Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 15 August:
> On 15. Aug 2020, at 17:33, Arne Johannessen wrote:
>>
>> Therefore, the tunnel's name is the primary name for that particular way,
>> and thus belongs into the name=* tag.
>>
>> The full name tagging for a road tunnel should usually look like this:
>>
>> name=The Tunnel
>> highway:name=The Road
>
>
> I would see this as an awkward exception to the whole system if we followed
> your reasoning and said that in the case of highway=* + a specific property
> this property would change the semantics and the property would define the
> feature while the highway (or waterway) would become secondary.
That's not what I'm saying at all. In fact, I'm only applying *exactly* what's
currently documented on the wiki's name=* page, which considers pragmatics
instead of semantics.
In other words, instead of focusing on the objective meaning of tags, it
focuses on their meaning in context of real-world usage.
In particular, as documented, name=* should contain the "common default name"
of an element, whatever it may be. This means that for any particular element
which e. g. has the two names Foo and Bar, but which is most commonly referred
to by locals only as Bar, the Bar name should go into name=* and the Foo name
into another appropriate name tag (alt_name=*, xyz:name=*, whatever fits).
That's not an "awkward exception" – it's the current system of the name tags.
You seem to suggest there is a restriction for name=* to only apply to the
primary tag key ("highway" etc.). However, such a restriction doesn't currently
exist.
> To me it seems clear that a tunnel is often more than just the road leading
> through it, so that the logical consequence is that the tunnel=yes is
> interpreted as a thing being inside a tunnel (i.e. tunnel is implicit), just
> as it is the case with bridges (man_made=bridge is the bridge, bridge=yes
> means on a bridge).
You know what, your use of "implicit" might be tripping me up here.
Please consider <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/195986873>.
In your view, is the actual tunnel "Lærdalstunnelen" itself (as opposed to the
E16 road) currently included in OSM data – yes or no?
> Also note that highway:name is objectively an unused tag with only 188
> occurrences for a total of 178 million highway objects, […]
> Also compare this to 12815 occurrences of tunnel:name.
Those numbers don't appear to be meaningful in this discussion. But they piqued
my curiosity, and I looked into current practises for road tunnel naming in
OSM. Anyone overly interested will find the results here:
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Arne_Johannessen/Evaluation_of_tunnel_name_tagging_practise>
The primary conclusions are:
- Both tagging variants (tunnel name in name=* vs. tunnel:name=*) are very
common.
- There are significant regional differences in the use of these variants.
Consequently, neither variant should be dismissed out of hand.
> I see your interpretation as a change in paradigm and would invite you to
> formally propose it with the proposal process in order to check the support
> of the community, if you really believe this definition would be beneficial.
Neither stated OSM policy nor actual tagging practise bears out the position
that using name=* for tunnel names is somehow a "change of paradigm".
--
Arne Johannessen
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Arne_Johannessen>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name
dktue wrote: > Am 15.08.2020 um 11:18 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: >> [...] For all of our common usecases, mapping the way through the tunnel and >> indicating it is inside a tunnel is sufficient, that’s why we do not map >> them in greater detail so far). An implicit tunnel is considered sufficient. Yes. This was my point exactly. > To come back to my original question: I'd like to change the wiki to say that > tagging name=* for the road and tunnel:name=* for the tunnel's name is > preferred. Anyone who opposes this opinion? Yes, I oppose, as I've said in my earlier message. The way I see it, a road is represented as a series of OSM ways. A tunnel is typically represented by adding the tag tunnel=yes to one of them. For that particular way (!), the fact that there is a tunnel is usually more important than the fact there is a road. Common usage reflects this as well (e. g. in radio traffic reports). Therefore, the tunnel's name is the primary name for that particular way, and thus belongs into the name=* tag. The full name tagging for a road tunnel should usually look like this: name=The Tunnel highway:name=The Road Possible alternative (some duplication, but perhaps more clear?): name=The Tunnel tunnel:name=The Tunnel highway:name=The Road IIUC, the proposed change would basically result in: name=The Road highway:name=The Road tunnel:name=The Tunnel Coming from current practice, I'd say this tagging is correct if and only if locals actually commonly refer to the section of road inside the tunnel by the road name instead of the tunnel name most of the time. I'm sure that's true for some tunnels, but I am not currently aware of even a single one of those. It's clearly not the typical case. Therefore, the proposed change doesn't seem like a good idea to me. As a counter-proposal for the tunnel=* page, we could perhaps replace the name sentence with something like this: [[ The common name of a tunnel should usually be tagged as name=*. If whatever goes through the tunnel has a separate name, that name may be added using e. g. highway:name=*. If necessary (e. g. to avoid doubt), the tag tunnel:name=* may be added containing the name of the tunnel, specifically. ]] <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name> currently says: | | Names recorded in name=* tag are ones that are locally used, [...] | | It should be the most prominent signposted name or the most | common name actually used to refer to a given object, [...] -- Arne Johannessen <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Arne_Johannessen> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > IMHO a feature with highway=* and tunnel =yes is not a tunnel but a road > inside a tunnel. IMHO it's not either/or, it's both at the same time. But I don't think it really matters. In most cases, there is no practical difference between the road in a tunnel and the tunnel for a road. That's precisely why man_made=tunnel is so rare. -- Arne Johannessen <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Arne_Johannessen> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name
dktue wrote: > > Here's an example [1] where the name of the tunnel seems to be tagged as > "name". I'm not sure what the roads name is (might be Schlossbergtunnel, > Hegelstraße or Rheinlandstraße). It's not clear if the part of the road inside the tunnel is named at all (perhaps not, as it might not serve any practical purpose). > Tagging it to tunnel:name would definitely clarify on this. I see no problem with adding tunnel:name=* in addition to name=*. However, name=* should always contain the primary name of a feature. For a road tunnel, the primary name is typically the tunnel's name, as the tunnel is usually a more prominent feature than the road is. Therefore the tag name=Schlossbergtunnel shouldn't be removed. > [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4834663 -- Arne Johannessen <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Arne_Johannessen> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
Colin Smale wrote: > On 2020-05-29 13:27, Paul Allen wrote: >> >> I feel that access=permissive is not entirely useful for driveways. How >> do you get permission? Is it legally acceptable to walk along the driveway >> to the house to ask permission to walk along the driveway to the house in >> order to talk to the householder about something? It all gets a bit >> recursive. I think you may misunderstand the meaning of access=permissive. This tag is used in cases where the owner of private property allows everyone to access it, so asking for permission would be pointless. (The owner may make individual exceptions or change their mind about granting access to everybody at any time.) > Indeed, access=permissive makes no sense for a private driveway. JFTR, there are countries (e. g. Norway) which by law have a default value of access=permissive for private driveways. -- Arne Johannessen <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Arne_Johannessen> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
Colin Smale wrote: >> On 2020-05-29 08:29, Arne Johannessen wrote: > >>> >>> (9) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Big_single-family_home_2.jpg >>> >>> I expect this driveway is on private property. But I see nothing supporting >>> the use of the access=private tag here. > > [...] It's access=private. Obviously, I disagree. > You have to assume you have no right to be anywhere, unless you have reason > to believe you are allowed. That's the law (in England and NL at least). But > that doesn't mean you can never enter, just that you need a "qualifying > reason" to do so. Hmm, I think I may finally start to see your point. Let me ask you this though: Do you see a clear distinction in terms of access rights between (a) areas anyone is allowed to visit without pre-clearance based on a "qualifying reason", and (b) areas off-limits to everyone unless pre-clearance is obtained? If so, what should the tagging look like, in your opinion? An example for (a) might be an English driveway looking like example (9) above. An example for (b) might be the Sellafield nuclear site. -- Arne Johannessen <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Arne_Johannessen> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > these examples are pretty clear, but many situations are more like this: > https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3790/10358136313_96dbe07548_b.jpg > > the fence is very low and the gate is always open. That's true. But with situations like that, even lawyers sometimes disagree about the meaning of the law. I'd say that's out of scope for us. -- Arne Johannessen <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Arne_Johannessen> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
Colin Smale wrote: > > [...] So it would sound reasonable to me that, if your > letterbox is in your front door, you accept that the postman can pass > over your land to fulfil his legal duty. Sure. But access=private has nothing to do with private ownership. See below. > I believe that there is a defence to trespass on the grounds of "custom" > which IMHO would cover deliveries to your door, or someone needing > emergency help, or door-to-door salesmen (all in the absence of explicit > signing to the contrary of course). Well, explicit signing like "keep out" is what's currently being discussed. Or places that may be unsigned, but still make it clear that by entering without permission, you break the law and may have to answer for it. Think of a closed gate or something like that; the details of what's lawful and what isn't vary by jurisdiction. That's what access=private is being used for. > On 2020-05-28 02:36, Arne Johannessen wrote: >> >> For example, here are a few images of "keep out" signs. Now think of >> somebody making a package delivery. How are they supposed to determine >> whether "implicit" permission exists in their individual case or not? Is it >> different for some of these signs, or are they all the same in this regard? > > I expect a "keep out" sign would probably override implicit permission? Agreed. Mateusz changed the wiki to say different. Clearly, consensus does not currently exist to support that change. >> BTW, let me point out that choosing not to take legal action is not the same >> thing as giving permission. >> And assuming that no one will take legal action is not the same thing has >> having received permission. > > Which is exactly why a driveway is access=private. Maybe a delivery > driver doesn't have "permission" as such, but he may have a reasonable > justification to use your driveway. I think you're confusing access=private with ownership=private here. This is an example of a typical access=private driveway: (8) https://4.imimg.com/data4/OR/NG/MY-11485274/ms-gate-500x500.jpg Note the strong gate and the intercom on the right pillar, which could be used to obtain permission to enter. A delivery driver would probably be expected to use that intercom, even if the gate happened to be open (again, the actual legality may vary by jurisdiction). Most driveways have less imposing access restrictions in place. Many have no physical barriers or signs at all. They're still private ground, but with nothing to indicate restrictions to a visitor, it would not be unlawful to enter the driveway when visiting the house. Therefore, such driveways are _not_ access=private; perhaps they are access=destination or access=permissive, but as Flo pointed out, adding these tags to driveways in OSM isn't very useful. Here's an example for such a situation: (9) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Big_single-family_home_2.jpg I expect this driveway is on private property. But I see nothing supporting the use of the access=private tag here. -- Arne Johannessen <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Arne_Johannessen> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
Colin Smale wrote: > > In the UK simple trespass to land is not illegal, it is for the landowner to > claim under civil law: "unjustifiable interference with land which is in the > immediate and exclusive possession of another". What constitutes > "unjustifiable" is the key here. Delivering a package would sound like > justification to me (IANAL). According to Wikipedia: "Justification by law refers to those situations in which there is statutory authority permitting a person to go onto land, such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which allows the police to enter land for the purposes of carrying out an arrest." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass_in_English_law#Defences_2 This seems to mean that there would need to be a law specifically allowing access for package deliveries in order for that to be "justified". I'm assuming such a law doesn't exist in the UK (but you're most welcome to correct me). > I disagree that permission needs to be explicit for access=private. Okay. Can you explain, specifically, how "implicit" permissions are supposed to work? For example, here are a few images of "keep out" signs. Now think of somebody making a package delivery. How are they supposed to determine whether "implicit" permission exists in their individual case or not? Is it different for some of these signs, or are they all the same in this regard? (1) https://c7.alamy.com/zooms/3/aba70f5b6cb8481e871505ed3fd13186/c80x44.jpg (2) https://c450v.alamy.com/450v/w9tm1e/a-private-road-no-access-without-permission-sign-on-a-post-at-the-side-of-a-farm-track-next-to-an-arable-stubble-field-w9tm1e.jpg (3) https://c450v.alamy.com/450v/ewc253/no-access-sign-in-countryside-ewc253.jpg (4) https://c450v.alamy.com/450v/ey37mm/private-land-no-public-access-sign-by-grazing-meadows-in-the-norfolk-ey37mm.jpg (5) https://c450v.alamy.com/450v/m1gdn4/strictly-private-keep-out-sign-on-old-gate-m1gdn4.jpg (6) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Another_part_of_RAF_Shawbury_-_geograph.org.uk_-_658196.jpg (7) https://c450v.alamy.com/450v/ehacrm/construction-site-keep-out-sign-ehacrm.jpg Feel free to choose a different example if the concept is difficult to explain for package delivery. BTW, let me point out that choosing not to take legal action is not the same thing as giving permission. And assuming that no one will take legal action is not the same thing has having received permission. -- Arne Johannessen <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Arne_Johannessen> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > May 26, 2020, 08:28 by a...@thaw.de: >> Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: >>> >>> Maybe it can be argued that there is implicit permission for delivery >>> services? >>> My uncle has farm, with clearly private yard (it is unsigned). >>> >>> Postman or package delivery would be welcomed there and - even if package >>> would not be requested, but random person driving to >>> front of his house would not be and AFAIK would violate law. >> >> I think what you're describing is access=destination, not =private. > > Why? I interpreted "random person" as meaning "random traffic, not destined for your uncle's residence". But perhaps you meant that the person is in fact a visitor destined for your uncle's residence – maybe trying to sell something or conducting a poll or whatever – and that doing so would be illegal? If so, in what way is it "clear" to the visitor that what they're doing is illegal? > "access=destination" means "no transit traffic, no other restrictions". Not quite. access=destination means "traffic for a particular destination only". When used on a residential driveway, the destination would be the residence itself (or perhaps a garage attached to it). access=private means even traffic destined for that residence is disallowed, including both salesmen and postmen. access=permissive means any traffic is allowed (e. g. random kids racing their motor scooters). At least that's how I see it. I know not everyone agrees, and I'm not sure if that's due to misunderstanding (possibly on my part?) or due to lack of consensus. > What changes nothing for a typical driveway. Depends on the area I guess. But yes, I would say that to me, access=destination does seem like a sensible default value for driveways in OSM. >> [access=private wiki page] >> >> It also doesn't make a clear enough distinction between private ownership >> and private access (by using the term "private" colloqiually and by showing >> a picture of what looks like an ownership=private situation). > Changed a bit in > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:access%3Dprivate=1995183=1986562 Yes, that's slightly better. >> I think the =private wiki page could be improved by clarifying that =private >> really does require _explicit_ prior permission. > I added "Permission may be implicit, for example delivering a package into a > house." > on Key:Access and Tag:access=private pages, as it appears to match the actual > usage. I disagree with this edit for the reasons explained at some length in my previous message. Also: Can you explain how one would _implicitly_ arrange permission on an _individual_ basis? Can you point to evidence supporting your claim of actual usage? It's already been pointed out in this discussion (by Florian Lohoff on talk) that routing software treats access=private as access=no. Keeping in mind that a delivery person might very well use OSM for navigation, this seems to be strong evidence to the contrary. Can you explain the procedure a delivery person would need to follow to determine whether or not they in fact legally have "implicit" permission in your jurisdiction? -- Arne Johannessen <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Arne_Johannessen> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM
Kevin Kenny wrote: > > I took the liberty of revising the English translation in > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale#Values to something > that I hope will be more helpful to English speakers. Overall, this seems like an improvement to me. However, I note that the translation on the wiki mentions trail markings several times, while the original German SAC text doesn't really mention markings at all. Instead, SAC mentions trail visibility several times. In OSM terms, the following is roughly true: T1 ~ trail_visibility=excellent T2 ~ trail_visibility=good T3 ~ trail_visibility=intermediate T4 ~ trail_visibility=bad T5 ~ trail_visibility=horrible T6 ~ trail_visibility=no Note that both T1 and trail_visibility=excellent can be achieved without any markings whatsoever. I think it would be best to remove the mention of trail markings in favour of links to trail_visibility. Alas, I haven't found a good way to express this on the wiki. Also, some T4+ trails out there have excellent visibility and some trails that are otherwise T1 have horrible or no visibility. The SAC scale does consider trail visibility. But should sac_scale=* consider it as well, and if so, to what extent? > [...] > > Let me reiterate that the subkey that's needed is actually the one > that asserts 'this IS what one would expect of an urban or suburban > footway', rather than 'this is a relatively unimproved "natural" > trail'. Right. -- Arne Johannessen <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Arne_Johannessen> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > May 25, 2020, 02:45 by a...@thaw.de: >> >> [access=private driveways implicitly permitting delivieries to destination?] >> >> Not all deliveries are actively requested, and the delivery person can't >> know if you requested it or not. > > Good point. Maybe it can be argued that there is implicit permission for > delivery services? > My uncle has farm, with clearly private yard (it is unsigned). > > Postman or package delivery would be welcomed there and - even if package > would not be requested, but random person driving to > front of his house would not be and AFAIK would violate law. I think what you're describing is access=destination, not =private. > [...] > >> FWIW, I'm less happy with the current state of the access=private page. But >> I'm not sure if consensus exists to clarify it. > What is wrong and how you want to change it? It does not specifiy precisely what the tag value =private means. It also doesn't make a clear enough distinction between private ownership and private access (by using the term "private" colloqiually and by showing a picture of what looks like an ownership=private situation). To stick with driveways, consider yesterday's posts by Colin Smale and Florian Lohoff on this topic on OSM-talk. [1][2] It seems to me that to a degree, both points of view can be backed up by the current text on the access=private wiki page. [3] That suggests the wiki page doesn't describe the tag in a particularly useful way. I think the earlier example of a nuclear power plant was a useful one. We clearly need a tag value that means: Absolutely no access unless by explicit prior permission. Currently, =private seems to fill that need. That would mean the definition of =private cannot include any kind of "implicit" permissions. Those would need another tag value. Implicit permissions should probably be treated by routers similarly to =destination, so perhaps =destination (or =permissive) could simply be used in such cases? A side-effect of requiring explicit permissions for =private is that =no and =private are almost exact synonyms. (The =private wiki page already points this out.) Therefore, an alternative might be to give the meaning "explicit prior permission required" to =no, while allowing implicit permissions for =private. This would seem like a major change though, and I'm not sure I'd agree with it. I think the =private wiki page could be improved by clarifying that =private really does require _explicit_ prior permission. The "Facilities" section already mentions "a closed group of users", which implies just that, but evidently this isn't very clear. Additionally, the language generally could use a bit of cleanup, the relation to alternatives like =destination should be mentioned, and the picture should be like a "no trespassing" sign (ideally something that works for most jurisdictions). (I might take a swing at this if I find the time.) [1] <549c82c01046d2acd1ad8d41ca408...@xs4all.nl> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2020-May/084774.html [2] <20200525181730.6rbnfqyygw3yt...@pax.zz.de> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2020-May/084791.html [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:access%3Dprivate=1986562 -- Arne Johannessen <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Arne_Johannessen> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - natural=ridge
Kytömaa Lauri wrote: Unfortunately that srtm data ends at 60° N: http://osm.org/go/0TORO-- Actually it ends at 61° N, with the last 1° block starting at 60° N. For some reason the cylce map no longer uses that last block. And it's eventually way too scarse. Right. -- Arne Johannessen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - natural=ridge
Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 11/8/2011 2:03 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote: What I mean is that if the ridges can be auto-generated, they can be rendered without being in the database. They can't be auto-generated from gridded DEMs. Consider these neighboured elevation grid points as an example: 200 213 ? 210 196 It's impossible to tell if the altitude in the centre is more like 212 (creating a SW-NE ridge) or more like 198 (creating a saddle with a NW-SE mountain pass). In any event, the ridges created from such gridded data would have a jagged zigzag form which would neither be correct nor pleasing to the eye. As far as DEMs go, you need additional data besides grid or spot elevations to fully represent the terrain. This includes skeleton lines (ridges and streams) and cliffs. Since we map streams and cliffs as a matter of course, there's no reason not to do the same with ridges. The main problem really is getting an exact position for those features. Might be rather difficult in many cases (incorrect Bing imagery in mountainous terrain, dangerous cliffs prevent you from surveying by GPS, ...). What data source are you suggesting that the renderer should use, if not the OSM database? The same one that the cycle map layer uses to draw contour lines. As Lauri already noted, those are too coarse to be of much use for skeleton lines in large scales (beyond zoom level 10 or so). Regards, Arne -- Arne Johannessen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
