[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalks as separate ways
The discussion of the sidewalk issue seems to have stopped. I added some comments in the discussion section of the wiki last week, but there have been no further comments there or here in nearly a week. I think each of the proposals (sidewalks as separate ways, and sidewalks as attributes of streets) has merit in different circumstances, and the choice of which to use should be optional. Like Josh Doe, I've been mapping sidewalks as separate ways, but that is because I've done most of my mapping in the suburban areas where I work and live. I've tried it a bit in downtown Tampa, and down there I think it makes more sense to tag them as attributes of roads. Except for a few block faces and intersections, where the city hasn't made curb/kerb cuts for wheelchairs yet. This means that some intersections have some sidewalks where wheelchairs can cross in some directions, but not in all. And for these I would code the sidewalks as separate ways. With regard to routing, sidewalks on college campuses, in parks, and in cemeteries may be interior to a large area bounded by streets, and as a result some may not have an associated street to use for a name.A few sidewalks on a few campuses may have names of their own (Slant Walk on the Miami University (Ohio) campus, is one example), but most don't. So routing will need to come up with some other way to refer to them. This is an unresolved issue, but it's one for the routing, not for OSM to deal with (if there is no name, there is no name to tag). As an example on the University of South Florida campus, the route description at the left simply gives a list of way IDs. This is from an instance of the open-source OpenTripPlanner running on a test server in our lab, not configured yet for heavy use. http://go.cutr.usf.edu:8083/opentripplanner-webapp/index.html?fromPlace=28.058592509101,-82.416268340788toPlace=28.059785450843,-82.412180654249arr=Departmin=QUICKmaxWalkDistance=6400mode=WALKitinID=1submitdate=04/02/2011time=10:01%20pm Where a street parallels a street, but at a distance, I share the concerns about using relations to associate sidewalks with their streets. Would it work to add a tag associated_street and then simply list the name of the street? For example, highway=footway, associated_street=East Fowler Avenue. A value of none could be coded if the sidewalk does not parallel a street. I hope there will be more discussion of these two proposals. Ed Hillsman ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] designated bike lane
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Anthony osm at inbox.org wrote: Any suggestions how to tag this? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:IMG_7491.JPG If the lane is too narrow to function safely as a bike lane, then I would break the street way at this point, code the portion of the way that has the functional bike lane as cycleway=lane (if this is not a dual carriageway then use cycleway:left/right as apporopriate), and add a note tag that the bike lane going beyond is too narrow to serve as a bike lane. If the bike lane widens some distance after the restriction, then break the way again and tag that section with cycleway=lane again, leaving the non-functional stretch without a cycleway tag. My experience is that people who ride bikes on busy streets (which this one seems to be) don't like surprises, so showing a gap lets them know that something requires attention at that point. I think we will see routing software in the very near future that will list note tags. Ed Hillsman___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] self-storage facilities
Is there a recommended way to tag self-storage facilities? The closest I've been able to find is the tag landuse=garages (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/tag:landuse%3Dgarages ) but the wiki discussion is of car storage, and the discussion of the proposal for that tag seems to indicate that it was intended to tag extensive garage areas in residential areas. In the US, we have similar structures, but they typically are located in commercial or retail areas; are owned and operated by private firms charging rent for space; and are probably used more for storing household furnishings, clothing, and other items than they are for storing cars. Access to the individual storage units is typically through a locked gate. These facilities occupy a substantial amount of territory in some suburban areas. I'm willing to draft a proposal if there isn't already a way to tag these, and if someone can advise me on the British English term for these facilities. I agree with a number of the comments on the landuse=garages proposal that landuse= is probably not the right category for this kind of service, but shop= doesn't seem right either. Thanks. Ed HIllsman ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] self-storage facilities
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 10:04:11 +1100, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: I think storage and self-storage imply different things. The former would be warehousing etc for business customers, and the latter for the general public. That said, I'd be inclined to go with amenity=storage for both, with some subtag like self_storage=yes where appropriate. We should have less top-level tags. I had been inclined to avoid amenity= because of the volume of past comments on other proposals, concerned about the number of amenity values. But amenity=storage makes sense. Because so many self-storage facilities are businesses, owned by different companies, landuse= is less appropriate. Amenity=storage would lie within landuse=commercial or, in some instances landuse=industrial, with operator= or name= for the firm, and self_storage=yes. Internal driveways, parking, buildings, and external fences and gates could be mapped if desired. Ed___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] tagging bus stops served by more than one public transportation agency
Hi A few weeks ago, I posted the following question to talk-transit (edited here slightly from the original post, based on the limited feedback received there). Given the specialized focus of the problem, I did not post it to the tagging listserv, but I had very limited response to the question on talk-transit, so I'm posting it here, but from a slightly different perspective. We have two public transit systems operating in the area of our university. They both serve a transit center/bus_station just off campus, but they share some stops on campus (and pass by some of the others' stops on campus). They have multiple routes at some of the shared stops. This situation is not the norm in the US, but it is not uncommon either, and I understand it is not uncommon elsewhere either. I have found guidance on the wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbus_stop ) that where a multiple routes serve a stop, this should be tagged by listing the routes in numeric order and then (if necessary) alphabetical order, with the routes separated by semicolons, using no spaces unless they are part of the route designation. The example in the wiki is route_ref=66A;123;456;s78;x9 This is pretty clear, and it is in a place where inquiring new mappers are highly likely to find it, so we want to follow this practice. What is not clear is how to handle a situation in which a stop serves two operators and multiple routes for each. For example, one stop is on HART routes 5 and 12, and on USF routes A and C By inference, we would code the operators in alphabetical order, separated by semicolons, as operator=HART;USF And in this case, because the USF system designates routes by letters while HART uses numbers, we could luck out with route_ref=5;12;A;C But if both systems used route numbers, this would not indicate which routes belong to which operators. An alternative format would be to code an operator1=HART and route_ref1=5;12, and an operator2=USF with route_ref2=A;D, but this seems error-prone to me. I've seen this format used a few times in mapping some other features, but I haven't seen documentation of it. The response from talk-transit that directly responded to the question offered a third suggestion (which the mapper says he uses), which is to code the transit agency operator into the tag for the routes. So, in this example, operator=HART;USF hart_route_ref=5;12 usf_route_ref=A;C By extension, either this or the operator1/operator2 approach would apply if other tags differ between the operators who serve a given stop (e.g., name1/name1, or hart_name/usf_name, and yes, the two agencies do use different names for some of the stops they share). A recent comment on talk-transit suggested that it might be better not to include route information, because routes change, and situations such as the one I am asking about may be another reason not to do so. However, the routes near campus are very stable (the USF system adds routes, but otherwise changes them only to avoid construction). And, when we communicated with local mappers of bus_stops about our plans to upload stop data from a local transit agency that has given permission to do so, we were asked whether we could upload the routes as well as the other information. So there is demand for it, even though in a trip-planning application we would use an identifier in the stop data in OSM to link between other OSM data and transit route/ schedule data outside of OSM. We would welcome suggestions or guidance on how to handle the route tagging with multiple operators. I think we will simply have to pick a scheme and go with it (and document it on the wiki). But it would be helpful to know whether any of these is more likely or less likely to make it easier or harder to work with the the data within OSM, or whether any of these is more consistent, or less consistent, with widely-agreed practices. This is the perspective I've added from the original post. Ed Hillsman___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Draft - new barrier values
I've contributed a new barrier type (post_and_chain) to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/New_barrier_types I have a photo that I've taken of one of these, but I haven't been able to figure out how to get it into the wiki. None of the other barrier photos I've seen in the wiki shows one of these. This type of barrier is really common in the US, in parks and on college campuses. It usually is installed to keep people from taking a short cut across a grassy area and wearing a path. It isn't really closed or dense enough to be considered a fence, but it definitely is a barrier. Also, I really have no idea what this kind of barrier is called, especially in the UK (since the default English terminology for OSM is British), and I'd be happy to change the entry if someone has the proper British name for it. Ed Hillsman Tampa, FL USA___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Is highway=service, service=drive_thru a good idea?
On 11 April 2010 17:49:15 BST 1010, John Smith deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com wrote: On 12 April 2010 02:33, Anthony osm at inbox.org wrote: Now, if we really want to start a flame war, maybe I should ask whether or not to include bicycle=no :). While your comment is tongue in cheek, most drive throughs have height/width restrictions and usually don't allow towed vehicles to be taken through either, not sure if anyone has come up with suitable tagging for this. Actually, a local fast-food chain out in Portland changed its policy about a year ago and now welcomes (and markets to) bicyclists to use its drive-through lanes. http://bikeportland.org/2009/08/14/burgerville-bikes-now-welcome-in-all-drive-thrus/ Ed Hillsman___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - air_filling
Hi, I invite your comments on a proposal to tag locations where one can fill bicycle or auto tires/tyres; scuba tanks/diving bottles; paintball markers; and probably other things. I have drafted the proposal in a way that that I hope will avoid the need for a lot of specialized high-level tags. The proposal is at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/air_filling Ed Hillsman ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] air pump/hose/dispenser/station
Is there an agreed-upon way to tag a location where compressed air and a hose are available for filling bicycle or automobile tires/tyres? We have several in this area that are not in logical places (such as gas stations) but are freely available if cyclists know about them and where to look. I'd like to put them into the map data even if none of the standard renderers displays them. I have searched the wiki and not found any mention of it, but I may not be using the right search terms. Tagging would need to include the type of valve stem they can work with. If there isn't, I'll propose something, and I would welcome comments and suggestions before I do so. Thanks in advance for your help. Ed Hillsman Tampa, FL USA ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Breezeway (alternative to the tunnel and covered options)
I spoke about the tunnel/covered problem to some students here interested in OSM, and one of them said Oh, you mean a breezeway. Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breezeway offers a description, and two illustrations via external links, that suggest the term breezeway fits a lot of the cases considered in the recent threads here dealing with covered and tunnel. Breezeways apparently can be quite large, although it is not clear that they would really apply to the roadway case with which Randy began the threads. A search of Google images turns up examples mostly at the scale of a residence, but also a few quite a bit larger (including Tolman Hall at the University of California--Berkeley). I would suggest breezeway=yes/no as an additional tag for the stretch of highway=* that traverses a breezeway. The term breezeway is apparently of U.S. origin, but if there is not a British equivalent, I would suggest that we go with it. Ed Edward L. Hillsman, Ph.D. Senior Research Associate Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 4202 Fowler Ave., CUT100 Tampa, FL 33620-5375 813-974-2977 (tel) 813-974-5168 (fax) hills...@cutr.usf.edu (but writing from home) http://www.cutr.usf.edu___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Highway property proposal covered=yes
I've come to this discussion late, because the tagging listserv is relatively new, and I haven't been monitoring it regularly. I don't have anything like a definitive suggestion to Randy's original problem or the variants added to it in the subsequent discussion, but I'd like to add something else for consideration. I'm tagging sidewalks on the University of South Florida in Tampa, and we have a number of situations where a sidewalk goes through a building. In effect, much of the ground level of the building is open to the elements, and the sidewalk goes under the second floor. Doors to offices and other rooms open onto the sidewalk. This seems to have been a style here in the 1970s. There are two variations of this. In one, the sidewalk runs between two parts of the ground floor of the building (like a tunnel). Doors (and elevators and stairways) may front onto the sidewalk as it passes through. I have been tagging portion of these sidewalk that goes through these buildings as highway=footway, tunnel=yes, because from the perspective of the sidewalk, it is a tunnel. But I've not been entirely comfortable with it. This is, I think, the situation that Randy identified, but for sidewalks. In the other, the sidewalk runs along the side of the ground floor of the building, with grass on one side, the building (often with doors opening onto the sidewalk) on the other, and the second floor of the building overhead. These have been problematic. They function as sidewalks but are not quite normal sidewalks, and they definitely are not tunnels One of the reasons I'm doing this mapping is because we want to develop a walking-route finder for students using wheelchairs. As part of this, I've been considering proposing a tag shade=*, intended to apply to a sidewalk or street (mostly sidewalks, though), with the following values based on midday shading: =trees, if the way is heavily shaded by trees (not intended for areas on a way shaded a single tree, but for a length of way with shade covering a substantial part of the length) =pergola, if the way is covered by a pergola or similar trellis with plantings dense enough to provide shade =roof if the way is covered by an awning or similar roof impervious to rain. Intended for a free-standing structure built for the purpose of covering the sidewalk =building if the way hugs the north side of a building and is shaded by it (this would apply in latitudes farther north than here--in midsummer the sun is too high) =portico if the way runs beneath a canopy, colonnade, or similar projection of the building that provides shade and shelter but, depending on the orientation of the way, might provide shade at noon and in the morning, but not in the afternoon (or vice versa). This is the value that I have been considering for the second case above (building on one side, grass on the other, second level overhead. Older parts of some European cities are full of these. Better-designed commercial developments also have extended awnings/canopies attached to the front of the buildings, shading the sidewalk that runs along the front of the shops. =none would be the implied value if shade=* is not coded, although I would understand if a mapper coded it to make a point during a hot shadeless afternoon walk. Maybe other values, but these are the ones I've encountered here, or thought about. shade=trees could apply to older streets as well as sidewalks, but I doubt the other values would apply to streets very often. Shade=trees would also apply to stretches of hiking paths (below treeline, obviously) and cycle paths, distinguishing them from stretches through meadow, rockfields, talus, etc. Useful for planning a hike. Knowing about shade would allow the eventual routing application to trade off using a slightly longer shady route vs a shorter one without shade. Because of trees, we can't just tag shade in association with a building or architectural element There are other situations, such as some of the early grand commercial arcades, that are structurally similar to the example that Anthony provided at http://images.loopnet.com/xnet/mainsite/attachments/viewImage.aspx?FileGuid=C138EA3D-33CE-4695-AA32-11C4C9C097EAExtension=jpgWidth=631Height=421 (by the way, Anthony, I like your work in detailing the commercial complex that I'd merely traced the outline for). If there were a tag for arcade or something like that, I would use it, not for shade, but because it describes the overall situation, and shade would be implied. Because of its size, location and other functions, and the orientation of the doors, the multistory lobby of new student center on the campus now functions as a sidewalk. Students routinely cut through the building on their way from places to the north, to places to the south, or vice versa. So it is a bit like an old arcade as well, but
