Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks
On 7/14/2017 8:14 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: but merge sidewalk with the road where the is no space/barier between them. and that's were the discussion starts. When I asked when one has to draw a separate sidewalk a few weeks ago on this mailing list someone answered: as soon as there is a kerb. Similarly, I have been combining sidewalks with roads where there is no separation. But when there is a small grass separation from the roadway, they are drawn separately. For those cases, it is usually allowed to cross the grassy separation and the road to get to the opposite sidewalk. Throwing out the R word here - what about a relation that defines which disconnected ways could be walked to or across from any point on a current way? That would also include the road since there would be no barrier. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] railway=level_crossing with in-street trams?
On 4/8/2017 10:31 AM, Tristan Anderson wrote: Where a tram line shares a right-of-way with the street, that is, where I can drive my car down the tracks, no crossing tag is necessary as the whole street is one big level crossing. Where it's separate, railway=level_crossing should be used. There is no need to specify a tram crossing as this is implied by the way the highway is crossing. Agreed that there is no need to specially mark the street parallel to the tracks. But at cross streets, there is still an intersection that could be meaningful. And even though it is implied by the highway crossing, the intersection can still be called out explicitly for routers to save them a processing step - for example, an intersection between a railway and foot path can be detected, but even so it is standard convention to mark as railway=crossing ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] railway=level_crossing with in-street trams?
On 4/4/2017 4:42 PM, Jo wrote: Any suggestions for a tag? Or leave those crossings untagged? It's quite obvious from the geometry there is a crossing and quite logical that it's level. It would be convenient for data consumers to have the crossing explicitly tagged without having to examine the crossing street to find the correct rule. The first thing that comes to mind is railway=tram_crossing, but there's the fuzziness that comes with light_rail. Another solution is to add a modifier railway:crossing=tram since it's not level and to avoid conflict with crossing=* or railway=crossing ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] railway=level_crossing with in-street trams?
On 4/4/2017 4:42 PM, Jo wrote: OK, then we'll take all of them away in Brussels, where I did this extensively. The problem is that OsmAnd is constantly warning for railway crossings now, so that is annoying. That sounds like a data consumer problem - option or never to warn if crossing is tram or light-rail. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] railway=level_crossing with in-street trams?
On 4/4/2017 3:37 PM, Michal Fabík wrote: I think Albert Pundt was asking about cases like this section of tram tracks here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/154321049. Should it be mapped with two level crossings where it intersects with the northbound lanes of the Friedrichstrasse and the southeast-bound lane(s) of the Oranienburger Strasse? A vehicle traveling either of those streets would indeed see that as a crossing - it does actually cross paths with the tram track. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] railway=level_crossing with in-street trams?
On 4/4/2017 1:42 PM, Albert Pundt wrote: For trams/trolleys running along a street, is it necessary to have railway=level_crossing at every cross street? It seems strange considering that the entire street is one big level crossing. That was a question I had also, but looked at some places in Europe, as well as finding that some localities have the crossing "X" painted on some of the intersecting streets with trams. I'll agree that it is of limited usefulness compared to normal rail crossings, and as well the OSM model of "street as centerline" doesn't model the actual crossing well in some cases. In the US, I had already removed the remaining tram / light rail crossing tasks from the MapRoulette rail crossing several weeks ago because the remaining intersections seemed to be edge cases. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] shop=estate_agent and office=estate_agent
On 12/7/2016 5:48 PM, LeTopographeFou wrote: Several years after this debate, the wiki page of the approved one (shop=estate_agent) have been tagged as "to be merged", both shop and office are documented and here are the statistics: I would also lean toward office= because it describes the situation much better. I had used shop= earlier, but already migrated my own tags. After all, you don't walk into one of these locations to buy an estate_agent. Like all things in OSM, I'm not sure how to migrate to a new consensus of office= ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Abusing name tags on type=route
On 9/18/2016 11:28 AM, Craig Wallace wrote: use the "note" key Or the "description" key, if it is something that may be useful for the end user, ie displaying in an app. Neither note nor description display when browsing an OSM changeset. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Abusing name tags on type=route
On 9/18/2016 1:11 AM, Michael Tsang wrote: 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 tag, the life is difficult for both the mapper and the user. I proceed with the 'abuse'. It's one thing to argue that editors should be smart enough to fall back to other means of identification, but then there's still the array of tools used in the rest of the OSM world. In my case, I monitor the changesets in my area. I completely missed that a bunch of bus routes had been munged by an edit that combined road segments that included the bus routes (with no warning from the editor). The transport relations appeared as an anonymous list of relation numbers. So, while it may be semantically wrong to assign a name, I'm not convinced that it harms the data. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=track on areas?
On 8/4/2016 1:42 AM, Daniel Koć wrote:
but it appears we don't know how should we treat leisure=track: is it a
linear object or maybe kind of area? Infobox in wiki article says one
thing ("lines only"), but the body of this article shows this is not
that easy.
I've done some of this also, because the result looked the way I wanted
it to. I don't consider this as incorrect tagging for the renderer,
just "Version 1.0" tagging.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal for standardization of sidewalk schema (+ import)
On 8/2/2016 5:39 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: But mapping sidewalks as individual geometries puts considerable burden on the mappers who want to work with the data in an editor. I haven't seen individual geometries to be a burden here where I and another mapper have gravitated from sidewalk=left/right/both to separate ways. This has happened in areas with and without marked crossings. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal for standardization of sidewalk schema (+ import)
On 8/2/2016 9:45 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: legally you can't cross anywhere you like but have to use crossings as long as they are in proximity. Practically you can cross anywhere you want where traffic density is not too high. Conceptually, we need a way for mappers to record the level of difficulty of crossing without a crosswalk. The choice is easy when there is a pedestrian barrier, but becomes much harder when trying to characterize traffic levels and speed in combination with road width. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Turn Lane Tagging?
On 6/11/2016 12:00 PM, Johan C wrote: I completely agree with Marc. Using none as a value in case no turn indication is present is valid, using || isn't. See the values of the turn:lanes key on this page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn:lanes for reference. And I just realized that the editors may have interpreted the word 'none' as nothing/blank (no text required). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Turn Lane Tagging?
On 6/11/2016 12:00 PM, Johan C wrote: I completely agree with Marc. Using none as a value in case no turn indication is present is valid, using || isn't. See the values of the turn:lanes key on this page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn:lanes for reference. Thanks for the confirmation - I thought I had missed something. I'll comment directly on the relevant changesets now. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Turn Lane Tagging?
This is on the way http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316565385 On 6/10/2016 5:18 PM, Rubén López Mendoza wrote: Hey Mikel, can you send the exact place where did you find the change? We are working fixing the invalid turn lanes. Thanks, Ruben 2016-06-10 16:00 GMT-05:00 Mike N <nice...@att.net <mailto:nice...@att.net>>: I'm seeing a number of turn lane tagging fixes referencing http://osmlab.github.io/to-fix/#/admin/invalidturnlanes and making fixes such as before: lanes=4 oneway=yes turn:lanes =left|through|through;right after: lanes=4 oneway=yes left||| The wiki at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn:lanes doesn't seem to match. Is this new, and where is it documented? Thanks, ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] README tag with editor support
On 6/11/2015 6:17 PM, David wrote: Perhaps more emphasis is needed on good manners when editing existing data too. I believe these are mostly honest mistakes with good intentions. If someone traces imagery or works a fixup challenge while watching TV, 99.99% of edits might be to verify and match to the imagery. The .001% is something that takes awareness and a more detailed look to properly resolve. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Estate agent
On 5/17/2015 1:26 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: it looks like since 2010 there is no consensus about how to tag estate agent - shop vs. office. Quick look at taginfo gives clear information, that office=estate_agent is much more popular. you seem to assume that these are about the same thing but to me it seems that's two different kind of places. Both tags make sense in different contexts The history as I remember it was that shop= was the first version of estate_agent. After office= was 'invented', that became a much more natural place to put it, and I think I migrated all of my entries over. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed tag shop=wholesale
On 5/9/2015 6:46 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: do you need the membership for access or to buy something? Membership is required for both access or to buy something ... except for the Pharmacy. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to model sidewalks, crossings and kerbs with respect to routing applications?
On 5/7/2015 11:57 AM, Stefan Hahmann wrote: My current favourite would be either solution 3 (which is easiest to implement in current routing engines) or solution 1 (for the sake of actual correct modeling). Maybe there are even more (better?) solutions? I tend to migrate toward solution 1 in urban environments. It takes additional work, but in the end, it seems that routing applications have the richest and most accurate set of data to work with. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Turn lane tagging
On 5/19/2014 3:34 PM, Tod Fitch wrote: For what it is worth, I've attempted to tag the intersections athttp://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/37.42584/-122.19230 andhttp://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/37.42432/-122.19177 per the wiki but don't know if I've done it correctly. Thanks to the excellent suggestion from Marc Gemis to use JOSM's Lane Road Attributes style[1], I took a quick look. One of them is questionable: the style sensed some possible extra unspecified lanes: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/282937698 lanes=5, and turn:lanes:forward covers 5 lanes, but oneway=yes has not been specified. So it should either be oneway, or there are some additional lanes in the other direction - possibly a lanes:forward and lanes:backward specification. [1] https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Styles/Lane_and_Road_Attributes ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Center Turn Lane Tagging?
The only reference to a likely center turn lane tagging I can find is lanes:both_ways= , with a count of only 605 occurrences. Since there are over 22000 turn:lanes:forward , is the center turn lane generally untagged, or is there a better tag than lanes:both_ways? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Key:contact - Misleading Infobox?
On 6/16/2014 5:08 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I think still more people are using phone without the contact: prefix, (now it is 347k vs. 63k), and this relation will probably not change. More importantly, to those who actually care about a data consumer using their POI: I'm not aware of any consumers that use the contact:phone version. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
On 4/10/2014 12:10 PM, Yves wrote: I guess the problem arises from tagging dead-ends in a geo database. QA tools should keep there false positives for themself, not in OSM, don't you think? Except that I don't use QA tools when editing data. But often as I create something that ends suspiciously near another object, I can flag it as correct to the QA tools at creation time. Also there may be multiple QA tools. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?
On 4/10/2014 10:59 AM, Pieren wrote: But we don't have problems with the tag on the way ! It's true that the wiki has to document the best practices but it should not fordid practices that are not wrong, harmfull, unclear or ambiguous ! I regret the time when people worked with a more open mind in this project. I agree that noexit on ways might not be harmful, but for those new mappers who see the Wiki and then think that they have to analyze the connectivity and identify all ways without an exit in order to create a truly useful map. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] noexit
On 12/3/2013 8:48 AM, André Pirard wrote: I doubt very much that this tags helps anybody or any quality-check program to understand anything. A note should suffice, and I think the best option would be to remove that confusing tag. It is a signal to quality checking programs such as KeepRight. It shows that when a way ends near another way but doesn't connect, that there is no physical connection on the ground. For your example, the usage is not correct because there is a track connected to the road. Possibly the track was added later and the mapper did not notice the noexit tag on the road. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
On 10/11/2013 7:17 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: A normal dedicated cycleway doesn't allow you to push your bicycle because pedestrians aren't allowed there I'm not familiar with dedicated cycleways - if you have a breakdown and can't repair, is it required that you walk to the nearest roadway and back home via the roadway instead of the cycleway? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
On 10/10/2013 1:55 PM, Jonathan wrote: The only way to tag the effect that the sign has is to change the access tag to exclude bicycles. What about hints to the router that it's OK to send cyclists on this route instead of taking a longer route? Knowing that speed = walking speed + time to mount/dismount allows it to make a decision when to take a longer fully rideable route VS dismounting. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
On 10/10/2013 2:13 PM, fly wrote: What about hints to the router that it's OK to send cyclists on this route instead of taking a longer route? Knowing that speed = walking speed + time to mount/dismount allows it to make a decision when to take a longer fully rideable route VS dismounting. And why do you need bicycle=dismount for this ? Think the width of the footpath is much more important. Nope, the width of the path is the same - the only difference is the side rails and the bicyclists must dismount sign. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways
On 10/7/2013 12:27 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: bicycle=no indicates that you cannot (legally) ride your bicycle there. If you dismount and push you become a pedestrian, so you are not riding a bicycle and bicycle=no has no effect on you. There are wilderness trails where no wheels are allowed. When campers move through the area with a bicycle, they must pack the bicycle on their back along with their supplies. I will say that bicycle=dismount is useful for routing instructions, which give explicit dismount instructions. Sure this is tagging for the router, but what better way to convey this to map data consumers? For example http://trip.greenvilleopenmap.info/opentripplanner-webapp/index.html#/submitfromPlace=34.841472,-82.394065toPlace=34.843872,-82.400352mode=BICYCLEmin=TRIANGLEtriangleTimeFactor=0triangleSlopeFactor=0triangleSafetyFactor=1maxWalkDistance=4828walkSpeed=1.341time=12:32pmdate=10/7/2013arriveBy=falseitinID=1wheelchair=preferredRoutes=unpreferredRoutes=bannedRoutes= ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus
On 9/18/2013 5:48 AM, Pieren wrote: An additional WHERE statement can solve issues for the renderers but they may fail to help other data consumers. It's been my experience that data consumers don't go deep in general to untangle tagging chaos. No one goes after that leisure=slipway entity tagged as highway=boat_ramp . My personal approach is just double and triple tag to cover all bases. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Childcare Tag
On 7/9/2013 5:42 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote: Because some people like voting. Some people like bureaucracy, and rules of order, and all that, and so we have one for them. And some people like the idea that someone might eventually be able to consume the tags in a useful application. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Photo links in OSM
On 6/11/2013 4:18 PM, Richard Welty wrote: i'm not sure that flickr links to jpgs are particularly stable, you may want to consider that in your documentation of a flickr link. flickr links these days look like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nfgusedautoparts/8596790653/ and while you can dig up a direct link to a jpg, it looks like this: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8366/8596790653_06bb215baf_k_d.jpg and i'm just not persuaded that flickr will honor this as a permanent link. I can find the direct link by: More Ways To share / HTML/BBCode, then extract the image link: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8366/8596790653_4a803cf407.jpg Flickr's official terms of service try to discourage direct links to images. So they might break them in the future. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] railway=abandoned + highway=cycleway
On 4/18/2013 11:22 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: 2) Two ways, not sharing nodes Advantages: - keep information separate, retain everything about the train line Disadvantages: - messy for editing, rendering I would tend to keep it separate. Ideally, once it is a cycleway, it is a cycleway, and no longer an abandoned rail line. However I have learned that the abandoned rail lines should not be removed - they magically regrow, so I allow them to remain as they go through hillsides which have long been bulldozed down and through blocks of buildings which have long since replaced the railway. Kept separate, perhaps eventually the abandoned railways can be placed in a yet-to-be implemented historical database. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] exit_to on motorway_junction
On 11/20/2012 3:43 PM, Johan C wrote: 1. does the tag exit_to=* on a motorway_junction in your opinion have the same meaning as the tag name=* on that motorway_junction? No -They are different. 2. if your answer to the first question is no, than what is the difference? Some motorways in the US have formal names assigned to exits, some are informal - the exit is always referred to by a name on the traffic report for example. This is distinct from the destinations on the sign. The Pennsylvania Turnpike has formal exit names - for example http://www.paturnpike.com/ConstructionProjects/mp199to202/images/exit_sign.jpg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] exit_to on motorway_junction
4. is it clear for you when to use exit_to and when to use destination? Yes: Don't use exit_to anymore Where was everyone a year or 2 ago when exit_to came into being? Count| Tag 22 516 |exit_to On 11/18/2012 3:59 PM, Philip Barnes wrote: Thats the point I am making, the most useful instruction a satnav can give is leave the motorway a junction 4, or words to that effect. There is nothing more recognisable than the junction number. In the US, some junctions don't have a ref, so a useful instruction from the sat nav Take the exit to US4 / South Bay. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Extended tagging schema - my thoughts
On 8/10/2012 11:33 AM, Richard Welty wrote: the problem is that there are many data consumers. we don't have control over the schedule/responsiveness of their supporters (nor should we). for any incompatible change like this one, there will be a period where a non-trivial number of data consumers are broken. To use an illustrative example with this tag, it was a major uphill fight to get data consumers to recognize maxspeed in mph. There are still maxspeed consumers who don't recognize mph. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Data redundancy with ref tag on ways vs relations
On 8/1/2012 2:51 PM, Peter Wendorff wrote: Bing I think provided the imagery, but I don't think we really got much mappers through bing. Apart from the news we got due to that in the press, I don't even believe many bing users REALIZE that they use an open project where they could contribute. Bing does not yet use OSM for any of its map products. I see the Bing imagery donation as a strategic possibility for them to use OSM in the future when it is as useful as Navteq overall, with the added benefit of insane detail in some locations that competes well against Google. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] contact:phone or phone to combine with amenity=telephone
On 4/26/2012 8:51 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Can we use the taginfo stats to revert the change made the 2nd may 2010 where phone has been replaced by contact:phone and add a big deprecate notice on the contact: namespace wiki ? (overall, we still have 10 times more phone than contact:phone, 20 times more website than contact:website, etc) +1 from me, but I know there are other mappers opposing this and trying to push the contact: prefix. I agree with those wanting the 'contact:' format that it is unambiguous and might be easier to use and analyze, but since no data consumers use it (that I know of), 'phone' is preferred.I know of several data consumers on mobile apps that use 'phone'. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Custom mailboxes
On 2/20/2012 10:53 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Would it be reasonable to map custom personal mailboxes that are essentially public art (e.g. in the shape of a manatee)? Or is this going a bit too far? I would say that it depends - if the mailbox is truly custom, and not just a mass produced novelty mailbox, that it would qualify as artwork, just as much as any other artwork. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] When should a name:* translation be used?
On 1/30/2012 1:14 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: The question is how far we go. Should every Main Street be translated into hundreds of languages? Well, for Orange County FL, one could make the case that it serves tourists, since many visitors come from around the world. But the question of every place being translated into every language is still valid. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Rd -- Road
On 12/29/2011 12:53 PM, Richard Welty wrote: i saw some failures of a script run over Nevada Iowa last year (not necessarily the script you're referring to): http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.02091lon=-93.44698zoom=15layers=M the script had converted E Ave to East Avenue, N Ave to North Avenue and S Ave to South Avenue, all of which were errors (Nevada avenue names are single letters.) This was not the referenced 'expand' script, which in my opinion *should* be run on the rest of the US. Unlike the rest of OSM work, handcrafted name expansion adds no value to the map database. There are errors - if I were to ever armchair-edit E Ave, I would almost certainly expand it to East Avenue, whereas the script has logic to prevent that error. Another argument against manual expansion is that it is not unheard of for newbies to come in behind and undo all expansion with abbreviations because that's what they are used to seeing on other maps - more wasted work. But I realize that current project opinion does not support automatic expansion. The best I can hope for is a JOSM plugin that automatically expands current edits or all ways in the current dataset download. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: shop=pastry
On 11/27/2011 11:19 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: I am not aware of any that sell cake only, and not other kinds of dessert. http://www.chocomoosebakery.com/ is probably very close: cake plus one or two additional items. Instead of shop=pastry, I would say shop=bakery bakery=pastry, because then the bakery rules work, for data consumers that don't know/care about pastry. +1 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Imports] Bus data for Fairfax Connector, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
On 8/27/2011 3:09 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: Skip the name for a bus stop. If rendered it would create clutter. I'd say the opposite; the stop name is very useful to anyone using the Public Transport JOSM plugin to check and organize stops so that stops can be recognized, rather than just working with a column of anonymous stops. It also assists riders following a printed set of directions.The name doesn't currently render on Mapnik or Osmarender. The only caution to assigning a name is that GTFS discourages making up names for stops that haven't been given formal names. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Imports] Bus data for Fairfax Connector, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
On 8/27/2011 8:43 PM, Josh Doe wrote: The only caution to assigning a name is that GTFS discourages making up names for stops that haven't been given formal names. Where can I find this recommendation? All I see in the spec is: stop_name - Required. The stop_name field contains the name of a stop or station. Please use a name that people will understand in the local and tourist vernacular. Oops - my bad; mixing up projects. So assigning a name would be very useful. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations (was directions)
On 8/9/2011 10:44 AM, Serge Wroclawski wrote: Relations make the map hard to work with. Agree - one of the barriers to entry by new mappers is the complexity. We need to do everything possible to keep it simple and usable. And not just by creating ever-more-complex models and updating all the editors to keep pace. 3rd party companies create fancy tools and see that it's a good idea to have it inter-operate with OSM data, until it's time to dive into relations: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=13377 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Entrance and exit roads for parking lots: `service=?`
On 8/7/2011 4:17 PM, Gioele Barabucci wrote: I found some instances of driveway leading to a parking lot and similar sentences. Is is OK, from a linguistic point of view, to identify these roads as driveways? I agree that having the parking lot entrance tagged as parking_aisle is not quite correct. For me, the linguistics of service=driveway works fine for parking lot entrances. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] service=drive-through or drive_through?
On 7/4/2011 12:14 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: OK, I think we have provided ample arguments for both sides. Only three of us have debated this point in the last few hours and I'd really like to hear other people's thoughts on this so that we can gauge if there's a consensus for whatever. I think it would be good to set a guideline for future tag creation. That guideline should reflect existing tags, which the consumers can already recognize and can process without crashing. It might look like: all lowercase no spaces replace spaces with underscores hyphens allowed In the case of the existing drive-through / drive_through, it is just a token, and the actual value doesn't matter (so say the readers of 160-some other languages). It is worth choosing a single tag based on existing convention - what is already tagged, editor presets, rendering, etc. I realize the last sentence won't clear up the argument, but that's my opinion. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] service=drive-through or drive_through?
On 6/29/2011 8:46 AM, SomeoneElse wrote: That's irrelevant; you're still changing data across the planet. I don't see these edits as out of line or unusual. It's not so different from the dozens of other projects to create more unified tags so that data consumers have a chance of using the right tag. Data consumers still need to know if the data is changing beneath their feet, though. There's no standard way to notify data consumers, other than perhaps OWL or some sort of history tracking. The alternative to this edit would be that data consumers miss a bunch of tags due to the ambiguity. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] service=drive-through or drive_through?
On 6/29/2011 9:31 AM, Jonathan Bennett wrote: On 29/06/2011 14:19, Mike N wrote: I don't see these edits as out of line or unusual. It's not so different from the dozens of other projects to create more unified tags so that data consumers have a chance of using the right tag. I suspect the tags you're talking about in other projects don't have quite the same significance as they do in OSM. Can you give us an example of what you mean? xybot for example. I see bulk-changing one tag to another in this way as being equivalent to changing a method name in an open source library without changing its functionality, just to make the name nicer. Anyone using that method in their code will get a compilation error all of a sudden, but nothing has actually improved in the library. You break some people's use of the data without having a net benefit. Which data consumers actually used this tag, and did they use the Wiki form, the last tagging list discussion, Editor Presets, or just invent their own idea of how to consume it? To put it another way, if the edits could be done using a simple algorithm, they haven't added anything to the OSM data itself, since that algorithm could be applied as post-processing. It's just rearranging deck chairs. This is an argument that tags should never be unified, but somehow a colossal document that lists every possible alternate tag be created. Data consumers would also need to implement such a document in code. On the other hand, an established tag that is clearly widely used by data consumers must not be changed without the agreement of data consumers. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] website=*url* vs. contact:website=*url*
On 5/12/2011 4:52 PM, Flaimo wrote: the numbers you list are like that because, as i mentioned before, most use the presets for tagging. if the presets would be changed to use the contact: prefix, the situation would be exactly the contrary in two years. so we should list advantages and disadvantages of a namespace and think about if it might make sense to group them under contact: in the future by modifying the presets. existing tag could easily be changed to the namespace (or the other way around) by a simple one time batch job in the databas There's another factor - there are now map data consumers, and I can tell from experience that they all use 'phone=', not 'contact:phone=' for example. Changing data consumers is much more difficult than just the Wiki and editor presets. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] convention for multiple maxspeed values
On 4/26/2011 8:06 AM, Richard Welty wrote: for reference purposes, this changed sometime last summer, so Dominik used to be right. The xx mph format has been there ever since I remember (2009). There was a mini edit war with someone trying to deprecate the xx mph format and make all editors add interfaces to support a single format. I guess that explains the extreme reluctance for map data consumers to recognize the mph format. To me as a layman, I don't see xx mph as a difficult parse for map data consumers. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Sports_centre, gym, dojo
On 4/8/2011 4:05 PM, Brad Neuhauser wrote: What you refer to as gym sounds like what I'd call a health club or fitness club. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_club Is it supposed to be tagged as sports centre? The wiki description makes me think a sports centre is a pretty large structure, whereas there are some pretty small health club locations. I agree that a fitness club/center doesn't fit well as a sports centre - which I would visualize as having multiple types of facilities for competitive and/or community social purposes. I also think that Fitness center is the best overall category name; xxx club has negative or exclusive connotations in the US because of restrictive, scammy, or 1-sided contracts. Regarding dojos, is there something that could apply more generally than dojo (which seems to usually be used for martial arts)? For example, there is a fencing club near me, or what about a small aerobics or yoga studio? I run across the small sport fencing / aerobics / yoga / pilates types of facilities frequently. It would seem that leisure=pitch sport=yoga/pilates/areobic_dance/fence... could be fit as a stretch. Otherwise it would equally fit as leisure=fitness_centre sport=yoga/pilates/areobic_dance/fence/mixed... Or leisure=fitness_centre weight_machines=yes aerobics=yes yoga=yes pilates=yes fencing=yes ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
On 3/21/2011 3:50 PM, Chris Hill wrote: There are, never have been and probably never will be official tags. Anyone can use any tag at any time for any purpose. It follows that there are no unofficial tags either. No disagreement, but the motivation for at least some measure of agreement on a tag convention is to 1.) Allow users of map data to be able to use it without needing to download and statistically analyze and guess about 30 GB of tags in world map data. 2.) Some people would like for their mapping work to have a purpose rather than just to have typed a set of made-up sequences of letters into some geo location. It's not so much a policing action and rule enforcement, as it is a wish to have as complete and useful set of map data as possible. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Thoughts on how to replace or modify an exist/established tag (Was: Feature Proposal - RFC - sluice_gate)
2) Post to the talk list asking for feedback/discussion 3) About 2 weeks after the last discussion/modifications to the proposal you post a vote request to both the tagging and the talk lists It would be nice to have a list that map data consumers could subscribe to that we could poll to verify that they are or are not using a tag, or get clarification on how they are using a tag. (Just what we needanother blankin' list!) But for tags with presets, etc, the process is very drawn out, as Steve mentioned. I'm trying to get a minor tag update on one editor - no accompanying style sheet update. A single line change, and 2 1/2 months later it is still several months away from implementation. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag a (main) entrance to a large feature?
I don't know if it's legal to park here and walk around the gate into the park, but assume for the sake of argument that it is. How do we tell the router to instead use the main entrance to the south? In this case, the way in the photo can be properly tagged as a service/driveway and /or track to help direct routers to another entrance. I recently found this exact situation where hordes of lost park-goers coming from the north were directed to the back gate which is permanently locked. I was able to tag the back entrance as service/driveway because the gate is never open and the only normal access is for the ranger - even though I think the road is still named as Lake Road in the official county records (which I cannot access). http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=41.85594mlon=-89.9528zoom=15layers=M I had also reported the problem to Google and interestingly enough they corrected the problem similarly.Bing still sends southbound people to the back entrance. I can still see problems where there are multiple entrances, the closed entrance is also a paved road but has a gate that never opens. For that case, the non public entrances should be marked as access=private or something similar. I'm a bit confused as to the best way to mark an entrance - the description of barrier=entrance doesn't match the case of an Entrance gate where the gate is both a barrier and an official entrance. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag a (main) entrance to a large feature?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/entrance That however doesn't help in a case where a public road cuts through the park. How do we indicate that a specific entrance road is the correct one to use to enter the park by car if you want to spend time walking in the park? Better than than barrier=entrance, I think entrance= is a better tag: for a park, this would be main or visitor, although some parks have multiple visitor entrances. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
please no new highway, path/footway is already a very controversial tag. Yes, and it could become a little clearer when there is different tags for a 3 m wide and paved path and a 0.3 m wide and unpaved and unmaintained path. We have x road classes and just one for ways that are not roads (given that footway, cycleway and bridleway are all synonyms of highway=path designated=foo, dedicated=foo, official=foo, etc.). I don't say stuff can't be expressed currently, but it would make the life of mappers, renderers, routers much easier if there was a way to put out the difference. I would still say that the current highway=path handles this very well. I've never felt constrained by this tag with the common attributes. You can provide direction to renderers by adding surface=, width=, sac_scale, mtb:scale . If current renderers do not interpret *scale, surface, or numerical width - this is a renderer problem. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] amenity=ice_cream: approved?
(By the way, nobody seems to have brought up the existence of frozen yogurt places and whether these fit into the new tag.) Or Smoothie / Fruit Smoothie -only places. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoothie ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Re-organizing food things?
Why changing an old and widely used amenity=restaurant+cuisine ? +1 Although I agree that the current amenity=restaurant, fast_food...etc. is a bit awkward, it is nearly unthinkable that it should be changed because of the number of people who are already using and rendering the data. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Street names
When tagging a street name and it seems that the street signs are incorrect - all businesses on that street use the alternate spelling as their street address - which name to use? Using the 'Correct name is confusing when navigating to the street because the street sign won't exactly match the street you're being directed onto. Using the name on the sign would result in no match when searching for the street. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one touse?
Aren't relations easily editable? But wait, you wouldn't actually have to edit it! The first mapper to create the way or to add a house number would create the relation, which, admittedly, may be a slightly harder task In JOSM with the address interpolation plugin, the associated street relation management process is transparent if chosen by the user. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Another tagging attribute for park benches?
amenity=bench http://web.orange.co.uk/article/quirkies/New_benches_are_a_pain_in_the New tag attributes toll=yes spikes=yes to go with - color= material= backrest=yes/no seats= ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging for streets with sharrows?
But it's not effectively the same thing. If it were, sharrows wouldn't have ever been invented. Now, Steve (and Mike), what's wrong (if anything) with bicycle=designated; sharrow=yes? Considering - bicycle=yes - not useful; generally implied bicycle=yes can be derived from type of highway= and region of the world. cycleway=shared_lane, does not describe the situation because existing convention treats the cycleway as a separate lane I'm leaning that way: highway= + bicycle=designated is similar to the existing highway=path + bicycle=designated case. sharrow=yes might be useful to know how it's signed. That also raises the question of how to tag differences between opposite sides of the road; bicycle:left=designated bicycle:right=designated ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Tagging for streets with sharrows?
There are a number of local streets being converted from 4-lane to 2 lanes + center turn + sharrows. http://bikehugger.com/2006/12/whats-a-sharrow.html What is the best way to tag these - they were discussed briefly in the recent shoulder, etc thread, but I can't find any consensus. I found the proposed cycleway=shared_lane , which seems to be as good a solution as any. Comments? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Half-side turning circle?
It is not a separate cul-de-sac; it is just considered part of the same street. I would run a way to the center of the radius, add the turning circle, and give it the same tags as the street. Although that segment is very short, it reflects the street layout. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] emergency=*
I don't understand this argument. Doesn't every tag change anywhere break every editor/renderer/search/data user whether or not you think it is correct? John has just as much right to go change all the amenity= tags to something more specific as you do to keep them the same. Data consumers of all kinds need to accept both kinds of changes. Every Smartphone OSM data consumer I've looked at has been unusable because of tagging interpretation. Compared to OSM, data consumers seem to be very inflexible and unaware of any but the most rigid tag schemes that haven't changed in the past year. In other words, about 30% of mapping labor goes to waste because it's impossible for consumers to keep up. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] office=*
I'm confused because I was thinking that tags on Map_Features page were all approved tags.. Sometimes even approved tags are not useful. I tagged a large number of approved contact:phone= , but found that OSM map data consumers I looked at all used the *disapproved* tag phone=. Tagwatch shows more phone= than contact:phone=. Practicality overrules at the end of the day. Luckily for JOSM to make things easy, I did a mass change to the disapproved phone=. I've never understood the process either. I started several shop= proposals which have been superseded by office= equivalents. I don't see anything wrong with the office= tag, but some of the entries could use some additional information. - Should I just put a redirect to office= on the proposal pages? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Builders' Merchants - Timber Merchant
On 24 June 2010 21:43, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote: Does yard have the wrong connotations in the US? Residential garden? Yes, there is the residential lawn context, but Lumber yard is common, but that's the only retail-related usage I can think of off the top of my head. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] ref tags and reference routes
so should a reference route designation that isn't on a sign go in a ref tag or not? the wiki doesn't discuss this. if ref shouldn't have this, perhaps a variant on ref is needed? I would say no - because the ref tag can generate route shields. I would be very confused if the county road numbers began popping up as route shields. It would fit better under a separate tag, but I don't have any suggestion on a tag variant. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What do we map
Personally, I find the graphics a bit 'in your face' but the panning zooming is still good. When extras are added to online maps I find the slipperiness is compromised. Could you elaborate on the compromised slipperiness part? For me, in Firefox, the zoom control doesn't work, but I hope to fix that. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What's a power=station?
I'm not advocating using the directory instead of amenity=cafe or amenity=fuel or whatever. But in the long term, the ideal solution would probably be to allow that directory type information to be maintained separately, in a more convenient form than a 2D map. Particularly since while addresses are relatively fixed, their contents changes. (Around here, it seems that every time I walk down the main street, there are cafés I haven't noticed before - some tenancies last less than six months). And some kind of solution like that is needed to cope with multi-storey blocks of offices anyway, I think. I agree that a separate solution would be best for multi-storey offices. A tradeoff with a separate solution is that frequently I want to map a POI or something, but getting an actual street address that could be used for directory linking is difficult. Numbers are faded, damaged, or non-existent.Today, I just place the POI / shop at the geographic location, then move on. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What's a power=station?
Instead: Would it be more effective to store POI's in an open directory (i.e. indexed by address), rather than in the OSM database (i.e. indexed by lat/long)? I think it's an interesting question. I'm not convinced. The original argument was that it is easier to update when the business moves - you just change the address. I'd argue the opposite; when a new business opens in place of the previous business, you only need to update the business name / type. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Using relations to group highways
As for the shields this is deviating from the topic at hand but for it the shield can be derived from the lookup table on the wiki and then extra preprossesing in osm2pgsql to assign a shield based on admin polygons + info from the lookup table What is the advantage in separating the shields from their associated features in the DB? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Comparison of tag support: Mapnik, Osmarender, Potlatch, JOSM, Kosmos, Map Features (wiki)
No. openstreetmap.org is not intended to become the better Google Maps. openstreetmap.org is a showcase for what you can do with our data. It cannot, and will not, host every map that someone could possibly want made from our data. Our data is there for the taking - you want OpenShopMap, create OpenShopMap. Unlike some who only work with XML and wireframe, I actually refer to Mapnik and Osmarender as a quick way to double check my work. And it is very unintuitive to see a large blank space which contains shop=department_store. Even for a pure street map, shops may be useful - many people navigate from a paper map by following landmarks - Turn right at the SuperWalMart , not Turn right by the big unlabeled building which could be a store, factory, school, civic center. I would be happy to see shop=* added to Mapnik, even if the name takes the lowest priority for available space. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Comparison of tag support: Mapnik, Osmarender, Potlatch, JOSM, Kosmos, Map Features (wiki)
The rendering rules doesn't matter a lot in this regard. It only displays a cycleway with a certain color, thickness and such - so it can be recognized as a cycleway. What the mapper wants to describe with highway=cycleway and what a map user understands out of this is basically out of the scope of the map display. One case that isn't handled cleanly today is where a multiuse trail is blazed with a specific color. The renderer could show this in a generic manner (path / foot/ cycle). Or a renderer could use a color suggestion so that the rendered color matches the trail blaze.So I'm adding a direct rendering suggestion to the OSM data, but it's based on local observation. Today, I create a relation type=route color=#x route=foot - I see variations on color / colour route=foot doesn't fit multiuse, so I add bicycle=yes to the relation. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Solving the tag chaos (was: Re: Government buildings)
http://tags.bigtincan.com/ I can visualize what is needed to make it work as it should, but am short on time to be able to start on this for now. From: Steve Bennett Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 8:07 AM To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: [Tagging] Solving the tag chaos (was: Re: Government buildings) On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote: The tagging reference procedure is definitely grown beyond easy usage.An interactive tagging reference resource like the John Smith's demo site from a short time ago is on the top of my most wanted list. What's the URL for that? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
- bicycle=no - you are not allowed to ride a bike - bicycle=prohibited - the presence of bikes is not allowed - bicycle=folded_only - you can have a folded bike I would hope this covers most cases. There is the odd case of fragile and protected nature trails which connect 2 mountain bike trails. For that case, the only rule is no rolling tires on trail , and bikers carry the bikes on their shoulder, but not folded. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] shared driveways
On Saturday 21 November 2009 16:24:23 Anthony wrote: I don't understand what was meant by These are also role=access in the relation. What relation? A relation of type=site probably. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site It would be good to update the Wiki for common and logical roles for this relation: access / entrance perimeter I didn't know whether to just add them to the Wiki because it's still in proposal stage, or if it was a good idea. Thanks, ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag un-named roundabout?
You seem a bit unclear. Do you mean name as in name=The Cyril Smith Roundabout or highway=trunk etc? I was referring to whether the name= tag is required. Thanks for the answers, the consensus is that it is not required for roundabouts with no name. If the former, not all have a name, which is fine in OSM, but if the latter, then every way needs a highway tag. I would tag it as the most major road that you have. Do they have Ref's? I have the roundabouts tagged with residential / unclassified to match the feeder roads.They don't have any refs. Regards, Mike ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag un-named roundabout?
Not sure. It's a guess. Changing the highway category to road might disable the check in KeepRight. highway=road is like leaving an implied FIXME=yes tag, according to the wiki. I'd prefer the nonname=yes workaround, if any. I mentioned KeepRight, but it turns out that KeepRight and the Validator plugin now allow a roundabout without a name. The CloudMade 'red highlight' maps do call out unnamed roundabouts. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Estimated Housenumber interpolation
I believe there are many uses for an extension of the address interpolation concept to data and surveys of less than 100% accuracy. - Survey of streets of new construction where the endpoints are known, but not all houses are yet present. - Survey of streets of new construction where the endpoints are not known, but a possible range can be estimated. - Use of US TIGER data to indicate all possible addresses on a block; useful for routing to the nearest block where no survey has been done. - Survey of established communities where house numbers are missing or damaged beyond recognition. This is often coupled with irregular numbering in which it isn't known if a house lot size = 1 or lot size = 2 (takes one numbering slot or two). Since a survey was done, the house could still be accurately Geo-located without the mapper knowing the actual number. The question is how to tag these.I've seen something like addr:inclusion=actual- Exact survey; the traditional meaning of the Karlsruhe Numbering Schema addr:inclusion=estimate - The address interpolation way may contain numbers that don't actually physically exist. A survey has been performed, and Geo-location would be very close. addr:inclusion=potential - The complete range of all possible address numbers on a block, although there may not physically be enough room on the block for that range of house numbers.From US TIGER for example. Geo-location would only be as near as one block. There are more accurate English terms, but they are very verbose. Any other ideas. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Housenumber interpolation with regularlyskippednumbers
TIGER obfuscates the data by declaring the entire numbering range of a zone: for example a 400 block / Even containing houses 404 through 420 would be declared as range Even / 400-498 in TIGER. For navigation purposes, that gets you to within one block of an address. Maybe they do it for obfuscation, but that has the additional advantage of being able to locate an approximate address when house #422 (or #402) gets added to the block. Of course, we don't have to be quite as dumb as Tiger. We could always use three blocks, 400-404/Even, 404-420/Even, and 420-498/Even. Why use 3 blocks?If a cursory survey shows that 404 and 420 are physically the endpoints of a block, why not use a single way? Even if 420 is not the physical endpoint, why not a single way? It's not quite the same idea, though. The Karlsruhe Schema maps actual addresses, at the house location. The Tiger Schema (for lack of a better name) maps potential address ranges, at the street location. They both have their uses: If a house is located far away from the actual street, you would certainly want to use something like the Karlsruhe Schema. If you have no idea where the house is (or is going to be) located other than its relation to a street, you would want to use the Tiger Schema. Arbitrarily sticking a way some distance to the right or left of a highway, in order to coax street-level data into a house-level schema, would be inappropriate. What is a house number after all, if not street-level data? The house number has no meaning to the physical building if not attached to a street. I still perceive the Tiger Schema as a variation on the Karlsruhe Schema - the only difference is the estimated accuracy. And that's just the easy case, when you're not trying to combine data from both schemas on the same block (I'm not sure that any of these have been mapped yet, but imagine a rural area with lots of houses near the road, some houses far off the road in flag lots with long driveways, and some houses both on and off the road in various stages of development and not yet assigned addresses; or try to combine actual addresses and potential addresses on a road in a retail area with lots of strip malls with individually addressed stores; or a road with lots of apartment complexes/condos with individually addressed apartments/condos). I would never use the Karlsruhe Schema ways to determine a house/building location. There can be many good reasons to use address interpolation when the building location is unknown - no aerial photographs, blurred or obstructed aerial photos, new construction, etc. Now imagine if they were asked to check the address relation: Go into edit mode, check the way the arrows point on your street, inspect the left / right roles to be sure that the house numbering is correct. For clarification, the direction for the purposes of right/left would be determined by the start and end node, not the direction of the way. The way could be reversed without breaking anything (and not all the ways have to even go the same direction). Now I'm confused. Unless the street is one-way, the only way to find the start and end node is to go into edit mode. Streets can be oriented in any direction, so left/right is often not useful for physical representation on the map. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
