Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 110, Issue 70

[Jack Burke]

On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 1:02 AM  wrote:
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 21:04:57 +0100
> From: Richard 
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Reversible Road tagging
> Message-ID: <20181109200457.GA3881@rz.localhost.localdomain>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 07:59:22PM +0100, yo paseopor wrote:
> > One little point
> >
> > Untill now GPS navigation is orientative, not compulsory, obligatory or
> > have-to-do. So instead your Osmand says you go in opposite direction, you
> > drive, you decide. No kamikaze please.
>
> correct, but it is not our intention to produce data that is better suited for
> kamikaze drivers than normal users.. is it?

Unfortunately, there *are* people out there who seem to blindly follow
instructions from their GPS navigation system and don't really do much
in the way of thinking

> > yopaseopor
> > PD: conditional lanes tagging situation would be interesting with a new tag
> > (forward/backward/reversible), for example...
> >
> > lanes:forward=1
> > lanes:backward=1
> > lanes:reversible=1
> > reversible:forward=Mo-Su 07:00-09:00,15:30-17:30
> > reversible:backward=Mo-Su 9:00-15:30
> > reversible:closed=Mo-Su 17:30-07:00
>
> Imho conditional restrictions have everything we need, it provides perhaps a 
> little
> bit more than that and we should pick one preferred method.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions#Evaluation_of_conflicting_restrictions
> - mentions lanes and directional restrictions explicitly
>
> so perhaps
> lanes=0
> lanes:forward:conditional=2 @ (09:00-17:00)
> lanes:backward:conditional=2 @ (17:01-8:59)

Well...this might work.

> I suspect there might be some places already tagged somehow similar like this
> but can't find them now..

If you do find them, please let me know, because I'd love to see
exactly how the tagging is done, and how routers handle it.

> As it has not been implemented in any routers that I know about it might be
> good to ask in the issue trackers of some routers if they have an idea what
> would be reasonably easy to implement.
>
> Richard

That's exactly what I intend to do.  I wanted to get a discussion
going here, first, with ideas, so that they'd have something to think
about.

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

[Tagging] Reversible Road tagging

[Jack Burke]

With the advent of new reversible freeways north and south of Atlanta, I
think it's time we try to come up with a way to model the reversal schedule
so that routers can begin to utilize them properly.  Note that I am
referring to roads where the entire roadway reverses, not a reversible
*lane* scenario (such as this one:
https://osm.org/go/ZSARXLJg?layers=NG=129555346), although we might be
able to find a solution that fits both.

Examples of reversible roads:

I 75 & I 575 Express Lanes north of Atlanta (aka the "Northwest Corridor"):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Corridor_Project
http://www.dot.ga.gov/DS/GEL/NWC

I 75 South Metro Express Lanes south of Atlanta:
http://www.peachpass.com/where-can-i-use-peach-pass/i-75-south-metro-express-lanes/

the Lee Roy Selmon Crosstown Expressway elevated express lanes (separate
from the dedicated one-way lanes of the expressway) in Tampa:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Roy_Selmon_Expressway

I seem to recall seeing mention of one more in someone's OSM diary, but I
can't find it at the moment.  I'm sure there are more somewhere else in the
world, too.

For now, I've been adding an opening_hours tag on the barrier nodes on the
entrance lanes (and on the entrance lanes themselves) for the Atlanta
express roads, mainly so that the information gets captured and is
available in OSM.  I haven't touched this on the Selmon Expressway because
it has a more complex reversal schedule (and the road authority seems to
deviate from it quite frequently).  I have specifically avoided putting
opening_hours on barrier nodes on the exit lanes, though, because you can
exit even after the barriers on the entrance lanes go down.

Following the KISS principle, barrier node tagging might be the way to go,
at least initially.

Barrier tagging Pros:
* Easy to implement in routing (e.g., OsmAnd's routing.xml can process a
node as barrier=1 or barrier=-1 based on the opening_hours times).


Barrier tagging Cons:
* Having a hard time thinking of any.


Another way to approach this might be to utilize route relations (I know
this will get several people very excited).  However, this raises the
complexity level; as far as I can suss it out, we'd need a route relation
for each direction, possibly with opening_hours tags in each relation,
probably including the appropriate entrance ways as part of the relations,
and we would have to utilize oneway=-1 in the relations that depict travel
in the opposite direction of the vectors, and oneway=yes for when travel in
the direction of the vector is allowed.  For example, the I 75 Express
Lanes north of Atlanta would need (at least) 2 route relations.  Because of
the split-configuration reversal schedule used, the Selmon Expressway
express lanes would need *6*.  Maybe more, depending on how we end up
modeling it.

Note that I am specifically avoiding oneway=reversible in the route
relation scenario, simply because it doesn't model the situation properly
within the appropriate time windows.  Also, using route relations will make
it hard to capture the fact that you can still drive on the road after the
entrance gates have closed (if anyone has ideas on how to do this, please
speak up, because I can't figure one out).  However, route relations might
be able to capture reversible lane situations where tagging barriers will
not, since they typically don't exist on a simple reversible lane.


Route Relation Pros:
* Captures a lot of information.
* Might capture reversible lane scenarios.
* Can provide a more robust representation of the routes.
* Likely to be enthusiastically supported by certain people.

Route Relation Cons:
* AFAIK, route relations are not supported by any routing engine at all,
except that OsmAnd will display the ref tags from them, and also AFAIK no
one is working on doing so.
* Likely to be years before they *are* supported by routers.
* Complex; possibly beyond the capability of a phone-based router.
* Lots of people dislike oneway=-1.  Very much dislike.
* Routing issues will arise if someone enters one of the express lanes just
before it closes, because then the vehicle will be traveling on a road that
the router thinks is closed, and try to recalculate which could end up with
an impossible route (exit at . when you're in a barrier separated lane
and can't get to the exit).


And, it may be that we decide to start with tagging barrier nodes, with a
goal of implementing it via relations over time if we can come up with a
suitable method to do so.

Thoughts, comments, objections, statements of support?

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 93, Issue 12

[Jack Burke]

As one who is indigenous to the United States, I don't see the problem with
Lake Calhoun.

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:34 PM,  wrote:

> Send Tagging mailing list submissions to
> tagging@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> tagging-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Tagging digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Unofficial name change of "Lake Calhoun" in Minneapolis,
>   Minnesota (Tom Hardy)
>2. Re: Unofficial name change of "Lake Calhoun" in Minneapolis,
>   Minnesota (Clifford Snow)
>3. Re: Unofficial name change of "Lake Calhoun" in   Minneapolis,
>   Minnesota (Tom Hardy)
>4. Re: Unofficial name change of "Lake Calhoun" in Minneapolis,
>   Minnesota (Clifford Snow)
>5. Re: Unofficial name change of "Lake Calhoun" in Minneapolis,
>   Minnesota (Dave Swarthout)
>6. Re: Unofficial name change of "Lake Calhoun" in Minneapolis,
>   Minnesota (Brad Neuhauser)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 17:11:18 -0500
> From: Tom Hardy 
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Tagging] Unofficial name change of "Lake Calhoun" in
> Minneapolis,Minnesota
> Message-ID: <3221875.6s8bfxf...@sgt.decathlon.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Lake Calhoun  is the subject
> of
> local discussion due to racist associations of the word "Calhoun".  I know
> a
> name change has been promoted, but I have no further details.
>
> The name was recently changed to name=Bde Maka Ska, with name:dak=Mde Maka
> Ska, something that won't be recognised by most people or entities in the
> area.
>
> I added name:en=Lake Calhoun and added a note but have taken no further
> action.
>
> --
> Tom Hardy 
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 16:23:50 -0700
> From: Clifford Snow 
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Unofficial name change of "Lake Calhoun" in
> Minneapolis, Minnesota
> Message-ID:
>  gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Tom Hardy  wrote:
>
> > Lake Calhoun  is the subject
> > of
> > local discussion due to racist associations of the word "Calhoun".  I
> know
> > a
> > name change has been promoted, but I have no further details.
> >
> > The name was recently changed to name=Bde Maka Ska, with name:dak=Mde
> Maka
> > Ska, something that won't be recognised by most people or entities in the
> > area.
> >
> > I added name:en=Lake Calhoun and added a note but have taken no further
> > action.
> >
>
> According to Wikipedia [1], the city can not change the name. But since
> they did put up new signage, according to the article, I agree that
> name=Bde Maka Ska is appropriate. I would use the name_1=Lake Calhoun
> instead of name:en. Lake Calhoun isn't the english version of Bde Maka Ska.
>
> >From an article in the StarTribune [2] it looks like the park is still
> called East Lake Calhoun Park.
>
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Calhoun#Name
> [2]
> http://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-park-board-to-
> vote-tonight-on-lake-calhoun-name-change/421157163/
>
> Clifford
>
> --
> @osm_seattle
> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:  attachments/20170608/3a2d8ed8/attachment-0001.html>
>
> --
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 18:50:01 -0500
> From: Tom Hardy 
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Unofficial name change of "Lake Calhoun" in
> Minneapolis, Minnesota
> Message-ID: <27220167.8zj5pc1...@sgt.decathlon.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Thursday, 8 June 2017 18:23:50 CDT Clifford Snow wrote:
>
> > According to Wikipedia [1], the city can not change the name. But since
> > they did put up new signage, according to the article, I agree that
> > name=Bde Maka Ska is appropriate. I would use the name_1=Lake Calhoun
> > instead of name:en. Lake Calhoun isn't the english version of Bde Maka
> Ska.
>
> [...]
>
> Huh.  That one flew right by 

[Tagging] Tagging help needed in Austria

[Jack Burke]

Can a local OSM editor in Austria help verify that we have this tagged 
correctly? :-D

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/ski/news/driver-get-stuck-on-a-ski-slope-after-his-sat-nav-gets-him-lost/

I'm not much use. I don't speak German and can't tell a fahrvergnugen from a 
weinerschnitzel on a map. 

-jack 
-- 
Typos courtesy of fancy auto spell technology___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Bar vs Pub vs Restaurant in the US?

[Jack Burke]

Actually that's not far off. Linguists speculate that American English 
pronunciation in the northeast is similar to that of English English 200+ years 
ago.  So you could say that we speak the King's English. (Down with the king!)

They say the same about Canadian French--what's spoken in Quebec today is 
closer to 18th century French than modern French spoken in France. 

-- 
Typos courtesy of fancy auto spell technology


>   2. Re: [Talk-us] Bar vs Pub vs Restaurant in the US? (Kevin Kenny)

>"The Queen's English? Of course I can speak the Queens English. I was
>born
>in Queens."


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

Re: [Tagging] Best tagging practices for winery "tasting rooms"

[Jack Burke]

In that case, I should probably also include:

beer=no
liquor=no

Would "tourism=wine_tasting" be inappropriate?  It just seems to me that
"tourism=attraction" is too generic.

--jack



Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 17:17:44 +0200
> From: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Best tagging practices for winery "tasting
> rooms"
> Message-ID: <03d36395-0d20-4e58-b4c4-5f88a6f64...@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;   charset=us-ascii
>
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > Il giorno 05 set 2016, alle ore 16:41, Jack Burke <burke...@gmail.com>
> ha scritto:
> >
> > amenity=bar (sometimes with ;restaurant  added on)
> > wine=yes
> > tourism=attraction
>
>
> if you are specifically after tasting rooms/service, this tagging is way
> too generic. You could add something like wine_tasting=yes/some detail you
> care about
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Best tagging practices for winery "tasting rooms"

[Jack Burke]

I know of several wineries that operate a tasting room facility separate
from the winery itself. I'm trying to come up with the right tagging scheme
to use on them. Since they aren't located at the actually winery,
craft=winery seems incorrect. In the wiki, shop=winery isn't defined,
although that would be a good candidate. As far as I know, they don't fit
the expectation of a wine cellar, so tourism=wine_cellar sounds wrong, even
though some sort of tourism tag appears to be called for.

So far,

amenity=bar (sometimes with ;restaurant  added on)
wine=yes
tourism=attraction

is the best I have come up with.  Does anyone have any other suggestions?

-jack


PS: I have no idea how my earlier message on this ended up threaded in the
wadi discussion.  I sent it as a new message.  But I'm resending it so it
has its own thread.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Winery "tasting rooms"

[Jack Burke]

I know of several wineries that operate a tasting room facility separate from 
the winery itself. I'm trying to come up with the right tagging scheme to use 
on them. Since they aren't located at the actually winery, craft=winery seems 
incorrect. In the wiki, shop=winery isn't defined, although that would be a 
good candidate. As far as I know, they don't fit the expectation of a wine 
cellar, so tourism=wine_cellar sounds wrong, even though some sort of tourism 
tag appears to be called for. 

So far, 

amenity=bar (sometimes with ;restaurant  added on) 
wine=yes
tourism=attraction

is the best I have come up with.  Does anyone have any other suggestions? 

-jack 
-- 
Typos courtesy of fancy auto spell technology___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[Jack Burke]

Tagging maxspeed is purely for a router.  So are turn restrictions.

As for turn:lanes meant for complex intersectionsthe examples in the
wiki show very simple uses.  I can't see anything in it, or the discussion
page, indicating that it is only for complex intersections.  Certainly
there is a lot of talk about how to use it with some complex roads, but
overall it appears to be intended for exactly this type of situation
(namely, indicating lane guidance for exits).

--jack


On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:18 PM, David Mease  wrote:
>
>> I thing my reservations about this type of tagging is that this may be
>> "tagging for the router".
>>
>
> On some level, all of it is.
>
>
>> I still view the turn:lanes scheme as a (probably incomplete) way of
>> describing complex intersections. Tagging simple intersections with this
>> scheme just to get a routing engine to display the correct arrow icon is a
>> waste of time.
>>
>
> A sufficiently smart router could potentially use the info to determine
> whether or not it's plausible to make Y number of lane changes of X
> distance to make a turn and route accordingly.
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[Jack Burke]

Would love to compare notes on that, but it'll have to be later next week.

If you want to look at what I do for exits, feel free to examine pretty
much all of them on I 75 south of Atlanta, as well as through downtown.

--jack


On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> I've given it a little minor tag-completion update if anybody wants to
> compare notes.
>
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Duane Gearhart  wrote:
>
>> FYI - the exit 78 interchange information has been updated. The Mapzen
>> directions are calling out the exit as you expected
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapzen_car
>> ute=31.67026%2C-83.61169%3B31.66674%2C-83.61442#map=18/31.66803/-83.61124
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:06 AM, David Mease  wrote:
>>
>>> My interpretation:
>>>
>>> What is the proper method to use turn:lanes to tag freeway lanes
> approaching an exit, where the exit branches directly from an edge lane
> without being part of the freeway itself, but the freeway lanes are not
> signed with an arrow, such as this one?
>  http://mapillary.com/map/im/7igAGXSa6EsUYlTIujXchw
>

>>> This exit has no turn lane. There is no staging lane prior to the exit
>>> where tags could be placed, one should not be created just so that there is
>>> a place to put tags. This freeway should not be split. You said yourself
>>> that the exit is not part of the freeway itself, so tags should not be
>>> placed on the freeway. This intersection is a candidate for the destination
>>> tag.
>>>
>>>
 mapping the road markings seems extremely strange - what if they are
 very faded, when do we map them ? is there a threshold of % of the paint
 left ?

>>> what is there are no road markings but there are signs ?

>>>
>>> Same difference. But the arrow in the above example is pointing to where
>>> the exit is, not describing a turn lane preceding the exit.
>>>
>>>
 do we remove those tags during the winter in some regions ?

>>>
>>> Do we remove the name tag from roads when the street signs get iced over
>>> or overgrown with vegetation?
>>>
>>> mapping of markings separately also seems to have no functional benefit.
 the information should be useful for navigation
>>>
>>>
>>> Road markings are both beneficial and useful for navigation. Cities and
>>> governments have paid a lot of money installing them all over globe
>>> precisely for these reasons. OSM would be well served to include them
>>> exactly as is. I don't hear a lot of people complaining about how those
>>> arrows on the roads led them astray.
>>>
>>> In the above example, I would not expect navigation software to direct
>>> me to get into the lane marked with a slight right arrow. In fact, I would
>>> be miffed when I found there was no such lane. All I would expect is a
>>> simple "In x distance take exit 78 towards Sycamore/Ocilla"
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-us mailing list
>>> talk...@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> talk...@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[Jack Burke]

> This exit has no turn lane. There is no staging lane prior to the exit
where tags could be placed, one should not be created just so that there is
a place to put tags.
> This freeway should not be split. You said yourself that the exit is not
part of the freeway itself, so tags should not be placed on the freeway.

That's not entirely true.  The exit ramp technically begins in the middle
of the far-right travel lane.  If you were to imagine the highway as a
train track instead, the exit ramp would have to physically connect to the
rail in the lane.  The same concept applies here, and although I've never
actually asked one, I'll bet a highway engineer would agree.


On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:06 AM, David Mease  wrote:

> My interpretation:
>
> What is the proper method to use turn:lanes to tag freeway lanes
>>> approaching an exit, where the exit branches directly from an edge lane
>>> without being part of the freeway itself, but the freeway lanes are not
>>> signed with an arrow, such as this one?
>>>  http://mapillary.com/map/im/7igAGXSa6EsUYlTIujXchw
>>>
>>
> This exit has no turn lane. There is no staging lane prior to the exit
> where tags could be placed, one should not be created just so that there is
> a place to put tags. This freeway should not be split. You said yourself
> that the exit is not part of the freeway itself, so tags should not be
> placed on the freeway. This intersection is a candidate for the destination
> tag.
>
>
>> mapping the road markings seems extremely strange - what if they are very
>> faded, when do we map them ? is there a threshold of % of the paint left ?
>>
> what is there are no road markings but there are signs ?
>>
>
> Same difference. But the arrow in the above example is pointing to where
> the exit is, not describing a turn lane preceding the exit.
>
>
>> do we remove those tags during the winter in some regions ?
>>
>
> Do we remove the name tag from roads when the street signs get iced over
> or overgrown with vegetation?
>
> mapping of markings separately also seems to have no functional benefit.
>> the information should be useful for navigation
>
>
> Road markings are both beneficial and useful for navigation. Cities and
> governments have paid a lot of money installing them all over globe
> precisely for these reasons. OSM would be well served to include them
> exactly as is. I don't hear a lot of people complaining about how those
> arrows on the roads led them astray.
>
> In the above example, I would not expect navigation software to direct me
> to get into the lane marked with a slight right arrow. In fact, I would be
> miffed when I found there was no such lane. All I would expect is a simple
> "In x distance take exit 78 towards Sycamore/Ocilla"
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Freeway exit tagging

[Jack Burke]

Freeway exit tagging


I am totally confused.

What is the proper method to use turn:lanes to tag freeway lanes
approaching an exit, where the exit branches directly from an edge lane
without being part of the freeway itself, but the freeway lanes are not
signed with an arrow, such as this one?
http://mapillary.com/map/im/7igAGXSa6EsUYlTIujXchw

Through examples[1], the wiki shows that when the freeway lanes *are*
signed, then "through;slight_right" appears to be the correct value.  The
wiki examples also appear to indicate that "through" is *only* appropriate
when there is corresponding signage.  The wiki is also very clear what to
do when an edge lane is an exit-only lane ("slight_right"), and what to do
when a lane is signed for both through and right turn ("through;right").
So what's the right thing to use when there is no "through" indicator, yet
there is an upcoming branching exit?  By inference from what's contained in
the wiki, "none;slight_right" appears to be the appropriate value, but it
looks like a lot of people are disagreeing with that[2], even though it
appears to be the only logical conclusion.  Others think that
"through;slight_right" should be used because it's the reality on the
ground[2] despite the lack of paint/signs.

I'm bringing this up because I'm trying to get exits on I 75 in Georgia and
Florida tagged with destination and lane guidance (though only one
navigation app processes lane guidance AFAIK, but I hope that by adding the
data, others will take it up, too), and don't want to waste my time tagging
it incorrectly.  One helpful group trying to fix what they consider
incorrect lane counts & tags, turned a bunch of my continue-or-exit lanes
tagged with "none;slight_right" into exit-only lanes[3] with just
"slight_right".  I'm worried about switching to "through;slight_right"
because I don't want some *other* do-gooder coming along later and
similarly breaking lane guidance because there's no arrow on the ground or
on a sign.  Thus, I am now at a standstill because there doesn't appear to
be any correct tagging scheme for this incredibly common situation.

Note:  I am intentionally leaving the proposal for "transit:lanes" out of
this, both because it hasn't been voted on, as well as it doesn't appear to
cover this situation any better than turn:lanes does.

--jack



References:

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn

[2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-June/029335.html

[3]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2016-August/016643.html
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] shop=chemist as "Drugstore" for Walgreens, CVS, Rite Aid, etc.

[Jack Burke]

Interesting. I've been tagging most large pharmacies as shop=convenience and 
amenity=pharmacy since I tend to think of them as convenience stores as much as 
pharmacies. 

-jack

-- 
Typos courtesy of fancy auto spell technology

On July 5, 2016 1:08:26 PM EDT, Peter Dobratz  wrote:
>After arriving at a local drugstore chain with a prescription in hand,
>walking past the shampoo aisle, only to find that the pharmacy counter
>is
>closed for the day, I've been updating tagging of drugstores and
>pharmacies
>as described here.
>
>For example, there is a Walgreens:
>
>http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/266495943
>
>The building outline has shop=chemist.
>
>Inside the building, there are 2 Nodes, one for the pharmacy and one
>for a
>clinic:
>
>amenity=pharmacy
>dispensing=yes
>drive_through=yes
>http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4064469934
>
>amenity=doctors
>http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4064469933
>
>In this case, all of these entities have different opening hours. 
>Other
>contact info like phone and website may be different as well.
>
>
>For the older style independent pharmacy, I do still use
>amenity=pharmacy
>on the building outline:
>
>http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/218176300
>
>They do sell a few items like bandages without a prescription, but they
>don't have the extensive personal hygiene section of typical of the
>drugstore chains.  The pharmacist is also on duty for the entire time
>this
>shop is open, so it doesn't feel like there are two separate entities
>operating in the space.
>
>Peter
>
>
>On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Minh Nguyen
>
>wrote:
>
>> Recently, iD was changed so that shop=chemist is labeled as
>"Drugstore"
>> for American English users (and continues to be labeled "Chemist" for
>> British English users). [1] An American mapping a Walgreens, CVS, or
>Rite
>> Aid who searches for "drugs" will see the following choices, in
>order:
>>
>> * Drugstore (shop=chemist, marked with a shopping cart icon)
>> * Pharmacy (amenity=pharmacy, marked with a pill bottle)
>>
>> Meanwhile, searching for "pharmacy" -- a synonym of "drugstore" in
>> American English -- produces only the amenity=pharmacy preset.
>>
>> The rationale is that amenity=pharmacy should be used only for
>pharmacy
>> counters (which can be found at both drugstores and inside
>supermarkets),
>> while shop=chemist should be used for full-service drugstores that
>*may*
>> contain pharmacy counters. Currently, this is at odds with the wiki
>and
>> longstanding practice, which stipulates that a shop=chemist *may not*
>fill
>> prescriptions.
>>
>> This change to iD came about due to a discussion in the Name
>Suggestion
>> Index project, which is the component in iD that suggests tags when
>you
>> fill in a commonly used name. [2] I happened to notice the change
>because
>> it caused Transifex to prompt me to update iD's Vietnamese
>localization. To
>> my knowledge, there has been no discussion on the mailing lists or
>formal
>> proposal on the wiki, though the iD maintainer intends to edit the
>wiki to
>> match iD's interpretation. iD is the only software that has made this
>> change.
>>
>> On the one hand, I've come around to liking the proposal, because it
>makes
>> it easier for data consumers to distinguish between pharmacy counters
>and
>> full-fledged drugstores. On the other hand, I think it's problematic
>> because an American mapping a Walgreens or CVS could potentially tag
>a
>> "drugstore" and be unaware that they'd need to separately map the
>pharmacy
>> counter in order to indicate that prescriptions may be filled
>on-site.
>>
>> Currently, amenity=pharmacy is far and away more common than
>shop=chemist
>> in the U.S. as a way to tag drugstores. Certainly anyone retagging
>> amenity=pharmacy to shop=chemist would be careful to add an
>additional
>> amenity=pharmacy POI where the pharmacy counter would be. (For a
>typical
>> Walgreens or CVS, it'd be next to the drive-through canopy.) However,
>I
>> have little faith that the average iD user would know to do the same,
>since
>> the word "drugstore", like "pharmacy", implies the sale of
>prescription
>> drugs.
>>
>> I've hashed out many of these points in [3], but I think the
>discussion
>> needs to involve the wider OSM community now. There's little chance
>of data
>> consumers and other editors updating their logic if the change is
>only
>> discussed in the iD project.
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/3201
>> [2] https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/issues/30
>> [3] https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/3213
>>
>> --
>> m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> talk...@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>
>
>
>
>___
>Talk-us mailing list

[Tagging] Specifying maxweight, when different weight limits are signed

[Jack Burke]

What's the right way to specify maxweight when the weight limit sign has
different values for different vehicles?  Just use the highest value shown?

For example, see this bridge:
http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/xCvKHzGbfqBG0sZDCVUV8A/photo

--jack "weighing all my options"
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 67, Issue 41

[Jack Burke]

I want to +1 the idea of using leisure=range.

There are some dangerous sports where some people are allowed to be downfield, 
even if it's just the judges (shot-put, etc.).  But with shooting/archery 
sports, even the judges don't get on the field. That does make a distinction 
between the types of playing areas used. Having a separate tag makes sense to 
me. 

-jack


Message: 4
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 06:24:13 +0900
From: John Willis jo...@mac.com
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
   tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] sport=shooting  Shooting Range
Message-ID: eebf9d40-39ce-4e33-a655-1f00d26f4...@mac.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

That's true - because the proper tag for it was not created yet and
this is a case of tagging for the renderer. 

A sports center may have an indoor range in a larger building, or the
outdoor sports center is not mapped fully. 

But if it is sport=archery + leisure=pitch it should be changed to
leisure=range

Again, hockey players or even paintballers in the outfit (and
protection) are supposed to be on the pitch when playing. 

No one is supposed to be on 99% of the range when there is practicing
going on. No one. If you are a contestant, you can't be in that area
because you could be easily killed, let alone a bystander. 

This is why it is a range, and not a pitch.

A range area outlined the place *where you can't be* during practice

A pitch outlines the place *where you should be* during practice. 

Military has shooting range, not pitch for a reason. 

Having practiced archery and shooting at ranges with the Boy Scouts and
other private places (briefly), the facilities, rules, and no-mans land
rules of the ranges are **exactly** the same.

Ranges are a place to safely practice a sport. The basic understanding
that this area is safe for me to propel deadly projectiles meant to
impale people and things because access is restricted is quite
different than any other sport - so they have a different name for the
facility, and not marking/rendering ranges different than pitches would
be a safety issue.

They should be rendered differently and tagged differently from
pitches. 

Having a range for guns and a pitch for archery makes no sense. 

Javbw 

 On Apr 13, 2015, at 10:02 PM, Brad Neuhauser
brad.neuhau...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 I get your, er, point, although I don't think you would want to
randomly wander into a batting cage or hockey rink in the middle of
practice either. :)
 
 The bigger issue is there are over 1300 sport=archery tags, and both
on the wiki and in actual usage, leisure=pitch (or sports_centre) is
what's used with them, not range. Maybe there's a distinction one could
make for range, but frankly, archery is the tag that'll let people know
there are likely to be arrows flying around.
 
 On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 7:19 AM, John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote:
 
 I've usually seen leisure=pitch used with archery. Scanning through
the few features tagged with leisure=range, they appear to all be
shooting ranges.
 
 The only big difference between them is the noise level and the
length of the projectile. They both have designated stands for the
person, the no-mans land of the range, targets of various forms, and
some kind of projectile containment system (high walls, steel plate,
dirt bank, etc). 
 
 There are quite a few archery ranges (on school grounds) here in
Japan, and I sure as hell never want to accidentally go on one thinking
it is a pitch. 
 
 A 3m long traditional bow looks like it could put a practice arrow
through my body. 
 
 It has the word range in its title for a reason


-- 
Typos courtesy of fancy auto-spell technology. 

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

Re: [Tagging] religion=multi* ?

[Jack Burke]

That would explain the absence of multipoodle, despite the popularity of 
poodle-worshipping among members of this list.  :-P

-jack



In this dropdown, iD is simply returning the most popular results from
taginfo: 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/religion#values
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/religion#values



 On Jan 10, 2015, at 6:57 PM, Tom Pfeifer t.pfei...@computer.org
wrote:
 
 well that explains the slightly, but not significantly, higher usage
numbers
 on this value. Interesting enough that iD implements a value that is
not even documented.
 
 Jack Burke wrote on 2015-01-10 20:18:
 The ID editor already has multifaith as a selectable pull-down item
for the religion= tag.

-- 
Typos courtesy of fancy auto-spell technology. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 64, Issue 30

[Jack Burke]

The ID editor already has multifaith as a selectable pull-down item for the 
religion= tag. 


On January 9, 2015 7:23:54 PM EST, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
Send Tagging mailing list submissions to
   tagging@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
   https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
   tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
   tagging-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than Re: Contents of Tagging digest...


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: [OSM-talk] Changeset messaging  Notes feature   question
  (Dave F.)
   2. Re: [OSM-talk] Changeset messaging  Notes feature   question
  (Dan S)
   3. Re: [OSM-talk] Changeset messaging  Notes feature   question
  (Dave F.)
   4. Re: religion=multi* ? (John Sturdy)
   5. Re: religion=multi* ? (Philip Barnes)
   6. Re: religion=multi* ? (Andreas Neumann)
   7. Re: religion=multi* ? (John Willis)
   8. Re: religion=multi* ? (SomeoneElse)


--

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 12:12:48 +
From: Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com
To: Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu,  Tag discussion, strategy and
   related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Changeset messaging  Notes feature
   question
Message-ID: 54afc5c0.3030...@madasafish.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed

On 01/01/2015 00:39, Tom Hughes wrote:
 On 01/01/15 00:36, Dave F. wrote:

 I'm struggling to comprehend how a button to turn off the notes
layer,
 that's separate ( hidden!) from the only obvious button to turn the
 layer on can be described as 'logical' to an experienced user let
alone
 a newbie..

 Well the problem is that what you see as a button to turn on the 
 notes layer is what I see as a button to add a new note ;-) That 
 button was intended to encode the add a note action, not the view 
 notes action.

OK, but however you perceive it, it still activates the 'view notes'. 
Although it adds clarity to do so, it's not essential to the 'add a 
note' function.

 If I just wanted to view existing notes I wouldn't use that button, I

 would open the layer switcher and turn on the notes layer.

On a scale of 1 to 10, how obvious do you think that is to the user?



 The problem with turning off the notes layer again when the add
note
 control is disabled is that it might already have been on before
you
 started adding a note, so we would probably have to remember if we
had
 turned it on or if it was already on .

 Trying to figure out what to do if somebody starts toggling the
notes
 layers on and off manually while the add note control is active
just
 introduces even more levels of complication...

 By 'we' do you mean the programmers? I hope not. It's not that
 complicated! on/off, yes/no, 0/1 binary! It's the DNA of computers!

 No I'm not saying the programming is necessary complicated, I'm
saying 
 it's hard to know what the correct behaviour is from a UX point of
view.

I don't really see it as that confusing:

I don't think the 'add note' button needs to turn on the 'view notes', 
but lets assume it does:

* The 'add note' button turns both the add  view layers on  should 
them off again, except if 'view' was previously turned on via hidden 
option under Layers. Then it should leave 'view' on.

* If 'view' is turned off via the Layers menu while 'add' is visible, 
turn 'view' off as it not directly linked or strictly needed to add a
note.

Cheers
Dave F.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com




--

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 12:17:42 +
From: Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
   tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Changeset messaging  Notes feature
   question
Message-ID:
   CANuikkqvzrLNgqA5jHogDyBVOMcwCut2pzr7HxE=d8bchcv...@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

This appears to be nothing to do with tagging - you've presumably
sent to this list by mistake...

2015-01-09 12:12 GMT+00:00 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com:
 On 01/01/2015 00:39, Tom Hughes wrote:

 On 01/01/15 00:36, Dave F. wrote:

 I'm struggling to comprehend how a button to turn off the notes
layer,
 that's separate ( hidden!) from the only obvious button to turn
the
 layer on can be described as 'logical' to an experienced user let
alone
 a newbie..


 Well the problem is that what you see as a button to turn on the
notes
 layer is what I see as a button to add a new note ;-) That button
was
 intended to encode the add a note action, not the view notes
action.


 OK, but however you perceive it, it still activates the 'view notes'.
 Although it adds clarity to do so, 

Re: [Tagging] Combining gas stations convenience stores

[Jack Burke]

This topic interests me greatly.


 In my world a gas station and a convenience store are two distinct
 features, so they should indeed exist as two elements also in the osm
 database. Also an address should be considered a feature in its own
 right so it should also be a distinct element.

 Regards
 Markus

+1  Same here.



  In my opinion the gas station is not the building but the whole area.
  Also the address belongs to the whole area and that's the way I tag gas
  stations:
 
 - Draw an area to cover the complete gas station and put amenity=fuel
 together with additional tags like the address on it. In my region
it is
 usually quite clear on an aerial image where the station starts and
where
 it ends (some kind of fence, barrier, whatever, ...).
 - Draw the roads (highway=service) and buildings (building=yes resp.
 building=roof + layer=1)
 - Additional attributes like amenity=car_wash, amenity=parking,
 shop=convenience go to there actual position, i.e. if there is a
 convenience store in one of the buildings I add the tag there.
 - No need to provide the address more than once: the address belongs
 to everything within the area tagged with amenity=fuel
 
 

 +1, the same around here.
 There is also an attribute shop=yes that some people add to the
 amenity=fuel object to say that it's a gas station with a shop.

 Cheers,
 Martin


-1.  I don't really agree.  The parking/driving area is no more a part of
the gas station than any other parking lot is part of the store/building
they service.

I usually do building=roof + layer=1 + amenity=fuel + brand=Foo for the
pumps, and building=retail + shop=convenience for the store part.  I also
usually put opening_hours on each of them if/as I find out what those are.

Lately I've been playing with using a multipolygon as a way to handle the
too-many-address-entries problem.  Join the building=roof and
building=retail into a multipolygon, then apply the address data to that.
 (I do have to do this before applying the other tags to the
areas-that-make-up-the-building bits, but that's easy.)

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 57, Issue 53

[Jack Burke]

I would describe the difference between the two as:

A locker is a medium or large size (permanently or semi-permanently) fixed 
place to safeguard items.

A lockbox is a small, portable, lockable place to protect items from casual 
observation.

In literature, I think the word lockbox is more often used to describe a small 
locking box where women place mementos they don't want others to see, but offer 
no real safeguard against theft, whereas a locker is more secure, even against 
low-level thieves, although a good thief would still be able to break in.  But 
maybe that understanding comes from reading too much Sherlock Holmes.


--jack




Message: 6
 Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 18:55:45 +0100
 From: Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com
 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
     tagging@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] Native English speakers: locker or
 lockbox?
 Message-ID:
     camlmwvv4jhrfotpghe6pcsgxfsxouuz7qunca8h0xvjfwen...@mail.gmail.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
 
 Yes - in Britain they would be signposted left luggage.
 
 But we're a tolerant lot, and lockers would be perfectly
 acceptable (and
 probably how many people, especially younger people, would
 refer to them)
 
 
 On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Michael Reichert naka...@gmx.net
 wrote:
 
  Hi Richard,
 
  Am 24.06.2014 19:41, schrieb Richard Mann:
   left luggage for the facility as a whole,
 probably locker for them
   individually
  
   it might be more international to call them
 lockers, though
 
  Thank you for the additional phrases. Are your answers
 in British
  English? (Because tags should be in British English,
 shouldn't they?)
 
   On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Michael Reichert
 naka...@gmx.net
  wrote:
   At the moment Constantin M?ller (aka
 ubahnverleih) and I think about a
   consistent tagging of this amenities. At the
 moment there are 9 objects
   tagged amenity=lockbox and 30 objects tagged
 amenity=locker [3, 4].
   Because there is few difference between both
 tags I would like to ask
   the native English speakers at this list to
 answer me following
  question:
  
   What word describes a locker/lockbox at a
 train station (see linked
   image above) better? Locker or lockbox? In the
 discussion at talk-de
   Martin Koppenh?fer wrote that a lockbox can be
 found at a bank (for
   money, gold etc.). But he was not sure. [5]
 
 
  Taginfos says:
  9 amenity=lockbox
  30 amenity=locker
  48 amenity=lockers
  4 amenity=left_luggage
 
  Best regards
 
  Michael
 
  --
  Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt
 GPG-verschl?sselt.
 

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