Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-10-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 27. Okt. 2020 um 00:38 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

>
>
> On 26/10/2020 23:26, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> > crossing_ref as far as I have understood the tag, is not about the
> > type of crossing,
>
> I think you've misunderstood.



then I am happy I never used this tag. If this is about the type of
crossing, and crossing=* is also about the type of crossing, why should I
prefer one over the other? Or should I put both tags?
People have told me the crossing_ref was for the zebra markings, and I have
seen a lot of people putting them on traffic light crossings with zebra
markings.

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


Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-10-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 26. Okt. 2020 um 17:12 Uhr schrieb Dave F <
davefoxfa...@btinternet.com>:

> 'Zebra' shouldn't be use on the primary tag 'crossing'
>
> crossing_ref was created for use within the UK because many parts of the
> rest of the world didn't understand what was meant by 'zebra'. It is, after
> all, a nickname:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing_ref
>


crossing_ref as far as I have understood the tag, is not about the type of
crossing, but about the presence of zebra road markings. At least around
here, they are common also on traffic light controlled pedestrian crossings.

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposal for admission=* tag

2020-10-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
to avoid a lot of relations, I think we should have 2 functions (or pois
within the feature):
1.
place where you can buy the tickets, and
2.
place where the tickets are checked

this could also be the same place (e.g. ticket office where you have to
pass through in order to enter the POI).
Of places to get the ticket there are at least 3 kind: a machine issuing
tickets, a person where you can buy tickets, or a place where you can get
tickets which you already reserved or bought before.

All the simpler cases (ticket office within or at the perimeter of the
POI), we do not really need a relation, a specific tag would be sufficient.
Sometimes it could be a property of "entrance=*" or barrier=gate objects

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposal for admission=* tag

2020-10-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
as an additional datapoint
shop=ticket is the only one with significant usage: (15000)

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=ticket#values

From its definition, it could also not be suitable (unclear), or maybe it is?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Ashop%3Dticket

vending=admission_tickets also has some usage: (189)

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=admission#values

and rarely
ticket=admission (10 times)


Cheers,
Martin

sent from a phone___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Special Economic Zones

2020-10-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 25. Oct 2020, at 15:24, Brian M. Sperlongano  wrote:
> 
> The point is to provide a standard, non-cryptic, foundational tag for such 
> areas.  Perhaps future proposals might further propose tagging for which 
> level of government has declared the SEZ, or the type of SEZ, or any other 
> aspect of an SEZ that might be appropriate for OSM tagging. 


My questions were aiming at helping you to find a suitable definition, because 
the word “country” limits the scope to specific situations, and this is not 
something that could be fixed later with subtagging.

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 25. Oct 2020, at 14:41, Allroads  wrote:
> 
> All landuse what is used for legally public roads, laid down in a zoning plan 
> by the Government "bestemmingsplan" should be called landuse=highway


no, because the content of a bestemmingsplan is what is politically desired and 
legally permitted, it is a plan. Landuse is not about the zoning plan, it is 
about the actual current landuse, regardless of its compatibility with the 
legal situation.


Cheers Martin 


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


Re: [Tagging] Proposal for admission=* tag

2020-10-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
I think it would be generally useful to add this kind of information, not
only when the ticket office is spatially distant from the feature, but in
every case where a ticket is needed. An alternative idea could be to use
the type=site relation, add the ticket office with an appropriate role to
the relation (e.g. "sells_tickets"). Maybe the term "sells" should be
omitted, because sometimes you need a ticket, but it is free (e.g. to
control the number of people you let in, or to get an idea how many people
have entered, even if there aren't safety reasons).

If we do this, I would prefer a strong relation between the feature and the
ticket office, not just by the name, but with explicit links (a relation).

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Special Economic Zones

2020-10-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am So., 25. Okt. 2020 um 05:34 Uhr schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano <
zelonew...@gmail.com>:

> A special economic zone (SEZ) is an area in which the business and trade
> laws are different from the rest of the country.  Only a small number of
> these areas are mapped so far, however, estimates put the total number of
> SEZ worldwide at between 2,700 and 10,000.  The proposed tagging for these
> areas is boundary=special_economic_zone, which has minor existing usage.
>


who is it who defines this status, is it defacto or does the national
government have to define these? What if the business and trade laws are
not defined on a national level? Which "business and trade laws" are meant
(does any exception to a "business or trade" law in a are lead to the
(implicit) constitution of such a zone? Which laws are relevant?). What if
the national government does not control the area?

I agree that for those cases, where the zone is explicitly defined by a
national government, this would be easy to determine, but all other cases
which might fall under the definition, are harder to decide.

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


Re: [Tagging] Parking fee only after some time period

2020-10-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 21. Oct 2020, at 10:59, stevea  wrote:
> What I mean by towing_penalty=yes is that it is POSSIBLE that you might get 
> towed if you exceed the maxstay (or a semantic otherwise 
> interpretable-from-the-tags).  What I mean by towing_penalty=no is that the 
> particular "enforcement method" of getting towed to make you think twice 
> about exceeding the maxstay isn't a chosen tool on this parking lot, and/or 
> there is no sign so indicating.


around here you could always get towed when parking where you shouldn’t, of 
course the likelyness correlates with the amount of nuisance you create. I 
would find it hard to guarantee for some place that you won’t get towed despite 
of wrong parking.

I see some point in indicating that they are menacing you with towing.
Indeed there are also official traffic signs which do it to underline certain 
parking or stopping limitations. E.g. 
https://live.staticflickr.com/7647/26807112525_c70e2863f2_o.jpg

Cheers Martin 



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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

2020-10-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 21. Oct 2020, at 06:59, Robert Delmenico  wrote:
> 
> "confirmed that when people read or hear the generic version of 'man', people 
> form mental pictures of males"


yes, but it does not mean that people think of men when they read “mankind” or 
“man_made” or “mannequin” or “manslaughter” (the latter a suggestion from my ai 
partner). IMHO you have to separate the meaning of these terms from the meaning 
of “man”. 

I am not opposing the idea that people actively try to change the language for 
a purpose, but as long as they haven’t succeeded we should not try to overtake 
them.

 See the tags as codes and try to convince preset publishers to use terms that 
you perceive more neutral in their “translations”. Thinking about it, the term 
“man made” is maybe not even presented to mappers unless they look at tags.


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


Re: [Tagging] Parking fee only after some time period

2020-10-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
I am not usually mapping this detail of parking fees, but from my
understanding the above suggested tags would work and could be seen as
covered by current state of tagging, no need for a proposal, just use it.
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/fee%3Aconditional#values

as a note, I believe we should "err on the safe side", i.e. better
A)
fee=yes
fee:conditional = no @ maxstay < 3h

than B)
fee = no
fee:conditional = yes @ maxstay > 3h

I think I would ignore the maxstay==3h condition, ;-)

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 20. Oct 2020, at 13:20, Dave F via Tagging  
> wrote:
> 
> You think you're being original with your proposal, but it's not the case. 
> Every couple of years someone come along with the same argument.


but it’s fair to discuss every proposal on its own. 


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


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 20. Oct 2020, at 09:02, Robert Delmenico  wrote:
> 
> But you could count the bridge=yes (areas) for number of bridges, and 
> bridge=yes (ways) for number of bridges with roads crossing them.


no, bridge=yes areas could still be properties of polygon objects on bridges.

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 20. Oct 2020, at 06:59, Robert Delmenico  wrote:
> 
> Essentially though, they mean the same thing:
> man_made=bridge is for areas
> bridge=yes is for ways
> 
> Both refer to to say there is a bridge and each assumes each others meaning - 
> I wouldn't think we would use natural=bridge.


they do not mean the same thing, one is a tag for a bridge, the other is a tag 
for highways, railways, waterways etc. to state they are on a bridge.

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 20. Oct 2020, at 00:55, Robert Delmenico  wrote:
> 
> Perhaps the use of man_made could be dropped all together as it is somewhat 
> superfluous.
> 
> Ie. man_made=bridge is the same as bridge=yes


clearly not, we are already using both. man_made=bridge is a feature, and every 
instance of this tag is representing a bridge.
bridge=yes is a property, we add it to highways and railways, and many 
instances of this tag can point to the very same bridge.

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


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 19. Okt. 2020 um 22:17 Uhr schrieb Emvee via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> On 19/10/2020 11:51, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> > Martin, please do not even think about deprecating a tagging that is
> > heavily used.like highway=crossing with bicycke=no|yes|dismount
>
> I do not call highway=crossing with bicycle=no|dismount heavily used. On
> some locations the density is higher but on quite some places it is not
> used at all.



it depends on the point of view. Of all highway=crossing nodes, only 3,65%
have a bicycle=* tag, but these are 163 331 objects.
Most of them are bicycle=yes tags, only 10 462 are bicycle=no and 8 949 are
bicycle=dismount

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=crossing#combinations


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


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 19. Okt. 2020 um 15:04 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> I mean, *everything* is either man made or natural.
>


if we push this forward, humans are part of the natural world as well. Lets
get rid of these dichotomies, and strive for a unified vision of the world,
where human and nature aren't opposing poles but where the humans live in
and with the nature, as part of it.

And yes, if we are moving away from "man made" we can at this point also
have a look how the objects under this key could be organized better. I
agree that "artificial" would not be beneficial in this context, but rather
a renaming with the same issues (or even worse, think of things like
"man_made=works", wouldn't it be horrible to have "artificial=works"?)


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


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 19. Okt. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Robert Delmenico <
rob...@rtbk.com.au>:

> Some great points here. Good to hear the points of views of all of you.
> Look forward to hearing more feedback.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Rob
>


I am delighted to read you like the idea of switching to German language
for tagging.

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


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 18. Oct 2020, at 10:39, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> Still, highway=crossing bicycle=no is an acceptable tagging (like you can map 
> cemeteries or parks
> or churches as nodes in the first pass, especially when there is no good 
> aerial imagery available)


my preference is deprecating this as it has too many risks, not worth the 
benefit of informing cyclists whether they have to push 4 meters or can drive 
on the crossing.

I would suggest sth like crossing:bicycle=yes/no

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am So., 18. Okt. 2020 um 23:02 Uhr schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick <
graemefi...@gmail.com>:

> On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 20:39, Rory McCann  wrote:
>
>> *definitely* not something one does auomatically.
>>
>
> But would it be so impossible? (Not suggesting that it should actually be
> done!)
>
> Couldn't a bot be set to simply find all cases of man_made=, regardless of
> what it is, & change them to human_made=, similar to using Find & Replace
> in a Word document?
>
>
yes, technically it could be done with a bot or also without a bot,
directly on the database, in seconds or less.
And once we have done it, we could do it again and again, for all kinds of
reasons.

The problem is not the data at the origin, it is the system around the
database.

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


Re: [Tagging] How are busways mapped, which are not guideways?

2020-10-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am So., 18. Okt. 2020 um 20:25 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:

> Here's an example of an exclusive busway, which is only used by the Orange
> Line / G Line bus service in suburban Los Angeles:
>
> https://media.metro.net/riding/images/LinePage_orange_line_header.jpg
>
> The busway is a 2-lane paved surface which is exclusively for public
> transit buses. There is a parallel cycleway and footway, but no sidewalks.
> Private buses and other vehicles are not permitted on the busway. It used
> to be an abandoned railway line which was converted to a busway.
>
> Currently it is mapped as highway=service + service=busway + access=no +
> bus=designated - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/443134693
>
> While the current tagging is ok, it seems inconsistent that
> highway=bus_guideway gets its own tag, while other busways which are
> similar in function are tagged as highway=service.
>


are pedestrians forbidden to walk on the shoulder? Can you walk on the
verges?

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 18. Oct 2020, at 12:39, Rory McCann  wrote:
> 
> Yeah changing this is a multi-year project,


generations...

Cheers Martin 

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


Re: [Tagging] How are busways mapped, which are not guideways?

2020-10-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 18. Oct 2020, at 10:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> One more note: in some cases only specific buses are allowed (for example, 
> only public transport
> buses operated by a municipal company, with private buses not allowed).
> 
> In such case bus=private would be a correct tagging, right?


no, the tag “bus” is for a bus acting as public transport vehicle, not for the 
vehicle class of busses.

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


Re: [Tagging] Crossing tagged on both way and node (was: What does bicycle=no on a node means?)

2020-10-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 16. Oct 2020, at 09:32, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
> 
> generally bicycle=dismount should be used instead, reserving bicycle=no for 
> those circumstances where even pushing a bike is not legal (e.g. most public 
> footpaths in England & Wales).


most bicycle=no tags out there actually mean that you cannot ride a bike, not 
that you cannot have a bike in your pocket or be pushing a bike or carrying a 
bike in a box or on your shoulders.

I would suggest a different tag than bicycle=no for places where you cannot 
bring a bicycle, because otherwise you will never know which interpretation of 
bicycle=no was used by the mapper.

The wiki is unsure about the exact meaning, the bicycle=* page says it is about 
restrictions for bicycles while the access page (older) says it is about 
restrictions for cyclists. IMHO the most common interpretation is legality of 
cycling/riding a bicycle.

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


Re: [Tagging] How are busways mapped, which are not guideways?

2020-10-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 18. Oct 2020, at 08:12, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> Right now the suggestion on highway=bus_guideway is that other busways might 
> be mapped highway=service + bus=designated + access=no. (See 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbus_guideway)


I have been retagging these in the past in my area because the tagging 
prevented pedestrians from walking on the sidewalks (depending on the presence 
of sidewalks and other lanes this may be desirable or not). 

AFAIK dedicated bus lanes are tagged with lane tagging.

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


Re: [Tagging] Crossing tagged on both way and node (was: What does bicycle=no on a node means?)

2020-10-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 18. Oct 2020, at 09:46, Emvee via Tagging  
> wrote:
> 
> Routers do not need highway=crossing to detect crossings, every node
> where 3 or more ways connect is a crossing.


sure, but many highway=crossings are tagged on nodes where only 2 ways (or one 
going through) connect.

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


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 18. Oct 2020, at 07:49, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
>> Generally, I would propose to only tag crossing =* on the crossing node, but 
>> refrain from access like tags on this node (no bicycle or foot tags). The 
>> access should be derived from the crossing ways.
> 
> 
> This statement is only correct if there are crossing ways using the crossing 
> node.


note that I wrote “access_like” tags, if adding more information to a crossing 
node is desired, an alternative like bicycle_crossing=yes could be used.

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


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 17. Oct 2020, at 21:01, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> Nevertheless some crossings were mapped using highway=cycleway and bicycle=no 
> on crossing
> nodes, probably because it is much less fiddly to map it.


Yes I know, one possible outcome of this discussion here would be agreeing that 
this representation bears some problems and that we suggest a less error prone 
alternative is chosen.

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


Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

2020-10-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 15. Oct 2020, at 16:40, Dave F via Tagging  
> wrote:
> Which negates any desire to change the meaning of railway=station from 
> "places where customers can access railway services or where goods are loaded 
> and unloaded."


I am perfectly fine with this definition, it was you who chose to ignore the 
“where goods are loaded and unloaded” part. 
My interpretation for railway=station is: the train station (all of it). I am 
neither a train spotter nor a buffer kisser (not sure this term exists in 
English), but it seems clear that the tag implies the whole railway station, 
regardless of its application on a node or an area.

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


Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

2020-10-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 15. Oct 2020, at 15:12, Dave F via Tagging  
> wrote:
> 
> Please send all messages to the public forum Martin.



I will write to whoever I want, not your business. 

You may already know it, but for the avoidance of doubt I’ll tell you again: 
every thread and all contributions can be seen here: 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-October/thread.html

If the mail headers are confusing you can always cross check your inbox with 
the public archive.


> It was a post in reply to the topic.
> 
> Unlike a few train spotters in Germany I'm not scared to have all discussions 
> be public & a matter for record.


neither am I, and while I am not scared to participate under my real name, I 
understand that other people might have reasons to choose a pseudonym or 
shorten their last name, and it’s ok.

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


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 16. Oct 2020, at 10:28, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> Not in cases where 
> (1) highway=cycleway is crossing road where cyclists are obligated to dismount
> (2) highway=footway with bicycle=yes/designated is crossing road where 
> cyclists
> are obligated to dismount


in these cases the cycleway ceases to exist. Or would you say pushing only 
cycleways are ok? highway=cycleway with  bicycle=dismount?


Cheers Martin 



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


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 16. Oct 2020, at 00:00, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> 
> Single carriageway, but with a way segment added to the cycleway to carry the 
> signed  `bicycle=dismount` restriction.


at this point there is no shared way anymore, just nearby it is shared, because 
bicycle=dismount is the same as bicycle no, it means pedestrians only.

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


Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

2020-10-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 14. Oct 2020, at 15:44, Dave F via Tagging  
> wrote:
> 
> Please send messages to forum, John.


from where are you citing here? A private email? 

Can we please discuss publicly here, and keep private discussion private?

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 15. Oct 2020, at 02:57, Robert Delmenico  wrote:
> 
> I also understand that generally speaking the use of man_made is commonly 
> accepted as a gender neutral term, but in reality it has been adapted that 
> way due to past practices of gender bias.


I fear in „human“ there is still a man, even in every woman there‘s a man, as 
in female there is a male. Overall it looks as if English is not suitable for 
gender neutral language, everything refers back to men. I propose to use German 
as the language for tags.
It might look like an impossible endeavor at first glance to retag those 
millions or billions of objects, but if you dig deeper you will find that many 
tags are already more German than English, so ultimately it wouldn’t be as much 
change as it may sound initially.

Cheers Martin 


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


Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 13. Oct 2020, at 23:42, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> I changed the crossing to the way we do it in many parts of Europe, i.e. a 
> crossing node and a crossing way.


I thought the standard was highway=crossing on the nodes where they cross the 
road and highway=footway with footway=crossing on the way segment between the 
kerbs (if sidewalks are mapped) or between the crossing nodes (if several 
carriageways are present).

The crossing=* tags in this scheme go on the nodes, and after some wiki 
fiddling a long time ago, possibly also on the ways.

The idea to use crossing=* as a on ways stems from user ULamm 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Acrossing=revision=1077856=1068935

And became successively popular:
https://taghistory.raifer.tech/#way/highway/crossing/crossing/


The reason for the edit is “see discussion”, but frankly, looking at the 
discussion, it is all but convincing that this edit was justified: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Key:crossing=1093129#Node_or_line

Generally, I would propose to only tag crossing =* on the crossing node, but 
refrain from access like tags on this node (no bicycle or foot tags). The 
access should be derived from the crossing ways.
This still fails to add crossing specifics for situations where the crossing 
ways are not mapped, so alternatively we could state that we only add positive 
access tags to crossings. Imagine I would add hgv=no or motorcycle=no tags to 
pedestrian crossings, IMHO this would be as correct as adding bicycle=no, 
because neither of them can cross at the pedestrian crossing, but overall it 
could be seen as very bad tagging because of the ambiguity (for the road users).

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Objects generating audible cues

2020-10-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 14. Oct 2020, at 16:22, bkil  wrote:
> 
> It has been raised on a private discussion if we could mention whether
> a private house or an industrial site has a guard dog that is easily
> identifiable by its barking.



if you only hear it this could still be a fake barking from loudspeakers ;)

If you are going to tag it, it should be distinguishable between “have seen a 
dog” and “have heard a dog”

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


Re: [Tagging] How do you map traffic signals where right or left turns are allowed or not allowed on a red light?

2020-10-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 11. Oct 2020, at 18:15, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> I wonder if "red turn" is a translation from German or another language?


there is no straight turn in German, not even a u-turn is a “turn” in German, 
so if this was invented in Germany it has not to do with translating a term 
incorrectly.


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


Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

2020-10-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 10. Oct 2020, at 17:36, Dave F via Tagging  
> wrote:
> 
> Why would train drivers, looking at OSM, need to have just a couple of 
> signals enclosed inside a polygon?


did you already have the occasion to ask commuters in your part of the world 
whether they believe the parts of a train station that are not accessible for 
the passengers are outside or inside of the station?

Are you mapping train stations as areas? From reading your replies here the 
impression I get is you are advocating for not extending the representation 
from a node to an area, right? I do not understand why you are fighting so hard 
to make a tag useless/superfluous (same meaning as public_transport=station) 
which you do not even use in this way, and without offering an alternative, all 
allegedly just for the benefit of the  “ordinary people” from whom you suppose 
to have a distorted view of the situation, so they are not confused?

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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging a government job centre

2020-10-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 10. Oct 2020, at 09:32, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> If you go to the (admittedly, very short) wiki page for 
> office=employment_agency, you find that the picture illustrating the tag 
> shows a German "jobcenter" of the Agentur fuer Arbeit, which is a government 
> agency.
> So I think your starting assumption is not reflecting the actual tagging
> This means also that your idea of creating a new "government" related tag 
> would be in conflict with the established tagging, at least in Germany


+1, I would also think office=employment_agency is a suitable tag.


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


Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

2020-10-09 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 10. Oct 2020, at 00:35, Dave F 
> 
> I believe most of this discussion is moot as the *vast* majority of 
> railway=stations are mapped as nodes:
>  NodeWay Relation
> IT   2878400 15
> DE   438839  45
> FR   2553646 14
> JP   90635   11
> US   4140174 8


still it seems you found it important enough to engage in an edit war on the 
wiki and tell me I would have to discuss in order to keep the definition, not 
you who wants to change it.



> I also amended the area indicating what roughly constitutes a 'railway 
> station' according to the wiki.


according to the wiki, a railway station is a railway station, your edit made a 
part of a railway station the area for railway=station



> Tagging objects should be based on the understanding of what the general 
> consumer of OSM accept it to be, not just a small group of "rail enthusiasts" 
> from Germany.


tagging concepts should accommodate both, the general mappers and the experts. 
Data consumers will have to find a way to make their own sense of the map data, 
naturally the mappers will try to help them, but it is not the consumers who 
rule tagging, it’s the mappers.



> @
> If you went up to a commuter waiting on the platform & asked 'what 
> constitutes a railway station' they would give close to the description above.


just try it. Go to a train station and ask the commuters if they believe that 
the train on the sidetrack without a platform (waiting to be serviced or 
restructured or to depart later etc.) is out of the train station or inside. Or 
the technical station buildings where passengers aren’t admitted.

Do you believe these tracks are outside the station, or do you believe they 
aren’t but others might think they are, so the best would be to make the 
OpenStreetMap station as small as we think that they think it is, so nobody is 
unnecessarily confused?


> I *very* much doubt they'd also turn, point & say 'Oh, & also that one 
> signal. about about 1 km down the track'.


I admit I don’t know about signals, but for switches it seems pretty easy: 
there are tracks coming from somewhere, and at some point, where I would 
suspect begins the station, these tracks bifurcate and become more.



> Landuse=railway should be used for railway areas that far away from the 
> station.


+1, could be used, I’d even say, from far away until very very close, up to the 
limit of the station area.


> On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 at 18:42, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
> 
> > This was also discussed in the wiki:
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:railway%3Dstation#Station_an_area_.3F
> 
> That makes no mention of a station's extent.


“

You should not map the building as railway=station, because railway=station as 
an area is seen as the area of the railway station (how obvious ;-) ), which is 
often from the entrance signal or at least from the first switch/point 
(AE/BE...) of each direction. --rayquaza (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


> 
> > And it is what we do around here locally.
> 
> As I've shown, that's not the case, & anyway, OSM is global, not local.


you have not shown what kind of areas are mapped in OpenStreetMap, what you 
have shown is that there are more nodes than ways. 



> > It is also what the definition of railway=stations says, the tag defines "A 
> > railway station".
> 
> See above at @.


that’s a citation from wikipedia, and very selective as well, and it doesn’t 
say what isn’t in or out the station, it says what is the typical minimum you 
can find at a station 


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


Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

2020-10-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 7. Okt. 2020 um 10:31 Uhr schrieb Andrew Harvey <
andrew.harv...@gmail.com>:

> In practice many are mapped as the same area, but that's usually only
> because unless you're a train operator it can be hard to actually survey
> where the station starts and ends from the train network point of view.
>


Some people have suggested this would be the area between the first and
last switch (and all dead end rails inside these switches), other
definitions that have been proposed are referring to the signals. I am not
sure there is a significant difference between the two, but it seems this
is something you can roughly estimate also without professional background
information.

It is maybe worth pointing out that railway=station according to the wiki
can be also used for stations without passenger access (goods station).

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


[Tagging] railway=station areas

2020-10-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
I know we have already been discussing this several times in the past, but
due to recent editing disagreements in the wiki, I am raising it again.

For several years, we had railway=station on a way documented in the wiki
as the complete area of a train station.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:A-simple-station.svg

This was also discussed in the wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:railway%3Dstation#Station_an_area_.3F

And it is what we do around here locally. It is also what the definition of
railway=stations says, the tag defines "A railway station".

A fellow editor now insists that this tag should be used on the same area
as defined for public_transport=station, i.e. the part of the train station
that is accessible by passengers (platforms and buildings near the
platforms).
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Railway%3DStation.svg

I am reaching out to the wider community because the user and me could not
come to an agreement.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:railway%3Dstation=history

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


Re: [Tagging] Battery swapping spot in a charging station or being an individual tag?

2020-10-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 6. Oct 2020, at 23:55, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> amenity=charging_station + charging=battery_swap + battery =gogoro;iOnex (to 
> use the examples given by OP, which would then be changed as applicable in 
> each country) 


I think the system provider would better go into “network” or “brand”

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (shop=direct marketing)

2020-10-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Sa., 3. Okt. 2020 um 14:38 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen :

> On Sat, 3 Oct 2020 at 13:22, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> shop=* seems ok for me.
>
>
> And for me.  There are "formal" shops which open only 2 days a week.  Or
> have limited hours.  Or surly staff.  You go there and buy stuff, it's a
> shop.
>
>
>> Maybe “game” would be ok as value.
>>
>
> I think not.  Too easy to confuse "game" and "games."  Better to use
> shop=butcher + produce=game.
>


agreed that "game" would likely lead to problems.  Technically, I am not
sure these places the OP is asking about are "butchers".

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (shop=direct marketing)

2020-10-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 3. Oct 2020, at 12:15, Alan Mackie  wrote:
> 
> This seems to me to be a relative of market stalls. Smaller concerns that are 
> 'staffed' but usually have very focussed or limited stock.


+1, with possibly varying merchandise according to the season or other factors.

shop=* seems ok for me. Maybe “game” would be ok as value.

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (shop=direct marketing)

2020-10-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 2. Oct 2020, at 20:28, stevea  wrote:
> 
> The term "direct_marketing" is used in various dialects of English around the 
> world as meaning something wholly different than your proposed usage here.


even in German it is used for a kind of advertising (sending “individual 
letters”)
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direktmarketing


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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 133, Issue 2

2020-10-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 2. Okt. 2020 um 10:01 Uhr schrieb St Niklaas :

> Whats wrong with shop=farm,
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.05459/5.15648
>


for a hunter? Farming and hunting are 2 different kinds of professions at
least since Cain and Abel. ;-)

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (shop=direct marketing)

2020-10-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 2. Oct 2020, at 08:53, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> "direct marketing" using shop key
> means that there is no way to tag
> shop type in an usual way (in a shop key)


+1, it would better be a property than a shop type. Still it leaves the 
question open how much proper work the facility has to invest in order to make 
it “their own” product. Someone selling bread would be direct marketing if they 
sold bread for which they made the dough? Do they also have to grow the cereal, 
harvest it and grind it? Do they have to produce their own yeast or may they 
buy it? Provided there is salt in the dough, will it have to be extracted by 
themselves or may they buy it?
And on the other end, someone finishing the bread baking from semi baked 
industrial bread out of a factory, can they be called direct marketers?

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


Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?

2020-09-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 30. Sep 2020, at 08:30, stevea  wrote:
> 
> I'll say it once again:  such a fire=perimeter IS a real-world "thing," 
> represented in OSM by a lightweight datum that I find to be "worth it" to be 
> in the map.


+1
it is also clearly verifiable on the ground and will remain so for some time.

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


Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

2020-09-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 27. Sep 2020, at 13:45, Pieter Vander Vennet  wrote:
> This width was tagged with 'width:carriageway'. 
> 


I think this is a good tagging decision, being explicit about which width you 
have measured seems the way to avoid ambiguity. (and it still leaves room for 
the next project which could measure sidewalk widths ;-) ).

Cheers Martin 

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Chapel of rest)

2020-09-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 25. Sep 2020, at 00:51, Michael Patrick  wrote:
> 
> ( I once went to one in Detroit, where the open casket and reception line was 
> right there with tables of people eating brunch ('wake')).


so it could be “wake_room”?
Now this might sound a tad euphemistic as well, but search engines actually 
restitute pertinent results.

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Chapel of rest)

2020-09-24 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 24. Sep 2020, at 16:40, Clifford Snow  wrote:
> 
> I just happened to be talking to a funeral owner yesterday. To be clear he is 
> located in the US


then it is not so relevant for our discussion, because the standard is British 
English. Maybe it could make sense to provide an English(US) translation for 
editor presets and the like?

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


Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

2020-09-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 23. Sept. 2020 um 10:47 Uhr schrieb Jeroen Hoek :

> Granted, for footway=sidewalk renderers could omit the name.
>
> The sidepath:of:name approach has the benefit of more explicitly
> declaring a way a 'sidepath of' though, and works for cycleways,
> bus-lanes, etc. too.
>


it doesn't actually create a more explicit relation than does
footway=sidewalk name=foo
both ways of modeling it depend on comparison of the street name.
Both might fail when there are several streets with the same name, or when
there is a typo or other variation in one of the name (or sidepath:of:name)
tags.



>
> Mappers might also be rightly hesitant to name sidewalks explicitly,
> because it will make for many chaotic maps depending on the renderer.
> Tagging for the renderer is bad, but adopting an approach that causes
> widespread rendering issues isn't all that great either.
>


we have already discussed this, see your initial sentence. I believe that
renderers would adopt quickly if it became more widespread practice to add
names to sidewalks. There may be some issues during the transition time.
There are also significant issues from omitting the name (routing
instructions are typically not telling you the name of the roads on which
you are and which you have to follow, when you're on sidewalks or cycleways
along roads).

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


[Tagging] admin, please remove this user from the list

2020-09-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
It's been some weeks now that I get this kind of reply for every message
that I write to tagging. Can an admin please remove the address
jim...@hey.com from the list recipients? Thank you.


*haystack-mail-home-inbound-postfix-0.localdomain rejected your message to
the following email addresses:*

jim...@hey.com
The address you sent your message to wasn't found at the destination
domain. It might be misspelled or it might not exist. Try to fix the
problem by doing one or more of the following:

   1. Send the message again, but before you do, delete and retype the
   address. If your email program automatically suggests an address to use,
   don't select it.
   2. Clear the recipient AutoComplete cache in your email program by
   following the steps in this article: Status code 5.1.1
   . Then resend the
   message, but before you do, be sure to delete and retype the address.
   3. Contact the recipient by some other means (by phone, for example) to
   confirm you're using the right address. Ask them if they've set up an email
   forwarding rule that could be forwarding your message to an incorrect
   address.





*haystack-mail-home-inbound-postfix-0.localdomain gave this error:
>: Recipient address rejected: User unknown
*
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

2020-09-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 22. Sep 2020, at 19:11, Jeroen Hoek  wrote:
> 
> Explicitly naming sidewalks and all other parallel ways makes for a
> maintenance burden and would create a very busy rendering on most map


renderers have all the necessary information to omit name for footway=sidewalk. 
It is just a question of the style 

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


Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

2020-09-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 22. Sep 2020, at 00:18, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
>> unless they are further than 200m from your actual position. 
> 
> Depends on the jurisdiction.  In some parts of the US you must use a
> designated crossing (at least in built-up areas).  In the UK you are told
> "Where there is a crossing nearby, use it," but there is no definition
> of "nearby."


in Italy the law is indeed explicit about the distance, btw Volker, the limit 
is only 100m, see Art 190 CdS, 2.


Cheers Martin 

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


Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

2020-09-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer

sent from a phone

> On 21. Sep 2020, at 15:36, Janko Mihelić  wrote:
> 
> or if someone outright deletes the utility tag, that power pole is still 
> correctly tagged.


if it is a power pole, why would you remove the utility tag? 
When there’s a highway=track and you remove the tracktype tag the object also 
will still be correctly tagged :)

Cheers Martin 


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


Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

2020-09-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
isn’t this all centered on motorists‘ point of view? 
What do people think about seeing it from other perspectives, e.g. 
highway=cycleway and adding tags like primary=track (means there is an implied 
primary road, physically separated, which is running along this cycleway).
Can also be done for sidewalks:
highway=footway
footway=sidewalk
name=Highstreet
has_road=primary

is there interest in developing such complementary tagging ?

Cheers Martin 

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


Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

2020-09-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 20. Sep 2020, at 18:59, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> Does anyone think that it is a good idea to add those two new tags in this 
> particular situation?


utility=power seems to be a redundant concept in general (you can see which 
kind of lines are attached - if they are mapped), here all the more.

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


Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

2020-09-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 20. Sep 2020, at 18:59, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> Does anyone think that it is a good idea to add those two new tags in this 
> particular situation?


while I am personally not unsatisfied with power=pole I could understand that 
people who want to deprecate this tag in favor of man_made=utility_pole (17200 
as of yesterday)
would want to add it.

I could see some benefit from such a switch (better supports multiple utilities 
on the same pole, no need to decide on kind of utility if you don’t know it).

Cheers Martin 



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


Re: [Tagging] Powerbank Sharing Systems

2020-09-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Sa., 19. Sept. 2020 um 13:49 Uhr schrieb Jake Edmonds via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> >> Unless anyone can point me to existing tagging, I will submit a
> proposal, based on amenity=bicycle_sharing, titled
> amenity=powerbank_sharing for tagging docking station.
> >>
> > I wouldn't worry about that - that'll just waste everyone's time.  If
> some on-the-ground infrastructure is missing from the map, just map it.
> It's perfectly possible to search by name or operator later if a consensus
> emerges about tagging.
>


by that time (consensus has emerged) you will quite probably find several
consensi having emerged, and a bunch of people each defending their
"consensus" ;-)




> Maybe a proposal that needs voting on isn’t need but is it accepted to add
> things to the wiki without one?
> It’s much nicer to find a page on the wiki than looking through tag info
> trying to decide if something already exists.
>


I agree that explicit documentation is better than searching taginfo, also
because it will encourage other people more to use the same tags, and
because you can explain what the tag means, while taginfo, as long as there
isn't documentation, will only tell you _that_ a tag is in use. IMHO you
better make a proposal than documenting tags as de facto which in reality
still have to reach this level. You could make it clear that it is a
proposal. Personally, I have made some proposals without bringing them to
voting (i.e. noones time "wasted", besides my own), because having the
proposal in the wiki was already sufficient that other people caught up.
And then you have to guard it because some people will set it to abandoned
status which is very harmful for adoption ;-)

If you are going to set up a page without a proposal, make it clear that it
is a proposal anyway (in the sense that it is not established). At that
point, why not making it a proposal straightaway?



>
> >
> >> Chimpy (linked above) appears to use docking stations and
> over-the-counter rentals. Should an additional tag, such as
> service:powerbank:rental=yes, be included for existing features?
>
> Probably not.  We don't tend to tag "everything a shop might sell".



You could do it. We do not tag everything a shop might sell, but we do have
exceptions for things that are not typically to be expected and are useful,
e.g. a convenience store which also acts as post office, or offers a
specific service (and power bank rental could be seen as this), for example
shops where you can get money from your debit card like at an atm.
Basically it is the people who decide: if there are many mappers who think
this is an interesting feature, they will map it, otherwise it will "fail"
(not be used in sufficient numbers to prove useful).

Generally, for features like this, you need 2 tags: one for the feature
(the standalone devices) and one for use as a property (a shop offers them
as service).
For the feature, it could for example be tagged as amenity=vending_machine,
vending=powerbank_sharing (automatic device selling goods or services). Or
as you said, with a dedicated top level tag like
amenity=powerbank_sharing_station (similar to amenity=photo_booth).

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


Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 18. Sept. 2020 um 09:41 Uhr schrieb Peter Elderson <
pelder...@gmail.com>:

> Changing to crossing=marked then specifying that it's a zebra just makes
> it more work, and harder to interpret.
>


+1, if you don't know the implications of crossing=zebra, then you don't
know them either for crossing=marked, marked=zebra. The latter is just a
more complicated way of telling the same, and it mostly leads to less
information because the marked=zebra (or whatever similar tag to tell the
markings are zebra marking) is often missing.

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


Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 17. Sept. 2020 um 18:32 Uhr schrieb Matthew Woehlke <
mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com>:

>
> *Traffic* lights I can buy. I am more suspicious of the claim that you
> can tell whether they have pedestrian crossing signals or not,



usually pedestrian crossings are marked, and depending on the imagery
resolution and width of the markings you might be able to see it. In my
area these are marked with zebra markings, and you can try to see whether
there are also stop lines for cars (i.e. traffic signals).



> or that
> you can reliably identify other signage based solely on outline.



I have seen some stop signs with additional "stop" road markings that were
clearly visible from above.
Stop-signs and give way signs use different road markings around here. The
real question in my context is: does it still apply, or has the situation
changed since these pictures were taken.

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


Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 17. Sept. 2020 um 02:45 Uhr schrieb Taskar Center :

> 1) How is this shared space controlled? ...
>
> 2) How is the space demarcated? A crossing may be demarcated by a number
> of different ground markers, 
>
> 3) How can a pedestrian call up the signal ...
>
> 4) who is sharing the way (also a bicycle crossing, animal crossing, etc)?
>
> 5) How is the space connected to the rest of the transportation layer?
>
...

>
> I think crossing=marked/unmarked was a really good step in the direction
> of getting resolution and refinement on at least one of these questions
> above.
>



really? Which of these questions do you see answered?

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


Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

2020-09-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 17. Sept. 2020 um 02:37 Uhr schrieb Taskar Center :

> This is yet another example why "sticking" the sidewalks onto the highway
> (as a tag) rather than mapping them as separate ways is appearing to be
> less and less practical.
>


why should these be mutually exclusive alternatives ("rather than")? The
sidewalk tags on the road are a property of the road that tell if there is
a sidewalk, and on which side. This does not prevent you from mapping the
sidewalk explicitly as highway=footway and footway=sidewalk.

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


Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 16. Sep 2020, at 20:22, António Madeira  wrote:
> 
> The problem, I believe is with iD's presets.



thank you for the hint, I think you’re right.

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


Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 16. Sept. 2020 um 16:27 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> I thought the correct tag for this was crossing_ref. Have you cross
> checked to see if they've been swapped instead of removed?
>


crossing_ref is a different kind of beast, as some people use it to tell
whether there are zebra markings (can also apply to traffic light
controlled crossings).

Frankly, I do not like the tag for zebra crossings, because this approach
requires me to set 3 tags (one of crossing=zebra / marked /
uncontrolled(?)  +, crossing_ref=zebra + highway=crossing, on every zebra
crossing while I could use 2 and be done (highway=crossing with
crossing=zebra).


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


Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 16. Sept. 2020 um 15:26 Uhr schrieb Matthew Woehlke <
mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com>:

> My understanding is that crossing=zebra is deprecated in favor of
> crossing=uncontrolled / crossing=traffic_signals.



there are many issues with "uncontrolled", especially if you use it to
intend a zebra crossing (as road markings are a kind of control).
crossing=zebra and traffic_signals are not synonymous.

What strikes me is the raise of "marked", which used to be a niche tag for
crossings that were somehow marked but were not describable with the other
tags, and now it is the leading value for "crossing".



>
> Please explain how crossing=marked is "very generic" and what value
> crossing=zebra adds.
>


crossing=zebra is about a zebra crossing, which is a typical kind of
pedestrian crossing in many countries (i.e. no traffic lights, zebra
markings, possibly zebra crossing signs, according to jurisdiction).
crossing=marked is about any marked crossing.



>
> Additionally, crossing=zebra is not an approved tag (according to the
> wiki),

and "It is not always clear what the intended meaning is when
> used outside of the UK". This doesn't seem like a tag we should be
> encouraging.
>


the wiki should be updated. It means a zebra crossing, and I do not believe
there is ambiguity in this, in the UK or in Europe.


> (¹ Pedantically, I suppose you could argue that crossing=zebra refers to
> a specific *form* of marking, i.e. repeated white stripes, while the
> approved crossing=uncontrolled could include crossings marked only by
> two parallel white lines. However, I would question the value added by
> mapping that distinction.)



the "approved" crossing=uncontrolled has bugged many mappers for years, and
I believe the current idea about the tag is that it should be avoided. The
word implies without markings (although a different meaning is defined).

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


Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 16. Sep 2020, at 14:25, Supaplex  wrote:
> 
> Do you have examples where "zebra" is changed automatically? Where and who 
> and why?


I have seen it only sporadically and have contacted the mappers in some cases, 
the same for marked when there were traffic lights. I have been writing here 
because of the bend in the tagging curve:
https://taghistory.raifer.tech/#***/crossing%20/&***/crossing/zebra

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


Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 16. Sept. 2020 um 12:36 Uhr schrieb ael :

> Yes. ISTR that the last time I tried to mark a crossing, zebra wasn't a
> option in the presets. But my memeory may be at fault.
>


which editor are you using?

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


[Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
I noticed that crossing=zebra tag usage is drastically shrinking while the
very generic crossing=marked, which was quite unpopular before (2013-2018
below 6000 uses) now went through the roof and is leading the tagstats with
more than 1 million uses. What do you think about it, shouldn't we be
encouraging people to use more specific tags like crossing=zebra or
crossing=traffic_signals instead?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

2020-09-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 15. Sep 2020, at 19:05, Jan Michel  wrote:
> 
> If you want to tag how much space there is for some kind of vehicle moving in 
> some direction, there are the specific width tags like width:lanes, 
> sidewalk:width, cycleway:width, shoulder:width, verge:width
> and so on.


following your initial statement (all parts), you would include the verges in 
the width?


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


Re: [Tagging] Addition of highway=emergency_bay and priority_road=yes to Map Features?

2020-09-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 16. Sep 2020, at 09:53, Alan Mackie  wrote:
> 
> Priority road definitely seems like you'd want it on the map features list if 
> you're in a country that uses it.
> 
> Not sure how common emergency bays are?


+1 for priority roads (although I believe the opposite is much more common: 
adding giveway and stop restrictions to crossing roads)

emergency bays are quite common in Italy and Germany when there isn’t an 
emergency lane.

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


Re: [Tagging] sleepable:physical=yes/no | Re: Benches and hostile architecture

2020-09-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 15. Sep 2020, at 19:27, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> Is it maybe more universal to map
> strictly objective parameters instead?
> 
> It seems for me that mapping
> length, armrest in the middle and width
> would be both far more objective and
> potentially useful also for other purposes


while these are useful, we could also start adding subtypes for specific 
models. It is very common that a few models are used throughout the city or 
village, with individual types often being the exception. 
Also uploading pictures of individual benches to wikimedia (or elsewhere) and 
linking them from OpenStreetMap is very helpful.

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


Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

2020-09-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 15. Sep 2020, at 21:39, Mark Wagner  wrote:
> 
> Which one is "the" width of the road?


not only from year to year but also with the seasons...

Cheers Martin 

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


Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

2020-09-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 15. Sept. 2020 um 10:34 Uhr schrieb Tobias Zwick :

> I was under the impression that the wiki already defined it like 2).
>


If it were like this it would be fortunate, because we already have nearly
1,9 million highways tagged with "width", and if we could reasonably expect
that these are following the definition, we would maybe not have to resort
to yet another key like width:carriageway

Looking at width tag variants:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=width

here are those with more than 1K uses (ignoring yh:WIDTH which is leading
even before the main tag, but clearly not a recommendable format for tags,
as it isn't self explaining and has uppercase letters, and ignoring those
that do not seem to refer to roads):

cycling_width
cycleway:est_width
shoulder:width
width:lanes
width:street
sidewalk:width
sidewalk:right:width
width:lanes:forward and backward
cycleway:width
crossing:width
cycleway:left:width
sidewalk:left:width
width:shoulder
sidewalk:both:width
width:average

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


Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

2020-09-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 14. Sept. 2020 um 20:37 Uhr schrieb Supaplex :

> again and again there are discussions about which parts of a street
> (sidewalks and cycle paths, parking lanes, carriageway) should be
> considered when determining the width of a street. There does not seem to
> be a consensus and therefore information on street widths is difficult to
> interpret or is not even mapped.
>


indeed, mapping the width generally requires measuring the width, and it is
often not practical (unless you are willing to spend a lot of time or have
very good aerial imagery at hand).



> The following variants are common/are discussed:
>
> 1) Width of the actual carriageway, without parking lanes and sidewalks
> 2) Width between curbs / edges of the road without sidewalks, but with
> parked cars when they are on street
> 3) Width including sidewalks / roadside paths
>
> I tend to option 2):
> - The width can be clearly defined and measured
> - The width of the actual carriageway can be determined by using
> "parking:lane" scheme correctly (or alternatively/supplementarily by
> specifying the width of parking lanes). "width:carriageway" (or
> "width:lanes", if there are marked lanes) also could be used to map this
> width directly.
> - The width of roadside paths can optionally be specified with
> "sidewalk:width" etc.
>



I agree that 2 could be a reasonable definition for urban areas, what I can
see could be brought up against it:
the tags should generally apply to the mapped object. As we see a highway=*
to include the sidewalks, it would be somehow odd to not include them in
width. But I agree, through definition, we could define it to mean only the
road (including parking alongside), and we are already pursuing a similar
approach with regard to lanes (only car lanes, no bike lanes or sidewalks
counted).

when there aren't kerb stones, how would you suggest to proceed? (my
suggestion: measure from the middle of the wide lateral boundary lines if
there are, otherwise measure the paved width, on unpaved roads, measure the
extent of the maximum width that vehicles actually use, on a medium to
narrow part of the highway (i.e. do not add the smallest width to a long
stretch of highway if it only occurs for a short part, rather split the
highway in this case of tag the narrow exceptions explicitly while using a
medium value for longer stretches).

I would definitely not include widths of separated ways (e.g.
cycleway=track) in the highway width on the main way. For these, properties
like cycleway:width or footway:width could be added (or map the separately,
avoiding too many splits of the main highway)

Wouldn't it be time to document a recommendation in the Wiki to reduce
> further ambiguities?
>


yes

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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging for board games themed pubs

2020-09-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 11. Sep 2020, at 12:23, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> 
> A lot of pubs have board games available for customers to play, or they did 
> in normal times.
> 
> Themed implies that is the raison d'etre for the pubs existance and you would 
> only go there to play board games, which would attract a very limited 
> clientel.


+1, this is also my interpretation. There is clearly a huge difference between 
pubs that also offer some games for their visitors (like chess, backgammon, 
trivial pursuit, etc.) and occasionally someone plays one, and places which are 
specialized in playing board games (i.e. the room is filled with people playing 
games, or discussing games). And yet another category: pubs specialized for 
playing chess (different kind of crowd compared to board game nerds, 
generally). Some of this may only take place on some days of the week.

Another similar category could be shops that sell games and are open at night 
for meeting players and playing games.

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


Re: [Tagging] Documenting historic=anchor to the historic wiki page

2020-09-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 7. Sep 2020, at 23:51, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> One has a plaque saying it is the birthplace of some important figure.
> The plaque is a historic memorial, the house it is attached to is just a
> house (as is the house next door).


we’ll be mapping the plaque anyway (and we’ll typically not adding information 
like who has slept in this house in 1876 to the building object).
Both houses are probably historic, testimonies of a certain time and context 
(socio economic conditions, style, technology, ...) 

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


Re: [Tagging] Documenting historic=anchor to the historic wiki page

2020-09-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 7. Sep 2020, at 23:29, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> It's a memorial or it's not.  If it's not a memorial, and there just because 
> it looks
> nice (somebody else brought up that possibility, not me) it's artwork. 


I don’t find a definition of art, work of art, where something like an anchor 
without a story has room. Can you point me to one?

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


Re: [Tagging] Documenting historic=anchor to the historic wiki page

2020-09-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 7. Sep 2020, at 23:23, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> To say that something is historic means that it is important or significant
> in history.


importance and significance are quite relative and I have the impression you 
are imagining the bar much higher than what we usually apply for historic. 



>   An anchor or cannon which have nothing special about them and
> are not commemorating something of historical significance are just
> artwork.


a cannon which is still in the context where it was once used can always be 
seen as historic, it doesn’t need to be important or of exceptional 
significance (e.g. by having a plaque attached, being dedicated to 
something/someone, having appeared in a historic text, having belonged to 
someone famous/powerful, etc.).


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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging of individual terraced houses?

2020-09-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 7. Sep 2020, at 22:54, Oliver Simmons  wrote:
> 
> (playing devils advocate here)
> but then why do `building=bungalow` and `building=semidetached_house` exist?
> 
> Bungalows can be seen from `building:levels=1`.
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/building=bungalow
> 


there are many more building types with just one floor.


> Semi-detached houses can be seen from geometry like you said.
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/building=semidetached_house


right, but history chose a different path.

If the whole building is tagged as building=terrace then its parts should not 
get again a building=* tag, rather use building:part=*

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


Re: [Tagging] Documenting historic=anchor to the historic wiki page

2020-09-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 7. Sep 2020, at 22:15, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> Possibly tourism=artwork


I’d much rather go for historic=anchor than for tourism=artwork 
these are rarely public art 

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


Re: [Tagging] .Re: tagging drinking water of unclear official (signed)

2020-09-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 7. Sep 2020, at 13:52, Peter Neale  wrote:
> 
> I'm not arguing against "drinking water", just against "portable water" 
> (water that can be carried)


sorry for posting in reply to you, it was meant more generally as responding to 
the warming up of a discussion about the words used in the main tags.

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


Re: [Tagging] .Re: tagging drinking water of unclear official (signed)

2020-09-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 7. Sep 2020, at 07:55, Peter Neale via Tagging  
> wrote:
> 
> I dont know about the USA, but in British English, "portable" means that it 
> can be carried. 
> 
> If you can drink it, it is "potable".


we‘ve had this discussion 10 years ago and the decision was for drinking_water=*

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/amenity=drinking_water

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=drink

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=potable

There’s no benefit from changing established tagging, and there were reasons 
for choosing drinking water rather than potable water.

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


Re: [Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status

2020-09-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 7. Sep 2020, at 01:16, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> Because I want to use drinking_water=yes and something indicating that there 
> is strong
> reason to believe that water is drinkable


do I understand you correctly that in your interpretation  
drinking_water:legal=yes does NOT give strong reason to believe it is drinkable 
water?


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


Re: [Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status

2020-09-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 6. Sep 2020, at 21:04, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> That redefines drinking_water:legal=yes which currently is described as 
> including
> places where status is not explicitly signed but is known to be good 
> (examples 
> may include water fountains setup and maintained by city).


why not use 
drinking_water=yes for these?


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


Re: [Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status

2020-09-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 6. Sep 2020, at 16:21, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> I will use drinking_water:legal=unknown


if drinking_water:legal is about the content of a sign, I would prefer Paul‘s 
suggestion: 
drinking_water:legal=unsigned
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status

2020-09-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 6. Sep 2020, at 16:21, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> may be also unsigned, but it may be clearly coming from drinkable tap water


the water could be contaminated at the end of it’s journey (conduits), and not 
be suggested to drink although the general tap water quality of the area is 
good.

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:shelter_type=rock_shelter

2020-09-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 4. Sept. 2020 um 22:21 Uhr schrieb Tom Pfeifer <
t.pfei...@computer.org>:

> On 04.09.2020 18:19, Jmapb via Tagging wrote:
> >>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:shelter_type%3Drock_shelter
> >>
> >
> > I'd suggest natural=rock_shelter as a replacement tag.
>
> +1 for going into the natural key
> My expectations to amenity=shelter would be something purpose-built,
> which is true for all subtypes except that rock_shelter



amenity=shelter is not about being purpose-built but about something being
used for a purpose.
I would not use the natural key with a value like "shelter" or
"rock_shelter", as this is about the purpose, a specific use of the
situation, and not a description of the physical situation.
>From the point of view of shelter tagging, shelter_type=rock_shelter seems
a valid approach and I would go for it.

You could still double tag it with natural=cliff_overhang (or whatever
describes the feature) if you like.

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


Re: [Tagging] Link to stream of webcam

2020-09-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 4. Sep 2020, at 20:29, Jmapb  wrote:
> 
> If I were proposing a tag, I'd probably say `camera:url` or `webcam:url`. But 
> `contact:webcam` is documented and in popular use all over the world.


I am not saying a webcam is never a means to contact someone, but it isn’t a 
suitable tag for the cam itself/a surveillance camera 

It is used 1800 times currently, that’s significant but not sure it is also 
„popular“.

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


Re: [Tagging] Link to stream of webcam

2020-09-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 4. Sept. 2020 um 19:03 Uhr schrieb Jmapb via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> On 9/4/2020 11:34 AM, Jmapb via Tagging wrote:
> > The "See also" section of that page seems to suggest the undocumented
> > tag `contact:webcam` for this purpose.
>
> (Mea culpa, contact:webcam is indeed documented on the contact page.)



according to the "contact" webpage it is a tag for tagging "contacts". Is a
live stream of a camera a "contact"?

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


Re: [Tagging] Link to stream of webcam

2020-09-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 4. Sep 2020, at 17:10, dktue  wrote:
> 
> Any suggestions how to tag this?


maybe „url“ or „surveillance:url“?

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


Re: [Tagging] OHV greater than 50 inches (wide)

2020-09-01 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 1. Sep 2020, at 22:33, Mike Thompson  wrote:
> 
> OHVs > 50


is there also an upper limit? 50” are 127 cm, so that’s to say wider than a 
motorcycle?

Is the question whether “off highway vehicle” would merit its own subclass for 
access?


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


Re: [Tagging] leisure=schoolyard

2020-08-31 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
It's been a while that I have been to school, but from memory, as well as
from the current situation I see from my kids at their school, the school
grounds are basically the same as the "Pausenhof". E.g. in my school,
pupils had their respective spaces according to age groups or maybe
classes, and basically all the available space was distributed.

Maybe that's different from your experience (I could imagine teacher's
parking being excluded, for example).

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


[Tagging] leisure=schoolyard

2020-08-31 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
I just discovered someone has added leisure=schoolyard to the wiki. It is not 
completely clear to me how to apply this tag, is there a difference between the 
school grounds minus the buildings and the schoolyard? Which parts have to be 
excluded from a schoolyard? Does it only apply to spaces that are exclusively 
used for leisure or does it include outdoor areas where education will 
occasionally take place?

Cheers Martin 


sent from a phone
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object

2020-08-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 26. Aug 2020, at 15:21, Jake Edmonds via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> Sorry, I meant that images of generic drinking fountains can go in ‘Drinking 
> fountains in ’ and only need one image linked to the node. 
> A unique fountain deserves its own category 


I named the fountains as an example where I see one image as sufficient. Of 
course you could also make tens of each, with details, from all sides and so 
on, but for me 1 is completely ok, serves to give an impression.

On the other hand, city gates should have at least 2, one from the outside and 
one from the inside, in those cases I have recently seen, and you can’t do it 
with the image tag (a category for every individual city gate seems overkill 
too in many cases).

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


Re: [Tagging] Confusion bicycle_road <> cyclestreet

2020-08-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 26. Aug 2020, at 14:44, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> In my opinion the "naked " German Fahrradstrasse is equivalent to
> highway=service|residential
> vehicle=no
> foot=use_sidewalk  or sidewalk=separate if there is a separate sidewalk
> bicycle=designated
> maxspeed=30



this raises the question whether highway=residential with vehicle=no is still a 
residential road. you would not expect a residential road to exclude all kinds 
of vehicles, would you? It’s more like a highway=cycleway with width=5 and 
foot=yes (on the sidewalks).
In both cases you kind of loose the nuances.


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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object

2020-08-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 26. Aug 2020, at 12:18, bkil  wrote:
> 
> there is usually no need for more than one image on a POI


I have recently tagged some city gates and both sides would have been 
interesting. The other kind of POI I am frequently taking photos are fountains 
and drinking fountains, where indeed a single foto is completely sufficient in 
almost all cases. It’s not generally answerable.

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


Re: [Tagging] Confusion bicycle_road <> cyclestreet

2020-08-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 26. Aug 2020, at 12:35, joost schouppe  wrote:
> 
> So putting the Dutch and Belgian thing together but not the German, that 
> doesn't make much sense.


I read this as a suggestion for a third alternative tag?

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


  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >