Re: [Tagging] How to tag an imaginary oneway barrier
Am 01.02.2014, 10:05 Uhr, schrieb Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com: 1 Cut the way where the sign is and use a relation type : restrictionhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction. 2 Add a node on the way where the sign is and add a motorcar:backward=no to this node. (similar to traffic_sign:forwardhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Traffic_sign#As_part_of_a_wayon a node that is part of a way) 3 Cut the way where the sign is into a tiny piece of way. Add a motorcar:backward =no to this tiny piece of way. Normally traffic signs belongs to the road to the next intersection/crossing. Let's look how we tag maxspeed: From the sign to the next sign/intersection/crossing the whole way. So if you come from a residential-driveway or by a u-turn, you can't see the maxspeed limit and you can't drive conform to it. So should we tag the maxspeed also at a very short section? (Router and other software has to must expand the maxspeed to the next intersection.) I suggest it is better to add No. 3: motorcar:backward=no The sign is there by a reason, and motorcars should not go to this road/direction. So OSM-data can give a person/software a bit of more information to show that the road/direction is not allowed (even but from beginning). -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] End voting bicycle=use_cycleway
Yes, it will be included in the new proposal. PeeWee32 created an example of routing the SHORTEST way: http://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=52.508705%2C13.273662point=52.509385%2C13.270111vehicle=BIKElocale=nl Am 14.12.2013, 14:25 Uhr, schrieb Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com: I agree with Martin the voting is meaningless for this, you will have to prove that this is usefull in some way first then post the proposal again. Show us how routers should use the data and how invasive this tagging is. On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com wrote: @ Martin I understand what you are saying. With regard to routing I did not expect we had to explain why it could be improved by this new tag. There have been some examples like this one showing that a router that wants SHORTEST way has no way of knowing it should not take the main road. Still routing is a difficult issue. And as some say... routing is not something to be mapped as a prime goal so our aim is to just focus on bicycle access. A better routing is then a spin off. Discussions about routing leads away from bicycle access as the main goal. I think (but you never know ;-) ) it is easier to explain that bicycle access on these roads differs from roads with explicit ban or roads that allow cycling (always). Having said that it still is difficult to come to some sort of agreement but we're going to give it a try. Cheers PeeWee32 2013/12/14 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com 2013/12/13 Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com Today the voting of the bicycle=use_cycleway ended. Voting results: Yes: 10 (not counting the 2 that made the proposal) No: 11 Abstain: 3 This is reason enough for us to work on a better proposal so we reject the current one. if you look at the reasons from the rejecters you'll find that the vast majority of them neglected in general that this was something to be tagged, either they said the routing software should solve this (impossible btw., if there is no hint in the data, how should the router do it?), or they existing tags would suffice (these said you should tag bicycle=no or destination on the road, what is not working and has already been discussed). As these are the reasons for opposing this, a better proposal very likely won't change anything (when the problem is not understood, no solution will be agreed on). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor openstreetmap. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden
I think we don't should tag something at a private (really private) ground in a residential (except the house, entrance and way to it). IMO we don't need any private things like swimmingpools, ways, trees, sandboxes or playgrounds at the backyard in the OSM database. Cheers, Masi Am 05.12.2013, 20:36 Uhr, schrieb bulwersator bulwersa...@zoho.com: +1, it seems quite obvious. On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 09:46:55 -0800 Martin Koppenhoefer lt;dieterdre...@gmail.comgt; wrote 2013/12/5 Wolfgang Hinsch lt;osm-lis...@ivkasogis.degt; how should it be tagged? Is it ok to tag the whole residential area between the streets as one leisure=garden including all buildings etc. or shall every garden be tagged as leisure=garden separately in it's place and only there? I would only use it on the effective garden area, overlapping the landuse=residential area. Buildings and non-garden areas should not be included. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] country specific scheme - was: Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
Am 15.11.2013, 16:45 Uhr, schrieb Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com:
2013/11/14 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
2013/11/14 Ronnie Soak chaoschaos0...@googlemail.com
For the access tags (and we do discuss access tags here), it is common
practice to have country-specific defaults on certain highway types as
listed in the wiki [1] and only tag what contradicts those defaults.
I'm not sure any of the current routers uses these country specific
defaults. My guess is that normal roads will always be allowed for
everybody except specified explicitly differently, and motorways and
roads
with motorroad=yes will exclude certain slow vehicles. Cycleways will
allow
cycling and footways walking and usually not cycling. If some country
specific defaults are different and nothing is tagged, it probably won't
work. Usually mappers do add default properties explicitly on roads
and
ways, and the more mature a region is mapped, the more of those
attributes
you'd usually find.
cheers,
Martin
I think many mappers are very happy with these country specific access
rules. This will prevent an overload of tags on roads. There is only one
router I know personnaly and that is the creator of the Openfietsmap
http://www.openfietsmap.nl/homeGarmin map. His map (lite version) is
also worldwide
http://garmin.openstreetmap.nl/available.
He uses this country specific scheme.
Part of his script is here. I think it makes clear that trunk roads are
not
accessabel for bicycles in some countries regardless of any bicycle=no
tag.
highway=trunk mkgmap:country ~
'(NLD|BEL|LUX|FRA|DEU|AUT|CHE|
DNK|HUN|ROU)' { set highway=motorway }
highway=trunk bicycle=no { set highway=motorway }
highway=trunk { set highway=primary }
In Germany trunk generally is able to cycle.
In Germany we tag car-roads/fast-roads with motorroad=yes, this could
be trunk and primary (and perhaps secondary too?). This roads are
forbidden (implicit) for bicycles and foot.
Think the added 2 (and changed 4th) lines are better:
motorroad=yes mkgmap:country ~
'(DEU)' { set highway=motorway } //think for CH and AT the same
highway=trunk mkgmap:country ~
'(NLD|BEL|LUX|FRA|AUT|CHE|
DNK|HUN|ROU)' { set highway=motorway }
highway=trunk bicycle=no { set highway=motorway }
highway=trunk { set highway=primary }
--
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
Am 15.11.2013, 17:13 Uhr, schrieb Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org: On Tuesday, November 12, 2013, Masi Master wrote: Hi all, I'm the co-author of this proposal. There are a difference about bicycle-forbidden and a compulsory cycleway. In Germany it is allowed to leave the cycleway for a leftturn, if you choose the normal leftturn-lane (which cars use). Or in Austria training with a racebike is allowed to don't look after compulsory cycleway. I.e. for the last case the router can give you an option to allow bicycle=use_cycleway-roads. Then you really want bicycle=destination and this whole use_cycleway crud is redundant if you've mapped the cycleway correctly. I see no compelling argument to change the world when access=destination already exists for exactly this situation. First, we call this value designated. Then we have also cycleways without compulsory, which have also a (different) sign. Belongs the bicycle=designated-tag only to them with compulsory? Why this tag is generally implicit in highway=cycleway? We have also cycleways without signs, which are non-compulsory. So there are no uniformly tagging for compulsory cycleways on the cycleway. I.e., if I hate cycleway and need a route without to use cycleways, how does it work with compulsory cycleways? Banning all cycleways don't work, because near a compulsory cycleways I ride illegally on the road. I have to ban all cycleways and all roads which have a compulsory cycleway (=bicycle=use_cycleway). -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
Am 13.11.2013, 10:28 Uhr, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2013/11/13 Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com Are you proposing tagging all ways with a parallel cycleway with bicycle=use_cycleway? Sounds like it's made for mechanical edit abuse. yes, that probably should be done, because there are no other established ways of doing it, beside the wrong bicycle=no on the road that some mappers decided to set. We talk about the correct tagging here. Not about a mechanical edit, it could be a question in the future. But mechanical edit will not work in this case. How do you select the roads with a compulsory cycleway, or roads with the bicycle-forbidden-sign. That's the problem of tagging different things with the same tag! :( -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
Hi all, I'm the co-author of this proposal. There are a difference about bicycle-forbidden and a compulsory cycleway. At a bicycle forbidden section cycling is not allowed ever. At a road with a compulsory cycleway, it is allowed to cycle on the road, if the cycleway is not passable, reachable or some other exceptions. Example: http://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/~peewee32/use_cycleway/Bicycle_use_cycleway.htm?map=cyclewayszoom=18lat=51.10724lon=7.38169layers=B0FFFTFFF With bicycle=no the secondary is not reachable. With bicycle=use_cycleway a router can give those roads a lower factor. In Germany it is allowed to leave the cycleway for a leftturn, if you choose the normal leftturn-lane (which cars use). Or in Austria training with a racebike is allowed to don't look after compulsory cycleway. I.e. for the last case the router can give you an option to allow bicycle=use_cycleway-roads. We can't wait until all router add this tag, because they would say: we pay heed to this tag, because is not common. Cheers Masi (MasiMaster) Am 12.11.2013, 19:29 Uhr, schrieb Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com: Pee Wee A couple of questions. How does this improve mapping/routing over using bicycle=no? How does your proposal distinguish the exceptions to the rule that you gave as an example below? Cheers Dave F. On 12/11/2013 18:16, Pee Wee wrote: Legallythese 2 roads are not the same. For example.. in NL some 3 wheelbicycles with certain measurements are allowed to ride the second type of road.In other countries there is also a legal difference. For this reason we propose this new tag. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] cycle hierarchy
Hi, i.e. we have http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Class:bicycle It has a -3...3 factor also for different groups of cyclists. Am 02.10.2013, 14:27 Uhr, schrieb bredy bredy...@yahoo.it: for me is not a good idea, there is just classification about it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
Am 17.08.2013, 17:13 Uhr, schrieb fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: On 16.08.2013 19:05, Masi Master wrote: The problem is, that multipolygon don't work in 2 cases: - The areas touch each other. - The areas are multipolygons. A multipolygon as a member in a other multipolygon is not allowed. Either we allowed this, or we need any relation which collect these things... You can always split the ways and use the parts tagged with outer/inner I thought about a lake, which has some parts with a own name. If we need an additional multipolygon for the whole lake, first we had to cut off the island twice (in the lake and the sub-lake), and second we can not tag both lakes with natural water, because we don't want to add more water to the database than exists. So in my eyes, we need both (upper) features for multipolygons. It prevent errors if an island is not cut off twice by multipolygon:inner. And the whole lake can be combined by the sub-lakes, without the natural=water tag. This is a bit away from the new valley mountain discus, but has a connection to the first mail. Tagging should be thought-out with possible examples, if we don't want to change the tagging or live with a bad tagging. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bridleway/hiking trail/bike track tags
Am 11.07.2013, 23:26 Uhr, schrieb fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: Am 11.07.2013 23:02, schrieb fly: Am 11.07.2013 22:55, schrieb Masi Master: Am 11.07.2013, 16:06 Uhr, schrieb fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: Am 10.07.2013 20:34, schrieb doug brown: I wish to map the trails in a state park, many of which are multiple use horse trails, hiking trails, and mountain biking trails. What tagging scheme would be appropriate for these trails? I stopped using *ways as values and only use path with bicycle/foot/horse=(official/)designated/yes/no. I think, it is nice to see for who the trail is made for! So I would prefer bridleway cycleway etc. (A minor problem is the high-ranking/strict default-value (i mean designated), better it is only *=yes) You can not often tell for who the ways are mode for. Many are multiuse , some change over the seasons and it always needs on personal conditions and abilities. Thats right, outside of towns an villages there are normaly unpaved trails. And nearly all of them are normal multiuse trails. But paved trials or paths can be assigned to footway or cycleway. Or a trail with very soft (sand or mud) surface to bridleway. It also depends a bit on access-signs. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] foot=yes or bicycle=yes on track without other limitations?
not bicycle-free!it means that bicycles are freed from the law by the upper sign.Example: http://stefanhock.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/ubstadt_haltestelleuhlandstrac39fe_schild_20120513_2_1024.jpgok, "bicycles allowed" match better to the sign.Am 11.07.2013, 16:09 Uhr, schrieb John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com:Wouldn't bicycle-free mean an absence of bicycles, in other words bicycle=no? Masi Master masi-mas...@gmx.de wrote: Hi,some mappers think, they have to set these access tags. Potlatch and iD have a select menue, which shout "hey, please select foot bicycle are allowed". But I think this is not good! It is better to tag signs: bicycle=yes only if there is a "bicycle free" sign. Same with other signs. So if we see the tags, we know which sign is there, and backwards. It helps if there is something like this [1] included in the editors, which create the right tags by means of sign! A major error is something like this: access=forestry (for sign motor_vehicle=forestry)For the possibility to use the way by foot or bicycle, better tag walking=yes or cycling=yes or something like that.[1] http://osmtools.de/traffic_signsRegards,MasiAm 10.07.2013, 15:41 Uhr, schrieb Ronnie Soak chaoschaos0...@googlemail.com:Yes, highway=path or =track normally allow foot access by default.You can still add the foot=yes tag to show that you have actively verified the fact that indeed access is granted on that way. For example when other ways around have foot=no or the Bing layer looks like it's not accessible etc... Regards,Chaos2013/7/10 Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl Is there a deeper meaning of adding foot=yes or bicycle=yes to highway=track or highway=path without adding other limitations? I thought track and path are by default routable for foot and bicycle, so IMHO they add nothing. Examples: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/53561813 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/68796031 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/195440134 Regards, Maarten ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Tagging mailing listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] foot=yes or bicycle=yes on track without other limitations?
Am 11.07.2013, 04:42 Uhr, schrieb Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at: On 10.07.2013 18:39, Masi Master wrote: some mappers think, they have to set these access tags. Potlatch and iD have a select menue, which shout hey, please select foot bicycle are allowed. But I think this is not good! That's also my impression. Potlatch users often set lots of unnecessary tags just because they are selectable. It's like a form which you try to fill out completely. It is better to tag signs: bicycle=yes only if there is a bicycle free sign. Same with other signs. So if we see the tags, we know which sign is there, and backwards. Yes, we should tag what we see, not the restrictions implied by laws. Those should be defined via Wiki pages like: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions I don't see a benefit of mapping the traffic signs themselves, though. It only matters which restrictions apply to which ways, not how the signs look like or where they are located. Sorry, I wrote a bit fuzzy. I don't mean mapping traffic signs themselves. Only tagging the meaning of them at the way. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bridleway/hiking trail/bike track tags
Am 11.07.2013, 16:06 Uhr, schrieb fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: Am 10.07.2013 20:34, schrieb doug brown: I wish to map the trails in a state park, many of which are multiple use horse trails, hiking trails, and mountain biking trails. What tagging scheme would be appropriate for these trails? I stopped using *ways as values and only use path with bicycle/foot/horse=(official/)designated/yes/no. I think, it is nice to see for who the trail is made for! So I would prefer bridleway cycleway etc. (A minor problem is the high-ranking/strict default-value (i mean designated), better it is only *=yes) You propose access-tags, but i think they only should used if there is a access-sign or symbol!? everything else goes to extra tags: mtb:scale=* sac_scale=* uiaa_scale=* smoothness=* surface=* width=* barrier=* obstacle=* using extra tags is verry good! ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] foot=yes or bicycle=yes on track without other limitations?
Hi,some mappers think, they have to set these access tags. Potlatch and iD have a select menue, which shout "hey, please select foot bicycle are allowed". But I think this is not good! It is better to tag signs: bicycle=yes only if there is a "bicycle free" sign. Same with other signs. So if we see the tags, we know which sign is there, and backwards. It helps if there is something like this [1] included in the editors, which create the right tags by means of sign! A major error is something like this: access=forestry (for sign motor_vehicle=forestry)For the possibility to use the way by foot or bicycle, better tag walking=yes or cycling=yes or something like that.[1] http://osmtools.de/traffic_signsRegards,MasiAm 10.07.2013, 15:41 Uhr, schrieb Ronnie Soak chaoschaos0...@googlemail.com:Yes, highway=path or =track normally allow foot access by default.You can still add the foot=yes tag to show that you have actively verified the fact that indeed access is granted on that way. For example when other ways around have foot=no or the Bing layer looks like it's not accessible etc... Regards,Chaos2013/7/10 Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl Is there a deeper meaning of adding foot=yes or bicycle=yes to highway=track or highway=path without adding other limitations? I thought track and path are by default routable for foot and bicycle, so IMHO they add nothing. Examples: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/53561813 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/68796031 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/195440134 Regards, Maarten ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] foot=yes or bicycle=yes on track without other limitations?
Am 10.07.2013, 20:43 Uhr, schrieb SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk: Masi Master wrote: Hi, some mappers think, they have to set these access tags. Potlatch and iD have a select menue, which shout hey, please select foot bicycle are allowed. But I think this is not good! It is better to tag signs: bicycle=yes only if there is a bicycle free sign. Same with other signs. So if we see the tags, we know which sign is there, and backwards. is that bicycle=designated or something else? Which? bicycle=designated stands for the blue bicycle sign. This is placed normaly at ways which are especially for bicycles. In the editors the allowed is the same as *=yes. Does that explicit here is a route that XXX are allowed/encouraged/required in some circumstances to use signage occur anywhere outside of Germany? A signed bicyle route should be tagged by a relation with type=route. The sign bicycle free is i.E. used here in Germany on some exclusive-footways (blue footway sign), or at some pedestrian zone. Only on ways, which are normaly not allowed by default. Or for restriction: no vehicles except bicycles. bicycle=yes is also used for ways which marked by a bicycle symbol on the asphalt, and for cycleways and bikelanes without the blue sign. For the possibility to use the way by foot or bicycle, better tag walking=yes or cycling=yes or something like that. Not hugely popular, currently: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/walking=yes Right! But we can change it... I think it is wrong to merge access-restriction and the possibility of use into one tag. We can free our mind from we did it in past, we will do it in future :) Masi ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] railway=abandoned + highway=cycleway (was: [OSM-talk-be] Abandoned Railways / cycleways)
Am 18.04.2013, 17:22 Uhr, schrieb Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 2:33 AM, André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com wrote: From OSM-talk-be, with best regards. I put the questions before the replies ;-) On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 2:31 PM, André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com wrote: On 2013-04-13 23:02, Marc Gemis wrote : ... [ full message ] So why two lines for an abandoned railway and the cycleway/footway on it ? Can't they be combined ? What to do is explained in the OSM wiki at ... Railways Abandoned - The track has been removed and the line may have been reused or left to decay but is still clearly visible, either from the replacement infrastructure, or purely from a line of trees around an original cutting or embankment. Use railway=abandoned. Where it has been reused as a cycle path then add highway=cycleway. Consider adding a end_date=* tag or more specifically a railway:end_date=* tag. ... On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote: This means that the separate track should be removed for the 3 cases I listed, or not ? On 2013-04-14 23:11, Ben Laenen wrote : No, highway and cycleway should not share any ways. The only thing which may be acceptable is reusing the same nodes for two different ways, but only if they are on exactly the same location, which is actually quite rare. In quite a lot of cases there will be an offset, or it will diverge a little bit from the original railway track. Ben IMVHO, there is no railway if there are no rails, just a cycleway, just one way. And the intention may be to add information that there was a railway there, the genesis. How then explain the wiki rules: "railway=abandoned" and "add highway=cycleway to railway=abandoned" instead of "add ...???... to highway=cycleway"? Hi. I have a bit of an interest in rail trails. For those not well versed in them, these are where an old train line has been decommissioned, the rails have been pulled up, and a bike path runs where the trains used to. Usually the bike path has to diverge from the original alignment at certain points, where the land has been sold, or there's a bridge missing or something. So, there are few options for tagging:1) A single way: "railway=abandoned | highway=cycleway | name=Blah Rail Trail | surface=unpaved" (usually with a cycle route relation as well) Advantages:- easy, can quickly convert a mapped train line into a rail trail- preserves the relationship between bike path and train line (eg, it's easy for a data consumer to pull out ways that are rail trails) - can use this information for rendering (eg, show the bike path in a special way when it's a rail trail, and don't render the train line directly)Disadvantages - tag clashes, particularly "name=" - is this the name of the bike path, or of the former train line?2) Two ways, not sharing nodesAdvantages:- keep information separate, retain everything
Re: [Tagging] Giant river multipolygons
Am 01.02.2013, 18:52 Uhr, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2013/2/1 Masi Master masi-mas...@gmx.de: IMO the riverbank is similar to landuse, natural or landcover but explicit for rivers. The wiki say the same: Common tagging: type=multipolygon + waterway=riverbank + name=* + ... New tagging: type=multipolygon + NATURAL=WATER + water=river + name=* + ... Yes, (currently it seems as if the new tagging cannot establish itself, according to taginfo not even 1% of all rivers mapped as areas use this scheme) I think this is because there is no retagging the old style to the new. Can we split a large lake (or forest) with the same name into several (Mulit-)Polygons? I think no, because they have all the same name(?), but it would be nice. One solution could be a super-relation, that collect the smaller (sub) relations. yes, this is also already done (at least with routes), but it creates new problems, because it might not be clear, which of the tags get inherited and which don't. Would you only set the name-tag to the superrelation containing smaller forests, or also the forest-tag? If you added also the forest tag: wouldn't that duplicate the forest? If you don't do it, how would you know which tags to inherit from the sub-relations? A good example is the Lake Constance (de:Bodensee): http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bodenseebezp.png The whole Lake contains 3 parts: Untersee, Seerhein and Obersee The first and last part contains another parts. In my opinion, we can tag all sub-parts with natural=water and their names. Then, if we don't like to tag natural=water again, we need to put this multipolygon into another, to keep the connection to the object. So the whole lake is a construct of three parts, which contains the other sub-parts. And if the sub-parts (child-parts) all are natural=water, so the whole lake know, it is water, too. But, a multipolygon is created by the outer-line, not an area. So areas (like child multipolygons) are not allowed (without changing this piont of view)... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Exclusive access rights
Hi! what about this: access:lanes=vehicle|vehicle|psv;hgv But what if there is no sidewalk at the street? Or if you ride a horse? Is it explicit forbidden to use the road? This is the reason because I don't like to use the access=* tag. Better is this: vehicle:lanes=yes|yes|psv;hgv Masi P.S.: Ok, this works too, if NOTHING is allowed on the buslane, except bus hgv: access:lanes=yes|yes|psv;hgv Am 29.10.2012, 11:35 Uhr, schrieb Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: Hi! I'm looking for a possibility to tag exclusive access rights. What I mean by this is a way to specify that one specific vehicle is allowed and everything else is forbidden. If I specify e.g. hgv=yes it only means (at least in my understanding) that hgv are allowed there. I'm not sure about the meaning of access=hgv: is this a valid tag? What is its meaning? I am aware of the combination access=no and xxx=yes, but I'm looking for a nicer solution. The background of my question is the following demand: specify that the rightmost lane (of three lanes) can only be accessed by psv and hgv. Right now I only know this solution: vehicle:lanes=yes|yes|no psv:lanes=yes|yes|yes hgv:lanes=yes|yes|yes Three tags for such a simple thing. What I'm looking for is something like this: somenicekey:lanes=vehicle|vehicle|psv;hgv If access=hgv means that only hgv are allowed, I could use that. But as I wrote: I'm not sure if this tag is valid and if it is I am not sure about its meaning. Any hints/comments/recommendations? Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Historic road numbering?
Am 23.09.2012, 21:06 Uhr, schrieb Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk: Is there a means of tagging the old road numbers for a road that has been declassified? Sometimes you are not in a hurry and just want to go the old way, the way people went before bypasses, motorways and interstates. Something like: highway=secondary ref=B5478 ref_historic=A49 or highway=tertiary name=Leicester Road ref_historic=A46 In both cases, the first two tags are existing tags. I am struggling to even find the most famous of all, Route 66. Hi, maybe this super-relation [1] could help you. It uses ref=66 and sub-relations ref=Historic 66. I think both can be correct, ref=Historic 66 and old_ref=66. First for the current sign Historic Route 66, and second for old, dismantled sign Route 66. For routes OSM uses preferred relations. [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/93155 Masi ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Clarify tag access doc
Hi, for me visitors belongs to customer, and employee belongs to private. I think between designated and official there are different opinions. For now I would say there is no big difference. Both used primary for foot-, cycle- or bridleways. A way with a sign: Private way, use with own risk I would tag with access=permissive. And maybe i.e. a only footway-bridge (foot=designated), which connecting 2 big cycleways/-routes, I sometimes add bicycle=permissive. (Second example is my personal view. Maybe bicycle=unmount is also possible.) Cheers, Masi ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Why is this user editing in this manner?
Am 16.08.2012, 02:53 Uhr, schrieb Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com: The latest editor has split both the closed way outer polygon, deleted one of the overlapping ways added the remaining way to both the outer way a newly created multi-polygon (2338583) as a substitute for the closed way. Why has the editor done this? Is there a new preferred reason for doing this? To me it seems a pointless exercise that adds nothing but makes it more confusing for any future editor, especially putting a previously closed way into a multi-polygon. I see your problem is solved. But not your question Is there a new preferred reason for doing this? First, both ways of mapping is correct (closed way some non-closed ways that forming an outer multipolygon)! But you are not alone with your opinion, that spliting is too overkill. In german forum most of the user are against splitting (82%; against: about 23 + 3x0.5 pro: about 5), but they are to shy or have no wiki accound/no mailinglist to speak out their opinion. The greatest reason against is, that editing, especially for new user, is much to difficult. There are some parts, where splitting is useful: for borders and verry large areas e.g. huge lakes. (for what the splitting have been introduced in past, because of the 2000 nodes limit.) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Rails with trails
Hi, Some month ago I tried to start a proposal for rail-trails: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/rail_trail I startet it with 'rail_trail=yes', but on talk-page some are against this, because highway=cycleway/footway + railway=abandoned are enough. Now it propose only the possible rendering. P.S.: I think I can't send it to: [Talk-us] Am 28.06.2012, 15:51 Uhr, schrieb Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com: * Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com [2012-06-27 12:59 -0400]: But another popular kind of rail trail, a rail with trail, cannot be found in this manner. [snip] Does anyone have any ideas for tagging? The simplest would be something like rail_with_trail=yes or maybe railway=adjacent. Either of those would work. Between those two, I'm inclined toward railway=adjacent so the search would be something like highway=(path|footway|cycleway) and railway=(abandoned|adjacent). Another possibility would be to use rail_trail=yes, which would apply to any rail trail. It would be implied by a non-motor-vehicle highway= tag and railway=abandoned, but could always be specified to be unambiguous. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] dispute about how to tag a type=multipolygon relation
Am 07.06.2012, 22:10 Uhr, schrieb Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: Sylvain, I have not followed the discussion but there is no doubt in my mind that: * a multipolygon may have 0 or more inner rings; * a multipolygon must have one or more outer rings; * any inner ring can consist of any number of ways; * any outer ring can consist of any number of ways. There is absolutely no limitation that restricts the number of ways used to make an inner or outer ring in any case. Even a small forest polygon could have a multi-way outer ring *and* a multi-way inner ring. It is of course true that a mapper will normally use as little ways as possible - it doesn't generally make sense to split a 50-node inner ring into multiple parts. If you do it, it is unnecessary, but not invalid. Bye Frederik Hi, yes, it IS possible to use splitted ways for a multipolygon. But on the other hand it is complicated for many users to edit this. (Maybe the editors are not perfect.) Second, I think (but not sure), live-rendering is much quicker without multipolygons, which only forms an area (i.e. by using highways). Masi ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
Am 06.06.2012, 14:07 Uhr, schrieb fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: IMOH the only problem I see is the key highway= . Why not changes this to junction=mini_roundabout and draw a circle with highway=primary/secondary... and add area=yes. A side affect would be that all minis will be rechecked. fly +1, Why use different keys for the same thing? If you want, area=yes can be implied to new junction=mini_roundabout. I say: +0 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Smooth shoulder intended for cycling
For me, it looks like a bicycle-lane. On first look with no sign, so i would tag it cycleway=lane + bicycle=yes (- no designated or official, because a OSM-cycleway is for me a way, that is made for cycling (with no implied access), access can be added with bicycle=*). But on second look [1], you can see a bicycle symbol, so it is: cycleway=lane + bicycle=designated [1] http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=30.605287,-86.950497spn=0.00253,0.002972t=kz=20 Masi Am 18.04.2012, 05:47 Uhr, schrieb Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: One regional mapper uses cycleway=shoulder for this, but I see that as sub-optimal, since it's primarily a shoulder, not a cycleway. It would be like putting cycleway=sidewalk whenever there's a smooth paved sidewalk. I quite like cycleway=shoulder. It describes exactly what's going on: the cycling infrastructure at this point isn't a marked lane (cycleway=lane), nor a segregated lane (cycleway=track), it's a sealed road shoulder. Could you elaborate on your objections? The real complication arises when there are shoulders of varying quality that are assessed (by cyclists) as being more or less suitable for cycling - leading to issues of subjectivity. At least the situation you describe appears objective: the surface was intended for cycling on. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What is this path surface called?
I would prefer surface=dirt, too. Maybe with smoothness=intermediate (or bad, if there are more/bigger treeroots). Am 26.02.2012, 19:28 Uhr, schrieb Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: On 2/26/2012 12:59 PM, Mike Valiant wrote: I think the tarp is a horticultural membrane designed to stop weeds growing up through the path. The mulch looks like debris that has fallen from the trees rather than anything applied deliberately. It's difficult to see from the photo, but it looks like the original path surface material was crushed stone. If true, surface=crushed_stone might be appropriate, though not widely used (4 instances). There are 33 instances of surface=unpaved:crushed_limestone in the database which is a pretty common surface on paths around where I live. Depends how specific you want to be? Those light spots are leaves, not crushed stone. It's all dirt and other natural materials. I could use surface=dirt, but the membrane presumably means that it won't turn muddy like a typical dirt path. If it helps at all, this is a swampy area (hence the boardwalk in the background). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - rail_trail
Hi, i now startet my proposal for RFC! It's about rail-trails (german: Bahntrassenradweg). This is a disused railway, which converted into a multiuse path, normaly for cycling, inlineskating or hiking. Link: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/rail_trail best regards MasiMaster P.S.: This is my first proposal, so please let me know, if i did anything wrong. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - rail_trail
Ok, i agree with most of you! highway=cycleway + railway=abandoned is good. Some people prefer highway=cycleway + railway=dismantled (see: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Railways#Abandoned_railways_where_all_evidence_has_been_removed) So should we change the proposal to these both cases!? (so we can pimp the wiki (Key:cycleway Key:railway)) Then we need a consensus about rendering in Mapnik! Ohh is see, the Osmarender plot both, cycleway abandoned railway: http://hikebikemap.de/?zoom=16lat=47.11665lon=-118.02014layers=000B0F And on OpenCycleMap, the routes (or ways with ref(?)) are highlighted: http://hikebikemap.de/?zoom=17lat=51.14368lon=7.28507layers=00B00F --- Am 30.01.2012, 15:05 Uhr, schrieb Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com: I like the idea to see ex-railway cycleways on the map. I also like to see cycle routes on the map, and I would like to see ex-railways on the map. I have my doubts whether the tagging of a cycleway as being on a n ex-railway should be done at the level of a key to the highway tag. If I understand your proposal correctly a typical tagging would look like this highway=path bicycle=designated foot=designated surface= xxx width= xxx ref= xxx rail_trail=yes I see several problems whit this approach: If the ex-railway continues, as it often happens on a piece of normal raod, not on a designated cycle path, would you add railtrail=yes to highway=secondary. If you don't do that the rendering will be interrupted. Then I do not see how you would instruct the routing algorithm to prefer the railtrail ways over other cycleways I only thought about cycleways, so if there is a section highway=secondary, there it makes no sence to tag it as a good railtrail. For routing it's no problem, because the railtrail is a bit shorter, so the routing-quality of the hole way (included the secondary) is only a bit more less. --- Am 30.01.2012, 14:51 Uhr, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: (plus any other tags). Ocassionally you might also want to add some of these: embankment=yes (de:Damm) cutting=yes (de:Einschnitt) tunnel bridge right, i can add this to the proposal page. --- Am 30.01.2012, 14:46 Uhr, schrieb Gleb Smirnoff gleb...@glebius.int.ru: I'll upload several fotos and link them to proposal page in next few days, as well as add couple of words to the proposal, if you don't mind. feel free, to add some information to the proposal page. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
