road.  This has the
problem that it can change from year to year as graders take different
routes eg. around curves, and is difficult to tell apart from the
vegetation-free width. It also has the problem that many roads are not
maintained except for removal of fallen trees and other obstacles.

4) Driven path: the portion of the road regularly used by drivers.
Unpaved roads frequently develop a well-defined set of ruts that are
easy to measure.  However, this width varies rapidly with road
conditions.

Which one is "the" width of the road?
-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Change of wiki page Key:access

[Mark Wagner]

On Wed, 27 May 2020 08:26:55 +0200
Colin Smale  wrote:

> On 2020-05-26 19:31, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> 
> > May 26, 2020, 19:19 by f...@zz.de: 
> > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 06:46:11PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via
> > Tagging wrote: May 26, 2020, 18:04 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com: 
> >   
> >> Bikes may "pass" in two different ways: riding 
> >> (bicycle=yes/permissive/destination) or pushing
> >> (bicycle=dismount). Bikes are only completely forbidden if
> >> bicycle=no/private. 
> > bicycle=no does not mean that you cannot push bicycle 
> > bicycle=no and bicycle=dismount are de facto equivalents 
> > we have no widely used tag to indicate "walking with bicycle is
> > illegal here" 
> > 
> > Is it that in every jurisdication a cyclist pushing his bike is 
> > considered a pedestrian?  
> 
> Sometimes pushing bicycles is explicitly forbidden. 
> 
> It is highly conceivable that some rules, in some territories, apply
> to the bike as a vehicle, whereas others apply to the activity. Spot
> the difference between "no cycles" and "no cycling". If the rule says
> "no cycles", I guess that means you can't push it either. 

Easy example of that: in the United States, bicycles are forbidden in
federal Wilderness Areas.  It doesn't matter if you're riding the
bicycle, pushing it, or carrying it on your shoulder.  You might be
able to get away with completely disassembling it and carrying the
pieces in your backpack, but I don't know if anyone's tried it.

(People have gotten in trouble from other attempts at getting around
the "no form of mechanical transport" rule, such as climbing out of a
hovering helicopter.)

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Mark Wagner]

On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 19:37:40 +0100
Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 18:36, Tod Fitch  wrote:
> 
> > Not yet mapped, but my prototype case can be seen in the Bing
> > Imagery with an area that collect water around 33.99268,-116.22239
> > and flows generally to the east and north only to dissipate around
> > 33.06076,-116.06077. 
> 
> There's water there?  It looks like the surface of Mars.  I can see
> subtle features
> but I'd hesitate to call them water from Bing imagery alone.  Could
> be deer trails
> for all I can tell.

If you're familiar with that sort of terrain, the streams are
blindingly obvious (Esri Clarity is probably a better choice than Bing
for spotting them).

> > The collection area is no problem nor is the ephemeral waterway
> > until about 33.03910,-116.099138 where it start bifurcating into
> > smaller and smaller channels which eventually disappear.
> >  
> 
> Either I'm looking at the wrong place, or the USGS Topographic Map
> layer thinks
> things are somewhat different, at least in the rainy season.  It
> looks like you have
> a number of sinks and, generally north-east of the sinks, issues (as
> Ordnance Survey
> would call them), on intermittent streams (if I'm interpreting USGS
> symbols correctly).

Probably the best place to see spreading would be around Coyote Lake at
34.1618, -116.2123; there are additional "spread out and disappear"
patterns at the north and south ends of the lakebed.

For a larger and far more dramatic example of this sort of situation,
look at the area to the west of Death Valley Playa.  It looks like
someone stacked hundreds of river deltas on top of one another, but
forgot to add the water.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

[Mark Wagner]

On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 19:36:10 +0200
mbranco2  wrote:

> Maybe images was shot in a particular season, and the soil condition
> is not always the same?
> Well, if I check several imageries and in all of them I see a
> "desertic land", I'm confident I can map that area with the tag we're
> talking about. And I think it doesn't matter if for few days a year
> (or few days in several years...) it will rain and there will be -
> for few days - a bit of vegetation: it's not an OSM mapping rule, to
> map the "main" characteristic of an item?

You've got to be careful when doing this, since imagery dates are not
random.  For example, six out of seven local imagery options are from
early or mid summer, while the seasonal ponds don't dry up until late
summer.  (The seventh option is from peak spring flood.)

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

[Mark Wagner]

On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 17:51:29 +0200
Peter Elderson  wrote:

> Aren't Interstate and US evident from the geographic extent as well?
> 

The US has two national highway networks:

* The Interstate Highway System, major high-speed roads connecting
  major cities.
* The United States Numbered Highway System (commonly referred to as
  the "US Highways"), medium-speed roads routed to connect as many
  settlements as reasonably possible.

Detecting from extent also runs into the problem that Interstate spur
and loop routes almost never cross state lines.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

[Mark Wagner]

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 17:41:31 +0100
Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 17:28, Jarek Piórkowski 
> wrote:
> 
> >
> > I would suggest using an amenity tag rather than a shop tag since
> > it's much more like a cafe or a fast food place than a store.
> >  
> 
> I can see that it's more like fast food since the stuff has to be
> prepared. But then I think "Starbucks."  Have we already standardized
> on a way of tagging somewhere without seats that sells takeaway
> coffee?

The ubiquitous American coffee stands, which may or may not have
seating, are "amenity=cafe" + "cuisine=coffee_shop".

-- 
Mark

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