Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

2020-12-24 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 24. Dez. 2020 um 00:22 Uhr schrieb Peter Elderson <
pelder...@gmail.com>:

> 10..20, meaning 10 up to and including 20
>



I don't know if it is just you, but there are already some few examples for
this in the db:
17
*wa**s:**ra**il**wa**y:**20**12**..**20**14*

5
*wa**s:**ra**il**wa**y:**20**01**..**20**12*

1
*bu**il**di**ng**:~**19**63**..**19**64*

1
*hi**st**or**ic**:C**13**..**.1**88*1

1
*na**me**:1**70**0.**.1**76**0-**17**80*

1
*na**me**:1**97**0-**19**90**..**20**05*

0
*bu**il**di**ng**:l**ev**el**:1**,2**,3**..*.




Btw. this one seems to be triggering a bug in taginfo:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=building%3Alevel%3A1%2C2%2C3...

I like the .. syntax, intuitive if you know sequence expressions from bash.

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


Re: [Tagging] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools

2020-12-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 22. Dec 2020, at 16:42, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> In current practice the areas of rivers (whether waterway=riverbank or 
> water=river) are not tagged with a name=* tag, that goes on the linear 
> waterway=river feature.


there’s a 13,6% of all riverbank polygons having a name tag, and 13,4 of all 
water=river objects.  
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/waterway=river#combinations
In contrast, a small majority of 56% of waterway=river have a name tag attached 

Cheers Martin 

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Emergency=Rescue Stations

2020-12-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 22. Dec 2020, at 09:42, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> I think it's fine to use marine here, even though it may not strictly be at 
> sea and could be related to inland waters. So long as this is clearly stated 
> in the wiki documentation. It's not always possible to have OSM tags match 
> how the term is commonly used.
> 
> Water rescue could be confused with the lifeguard tags which are for rescuing 
> swimmers.


At least for inland water rescue there is probably significant overlap with 
rescuing swimmers. Where do we draw the line, if at all? I am referring to the 
German situation, with DLRG being a volunteer driven organization (half a 
million members, only 94 paid staff, 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Life_Saving_Association )

similarly there’s also a water division of the German Red cross, which also 
provides rescuing swimmers as well as boats and emergency response units.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasserwacht

Sometimes emergency response on water is performed by the fire department (e.g. 
divers)

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


Re: [Tagging] Default access for service=driveway?

2020-12-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 22. Dez. 2020 um 10:16 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm <
frede...@remote.org>:

> The private residential property has two driveways (highway=service,
> service=driveway) entering it from different sides, thereby enabling
> people to save a few metres by walking through, rather than around, the
> property.
>
> These driveways do not have an access=private (or access=destination)
> tag or anything like that.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. Should a routing engine automatically assume that something tagged a
> "driveway" is not suitable for through traffic?
>


I am unsure about this. If we encourage this interpretation we will have to
review about 5.5 million driveways (which currently do not have an access
tag) [1] . While I would assume that a driveway is typically private access
(or destination), the tag isn't always used in this way, particularly in
the country side and with long driveways. The wiki esplicitly states:
"There is no defined default access tag for driveways, so data consumers
have to guess if you do not add an access tag."



>
> 2. If you map such driveways, would you add access=private (or
> access=destination) in OSM...
>
> 2a. ... even if there is no specific signage locally?
>


if it is legally (or physically, e.g. gate) the situation, yes


2b. ... if there is a sign that says "access to houses X,Y,Z" without
> saying that other access is forbidden?
>


it depends on the specific situation, in tendency yes




> 2c. ... if there is a sign that says "private driveway"?
>
>
>

depends again on the situation (there may be private driveways which can be
used, I would look for a "no access" sign or similar, in absence of such
signage it is not always clear. for example some such signs are put because
the owner doesn't want other vehicles to be parked, or to reject
responsibilities, but you can walk through)


Cheers,
Martin


[1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/service=driveway#combinations
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 21. Dez. 2020 um 08:40 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> Mapping military bases in Israel, Russia, mapping anything in China/North
> Korea
> etc should be welcomed in OSM if someone is doing this and wants that.
>



Mateusz, this is a quite detailed list, can you explain which other
countries are included in "etc"? I do not know about Israel, Russia or
North Korea, but I am pretty sure that mapping in China is illegal.

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 21. Dec 2020, at 00:49, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> I would hate for somebody to be potentially arrested on spying / espionage 
> charges for doing what we suggested :-(


imagine you were mapping something, and it is legal in the place where you are, 
but illegal in Britain, so you can not do it. Or you are seeing things in 
country A and when you’re in country B you add them to OpenStreetMap (from 
memory), which is legal in country B but not in country A. You might be able to 
do it and still be arrested when going back to country A.

People also said in the past we should adhere to European law because otherwise 
our dataset can not be used in the EU (e.g. with respect to copyright and fair 
use). I am not sure if after the Brexit this will still be the 
OpenStreetMap-Foundation policy, or whether they focus completely on British 
law, but I am sure that Chinese law has not been deemed relevant by past and 
present osmf boards.

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 21. Dec 2020, at 00:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> There has been concern raised on the talk page over the "If it's illegal, 
> please don't map" warning that I included in the proposal.


is this referring to British law? 


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


Re: [Tagging] sport=shooting_range vs sport=shooting + leisure=pitch

2020-12-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 20. Dec 2020, at 22:45, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Some examples;
> 
> sportbowlsA place where you can play lawn bowls/lawn bowling.
> 
> sportkitesurfingTo mark a spot for kitesurfing
> 
> sportmultiA sports facility that is suitable for more than one 
> sport
> 
> sportracquetRacquetball facilities, such as racquetball courts
> 
> sportscuba_divingTo mark a spot for scuba diving
> 
> sportsurfingA spot for surfing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These do not describe the 'sport'/activity but state it is a 'place'/'spot' 
> i.e. a physical thing.
> 


these descriptions are misguided and should be fixed. The tag “sport” is about 
a sport, it is a property, and unlike the wiki says, its presence does not even 
tell in every case that you can exercise the sport at an object with this tag. 
E.g.
shop=sports
sport=surfing

The wiki is explicit: “ A sport should normally also be associated with a 
suitable physical feature where it is performed; often this is leisure=pitch or 
leisure=trac


Cheers Martin 

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


Re: [Tagging] Continuous shoulder rumble strips (CSRS)

2020-12-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 20. Dec 2020, at 22:50, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> I can understand why a cyclist would like to know about them, but I'm not 
> sure how we'd map them? A way drawn along the side of the road, like a fence, 
> or added to the roads properties eg cycleway=lane + cycleway:rumble_strip=yes?


it could be done like lane tagging, see this example from the wiki:

lanes=3
oneway=yes
maxspeed:lanes=100|100|80
 in analogy:
if all dividers were rumble strips

rumble_strips=

if only the lateral borders of the carriageway were rumble strips:

rumble_strips=%||%

(to be read from left to right and in the direction of the OpenStreetMap way)


Cheers Martin 


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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:traffic_calming=hillocky

2020-12-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am So., 20. Dez. 2020 um 17:13 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt :

> Martin, the former ones (
> http://www.valsassinanews.com/image/original/12663.jpg )  are "tables" (
> traffic_calming=table)  in OSM-speak - see
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_calming.
> 
>
> I was referring to the latter ones as sausage-shaped.
>


right. Do you agree there are suspiciously often missing sections at
positions where it is convenient for all 2-wheeled vehicles that they are
missing? Do you think they are missing from the beginning, or someone
removes them after they have been put?

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:traffic_calming=hillocky

2020-12-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am So., 20. Dez. 2020 um 16:11 Uhr schrieb Niels Elgaard Larsen <
elga...@agol.dk>:

> Martin Koppenhoefer:
> > I thought they would make people drive slower, while retaining a
> possibility for
> > bicycles to pass in between.
>
> That is what the proposal says. But there is no way a bicycle could pass
> between
> those seen on the proposal page at anything near normal bicycling speed.




in Italy common bumps are like these:
http://www.valsassinanews.com/image/original/12663.jpg
which do not pose a problem to cyclists at bicycle speed.

and there are variations of these:
http://www.terminalmilazzo.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/dosso-artificiale-300x169.jpg
where quite often you can be lucky and one segment, to pass through by
bike, is missing for reason or the other.

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Emergency=Rescue Stations

2020-12-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 20. Dec 2020, at 05:43, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> The existing emergency=disaster_response will get a better definition to 
> cover each countries Emergency Rescue / Civil Defence service/s


which kind of places should get the tag? Garages and places where equipment is 
stored? Administrative offices? Training areas? 


How does it relate to 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/emergency_service=technical ?

and to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency%3Dses_station
?


Cheers Martin 

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


Re: [Tagging] sport=shooting_range vs sport=shooting + leisure=pitch

2020-12-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 20. Dec 2020, at 00:44, Brian M. Sperlongano  wrote:
> 
> These guys in Texas will let you drive their tank around and shoot things, 
> for a price:
> 
> https://www.oxhuntingranch.com/activities/hunting-shooting/machine-gun-shooting/


they actually mention “ mortars, artillery”

IMHO these could merit an extra tag, eventually, I’m not likely to come into 
the situation of mapping these, so I’ll refrain from detailing more advanced 
tagging in this case...

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 20. Dec 2020, at 00:35, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> one swallow doesn't make a summer but it makes a great BJ.


you must be talking of ice cream?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_%26_Jerry%27s___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 20. Dec 2020, at 00:35, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
>> one swallow does not make a summer. ;-)
> 
> I don't see many sharing your viewpoint, either.  :p


https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/historic#values

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


Re: [Tagging] sport=shooting_range vs sport=shooting + leisure=pitch

2020-12-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 20. Dec 2020, at 00:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> Another comment suggested =recreation_ground for the whole area (car parks, 
> buildings etc) with shooting=range for the actual area that bullets are 
> flying over.


I have seen some shooting=range but the tag does not make too much sense for 
tagging a shooting range facility.

We have sport=shooting and the physical nature of the place usually would go in 
a leisure tag, maybe sometimes amenity, man_made or natural.
I would see more consistency in shooting=* describing the kind of shooting 
rather than the place, e.g. shooting=rifle / pistol / archery or maybe 
biathlon. These are also already present, have a look:

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/shooting#values

shooting=range could still be ok, if this is intended to describe the kind of 
shooting, and “range shooting” is a suitable category (e.g. for a sports club, 
e.g. as opposed to clay pigeon shooting, or hunting etc.), but not as a tag for 
a shooting range.

Cheers Martin 


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


Re: [Tagging] sport=shooting_range vs sport=shooting + leisure=pitch

2020-12-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 19. Dec 2020, at 23:59, Jeremy Harris  wrote:
> 
> I think rifle-shooting was a component of a triathlon in a recent
> Winter Olympic, too.



if rifles are „ordnance“ my perplexity dissolves, I did not know the word 
ordnance and looking it up referred me to artillery. I bet you refer to 
biathlon rather than triathlon though ;-)

Cheers Martin 



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


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 19. Dec 2020, at 23:44, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> (& I can already hear Paul saying just because it's old doesn't necessarily 
> make it historic! :-))


yes, but so far I didn’t read from anybody else that they would share this 
particular concern, one swallow does not make a summer. ;-)

Cheers Martin 



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


Re: [Tagging] sport=shooting_range vs sport=shooting + leisure=pitch

2020-12-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 19. Dec 2020, at 23:29, Brian M. Sperlongano  wrote:
> 
> Perhaps simply leisure=range, as this would be generic to any type of 
> facility where one might fire projectiles or ordnance. 


is firing ordnance a leisure activity somewhere? Or a sport? leisure=range 
makes me think about golf driving ranges, but there’s already 
golf=driving_range for it.

The leisure key is generally silly, because we assign these tags also to sports 
facilities for professional sports people, but for shooting ranges it seems 
even less appropriate to add them under leisure when the operator is the 
military, a pmc or the police, not to speak of bombing ranges.

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:traffic_calming=hillocky

2020-12-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 19. Dec 2020, at 23:27, Brian M. Sperlongano  wrote:
> 
> I understand that the purpose of them is simply to make noise when a car 
> drives over them, as they don't slow you down in any appreciable way like a 
> speed bump/hump.


I thought they would make people drive slower, while retaining a possibility 
for bicycles to pass in between.
I guess these would be counted in?
https://www.durabump.com/

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


Re: [Tagging] sport=shooting_range vs sport=shooting + leisure=pitch

2020-12-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 19. Dec 2020, at 21:35, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
>> Or is it always preferable to use sport=shooting + leisure=pitch?
> 
> That's an improvement.  Not ideal, because it's practised at a
> range, not on a pitch.  Just because we have other sports that
> have been shoe-horned into leisure=pitch I don't see a good
> reason to continue making that error. 


I agree with this, there’s a lot of abuse for “pitch”, and these are not 
arguments for continuing the line, it’s never too late to learn from past 
errors ;-)

leisure=shooting_range might make sense? There are also 4000 military=range (is 
this about shooting? bombing? )

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:traffic_calming=hillocky

2020-12-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 19. Dec 2020, at 22:53, Jeremy Harris  wrote:
> 
> traffic_calming=multi_bump  ?


or
traffic_calming=mini_bumps ?

when they come up with something smaller that could still be micro_bumps ;-)


Cheers Martin 

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
 

sent from a phone

> On 19. Dec 2020, at 02:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> As with most things OSM, this tag would really only apply to permanent / 
> long-term sites. "Temporary" locations "in the field" wouldn't be mapped or 
> tagged this way (plus, of course, the challenges of locating & mapping them 
> in a war zone!)


 when the term is military „base“ I would guess it will always be intended for 
more than a few weeks? Even if the label is „temporary“ it probably means years 
and not days?

Cheers Martin 



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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging sewage treatment basins

2020-12-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 18. Dez. 2020 um 12:32 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen :

> I'm not entirely happy with natural=water being applied to either sewage
> treatment or slurry.  Neither are natural and neither store water.
>


neither am I, not for the question of how "natural" they are (ship has
sailed) but because I would not consider "slurry" to be "water", although
they contain mostly water (looking at the parts) - 10% sulfuric acid is
also mostly water. Milk is also mostly water, as is beer.


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


Re: [Tagging] addr:floor and level:ref - Wiki review welcomed

2020-12-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 18. Dez. 2020 um 14:07 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <
matkoni...@tutanota.com>:

> 1) both are in use and while level:ref has more uses most of them come
> from mass edits[1]
>
> 2) this edits were intended to document current tagging practice, not to
> create a proposal
>
> 3) addr:floor went through a proposal[2] and I am not going to mark it as
> deprecated
> without consultation
>


right, so maybe deprecate level:ref ? I agree it comes from massedits or
imports:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/level:ref#chronology



> 4) I am not planning to work on deprecating either one
>


but you are working on cosolidating _both_
If both have decent wiki descriptions it will be harder to deprecate them
in the future, while "level:ref" could be described as a possible duplicate
of addr:floor introduced through undiscussed massedits or imports, and last
week it was still completely undocumented ;-)

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


Re: [Tagging] addr:floor and level:ref - Wiki review welcomed

2020-12-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Your edit makes sense, at least as a first step, but we should reflect how
to explain why addr:floor is described as an alternative to level:ref, and
not as a "possible tagging mistake". Are there subtle differences? If not,
I would prefer to choose one and discourage the other. 10.000 uses are not
completely ignorable, but they still indicate this is in the beginning,
given that we have millions of POIs.

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 18. Dec 2020, at 03:40, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> A base is the (almost invariably) enclosed area where a military 
> establishment is located: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_base. It 
> will include a variety of buildings, facilities etc in the area, & may be 
> used by different branches of Military Service eg Army, Air Force. However, 
> they are different to a military=training_area, as that is where field 
> training, as opposed to classroom, takes place. 



there are quite different kinds of bases, some are “permanent” and may be in 
the home country of the military, others may be in “allied“ nations, with 
contractual or defacto relationships, and there may be also those in conflict 
and war zones etc.

Their nature may be very different, e.g. used to provide replenishment, used as 
relais station for communications (including “combat“ action like murdering 
people through drone strikes), used as hospital area for injured soldiers, used 
as command stations, used as a relatively safe space in a combat area, ...

There’s also nowadays the situation where private contractors may be in the 
same base as the military forces.
Operation military kids may have some information: 
https://www.operationmilitarykids.org/private-military-companies/

Do you see PMC as landuse=military? 

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


Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 16. Dec 2020, at 17:52, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> You still have to distinguish marine water (outside of the natural=coastline) 
> from inland waters, and distinguishing rivers from lakes is very important 
> for proper rendering of many maps.


and it seems landuse=reservoir is used for sewage as well:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/reservoir_type=sewage

is this appropriate for natural=water?

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


Re: [Tagging] How to tag entire group of rentable holiday cottages?

2020-12-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 16. Dec 2020, at 14:44, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> 
> https://huettenpalast.de/


meant to post this 
https://hostelgeeks.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/hafentraum-indoorcampinghostel-best-hostels-in-germany.jpg

Cheers Martin 

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


Re: [Tagging] How to tag entire group of rentable holiday cottages?

2020-12-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 16. Dec 2020, at 04:07, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> Individual as 1 cabin per site, or, as Mateusz raised, multiple cabins on one 
> site?


even multiple cabins in one building 
https://huettenpalast.de/
#nothreadwithoutanedgecase
;-)

Cheers Martin 

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


Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 16. Dec 2020, at 00:32, Brian M. Sperlongano  wrote:
> 
> I want to be clear that in such a proposal, any instances of disrespectful or 
> insulting commentary directed towards any group or individual will not be 
> tolerated and will be immediately brought to the attention of the wiki admins 
> for followup.


the wiki and tagging ml are safe places, no worries, if you are wary of 
insulting commentary stay away from the diversity list and 
OpenStreetMap-Foundation talk in the short period before board elections. ;-)

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


Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

2020-12-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 15. Dez. 2020 um 10:42 Uhr schrieb Anders Torger :

> We should probably not have all these possible generalized areas in our
> db. Just as we probably shouldn't have a bedrock map in the db either, at
> least not until it can manage layers.
>
> But we could simply pick one criteria, document the definition of the
> "fuzzy area" and have that. Some criteria that is useful as a basis for
> making general-purpose maps. I don't think it's a problem to have fuzzy
> areas in the database as long as they can be identified as such and there
> is a clear definition of what they mean and what the concept of fuzziness
> is. Renderers shouldn't generally not render the border of these areas, and
> if they do for some particular illustration (to show where Black Forest is
> for example) they should make them really blurry and fuzzy.
>



Take a look back what I mentioned 3 days ago in my first answer: "...If we
want to map all those “meta areas” with names we would do well to think
about additional ways of delimiting space (i.e. different kind of geometry
objects), e.g. a fuzzy border could be represented by providing different
points for which it seems undisputed that they are in or out of the area in
question. This would be very lightweight for all mappers, because it avoids
clear lines which are confusing when they do not correspond with something
observable."

If you want to map something with a "fuzzy border", you should not map a
non-fuzzy border and declare it "fuzzy" by adding tags. The data type
should implicitly represent the fuzzyness. fuzzy is not the same as fuzzy.
If you were to draw fuzzy borders with lines, I would expect at least 2
lines: one the is in and one that is out of the fuzzy object, the border
would be the space in between, it's width (fuzzyness) could variate
depending on the location. But the concept of using just nodes still seems
more elegant and less invasive compared to this.

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


Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

2020-12-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 15. Dez. 2020 um 15:59 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:

> Re: “ a couple of islets with a collective name”
>
> We have a tag for that: place=archipelago for a group of islands.
>
> There isn’t a common tag for a group of lakes with one name, probably
> because this is only common in some countries, especially near the Arctic
> region. We’ve talked about this issue before but did not find an existing
> tag.
>
> I would suggest a tag like natural=lake_group to be added to a
> multipolygon which includes each of the lakes, similar to how archipelagos
> are mapped.
>


you could make a relation type=group, add a name and the lakes to it, and
would not need a new tag.

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


Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

2020-12-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 15. Dez. 2020 um 08:51 Uhr schrieb Anders Torger :

> The simple answer is that this naming concept is fundamentally broken, and
> that we need to have some other concept, such as fuzzy areas.
>


I agree that there isn't really a concept for naming larger (natural)
areas. In OSM you can map areas of the same kind of thing and add the names
for the smallest entities (e.g. forest) to it, but you cannot add a name
for several parts of a forest together (when the parts themselves have
names). Naming works for administrative entities, countries, cities etc,
but not for geographic entities.

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC 2 - Pumping proposal

2020-12-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 14. Dec 2020, at 23:11, François Lacombe  wrote:
> Furthermore, :type suffixes make things complex and don't bring any 
> additional information as anything is a type or category of something 


yes, the keys should rather say which kind of type they are referring to. For 
example if there’s a memorial, it could be a plate and at the same time a war 
memorial and at the same time be attached to a building or lie flat on the 
ground. “Type” does not make it clear what the criteria are and we would end up 
with different typologies mixed up in the same key (there are still some real 
instances of this problem waiting in the db to be sorted out).

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


Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

2020-12-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 15. Dec 2020, at 06:11, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> If I look at a map eg 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Forest#/media/File:Relief_Map_of_Germany,_Black_Forest.png,
>  it tells me that the Balck Forest is a more or less oval-shaped area in 
> Southern Germany. Why can't we draw a similar rough oval in OSM & call it 
> Black Forest?


have a look at this overview:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturräumliche_Gliederung_des_Schwarzwaldes#Grobe_Gliederung

these areas are not directly observable on the ground, yes, they are made (I 
suppose) by scientists according to certain criteria, but you will probably get 
different answers if you asked a biologist, a geologist or a linguist. And 
according to the scale that they are working in.

Shall we really aim at having all these possible generalized areas and 
classifications as nested polygons in our db? Seems obvious that we can’t.

Cheers Martin 


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


Re: [Tagging] How to tag entire group of rentable holiday cottages?

2020-12-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 14. Dec 2020, at 09:46, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> Yes, that's for one.  But there is nothing for a group,  Operator on each
> ties them together loosely, but it would be nice to have a relation or
> a boundary for them that could be rendered as a name for the grouping,
> would have a link to the web site for the whole enterprise, etc.  It would
> also make the operator name findable with Nominatim.


type=group?

Cheers Martin 

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

2020-12-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 13. Dec 2020, at 21:37, stevea  wrote:
> 
> This is problematic to my thinking.  In California (my state), at an 
> UNCONTROLLED intersection (no traffic_signal, stop sign, other traffic 
> control device...), for example where the sidewalk "would continue to another 
> sidewalk on the other side of the roadway," pedestrians ALWAYS have the 
> right-of-way (over all vehicles) when they indicate it.  How do they indicate 
> it?  By lifting one foot to step towards / into the intersection (from the 
> sidewalk).  Drivers must (by law) stop short of entering the intersection to 
> allow the pedestrian to cross, once a pedestrian has so entered the crossing 
> (even it if is unmarked or "invisible").



the same for Italy and Germany 


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


Re: [Tagging] How to tag entire group of rentable holiday cottages?

2020-12-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 14. Dec 2020, at 07:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> There are cases where there is group of multiple holiday cottages,
> 
> each rentable independently. I know about cases with just 2 and big groups, 
> 25 in one place.


leisure=resort?

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


Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 13. Dec 2020, at 18:49, Tomas Straupis  wrote:
> 
>  Introducing duplicate and unused schema (especially as the only
> option) is not a good IT decision, basic analysis should have shown
> that. But in case of id it was technology leading functionality and
> thus leading users when in IT it must be the other way round -
> usage/requirements must lead technical decisions. That is IT BASICS.
> Lack of such understanding is the reason why I claim iD developers
> lacked basic IT knowledge


it is indeed well documented that there was a period in iD development where 
the developers occasionally  (initially without actively communicating it and 
later openly and deliberately) dismissed the existing tagging wiki docs and 
mailing list and tag stats, but I think it should be mentioned that it was the 
former developer. Brian, maybe this was before you started to follow the lists. 
You can browse through older closed iD tickets to see some discussion, there’s 
also a wiki page about the topic: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID/Controversial_Decisions

regarding water=reservoir or landuse=reservoir, there might be some subtle 
differences. water=reservoir is for surface water areas. if a reservoir was 
fenced off, I would tag the fenced area as landuse=reservoir but only the 
actual water surface as water.

Cheers Martin 


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


Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

2020-12-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 13. Dec 2020, at 12:30, Peter Elderson  wrote:
> 
> Tagging all parts with a truly unique Id in a special key could do the trick, 
> but who issues/manages the unique ids? 


wikidata?
wikidata:part=Q123?


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


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 13. Dec 2020, at 03:18, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> In regard to operators - "USMC" or "United States Marine Corps", & the same 
> for all the other names ie abbreviated or spelt if full ?


fully spelt out 

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


Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

2020-12-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 12. Dec 2020, at 23:43, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> 
> So what?  How are we going to improve if we're not willing to correct choices 
> that are objectively bad in retrospect?  Especially when fixing the problem 
> makes lane tagging more consistent for all lane types and easier for new 
> people to understand and map in the long term


use a different key for the different definition. Promote it and see if others 
join you.

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


Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

2020-12-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
of course all of these could be tagged as place=locality nodes, but this is a 
compromise to drop a name, which does not allow to even guess about the extent, 
 shape or orientation.

My idea is to collectively curate a parallel dataset which can be used in 
addition. Just draw the thing roughly (thinking mainly about regional size 
features, not the very detailed OpenStreetMap editing map scale), e.g. here 
geojson.io
and send it to me for inclusion ;-)

https://github.com/dieterdreist/OpenGeographyRegions

ideally you would also search the fitting wikidata object (the hope is to 
internationalize names through wikidata items).

Cheers Martin 


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


Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

2020-12-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 12. Dec 2020, at 12:26, Anders Torger  wrote:
> 
> In the wetland case as described, there is no parent relation at all. The 
> only thing that ties them together is implicitly by sharing borders and 
> having the same name tag. It seems to me that an "official" way to edit 
> should tie them together with a parent relation.


Yes, we do not have a way to map toponyms for larger areas when we also want to 
map detailed landcover within. Christoph’s idea of using the same names on the 
parts fails when the individual parts have different names. We can’t map bigger 
geographic entities like deserts, swamplands, forests, highlands (besides the 
names for the smallest parts, or if they correspond to other entities with 
clear boundaries like nature reserves, or maybe by overlapping the same kind of 
objects, what is generally frowned upon)


> 
> The logical way would be a parent relation with type=wetland (and actually 
> have the name only there, but no renderer today understands that, it needs to 
> be on the separate parts as well). What should the roles be? The most logical 
> way would be to leave role field empty.



Maybe a similar approach as the one for relations of type=group (i.e. a 
relation type which explicitly “inherits” its meaning from the members without 
the requirement but with the possibility for additional tags, a place to put a 
name for the ensemble) could be taken for area relations as well, e.g. the site 
relation could include the different wetlands, and a name (and e.g. 
wikipedia/wikidata reference, etc.) might be sufficient to map the “collective” 
of things? The nature would be implied by its members.

The bigger such geographic entities become, the less you will typically be able 
to draw a hard line (fuzzyness of many natural borders, rather smooth 
transitions). If we want to map all those “meta areas” with names we would do 
well to think about additional ways of delimiting space (i.e. different kind of 
geometry objects), e.g. a fuzzy border could be represented by providing 
different points for which it seems undisputed that they are in or out of the 
area in question. This would be very lightweight for all mappers, because it 
avoids clear lines which are confusing when they do not correspond with 
something observable. It may be difficult to find these things though 
(obviously would require editor/tool support).


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


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 12. Dec 2020, at 06:59, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 




> All names are opaque to computers, so we use standardized tags which can be 
> translated one time, instead of needing to translate an operator=* tag for 
> every language and every country to make it usable. 


yes, but if the Chinese Navy does not fit what you expect from a navy it is 
more misleading than helpful. Which military service are the Italian 
Carabinieri? The US Marines? 

What about the Guardia di Finanza?

I agree we will probably find use for both, a specific operator tag and a more 
generic attempt to put the things into boxes.

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 12. Dec 2020, at 00:12, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> Going out there a bit, but I could also see cases where somebody can see 
> fighter jets taking off & landing, so it's obviously an Air Force base


or a Navy base, or Marines. Look for a runway if you are interested in 
airplanes.


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


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 10. Dec 2020, at 22:55, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> military_service=army


do we really need military_service=army given that these services will differ 
according to the country? We can tag operator =United States Army or “United 
States Marine Corps” and keep lists in the wiki for standardized names of these 
structures in all countries, without having to decide which “box” they have to 
be put in.

Cheers Martin 




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


Re: [Tagging] edit war related to tagging of a bus-only major road

2020-12-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
I agree that I would probably not use highway=service in this case, I
imagine the way is important for pedestrians as well? This being said, the
current tagging with access=yes, motor_vehicle=no and bus=private seems ok
(routing will work as expected, if service roads are taken into account),
regardless of the highway value.
Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Drawing/painting schools

2020-12-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 9. Dez. 2020 um 12:31 Uhr schrieb Niels Elgaard Larsen <
elga...@agol.dk>:

> I do not not consider them real schools.
>
> I have taken inspiration from, Paint Your Style in Berlin:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4235447795
>
> Which is tagged with a leisure=ceramic_painting tag.
>
> Similarly:
> amenity=dancing_school is strongly discouraged in favor of
> leisure=dancing,dance:teaching=yes
>
> so maybe
> leisure=painting
> painting:teaching=yes



yes, there are different kinds of "art schools", institutions like the one
you cite, and other like these. which are also called institutes,
academies, colleges, universities, etc.
https://www.format.com/magazine/resources/art/best-art-schools-world


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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:healthcare=vaccination_centre

2020-12-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Thank you for taking the time to draft this! Looks generally ok and is
needed.

A small detail: maybe we would want to have a more explicit qualifier for
the distinction between structures conceived for permant and temporary use,
which could be added even if there is no official / precise end date, e.g.
temporary=yes or interim=yes?

Looking at used tags, it occurs to me, "temporary" is already in modest use
and documented: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Atemporary "Use
temporary=yes

to state that a feature is temporary.", consider adding a refernce to it in
the proposal.

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


Re: [Tagging] Drawing/painting schools

2020-12-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 9. Dec 2020, at 01:06, Shawn K. Quinn  wrote:
> 
> How about amenity=art_school, with another tag to indicate the specific
> disciplines of art being taught?


which kind of arts would this include, performing arts? An institution where 
you can become a film director? Wouldn’t it include music schools?

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 8. Dec 2020, at 08:13, Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:
> 
> But the current proposal only provides a way to tag the military service 
> branch of a military=base feature (which is usually also landuse=military).
> 
> It might be better if there were a way to tag the branch for any sort of 
> military feature, including military=office, military=danger_area, 
> military=barracks, and so on. 


There’s also this project for a different but somehow possibly related topic:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Intelligence

like embassies, also military bases might house intelligence facilities which 
are known and could be tagged.

Cheers Martin 

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - barrier:guard_stone

2020-12-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 7. Dec 2020, at 23:16, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> Yes, that tag is a good idea.
> But, it is not a barrier on the way, but a single object off the way.


I agree. For the node on the way, barrier=entrance might eventually be suitable 
together with width where the passage width is limited through guard stones?

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - barrier:guard_stone

2020-12-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 7. Dec 2020, at 22:56, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> And if none of that persuades you, the historic=* tag is treated specially
> by the Historic Places map and is given special emphasis.  It would
> get very cluttered if these stones were classed as historic. 


I am not saying that these stones should or not get a historic tag, but surely 
it isn’t an argument that one of the OpenStreetMap based maps highlights things 
based on a wildcard selection. If this tag would pose a problem for their 
rendering I am sure they would adjust the selection rules.

Regarding “historic means historic as in the battle of Waterloo or the pyramids 
of Gizeh”, we have seen from previous discussion that this was a minority 
opinion. Many people see historic as a keyword for objects that typically could 
be seen as historic, but then includes any objects of the class, without 
further  differentiating them by “historic value”.

We do not have different tags for truly historic wayside shrines or crosses and 
others. How many charcoal piles do you expect to be of exceptional historic 
value? https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/historic#values

For guard stones I could imagine using the man_made key as well, but historic 
would seem to work because most of these are giving testimony of former times.

Cheers Martin 



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


Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - Pedestrian hazard

2020-12-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 7. Dec 2020, at 00:17, Brian M. Sperlongano  wrote:
> 
> The largest existing use of hazard=cyclists is in Germany.  There is no 
> Google StreetView in Germany


of course there is


> , but from the small number examples [1] I looked at, it seems like this tag 
> is being used for "cyclists in the road" hazards and not "cyclist crossings"


I have looked it up, and until 2013 the sign was called “crossing cyclists” 
while it is now called “cyclists”. It is typically set up before bicycle 
crossings or before a separate  cycleway merges with the road.

Cheers Martin 



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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Military=Coast-Guard & Rescue=Marine_Rescue

2020-12-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am So., 6. Dez. 2020 um 17:01 Uhr schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano <
zelonew...@gmail.com>:

> This is probably a US-centric viewpoint, but I note that there is a
> general lack of tagging under the military= key to indicate the military
> branch associated with a military base.
>


yes, a documented way to distinguish "finer" details are missing not only
for military branches, the same holds true for police branches and other
law enforcement and border / tax etc. control.

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


Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - Pedestrian hazard

2020-12-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am So., 6. Dez. 2020 um 18:34 Uhr schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano <
zelonew...@gmail.com>:

> The hazard proposal [1] currently proposes hazard=cyclists as a way to tag
> a signed area in which motorists should watch for or share the road with
> cyclists.  Note that this is explicitly different from a cyclist crossing,
> which is currently covered by highway=crossing.
>


in my area the typical situation for a cyclists hazard sign is actually
cycleways crossing the street. I cannot remember having seen such signage
for places where cyclists are using the road. If we want to distinguish
these 2 cases I suggest to use more explicit values like
hazard=cyclists_on_the_road and hazard=bicycle_crossing, because
hazard=cyclists does not make it clear and would be used in all bicycle
related "hazardous" situations.

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Military=Coast-Guard & Rescue=Marine_Rescue

2020-12-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 6. Dec 2020, at 03:23, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> Please visit https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Marine_rescue & have a look.
> 
> All comments welcome either here or on the Talk page.


it makes it look a either military or rescue decision, but many coast guards 
will be seen as part of the police or border patrol, rather than military. 

E.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Federal_Coast_Guard

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Police_(Germany)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corps_of_the_Port_Captaincies_–_Coast_Guard

Cheers Martin 

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

2020-12-05 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 5. Dec 2020, at 22:34, Niels Elgaard Larsen  wrote:
> 
> Volker Schmidt:
>> Hi,
> 
>> In the case of signed hazards, I see two alternative ways of tagging the 
>> signing:
>>  * (only for nodes and ways highway segments) by adding source:xxx=sign like 
>> we do
>>with speed limits
> 
> I this it the best option.
> 
>>  * by mapping the relative signs as nodes
> 
> That often will not work. For example in Denmark on road with high speed 
> limits animal crossing hazards are usually signed ahead of the hazard 


yes, signs are usually ahead of the hazard. We can do both (the signs are best 
when it comes to verifiability, but if you want routers to warn you, highway 
properties or nodes on the highway bear a much greater probability of being 
implemented)

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

2020-12-05 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Sa., 5. Dez. 2020 um 21:37 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt :

> Traffic lights triggered by avalanches! Is that close enough, Martin?
>
>
> https://elearning.unipd.it/scuolaamv/pluginfile.php/19629/mod_resource/content/1/04_02%20difesa%20dalla%20valanghe.pdf
>


I knew you would deliver :)

interesting presentation, thank you Volker

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

2020-12-05 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 5. Dec 2020, at 17:05, ael via Tagging  wrote:
> 
> Also at much larger airports. Brize Norton
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Brize_Norton), for example.


you guys are finding real world examples for every weird situation that nobody 
expected to even exist. Traffic lights for rock fall somewhere?

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards (verifiability - frost heave?)

2020-12-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 4. Dec 2020, at 21:43, Brian M. Sperlongano  wrote:
> 
> Does that satisfy your concern?


yes, very reasonable, maybe could add that unsigned hazards can not only be 
found in the developing world, but the probability of encountering them will 
raise the farther you move from civilization/other people. E.g. in the 
mountains you’ll hardly find hazard signs, but a lot of hazards

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

2020-12-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone

> On 4. Dec 2020, at 17:42, Brian M. Sperlongano  wrote:
>
> I am thinking this case (crossing golfers) is more of a highway=crossing 
> rather than a hazard?


I think it is a warning that a golf ball might eventually hit your
vehicle, and if you’re prepared you won’t be startled

There is also the crossing airplane hazard, even 2 variants, airplanes
from the right:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zeichen_101-10_-_Flugbetrieb,_Aufstellung_rechts,_StVO_2017.svg
and from the left:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zeichen_101-20_-_Flugbetrieb,_Aufstellung_links,_StVO_2017.svg

They do not imply that you have to fear airplanes on the street, they
are meant to prepare you for low flying aircraft.

A picture list of all German "standard hazards" can be found here:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bildtafel_der_Verkehrszeichen_in_der_Bundesrepublik_Deutschland_seit_2017#Gefahrzeichen_nach_Anlage_1_(zu_%C2%A7_40_Absatz_6_und_7_StVO)
but with this  sign
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zeichen_101_-_Gefahrstelle,_StVO_1970.svg
in combination with a text sign, any hazard can be signposted.

These are only the official road signs, on footways and private
properties, information signs etc., you might find all kind of other
hazard warnings. Is the tag only thought for roads and official road
signs, or is its scope extended to other official signs (e.g. in some
forests, there are "Rabies prone area" official signs, military areas
might warn with "restricted area, armed guards", and a property owner
might allude their dog is snappish.

Cheers
Martin

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


Re: [Tagging] Inclined elevators

2020-12-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 3. Dec 2020, at 16:53, 德泉 談 via Tagging  wrote:
> 
> I think the description in OSM wiki looks fine. Not supported by osm-carto 
> and other tools needs to be reported by somebody, worth doing that.


+1, I would also think the wiki is fine, after all, a way seems the most 
sensible representation for these.

Try to raise awareness by the tools. 3200 instances is also a number which 
could be seen as worthy to include, pretty established for such a relatively 
rare feature.
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=elevator

Cheers Martin 

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


Re: [Tagging] Typology of tombs

2020-12-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 2. Dez. 2020 um 13:42 Uhr schrieb Daniel Capilla <
dcapil...@gmail.com>:

> I have documented the use of "historic=cemetery" [1] and some new types
> of tombs, such as "tomb=table" [2], "tomb=pillar" [3], or
> "tomb=cenotaph" (empty tomb) [4].
>
>


Hello Daniel,

thank you for discussing this here. I have a few remarks:

Tomb types:
- table tomb seems generally ok, although it could also be seen as a
candidate for a tombstone / gravestone subtag (see below)
- tomb=pillar and tomb=obelisk seem to be descriptions of the tombstone
rather than the tomb? For obelisks, there is man_made=obelisk which is
based on shape and can be used for any kind of obelisk.
there are also already 243 man_made=column and 593 man_made=pillar in the
db (but I can see how a pillar tomb could get its own specific tag
nonetheless as a tomb category).
If we mix tombstone shapes and tomb types I would expect we will come to
situations where several tags could apply (a mausoleum with an obelisk? A
vault with a pillar on top?) Not completely sure though, if the "pillar"
can really be called a "tombstone" in every case.

tomb=cenotaph is a bit misleading, because a cenotaph is not actually a
tomb, it only looks like a tomb. Admittedly I have added it myself in 2016,
but looking at it I am bit unsure whether to keep it:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/tombs=prev=1345992
It is currently only used 14 times in the whole world. Maybe this would fit
better under the historic=monument / memorial umbrella (subtag)?

historic=cemetery
The tag historic=cemetery already has some significant usage (446), but
there are 3,5 times more landuse=cemetery and historic=* tag combinations
(1576). IMHO we do not need both (for active cemeteries). FWIW, there are
also 8 historic=graveyard objects. I believe the page should be amended,
because it currently only discourages this tag for a necropolis, but there
are many more burial places which could be or not considered cemeteries
according to the definition (which is not given currently) I found this
handy list in Wikipedia and have marked the unsure ones with an asterisk:
* Catacomb
* Churchyard (and graveyard)
* Coemeterium
* Columbarium
Crypt
* Grave field
* Mass grave
Memorial Park
* Necropolis
* Ossuary
Tomb
Tumulus
Unmarked grave
War grave


https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/landuse=cemetery#combinations

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


Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

2020-12-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 1. Dez. 2020 um 18:08 Uhr schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano <
zelonew...@gmail.com>:

> +1, it's unreasonable for mappers to be mind readers about the intent of
> land managers.  Either the public is allowed to walk on these paths, or
> they are not.  There isn't really a middle ground here.
>


There is middle ground. For example in many German nature reserves, you may
enter the reserve, provided you remain on the foot paths.

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


Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

2020-12-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 2. Dec 2020, at 05:43, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Wombat pads are wide enough to follow but the animal is lo to the ground and 
> can go through what to a human is inpenatrable scrub - some is simply to 
> thiic and interwwoven and some has sharp needle leves that penitrate colthing 
> and prick the skin.


+1, same here for wild boars. “animal path” does not provide sufficient 
information what kind of object it is, because these paths are quite different 
depending on the animals. The mentioned cow paths are probably always suitable 
for humans, while others may not.

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


Re: [Tagging] How to tag for dualband GPS ?

2020-12-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 2. Dec 2020, at 05:30, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Only in places where local mappers have mapped most things that the details 
> are mapped better are 'accuracies' of some discussion.


yes, generally I agree that any of the gps settings from the more detailed 
options (including auto, 10m etc.) is suitable and differences depend on your 
usecase/context and are typically rather subtle. Setting it to 1s has the 
drawback of point clouds when you stand still (I used to stop recording every 
time I stopped moving, but admittedly it requires attention, also when you 
continue moving to set it back to rec). Advantage is better fidelity for 
shapes, especially sharp bends. 

Cheers Martin 



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


Re: [Tagging] RFC: vaccination / COVID-19 vaccination centres

2020-12-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 2. Dez. 2020 um 10:45 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> In the UK it looks like the heath service (NHS) will contact eligible
> individuals and probably arrange a time and place for their vaccinations.
>
> As such all that is needed is the location be in OSM and be mapped with the 
> appropriate name, no further identification as a vaccine center would be 
> required
>
>

again, this is an argument that could be applied to everything with a
postal address. No need to include it in OSM any more.

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


Re: [Tagging] How to tag for dualband GPS ?

2020-12-01 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 1. Dec 2020, at 11:18, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> The 'Auto' setting may not be 'optimal' for what you want, but as a 
> compromise between data bloat and resolution/accuracy it maybe better than a 
> fixed time as judged by the developer/manufacture.


I‘ve always recorded tracks with the maximum resolution (which was 1s on my 
unit), because “data bloat” with gpx traces was never an issue, we’re talking 
about text files, and a whole year only has 31.557.600 seconds (and you will be 
eating and sleeping and doing other stuff then recording gps as well).

For better results you  shouldn’t convert the gpx directly into OpenStreetMap 
anyway.

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


Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

2020-12-01 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 1. Dec 2020, at 05:03, Peter Elderson  wrote:
> 
> humans=no?


looks like an access tag, so it is not suitable unless this is the legal 
situation.

Generally we might not be able to have a solution with a single tag, because of 
the differing legal situation. In some countries and regions  it is perfectly 
legal to walk on private ground in the countryside (e.g. in Europe Scotland, 
Switzerland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and others), while in others it is 
generally forbidden (but may be allowed individually).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

Cheers Martin 

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


Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

2020-12-01 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 1. Dec 2020, at 04:31, Minh Nguyen via Tagging  
> wrote:
> 
> Regardless, informal=yes seems especially appropriate for these animal-made 
> paths.


*if* the path could be useful for humans (i.e. you can walk there), 
highway=path and informal=yes may be suitable, otherwise I would not give the 
thing a highway tag (personally I would not map it at all then, but maybe 
someone wants to anyway, but they should take care that it can not be confused 
with paths)


Cheers Martin 


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


Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

2020-11-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 1. Dez. 2020 um 00:39 Uhr schrieb Lukas Richert :

> I wouldn't tag this as foot=no or access=no. There are many trails in my
> area that are clearly animal tracks and seldom used by people - but it is
> allowed for people to walk on these and they are sometimes significant
> shortcuts so allowing routing over them in some cases would be good.
>

+1

After reading the comments to the diary post that the OP linked, I believe
that they mostly do not apply to the situation here. People were mainly
concerned about wildlife protection, and Belgian cows are not falling under
my idea of "wildlife".
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] How to tag for dualband GPS ?

2020-11-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 30. Nov. 2020 um 14:36 Uhr schrieb Andrea Mazzoleni <
amadva...@gmail.com>:

> But most of the trails of my local area are under the woods (low mountain)
> and the GPS is the only source of information.
>


you can use any tag like "source" or "note" to try to convey to the
following mappers that you have used equipment that promises higher
accuracy compared to the common consumer GPS devices. A standardized way
does not harm either, something like gps=dualband as tag on the changeset.

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


Re: [Tagging] COVID-19 vaccination centres

2020-11-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 30. Nov 2020, at 12:56, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I would assume the location of these mass vaccination centers would be widely 
> publicized and the locations identified. Do they need further identification 
> within OSM?


the same holds true for post offices and townhalls.

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


Re: [Tagging] RFC: vaccination / COVID-19 vaccination centres

2020-11-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 30. Nov 2020, at 10:46, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> 
> Yes please - I can see planning coming up for vaccinations centers here 
> in Germany and these are not planned in hospitals but in vacant commercial
> buildings which have loads of parking spaces. So using some
> healthcare specific tag is probably misleading


healthcare is not related only to hospitals, vaccinations are clearly 
healthcare related. I agree that these facilities are candidates to be shown on 
general purpose maps, as a lot of people will be looking for them.

Cheers Martin 


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


Re: [Tagging] RFC: vaccination / COVID-19 vaccination centres

2020-11-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 26. Nov. 2020 um 18:35 Uhr schrieb Peter Elderson <
pelder...@gmail.com>:

> Well, mass testing did not stop the virus anywhere, it just costs a lot,
> drives people to despair and boosts the numbers.
>


this is off topic here, but apparently the Chinese have succeeded in
stopping the pandemic there, by strict isolation and mass testing whenever
a new case was discovered somewhere.

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards (rock slide etc)

2020-11-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 26. Nov. 2020 um 17:48 Uhr schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano <
zelonew...@gmail.com>:

>  This is good feedback, and I would potentially toss another into the mix:
> hazard=erosion which has about 300 tags.  Do we think these four tags
> (rock_slide, falling_rocks, landslide, erosion) represent four distinct and
> separate things that are properly tagged separately?
>
>

I would see erosion as the parent category for all of the other 3, possibly
too generic to get an idea what particularly is happening there. I'd rather
deprecate it than encourage its use.

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

2020-11-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 26. Nov. 2020 um 08:25 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

>
>- It is not explicitly mentioned, but it would be a good idea to have
>explicit mention
>- is it OK to tag hazard that
>-
>- - exists
>- - is unsigned
>- - government has not declared that it exists (maybe government is
>dysfunctional/missing like
>- in Somalia, or it is covering-up the problem, or it has higher
>priorities - for example during war)
>
>

+1. This may also depend on the context. The same kind of hazard on a road
may well be signposted, but not on a hiking trail in a forest.

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


Re: [Tagging] RFC: vaccination / COVID-19 vaccination centres

2020-11-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone

> On 25. Nov 2020, at 14:15, Phake Nick  wrote:
> 
> I don't thibk it is appropriate to add one-off temporary facilities into OSM.


everything is temporary, e.g. buildings, trees, even mountains, although the 
latter on a geological time scale. Not to speak of businesses. Things come an 
go, the question is where you draw the line. IMHO if something is not 
exceptionally important (read: to many people), a few weeks or months seem a 
reasonable period (read: you suppose that they last at least this long, 
naturally nobody can foresee the future). Frederik mentioned in a local forum 
that the DWG sees 6 months as a reasonable timespan for borders in areas with 
ongoing conflicts. 
IMHO, COVID19 related features are falling into the exceptional clause and 
could be mapped even if you expected them to last only 3 weeks (which is not 
the case in many areas).

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


Re: [Tagging] Elevated housing estate

2020-11-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 25. Nov 2020, at 02:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> It's built right beside a Creek, on a flood-plain (yeah, thanks Council!), so 
> it's done like that so that the apartments are up away from the water the 
> next time the Creek floods!


AFAIK we do not have a specific tag for this kind of configuration. There’s the 
generic building:min_level to map omitted levels below the building.


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


Re: [Tagging] RFC: vaccination / COVID-19 vaccination centres

2020-11-24 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 24. Nov 2020, at 18:30, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:
> 
> Following the discussion on how to tag COVID-19 vaccination centres 
> previously on this list,
> I have created a proposal for the vaccination key:
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/vaccination


the proposal aims at unifying the tagging for a covid-specific property, but 
which are the suggested main tags? Apart from hospitals, clinics and doctors, 
do we need a specific tag for temporary testing facilities?

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


Re: [Tagging] surface=boardwalk? is it duplicate of surface=wood?

2020-11-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 22. Nov 2020, at 18:47, Seth Deegan  wrote:
> 
> I agree with Dave F.
> 
> It's a duplicate.


I also agree with Dave F., it is not a suitable surface value, nor is it a 
duplicate of “surface= wood”

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Pumping proposal

2020-11-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 22. Nov 2020, at 02:32, François Lacombe  wrote:
> 
> It's true proposed tagging deprecates the current pump=* definition according 
> to rationale and wishes to use the pump word in a more appropriate way.


this would deprecate around 20k pump values describing a pump type, plus 15k 
yes/no.

Looking at the no-values, 23% are not in combination with man_made 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/pump=no#combinations
i.e. this is also used on other objects to state buildings there is no pump.
I would also suggest you modify your proposal in a way that it is compatible 
with the current use of the pump tag

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


Re: [Tagging] surface=rock

2020-11-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 20. Nov 2020, at 23:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> Both for exposed natural rock and steps/footways made of rock pieces?


rock „pieces“ would be tagged as „stone“ I guess?


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


Re: [Tagging] surface=rock

2020-11-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 20. Nov 2020, at 23:01, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> surface=rock
> surface=bare_rock


these seem both explicit and ok, although bare rock is a bit redundant 
and rock alone has 5 times the usage: 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/surface=rock

I would go with this 

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


Re: [Tagging] lanes - is "parking allowed" a parking lane?

2020-11-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 20. Nov. 2020 um 11:28 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <
matkoni...@tutanota.com>:

> This seems unlikely, with 0 lanes it would mean that cars inside are
> blocked
> and unable to leave.
>


that's not the meaning of "lanes", lanes=0 would mean that there are no
traffic lanes. (this is what the wiki says about "lanes").



> I even mentioned two variants of "two parking lanes":
> - two parking lanes on road, one driveable lane, no road markings - I
> would tag as lanes=1
>  (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Barton_St_view_E_between_South_Park_Rd_and_Brown_St,_Macclesfield.jpg
> )
>


parking "lanes" are not counting as "lanes", because parked vehicles are
not "traffic".
I agree for your example that I would tag this as lanes=1 as well.



> And illegal de-facto parking is problematic in general
>


yes, maybe we should rather tag the police station as corrupt or lazy or
both, than focussing on all the problematic, tolerated, illegal parking ;-)


IMHO these are 2 lanes, clearly marked on the ground. I do not see a reason
> for one lane to be seen as parking lane only.
>
> Even if it is both de facto pernament parking lane and parking in this way
> is legal?
>


as long as cars do not have to stop in order to pass each other, yes. I
agree the width of the road is restricted, but if opposite traffic can
continuously pass, it is 2 lanes according to the current wiki ("how many
traffic lanes there are on a highway.")
Another question that comes to mind, now that we have removed the
requirement for road markings. In a situation where 3 lanes are marked, but
vehicles ignore the marked lanes and actually drive in 4 lanes, would you
tag this as 3 or 4 lanes?

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


Re: [Tagging] lanes - is "parking allowed" a parking lane?

2020-11-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 20. Nov. 2020 um 09:45 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> I would describe https://westnordost.de/misc/2or1lanes.jpg as road
> with
> - one lane driveable by full-size vehicles
> - one parking lane
>


really? And if vehicles would be parking on both sides (without the
explicit roadside parking area that is present in this case), you would tag
it as lanes=0 and 2 parking lanes only?
IMHO these are 2 lanes, clearly marked on the ground. I do not see a reason
for one lane to be seen as parking lane only.



This gets trickier with:
>
> - illegal parking that nevertheless is accepted, widespread and typical,
> de facto changing
> number of available lanes
>


yes, this is a significant issue on a few arterial roads around here.
People parking in the second row while entering shops, effectively reducing
a 2 lane road to 1 lane.
Or parked cars obstructing half of a lane, like here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8681677,12.4682868,3a,75y,310.76h,92.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPewZ855iYnfav5arDeED0g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Although not legal, both are typically permanent phenomena in certain
areas, you could go there every day during business hours and find the
lanes obstructed or blocked.
Also very typical in front of every school at the start and end of school
(as well as parents obstructing sidewalks with their cars at these times).

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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

2020-11-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 18. Nov. 2020 um 13:19 Uhr schrieb ael via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 12:09:40AM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> We have tags like source:name and source:outline for more specific
> tagging.
>


yes, every tag could get a source tag. It would mean a lot of additional
work for mappers, and the benefit would probably be very small. Usually
when you check an object for its correspondence with reality, you either
find the tags accurate or wrong, for various reasons they could be wrong,
most likely is a change of the thing in the real world. A source tag will
not help you with this. To me, the most interesting information when
looking at an edit is whether the person has been on the ground or not.
source=Bing does not really tell you this, because many people use it when
they are adding information and Bing is visible in the background, but it
does not mean that every piece of information that they add actually comes
from Bing.





>
> > From a practical point of view, I am mostly ignoring source tags, because
> > they are almost never accurate. Typically someone has added them some
> > versions ago and nobody in between has bothered to remove or update the
> > tag. To know this, you will have to dive into the object history anyway.
>
> Then  you are part of the problem :-) It is very annoying when the
> source tag is accurate until someone, nearly always an armchair mapper,
> who comes along and changes things without updating the source tag.
>


Most source tags I see are source=Bing and when I add information from a
survey, I either do not change it, or sometimes I remove it because it is
not valid any more at this point.


>
> Let's encourage people to use the source tag properly rather than cause
> further decay. Or come up with a better solution, which is definitely
> not a changeset comment.



the changeset "comments" are actually structured tags, and from past
discussions it is the preferred way over source tags on individual items.
Source tags on items are the older method, they have already proven to fail
in real world conditions in OSM ;-)

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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

2020-11-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 17. Nov. 2020 um 20:04 Uhr schrieb stevea :

> I never said to NOT use source=* tags, they are correctly used on an
> individual datum if / as it might diverge from a greater set of data that
> otherwise has another source.  In short, if ALL of the data are from a
> single source, use a changeset comment to note this.  If not, source=* tags
> are appropriate.
>


I find the source tags in general problematic, most of all those "source"=*
tags which do not relate to a specific tag. It may make sense for the
creator of the object to add it, but what if someone changes something.
E.g. you add a tag, or remove a tag, or change a value. What would you do
with an existing source tag? Easy if you base your edit on the same source,
otherwise, would you have to remove it? How much do you have to change in
order to remove it? Or should you always be adding more values to the
existing source string without ever removing anything, until you reach 255
characters and then continue in a source2-tag?

>From a practical point of view, I am mostly ignoring source tags, because
they are almost never accurate. Typically someone has added them some
versions ago and nobody in between has bothered to remove or update the
tag. To know this, you will have to dive into the object history anyway.

I have been looking around (arbitrary examples I got by searching for
amenity=* and source=Bing with overpass, first hit, tried in 3 different
areas)  https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/145393264
source=Bing: which properties are from Bing, the address? The name? The
fact it is a kindergarten? Looking at the history, I can see that the tag
was already added in version 1 and that the node positions never changed.
The geometry fits reasonably well with Bing although it is far from
perfectly matching (I'd say it fits better with ESRI for instance). Likely
the Bing imagery has changed since 2012 when this was first drawn. IMHO in
this case there is no benefit from this tag.

Another arbitrary example, from another continent:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2728286792
There is quite some detail information on this node, but I find it hard to
believe any of it came from Bing (imagery).

The third example is a post office:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/223059928
in this case it is also hardly anything from Bing, surely neither the name
nor the post office information.


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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

2020-11-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer

sent from a phone

> On 17. Nov 2020, at 06:23, stevea  wrote:
> 
> to the degree they can be displayed in a narrow column on a web page



yes, this is basically broken since the redesign (maybe 2012?), the history 
view used to provide a clearer overview on the full width, and this is 
something that could come back again? Or maybe invert the screen real estate 
division between map and history table.
Josm has a decent history view integrated (ctrl+h) which let’s you compare 
between versions, links to changesets and shows for example position changes of 
nodes.

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 14. Nov 2020, at 08:05, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
[canal areas]
> There was never a standard way to tag this before


I thought it was waterway=riverbank?

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 14. Nov 2020, at 04:05, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> 
> Around here, beavers are a significant sculpting force on the landscape.
> 
> (And `man_made=dam` is the best tagging that we have for their water control 
> structures, which are also often adjusted seasonally) 


frankly, tagging beaver made structures as man_made=dam (or waterway=dam) feels 
like tagging model / rc airplane strips as airports. Or adding railway=station 
objects to a model railway

I guess you meant waterway? 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Ddam



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


Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Place of mourning (replacing "Chapel of rest")

2020-11-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 12. Nov 2020, at 21:10, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> You need to explain this on the new proposal page. Note that on 
> Tag:shop=funeral_directors it says "an event (sometimes with the deceased's 
> body present) to honor the deceased for mourners are held here in conjunction 
> with religious services which are held elsewhere."


I find it irritating that funeral directors is described as a place where the 
body might be stored and a cerimony is held, certainly not something I have 
heard of in Germany or Italy. Admittedly this is already there for a long time, 
but from my understanding the former definition was much clearer:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Ashop%3Dfuneral_directors=revision=832146=689750


Cheers Martin 


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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 12. Nov. 2020 um 02:33 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:

> Ok, it looks like enough people feel that a very small artificial water
> body, like a decorative pond in a residential garden, shouldn't be tagged
> as water=reservoir or water=basin, so we need a replacement.
>
> The current problem with water=pond is that many are completely natural
> features, but almost all other values of water=* are clearly natural (or
> semi-natural), or clearly artificial, so water=pond is losing this
> information which otherwise should be conveyed by the key water=*.
>


water=lake does not tell you about it being "natural" or not either. I am
not sure what the term "natural" means. If a woman makes a depression in
the terrain, and it automatically fills up with (surface or ground) water
because of the geological conditions, is this "natural" or not? What about
a woman sealing the terrain and conducting water to a place where there
wasn't a water body before?

This is a flooded open pit mine, is it "natural" or not, and if not, what
would be the osm tag for it? water=lake, natural=no?
https://www.lmbv.de/files/LMBV/Fotos/Nachrichten/Archivierte%20Nachrichtenfotos/LMBV_1616.jpg

What about a lake without water (drained)? Is "lake" a term that can only
be used for water bodies, or are dry lakes ok? Example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/41.9975/13.5625 (everything "yellow"
is a lake / former lake (actually third largest lake in Italy):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fucine_Lake


> - water=fountain
> - water=fishpond
>


-1 to "fishpond". It is not defined in the wiki, and is discouraged as
likely a mistake: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:water (and I
agree it is not good). You can have fish in many kinds of water bodies, I
just recently started to add fish=yes to fountains when there are fish
inside.


>
> And as mentioned before, there are water=reservoir (A reservoir
>  or an artificial lake is used
> to store water. )
>


what about artificial lakes that are not for storing water?

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Rideshare Access

2020-11-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 11. Nov. 2020 um 16:16 Uhr schrieb Ilya Zverev :

> My point is that anywhere except UK, “ride-sharing” is the term for Uber,
> Lyft, Bolt, and such. While researching, I’ve found road signs and articles
> using “Ride Share” or “ride-sharing” in the US, Australia, and Russia.
>


I am not convinced. In Germany, there clearly is a distinction between ride
sharing ("Mitfahrzentrale" and others, "I am going somewhere anyway and
share petrol costs with other people I can take on the free seats in my
car") and companies like Uber etc. which are considered
"Personenbeförderung" ("I sort of work informally for a company which
weasels around taxi and employment legislation by trying to make their
business look as if it was about ride sharing").



> Even in UK, "ride-sharing" is a common term when addressing these
> companies, e.g. on the BBC and Evening Standard websites. It can be found
> much more often than "private hire”.
>


It is a term that these companies use themselves because it has a positive
image, and someone picks it up. I do not say it cannot be understood, my
point is we should not use it, because it devaluates the term.



>
> On the other hand, in London drivers of these cars need to have “private
> hire” licenses. We’re discussing access restriction, and these are for
> cars/drivers, not for companies. In London specifically this term might be
> more correct. In any other place the probability of finding a “ride share
> vehicles” restriction is higher than for “private hire vehicles”.
>


there are no restrictions for true ride sharing. These are cars like any
other cars, and ordinary drivers who can go anywhere where any other driver
can go (almost, actually they will have an advantage von heavy occupancy
lanes).



>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridesharing_company
>


yeah, the English wikipedia is quite dominated by the North American point
of view. I am a bit astonished that the page is only available in 6
languages. which could hint that there is some problem with it, for example
there is also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpool which is available in
32 languages.

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 11. Nov. 2020 um 15:52 Uhr schrieb Seth Deegan :

> If one was to establish a rendering difference, they should probably do so
> by computing the lake size in the (the area of the way), rather than its
> tagging.
>


the lake size is determined also by its depth

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 11. Nov. 2020 um 14:22 Uhr schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano <
zelonew...@gmail.com>:

> This doesn't seem like a good idea to me. The boundary between a lake and
>> a pond may be hard to measure sometimes, but that doesn't mean it is useful.
>>
>>  In what way is this distinction useful?
>


for example you could prioritize rendering of lake names compared to pond
names (assuming you give more importance to lakes).

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
>From what I understood to me it also seems desirable to distinguish a
"lake" from a "pond", although there may be edge cases and no clear cut
between both, for many cases it will be clear which one to choose. Maybe
most could be solved by depth and surface dimensions, but we are generally
missing the depth information so in practise we can not rely on it.
I am still not completely sure which water bodies can be characterized as a
pond (e.g. do all these German words apply: "Teich", "Tümpel", "Weiher"?
What about "Lache" and "Soll"?) May a pond fall dry? Is there a minimum
dimension?

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


  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >