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

Dear all, I'm working with some roads in Central area in Hong Kong. Des Voeux Road Central is considered one of the most important roads in the area which I tagged it as highway=secondary, however another editor has repeatedly changed it to highway=service on the fact that that road is closed t

[Tagging] Minibus routes

Dear all, I'm looking for community consensus about minibus routes (public transport routes which are operated by light passenger vehicles of roughly 8 to 20 seats with no standing allowed in general). As of present, there are two kinds of tagging for minibus routes: A. route=minibus (~30 rout

[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - U-turn

Dear all, I have proposed a new feature - U-turn - to mark whether U-turning is legally allowed on the highway by introducing a new key u_turn = yes / no to be applied on highway=* . This is used for routing purpose, such that when U-turn is allowed, the router can instruct the driver to make

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

On Wednesday, 07 August 2019 19:26:57 HKT Paul Allen wrote: > Standard carto gives secondary, and higher, roads their own colours and > renders > tertiary roads wider than residential roads. This allows people to use > that most > primitive of routeing algorithms called "looking at the map." You

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

On Friday, 02 August 2019 21:32:15 HKT Markus wrote: > On Friday, August 2, 2019, yo paseopor wrote: > > The only negative point for public transport v2 scheme was the > > no-deprecation of the old scheme to avoid duplicities (surely was done > > this > > to don't uncomfort people) > > Salut i tra

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

On Sunday, 04 August 2019 23:06:47 HKT Paul Allen wrote: > On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 15:51, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > Where do you take this assumption from? I have never heard before that > > residential may not be used for through traffic? > > Many residential roads are cul-de-sacs. Dead ends. No

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

On Sunday, 04 August 2019 16:46:26 HKT Tomas Straupis wrote: > 2019-08-04, sk, 11:32 Florian Lohoff rašė: > > For me unclassified is the same as residential. <...> > > Ok, so unclassified vs residential is regionally defined, as I wrote. > > But what about service/track? > They are not publ

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

On Sunday, 04 August 2019 15:41:09 HKT Tomas Straupis wrote: > > Personally, I'd have put residential / living together above unclassified > > Interesting. Unclassified was always (more than 10 years) defined > for "through traffic" which puts it a higher in a hierarchy. From what > I understand

Re: [Tagging] consensus needed: officially a town but visibly distinct settlements?

On Sunday 19 August 2018 10:07:46 HKT Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > I am most certainly not a local!, but going by > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curonian_Spit, it certainly doesn't appear to > be one "settlement"? Well, officially, The northern half is a "city" municipality (apart from Smiltynė w

Re: [Tagging] consensus needed: officially a town but visibly distinct settlements?

On Sunday 19 August 2018 10:07:46 HKT Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > On 19 August 2018 at 04:59, Yves wrote: > > Who cares if the presence of a post office is the criterum to be a > > 'village' for a 200 people place if it's the only inhabited place 100km > > around? > > This is a problem we encoun

Re: [Tagging] consensus needed: officially a town but visibly distinct settlements?

On Saturday 18 August 2018 22:10:15 HKT José G Moya Y. wrote: > Plwase take into notice that, in some countries, the difference between > suburb, hamlet, town or village is not only based on population but in > political issues, such as self-government, also. > > When I see my hometown is defined

[Tagging] consensus needed: officially a town but visibly distinct settlements?

Dear all, I visited the whole Curonian Spit last month (the whole 100 km from Zelenogradsk to Smiltynė) and made some edits on it according to observations from my eye. These edits got reverted on the basis that I have "no local knowledge" (I made the edits completely on observations - "If it l

Re: [Tagging] public transport through service

On Saturday 23 June 2018 01:56:00 HKT Paul Johnson wrote: > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 10:36 Michael Tsang wrote: > > My problem is "How should we tag a public transport through > > service route?" > > What's the use case? Better interchange for OSM to GTFS syn

[Tagging] public transport through service

I have raised this topic two years ago but it seems that there is no community consensus here. My problem is "How should we tag a public transport through service route?" In my city there are the following cases: 1. A simple circular route where a passenger can normally stay on board through t

Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

There are some bus routes in my region where the bus needs to reverse into a narrow road even with passengers aboard, and more frequently in case of minibuses, for example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3174915 [https://www.openstreetmap.org/assets/osm_logo_256-cde84d7490f0863c7a0b0d0

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - hail and ride

s to board/alight at designated places where the vehicle does not stop if no request is made. Regards, Michael Tsang -- Sent from KMail signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap

[Tagging] minibus routes

Dear all, Is there a generally accepted way to tag minibus routes? What I mean is that, the routes are not part of the standard bus route network, operated with fixed routing, and use light vehicles (less than 20 passengers). I am tagging those routes currently with type=route route=minibus, bu

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - hail and ride

On Thursday 04 May 2017 11:58:39 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Maybe the description can be more explicit regarding the stops. Are there > any kind of stops or signs, or can you ask the bus to stop anywhere on the > route on these segments? Around here there are a lot of "request stops" in > the co

Re: [Tagging] mandatory restriction with via way as members

On Thursday 04 May 2017 11:44:18 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2017-05-04 6:34 GMT+02:00 Michael Tsang : > > I remapped those parts, but in order to prevent routing engines from > > turning > > illegally, I had to add a lot of restrictions onto the road, including the > &g

Re: [Tagging] mandatory restriction with via way as members

On Tuesday 02 May 2017 11:25:10 Tobias Wrede wrote: > I would understand it the same way. To be a little bit more concrete: If > you come from the northbound Gloucester Rd via the nothern loop (way > 46615969) onto Victoria Park Rd (way 46615970 and onward) you must > continue on the northern bit

[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - hail and ride

Dear all, I have made a proposal for “hail and ride” public transport routes: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hail_and_ride >From Wikipedia: Hail and ride is boarding or alighting a mode of public transport by signalling the driver or conductor that one wishes to board or

Re: [Tagging] mandatory restriction with via way as members

Apr 13, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Michael Tsang mailto:mikl...@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear all, I have created a restriction (mandatory route) where if vehicles coming from way must go through a section of a trunk route before leaving it. Assume that an only_straight_on relation has been created with f

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Bus Bay

Dear all, The bus bay proposal now enters voting stage: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bus_bay#Comments Michael -- Sent from KMail ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagg

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - extended voting - through service

Dear all, As there are not enough votes for the proposal, the voting period is extended: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/through_service Michael -- Sent from KMail ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists

[Tagging] mandatory restriction with via way as members

Dear all, I have created a restriction (mandatory route) where if vehicles coming from way must go through a section of a trunk route before leaving it. Assume that an only_straight_on relation has been created with from A-C, via C-K-E (C-K-E is a single way but K is connected to D and J) and t

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bus bay

On Thursday 06 April 2017 21:42:15 Tobias Knerr wrote: > On 06.04.2017 19:40, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > why do you define this as a node? bus_bay=right or left does not make > > sense on a node, and bus bays have a certain length anyway, I'd make it > > a way. > > It should not be a separate

Re: [Tagging] Tagging 'advance' turn restrictions

On Thursday 06 April 2017 00:29:49 Tom Pfeifer wrote: > On 05.04.2017 23:19, Warin wrote: > > Where the solid lines start have a separate way for each lane > > Do _not_. Separate ways are used when the roads are physically separated, > not when a white line is painted. Lane mapping would get you r

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bus bay

Dear all, I have made a proposal of bus bay: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bus_bay#Tagging A bus bay must be a bay outside the main carriageway (not included in lane count) and not physically separated. It does not matter whether a bus stop is placed at the bus bay or n

[Tagging] highway=primary/secondary/tertiary - tag according to quality or usage?

Dear all, There are some highways which the quality isn't up to the usage, resulting in congestion. Those highways connects high-quality motorway/trunk/primary highways together for long distance traffic, but they only have a single lane per direction, with lots of traffic lights, junctions, dr

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - flight route

On Monday 28 November 2016 12:47:41 Tom Pfeifer wrote: > > Platforms, a.k.a. Gates, can already be mapped. Which flight they serve > changes every day, this is neither mappable nor verifyable nor maintainable. Sorry, aren't aeroplane routes, like bus routes, use fixed stop positions and platform

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - flight route

s Lacombe fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com www.infos-reseaux.com<http://www.infos-reseaux.com> @<http://www.twitter.com/InfosReseaux>InfosReseaux<http://www.twitter.com/InfosReseaux> 2016-11-22 15:41 GMT+01:00 Michael Tsang mailto:mikl...@gmail.com>@gmail.com<mailto:mikl...@gma

Re: [Tagging] railway=rail vs. railway=subway

> I don't follow this. light rail is about the cars being lighter and > perhaps the rails being built to a lower weight limit, and it isn't > about grade crossings. Around me there is real rail with fll-sized > enginers and is fully freight capable that has level crossings. > Definteliy not light

Re: [Tagging] amenity=taxi on highway

On Wednesday 23 November 2016 14:08:14 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2016-11-22 16:43 GMT+01:00 Michael Tsang : > > Dear all, > > > > amenity=taxi is defined as a place where taxis wait for passengers. Does > > that > > mean it should be placed on a highway where

Re: [Tagging] railway=rail vs. railway=subway

On Tuesday 22 November 2016 19:10:39 Bill Ricker wrote: > > Oh really. Boston MBTA green line is a subway line that extends onto > surface streets. Not full rail gauge iirc (though other lines are) and > neither surface or tunnel curves could handle freight cars. The surface > trolley portions tha

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Through service

Dear all, The proposal public transport "through service" is open for voting: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/through_service Michael -- Sent from KMail ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstree

[Tagging] amenity=taxi on highway

Dear all, amenity=taxi is defined as a place where taxis wait for passengers. Does that mean it should be placed on a highway where taxis can access? Michael -- Sent from KMail ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstr

Re: [Tagging] railway=rail vs. railway=subway

On Tuesday 22 November 2016 11:28:00 jc86035 wrote: > Should a commuter rail system with rapid transit frequency but main > line-standard tracks be tagged as railway=subway or railway=rail? > > In Hong Kong, the MTR metro system has an "urban" set of DC 1432mm-gauge > lines, and another set of AC

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - flight route

Dear all, I have proposed an extension to the public transport schema to include flights. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/flight_route Basically the flight route is mapped just like ferry routes in my proposal. Michael -- Sent from KMail

[Tagging] Light rail station tagging

Dear all, I tagged the public_transport=stop_position's on the light rail network in my region with railway=tram_stop, because the wiki mentions that "Insert a node with railway=tram_stop and name=* on the tram track (railway=tram) at the position where the stop is located." However, the light

Re: [Tagging] stop area hierarchy

On Tuesday 15 November 2016 19:50:14 Tijmen Stam wrote: > > Whoa, that's quite different from how I interpret the stop_area. For > example, for a "normal" bus stop, this would include 4 nodes (or 2 nodes > and 2 ways): a platform and a stop_position for each direction. In Hong Kong, we always con

[Tagging] stop area hierarchy

Dear all, The wiki page of public_transport=stop_area includes a sentence "For larger interchanges it is often appropriate to organise stop areas into a hierarchy. Heathrow Airport would for example consist of 5 terminals, a coach station and two underground stations with many associated facil

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of Country Names

On Tuesday 25 October 2016 17:02:05 Sven Geggus wrote: > Hello, > > in our localized German map style we try to render Country names in German > with local name in parenthesis. > > This works fine for a lot of countries. An example would be Thailand: > Thailand (ประเทศไทย) > > or (more readable

[Tagging] Abusing name tags on type=route

Dear all, According to the talk page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Public_Transport#name_as_.22prose_description.22.3F), the use of name=* key on a public transport route is considered an abuse (unless the route has a real name). However, without abusing the name t

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Through service

On Saturday 17 September 2016 12:13:49 Michael Reichert wrote: > Hi Michael, > > Am 2016-09-14 um 05:10 schrieb Michael Tsang: > > RFC: Through service > > > > This proposes a kind of relation to associate different public transport > > services to become a throu

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Through service

RFC: Through service This proposes a kind of relation to associate different public transport services to become a through service, i.e. the vehicles run through the services sequentially, allowing passengers staying on board. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/through_servi

Re: [Tagging] Public transport routes with multiple reference numbers

On Tuesday 13 September 2016 09:32:19 Jo wrote: > As far as I'm concerned these are 2 separate route relations. It doesn't > really matter passengers can remain seated. When something changes like the > ref number it's a different route for the organisers. I would expect it's > also shown different

Re: [Tagging] Public transport routes with multiple reference numbers

On Friday 05 August 2016 02:15:35 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 3. There is a service, due to operational reasons, identified by two > > different numbers. However, the two different numbers are used in > > different segment of the service, but in fact, they belongs to the same > > service (i.e.

Re: [Tagging] Minibus routes

On Wednesday 07 September 2016 23:51:12 Éric Gillet wrote: > If there are platforms (marks on the ground, pole or shelter) made for > waiting, entering and leaving the vehicle, they should be mapped as > nodes/ways. > > In the case such platforms are used for minibuses, I think they are > standar

[Tagging] Minibus routes

Dear all, Minibuses have fixed route but not fixed stops (i.e. you can catch it anywhere along the route). When I map those routes, should I put in the platforms and route without putting in any stop position? Michael -- Sent from KMail ___ Tagging

[Tagging] bus route with reversing

Hi all, I am mapping bus routes in my city. There is a route where the buses need reversing in order to enter the bus terminus. Is there a "standard" role in the route relation which denotes that the bus is to reverse through that segment of the road? Michael -- Sent from KMail _

[Tagging] Bus bays

Dear all, What is the commonly-used practice to denote if there is a bus bay at a public_transport=stop_position and bus=yes? On two-way streets, how do you denote which direction of buses is the bus bay for? Michael -- Sent from KMail ___ Tagging m

Re: [Tagging] Öpnvkarte (was: Disused bus stops)

On Thursday 18 August 2016 09:25:14 Tijmen Stam wrote: > > P.S. Anyone knows what's wrong with openbusmap.org? Updates usually > appear within 5 minutes, but now have been lacking for 3 days. > It seems to be frozen since 16 August according to my records Michael -- Sent from KMail

[Tagging] Disused bus stops

Dear all, Should I place public_transport=platform on disused bus stops where no buses serve, but the infrastructure is still in place? What if the stop_position is marked on the ground, but no corresponding platform next to the highway? Michael -- Sent from KMail

[Tagging] Public transport routes with multiple reference numbers

Dear all, How should I fill in the ref=* tag for public transport routes with multiple reference numbers, in each of the following cases? 1. There is a service identified by three different numbers, while in fact the three numbers belong to the same service with completely no differences. This

Re: [Tagging] bus networks in Hong Kong

On Tuesday 02 August 2016 16:30:02 Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote: > To me, `operator` is the company that drives the bus (say, "Bus drivers > Ltd") whereas `network` targets the global entity/company/consortium for > the group of lines. > > Generally speaking, a ticket bought on a network could be us

Re: [Tagging] bus networks in Hong Kong

On Monday 01 August 2016 23:55:56 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > sent from a phone > > > Il giorno 01 ago 2016, alle ore 17:51, Michael Tsang > > ha scritto: > > > > What should I type in for the network=* tag for the bus routes such that > > it is least sur

[Tagging] bus networks in Hong Kong

Hi all, I have trouble filling the network=* key on bus routes in Hong Kong. According to the wiki page, "On route relations[1] for bus, railway, and tram service routes[2], this key indicates the bus system, if applicable. There is currently no consensus whether the values should be abbrevia

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - learner driver

Voting for learner driver proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/learner_driver Michael -- Sent from KMail ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - learner driver

On Wednesday 29 June 2016 16:55:08 jeffrey.rho...@geogr.uni-giessen.de wrote: > > So even countries that have some kind of learner license don't necessarily > have any restrictions on roads concerning them, hence I think the tag as a > general tag would be problematic, since it could cause confusi

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - learner driver

On Tuesday 28 June 2016 14:59:18 Colin Smale wrote: > It's not a question of common sense, it's a question of law... Countries and > states may differ, but they will all have a default plus a way of > indicating any exceptions. In OSM we tend to omit values that are default; > however there is alwa

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - learner driver

On Tuesday 28 June 2016 04:12:37 Paul Johnson wrote: > > I can see this as potentially useful, except for one part: > > For values, see access =*. > > > The default is learner_driver > > =yes >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - learner driver

> Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 01:12:35 -0700 > From: mark+...@carnildo.com > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - learner driver > > On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 00:00:13 +0800 > Michael Tsang wrote: > > >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - learner driver

Greg Troxel wrote: > Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> writes: > > On 6/24/2016 2:00 AM, Michael Tsang wrote: > >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/learner_driver > >> > >> The proposed feature *learner driver* is to tag the legal access

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - learner driver

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/learner_driver The proposed feature learner driver is to tag the legal access of a highway by a vehicle driven by a learner driver. It is similar to Key:access#Transport mode restrictions for tagging the legal access by transport mode. Sent