Re: [Tagging] dock=tidal
I would like to make the decision based on the usage of a dock. Such dock=tidal would never be used to pump the dock dry, but to keep a fixed water level, I think. Then the usage of dock=drydock would be associated to the purpose of dry docks. At Bremerhaven the structures which are described by dock=floating are tagged different. They are tagged as building=dock, floating=yes, type=floating_dock, waterway=dock. This is some double tagging, but still, I do not like type=*. So IMO it is a bad example for tagging dry docks. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/174504404 Am 29.05.2015 um 11:30 schrieb Malcolm Herring: On 29/05/2015 09:45, pmailkeey . wrote: Is, then, a dry dock an empty body of water? Only when it is pumped dry. ___ 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] dock=tidal
Hi, I just wondered how to tag a dock which is tidal, since the wiki does not propose anything for that case. In fact the wiki proposes dock=tidal for a dock, which has a tidal independent water level i.e. the water level is managed. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Ddock But maybe I am totaly wrong and the type of dock should be tagged as waterway=riverbank or natural=water, water=river. How ever this does not give the information that the dock is tidal. And if I am not wrong the meaning of tidal is exactly that the water level is changing depending on the tide and is not managed in any way. Overpass API gives me a number of 42 polygones for dock=tidal in total. I figured out that 9 seem to be wrongly mapped according the wiki, 19 are done by me and 14 seem to be correctly tagged. http://overpass-turbo.eu/?w=%22dock%22%3D%22tidal%22+globalR So what do you think about deprecating the usage of dock=tidal as it is proposed at the wiki and propose the opposite? In that case I would propose something like dock=basin or dock=managed_water_level. Regards Tobias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Does oneway:bicycle apply to cycleway=track?
Am 26.02.2015 um 12:06 schrieb Paul Johnson: What's the location we're working with? Here a location for cycleway=opposite_track: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4769712#map=18/53.07986/8.80454 There is no kerb between the carriageway and the cycleway. Just some bollards. And here a location for cycleway=track: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4741710#map=19/53.07233/8.80515 A kerb between the cycleway and the carriageway. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Does oneway:bicycle apply to cycleway=track?
Hi, Am 26.02.2015 um 10:56 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: Yes, cycleway=track and cycleway=opposite_track are rather special type of FIXME than a proper tagging of a cycleway. Maybe in some situations, but at the moment it is IMO for many situations the best solution. But that's a different topic. Cheers Tobias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Does oneway:bicycle apply to cycleway=track?
Hi all, I have a situation where a cycleway=track is not a oneway, while the highway itself is a oneway=yes. So I added oneway:bicycle=no to the way because it is true from at least one point of view. The same problem applies to cycleway=opposite_track. BTW: Neither graphhopper nor mapquest supports cycleway=opposite_track without oneway:bicycle=no. I also asked the question on the discussions page of wiki page about oneway: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:oneway#Does_oneway:bicycle_also_apply_to_cycleway.3Dtrack_or_cycleway.3Dopposite_track.3F Cheers Tobias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Does oneway:bicycle apply to cycleway=track?
Am 25.02.2015 um 22:20 schrieb Hubert: The implied problem in your question is how to interpret a (main) tag on an osm_way. Does it only apply to the carriageway/driving lanes or to the whole street which also includes cycleways, sidewalks, etc ? Just consider the width=* or lanes=* tags. Is there any propsal for width? lanes=* is a good example. It does only count the number of lanes for cars, those for bicycles are not counted and at bicycle:lanes=* each bicycle lane is associated to a lane for motor vehicles. Yet, I wouldn't go so far as to declare it wrong tagging, but I personally would not tag oneway:bicycle=no on such streets as describes by you. Instead I would add cycleway:oneway=no to the osm_way and avoid the issue. I am using a tagging like cycleway:right:oneway=no if it was only applied to a single side. cycleway:oneway=no if it was applied to all cycleways. If there is only cycleway:right=track, the above cycleway:oneway=no would mean the same as cycleway:right:oneway=no. (On cycleway=opposite_track I'd use cycleway:oneway=-1) Sounds good, but may be there exists something like a default? I cannot find any combinations with taginfo. But may be this is interesting. For cycleway=opposite the majority of uses is without oneway:bicycle. So there may be that oneway case included as default, too. But if you think about the tagging, than oneway=* applies to everything of the highway except pedestrians. So if there is an exception to the way you would look in second instance for those oneway:*=* tags and make your decision. In the other case you have to check for each possibility what mappers may have tagged on the way e.g. cycleway:both:oneway cycleway:left:oneway cycleway:right:oneway cycleway:oneway cycleway=opposite cycleway=opposite_lane cycleway=opposite_track Whether it applies to the carriageway or a cycle track may be concluded from other tags, too. For example cycleway=opposite implies oneway:bicycle is applied to the carriageway and a penalty for cars. cycleway:freedom_of_choice=no or cycleway:obligatory=yes would imply that oneway:bicycle does not matter for cars. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Does oneway:bicycle apply to cycleway=track?
Am 26.02.2015 um 01:54 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: I'd say you have met the limits of cycleway=track. You can solve this by creating a proper osm object for what is a distinct way in the real world as well. Well, this is almost the same as cycleway=opposite_track, but that tag is obviously not the limit. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] route=running
Hi, what about running facilities? This is a track which is dedicated to runners: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4039958 Those elements where it seems to use the normal path are in fact seperated by a lowered kerb - not really mentionable. I do not really like to use leisure=track there, so may be you have a better idea. May be route=running does it all. Regards Tobias Am 05.02.2015 um 09:09 schrieb Volker Schmidt: I would say yes, provided these are signposted routes. Volker Padova, Italy On 5 February 2015 at 06:44, Andreas Labres l...@lab.at wrote: Hi! Would it be O.K. to add route=running to the Wiki? There are many running courses (with signs) here in Austria: http://www.bergfex.at/sommer/oesterreich/touren/laufen/ Currently this tag is used 262 times: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=route%3Drunning and I'd like to add it here http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Route_relations_in_use /al ___ 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] Motorroad does not apply to all lanes
Hi, Here is a picture of the situation. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Special_motorroad_situation.jpg Cheers Tobias Am 20.01.2015 um 15:05 schrieb Martin Vonwald: 2015-01-20 14:56 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: Am 20.01.2015 um 08:44 schrieb Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: 2015-01-20 3:36 GMT+01:00 715371 osmu715...@gmx.de: motorroad:lanes=yes|yes|yes|no Seems absolutely fine to me. One alternative (for better compatibility) would be motorroad=yes + motorroad:lanes=yes|yes|yes|no this sounds strange to me, a motor road according to German law (and word) is referring to a road, not to a lane, so there shouldn't be roads with lanes of which some are motor roads and others aren't, it is more probable that the whole motor road gets interrupted by the bridge (to allow crossing by all vehicles) and restarts after it. My response was solely to the tagging itself. If the original observation is wrong, that's a completely different story ;-) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Motorroad does not apply to all lanes
Am 21.01.2015 um 00:03 schrieb Mariusz: Judging from Google Street photos (from 2008) all four lanes are motorrad. The sign 331.2 - end of motorrad - can be seen at about this location: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1968608980 This would imply the way http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/318383860 is motorrad, and hence the bridge too. Good clue. But since this is (one of) the first possibilities to put a sign to end the motorroad, this maybe meaningless. Just imagine the situation was true, that there is a single lane which is not motorroad, then why shouldn't you put a sign, which is applied to all lanes? By the way, at this entry to motorrad from Daniel-von-Büren-Straße http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3247878878 the sign 331.1 - begining of motorrad - is visible at left side. It should be applied to whole road, not only to the left lane. Well, I think the German law might not be that straight at those situations. I am not a lawyer, but at the StVO it reads like: Regularly the signs are at the right hand side of the road and if they just apply to single lanes, they are above those lanes (see StVO §39 (2)). Well, this sentence sounds like bullshit to me (maybe somebody can tell me what is regelmäßig means). However - the best I knew. References: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stvo_2013/__39.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Motorroad does not apply to all lanes
Am 21.01.2015 um 19:41 schrieb Martin Vonwald: Is there any motorroad signpost before that part of the road? No. The only existing sign on that link is that one on the picture. There is no second on the right hand side, too. If you mean the other direction: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/203752771 It is a motorroad, but has a sidewalk. But trunk nevertheless, I think, because it does not have any crossings. I think to tag motorroad=yes/no would be wrong. Both does not apply to all lanes. If you tag yes, you gonna have to add bicycle=yes, moped=yes,... due to the single non-motorroad-lane (sidewalk does imply foot=yes/designated). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Motorroad does not apply to all lanes
Hi, I have a very, very special case here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/318383959 There is a road with four lanes, but not all of them seem to be motorroad. There is a sign which suggests that. I do not like to have a separate way there, so I used the following tagging. motorroad:lanes=yes|yes|yes|no What do you think? Better ideas? Regards Tobias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Moveable objects tagged as building=*
Hi, late, but better than never: Thank you for your replies! I tried to sum up some of your ideas at the discussion page of Buildings and added a new section Mentionable usage to the page. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Buildings Cheers Tobias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Sidewalk tagged on highway=cycleway
Hi,
there is a sentence on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway
which says
It is also possible to use {{Tag|sidewalk|right}}/*=left [on
highway=cycleway] to indicate which side of the segregated path
pedestrians should walk on (where right/left is relative to the way's
direction).
It was originally contributed by ulamm and modified by RobJN after a
short discussion (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:RobJN).
But this is the opposite of what is written on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sidewalks
The inclusion of sidewalk information makes it easier to provide
effective pedestrian routing, and in particular good narrative
descriptions of pedestrian routes along motorised roads. The sidewalk
tag is not needed on non-motorised thoroughfares, for example
highway=footway/cycleway/path/brideway/track.
I think there better solutions to the problem than ulamm's.
If there are no further arguments, I will remove the sentence from the
first citation. What is your opinion on that?
Cheers
Tobias
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen kartieren
Hi, Am 25.12.2014 um 20:45 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: cycleway=opposite is useful for marking that cyclists may drive in both direction, \ Then cycleway=no/none would do the same. But I guess this is not the best idea for the same reason. but there is no marked contraflow lane (for streets with contraflow lane there is cycleway=opposite_lane tag). ... or cycleway=opposite_track Is there an historic reason why this tag exists? Maybe oneway:bicycle=no was introduced afterwards and before it was implied from cycleway=opposite. Cheers Tobias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)
Am 22.12.2014 um 02:20 schrieb Ulrich Lamm: I've written a proposal for the tags cycleway=obligatory and cycleway=optional. I am still against this tag as I mentioned several times. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Moveable objects tagged as building=*
Hi, I am wondering if the building-tag should be used for moveable objects. I guess that this is not in the sense of the meaning of building (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building#Residential and check for houseboats). For example according to taginfo houseboats are mapped as building=houseboat 11496 times. So this is not a new or minor tag. I guess in this case man_made=boat/ship fits better than any building=*. Nevertheless there is more stuff which could be moved from building to some other keys. Maybe there are solutions like man_made=moveable_object possible. Some examples: building=static_caravan building=houseboat building=boathouse building=ship building=boat building=motorhome Do you have any ideas? Regards Tobias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vandalis on access page
Hi, May be you could link to cycleway:mandatory, too. Which would give a reference to the analog usage if there is cycleway=* used on the road. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway But I do not know whether there is a proposition page for cycleway:mandatory. So maybe this tag should be proposed before. Cheers Tobias Am 08.10.2014 um 12:48 schrieb Pee Wee: If I understand correctly you say it would be better if the wiki stated that the compulsory cycleway is drawn as a separte way. I think you are right. I could changed that in the wiki. Unfortunately the user Ulamm has changed the wiki (for the worse in my opinion) so I'll send him an email before I make any changes. Cheers PeeWee32 2014-10-08 12:34 GMT+02:00 Hubert sg.fo...@gmx.de: Thanks for the help and the links. That was my opinion, too. I asked, because the use is not clear by just reading the definition and not looking at the examples. highway=road + cycleway=track + bicycle=use_sidepath together, without an additional highway=cycleway OSMWay (for example) seem correct by definition. I can understand the confusion. Should the use be made more prominent in the description of the value? Yours Hubert ___ 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] Vandalis on access page
Hi, I want to mention that user ulamm is not just doing vandalism on the osm-db, but also on the wiki. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Aaccessdiff=1076542oldid=1076413 He is changing the information for Germany, where this is not true so far as I know. Now he is claiming this in discussions. Related to sidewalk-tagging he is doing the same: modify and than claim his proposal was right. You can also find suspicious modifications on [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]. Please bann him. Cheers, Tobias [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Ahighway%3Dcyclewaydiff=1078542oldid=1056509 [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:highway%3Dcycleway [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:De:Description:Cycleway:Track [4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attributierung_von_Stra%C3%9Fen_in_Deutschland [5] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
