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

2020-09-02 Thread Mike Thompson
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 4:52 AM Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 at 21:33, Mike Thompson  wrote:
> > In specifying access constraints for the roads it manages, the US Forest
> service makes a distinction between ATVs, highway vehicles, and "OHVs >
> 50"."
> > The first two categories correspond to the tags motorcar=* and atv=* I
> think, but I have not been able to find an existing tag that corresponds to
> "OHVs > 50"."  There is an ohv=* tag, but it seems to apply to all OHVs
> regardless of width as well as motorcycles.
>
> Have you looked at conditional access restrictions:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions ?
>
> If ohv=* is understood as an access tag (though it doesn't appear at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access ), then you could e.g.
> do something like ohv = no + ohv:conditional = yes @ (width > 50") to
> allow OHVs only if they are wider than 50".
>
A variation on that might work:
if OHV > 50" is not allowed => ohv = yes + ohv:conditional = no @ (width >
50")
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2020-09-02 Thread Mike Thompson
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 6:03 PM brad  wrote:

> For your example, I would just tag it as motor_vehicle=yes.From what
> I've seen, If OHV's >50" are legal, pretty much any motor vehicle is
> legal.
>
Actually, I think I have found some examples in the MVUM (motor vehicle use
map) file from the USFS where that might not be the case.

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


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

2020-09-01 Thread Mike Thompson
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:46 PM Kevin Broderick 
wrote:

> More likely than prohibiting bikes, the USFS could allow
> non-street-registered OHVs over 50" on a trail, but keep it closed to
> normal street-registered vehicles;
>
Not sure if I have ever seen that, but we would still need a way of
expressing that.


> in some states, there may also be implications regarding the requirement
> to have the vehicle registered as an OHV, regardless of whether or not it
> has a street plate.
>
Correct, you may have to have a "tag" for your OHV, even if you don't have
a license for it (at least not the type you get for your regular highway
legal vehicle). In fact, many of these vehicles cannot be licensed for
highway use as the modifications that have been done to them render them
non highway legal.


> I'm not sure that we need a separate access tag, though: is there any case
> where the USFS (or another land manager) allows only those OHVs over 50"?
>
I am not sure.  I have seen cases where they only allow motorcycles, only
allow motorcycles and ATVs (less than 50 inches), only allow legal licensed
highway vehicles, and only allow legal licensed highway vehicles and
motorcycles ("no ATVs").


> In most cases, I think either maxwidth= or atv:maxwidth= would be
> appropriate, when the question is a max-width of 50", no?
>
Maybe.  So under this system, if the FS says ATV=yes, OHV_gt_50in=no, in
OSM we would tag atv=yes, maxwidth=1.27 (I think that is the metric
equivalent).
Mike
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2020-09-01 Thread Mike Thompson
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:28 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 1. Sep 2020, at 22:33, Mike Thompson  wrote:
> >
> > OHVs > 50
>
>
> is there also an upper limit?

No legal upper limit that I am aware of. In practicality, the wider (and
longer) a vehicle is, the more difficult it is to use it to travel on 4wd
roads. There is also the practical limitation that these things have to be
trailered to the area where they are going to be used since they are not
highway legal, and there are limits to the width of a trailer you can have
on public highways.

50” are 127 cm, so that’s to say wider than a motorcycle?
>
Yes.  And, by the FS' classification, wider than an "ATV"


> Is the question whether “off highway vehicle” would merit its own subclass
> for access?
>
ATVs, and motorcycles that are not licensed for highway use are "off
highway vehicles" too according to the FS (if I am understanding the
regulations correctly).

So my question is,  is there an existing tag, or combination of tags, that
would represent this information? If not, what would be an appropriate new
tag?

Mike


>
> 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] OHV greater than 50 inches (wide)

2020-09-01 Thread Mike Thompson
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 2:47 PM John Willis via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> I would say that is a “motor_vehecle”
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:motor_vehicle
>
Sure, it is a motor_vehicle, but it is just a subset of motor vehicles, so
I don't think that tag would be appropriate.  For example it is possible
that the FS would say that a given road is open to OHVs >50", but not
motorcycles, but the tag motor_vehicle=yes implies motorcycle=yes.

Mike

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


[Tagging] OHV greater than 50 inches (wide)

2020-09-01 Thread Mike Thompson
In specifying access constraints for the roads it manages, the US Forest
service makes a distinction between ATVs, highway vehicles, and "OHVs >
50"."
The first two categories correspond to the tags motorcar=* and atv=* I
think, but I have not been able to find an existing tag that corresponds to
"OHVs > 50"."  There is an ohv=* tag, but it seems to apply to all OHVs
regardless of width as well as motorcycles.

What do you recommend?

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


Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

2020-08-05 Thread Mike Thompson
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 2:59 PM Tod Fitch  wrote:

> My reading of the wiki [1] indicates that the more specific tag overrides
> the less specific tag.
>
So,
access=yes
foot=yes

would then be redundant.  I don't have an example, but I have seen that too.



> And the transport mode section [2] of that has examples very much like
> those in your question.
>
> So:
> access=no
> foot=yes
>
> Means that all access other than foot is prohibited.
>
> And:
> access=yes
> bicycle=no
>
> Means you can walk, drive or ride a horse, etc. but you can’t bicycle.
>
Makes sense, as long as that is what the consensus is.

However, access=yes is a pretty broad statement.  There may be modes of
transport not yet contemplated (or which the mapper, and even the land
manager is not aware of) which in the future will be prohibited.


> For what its worth, I just had a question along this same line for a trail
> in a local wilderness park that I edited a year or so ago. All I did was
> split the way and keep the existing tagging (which I agreed with). But
> apparently the Strava app had a problem with the tagging (access=no,
> foot=designated, bicycle=designated), so I guess my reading of the wiki
> doesn’t match all data consumers implementations.
>
Even the default renderer treats it different if access=no, and one or more
other modes =yes.  Not that we should tag for the renderer, but it
indicates that perhaps the maintainers of the default rendering style may
not (yet) have incorporated this understanding.

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


[Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

2020-08-05 Thread Mike Thompson
Hello,

If:
access=no
foot=yes

Does this mean that all access except foot travel is prohibited, or is it
an error?

If:
access=yes
bicycle=no

Does this mean that all access except bicycle travel is allowed, or is an
error?

Here is one example of the first case:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/834296397

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


Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-27 Thread Mike Thompson
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 5:38 PM brad  wrote:

>
>
>
> I'm in central Colorado, & around here, I agree, tracktype is not
> useful, the tracks here are mostly solid, grade 2 or 3, but could be a
> high clearance, or 4wd road due to rocks and ledges.
> However, smoothness could, and should be rendered.   The old maps
> usually distinguished between
> improved - smoothness=bad or better than bad
> high clearance - smoothness=very_bad (the wiki specifically mentions
> high clearance for this tag)
> 4wd - smoothness=horrible
>
I am in northern Colorado, and I generally agree. If I have been on, or at
least seen a road directly (not just in overhead imagery), I try to add a
smoothness tag.

However, I think some mappers who may not be familiar with the mountains
may assume that all unpaved roads are not suitable for regular passenger
vehicles, which is not the case. It may not be a comfortable experience,
but you can drive your Honda Civic (e.g.) on some pretty rough roads
without getting stuck or doing damage to it.


> In my area an almost bigger issue is that a lot of roads shown on OSM,
> and on the county GIS, are actually private and closed.

Yes, this is a problem I have encountered while exploring in the mountains,
both on foot and while driving. Even official FS data doesn't always
correctly show this information.

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


Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-27 Thread Mike Thompson
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 5:07 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 2:56 PM Rob Savoye  wrote:
>
>> On 7/27/20 1:04 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> >> highway=track appears to be incorrect here (but maybe still correct
>> >> if it is leading to only vacation huts)
>> >> these would be highway=service not track.
>>
>>   I assume if the highway has no name, it'd be highway=service, but if
>> it has a county name, like "Lost Gulch Road" too, wouldn't it then be
>> highway=residential? Is there a difference if it's vacation cabins, or
>> seasonal or full-time houses ?
>>
>
> I don't think so.  The typical named forest service road isn't typically
> better or worse than the unnamed ones that only go by their ref.
>
I consider the fact that a road has a name as a "hint" that it might not be
a track, but it shouldn't provide a definitive answer. There are named
tracks around here (Colorado, US), especially if they are popular with 4x4
folks, ATV'ers, mountain bikers, etc.  The real test is whether it leads to
facilities that are occupied by humans on a more or less full time on-going
basis.  Full time residences (or occupied a significant part of the year)
=residential, on going business where employees, customers, etc. visit
daily =service.

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


Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

2020-07-23 Thread Mike Thompson
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 2:34 PM Matthew Woehlke 
wrote:
>

>
> ...but then your horse is a passenger in a vehicle. Otherwise that would
> be like saying a human can't ride in a vehicle if foot=no.
Exactly, foot=no doesn't mean that feet are not allowed, it means that
using a mode of transportation that primarily uses feet  ("foot
travel"/walking/running/hiking) isn't allowed.
bicycle=no is consistent with this, it doesn't mean that bicycles are
prohibited, it means that a mode of transportation, (bicycle riding) is
prohibited.
horse=no is apparently a  little different as you point out.  It seems to
refer not just to a mode of transportation, but to the possession of the
animal in general.  It is similar to dog=no. dog=no doesn't refer to
whether you can use a dog as a mode of transportation, it means you can't
possess a dog at all on the given way (even if you carry it).


>
> For similar reasons, I would assume that a way that allows vehicles but
> not pushed bicycles allows a bicycle *in* a vehicle.
Right, because it is no longer the mode of transportation.

> FWIW, I'm sympathetic to the "no means no" camp and just declaring that
> if you really meant "dismount", *fix it*.
well, "no does mean no", it means "no bicycle riding", it means, no using a
bicycle as a mode of transportation. It doesn't say anything about
possessing a bicycle in general, or using it in another manner (pushing,
carrying)
"dismount" is not the complete solution, because, as the original question
implied, sometimes it is also illegal to carry a bicycle (although I have
never seen that), and as someone else pointed out, sometimes it is illegal
to even possess a bicycle at all, such as in a US Wilderness Area.

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


Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

2020-07-23 Thread Mike Thompson
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 1:36 PM Jmapb  wrote:
> As I see it, having bicycle=no imply permission to push a dismounted
bicycle violates the principle of least surprise because it's inconsistent
with other *=no access tags. I wouldn't presume I could push my car along a
motor_vehicle=no way, or dismount my horse and lead it along a horse=no way.
bicycle=no is a strict "no", it is just that it means "no bicycling" or "no
bicycle riding."  Perhaps it is unfortunate that for modes of
transportation we picked nouns rather than verbs (e.g. foot vs. walking),
but that is what it is by long tradition.  A similar thing applies to
horse=no.  There are roads (some of the US Interstates) where you can not
ride your horse, but you can load your horse into a trailer, hook the
trailer up to your truck, and drive with your horse on those same roads.

I suggest that if what is prohibited is pushing the bicycle, then we make
an explicit tag for that bicycle_pushing=no. The same with regards to
carrying the bicycle. If possession is prohibited all together, then
bicycle_possession=no.

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


Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

2020-07-23 Thread Mike Thompson
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 3:31 AM Alan Mackie  wrote:
>
> Do we have any tagging for areas where e.g. open alcohol containers are
prohibited,  where firearms are specially prohibited* or disallows
possession of a recording device or camera? A separate 'specific item
banned' tag is starting to sound like it would avoid further muddying the
transport mode tags.
These are a very similar situation to the one regarding bicycles that we
are discussing because we have to differentiate between possession of the
item (and how exactly it is possessed - e.g. open vs. concealed carry, vs.
locked in trunk of vehicle of a firearm), and using the item (discharging
the firearm, consuming the alcohol).  For example, it is legal in many US
National Parks to carry a loaded firearm, but in most cases it is illegal
to discharge it while in the park.

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


Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

2020-07-22 Thread Mike Thompson
bicycle_possession=no

similar pattern could be used for other prohibited items (vs. mode of
transportation), e.g.
alcohol_posession=no
firearm_possession=no

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 12:34 PM Mark Wagner  wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 11:29:17 +0200
> Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>
> > And we would have to define what „bicycle“ means.
> >
> > Are these bicycles?
> > 1.
> >
> https://www.picclickimg.com/00/s/ODAwWDgwMA==/z/F-8AAOSwstJZXeV2/$_12.JPG
> >
> > 2.
> > http://img0.biker-boarder.de/detail_oxp1/g13_edge_raw.jpg
> >
> > 3.
> > http://www.unicyclist.com/filedata/fetch?id=2476281
> >
> > 4.
> >
> https://photos.netjuggler.net/monocycle-kris-holm-24p/grande/Monocycle-Kris-Holm-24-pouces-isis1.jpg
>
> In a US Wilderness Area, 3 and 4 are definitely prohibited, as is bkil's
> folding bicycle.  2 is probably okay, as long as neither you nor any
> other member of your party are in possession of any of the other parts.
>  1 is clearly okay.
>
> --
> Mark
>
> ___
> 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] network tag on route relations

2020-07-12 Thread Mike Thompson
On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 4:18 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
> Disambiguation.  US:FS:Hood and US:FS:Ozark are two different national
forest service networks with entirely different numbering schemes.  Plus
network=CA by itself would be Canada, not California, which is US:CA...
Paul, do you have a list of accepted abbreviations for our various National
Forests in the US?  Is it on the wiki?

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


Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

2020-07-12 Thread Mike Thompson
On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 4:08 PM Peter Elderson  wrote:
>
> Well, recreational routes and networks simply are not that organized, and
jurisdiction or authority doesn't apply to most of them. I guess that is
why the values are more generic.
In the US a significant percentage of the  trails are organized and have
some jurisdiction or authority which apply to them. For example, all of the
official numbered trails/roads in our National Forests, trails in our
National Parks (plus trails on land managed by a number of other Federal
agencies that manage and maintain trails), trails in our State Parks (and
state forests, state wildlife areas, etc.), trails in our county/city
parks/natural areas/open spaces (some counties and cities have also banded
together to form "park districts").
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

2020-07-12 Thread Mike Thompson
On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 4:53 PM Robert Skedgell  wrote:
>

>
> Starting with UK presents another problem for consistency, as it's not
> an ISO 3166-1-alpha-2 country code, just the abbreviated name of the
> country.
My mistake, should have been "GB"
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

2020-07-12 Thread Mike Thompson
On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 10:49 AM Robert Skedgell  wrote:

>
> The very short NCN route 425 in south-east London is network=ncn because
> it's a Sustrans route. THe scope of the route is very local, but the
> scope of the network is national. Without the network tag, how would a
> renderer or router determine whether it was an ncn, rcn or lcn? All
> three exist in Greater London.
I am not saying get rid of the network tag, I am saying we should be
consistent.  In the above case, if  network=UK (instead of network=ncn),
one would know it is national. First because the UK is a nation and there
is no smaller jurisdiction that follows "UK" in the tag, and because there
would be cycle routes all over the UK where network=UK.

Using this method, which seems to be in use for road routes, would allow us
to indicate the specific network which a route is part of, instead of just
the "scope" of the network.  So in the US, for a hiking route I could say
network=US:FS and everyone would know that it is a national network
operated by the US Forest Service. One might say that is what the
"operator" tag is for, but some agencies or jurisdictions operate multiple
networks, and this would be reflected in the network tag.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

2020-07-12 Thread Mike Thompson
On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 9:53 AM Peter Elderson  wrote:

> Aren't Interstate and US evident from the geographic extent as well?
>
Yes, that is my point, or at least it is evident with the current mapping
practice.  Road routes are not tagged (at least not according to the wiki)
with network=nrn/rrn/etc.  Whether a road network is national, or
otherwise, is evident for two reasons:
1) All the routes with the same network tag will be spread across some
geographic extent. So, one could see that there are routes all across the
US with "network=US:I" and could conclude that this is a national network.
2) By the network tag itself, for example, in the "network=US:I" tag, there
is no smaller jurisdiction indicated after US, so it must be a national
network.

If a hiking route was tagged with network=US:FS (Forest Servies) for
example, one could see that (if that practice was generally followed), that
there the Forest Service operates hiking routes all across the US (and not
anywhere else), and thus that such a network was national in scope.  And,
the scope would be evident from the network tag itself, as there is no
smaller jurisdiction following "US" in the network tag.

In anyevent, my main point is we should be consistent and treat all route
relations the same.  If it is desirable to explicitly know the scope, why
not have a "scope" tag, or leave the scope in the network tag, and have a
new tag for "specific_network" (or whatever folks want to call it).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


[Tagging] network tag on route relations

2020-07-12 Thread Mike Thompson
Hello,

According to the wiki[0], it seems that the network tag has different
meanings and possible values based upon if it is applied to a route
relation where route=road vs. route=bicycle/mtb/foot/etc.

If I am understanding this correctly, when route=road, network= the
specific network that the road is part of, for example, a US Interstate
would be US:I[2]

For bicycle/mtb/foot etc. it seems that the network tag indicates the scope
of the network, for example a nationwide network cycling network would
network=ncn[1]

1) Why can't the network tag have consistent meaning across all route
types? For a mapper, as well as a data user, this is confusing.
2) The scope of a cycling/walking/etc. network should be evident from the
geographic extent of its members, so isn't network=icn/ncn/etc. redundant?
In any event, if the specific network is specified, it will, in most cases,
also indicate the general scope.

Mike

[0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:network
[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:network#Bicycle.2C_hiking_and_other_recreational_routes
[2]https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:network#Hierarchical_format
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Path or track with many fallen trees

2020-06-26 Thread Mike Thompson
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 8:15 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:
>
>
>
> sent from a phone

> > On 26. Jun 2020, at 15:59, Mike Thompson  wrote:
> >
> > Trees have been there sometime by the looks of them, and are unlikely to
> be cleared. To the FS this track no longer exists (they have blocked its
> only junction with the larger network with a mount of earth), so they will
> not be removing the trees.  Way seems to get little traffic, even foot
> traffic.
>
>
> it’s up to your judgement, in my area if blocked with a mound this would
> not be a track anymore. You can decide whether keeping it for hikers (if
> legally and physically possible, i.e. highway=path) or putting it in decay
> state is more appropriate (e.g. abandoned:highway=track which will
> effectively  remove it from most maps). I would not completely delete it if
> it is still “mostly there”. Maybe an additional  “note” with some
> explanations for your fellow mappers could also be helpful
>
I think this is what I have basically done.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Path or track with many fallen trees

2020-06-26 Thread Mike Thompson
Thanks for all of the great suggestions. I have used many of them.

This is the way in question: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/819638979

Trees have been there sometime by the looks of them, and are unlikely to be
cleared. To the FS this track no longer exists (they have blocked its only
junction with the larger network with a mount of earth), so they will not
be removing the trees.  Way seems to get little traffic, even foot traffic.


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


[Tagging] Path or track with many fallen trees

2020-06-25 Thread Mike Thompson
Hello,

How would you recommend tagging a path or track that has many fallen trees
across it? There are too many to map each one with a node tagged
barrier=log.  Foot travel is legal, but physically difficult.  Horse and
bicycle travel are legal but probably physically impossible.  Motorized
travel is prohibited, and would probably be physically impossible anyway.

Thanks in advance for your input.

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


Re: [Tagging] How are protected_area (and national_park) boundaries determined?

2020-06-23 Thread Mike Thompson
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 4:48 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:
>
> when I write „protected area“, this often will have implications like you
may not construct buildings, you may not walk off roads and paths, you may
not pick plants (e.g. flowers) and mushrooms, log trees, hunt, light a
fire, etc., while otherwise in Germany you have generally the right to walk
on any „unused“ land in the open landscape (regardless of ownership), and
often the owners may not even fence their property (like woods) or forbid
entering their property, with the exception of young plantings, so
protected areas tend to have more restrictions for the visitors than the
rest of the country. In Scandinavian countries you even have the right to
go fishing or set up a fire or tent on someone else’s property, within
certain limits: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
Generally in a US National Forest (where the US Federal Government owns the
land) you are free to travel anywhere on foot.  You can camp (for a limited
time) anywhere as long as it is a certain distance away from waterways and
established roads. Although vehicles are legally required to stay on
designated numbered roads, this is often not enforced.  Hunting and fishing
are allowed as long as long as one has a license from the state, just like
almost anywhere else in the state (some states may allow landowners to hunt
on their own land without a license).  Camp fires are allowed unless there
is a ban due to dry conditions. You can cut and remove firewood with a
permit and after paying a small fee.  You can log trees if you have
purchased the rights to a particular stand of timber from the Federal
Government.  There are exceptions to all of the above, particularly in
areas that have become very popular with the public.

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


Re: [Tagging] How are protected_area (and national_park) boundaries determined?

2020-06-23 Thread Mike Thompson
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:40 AM Rob Savoye  wrote:
>
>
>   The rural area I live in is full of old mining claims, which are
> private property surrounded by public land.
Interesting.  I had always assumed that the land that a mining claim
covered continued to be owned by the Federal Government, but that the claim
holder had the right to extract minerals and hopefully an obligation to pay
the Federal Government some royalties if they were successful.

>   My nearby hamlet of <200 people is also surrounded by national forest.
> The forest is not "protected" at all, it's full of trails and jeep
> roads. A few of the larger ranchers have fencing, but it's a bit of a
> free for all elsewhere...
I know exactly what you are talking about, but apparently it is some
international standard that national forest like areas are called protected
areas and assigned a certain level of protection, even if in reality they
are less protected than if they were privately owned.

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


Re: [Tagging] How are protected_area (and national_park) boundaries determined?

2020-06-23 Thread Mike Thompson
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:21 AM Adam Franco  wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:40 AM Rob Savoye  wrote:
>>
>> [...] While I do use parcel maps on fire calls, adding all these
boundaries to OSM would be silly. I agree that mapping the outer boundary
is all that's needed.
>
>
> My main use of maps of National Forests is planning backcountry trips
that include dispersed camping. Knowing which parts are actually
owned/administered by the Forest Service is really important information. I
don't want to plan a whole trip only to discover when I hike in that my
ideal riverside camping destination is actually on a private inholding
posted with No Trespassing signs and that I'll need to hike a few more
hours to get back onto a FS-parcel where camping is allowed.
A similar situation happened to me recently, albeit with hiking rather than
camping.  I had intended to do a loop hike, but as I was nearing the
completion of the loop, just a mile from where I had parked, I encountered
a No Trespassing sign and had to turn around and retrace my steps adding
many miles to the hike.  On this particular day I didn't mind the extra
miles, but the situation could have been different.

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


Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

2020-06-10 Thread Mike Thompson
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 5:53 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>  here in Oz, "tracks" are almost always unpaved (grass or dirt / rock
surface) &
I think that is true in the US as well, but not everything that is wide
enough, and otherwise suited, for a 2-track vehicle and is unpaved is a
highway=track.

>they are frequently open for public recreational use by vehicle, not
"reserved for forestry or agricultural use"
I don't think anyone is saying that tracks can't have additional uses, just
that one of those uses has to be forestry, agriculture (and maybe mineral
extraction/energy).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

2020-06-10 Thread Mike Thompson
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 10:26 AM António Madeira 
wrote:
> If a motor vehicle can and uses the way, it's a track.

When you say "can use" do you mean both legally and physically, or only
physically?. If legally, do you mean just the general public? As someone
pointed out, law enforcement has access to almost everything via motor
vehicle.  Also, the land manager (e.g. parks and recreation department) has
access to almost all of their properties via motor vehicle.

Does this only apply to unpaved ways?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

2020-06-09 Thread Mike Thompson
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 4:13 PM Tod Fitch  wrote:

> In my rendering of hiking maps I currently have to look at 13 tags and
their values to make a decision if a “path” or “footway” might be what I
want to render. This is ridiculous. It is neither easy for the mapper nor
the renderer.
>
> On the motor vehicle side this would be the equivalent of saying all ways
intended for cars should be mapped as highway=road and we can distinguish
them by using surface, width, smoothness, maximum speed, etc.
My understand is that highway=primary/secondary/unclassified/etc. is based
on function.  It says nothing about the physical configuration, other than
it is suitable for a 2-track vehicle.  See my comment below about unpaved
roads in many parts of the world.

> The two major factions seem to be set in their ways: “It is only a track
if it is used for agriculture or forestry” on one side. “It has the same
physical characteristics as a track, so it is a track even if it is
currently used for hiking, bicycling, riding horses, or by ATVs” on the
other side.
I am willing to change my mind, but I would like:
1) Internal consistency within a definition.
2) Consistency over time (from week to week, month to month, etc. obviously
things can evolve over time, but we don't want to "ping-pong" back and
forth)  I don't like having the same discussion over and over again. I
asked this same question about a trail in a nearby park (Natural Area) a
couple of weeks ago on this list and received a largely different answer
from the one I am receiving today.   Perhaps it is just that different
people are reading this list today.
3) Precise. It can't be something like "a driveway is highway=service,
service=driveway, unless it is too long or too rough, or *seems* like a
track, in which case it is highway=track"  One mapper I corresponded with
via change set comments literally told me he mapped a driveway as a track
because it seemed track like to them.

>
> That also spills into is it a track or a service (driveway)? Depends on
if it goes to a barn or a house! But I can’t tell without trespassing, how
can I map it?
I can generally tell the difference between a barn and a house based on
satellite imagery.

>
> First step, I think, is to be less pedantic about function on things that
look exactly like a track. Mappers in all the areas I’ve looked at will tag
a way that is unpaved and about the width of a four wheeled vehicle as a
track regardless of current use. Maybe it is being used as a driveway.
Maybe it is being used as a bicycling/hiking/equestrian trail. Maybe it
accesses a field. Maybe it hasn’t been used for a while and just hasn’t
decayed or been overgrown into nothing. Who knows? But it looks like a
track. Saying that the way “isn’t for forestry or agricultural use” so it
can’t be a track is worthless: Real world mappers have voted otherwise with
their tagging.
In many parts of the world, higher classified roads (primary, secondary,
unclassified, residential, service) are going to be unpaved and somewhat
rough.  That includes some parts of the US I am familiar with.

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


Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

2020-06-09 Thread Mike Thompson
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 3:02 PM brad  wrote:

> A track does have a different function, it can handle a 2 track vehicle, a
> path can't.
>
Yes, a "track" has a different function, its function is for agriculture or
forestry.

A wide path on the other hand has the same function as a narrow path.


> If functional is sacrosanct,  why do we have motorway?   A motorway could
> just be a trunk or primary with extra tags denoting limited access.
>
That is a good question.  But it was stated on this list just a couple of
weeks ago that the highway=* tag was a functional classification, "except
for motorway"
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

2020-06-09 Thread Mike Thompson
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 1:55 PM brad  wrote:
>
> It already says this:
> "Some highway=track are used for various leisure activities - hiking,
cycling, or as jeep/ATV trails. "
> on the track wiki.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack
Right, there is nothing that says that a track cannot be used for
additional purposes, only that its primary function is agricultural or
forestry.

> I propose changing the path page from this:
> "If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), and it
is not legally signposted or otherwise only allowed for pedestrians,
cyclists or horseriders, it is often better tagged as a highway=track or
highway=service. "
>
> to this:
> "If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), it is
often better tagged as a highway=track or highway=service. "
1) So we are getting away from the whole notion of "functional
classification"?  highway=track will only be a proxy for some
physical/legal access characteristics?
2) If we are going to use this definition I would propose stronger language
than "often better tagged", perhaps "should almost always be tagged."

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


Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

2020-06-09 Thread Mike Thompson
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 8:43 AM Andrew Harvey 
wrote:
>
> If the way is used by "law enforcement, emergency, and maintenance staff"
motor vehicles then I'd tag it highway=track and if it's designated for
walking then foot=designated + motor_vehicle=private, since it's wide
enough and occasionally used by vehicles, even for a path that is mostly
used for walking.
This is just the opposite advice I got on this list about a similar
situation a couple of weeks ago. As a community we need to have some
consistency.  There is another user (other than I or cosmocatalano) who is
going around making the exact opposite changes as cosmocatalano.  If the
community agrees with you and cosmocatalano, I will map accordingly and
make changes in my local area along those lines, but I don't want to have
the same conversation here two weeks from now.

> you'd need to still indicate it's usable by motor vehicle
width= +
smoothness=very_bad/bad/intermediate/good/excellent




On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 00:32, Mike Thompson  wrote:
>
>> I know we have had this discussion before, but perhaps some of you that
>> are more elegant (and diplomatic) can comment on:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/85034574
>>
>>
>> These ways exist only to provide recreation to those on foot, bicycle or
>> horseback.  One will occasionally see a park maintenance vehicle, such as a
>> side by side ATV (I don't think one could even get a regular four wheeled
>> vehicle back there.), but the public is not allowed to operate motor
>> vehicles on these ways.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> 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] Help explain the difference between path and track

2020-06-09 Thread Mike Thompson
OnTue, Jun 9, 2020 at 11:03 AM brad  wrote:
>
> I think if it's wide enough for a normal motor vehicle and is open for
that, even if only service & emergency, it should not be =path.   track or
service
in an emergency, almost everything is open to some authority using vehicles
of some sort. Even wilderness areas, which normally prohibit all motorized
vehicles, allows their use in "life threatening situations"[0]

[0] https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd511707.pdf
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


[Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

2020-06-09 Thread Mike Thompson
I know we have had this discussion before, but perhaps some of you that are
more elegant (and diplomatic) can comment on:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/85034574


These ways exist only to provide recreation to those on foot, bicycle or
horseback.  One will occasionally see a park maintenance vehicle, such as a
side by side ATV (I don't think one could even get a regular four wheeled
vehicle back there.), but the public is not allowed to operate motor
vehicles on these ways.

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


Re: [Tagging] Highway mistagging ... again

2020-05-29 Thread Mike Thompson
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 6:33 PM Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> I see someone has left a changeset comment, that's the right thing to do,
Thanks Andrew.  I think two of us have left comments now.  If you have a
different or better way of explaining it, please leave a comment yourself.
On another change set a different user claimed the German wiki said that
highway=residential should not be used for dirt roads in the mountains.  I
don't read German, so I can verify that, but that is wrong I think.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Highway mistagging ... again

2020-05-29 Thread Mike Thompson
Clifford,

Thanks.  chachafish wasn't the one that made the change, the actual change
set is https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/48657332

Mike


On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 4:21 PM Clifford Snow 
wrote:

> The user, chachafish, with more edits than anyone else I've seen, 162,466,
> is still adding features. chachafish has a history of commenting on
> changesets so I would expect you'll get a reply.
>
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 3:11 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:
>
>> I know we just had a similar discussion, but I am discovering more and
>> more cases where mappers have changed every dirt road they can find to
>> "highway=track".  For example, it looks like all of the dirt roads in the
>> area of this way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17051445 have been
>> changed to "highway=track", when at least most of them should be
>> "highway=residential."  What can be done to better communicate that OSM has
>> a functional highway classification system (I did leave a change set
>> comment, but I doubt it will do any good)?
>>
>> Mike
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> --
> @osm_washington
> www.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


[Tagging] Highway mistagging ... again

2020-05-29 Thread Mike Thompson
I know we just had a similar discussion, but I am discovering more and more
cases where mappers have changed every dirt road they can find to
"highway=track".  For example, it looks like all of the dirt roads in the
area of this way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17051445 have been
changed to "highway=track", when at least most of them should be
"highway=residential."  What can be done to better communicate that OSM has
a functional highway classification system (I did leave a change set
comment, but I doubt it will do any good)?

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


Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

2020-05-21 Thread Mike Thompson
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:52 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> I guess the “if the driveway is too long, make a part of it service”-rule
is actually there to help data consumers (if it’s very long it might be
worth showing it earlier, assuming you hide driveways earlier than service
roads).
Isn't that tagging for the renderer?

> The distinction by width (wide enough for a car or only for a bike) seems
a very fundamental one, it has also functional implications. On the other
hand, footways and cycleways may be wide enough for a car, their tagging is
mostly determined by the legal situation, (e.g. signed, in parks), and the
same for their path synonyms (with *=designated), so it’s only between “non
designated” path and track that width is decisive (functionally: usable by
tractors or not).
According to what others are saying here - if I am understanding correctly
- width should have nothing to do with it (other than if the width is too
narrow for certain functions).

> If the driveway is too rough, it maybe isn’t a driveway any more, it will
depend on the other driveways in the area what is acceptable as a driveway,
and when you would consider it track, that’s why there isn’t a clear limit
on a global level.
This seems to contradict what Mateusz  said. "Way used solely to access a
private residence is always highway=service, service=driveway no matter
whatever it is short, long, paved, unpaved, lit, unlit, ugly or 22 lanes
wide."

So you are saying that the highway=* tag depends not just on its function,
not just on its physical condition, but also on its physical condition
relative to the other ways in the vicinity?!
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

2020-05-21 Thread Mike Thompson
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:36 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:
>
> > Would you also say then that a way tagged as
highway=path/footway/cycleway, width=4 would be an error?
>
> No. Here in Portland, Oregon, most of the "multi-use paths" (mainly
cycleways, but also used by pedestrians and sometimes horses) are 3 to 4
meters wide, and occasionally even wider. Police sometimes drive cars on
these paths to access emergencies, and the bridges are strong enough for a
motor vehicle, but non-emergency vehicles are excluded and the paths are
clearly made for bikes and pedestrians.
That makes sense.

> > a way intended for walking, running, cycling is
 highway=path/cycleway/footway (functional classification) , unless its
width is greater than a certain amount (which hasn't been specified)
(physical classification), then it might be highway=track, service,
pedestrian, or something else.
>
> It is incorrect to use the different highway values for physical
classification; the differences are functional. Usually the form follows
the function. E.g. a highway=pedestrian is generally a whole street where
motor vehicles are excluded (though they might enter for emergencies or at
certain times for deliveries).
That too makes sense.

> > A way that is used to access a private residence from a public road is
highway=service, service=driveway (functional classification), unless it is
too long (exact distance not specified), or too rough (physical
classification).
>
> The length and surface do not have any bearing on the classification, in
theory. While it's true that highway=track is sometimes misused for unpaved
driveways, this is generally an example of mistagging for the renderer,
since many styles do not render unpaved service roads differently,
unfortunately. It's possible for private service roads to be several
kilometers in length, though this is much more common for industrial or
business-related service roads, rather than residential driveways.
Up in the mountains around here we have some long driveways (although
several km would be rare), either because the property itself is very
large, or because it is an inholding in the National Forest.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

2020-05-21 Thread Mike Thompson
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:49 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> > There is also an old problem how large footway should be to qualify as
a pedestrian road,
> > with varied opinions.
> Would you also say then that a way tagged as
highway=path/footway/cycleway, width=4 would be an error?
>
> It is not an automatic error.
Good, that makes sense.


> General comment: I am happy to map/tag in any internally consistent way
according to community consensus.  However, when it comes to the highway=*
tag, it seems that we have a mix of functional classification and physical
classification, which is confusing.
>
> It is functional classification, except highway=motorway.
That is what I have always thought, but it seems that some people seem to
object to the way in question being tagged as highway=path (because it is
wide and its surface is gravel?) when it is clearly (I surveyed it in
person) constructed and signed for recreational foot and bike use and is
owned and operated by the City of Loveland Parks and Recreation Department
(I guess I could add an operator=* tag if that would help).

> There are unpaved highway=trunk, there are paved highway=track and so on.
>
> A way that is used to access a private residence from a public road is
highway=service, service=driveway (functional classification), unless it is
too long (exact distance not specified), or too rough (physical
classification).
>
> Way used solely to access a private residence is always highway=service,
service=driveway no matter
> whatever it is short, long, paved, unpaved, lit, unlit, ugly or 22 lanes
wide.
Again, this is what I have always thought, but there was an earlier
discussion on this list where some people objected.

>
> Why you think that "too rough" driveway is no longer highway=service,
service=driveway?
> (if based on poor wiki docs then I would be happy to fix, if it is based
on iD presets then
> I would not recommend using iD presets to learn how OSM tagging works -
there are
> some problematic cases like peculiar description of highway=track that
are deliberately
> unfixed)
I use JOSM, and usually enter tags by hand as opposed to using the presets.
In the above mentioned earlier discussion some participants were opposed to
me changing a highway=track to highway=service, service=driveway based on
length and condition.  Someone even questioned whether the owner of the
property might own a 4x4 vehicle and if that was necessary to access the
residence over the way in question. I didn't think that could have anything
to do with it.

> if confused ask on mailing list (or elsewhere).
That is usually the source of confusion.  Multiple, conflicting, views.

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


Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

2020-05-21 Thread Mike Thompson
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:15 PM Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>
> Please use full tagging and don't create implicit values after the fact.
> We do have the width or est_width tags,tets use them, where they are
needed.
I agree! For the way in question, I tagged its width (as well as
smoothness, max_speed, and a number of other tags) at the time it was
created.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

2020-05-21 Thread Mike Thompson
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 1:35 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> May 21, 2020, 19:20 by miketh...@gmail.com:
>
> So are we saying highway=path/cycleway/footway implies width<3 (or some
similar value)?
>
> Yes, but it may be larger. Especially busy cycleway, or cycleway on
curve, or cycleway
> on a slope may be noticeably larger.
>
> There is also an old problem how large footway should be to qualify as a
pedestrian road,
> with varied opinions.
Would you also say then that a way tagged as highway=path/footway/cycleway,
width=4 would be an error?

General comment: I am happy to map/tag in any internally consistent way
according to community consensus.  However, when it comes to the highway=*
tag, it seems that we have a mix of functional classification and physical
classification, which is confusing.

For example, a way intended for walking, running, cycling is
highway=path/cycleway/footway (functional classification) , unless its
width is greater than a certain amount (which hasn't been specified)
(physical classification), then it might be highway=track, service,
pedestrian, or something else.

A way that is used to access a private residence from a public road is
highway=service, service=driveway (functional classification), unless it is
too long (exact distance not specified), or too rough (physical
classification).

If this is confusing for an experienced mapper and geodata geek, how are
data users/consumers supposed to figure this out?

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


Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

2020-05-21 Thread Mike Thompson
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 9:24 AM brad  wrote:
>
> I don't agree with calling a 2 track/road a path and I don't think that
common usage, or the wiki says this either.
It is not really "2 track" as its surface is uniformly graded and covered
with gravel from side to side (there are not separate ruts for the wheels
on each side of a four-wheeled vehicle).  Keep in mind that the imagery
currently available to OSM is all outdated in regards to this feature as it
was just constructed over the last couple of months.  I only know its
physical characteristics because I biked and ran it soon after it was open
to the public.

>
> "This tag represents roads for mostly agricultural use, forest tracks
etc.; often unpaved (unsealed) but may apply to paved tracks as well, that
are suitable for two-track vehicles, such as tractors or jeeps. "
>
> I think the "etc" could mean a lot of things, such as mining roads, fire
roads, emergency access roads, etc
Well, it is not for any of these purposes, it is solely for recreational
use. We have a lot of paths, footways, and cycleways around here, paved and
unpaved, which are about the same width (~2.5m), e.g. [0]

>
> "If the way is not wide enough for a two-track vehicle, it should be
tagged as highway=path."
That does not necessarily imply that "if the way is wide enough for a
two-track vehicle, it should be tagged as highway=track." The quote only
talks about changing tracks to paths, not paths to tracks.


> "highway=track - for roads for agricultural use, gravel roads in the
forest etc."
Again, it is not for agricultural use, and it is not in the forest, it is
in a city owned "natural area" (which isn't forested).

So are we saying highway=path/cycleway/footway implies width<3 (or some
similar value)?

Mike

[0] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48573535 - width is not tagged, but
first hand observation and available imagery shows this "cycleway" is about
3 meters wide.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

2020-05-21 Thread Mike Thompson
On Wed, May 20, 2020, 8:11 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There are no tags on the way to suggest it is not a 'track'.
>
> Motor vehicles are not excluded in anyway, for example
'motor_vehicle=private, comment=Recreational use, motor vehicles for
maintenance only'
While it is not (yet) tagged that way, in fact  motor vehicles are not
allowed, except for official park vehicles.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

2020-05-20 Thread Mike Thompson
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 12:09 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:57 AM Joseph Eisenberg
>  wrote:
> >
> > However, if you are talking about a paved multi-use path, bicycle path or 
> > footway which happens to be 3 or 4 meters wide and therefore a police car 
> > or emergency vehicle can fit, generally these are still mapped as 
> > highway=cycleway or =footway or =path if they are designed and designated 
> > for pedestrians or bicycles.
> It is gravel.  Rough width is 2.5 meters (I tagged it as such).
>
> > Do you have an example of a particular path or road which is debatable?
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/798886886#map=16/40.4656/-105.1320
> I mapped this originally as highway=path, it was changed by another
> user to highway=track.  I just changed it back this morning.
Note that this is a brand new  trail that just opened to the public
within the last few weeks.  Imagery currently available in OSM editing
software will not show the trail as it now exists. There was a track
there previously, and the new trail overlaid parts of it, those that
it didn't overlay are still mapped as "track."

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


Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

2020-05-20 Thread Mike Thompson
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:57 AM Joseph Eisenberg
 wrote:
>
> However, if you are talking about a paved multi-use path, bicycle path or 
> footway which happens to be 3 or 4 meters wide and therefore a police car or 
> emergency vehicle can fit, generally these are still mapped as 
> highway=cycleway or =footway or =path if they are designed and designated for 
> pedestrians or bicycles.
It is gravel.  Rough width is 2.5 meters (I tagged it as such).

> Do you have an example of a particular path or road which is debatable?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/798886886#map=16/40.4656/-105.1320
I mapped this originally as highway=path, it was changed by another
user to highway=track.  I just changed it back this morning.

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


[Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

2020-05-20 Thread Mike Thompson
Hello,

Just because a trail is wide enough to accommodate a four wheeled
vehicle does that make it highway=track if it was constructed for, and
its primary and intended use is for, recreation and not for forestry
or agriculture access?

Mike

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


Re: [Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

2020-05-02 Thread Mike Thompson
All,

Thanks for the suggestions and discussion.  I have implemented
Martin's suggestion:
foot=no
foot:conditional = yes @ running

Mike

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


Re: [Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

2020-05-02 Thread Mike Thompson
On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 1:02 AM Peter Elderson  wrote:
>
> How is this access preference indicated?
There are signs that say something like "No Hiking, ... Mtn Bikes,
Horses, and Trail Runners Only"

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


Re: [Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

2020-05-01 Thread Mike Thompson
Thanks Martin!

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 5:49 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:

> Another idea could be to introduce “running” as a new state of foot, e.g.
> foot=no
> foot:conditional =yes @ running
That makes sense to me.  I will wait and see if anyone has any
objections or better ideas, and if not, proceed in the manner you
suggested.

Mike

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


Re: [Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

2020-05-01 Thread Mike Thompson
Thanks Jason,

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 4:37 PM Jmapb  wrote:

>
> minspeed:foot? A value of around 6 or 7 (default unit is km/hour) should
> separate the fast walkers from the joggers. Of course it's anyone's
> guess if there would ever be any software support for this key.
Interesting idea.

>
> Another approach would be to leave off the highway tag and tag it a
> leisure=track + sport=running + bicycle=yes/designated. Routing software
> would probably ignore it for pedestrian mode but might still route
> bicycles on it.
It's not really a track, at least not in the sense I am familiar with,
or in the sense that is portrayed on the wiki. Perhaps just foot=no,
sport=running?

Mike

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


[Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

2020-05-01 Thread Mike Thompson
Hello,

We have a trail [0] around here where walking/hiking is not allowed,
but running is. Currently it is tagged foot=yes, which doesn't give
the full story. In case you are wondering how such a situation could
come about, it is because the land manager wants faster traffic (trail
runners, mountain bikes and horses) on this trail, and slower traffic
(walkers/hikers) on a more or less parallel route.  Any suggestions as
to how to tag?

Thanks,

Mike


[0] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/449200803

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


Re: [Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

2020-05-01 Thread Mike Thompson
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 9:26 AM Philip Barnes  wrote:
>

> I agree with AEL, people who live in there tend to take that into
> account when they buy vehicles and tend to own 4x4s.
These are all roads which a normal car can navigate. Not everyone that
lives in these areas drives a 4x4.

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


Re: [Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

2020-04-30 Thread Mike Thompson
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 4:15 PM Tod Fitch  wrote:

> In the rural southern Arizona community where my parents retired the only 
> real way to tell the difference between a track and a service+driveway+upaved 
> is whether you end up at a house in a reasonable amount of distance.
In all of the cases I am looking at the way in question ends at, or
very near, a house or house and detached garage.

Mike

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


Re: [Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

2020-04-30 Thread Mike Thompson
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 2:45 PM Greg Troxel  wrote:

> Not really germane to driveways, but a major distinction, at least
> around me (ma.us) is that
>
>   a road is a legal thing, with its own parcel
>
>   a track is an agricultural road, or old time logging road, within a
>   parcel
Here in Colorado some roads have their own parcels, some are just
"rights of way."


> I also agree that this is a problem partially becuase of the default
> style not showing dirt roads as dirt.  Whether a road is dirt or paved
> is hugely important in all areas where both types exist.  My impresssion
> is that England doesn't really have dirt roads because they would be too
> muddy.  In New England they are quite common.
Dirt roads (not paved with asphalt or concrete) are very common here
in both the mountains as well as the plains.

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


Re: [Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

2020-04-30 Thread Mike Thompson
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 1:28 PM ael  wrote:

> I would not be comfortable tagging very rough tracks as anything but a track:
> if it requires a 4 wheel drive or agricultural vehicle to negotiate.
> I think a "road" normally implies navigation with a standard vehicle is
> possible. In general that implies at least some sort of paving. I would
> not be happy if someone changed a UK track into something else unless
> they have established that it had a proper surface.
These are all navigable with a regular vehicle. They go to people's
year round residences.

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


[Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

2020-04-30 Thread Mike Thompson
Hello,

I have always been under the impression that the highway tag should be
based off of function.  Recently I have come across a number of cases
where driveways and residential roads were tagged "highway=track"
(perhaps because they are unpaved?), e.g. [0].  Before I change these,
I wanted to check with the rest of the community.

Mike

[0] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/168216962#map=19/40.51620/-105.25577

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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 124, Issue 171 Path for all

2020-02-01 Thread Mike Thompson
On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 8:49 AM St Niklaas  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
>
>
> IMHO it is never a well taken decision to tag a path / bridleway for
> walking or pedestrians at the same time. Ill shut up when walking a path
> and Equestrians have been using the same trail or path, a horseshoe tends
> to spoil the surface ruinous. Only a rocky hillside trail could stand it.
>
> I would not consider a bridleway as anything else despite Andy’s opinion.
>
Around here ( Northern Colorado, US) there are a lot of trails where horses
(really "stock" as people are allowed to hike with their llamas and alpacas
which they use to carry their gear) and at least one other mode of travel
is allowed (e.g. hiking, running, biking).  These trails are often
extensively used by people utilizing all allowed modes of travel.  Yes,
intensive use by horses can tear up the trail, as can use by other modes of
travel.  However, these rough trails  are considered part of the
experience.  There are often nearby alternatives for those looking for a
smoother/easier walking experience.

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


Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

2020-01-27 Thread Mike Thompson
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 1:32 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 2:16 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Here is an example of a major trail in the area where I live:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/385367054 which someone has tagged as a
cycleway.  I have biked, walked and ran this trail many different times
over the years and I have no indication that it was built for a specific
purpose.  On a typical day I would say that non cyclists outnumber cyclist.
I also just visited the websites for the various entities that manage the
trail, and there is no indication I could find that it was built for a
single purpose.  It is a general recreation trail.  I suspect the
"cycleway" tag was used so that it would show up in some cycling specific
renderer... but I can't say that for sure.
>
>
> Possibly old version of the way had lanes and signage, which got deleted
in a more recent rebuild?  Or just bad tagging?  Either way, looking at it
in id's default imagery I'd say that definitely looks like a path to me
now, barring any on the ground knowledge.  Though the width and turn radii
on curves tends to make me think they wanted it to be a cycleway but then
either chickened out or downgraded it at the last minute.   
There is a painted centerline if I recall, but does that necessarily mean
it is a "cycleway"?  The centerline is just as much to keep walkers from
taking up the entire trail as it is for cyclists.  Regarding the turn
radii, I would say the authorities probably intended it to be used by
cyclists as well as other users.
___

> 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] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

2020-01-27 Thread Mike Thompson
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:39 AM Kevin Kenny 
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:00 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:
> >  Not exactly helping is that the US tends to also confuse form and
access, calling things "multipurpose paths" even when they are clearly
purpose built for a specific mode and possibly even do have specific mode
restrictions.
>
> True enough.  Still, there are a lot of rail-trails and the like where
> foot, bicycle, and XC ski travel were all contemplated from the moment
> that the trail was paved. There are also a bunch of recreational
> trails near me that I'd be hard put to identify whether foot or MTB is
> the 'primary' use.  And farther out in the sticks, there are a bunch
> of old carriage roads that were redesignated footways and have
> subsequently been opened to MTB travel as well. (Some of these are
> grown to trees to the point where I don't feel comfortable labeling
> them with `highway=track`.)
Here is an example of a major trail in the area where I live:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/385367054 which someone has tagged as a
cycleway.  I have biked, walked and ran this trail many different times
over the years and I have no indication that it was built for a specific
purpose.  On a typical day I would say that non cyclists outnumber cyclist.
I also just visited the websites for the various entities that manage the
trail, and there is no indication I could find that it was built for a
single purpose.  It is a general recreation trail.  I suspect the
"cycleway" tag was used so that it would show up in some cycling specific
renderer... but I can't say that for sure.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

2020-01-27 Thread Mike Thompson
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:53 AM Tod Fitch  wrote:

>  But having values of footway, path, cycleway and bridal way allow a
short hand that allows the map users (and renderers) to use a set of
assumptions about the way. And it allows mappers to quickly categorize the
way. I personally would find it tedious to the point of probably not
mapping if I had to estimate surface smoothness and width (both of which
can vary wildly) along the length of a hiking trail to indicate this was a
“path” rather than a “footway”.
"path" is a quick way for me to categorize a way. Indicating that it is
something narrower than a track. As I learn more about it, I add additional
tags, most notably, access tags.  I would find it very tedious to try to
determine for what purpose most trails around where I live were built
before I mapped them.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

2020-01-27 Thread Mike Thompson
>> My own impression over the years has been that mappers use
>> highway=cycleway on anything that primarily for bicycle traffic, and add
>> access keys for any other permitted
traffic.___
I have never understood the use of tags like "cycleway", "bridleway", and
"footway."  To me these mix two different concepts (physical form and legal
access) in a single tag.  Also, in the parts of the US where I have lived
there have generally only been "multipurpose" paths/trails (a few
exceptions).  There are sometimes restrictions on a certain mode of travel
(which the land manager can change from time to time), but the trail is
really constructed for a variety of different uses.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Changeset 62867521

2019-11-08 Thread Mike Thompson
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 9:50 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:

> It's a trail just for firefighting and rescue to access, but closed to
all others, correct?
That is not correct.  There is no legal restriction on its use for foot
travel.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Changeset 62867521

2019-11-08 Thread Mike Thompson
On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 7:37 PM Andrew Harvey 
wrote:
>
> I just added my thoughts to the changeset comment.
Thanks for commenting.

> Generally an "official" (I use the term loosely) trail will be
signposted
Agree.  It will also show up on official park maps, and possibly in
official park GIS data.

> and potentially part of a hiking route,
Agree, but we don't have many official "hiking routes" in this area.

> and an "informal" route won't be signposted an not part of a hiking
route, is that your view too?
Agree generally.

> In that case for the "official" one I'd use foot=designated and make it
part of the route=hiking relation, and foot=yes for the informal one. This
matches the definitions of =yes and =designated at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access.
I wouldn't be opposed to such tagging.However, there are many official
trails in this area, and no trail is not officially preferred/designated
over other official trails for foot use.


> I agree it's best to use a barrier=* tag on the node instead of
disconnecting the ways, as that barrier might only block motor_vehicles,
not foot access, which the barrier can be tagged as such.
The "barrier" in question is probably meant to keep casual hikers from
inadvertently taking the Fire Trail.  Motor vehicles are not allowed on
trails in the park.  Nevertheless, I agree with your recommendation.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Changeset 62867521

2019-11-08 Thread Mike Thompson
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:
>
>
> In the second case: is fire trail illegal
No, there are no signs on or near the trail indicating this.  Nor are there
any signs in the park that going off official trails is illegal (there are
a few restricted areas elsewhere in the park).  In fact, getting to many of
the destinations in the park require travel off of the official trails.
For example, there are no official trails to the summit of Mt Meeker,
Hallett Peak, or Mt Otis (not to mention dozens of other peaks, lakes and
waterfalls).

> discouraged
Perhaps if a tourist looking for a short scenic hike were to ask a ranger
it would be as it is steeper than the nearby official trail (covers the
same amount of vertical in less horizontal distance) and is not
particularly scenic (goes through dense woods).  It is mainly used by
hikers wanting to get to the more distant peaks on the continental divide
as well as rangers patrolling the area.  There are no signs or maps
discouraging its use.

> dangerous?
No more dangerous that some official trails in the park.  The trail is well
defined so there is little danger of getting lost, and there is little
chance of a long fall.  Like many official trails, there is a risk of
tripping on rocks and roots.


> Maybe it is taggable,
Yes, all characteristics of this trail that might be of interest are
taggable.  The issue is that some apps do not symbolize all of this
information.  This is an issue with the apps themselves, and should be
addressed with the app developers, not by changing how we map things in OSM.

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


[Tagging] Changeset 62867521

2019-11-07 Thread Mike Thompson
Hello,

User dvdhns are having a friendly discussion regarding this changeset:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/62867521#map=16/40.3021/-105.6436

They have some good reasons for adding "(off trail)" to the end of the name
to the "Fire Trail", but I don't think they override the rule that we
should only use the name tag for the name [0].  Note that in any event, it
is not really "off trail", it is a well defined trail, but is not an
official trail according to the Park Service, thus in OSM tagging it is
"informal" [1].  Perhaps some others in the community could weigh in on
this issue.

dvdhns also disconnected the Fire Trail from the nearby official trail,
even though they are connected, albeit with a small barrier of rocks and
logs (according to their comment, the last time I was at this location,
there was no barrier).  I suggest mapping the barrier separately, and
perhaps indicating that the first few meters of the fire trail are
"trail_visibility=intermediate."

Mike

[0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:informal
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


[Tagging] Elevation in Feet as part of Peak Names

2017-09-07 Thread Mike Thompson
User Raymo853 and I are having a friendly discussion on changeset
50470413[1]. He has been adding the elevation of mountain peaks (in feet)
to the name tag. For example, he changed "Crown Point" to "Crown Point
11,463 ft."[2] While the wiki doesn't specifically address the issue of
elevation as part of a peak name, it does say "Name is the name only"[3].

Could we get feedback from the wider community on this?

Thanks,

Mike


[1]
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/50470413#map=13/40.6282/-105.6071=D
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/358911255/history
[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] siphon underpass

2017-06-08 Thread Mike Thompson
Not all siphons are not entirely tunnels or culverts:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/329482560 is a siphon, but it still
crosses over, not under, US34 and the Big Thompson River.  The purpose of
the siphon in this case is reduce the length and height of the bridge
necessary to support the aqueduct.

Here is a street level view of the siphon:
http://www.gildea.com/albums/BigThompson/IMG_1082.jpg
There is an open canal on the top of the canyon on either side which feeds
down into the siphon on the left in the photo, and back up on the right.

Mike

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> @Javbw
> how are these tagged?
>
> On 8 June 2017 at 17:08, John Willis  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 8, 2017, at 10:40 PM, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>> >
>> > flat parts of the world
>>
>> Common on irrigation aqueducts/canals/drains both large and small here in
>> Japan, especially when they cross (under) a natural waterway. Without
>> connecting to it.
>>
>> Javbw.
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Orientation of an adit?

2017-03-10 Thread Mike Thompson
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Zecke <zecke@historic.place> wrote:

> Am 10.03.2017 20:04, schrieb Mike Thompson:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 7:34 AM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I can just now hear, nevertheless, a chorus asserting that the
>> information is available by other means and therefore does not belong in
>> OSM. An adit or a cave entrance (that isn't a sinkhole) pretty much has to
>> go into a hillside, and a waterfall or a dam flows downhill, so with
>> information about local topography, the direction can be determined.
>>
> In many parts of the world there may not be elevation data with an open
> license of suitable resolution to make this determination for an adit.
>
> It's not true that an adit always enters the hill in slope direction. I
> know of many adits entering at an angle. So this approach does not really
> help. We decided to use a different symbol for adits without direction
> information than for directed adits.
>
All the more reason to explicitly tag the direction of the opening.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Orientation of an adit?

2017-03-10 Thread Mike Thompson
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 7:34 AM, Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

>
> I can just now hear, nevertheless, a chorus asserting that the information
> is available by other means and therefore does not belong in OSM. An adit
> or a cave entrance (that isn't a sinkhole) pretty much has to go into a
> hillside, and a waterfall or a dam flows downhill, so with information
> about local topography, the direction can be determined.
>
In many parts of the world there may not be elevation data with an open
license of suitable resolution to make this determination for an adit.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Mapping time zones as geometries (relations)

2017-03-06 Thread Mike Thompson
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

>
>
> It seems that having a 'group' relation for all the administrative regions
> that use a given timezone would be useful. The timezone data itself, of
> course, belongs separate, but the group relation would, to my thinking, be
> more useful than merely tagging each administrative region with the
> timezone it keeps.
>
+1

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


Re: [Tagging] Dead hedge

2017-02-13 Thread Mike Thompson
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:

> How do you map a dead hedge?
>
barrier=hedge
condition=dead
?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power pole extension

2017-02-12 Thread Mike Thompson
On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 13-Feb-17 10:25 AM, Tristan Anderson wrote:
>
> If two-phase power isn't currently in use anywhere, it simply means we
> won't see any instances of the tag phases=2, just like how we'll never see
> phases=17.  It doesn't make anything fundamentally wrong with the tagging
> scheme.  I believe this is a good proposal that should be voted on.
>
>
> There will need to be very careful wording of phases=2 to avoid American
> mappers misusing this tag for 240v split single phase.
>
That is my concern. This is a typical mistake.

>  I think there will be instances of phase=2 occurring in the USA, possibly
> many instances.
>
Do you mean instances of the tag phase=2, or actual two phase power?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power pole extension

2017-02-12 Thread Mike Thompson
Jherome,

Thanks for your work on this. I will study this more, but one thing that
jumped out is that in one of your examples you stated "phase=2." Having
spent some time in the electrical industry (in the U.S.) my understanding
is there is no such thing as "2 phase", only single phase and three phase.

Mike

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 8:46 AM, Jherome Miguel 
wrote:

> This is the second RFC I sent the proposal for an extended tagging of
> power poles. I sent a previous RFC, but with no comments requested.
>
> The goal of the power pole extension proposal is to extend the tagging of
> power poles, which has limited tags and allow the use of power=pole on
> power=line with a voltage of at most 138,000 volts (where very tall poles
> above the mentioned voltage falls on power=tower).
>
> Link to proposal at the wiki:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_pole_extension
>
> Any comments requested, as this is the second RFC after the first one did
> not have any response at all.
>
> ___
> 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] Beef fattening stations

2017-02-08 Thread Mike Thompson
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 09-Feb-17 10:48 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote:
>
> Along with landuse=farmland and farmland=feedlot, how about produce=beef?
> That sidesteps the issue of steer vs bull, etc.
>
>
> Beef .. could be taken as the end product ...after slaughtering?
>
Correct, saying the "produce" of a feedlot is "beef" is like saying the
"produce" of a wheat field is "bread"


>
> My dictionary says cattle=ruminants of the bovine kind, of any age, sex,
> or breed. Does that cover it?
>
yes
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Beef fattening stations

2017-02-08 Thread Mike Thompson
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> Along with landuse=farmland and farmland=feedlot, how about produce=beef?
> That sidesteps the issue of steer vs bull, etc.
>
Feedlots are just one part of the beef (the meat from the cattle)
production process, and not the last step[1].  Therefor I feel it is
misleading to say that the produce of a feedlot is "beef." It would be more
appropriate to say produce=cattle.

[1]
http://www.explorebeef.org/cmdocs/explorebeef/factsheet_modernbeefproduction.pdf
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Beef fattening stations

2017-02-08 Thread Mike Thompson
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 09-Feb-17 07:39 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> landuse=farmland
>
> farmland=feedlot
>
> produce=cattle (or whatever)

+ 1

>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Beef fattening stations

2017-02-07 Thread Mike Thompson
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Viking  wrote:

> @Mike
> 1) Ok, cow is the female only: then bovine would be better? Cattle in
> English is a term used for bovines only or for other species too?
>
"cattle" is  the correct term[1].  I was mistaken in my original email,
"bovine" is a broader term that includes other animals as well as domestic
cattle{3].  In answer to your question, "cattle" refers only to domestic
cattle, the term is not used to for other animals.


> 2) The intention of animal_breeding page was to descibe facilities were
> animals grow up, there wasn't a distinction between reproduction and
> fattening. Maybe we can specify it better if you want.
>
According to the wiki: "A facility where animals are bred, usually to sell
them. This tag is mainly intended for pet breedings, but it can be used for
any kind of animals. You should use this tag if breeding is the primary
activity of the facility, otherwise see Breeding as secondary activity
."[2]
 There is nothing in that opening line, nor in the rest of the wiki page,
about using the tag for places where animals grow up.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Danimal_breeding
[3] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bovine
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Beef fattening stations

2017-02-07 Thread Mike Thompson
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Viking  wrote:

> Animal_breeding was discussed and voted here [1]
>
Nevertheless, in my opinion, it is not appropriate in this application
because the purpose of a feedlot is not to breed the animals, but rather to
fatten them for market.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Beef fattening stations

2017-02-07 Thread Mike Thompson
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Viking  wrote:

> Hi.
> To be consistent with the approved and already used tags
> amenity=animal_breeding [1], amenity=animal_shelter [2] and
> amenity=animal_boarding [3], what do you think about:
>
> amenity=animal_breeding
> animal_breeding:feedlot=cow OR animal_breeding:concentrated_
> animal_feeding_operation=cow
>
1) A "cow" is a adult female of the bovine species.  Many of the animals in
 feed lot will be steers (castrated males) (the balance will typically be
heifers (a young female before she has had a calf).  A better term would be
"cattle."
2) "breeding" typically does not take place in a feedlot.  The purpose of
the feedlot is to fatten the cattle for slaughter.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - snow removal station

2017-01-31 Thread Mike Thompson
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Joachim  wrote:

> Lorry drivers are usually required to remove ice and snow from their
> vehicles. as they pose a safety hazard when falling on the ground. In
> order to allow drivers to reach the roof, structures (e.g. made of
> scaffolding) have been erected along some major highways. They are
> called "Räumstation" in Germany.
>
I am not aware of any such stations in the US (but that doesn't mean they
don't exist).  We do have "Chain Up Stations" where trucks (lorries) are
required to put on tire chains[1]. I know they are not the same thing, but
I mention it here as they do have some characteristics in common (a
location where  trucks (lorries) can stop to take certain legally required
actions for safety reasons), and perhaps a similar tagging scheme could be
designed that would cover both, albeit with not the exact same values.  I
searched the wiki but didn't find anything for "chain up stations."

Mike
[1] e.g. https://www.codot.gov/travel/chain-up-stations

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


Re: [Tagging] Representing "altimetric quotas" in OSM

2017-01-17 Thread Mike Thompson
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Nelson A. de Oliveira <nao...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Mike Thompson <miketh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > What about just a "ele" tag?
>
> "ele" without any other attribute is valid?
>
You can add any tag, or combination of tags, you wish into OSM. I don't
think there is any "valid" or "invalid" tags per say, only tags that are
generally accepted by the community.  Perhaps the community will be opposed
to having a stand alone "ele" tag for the situation you outlined, but this
forum exists to discuss such things. Assuming these features belong in OSM
(a separate discussion), a stand alone "ele" tag would appear to be a
straight forward way of tagging.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Representing "altimetric quotas" in OSM

2017-01-17 Thread Mike Thompson
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Nelson A. de Oliveira 
wrote:

> I really don't know if the proper term is "altimetric quota" in English,
> sorry.
>
> What we have are some places where the elevation at some points were
> measured. It's similar to man_made=survey_point but without any
> physical objects or marks there; somebody just measured the elevation
> at that point and charted it.
>
>
>
> Is there any tag that we could use to better represent such data, please?
>
What about just a "ele" tag?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


[Tagging] Hot to tag a mortgage broker

2016-08-06 Thread Mike Thompson
What is the recommended way to tag a "mortgage broker", e.g. [1].  These
are businesses where one can get a loan to buy a home, but they are not
banks.

Mike

[1] https://www.southerntrust.com/
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal for standardization of sidewalk schema (+ import)

2016-08-02 Thread Mike Thompson
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Meg Drouhard  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Our team is proposing a standardization of sidewalk tagging conventions in
> OSM to simplify pedestrian network annotations and better represent the
> physical reality of sidewalk ways.  This proposal is particularly concerned
> with features of sidewalks that may aid or impede travel for people with
> limited mobility.
>
> Our schema proposal is available here:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/sidewalk_schema.
>
> You can also read more about our project and group here:
> www.opensidewalks.com.
>
> Through the Imports list, we are also proposing to jump start sidewalk
> annotation by importing open municipal data from the city of Seattle (
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seattle,_Washington/Sidewalk_Import).
>
> We appreciate any feedback you may have either through our discussion
> pages or by email .
>
> I think this is a great use for OSM and an effective way to expand our
community.

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


Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

2016-05-10 Thread Mike Thompson
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Elliott Plack 
wrote:

> Thanks for the continued discussion. It seems that one of you removed the
> offending landuse that I mentioned in my email yesterday (from an import
> that was not attributed). As a result, the tiles have begun to regen, and
> we can now see the beautiful, detailed forest tracing that someone did
> around the ski slopes. This is an example of why blanketing a few hundred
> thousand square miles is not appropriate. Here is a screenshot:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/7xgtiodzjvhq1l4/2016-05-10%2013_14_51-OpenStreetMap.png?dl=0
>
Nice!

>
> Now, I gave this some more thought, and I do tend to agree with Steve A
> that landuse=forest indicates an area designated by humans for a particular
> use.
>
We need to be more specific as to what this means. I would suggest that
this tag is only appropriate where there is active commercial cultivation
of trees for timber, pulp or similar products. Steve things otherwise, and
I respect his point of view and appreciate how he is making his argument.
However, if we go with a much less specific definition, such as anywhere
someone can gather camp fire wood, then any land where there is a tree
(with the exception of designated wilderness areas, etc) become
landuse=forest.

We really have a number of different facts we are attempting to represent:
* What is on the ground (i.e. landcover). Currently this is tagged
natural=wood, but we could change to landcover=trees, or whatever we agree
on.
* Who administers the land / has jurisdiction (e.g. US National Forest
Service) - seems like we (the people participating in this thread) agree on
this one.
* How did the landcover get there? e.g. old growth, human planted, natural
secondary growth? I suggest that these be "secondary" tags. In other words,
all treed areas are tagged natural=wood (or whatever tag we agree on), and
tags indicating the origin of the trees be added where this information is
known.
* How is the land being used? This is where we need to come to a consensus
on a more specific definition for landuse=forest - see above.

Mike

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


Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

2016-03-22 Thread Mike Thompson
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Daniel Koć  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Still I think "international airport" in the name hints us something and
> is worth using this way or another to indicate importance.
> International/domestic/local fares are rather useful and popular
> description of importance level for railway (and bus!) stations and with
> military/private distinction I guess it could also work with the airports.
>
In the U.S. there is nothing preventing an airport operator from inserting
the word "International" (or anything else) into their name for marketing
purposes. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) does designate
certain airports as "international" but this designation has to do with the
rules for accepting international flights and this doesn't dictate how the
airport is named. International flights into FAA non-international airports
have to request permission from the government, while such flights into an
FAA "international" airport merely need to provide notice. There are a
number of inconsequential airports that are designated by the FAA as
"international", e.g. [1]

Mike
[1]  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akron_Fulton_International_Airport
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

2016-03-20 Thread Mike Thompson
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 8:47 AM, joost schouppe 
wrote:

> Is it OK to map multiple buildings as one closed line with the
> building=yes tag? Or does building=yes imply it is one single building?
>
My feeling is that individual buildings should be mapped.

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


Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

2016-03-19 Thread Mike Thompson
Here is an example of what I feel should be discouraged:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/404484020

(given that this is part of a HOT project, it is likely to be
corrected/improved soon)

In this case the individual buildings are clearly visible, and there is
non-building space between them.

Mike

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 6:51 AM, Philip Barnes  wrote:

> On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 10:37 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
> 2016-03-17 10:24 GMT+01:00 Ralph Aytoun :
>
>
> At the moment I see mappers leaving blank spaces because they cannot
> identify individual buildings, either because of the complexity of the area
> or because the imagery is not sharp enough. This approach will allow them
> to indicate that there are structures there but need more attention.
>
>
>
> IMHO if you can't identify individual buildings because you are working
> from remote and don't know the area and the aerial imagery is not sharp
> enough, you simply shouldn't map individual buildings and refrain from
> using the building tag. Use the landuse tag, map the areas and wait for
> better imagery, or use alternative methods if you are on the ground and
> know how to do it.
>
>
> It is not that simple and certainly not about aerial imagery quality, we
> are not all mapping planned North American cities where everything is a
> perfect right angle.
>
> In the real world we are mapping towns with medieval building patterns
> that evolved over millennia and even modern buildings that replace older
> buildings must still fit within this plan.
>
> Whilst you can see roof lines, the buildings can fill the entire block and
> from above it is not possible to work out what frontage building each
> roofline belongs to. To say that in this case just map as landuse is
> totally wrong. A single building is a start, or more likely several single
> buildings. It is far easier to then survey the area on the ground having
> something to improve than working with a blank landuse.
>
> For example you may visit a shop and as you wander through there will be
> nooks and crannys, it may open out into a another building and armed with
> the roughly mapped buildings you can work out where you are and that
> belongs to that building and improve the mapping.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] building=yes for multiple building

2016-03-19 Thread Mike Thompson
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Philip Barnes  wrote:

> In an ideal world I would agree, but we don't live in one and in some
> cases such as medieval building layout it can be incredibly difficult to
> work out what roofline belongs to which building.
>
Yes, it is often difficult, if not impossible, to tell whether one is
dealing with one or several buildings. We should do our best make the
determination and go with it.

>
> I would say its ok, and better than not mapping buildings at all, then you
> can always improve it after more surveys.
>
What I have seen is entire blocks mapped as a building in a rather sloppy
fashion when it obviously contains many buildings as well as areas where
there are no buildings.

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


Re: [Tagging] Defining tag 'natural=wood' ...

2016-01-31 Thread Mike Thompson
landuse and landcover are two different things, and I submit they should be
mapped as such.  One indicates how the land is being used, and the other
what covers it. Obviously they are related, but they are not the same.

In regards to "landcover" it should not matter whether the trees were
planted or are natural (the average mapper may not be able to tell and the
trees may not have been planted, but are now managed for the production, or
eventual production, of tree related products), the "landcover" is trees.
Although there does not seem to be agreement, some mappers use the tag
"natural=wood" to indicate that the landcover is trees.

The same area could also have a landuse, which may or may not be
"forestry." You also could have an area whose landuse is forestry, but
who's landcover is not trees, such as an area just logged over.

I don't have an opinion as to what tags we use, but I suggest we map
landcover and landuse separately.

Mike

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 6:14 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> The present wiki description;
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Forest. Sometimes considered to have restricted meaning "Woodland with no
> forestry". http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dwood
>  *The definition
> then leaves 'forestry' up for interpretation.
>
> I would rather have something clear!
>
> *An area of trees that are not intended to be used to produce products.*
> ?
>
> This gets away from;
> If the area was logged in the past .. is it now natural?
> If it was planted with non-native trees ... is it 'natural'?
> If it is planted with grafted trees ... etc etc..
>
> --
> Conversely then landuse=forest would be
>
> An area of trees used to produce products.
>
> An example of products (not all possible products);
> wood pulp
> wood planks
> wood beams
>
> Edge cases - some can argue over :-)
> sugartrees- produce maple syrup
> rubber trees-rubber
> cinnamon
> tea tree oil
> eucalyptus oil
> sandalwood
>
> I think those are all landuse=forest.
>
> ===
> What say you ... ? Is there an improvement to be made here?
> Is it simple enough to be;
> understood?
> easily interpreted into other languages?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Marking climbing proposal as "in use"

2016-01-29 Thread Mike Thompson
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 2:47 AM, Tom Pfeifer <t.pfei...@computer.org> wrote:

> Anders Fougner wrote on 2016/01/29 10:06:
>
>> Den 29.01.2016 02.21, skrev Mike Thompson:
>>
>>> What one person may aid, another may free (I am using "free climbing" in
>>> the US sense  [1]).
>>>
>> >> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_climbing
>
> that wikipedia page is quite messed up by an recent edit war about the use
> of "free climbing" in different parts of the world, the current version
> is historically wrong.

The US usage seems to be in alignment with common usage in the US climbing
community. I am interested in what aspect in particular is "messed up" as I
am interested in how non US climbing communities use the term.

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


Re: [Tagging] Marking climbing proposal as "in use"

2016-01-28 Thread Mike Thompson
I am not opposed as I think it is a good starting point, but I have these
comments:

"Crags" are only small areas
My understanding from 15 years in this activity is that a "crag" is a small
area as explained here [1]. At least in the US, no one would refer to El
Cap [2] as a "crag" yet it is something that should be mapped if one is
mapping things related to climbing.

Climbing areas, including crags, are hierarchical in organization and
suitable for representation as a relation
For example, in Colorado, US, the Shelf Road[3] climbing area, consists of
a number of "sub" areas, including Sand Gulch[4], Sand Gulch also consists
of further sub areas, and these areas contain individual routes.

"climbing:bolted" should include "mixed"
Some routes have some bolts for protection, but also require placement of
gear (cams, pitons).

Need tag to indicate if pitons are allowed
(they damage the rock)

Need rating (difficulty) tag for aid climbing[5]


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_climbing_terms#crag
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Capitan
[3] https://www.mountainproject.com/v/shelf-road/105744267
[4] https://www.mountainproject.com/v/sand-gulch/105744971
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aid_climbing#Grading

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Richard  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Climbing
>
> was sitting around and evolving for 8 years. If there are no
> objections I would promote its status to "in use".
>
> Afaics it has never attracted significant controversy, does not
> trigger any technical difficulties, there is demand for it and
> is well used considering that it is a domain relevant only for
> a minor fraction of mappers.
>
> Richard
>
> ___
> 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] Marking climbing proposal as "in use"

2016-01-28 Thread Mike Thompson
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Tom Pfeifer <t.pfei...@computer.org> wrote:

>
>> Mike Thompson wrote on 2016/01/28 17:49:
> > Climbing areas, including crags, are hierarchical in organization and
> suitable for representation as a relation
>
> Interesting idea, might become tricky to realise. Next question,
> does it help? Would it just be a collection, like 'all museums in Paris',
> which I can express as a query already?

This is not the same as "all museums in Paris" as there are no
administrative boundaries that typically define a climbing "area."  These
are just conventions that local climbers have developed over the years.  In
some cases they have been subsequently signed by the land manager (e.g. in
the U.S. the BLM or National Park Service), but their "boundary" is not
delimited. There might be a single sign that says "Trail to xyz Climbing
Area"

>
>
> > Need rating (difficulty) tag for aid climbing[5]
>
> Should not be difficult:
> Climbing styles
>   climbing:aided=[yes|no]
>   climbing:grade:aided:[min|max|mean]=*
> or so.

What one person may aid, another may free (I am using "free climbing" in
the US sense  [1]).  A typical route rating would be "5.9/A3 or 5.13" (in
the US) meaning if you would free the entire route you would encounter 5.13
climbing, but it could be divided into some 5.9 free climbing and some A3
aid climbing.

Mike

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_climbing

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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging scrapyards, junkyards

2016-01-22 Thread Mike Thompson
In the parts of the US where I have lived (Midwest, West) these would be
called "Auto Salvage" if they mainly dealt with vehicles, although
"junkyard" is used colloquially. However, to be consistent, we should use
the British English term to be consistent.

Mike

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 3:06 AM, Philip Barnes  wrote:

> On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 12:22 -0500, EthnicFood IsGreat wrote:
> > >
> > I thought scrapyards and junkyards were two different entities.  This
> > is how I think of them.
> >
> > Scrapyards are places whose primary purpose is to buy items that are
> > no longer wanted (typically metal objects) and then sell them for the
> > value of their raw materials.  Junkyards are places whose primary
> > purpose is to sell intact vehicle parts from wrecks to people who are
> > repairing a vehicle.  Definitely not the same thing.
> >
> As a native speaker I see the two as the same thing, scrapyard being
> British English, junkyard American English.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
> ___
> 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] Elevation and height on vertical features

2016-01-08 Thread Mike Thompson
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>
>
> FWIW, for most usages of these ele values it doesn't really matter if a
> value is 20 meters more or less, they are used to get a rough idea, not to
> be used in calculations where a meter more or less is important, i.e. this
> discussion is mostly theoretical...
>
> I generally agree, with the exception of summits.  Hikers / "Peak Baggers"
[1] do care about the "official" elevation of mountains.  I think OSM
should - in these cases - match official government surveys where
available.  The particular datum is not important, as long as it is known,
as someone making a map from OSM can convert to the datum they are
interested in.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_bagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

2016-01-08 Thread Mike Thompson
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Greg Troxel <g...@ir.bbn.com> wrote:

>
> Mike Thompson <miketh...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> How did all the elevation data get into OSM in the first place?
> >>
> > The elevations of peaks in the US came from the GNIS import.  In turn the
> > GNIS elevations came from the National Elevation Dataset (NED) [1], and
> it
> > mostly uses the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 [2]. The other
> > problem is that these are not "spot elevations" and therefore the
> elevation
> > of a peak in the GNIS does not - in most cases - match the official
> > elevation (the ones shown on the old USGS Topo maps and published by the
> > National Geodetic Survey[3]).
> >
> > [1] http://nationalmap.gov/elevation.html
> > [2] http://www.usgs.gov/faq/categories/9865/4921
> > [3] http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/datasheets/
>
> Perhaps it would be a good project, perhaps via maproulette, to spiff
> this up.

Agree!


> It can be tricky, though, because the benchmarks on mountains
> are not always the exact summit --

I have wondered about that myself. In addition there are often several
markers near the summit. However, for the few summits that I have checked,
at least one benchmarks has an elevation that matches the height on the
USGS topo map.


> But I get it that the USGS surely publishes mountain heights
> somehow.
>
I have asked, and so far I have not gotten an answer as to where I can find
the data.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

2016-01-08 Thread Mike Thompson
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Colin Smale  wrote:

>
>
> How did all the elevation data get into OSM in the first place?
>
The elevations of peaks in the US came from the GNIS import.  In turn the
GNIS elevations came from the National Elevation Dataset (NED) [1], and it
mostly uses the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 [2]. The other
problem is that these are not "spot elevations" and therefore the elevation
of a peak in the GNIS does not - in most cases - match the official
elevation (the ones shown on the old USGS Topo maps and published by the
National Geodetic Survey[3]).

[1] http://nationalmap.gov/elevation.html
[2] http://www.usgs.gov/faq/categories/9865/4921
[3] http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/datasheets/


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


Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

2016-01-07 Thread Mike Thompson
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Colin Smale  wrote:

> Cliffs are never truly vertical. A bird's eye view from above will show
> that. If they are steep enough they could be modelled as a line, but in
> general we should allow for a polygon, with a high side and a low side.
>
Actually, sometimes they are "less than vertical", in other words,
overhanging, e.g. [1]

[1]
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/9c/52/0e/9c520e8e1e327be4bc844b950544aac6.jpg
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

2016-01-07 Thread Mike Thompson
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:


>
> Grasping at straws .. the elevation of a mountain is given as its peak. If
> there is consistency within the map then the elevation of all objects
> should be their maximum height.
>
Sort of. By convention (in general mapping products) elevation is the
height of the ground (top of mountain top of cliff, the floor of a valley).
I have not heard anyone talk about the "elevation" of the top of a building
or the top of a tree, etc.

>
> Good point there! :-)
> For most it won't matter. What do international planes use as there
> reference for height? Use that - again consistency.
>
Having worked with aviation map data outside of OSM, they are concerned
with height of (typically man made) objects above the earth's surface (e.g.
a 50 meter high radio antenna).



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


  1   2   >