Re: [Tagging] Really big junction=roundabout
On 2013-06-28 16:26, Elliott Plack wrote : Hello OSM friends. Another member of the community asked if I think that a circulator road around a large athletics facility (RFK Stadium in Wash. DC) would be considered a roundabout. Here is one of the ways in it: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/51369536 This round, one-way road does act somewhat like a roundabout, and might be nice to have tagged so routing software can interpret it as such. That way the computer can say, take the third exit to 123ZYY road. Thoughts? This reminds me Bracknell, Berks http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=51.41363mlon=-0.75054zoom=15, where, in my youth time, I discovered real size roundabouts compared to the toy ones I see over here, especially those built lately (1). They have one with a Met office inside and even one with a piece of railway between two bridges. It's lovely to have things inside, I've seen cow statues, for the amusement of the children while dad revolves 5 times waiting for mum to have found their way on OSM. And yes they tag all that as roundabouts, strangely enough in several pieces and they're one-way, mind you. Why not? Cheers, André. (1) My definition for them is: a stone in the middle of the road giving right of way to those who U-turn around it over those driving straight on. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] About url Key
On 2013-06-24 14:50, Serge Wroclawski wrote : Usually the url tag is used for an organization's website. For example, many musems, libraries, restaurants, etc. have an official website. That's what the website (or url) tag is for (I think website is actually preferred but url is just as good). I'd generally not use a Google+ page for a site, just like I wouldn't use a Facebook page, or a MySpace page, or a Twitter account, unless that was the only site that exists, and is curated by the organization itself. I have suggested without much success that the value for *any* key defining an organization (or anything that can be defined with a web page) could, and should best, contain an URL. contain means that software displaying the value should auto-recognize an URL and make it clickable. There's no point in having the reader make a Google search for some text when an URL gives him the correct search result right away. For example: for operator as you can see it in www.waymarkedtrails.org/?zoom=14lat=50.51045lon=5.64918 http://www.waymarkedtrails.org/?zoom=14lat=50.51045lon=5.64918 (open Routes window) I used http://www.sprimont.be/index.php?id=23. http://www.sprimont.be/index.php?id=23 Lonvia did not recognize it as an ULR by lack of guidance. Тhe OSM relation page did. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2406099 But map readers are not supposed to open elation pages, are they? Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag for fab_lab with the key workshop
On 2013-03-12 13:20, Johann Colombano-Rut wrote : Hi, I have made a proposal for the key workshop http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:workshop. I think it would be very useful to tag various workshops, like Fab Labs, Hackerspaces and such (I'm about to tag a bunch of them). The reason I ask around is that I'm fairly new to OMS and woulduse the right tag for my project of mapping FabLabs. Generally speaking, a link (URL) is great under words whose meaning is not obvious to everyone, especially to those called foreigners. It may save the human kind a lot of time searching and/or misunderstanding. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
On 2013-03-14 15:43, Simone Saviolo wrote : Hi everyone! I noticed that the proposal for a give_way type relationship [1] has been in draft for nine solid years. It seems a great solution to the current limitations of highway=give_way and highway=stop, also because it reuses a tagging scheme that is widely accepted both by mappers and by consumers for turn restrictions. I suggest that discussion on this proposal be revived. It should undergo the regular voting process and finally become an approved relation type. It may also be that it became a de facto standard in the meanwhile. Does somebody know of a router that uses this relation, possibly to provide navigation indications? Regards, Simone [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Give_way From wikipedia: In road transport, a YIELD (Canada, Ireland, and the United States) or GIVE WAY (Hong Kong and most Commonwealth countries) traffic sign indicates that a vehicle driver must prepare to stop if necessary to let a driver on another approach proceed (but has no need to stop if his way is clear). A driver who stops has yielded or given his right of way to another. Canada etc... are not the only countries in the world and highway=give way http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dgive_way mentions an international standard sign. URLs (links) to more information would be very much welcome A driver who stops in Belgium has *NOT* yielded or given his right of way to another. This rule might have changed for compatibility with other European regulations. Even more that wrong speed limits, this misinformation can lead to accidents. It should be changed in the wiki. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wikidata tag
On 2013-03-01 21:50, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote : 2013/3/1 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com: In what language do you suggest we write this in? For example, it would be natural to write Samsung in Korean, for it is a Korean company. But Korean has two styles of writing, Hanja and Hangul, so we should decide which one to use. Or should we go with English, because Openstreetmap relies on English? What about duplicate brands? sooner or later you will discover them with this system ;-) Not sure if this will be a real problem, probably you will be able to separate them by country buondaries later. For the language, I'd use the "typical" brand name. For instance Samsung seems to be written exactly like this also in Korea: http://www.samsung.com/sec/#latest-home It rather seems to me that they write 삼성. Look carefully, that page has many. If you don't see them, type Ctrl+F. If you want more, do a 삼성 site search. I think that we should not decide, but ask 삼성. I think they will choose "Samsung". Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wikidata tag
On 2013-02-27 12:08, Jo wrote : I suggested to Waymarked Trail http://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/en/ and I have mentioned to this list that any free format field like operator should be explicitly allowed to contain an URL and that the programs should auto-recognize URLs to make them clickable (like many many programs do, even my Terminal command line interface). That URL can be beside other information. Many sites auto-detect language and some even forget to let switch to another one. It should be possible to call for example a Wikipedia URL independent of the language with any article in any language and switch to the first existing article in the language from the list configured in the browser. sort of [xx.]wikipedia.org/fr:Liège with nl,fr,en browser - follow Nederlands http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luik_%28stad%29 - http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luik_(stad) they almost do it: Error 404 – File not found http://en.wikipedia.org/fr:Liège We could not find the above page on our servers. *Did you mean to type http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/fr:Liège http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/fr:Li%c3%a8ge?* You will be automatically redirected there in five seconds. Cheers, André. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] As the crow flies
On 2013-02-26 15:47, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote : 2013/2/23 A.Pirard.Papou a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com A non-way is not the best word to describe my idea and I also do not feel comfortable with it. It's sort of a secret [winding] little passage that one must follow on demand. So, more than informal=yes (which I don't understand well), it would be a straight exists=no. I'll try to explain the idea of informal=yes on a highway=footway/path: it is a path (there is something recognizable on the ground) which is there because people (or maybe animals) are using it frequently, but it is not built on purpose, in fact, nobody built it at all. In German this would be called Trampelpfad, in French Ligne de désir, in English desire line. If there is nothing at all, I don't know if I'd map it (in the end you can find shortcuts on all non-linear ways, depending on the terrain, your equipment and your abilities). If there is a route using this way it surely won't be nothing. Let me explain with an example. Have you ever seen the route of the Tour de France? It is made of a series of stages. Usually, the stages are connected, like the ways of an OSM route. But sometimes they're not. There is a gap between two stages. And nobody cares about why, what there's in between or how the cyclists bridge the gap. The specification I'm trying to suggest is exactly that. There is a gap in an OSM route and the sole idea is to bridge it. We must indicate go from here to there in an unspecified way. It is just to * make sure that those who follow the route will go there and not somewhere else * indicate to validators that there is no mistake and that the route is connected and maybe looped That there are paths in between or not, what those possible parts are called, that the route may exist and just be unknown, that there should be paths but that there is a map bug, or any other reason for a gap, all that is very good for a note=literature but is totally irrelevant for the attempted specification. They were mentioned because the idea evolved from a path feature to a relation feature. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] As the crow flies
On 2013-02-22 12:10, Janko Mihelić wrote : I'm not entirely sure I understood your question, but you shouldn't map non-ways. Routers could be developed that route through non-ways, if there is no cliff or something else in the way. A router could route along the contour lines, to make the hike through forest easier. But if there is no path, don't map it. On 2013-02-22 14:05, Volker Schmidt wrote : It happens often on mountain hiking routes. You have a signpost with the red-white sign of the Alpine Club that indicates the direction that you have to take across a meadow, for example. On the other side you have to find a corresponding sign. In between there may not be any visible path. In that case I would happily put a highway=path with surface=grass as a straight line across the meadow. On 2013-02-23 12:56, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote : maybe add the key informal=yes to the path? I do this for spontaneous ways and it is also documented in the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:informal And the other suggestions, many thanks, sorry for not listing them all. I'm looking for a general feature, not only a solution to my particular problem. A non-way is not the best word to describe my idea and I also do not feel comfortable with it. It's sort of a secret [winding] little passage that one must follow on demand. So, more than informal=yes (which I don't understand well), it would be a straight exists=no. How could it be mapped, sort of dotted line, so that the human understands that he may follow a route for which there's no path under the conditions otherwise described (no cars in a meadow)? But how could the automated router know if it must or not follow that secret passage? Mind boggling, it needs more information. And these thoughts led to the following reasoning... In making a route (the relation), we are actually not mapping something (creating new map objects). We are relating existing objects of the map to be highlighted to show, well, a route to follow (other relations similar). And it may, for many various reasons of which you found more, happen to be NO objects in the map to highlight and follow. So, this problem is just, within the queue, aka file, of members making up the route, to indicate somehow: this gap is not a mistake (page intentionally left blank, JOSM don't complain): it means that you just must manage to go from here to there the best way you see fit, para-gliders included (1). The first idea was to fill the gap with a dummy, but the second thought is that we simply could use the end nodes of the two ways the gap is striding to do so. One node, repeated next to the way it belongs to, would have role /*gap_start*/, the other one /*gap_end*/. Or /*jum*//*p_start*/, /*jump_end*/ (1). No dummies needed. Human routers (mapping a hike) just assemble these special instructions among the members. Automated routers are driven by a human who simply breaks the route in segments (making via points), one of which uses no car, bike or pilgrim type but that funny little flying bird as the segment routing type. By definition of the crow segment, the router makes it of only two gap-start and gap-end nodes (it may use more nodes and, magically, we reinvent the GPS trace (we might use /*track_point*/ instead of gap_*, but that would lessen the possibility to detect routes broken by less capable editors). I think it's a rather simple, best value for money, addition to the OSM tags I let you discuss. To end my practical story, not only do the hike instructions loosely say that the hike starts and ends in the parking place (which is obviously the car segment of the hike!) but the bird segment starts wandering north in a drunkard fashion where there is no path, even breaking its way through the limit of an alleged cemetery. I simply started on the road alongside the parking and cheated my way trough a small street detour. They call that a walworkaround ;-) Cheers, André. (1) Yet another real case of possible exists=no routes coming to my mind errr... BTW. Ski routes too. Endless. 2013/2/21 A.Pirard.Papou a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com mailto:a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com Hello world, It can happen for a hiking route, maybe others, to go across a non-way. One may for example get people across some land without a path or officially start and end a hike in the middle of a parking lot. What must we do: * create a pseudo way and what are the tags? * more likely, leave a gap in the route relation, filled with some element saying fly to connect? The crow may be supposed to fly loosely following the roads too if router software is unable to make a correct route or simply if the user insists on being a crow. This is not a mapping issue, but the solution can be the same if the router builds the same relation as ours as the output of its result. I suggested several sites to add
Re: [Tagging] As the crow flies
On 2013-02-23 20:02, Jo wrote :
It seems that you would like a specific role, which
you can add to 2 members of a route relation (I'd add it to the
two ways around your imaginary gap).
If you do it that way, you don't need a non-existing member. And
you don't need to add nodes to a relation which consists of ways.
Yes I want to add a new specific role but it cannot apply to the two
ways around the gap for the simple reason that these ways may
already have another role. I have already discarded the dummy way.
It turns out from my text that, in reality, I'm filling the gap with
a GPX trace (we might use "track_point").
That means that we must add nodes and just nodes (to the relation).
If the GPX trace contains only two nodes, the near nodes of "the two
ways around" must be duplicated and it's an easy task for validation
software to check that configuration (as if there was a way using
the two nodes).
If we were allowing such "GPX traces" of more than two nodes, we
would, in addition, have to invent sort of dummy nodes with at least
sort of GPX=yes tags so that they're not yelled at tagless isolated
ones and that we know what they are. Validation is the same except
that there's absolutely no clue to validate the extra nodes.
It should be noticed that, in converting a GPX trace to a route,
such gaps are the leftover, the GPX pieces that could not be
converted. It seems to be a logical thing to do to keep them as GPX
(simplified, of course) ... until Osmose warns that a new road has
been built ;-)
This doesn't just have implications for the validator, but it also
might involve changing the code which sorts the member ways.
?
André.
On 2013-02-23 19:53, A.Pirard.Papou
wrote :
On 2013-02-22 12:10, Janko Mihelić
wrote :
I'm not entirely sure I understood your question,
but you shouldn't map non-ways. Routers could be developed
that route through non-ways, if there is no cliff or something
else in the way. A router could route along the contour lines,
to make the hike through forest easier. But if there is no
path, don't map it.
On 2013-02-22 14:05, Volker Schmidt
wrote :
It happens often on mountain hiking routes. You
have a signpost with the red-white sign of the Alpine Club
that indicates the direction that you have to take across a
meadow, for example. On the other side you have to find a
corresponding sign. In between there may not be any visible
path. In that case I would happily put a highway=path with
surface=grass as a straight line across the meadow.
On 2013-02-23 12:56, Martin
Koppenhoefer wrote :
maybe add the key "informal"=yes to the path? I do
this for "spontaneous" ways and it is also documented in the
wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:informal
And the other suggestions, many thanks, sorry for not listing
them all.
I'm looking for a general feature, not only a solution to my
particular problem.
A non-way is not the best word to describe my idea and I also do
not feel comfortable with it.
It's sort of a "secret [winding] little passage" that one must
follow on demand.
So, more than "informal=yes" (which I don't understand well), it
would be a straight "exists=no".
How could it be mapped, sort of dotted line, so that the human
understands that he may follow a route for which there's no path
under the conditions otherwise described (no cars in a meadow)?
But how could the automated router know if it must or not follow
that secret passage?
Mind boggling, it needs more information.
And these thoughts led to the following reasoning...
In making a route (the relation), we are actually not mapping
something (creating new map objects). We are relating existing
objects of the map to be highlighted to show, well, a route to
follow (other relations similar).
And it may, for many various reasons of which you found more,
happen to be NO objects in the map to highlight and follow. So,
this problem is just, within the queue, aka file, of members
making up the route, to indicate somehow: this gap is not a
mistake ("page intentionally left blank", JOSM don't complain):
it means that you just must manage to go from here to there the
best way you see fit,
Re: [Tagging] Using key:operator to contain building management organization
On 2013-02-17 00:58, dies38...@mypacks.net wrote : In particular for business properties, the property or building manager name and contact information is often available on a sign on the building's exterior. In this case I've used the _operator_ key to contain this information. Wondering what your opinion is on the suitability of this. Thanks. --ceyockey JOSM contact preset contains website=*, email=*, phone=* and fax=* In the same vein... I have a tendency to mostly tag web sites alone to spare myourselves a monthly survey to check that a phone number tagged in OSM has not changed on the web site. So, for hikes, I tagged: website:www.agency.site where practical instructions can be found (as a usual contact) operator: www.administration.site that organizes, owns and advertises the hikes Unfortunately, the very nicest site showing my hikes does not make operator clickable. To that request, the answer was ... there is website. Shouldn't it be recommended to automatically detect a web address and make it clickable anywhere where it makes sense? Cheers,, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Processing the tags
HI, I have successfully written programs processing our tags, but 'm stuck on this problem. Given a node number or a way number, typically a street, what are the HTTP queries to send, and what is the algorithm to process the replies, to determine the relation number of which municipality, province, country, landuse, whichever polygon, etc... that element is inside? Thanks for some light, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute concerning shrimp pond dikes
On 2013-01-25 03:15, doug brown wrote : Thanks again André. I am really impressed with the amount of work you have done on my problem and greatly appreciate your efforts. I hope to be able to find some time to work on this Sunday afternoon. I will let you know how it goes. I was also impressed by the patience you needed to encode all that data and the vandalism you have been victim of. And as I developed anti vandalism skill when I myself am the victim... This said, I felt stupid when I realized that patching the .osm file manually with a much neater result was done in minutes compared to well over one hour with the merge method leaving much work to do. I'm glad you will use the new file. I suppose that the JOSM validation errors will disappear after moving the bundled nodes back to place and that you will not have too much trouble solving conflicts when updating OSM. I hope that you and MagWhiz will be useful to JOSM by explaining how the data got into that state. Conclusion, use JOSM and support those who support it. I'm eagerly waiting to see the shrimps back home :-) Cheers, André. Cheers, doug brown Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 02:43:36 +0100 From: a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com To: dougc...@hotmail.com CC: a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Tagging] Dispute concerning shrimp pond dikes Updated. On 2013-01-22 20:33, doug brown wrote : Thanks André. I got the data and have tested it in JOSM. I have been able to delete some of the ways that go off into infinity, but it is going to take some time. At least this is a way forward. I finally decided I should have a look at what is wrong in the Revert. I made manual corrections and the resulting .osm file is here. http://www.papou.byethost9.com/tmp/shrimp_pond_dike_OK.osm All the ways going to nodes at infinity now converge to some real dummy point. All you have to do is to repeatedly drag that node to the correct positions (they split). That will untangle the bundle. Remember you can still select as many set of data you want to process separately, /*Editmerge selection*/ to a new layer, update OSM from that new layer and delete the selection (in layer of this file) to see what you've done and what remains. Be extra sure not to update from the layer where you delete that way, though. JOSM would delete your work from the server. Carefully check what each request shows it's going to do. So, about 20 nodes were like this. node id='1579548851' action='modify' timestamp='2012-10-20T05:16:27Z' uid='656969' user='MagWhiz' visible='false' version='2' changeset='13563919' / that is, without coordinates. I set that dummy one. That was causing the non-crashing program faults when JOSM processed those infinity nodes. For example, deleting or trying to merge the way they're in. On 2013-01-24 16:33, fly wrote : Would you please report these bugs at JOSM trac. Otherwise they will probably not be fixed soon. Best regards. Cheers, André. Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 20:17:02 +0100 From: a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com mailto:a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com To: tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org CC: dougc...@hotmail.com mailto:dougc...@hotmail.com Subject: Re: [Tagging] Dispute concerning shrimp pond dikes On 2013-01-22 13:37, doug brown wrote : Thanks all for the feedback you have provided on the tags for the shrimp pond dikes. I hope to be able to implement many of these changes soon, but I have not been successful in using the JOSM Reverter plugin. The OSM Wiki states: After installing the plugin and restarting JOSM, you should find a new menu item History - Revert changeset. I have updated to the latest JOSM version (version 5608) and downloaded the plugin and restarted JOSM multiple times, but no History menu item appears. Subsequent attempts to download the reverter plugin yield a message that all plugins are up to date. I'm out of ideas on how to proceed. Does anybody have any advice? I have replayed the first part of Revert and stored the result here http://www.papou.byethost9.com/tmp/shrimp_pond_dike.osm. The file was saved after replying yes to ignore 23 conflicts?. I wanted to know if an attempt to update would raise the same conflicts. It raised a JOSM crash. I tried to delete the runaway ways and it crashed again intermittently. It finally crashed when I reloaded the new file I was saving little by little. My best advice is to create a new JOSM layer, /*Editmerge selection*/ of as many pieces of data as you can and update OSM from that new layer. It's doable, take heart. Is JOSM usual to you? That vandal should be sent to OSM jail for a few
Re: [Tagging] Dispute concerning shrimp pond dikes
On 2013-01-22 13:37, doug brown wrote : Thanks all for the feedback you have provided on the tags for the shrimp pond dikes. I hope to be able to implement many of these changes soon, but I have not been successful in using the JOSM Reverter plugin. The OSM Wiki states: After installing the plugin and restarting JOSM, you should find a new menu item History - Revert changeset. I have updated to the latest JOSM version (version 5608) and downloaded the plugin and restarted JOSM multiple times, but no History menu item appears. Subsequent attempts to download the reverter plugin yield a message that all plugins are up to date. I'm out of ideas on how to proceed. Does anybody have any advice? Try renaming your .josm application folder folder to force JOSM building a new one. If you need renaming that folder back to use JOSM, you may try doing as I did: call the Reverter to load the erased data in an empty layer, save that data in a .osm file, rename your folder back and load the .osm file in your usual config to continue. I have erased that file I was offering you and I can't predict the effect of my telling it to ignore the conflicts before saving. I suppose the conflicts raise again when trying to update OSM (cancel the update and open WindowsConflict). Good luck, André. Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 11:32:47 +0100 From: a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com To: tagging@openstreetmap.org CC: dougc...@hotmail.com Subject: Re: [Tagging] Dispute concerning shrimp pond dikes As I have not received my copy of this, I resend. Sorry for possible duplicates. On 2013-01-19 16:43, doug brown wrote : In the past couple of years I have spent several tens of hours digitizing the shrimp pond dikes in San Blas Municipio, Nayarit, Mexico. They are a significant feature on the local landscape and of importance because of the degradation they are causing in the mangrove forest ecosystems in which they are located. I was much dismayed this past summer when all of these features were deleted from the OSM data base (changeset 11807195), with the comment Deleting vandalism, those are not roads. Beside vandalism, the world (at large), is full of people telling what not to do instead of what to do, which is obviously shorter. On the British borderline (ways), you can read the note admin_level shouldn't be 4. He dared not zap them, fortunately. ... 2) Is there a way to roll back these changes (with modifications you may suggest to the tagging scheme) so that I don't lose all of the work I have invested? If so, could you point me to some resources that will teach me how this can be accomplished? On 2013-01-19 17:03, Pieren wrote : You can do this yourself easily with JOSM (and its reverter plugin) when you know the changeset(s) number(s) (which seems to be your case). As I have only reverted additions before and not deletions, I gave it a try. No panic, those JOSM guys tell you they're reverting the set but I knew they're only downloading the data in preparation for the real update (and if you tell them things like that what to do is not obvious or that they are frightening, they reply that all user interface bugs are closed with a WONTFIX). Well, it lasted almost 5 min, but I've seen your data (impressive to lose that, and indecent to zap !!!). There are conflicts (differences between the locally recovered and present OSM data for which you must decide which is right) and there is quite a number of ways drawn going off the map limit, possibly a consequence of node deletion. Well, just in case you will not use JOSM but you can use a .osm file, I saved that 1MB file and I can send it to you. Because I love shrimps too ;-) Cheers, Andr�. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Kids use a sled downhill
On 2013-01-21 14:03, fly wrote : On 21/01/13 13:02, Erik Johansson wrote: On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: No word for it in English (en-gb), to my knowledge. Locally we'd refer to the slope by the bridge or going up to Rayleigh Park. As some of us were doing yesterday :o) Thanks all for the wonderfull anecdotes, since I only know how to use a sled here it's really usefull. Might just add our used method to get the sleds uphill. Tie all sleds in a row behind a car (with non-skid chains) and drive uphill. We usually even ride on the sleds while pulled uphill. How do you know the end of my story (20 sled trains down 2 km roads)? Often, some farmer's tractor or merchant's van would tow the train back uphill. As to the tags, the logic of my brain tells me: piste=? or highway=piste = the object followed by attributes: sled=yes ski=yes slope=7% length=240 assistance:first-aid=yes leisure=yes (leisure is not an object but what you're doing with one) competition=no drink=yes tractor=no more=probably Or something like that. But I'm certainly an iconoclast. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute concerning shrimp pond dikes
On 2013-01-19 16:43, doug brown wrote : In the past couple of years I have spent several tens of hours digitizing the shrimp pond dikes in San Blas Municipio, Nayarit, Mexico. They are a significant feature on the local landscape and of importance because of the degradation they are causing in the mangrove forest ecosystems in which they are located. I was much dismayed this past summer when all of these features were deleted from the OSM data base (changeset 11807195), with the comment Deleting vandalism, those are not roads. Beside vandalism, the world (at large), is full of people telling what not to do instead of what to do, which is obviously shorter. On the British borderline (ways), you can read the note admin_level shouldn't be 4. He dared not zap them, fortunately. ... 2) Is there a way to roll back these changes (with modifications you may suggest to the tagging scheme) so that I don't lose all of the work I have invested? If so, could you point me to some resources that will teach me how this can be accomplished? On 2013-01-19 17:03, Pieren wrote : You can do this yourself easily with JOSM (and its reverter plugin) when you know the changeset(s) number(s) (which seems to be your case). As I have only reverted additions before and not deletions, I gave it a try. No panic, those JOSM guys tell you they're reverting the set but I knew they're only downloading the data in preparation for the real update (and if you tell them things like that what to do is not obvious or that they are frightening, they reply that all user interface bugs are closed with a WONTFIX). Well, it lasted almost 5 min, but I've seen your data (impressive to lose that, and indecent to zap !!!). There are conflicts (differences between the locally recovered and present OSM data for which you must decide which is right) and there is quite a number of ways drawn going off the map limit, possibly a consequence of node deletion. Well, just in case you will not use JOSM but you can use a .osm file, I saved that 1MB file and I can send it to you. Because I love shrimps too ;-) Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground
On 2013-01-16 14:24, Janko Mihelić wrote : I think that if we map underground cables with power=line, location=underground we will expect too much from renderers that don't want to think too much about this. If you put power=cable they will not render it, and everything is ok. I'm somewhat of a tourist in this thread (if you didn't notice) but I can't help wondering why these lines aka cables are not tagged with at least layer=±3 (1). Now, if we do not want the non-specialized renderer to be updated with each new feature, the best is a tag telling whether a underground hidden object has to be rendered with a dotted line. This is not tagging for the renderer (2), it is making an OSMap. This is the same feature-independence reasoning as saying that bridges are black objects a little wider than the road, just that, and tagged at level road-1, thus supporting the road without interrupting nor hiding it (as done at legacy level +1) and extending two black stripes to each side. While bridge=yes was OK, I have had rendering problems with bridge=culvert and I'm wondering why the renderer is messing in the hidden underskirt of a bridge :-) Cheers, André. (1) which should have been called level in my mind. BTW, wiki/Layer had better say that the ground at Earth surface is layer 0. (2) which is working around its mistakes ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] business closed for renovation - tagging best practice
On 2013-01-15 01:23, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote : 2013/1/15 dies38...@mypacks.net: There is a fast food franchise site which is closed for renovation in my vicinity. Two questions: * Would you support or recommend tagging a transient state like 'closed for renovation'?If one were to indicate temporary closure, how would one do this? In the case of renovation, would one use a construction-related tag? I think this is done in some regions while in others it doesn't make much sense. I'd make it depend on your feeling for the OSM activity in the area: if you believe there is good chance that someone (e.g. you) will notice when they reopen and will update this in OSM you can do it, but if you see the risk that also months (or even years) after they finished the works this would probably still not be reflected by OSM I wouldn't. Cheers, Martin What about suggesting the shops to post their requests to OpenStreetBugs (1)? What and when they want. The shops have a contact=*, haven't they? And OSB has a howto for non-mappers hasn't it? A howto explaining for example that one must not say invert that one-way (seen it) but set it towards north, or towards the street end crossing with street X. Cheers, André. (1) and to post in their shops Latest shop News @ OSM.org ? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] business closed for renovation - tagging best practice
On 2013-01-15 14:23, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote : 2013/1/15 A.Pirard.Papou a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com mailto:a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com What about suggesting the shops to post their requests to OpenStreetBugs (1)? Or offer them a simple dedicated system to edit directly in OSM (something very simple, which offers just the tags that are connected to a certain topic, and which abstracts the tags from them, e.g. a reduced version of potlatch or iD, without the possibility to edit geometry). Yes, that was also on my mind when I wrote, but I have a tendency to suggest the simplest solutions. What we're talking about now is heading towards assisted or supervised tagging, you name it. Sort of what Google wisely does to prevent anyone destroying Google Maps. Could (I'm sketching and confessing you my dream :-)) the editors, both simplified as you describe and fully featured), work in password-less mode (with warning and explanation)? Then, when OSM receives a password-less change set, after testing it for coherence, it would not apply it but send it to a pool for review? Reviewers would pick and apply them effectively. The main question is: would there be enough reviewers to do the less enjoyable job of absorbing the input timely? One could think of a quota system for everyone to do his homework to earn his membership. I have many reasons (real stories) to believe that something should be done also for improving some taggers' competence or taming the flurry of careless activity of others. One idea would be extra validation optionally done by OSM itself, much the way JOSM checks the updates better than... But here, the dream is recalled fuzzily to my brain ;-) Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground
On 2013-01-15 16:43, Philip Barnes wrote : This may help http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/164648452. Power lines in this case pass through an old railway tunnel. Shouldn't the tag be voltage:power=40 ? ;-) Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground
On 2013-01-15 16:43, Philip Barnes wrote : This may help http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/164648452. Power lines in this case pass through an old railway tunnel. On 2013-01-15 17:06, François Lacombe wrote : Nice example Phil, thanks a lot. My tagging scheme works great with it : power=line + locaion=underground :) 2013/1/15 A.Pirard.Papou a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com mailto:a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com Shouldn't the tag be voltage:power=40 ? ;-) No problem I mean : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:voltage OK, must've been a fast train then ;-) railway=disused voltage:railway=40 ;-) In any case, aerial is much more fun http://www.flixxy.com/helicopter-cable-inspector.htm than hiring maintenance moles ;-) But, while I was readjusting what others have left behind, I found a power line, as it's often the case with those long haul mappings (landuse etc...), that was attached to a bike lane (node in common). Imagine catching 24000 V in the pedals ;-) Seriously, isn't there a way to be exempted from having to detach those long haul ways from everything many times a day, and often have to move them to the right place, sometimes 50 m away? Those attached line and lane were crossing at right angle !!! I suppose one does not do that on purpose ! There must be some feature to fix in some editor explaining that. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Source tag - deprecated for use on objects?
On 2013-01-07 10:34, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote : Am 07/gen/2013 um 01:40 schrieb dies38...@mypacks.net: From an editing point of view, leaving source to be reported on changeset works to significantly reduce the amount of tag-value content you have to deal with while adding content. That is a very good thing. In closing -- I'm a convert to source, source_ref, source:date and other variations being added to the changeset ... at least given my current editing behavior. +1, btw: there are also exceptions,source:maxspeed is not meta data but data. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source:maxspeed That's almost what I was going to write. I have much esteem for all those who believe in OSD and who make the wiki as much logical and simple as possible. But source is generally associated to verifiability, if not simply being © free. Now I see that, regarding speed, it's used to warn the driver that the limit does not end at the next crossing. Isn't that totally different for the same word? Furthermore, I have to tag "zone aux abords d'une école" (school), "zone résidentielle" etc.. but I see no suitable speed tag. In fact, I very rarely see tags for my country. And so on and so on. In the first place, there's no clear, explicit distinction in the tag definition pages between an object definition and an attribute and, strangely enough, e. g. for castle and water objects, historical and natural are not attributes but object definitions. Yet, there are non-historical castles and artificial waters. Just visit Disneyland ;-) I somehow agree with the word chaos I wonder if it makes good data. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] SF Muni tram lines are layer=1? and general tagging levels considerations
On 2012-12-17 07:50, Clay Smalley wrote : I noticed the majority of the trackage of the San Francisco Muni lines are tagged as layer=1, while the streets along which they run have no layer tag (an implied layer=0). If the Muni lines are layer=1, it is my understanding that the Muni lines should be physically above the street. Since this is not the case and the lines run at street level, should I remove the layer tag on these specific tracks (to imply layer=0)? (Of course, some of these lines run through tunnels where they are tagged layer=-1, and on bridges where they are tagged layer=1 correctly. The layer tag on these bits of track would remain untouched.) -- Clay A level is an altitude. A layer is a drawing opacity. Although OSM does not tag for the renderer, it uses the tag layer=*. It defines layer as the relative "position" (is that "altitude"?). In fact, the only effect of assigning a layer is that upper layer objects hide lower layer ones (it's not a "mind your step" warning ;-)) It's interesting to keep all the rails in the same layer to avoid splits and layer =+1 may be needed for them to show at some places. My reaction would be that the person having cared to explicitly set the level might have had something on his mind. A bridge is a piece of concrete that is under -- relative altitude -1 -- an uninterrupted foil of macadam. It shows just out of each side of the road, like rails and the macadam hides it (that's, to me, how the maps render it too). It can be tagged using a short additional segment overunderlaying the road. Yet, the instructions and practice are to put it at layer +1 and to unnecessarily split and even interrupt the road. Strange. You say that trams run at altitude -1 in a tunnel. As I see it, a tunnel is layer=+1 even if the tram goes down (underground level) to pass under it. Very complicated. I have traced lengths of streams stream as a constant layer=-2 way, uninterrupted end to end (even if they "don't look so deep"), roads are at level 0 and bridges and culverts at level -1, in the manner mentioned above. If the stream comes to a pond, it continues to flow in a way drawn across the pond, at the bottom of it, just what happens if the pond depletes, all in a very uninterrupted stream way. Very neat, uniform, consistent and simple. Fortunately, streams are always one-way, have no speed limits, etc... and it's easy to keep them in a single thread. It would be possible for roads too with my SEGMENT idea but my e-mail wasn't replied. Roads are even split unnaturally and unnecessarily by bridges. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] place=neighbourhood
On 2012-12-17 08:57, Michael Krämer wrote : Hi, 2012/12/17 A.Pirard.Papou a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com mailto:a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com Have I, or rather JOSM, done anything wrong? I don't think so, I think the problem is on OSMI's side. place=neighbourhood is a somewhat recent addition so it might not be in OSMI yet. How can I improve ourselves and do better? It looks like the place to suggest improvements to OSMI is in the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Inspector Michael Thanks Michael, but it's strange to have to warn OSMI of what they have to warn you and, as they request, * to be the first to have to comment in the empty OSM_Inspector/Views/Places discussion page (how many people have to do that and how did the other features get supported if discussion is needed) * to have everybody subscribe to their mailing list to send them private support e-mail Wouldn't it be more efficient that OSMI subscribed to this list singly and drew much information from it? Just a maybe inappropriate suggestion. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] SF Muni tram lines are layer=1? and general tagging levels considerations
On 2012-12-17 22:16, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote : 2012/12/17 A.Pirard.Papou a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com mailto:a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com A level is an altitude. A layer is a drawing opacity. Although OSM does not tag for the renderer, it uses the tag *layer=**. It defines *layer* as the relative position (is that altitude?) no, it is not altitude (height over ground), it is the relative position (relative to other objects at the same spot). Altitude is not height over ground but above sea level. I am of course speaking of relative altitude. Position is an improper term as it applied to all directions. We badly need precision. . In fact, the only effect of assigning a layer is that upper layer objects hide lower layer ones (it's not a mind your step warning ;-)) it is a way to describe in the database which object is above which or whether they are at the same level. Agreed. And this is why I said that the tag should be called level. Transforming that into layers is a renderer's matter that is strictly forbidden to speak about. Yet... I have traced lengths of streams * stream as a constant layer=-2 way, uninterrupted end to end (even if they don't look so deep), * roads are at level 0 * and bridges and culverts at level -1, in the manner mentioned above. very strange way of mapping IMHO, how did you come to this idea? Exactly as you say above. They are the actual relative levels of these objects. I have never seen a bridge sitting on a road (and hiding it, even just as a hint). Is there a page in the wiki which encourages this style? No but their should according to what both of us say about levels. Respectfully, I have only tagged streams that way because it doesn't hurt anything and it's superb. When I don't agree with some way of tagging, I just don't tag. It's well enough having been accused of badly tagging boundaries when I only continued tagging the same way they were being tagged and it's done all over the world I investigated. Strange thanks. I simply stopped tagging boundaries. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] place=neighbourhood
Hi, I received an OSMI warning http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=placeslon=5.65946lat=50.52038zoom=18opacity=1.00overlays=megacities,largecities,cities,towns,villages,hamlets,islands,suburbs,farms,localities,municipalities,errors_unknown_place_type,errors_population_format,errors_place_without_name,errors_population_number_format,errors_pop_type_mismatch,population for this node http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1894696008 regarding place http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place=neighbourhood http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dneighbourhood I wrote to their contact address http://www.geofabrik.de/geofabrik/contact.html to inquire/notify. No answer nor reaction. Have I, or rather JOSM, done anything wrong? How can I improve ourselves and do better? Cheers http://www.freelang.net/expressions/cheers.php ;-) André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] château
On 2012-12-11 11:19, Pieren wrote : On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:38 AM, A.Pirard.Papou a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com mailto:a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com wrote: historic:castle castle_type=château: would have been nice if something else that historic had been chosen, because those châteaux' history is very very short. Your opinion... very short is always relative. In US, everything older than 50..75 years is historic ;) OK. And historic=castle castle_type=château presents the option alongside the other ones vs standalone. I may propose that after all. I second others answers : historic=manor or mansion would be good enough. If you don't like historic then use building if you like but avoid localized tags if the english equivalent exists. I think that we should use en:château if it exists in the English dictionaries for exactly what we are about. Go to a wine shop and ask for a Mansion Lafitte ;-) *Before my proposition, please +1/-1 your opinion by updating this : * http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/building:château http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/building:ch%C3%A2teau BTW, can several type tags like this one and tourism=hotel coexist? Or will the renderer loop? (OK, we don't tag for the renderer ;-)) Thank you. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] château
On 2012-12-08 21:22, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote : 2012/12/8 A.Pirard.Papou a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com I have to tag a number of what we call château(x) in French. The best translation I could find is château: A country estate, especially a fine one, in France or elsewhere on the Continent. (unfortunately and ambiguously, an fr:château can also be a castle)Hence, inescapably building=château but that doesn't seem to exist. (and the explanation for building=house is empty of any variant). If you use building=chateau or château please also define in the wiki (or make a proposal) what kind of building type this is intended for. Fortunately there is not a single one in the current db according to taginfo, so you are free to do what you want ;-) OK, I've played the game and I RFC Proposed_features/building:château castle_type=stately does not fit. According to Wikipedia: British Isles, huge, abbeys, 16th century, etc and the photo is from Sweden, same as Russian, Polish and Czech !!! historic:castle castle_type=château: would have been nice if something else that "historic" had been chosen, because those châteaux' history is very very short. Your opinion... Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] château
Hi, I have to tag a number of what we call château(x) in French. The best translation I could find is château: /A country estate, especially a fine one, in France or elsewhere on the Continent./ (unfortunately and ambiguously, an fr:château can also be a castle) That is, a normal, but very large, dwelling. Old style, but nothing historical and even less castle (fortress, defense). Also related to wine names Château XXX. Hence, inescapably building=château but that doesn't seem to exist. (and the explanation for building=house is empty of any variant). Do I go ahead or did I miss an entrance? Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Status of maxspeed:wet
On 2012-12-03 20:27, Ole Nielsen wrote : BTW, I'm not sure how useful the wet tag (old style or new style) is. You will need some damn precise and detailed weather forecasts for a route planner to be able to use such information. And usually it is only fairly short sections of highway having such tags so the impact is minimal (and in my experience drivers pretty much ignore such signs anyway). answer from the wiki: The *maxspeed*=* http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed tag http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag is used to define the maximum legal speed limit http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Speed_limits for general traffic on a particular road, railway or waterway. Maxspeed is not a speed to time routes but a legal information. By not mentioning a lower speed than normal, the information is incomplete and liable to be called dangerous in some places where wet speed is justified. Even more so for :snow and/or :ice maxspeed. Speed to predict journey duration can be based on data recorded by some GPS manufacturers on some GPS devices of their customers. It can be very complicated, using location and time. The simplest tag would be speed:average. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] SEGMENT
Hi, The more I tag, the more I read these lists, the more I think: If we could use SEGMENT... I'll just sketch the idea. It has several implications to be discussed. So, I refrained from making an incorrect or incomplete proposition, but an /in construction/ one would be fine. The best idea is to keep the idea in mind and imagine it in various situations as they arise. We don't like splitting ways, finding unnecessarily splits, fearing to unsplit wrongly. We don't like to have to make hard-to-the-novice relations just because we split. A very typical example is this: | -- | -- | I was mapping hiking routes relations and I was utterly disgusted to split in every places. Here, the vertical very main road was split over 50 m just because of two misaligned paths. So, why not avoid splitting in the first place? *segment* reference is a tag meaning that the tags of the pseudo way it defines must be merged over the /*segment*/'s span with the tags of the home way reference that /*segment*/ overlaps. It shares the nodes of its home way of which it modifies the tags between its 2 end nodes. Example: if a street (---) is one-way on only some span, we can add a segment (+++), a way over that span, (----) containing |segment=reference oneway=yes| ||possibly (1) for a bridge |||segment=reference bridge=yes name=? | ||in the typical example above: |||segment=reference | because the segment is kinda brandless plaster changing absolutely nothing to the road but being included in the relation. A segment must not contain tags that belongs to the home way, just what to change in it. There may be restrictions to what can be in a segment (no paramount keys?). Basically, what a segment may mean for the renderer (pardon me) is to internally split the home way at the segment's ends, to apply the segment tags to the so-created way, and to forget about the segment. The segment however retains its existence when it comes to include it in a relation. In that case, the segment may be considered as an alias of the so-created way. Depending on what they do, programs that process the data should process segments (as they presently should process relation recursion). Segments however are real parts of the database, transmitted as such to an editor for which the importance is essential. A key aspect of a segment is that it highlights clearly its reason for being (plus, note=* can't be used but segment_note can ;-)). Presently knowing why a way is split requires diffing it with an eagle eye. Issues: I'm unsure or what reference must be (I once thought of using layer#; bad idea) recursivity: can a segment reference another segment? That can be useful for example in case of a 30 km/h overriding a 50 km/h speed limit. priority: what if two segments alter the main way contradictorily? priority is another way to solve the speed limit example, but it needs an eagle eye. negation: has every tag a way to zap it to default value? Or should we invent a no:tag=* ? size: does a segment need to repeat every nodes of the home way or do the 2 ends suffice? Could it span over several ways (reference issue)? Note=that a street which is usually thought of as what has a same name= can easily become a what-it-looks-like object, e.g. long avenue or whole circular road, by /*segment*/ing name=. Hence, segment could be used as a sort of mini easy relation. progressiveness: could /*segment */be deployed in steps, you name it: ??? That's what keeps roving in my mind and that I would like to replace by peace :-) Cheers, André. (1) if we consider the bridge as an attribute of the road (bridg*ed*). If we consider it as an object, it should overlay the non-interrupted road at level -1. A bridge is a piece of concrete supporting an non-interrupted tarmac foil. The renderer (pardon me) can draw a full solid bridge hidden by the road instead of, if at level 2, side rails with transparent central part. PS: This said, I independently wonder why roads are interrupted at a bridge. As I've just said, a bridge is just an additional object under a road at level -1. Similarly, a tunnel is above the way at level +1, and what's above it should better be semi-transparent over some width across the way. I have mapped without any problem many km of uninterrupted streams at best level -2, and passing under culverts and bridges that are at level -1. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] zone30/50/70 vs Bebouwde kom/Agglomération/Built-up area (zone:traffic={BE,UK,...}:*)
On 2012-11-23 22:58, Kytömaa Lauri wrote : If it's just the traffic rules urban vs. rural, there's the tag (with 37 000+ uses) zone:traffic=**:rural zone:traffic=**:urban where ** is the two letter country code. On 2012-11-26 13:16, Marc Gemis wrote : country_code:context (where the speed limit is defined by a particular context, for example urban/rural/motorway/etc.) On 2012-11-26 16:41, Jo wrote : One week ago I had never heard of the zone:traffic tags. I didn't have a clue how one could tag streets as part of built-up area/city limits or out of it. For many years this is something I have been wanting to do though. So I was glad I finally learned how it could/should be done in one of the many discussions started by Papou. zone30 are mostly within built-up area, zone50 and zone70 aren't. I think it's important to distinguish between zoneXX and built-up area as they occur mostly independent from each other, so the namespaces also ought to be independent. We could use source:maxspeed=BE:zone30 instead of source:maxspeed=zone30, but since a street already gets zone:traffic=BE:urban/rural, the BE seems less important in the source:maxspeed tags. Great finding From Lauri indeed !!! But regarding this, where is the complete zone:traffic=BE:* list? (just one example) In Belgium, we have more than urban/rural/motorway/etc. default=rural agglomération=urban autoroute=motorway route pour automobile=? zone résidentielle=? zone de rencontre=? zone piétonne=? chemin réservé à la circulation des piétons, cyclistes et cavaliers=? rue réservée aux jeux=? Abords d'école= Zone 30=? Rue cyclable=? Each with their regulations details. I was lately "sent" to map an alleged Zone30 area and there was no Zone 30 but a zone résidentielle which is equivalent maxspeed-wise but not other-wise (other-regulations-wise). If we had a tag such as INCLUDE:BE:...:urban etc. with which the programs would fetch all the relevant tags like maxspeed per zone type from a well known per country or WW (world wide) database object (1) then we would have a clear list and we could tell the government that they can change details any time without sending us to work everywhere. How could otherwise programs that are supposed to use the OSM data make sense of a such ever changing global notions without breaking them down to well-defined concepts such as speed, bicycles, etc... That would please both the global view and the piecewise one. Wouldn't that stop the zonebabel? Cheers, André. (1) for example some well-known BE relation that would contain a role=zones or traffic member to a relation that would similarly contain rural, urban, etc. pointers to nodes that would contain the tags ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] agglomération
Hi, As I am against always changing the subject line of discussions, I resent with the original one. But it's also to add that, in my opinion, the tagging must respect the categories that the national law defines (our code de la route). There is no point in trying to forcefully adapt foreign concepts if they do not match. I don't think there's a concept of built-up area in the Belgian law and I don't think there's a difference in the definition of an agglomération whether it resides in a city or in a village (even if rural sounds like village, this is not poetry). This all, obviously, doesn't prevent a specific tag like a lower speed limit overriding the global one. (On 2012-11-26 18:21, A.Pirard.Papou wrote :) On 2012-11-23 22:58, Kytömaa Lauri wrote : If it's just the traffic rules urban vs. rural, there's the tag (with 37 000+ uses) zone:traffic=**:rural zone:traffic=**:urban where ** is the two letter country code. On 2012-11-26 13:16, Marc Gemis wrote : country_code:context (where the speed limit is defined by a particular context, for example urban/rural/motorway/etc.) On 2012-11-26 16:41, Jo wrote : One week ago I had never heard of the zone:traffic tags. I didn't have a clue how one could tag streets as part of built-up area/city limits or out of it. For many years this is something I have been wanting to do though. So I was glad I finally learned how it could/should be done in one of the many discussions started by Papou. zone30 are mostly within built-up area, zone50 and zone70 aren't. I think it's important to distinguish between zoneXX and built-up area as they occur mostly independent from each other, so the namespaces also ought to be independent. We could use source:maxspeed=BE:zone30 instead of source:maxspeed=zone30, but since a street already gets zone:traffic=BE:urban/rural, the BE seems less important in the source:maxspeed tags. Great finding From Lauri indeed !!! But regarding this, where is the complete zone:traffic=BE:* list? (just one example) In Belgium, we have more than urban/rural/motorway/etc. http://www.code-de-la-route.be/textes-legaux/sections/ar/code-de-la-route/100-art2 default=*rural* agglomération=*urban* autoroute=*motorway* route pour automobile=*?* zone résidentielle=*?* zone de rencontre=*?* zone piétonne=*?* chemin réservé à la circulation des piétons, cyclistes et cavaliers=*?* rue réservée aux jeux=*?* Abords d'école= Zone 30=*?* Rue cyclable=*?* Each with their regulations details. I was lately sent to map an alleged Zone30 area and there was no Zone 30 but a /*zone résidentielle*/ which is equivalent maxspeed-wise but not other-wise (other-regulations-wise). If we had a tag such as *INCLUDE:BE:...:urban* etc. with which the programs would fetch all the relevant tags like *maxspeed* per zone type from a well known per country or WW (world wide) database object (1) then we would have a clear list and we could tell the government that they can change details any time without sending us to work everywhere. How could otherwise programs that are supposed to use the OSM data make sense of a such ever changing global notions without breaking them down to well-defined concepts such as speed, bicycles, etc... That would please both the global view and the piecewise one. Wouldn't that stop the zonebabel? Cheers, André. (1) for example some well-known BE relation that would contain a role=*zones* or *traffic* member to a relation that would similarly contain rural, urban, etc. pointers to nodes that would contain the tags ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] agglomération
On 2012-11-22 16:57, Simone Saviolo wrote : 2012/11/21 A.Pirard.Papou a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com mailto:a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com Hi, I wanted to map the agglomeration of my village and I am wondering again. [...] How do we tag agglomérations? Currently, with place=* and their relative info on a closed way. I have written a proposal which aims to change this tagging scheme: [1] However, on a second thought, what you talk about is probably a different concept. An agglomération has precise entry and exit points, marked by the city limit sign - in Italy it's the same. I know that many mappers don't want to have this defined by a polygon, arguing that this would force consumers to do a spatial query to understand what the speed limit is; however, the legal constraint also involves other restrictions (e.g., no honking), and a dedicated tag would work better in this sense. Hello everybody, According to my explanation (well, my government's definition), an agglomération is just a set of roads and hence not an area nor a multipolygon (there's no speed limit or parking restrictions in the meadows ;-)) but, as I stated it, a plain relation. Yet, for larger cities (without meadows ;-)) a multipolygon could be used to gather already made subareas the day OSM will go recursing (nesting), but what's outside the roads is undecided. The idea is that with a 30 driving rules list applying to an agglomération (some 10 practically), you'd better have a global idea of where it spans (e.g. highlight all its roads), entry/exit you speak of, rather than ask yourself and OSM the question for every new street you traverse. As well as for exceeding the speed limit, you can be booked in agglomérations for parking partly on the roadside, or on the wrong alternated side, not letting a bus leave its stop point, etc... Should there be a country-dependent agglomération tag, should the driving rules be tagged one by one and should they be tagged on every road or on a relation? Finally, should we try to tag everything or rather go and swim or play tennis? Cheers, André. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Urban_settlements ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Zones 30 in Belgium (from [OSM-talk-be] )
On 2012-11-23 19:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote : 2012/11/21 A.Pirard.Papou a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com mailto:a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com Is the error having no speed limit or having a dummy node showing there should be a limit? For maxspeed you could either a) tag a sign position (on a node) to show: here starts (or continues) the speed limit. b) and (more important) you should tag the speed limit to the part of the highway it applies to. In your case you can't do a) (because the positions you have are not sign positions) and you can't do b) (because you have just node positions and don't know where the limit starts or ends). As this data is not helpful, you shouldn't import it at all. That has been said 10 times and I (I suppose, why me?) was accused not to reply. So I do: I think we can stop. PLEASE! 1) someone now uploaded the POI data to OSB 2) I said several times that, by uploading it to OSM, the helpfulness would *NOT* be to have meaningful data in OSM but to have innocuous markers producing OSMOSE and OSMI errors. They would have been spotted by mappers only and removed once the corresponding Zone30 limit was mapped or when believed that keeping the markers is vain. It's written in the tags. Too difficult to understand. André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Stop sign?
On 2012-11-23 20:03, Philip Barnes wrote : Again in most of Western Europe, not the UK, a system giving priority to traffic from the right exists so many minor junctions have no road markings but the priority to the right rule exists. My experience is, I have no problem giving way but taking it took some time to master. In Europe when a stop sign is used, there is always a main road which has priority. The priority to the right is quite a story in Belgium. One day, lawyers correctly noticed that some minor crossings had no priority signals or that rust or a crash can have them fall down. So, mainly for a matter of law, so that a culprit would exist instead of the administration, right of way to the right by default was decided. But then, bourgmestres/burgemeesters (mayors) decided to /*remove*/ some existing priority signs, mostly in towns, alleging that this would slow down the traffic and increase security. And the more they did the more the next towns would do too. This resulted in anti-natural priority and in drivers from minor road not daring to use their priority right and stopping anyway. Fortunately, there was a rule stating that someone who stops looses his priority and people knew how to behave in that case. But now, that rule has been abolished, so that if someone gently waves at you to go first, your answer must be a no no. The four cars at a crossing situation has never been solved. I remember having discussed that with an Englishman. He couldn't understand much of what I was saying. To him, priority was always natural. Indeed, most of the crossings in that (new)town were T crossings, or otherwise clearly prioritized, one could not miss the Major Road Ahead and, on the main roads, the roundabouts were plenty and wide, where you can revolve until you're sure of your direction. Some Belgian roundabouts I call a stone in the middle of the road around which those who U-turn have priority over those driving straight ahead (indeed they're sometimes so small that you almost cross them in a straight line and the center is almost flat so that the line can be perfectly straight for the lorries). Stop signs are much less common in the UK than North America, in most cases the minor road just has to give way sign, or in the UK just road markings on minor roads. Stop signs are relatively rare in the UK, they are generally only used where visibility is difficult. In other countries I find myself thinking, 'why the stop sign, I can see'. Stop signs are rare in Belgium. Their reason for being is to to stop even if no traffic is coming on the major road. I think they were decided where accidents occurred. They fit my definition of the ideal road sign: warning from whose who know the place to those who don't. Each country his story. I wonder about Roman ways ;-) (don't you ever mock OSM http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=46.567lon=6.788zoom=9layers=Mrelation=124582.) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Zones 30 in Belgium (from [talk-be] )
Hi, Thanks for all the replies. I will add those POIs to OSM. This post is asking taggers and OSMOSE, OSMI et al customers to check that * the highlighted fake node's tags are correct and everything that's needed for the genuine way's tag * the nodes are, /*or what should be changed to be*/, visible in OSM* et al but not obtrusive * the instructions are understandable (style suggestions welcome) Let's be sure to be definitive, once started to be removed, there will be no comeback. I have presently added one sample at 50.53035 5.71307 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/2024133661. The JOSM filter /*maxspeed:30*/ (or /*:**/ for any speed) with I(nvert) check mark displays only speed limits, fake or real. 2012/11/20 Jo winfi...@gmail.com mailto:winfi...@gmail.com What you really want to do is apply the speed limits to the OSM ways: maxspeed=30 source:maxspeed=zone30. But the source file has nodes. Is there a way to feed all these nodes into Openstreetbugs automatically and then ask the Belgian population to fix those 'bugs'/'improvement requests' in their region? Polyglot Ja, это είναι waß yo will faire :-) As there were no adverse reactions, I will globally move all the POIs to OSM swiftly. I trust the promoters of this project will organize the update and removal. I formerly suggested a way of doing it (alerting volunteer taggers of OpenStreetBugs updates). On 2012-11-20 10:56, Stefano Fraccaro wrote : It's not possible to apply the same JOSM preset to all nodes at one time? If the case, maybe I can write a short program to do that (in C# language). Yes it can, Stefano, thanks (otherwise I would have written a perl script, they do marvels http://www.papou.byethost9.com/maps/OpenLayers_Vector_fast.html?zoom=11lat=50.53654lon=5.53611layers=BFTFT). It can be done in one revertible operation, by one man. Here are the tags that will be, let's say by the week end. created_by=(erased) note=temporary node until nearby way speed limit is set *maxspeed=30* *source:maxspeed=http://www.gpspassion.com/forumsen/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=123619* FIXME:tag same maxpeed and source:maxspeed onto the span of nearby way, then delete this node name[as of source]=states town and street so that incorrect coordinated can be detected. The next phase will be to extract converted and existing (?) limits to POI files. Simplest method, anyone? (I need a rest and something else to do) Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Zones 30 in Belgium (from [OSM-talk-be] )
On 2012-11-20 10:40, A.Pirard.Papou wrote : Hi, A GPS addicts group has encoded a file of over 1000 30 km/h speed limits. Their leader has just discovered OSM, ITO Map, etc... He's promoting security much and would like his data into OSM. I wrote on talk-be that this was doing it the other way round. A speed limit has two ends and his POIs are nodes. They should have been encoded into OSM first and then extracted. If only the world knew that OSM exists :-( I have converted their file to a .osm file. I can transfer the nodes to another layer and apply a JOSM preset. That's quite fast but 1000 is much! But I can split the .osm file to share the work. Well, do you think it would be useful to add those POIs and how? * as a side node with o maxspeed=30 o fixme=determine start/end and transfer these tags to the way o source=http://... * as a real limit on a sort distance, wrong but with a fixme? most often it's about the same distance astride a school access this could be visible on maps, but make believe the mapping is done * as a just a note on the way: o fixme=please tag the 30 km/h speed limit here much time spent for little result * another idea? A side node risks to be unnoticed and even left behind after really mapping the limit. Mapping the wrong distance means risking not to notice fixme and later split+join. Well, what's your advice? I think I was clear enough presenting the options I knew to help this guy. No replies. Now that I have prepared the quickest option 1, I receive all sorts of contradicting replies. Why not before I did the job? So, my conclusion is to suggest you to do it exactly as you want. You know where the data is. I will certainly not manually enter 1000 entries in OpenStreetBugs just in hope. But someone may know how to use OSB API. Or that they have none. And in that case, send OSB the file zone30_BE.asc. Or split and share the job... Is the error having no speed limit or having a dummy node showing there should be a limit? I had found that way to automatically signal the error to OSMI and to OSMOSE and to ...? But you don't want that. I was doing all that because I once picked up a dead 10 yo that s.o. knocked down, no speed limit. Goodbye, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] agglomération
Hi, I wanted to map the agglomeration of my village and I am wondering again. http://www.google.be/search?q=agglomération site:openstreetmap.org -communauté http://www.google.be/search?q=agglom%C3%A9ration%20site:openstreetmap.org%20-communaut%C3%A9 as well as a wiki search returns very vague information. OSM-talk-fr sounds like associating agglomération and speed limit. However, at least in Belgium, the definition of agglomération is very strict http://www.code-de-la-route.be/textes-legaux/sections/ar/code-de-la-route/100-art2 (Engooglish http://translate.google.be/translate?u=http%3A//www.code-de-la-route.be/textes-legaux/sections/ar/code-de-la-route/100-art2hl=frlangpair=auto%7Centbb=1ie=UTF-8) as well as, although a link list seems yet to have to be invented, what it implies http://www.code-de-la-route.be/component/search/?searchword=agglom%C3%A9rationssearchphrase=allItemid=48 (Engooglish http://translate.google.be/translate?u=http%3A//www.code-de-la-route.be/component/search/%3Fsearchword%3Dagglom%25C3%25A9rations%26searchphrase%3Dall%26Itemid%3D48hl=frlangpair=auto%7Centbb=1ie=UTF-8), much more than a speed limit. How is an agglomération tagged? With residential ways? Not every agglomeration part is residential and there are residences outside agglomerations. When we're not facing the single road traversing a village, an agglomeration looks much like an area. It would indeed be a chore to tag every road of the agglomération of a big city. But that's an area of roads, more like gloves than mittens. An agglomération is ≤ a village which is ≤ an old commune which is a commune = municipality. That's an observation similar to what I've read on OSM-talk-fr. But an agglomeration has nothing to do with administrative stuff. Else, in Belgium, we would have agglomérations and agglomeraties overlapping each other ;-) Hence, it's not a subarea of a commune (municipality). Is my reasoning correct that I should I make a relation containing the roads? But how do I tag it so that software recognize it as an agglomération as described above??? Well, if I too consider just the speed limit, I see that Speed_limits http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Speed_limits applies to roads, railways! and waterways!!! Not relations ! How do we tag agglomérations? Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Zones 30 in Belgium
On 2012-11-21 14:55, Ben Laenen wrote : On Wednesday 21 November 2012 14:29:31 A.Pirard.Papou wrote: I think I was clear enough presenting the options I knew to help this guy. No replies. Now that I have prepared the quickest option 1, I receive all sorts of contradicting replies. Why not before I did the job? You should always give it some time before everyone who's interested has had some time to read the lists and think about it for a bit... A single day isn't enough... So yeah, you can prepare the work immediately, but you do risk doing unnecessary work once it's clear what the community wants. I didn't even think you were anywhere close to actually importing the data... OK Ben. I didn't think myself that I would come up to that solution so easily. On the other hand, it can be undone instantly by removing a single change set. And as it can automatically trigger OSMI, OSMOSE, ... that's why I like it. OpenStreetBugs is mostly a collection of already long solved issues, not really a popular agora. Can we spend the time you speak of checking that everyone's favorite Inspector is highlighting the errors and that they are not masking other errors or pissing off people. Making this error unusual (not mixing it with usual ones) is necessary as well as avoiding that mappers erase it without reading the tags or the node. Having the Inspectors display a /*Be sure to read inside*/ would be ideal. Any better tags suggestion is welcome. It has to be definitive. Not easy to change the tags when part of the nodes will have been erased. OSMI Data from 2012-11-18, I had read next day delivery. OSMOSE seem to think it's not important to know. Pity the tests cannot be more interactive. I'm keeping ears and eyes open. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] agglomération
On 2012-11-21 21:26, Ben Laenen wrote : On Wednesday 21 November 2012 20:52:50 sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote: That's the current state of recommendation, but maybe we could start discussing it to see if that's a good idea to apply speed limits on roads inside a bounding polygon Polygons are a bad idea to map built-up areas. It's not uncommon that there's a bridge where the road on top belongs to the built-up area, but the road below does not. Or tunnels going under a built-up area, with the tunnel itself not part of it. Ben I didn't speak of a polygon (closed ways) but of a relation (a set of ways). A speed limit on the roads doesn't prevent you driving as fast as you want in the meadows ;-) Look at multilinestring, which I see as a swiss-knife way assembly. In my mind, such a relation is the way to assign the same tags to a collection of objects making a whole with regard to those tags. If we add recursion (nesting), which is very easy to do, that's powerful. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk-be] Zones 30 in Belgium
On 2012-11-21 21:40, Ben Laenen wrote : On Wednesday 21 November 2012 21:16:24 A.Pirard.Papou wrote: Can we spend the time you speak of checking that everyone's favorite Inspector is highlighting the errors and that they are not masking other errors or pissing off people. Ugh, this isn't about pissing off people, this is about importing data, and importing data has to follow a set of guidelines: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines And that said, I don't think we should add nodes to the database which are at some random point near a zone 30 (like the one in Brussels spanning a few square kilometers...). But at the very least you'll have to check each node to see if it's already mapped on the road. But I have a problem with this: if some application wants to use the data, the maxspeed has to be mapped on the road anyway, which requires local survey of where the zone starts and ends. It can't make use of a node somewhere near the road. So this would in fact be mapping for the mapper... Greetings Ben I hope it's clear that I don't mean uploading that data to stay. It's just for people to spot work to do, do it and delete the node. An application using speed data must ignore maxspeed on nodes. Or warn about the error which is exactly what we want. If we put it in a list somewhere or on OSB, no one will look at it. If we produce OSM* errors, taggers will find them and they're usually working in their neighbo[u]rhood. But I won't fight for my idea if someone wants to make sth else. Well, it seems we are inventing something: introducing in OSMI/OSMOSE errors for missing data (we have partial data). In specific words, if we could sort of upload that data to the OSM* databases without uploading bogus data to OSM itself, and clear the condition (remove that OSM* data after OSM fix), no one could be unhappy. This is why I like to share this kind of discussion with Tagging. In case there would be a leak. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk-be] Zones 30 in Belgium (from )
On 2012-11-21 22:45, Jo wrote : Adding 1000 nodes to the OSM DB, which are meant to be deleted once again seems like some sort of pollution. I said: non obtrusive. That is, believed to be harmless. That is, not seen on the map, not retrieved by any application, just appearing on both OSMI and OSMOSE. There are many more than 1000 things in OSM whose destination is destruction. Resembling this Zone 30, all the FIXMEs here and there, like quite a number of admin_level shouldn't be 4 on the borderline of England (without telling what it should be (what do I try next, 8?) ). A French guy on the GPS list said that those POIs saved him money. But I won't fight for that ;-) On the other hand it would be possible to join them to the ways, since the ways need to be split anyway as the maxspeed changes there. Ouch. They are POIs, so, often near the middle of the way, probably at a school door. The best you could do is extend them by 100 m both side. That would mean that the POIs' data wouldn't be flashing, that nobody would care to check and that real bogus data would have been introduced. Kaly nychta, Avrio to proï, Gèrètè ( don' t know much). добрый вечер. пока. Polyglot 2012/11/21 A.Pirard.Papou a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com mailto:a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com On 2012-11-21 14:47, Sander Deryckere wrote : Always take some time, you knew that uploading 1000 POI wasn't going to be appreciated. Uploading bugs to OpenStreetBugs is very easy. A few lines of bash or perl code would do http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenStreetBugs/API_0.6#addPOIexec I'm sorry not to always make every answer personal. I have just been round correcting a 20+ bugs of OSB over a rather large area (low density). Most of what I did was erasing the requests because they had already been corrected outside OSB, even 1 or 2 years ago. Other bugs were saying things like priority is the other way without thinking that if it was corrected outside OSB too, doing what is said would set the priority wrong again. On the other hand, we have just heard of Teddy: kudos, Teddy: I have worked with http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/ hto fix error of routing. 2 months of work and hundreds of roads have been corrected in Wallonia and in the surrounding area. P, it is well advanced... New crater on Earth. http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routinglon=5.23069lat=50.14893zoom=8overlays=unconnected_major1,unconnected_major2,unconnected_major5,unconnected_minor1,unconnected_minor2,unconnected_minor5 This is why I believe more in OSMI/OSMOSE than in OSB. But the problem isn't in uploading to OSB or OSM, it's checking if there isn't already a speed limit present. The OSM database shouldn't be filled with duplicate data if the data is already okay. For OSB, this might be less of a problem, but it's still not wanted. As I have just explained, someone finding an already corrected problem is just half surprised, the less if he is warned why, and he feels like working terribly fast ;) I betcha some would rush Does anyone see a way on how to achieve this? Да. Jo the Polyglot, winfi...@gmail.com mailto:winfi...@gmail.com as he wrote this afternoon On 2012-11-21 16:53, Jo wrote : I may have a way to upload them to OSB. The API is indeed quite accessible. In order to take out the ones that are already in the OSM data, I can download all the maxspeed=30 with Overpass API and remove the ones which have end nodes near to them. I'll see what I can do with some help from PostGIS. Polyglot I'm standing by, finger on the trigger. When you want. Cheers, André. ___ Talk-be mailing list talk...@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be ___ Talk-be mailing list talk...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Zones 30 in Belgium (from [OSM-talk-be] )
Hi, A GPS addicts group has encoded a file of over 1000 30 km/h speed limits. Their leader has just discovered OSM, ITO Map, etc... He's promoting security much and would like his data into OSM. I wrote on talk-be that this was doing it the other way round. A speed limit has two ends and his POIs are nodes. They should have been encoded into OSM first and then extracted. If only the world knew that OSM exists :-( I have converted their file to a .osm file. I can transfer the nodes to another layer and apply a JOSM preset. That's quite fast but 1000 is much! But I can split the .osm file to share the work. Well, do you think it would be useful to add those POIs and how? * as a side node with o maxspeed=30 o fixme=determine start/end and transfer these tags to the way o source=http://... * as a real limit on a sort distance, wrong but with a fixme? most often it's about the same distance astride a school access this could be visible on maps, but make believe the mapping is done * as a just a note on the way: o fixme=please tag the 30 km/h speed limit here much time spent for little result * another idea? A side node risks to be unnoticed and even left behind after really mapping the limit. Mapping the wrong distance means risking not to notice fixme and later split+join. Well, what's your advice? Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Car sharing: which kind
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:32 PM, A.Pirard.Papou a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com mailto:a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com wrote: In Tag:amenity=car_sharing http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcar_sharing, I see no way to distinguish * a /Carsharing station, where you get your booked car, often separate areas on parking places/ * a roadside place with a bus stop like pole near which non-hitching, subscribed pedestrians stand to stop similarly subscribed car drivers for a lift; using the subscription numbers, the pickup can be recorded for safety with a text message. Mistaking one for the other is in both cases funny. (Trying to phone the pole or standing by waiting just outside the station.) Any remarks about this sample? http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1793907823 On 2012-11-09 23:38, Jaakko Helleranta.com wrote : Perhaps the reason is that these are two different things: The first bullet refers to car sharing and the second to ride sharing, as far as I can tell. See ride sharing (aka. car pooling) with your favorite search engine. .. There seems to be an abandoned proposal for car pooling (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Carpool), btw. Ouch, thanks. I mean thanks, ouch. By the organization name http://translate.google.be/translate?u=http%3A//www.covoitstop.be/hl=frlangpair=auto%7Centbb=1ie=UTF-8, /*covoit*/ = covoiturage According to Nominatim http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nominatim/Special_Phrases/FR covoiturage - amenity=car_sharing. According to you and other translations covoiturage - carpool http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Carpool. And, you're right, that sort of organized hitch hiking is more like the US left lane carpooling. I have added this comment http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Carpool#What_is_carpooling.3F to Proposed_features/Carpool http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Carpool. I have to abandon my tagging project by lack of a suitable tag. Never mind, they refused to send me a stop points coordinate list anyway. They say that they have their own map project (which obviously is not *our* map). Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Car sharing: which kind
Hi, In Tag:amenity=car_sharing http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcar_sharing, I see no way to distinguish * a /Carsharing station, where you get your booked car, often separate areas on parking places/ * a roadside place with a bus stop like pole near which non-hitching, subscribed pedestrians stand to stop similarly subscribed car drivers for a lift; using the subscription numbers, the pickup can be recorded for safety with a text message. Mistaking one for the other is in both cases funny. (Trying to phone the pole or standing by waiting just outside the station.) Any remarks about this sample? http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1793907823 Thanks, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Naming boundary ways
Hi, Thank you for your replies. Based on what you said, I projected a small rework of the Belgian configuration. I'm discussing the options here and I'd appreciate your technical approval before I suggest this option. I prefer to limit the discussion to what is needed to make the practical decision. The proposed configuration is at the end of this message and should raise no problem. The only point is a decision to make about admin_level. administrativia On 2012-10-04 17:13, sylvain letuffe wrote : Q1e1 : I don't consider any naming invalid, and thus I don't change what others have done Q1e2 : However I don't like using some strange caracters my keyboard does'nt have like — Strange you mention that. It happens that when I started helping my compatriots with their boundaries, I arranged with a very nice Belgian guy who had coordinated much over 4 years. Then I noticed that municipality names I wrote were being changed without discussing them and without warning. It turned out that those changes were made by a Frenchman who was also forcing that character upon us (1). /administrativia On 2012-10-04 08:41, Frederik Ramm wrote : Hi, On 10/04/12 03:17, A.Pirard.Papou wrote: 1) While the A name= of the relation is the name of the area, such as London or Wales, the possible B name has nothing to do with the area. The B name can be that of a river, of a road, or the border piece can be immaterial or chosen not to be represent the physical way. If the border line is immaterial, the name, if any, can be chosen perfectly arbitrarily and serves only to identify the border line at best when you look at configuration data or on the map. In these cases I tend to omit the name tag altogether. After all, the immaterial line doesn't really have a name; what you are talking about is more of an annotation, a note, a description or somesuch. In Belgium, we have chosen to use names. They are in fact very useful to read on the map and in listings (those that are proposed to change first) - like this Sprimont community border http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2413544 - or this Liège arrondissement border http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1407191 An immaterial border segment between two municipalities is best identified with the names of the municipalities. Unfortunately, the name Liège — Verviers (arrondissements) has been used instead of community names - for some community border segments for which it is misleading - for long strings of arrondissement border segments for which it makes no sense This was based on the principle that the highest administrative level wins which is incorrect for names. The need for community names on community borders is best felt when one draws them. It's quite easy to see which border one connects another to (C1-C2 to C2-C3 to C3-C1). Using arrondissement names instead is an error prone nightmare (C1-C2 to A4-A5 to C3-C1). When the C-level is finished, grouping C-boundaries into A-boundary relations with a zoomed out view is the easiest thing to do. 3) One can make routes of routes, that is, relations of relations. Or, at least, routes of hiking routes. It seems that the recursion support is an application matter. And we're ruled by chickens and eggs. Hiking software has implemented recursion, then hiking routes, then more software. How extended is the recursion support of routes? Could it be used for boundaries? You mean like this http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/111 When I suggested the route recursion solution (a too restrictive concept), I was replied (by some Frenchman) that it's impossible. And now I see that what you show me is EXACTLY what I had imagined and what we need and that it's already used in Belgium!!! Only I didn't know that I could use type http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:type?uselang=fr = multilinestring. As you can see, cascading relations are already in use for boundaries, it's just that nobody is really sure how to do it right ;) Well, I don't see many different ways to do it, except variations in tag details. The general structure is that each admin level border can optionally assemble lower level and same level segments to build larger way compounds which have the border attributes but are not type=boundary. At some point, the loop closes and we have a type=boundary relation that is defining a name and a level. 2) The admin_level itself is redundant in ways. It is in fact contained in the boundary relations, and as it possibly has multiple values if the border is for several area levels. The consensus is to use the highest of all applicable admin levels. You are right in saying that it is redundant (as is the boundary=administrative tag, btw.) but it does make things easier for those users who simply want to draw a line on their map - they don't have to evaluate the, possibly broken, polygons for that. If I put it visually, what you say
Re: [Tagging] Naming boundary ways
I'm resending this because the lists, which are tables, are garbage in the log. The source of the HTML message is displayed (unformatted). I complained, but they replied that my complaint is invalid !!! (Shouldn't we open a freely accessible Gmail account to log the list?) Sorry for the noise. I'll be back later. MANY THANKS SO FAR! --- Hello, Please do not only reply technically (once), please state your preferences (sort of poll). This is how, traditionally, municipalities, provinces, ..., countries, continents are traced. A: The land area is a polygon relation assembling the border pieces, with following tags: type=boundary admin_level=8, or 7, or ... for municipality, or province, or ... name=* (e.g. town or country) ... others describing the area, such as postal code, ... B: This is how a boundary way (border line piece) is tagged: boundary=administrative admin_level=8, or 7, or ... name=? plus possible non-boundary data indicating material object such as waterway=* 1) While the A name= of the relation is the name of the area, such as London or Wales, the possible B name has nothing to do with the area. The B name can be that of a river, of a road, or the border piece can be immaterial or chosen not to be represent the physical way. If the border line is immaterial, the name, if any, can be chosen perfectly arbitrarily and serves only to identify the border line at best when you look at configuration data or on the map. It seems that the best identification is the pair of names of the smallest area on each side: municipality1 — municipality2. A hint of that appears clearly when you watch or make a 3-border point and notice that the border names are M1-M2, M2-M3 and M3-M1, anything else is an error. Some persons say that this naming must follow the same rule (below) as admin-level : highest level wins. The question is then: how many municipality boundary pieces must be named Europe — Asia and is that name a good identification? However, knowing that the boundary piece is of a high level may be considered important. In that case, M1 - M2 (Europe — Asia) is an option too. (...) is optional. Q1: which naming of border line piece do you consider valid and which do you prefer? Q1a: Municipality1 — Municipality2? Q1b: Highest-level1 — Highest-level2 (Europe — Asia) Q1c: Municipality1 — Municipality2 (Highest-level1 — Highest-level2) ? Q1d: nothing Q1e: you're inventive... 2) The admin_level itself is redundant in ways. It is in fact contained in the boundary relations, and as it possibly has multiple values if the border is for several area levels. Hence, that number not only seems unnecessary but also meaningless. I wonder how long that FIXME level must not be 4 has been on the English border (and why it doesn't say what it should be, instead). Q2: do you see any use for that apparently useless number? Could it be omitted? 3) One can make routes of routes, that is, relations of relations. Or, at least, routes of hiking routes. It seems that the recursion support is an application matter. And we're ruled by chickens and eggs. Hiking software has implemented recursion, then hiking routes, then more software. How extended is the recursion support of routes? Could it be used for boundaries? In the example below, the long series of many Liège - Verviers pieces could be a single route made of M1-M2, M2-M3, M3-M4 ... municipality pieces and itself be called Liège - Verviers, which in turn would participate in the now 4 parts of boundary Liège, all that like матрёшки. And the border Europe - Asia would be made of a reasonable number of countries C1-C2, C2-C3, C3-C4, ... instead of an incalculable number of municipalities. Q3a: can boundary recursion be made? Q3b: else, would you like it to be done? Q3c: do you prefer eggs or chicken? Best regards, André. Real examples: Q1a: a border around a municipality. All pieces identified by municipalities. Way Sprimont — Theux (181023491) http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/181023491 Way Sprimont — Pepinster (180849347) http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/180849347 Way Sprimont — Trooz (180867020) http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/180867020 Way Chaudfontaine — Sprimont (182800464) http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/182800464 Way Sprimont — Esneux (180863558) http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/180863558 Way Sprimont — Comblain-au-Pont (180863555) http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/180863555 Way Sprimont — Aywaille (180863549) http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/180863549 Q1b: same when 2 pieces belong to higher level border Liège-Verviers. 2 pieces clearly identified only by number. Way Liège — Verviers (181023491) http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/181023491 Way Liège — Verviers (180849347) http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/180849347 Way Sprimont — Trooz (180867020) http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/180867020
Re: [Tagging] Trail intersection markers
On 2012-09-22 22:11, Lars Ahlzen wrote : Around here (Massachusetts, USA), it is very common to assign numbers/codes to trail intersections - particularly in areas where trails are dense (such as nature reserves). Intersection numbers are typically posted on small signs at the actual intersections and included on local maps. ... information=guidepost name=... or ref=... FYI, node numbering is the bright idea they use in Northern Belgium http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.92lon=5.167zoom=11layers=C (Le plat pays) for their cycling network. As you can see http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/352628173, it's a rcn_ref http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:rcn%20ref?uselang=fr = 315 indeed. (regional cycling network) But as you can see too http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes#Tagging_Cycle_Route_Networks, rcn_ref is normally applied to ways. Applying it to nodes is a national extension. Probably only OCM supports it. Hoping this post may guide you ;-) André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
