Re: [Tagging] Difference between "yes" and "designated" in access tags
Martin Koppenhoefer: IMHO, these markers have no legal meaning for accessibility (e.g. in Germany and Italy), but I am not familiar with Hungarian law. Generally, a route is mapped as a route (relation and/or lcn/rcn/ncn tags), while access (bicycle=designated) is mapped according to traffic signs (these route markers in jurisdictions I am aware of, are not "traffic signs" in this sense). Legally, there is nothing wrong with a bicycle route where cycling is not allowed (e.g. on short stretches), it just means you have to push. I agree. We had the discussion in Denmark, where some bicycle routes includes steps, typically on short stretches leading to tunnels or bridges crossing railway tracks. They are then tagged as highway=steps,bicycle=dismount. The flat part is tagged with e.g., bicycle=dismount,highway=path Some have a footpath sign, but even for those that do not, it is obvious that even if you have a mountain-bike that could go over the steps, you really should not drive down steps where you could meet a trainload of passengers. -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] capacities for tents, caravans, and motorhomes on tourism=caravan_site
I have been trying to tag capacities for motorhome stopovers. Comments on my changesets indicates that some people have different views on how to tag this. And I agree that it is confusing. The wiki for tourism=caravan_site does not say a lot, but for tourism=camp_site it says that capacity:caravans is "Number of pitches available for caravans/RV". And capacity:pitches is "Number of pitches available for caravans, RV or tents" But then how do we specify the number of pitches for motorhomes? E.g. Nørre Nissum Håndbryg https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11038816129 can accomodate 10 motorhomes and 3 caravans (camping trailers). So capacity:motorhomes=10 And I have tagged capacity:caravans=13 because the wiki says that this covers both caravans and RV's. I would be in favor of getting a way to explicitly tag information about camping trailers (caravans that are not RV/motorhomes). It is also confusing that we have so many sites tagged with tourism=caravan_site,caravans=no. I guess these should then all have motorhome=designated because caravans=no also means no motorhomes by default? -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] shops for display
On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 13:01:32 +0100 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > >sent from a phone > >> On 21 Nov 2023, at 12:47, Niels Elgaard Larsen >> wrote: The wiki for Tesla says that Tesla showrooms are tagged >> shop=car A lot of shop=kitchen are really showrooms where you can >> order a kitchen which will be installed in you kitchen. The shop do >> not actually have kitchens for sale in the store. I agree with that. But from the users point of view, there are some implicit expectations depending of what is sold. For shop=estate_agent it should be obvious that you do not get anything physical at the store. For shop=car it is less clear. Also for shop=kitchen, some places will sell you a flatpack kitchen, that you can put in the back of your car. I once drove to a shop=pet only to find out that it was the office for a pet webshop that had a small showroom of cat scrathcing pads, etc. For eg furniture, appliances, bathroom devices, bicycles, glassware there are showrooms and a user could reasonable expect to be able to go there and just buy an item. With more stuff being sold online, we will probably see more showrooms, and I think we should have a way to tell users if they can buy anything at a shop, or it is just a showroom. > >„ordering“ a kitchen or car in a shop is a sale, IMHO. The word sale >does not imply you take the goods away with you immediately, nor that >they are necessarily present at the point of sale. > >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] shops for display
On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 08:00:53 +0100 (CET) Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: >advertising=display_window works much better than shop=display_only >(as it is not a shop) Yes, if it is a vacant shop. >though maybe there is value with more immediately clear meaning? The wiki for Tesla says that Tesla showrooms are tagged shop=car A lot of shop=kitchen are really showrooms where you can order a kitchen which will be installed in you kitchen. The shop do not actually have kitchens for sale in the store. There are more that 100 "showroom" tags in OSM. Maybe we could use showroom=only for shops that are only showrooms. >Nov 20, 2023, 21:37 by 1998alexk...@gmail.com: > >> >> Sounds like something like "advertising=display_window" or similar >> would make more sense >> >> >> Alex >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 20, 2023, 21:29 Martin Koppenhoefer <> >> dieterdre...@gmail.com> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> sent from a phone >>> >>> > On 20 Nov 2023, at 20:59, Anne-Karoline Distel <>> >>> > annekadis...@web.de>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > is there a way to tag shops that are not used for selling goods >>> > directly, but are just used for display for the actual shop or >>> > even to advertise something different? Here in Ireland, I think >>> > they are often used to hide the fact that it's actually a vacant >>> > premises, and rates are also different, I believe, if you're not >>> > actually conducting business there. Would "shop=display_only" be >>> > a way to do it? I would still like to have an option to mark >>> > them as vacant, in a way. >>> > >>> > They could be using the space inside to display their goods or >>> > even just have the windows covered in decals to advertise that >>> > they have moved or to advertise local sights or whatever. >>> >>> >>> according to the wiki a shop is selling goods or services, if they >>> don’t do either it’s not a shop for OpenStreetMap. >>> 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] Tagging for the renderer : One-way "flow" bicycle tracks
Volker Schmidt: Be careful: oneway=* is a legal access tag, only valid for vehicles, not for pedestrians. We do have a lot of highway=footway,oneway=yes at museums, train stations, airports, zoos, etc. Which is useful for routers. The wiki does mention vehicles. It may not always be a very legal restriction. And in many cases it could be considered false oneway footways. E.g., a museum might have a signed direction thorough the exhibition, but usually you can still wander back and forth a bit (not at the crown jewels). Still, if think it makes sense. E.g., https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/368800221 Although, using an OSM router here is already cheating. oneway:foot and foot:backward is already documented in the wiki and could be used on mtb paths. I see that we have 4 oneway=recommended On Sat, 9 Sep 2023, 07:05 Andrew Harvey, <mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>> wrote: I have previously proposed the tag path=mtb https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Tag:path%3Dmtb <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Tag:path%3Dmtb> as a way to say it's a purpose built mountain biking track (which if it has features like jumps, skinnies, berms etc would make it such). Unfortunately the proposal could not gain a consistent consensus about the best way to tag purpose built mountain biking tracks/trails and didn't develop further, so while it won't impact rendering, you can still use this proposed tag. On Sat, 9 Sept 2023 at 03:09, Bryce Nesbitt mailto:bry...@obviously.com>> wrote: I recently went on a hike, guided only by OSMAnd. We ended up planning a route that took us uphill on what turned out to be a long series of one way downhill mountain bike flow tracks. I have no problem with the flow track: just had it been clearly delineated we would have planned a different route more suited to hiking. But I was left without clear tagging ideas. One of the trails was https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/593945914#map=19/37.99250/-122.50667 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/593945914#map=19/37.99250/-122.50667> highway <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway?uselang=en> path <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=path?uselang=en> horse <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:horse?uselang=en> no name <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name?uselang=en>Bunny oneway:bicycle <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway:bicycle?uselang=en> yes <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:oneway:bicycle=yes?uselang=en> surface <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface?uselang=en> dirt <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:surface=dirt?uselang=en> With a clear direction, as it has jumps that can only be completed in a single direction, and is all but impossible to cycle the "wrong way" on. Is this trail tagged the best that can be? Is there a way to better hint to rendering that this should look different from a "standard" hiking trail, perhaps tagged: highway <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway?uselang=en> path <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=path?uselang=en> nameHiking Trail surface dirt bicycle <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway:bicycle?uselang=en> permissive I see that even /OpenCyclemap /does not draw directional arrows on the "Bunny" trail or other oneway:bicycle=yes routes. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Streets with gradually increasing widths
_ _: Node is, I think the best solution, but it also require some changes to current editors: if you move a way, you didn't always look on each of the moved nodes if there is a tag width=* . So editors could automatically handle that by showing a warning like when you move a big number of points or when you move an object outside of your view, saying "Hey ! You are moving a tag with a width attribute, are you sure this attribute will be still valid ?" or something like that... This information could be crucial for [oversize load] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversize_load <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversize_load>) and it's really cool to see some people interested in mapping this ! After all, I don't think that routing is going to happen immediately for these types of transport, but it's by adding data that can be fed into these calculators that they will appear. It does happen that width is used. I found out the hard way this summer. I was driving a van and had put the width of the vehicle in OsmAnd as 2.05 m. Going to Oude Vos parking lot I was routed through some very small and narrow roads and ended up in a dead end. Later I found out that the problem was that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/6525244 had maxwidth=2. I believe that OsmAnd treat "width" the same way. I have checked with overpass turbo and found a lot of width and maxwidth values that look suspicious. We should be very careful not to tag width values that are too conservative. Even if the asphalt has eroded on a short section of a road so that it is e.g. 1.9 m wide, a 2.05m wide car could probably still pass. If there is a port, gate or building passage that it 1.9m wide, it is a different matter. But then the 2.05m width of my car is excluding side mirrors. Including mirrors it is 2.3 m. -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] navigational aid relation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 19:08:11 +0200 Florian Lohoff wrote: >> Some of the issues could be handled better by the data consumers. >> I.e., matching names of addresses and roads, routing to gates and >> entrances in parks, routing to terminals in airports. > >This is an argument which is coming up all the time and nobody solved >it yet. And IMHO this is unsolvable. There is no "one generalizing >algorithm can solve this". Agree, but there are things that could be generalized. E.g., by using "entrance" tags or something similar on the perimeter. Or route_to_here:motorist=yes, route_to_here:public_transport=yes on nodes on the perimeter. And then fall back to relations when e.g., you have an airport where the terminal is not at the perimeter. >> E.g., when routing from Tårnby to Copenhagen Airport, ORSM still >> routes you away from the airport. (at least what most people would >> consider the airport) >> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=55.6282%2C12.5998%3B55.6091%2C12.6510 > >With this link you already are past the problem. There are >geo-coordinates in them. Now its to late to correct the destination. I know. That is why I mentioned the place names. As far as I know I cannot make an URL with the place names in them. If you go to https://www.openstreetmap.org/ press the "find direction" icon and put in "Tårnby" and "Copenhagen Airport", this is what you get. >The process is > >- Geocode something >- Get a geo coordinate - possibly an object >- Get the "nearest coordinate on the routable network" for that geo > coordinate from the POI >- Route to the geo coordinate on the road network. > >Now - We get a geo coordinate for "Frankfurt Airport" which is the >centroid of the object with the name "Frankfurt Airport" which is the >WHOLE of the collection of the airport. > >Now we call "nearest" and just by pure luck we possibly get a good >geo coordinate on the road network. > >And by Example 2 i posted you see - this breaks all the time at much >simpler setups. And for the corporate fire station there is no "gate" >or "entrance". Yeah - the fire_station has an entrance, but thats >equally broken. It enclosed in an industrial landuse or a >man_made=works. That centroid may also be completely off. > >Try routing to > > >Class poi - Large "Polygon POI" - random location to end up: > >"Frankfurt Airport" (South of Airport on a perimeter Road) >"Flughafen Paderborn" (North of Airport in the Woords) >"Claas, Harsewinkel" (Gate 3, instead Gate 1) >"Miele, Gütersloh" (On a higher class road next to their warehouse, >rail inbetween) "Generalfeldmarschall-Rommel-Kaserne" (Road next to >the fence, 2km from the entrance) "Zoo Berlin" (On the opposite side >of the Zoo than the parking) "Tagebau Garzweiler" (Somewhere on a >track near the big dig) > >Addresses with long distance to the road network. The next road is >basically a dead-end for this address: > >"45883 Gelsenkirchen, Grothusstraße 199" (On the other side of the >Canal) "45357 Essen, Klaumerbruch 40a" (On the other side of the Canal) >"46535 Dinslaken, Am Alten Drahtwerk 27" (On the other side of a rail >track) > > >So take any large polygon POI in your vicinity and try routing there. >80% of them are broken. And this is not algorithmically solvable. > >Flo -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iF0EARECAB0WIQTFiAV7M5dCBbueFnXaxL9tj5Q+NAUCZIrTgwAKCRDaxL9tj5Q+ NIUqAKDQOCJs0Y3gkocDyxV5JjdzRgZUqACgnnLZYrBDYb5zBgu9qr4lRwDbTuQ= =210l -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] navigational aid relation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 09:26:43 +0200 Florian Lohoff wrote: > >Hi, > >Management Summary: > In navigation/routing the point the router is routing to is the > nearest point on the routable network from the poi/address we like to > navigate to. The nearest point may not be a location where the > address/poi can be reached from. > I suggest a navigational aid relation hinting the link between > geocoding and router to use a different point on the routable network. I agree that something should be done. I am not sure that a relation is the solution. Some of the issues could be handled better by the data consumers. I.e., matching names of addresses and roads, routing to gates and entrances in parks, routing to terminals in airports. 7 years ago I opened an issue for OsmAnd: https://github.com/osmandapp/Osmand/issues/3210 But there has not been much improvement. E.g., when routing from Tårnby to Copenhagen Airport, ORSM still routes you away from the airport. (at least what most people would consider the airport) https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=55.6282%2C12.5998%3B55.6091%2C12.6510 ORSM will also make a route for e.g., Germany to France which makes little sense. On the other hand if you use OsmAnd to navigate to a tiny town, it will insist that you pick a streetname and a house-number. >In 2019 i already sketched a problem where the normal "Geocode >Address", "Look for the nearest road" fails miserable for some >addresses. There is a multitude of issues here. Access tag >overblocking, huge industrial complexes, or simply addresses which do >not have an easy way for your mode of transport. > >So i suggest a relation like this > > type=navaid > name= - Optional > source= - Original object we like to reach > destination:motor_vehicle= - Exakt navigation point to > get to > >So when the geocoder returns a node, way, relation given in the >"source" of this navaid relation, and our mode of transportation is >listed in the "destination:" we replace the location >from the geocoder with the destination from the relation. > >Example 1: > >This is a map i am producing weekly for parts of Germany which shows >addresses on a map when their "nearest road" has a different name. Its >not perfect but you get the idea. (Data bases on the nearest API call >in OSRM) > >https://osm.zz.de/dbview/?db=addresses-nrw&layer=namemismatch#51.98796,8.57338,17z > >In this case we have the addresses 114a, and 114b which are behind a >long driveway which somebody tagged as unaccessible. The public road >has a life_gate so there is no real way to get there. But we most >likely want people get to the lift gate. So we would create a navaid >relation for > type=navaid > source= > source= > destination= > >Example 2: > >This is the Corporate Fire Brigade within a large industrial compound. >You'll be routed to the next Motorway. > >https://osm.zz.de/dbview/?db=addresses-nrw&layer=namemismatch#52.1,8.6192,17z > > type=navaid > source= > destination= > >Possibly adding all POI and Addresses within that compound as source so >all people visiting Mitsubishi Papers in Bielefeld will be routed to >the Gate not some street around. > > >You may pan around the map and find solutions for all those problems. >Sometimes its just the house at the corner - i'd say - okay - no issue. >But sometimes its so utterly broken and people end up on the Motorway, >in the middle of the Woods, on the other side of the Canal etc >with the message "You have reached your destination". > > >I am not really interested in discussions about necessity of this >relation, as it is obvious that this or something similiar is needed >and the problem is unfixable with data manipulation while keeping to >"Ground truth". I am more interested in people Geocoding and Routing >whether this would be a viable way to go, or if anyone can envision >simpler solutions. > >Flo -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iF0EARECAB0WIQTFiAV7M5dCBbueFnXaxL9tj5Q+NAUCZInFigAKCRDaxL9tj5Q+ NIdGAJ0aHP8hmQAv0wyuHZcx/dheUnN5CQCfa2t1dXsjKKaO+H7QX3TORIO5NWE= =sWq9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What separator do you use for multiple value
On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 11:26:27 +0200 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >the semicolon is standard for most cases, for multilingual names >dashes and slashes are in use, for housenumbers periods are an >alternative to semicolons. For turn:lanes both semicolon and pipe (|) are used with semicolon having the higher priority. >___ 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] Is tagging of fuel: assumed to be exhaustive?
Matija Nalis:
Hm, I do, but as it would be rather hard to prove (and such proof is not
paramount here), lets us just agree that it is how certain amount of
mappers use it (without trying to quantify it with subjective guesses).
I think it depend a lot from key to key.
I think that my point remains that:
- one method is clear and unambiguous ("fuel:lpg=no")
- one method is not clear / is ambiguous ("fuel=octane_98;diesel").
Yes, but only because we have no way of denoting that lpg is not being sold in the
second format and that you knew that lpg was not being sold when tagging it.
consider instead for example opening_hours.
The wiki is not very clear about whether it is exhaustive. I.e., if you for a
facility tag:
opening_hours=Mo-Fr 09:00-20:00
is it open on weekends, or is it not specified?
If I know that it is closed on weekends, I prefer to tag it:
opening_hours=09:00-20:00; Sa-Su off
to avoid ambiguity.
For tags like cuisine and brewery it does not really make sense to have key:xxx=no
values.
So the first one should be preferred. Does that make sense?
--
Niels Elgaard Larsen
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Is tagging of fuel: assumed to be exhaustive?
Matija Nalis: IMHO basically the main reason why multi-tag standard (e.g. fuel:octane_98=yes, fuel:diesel=yes, fuel:lpg=no) was invented is precisely because in multi-value system it would have been impossible to mark the difference between "this fuel is not present" and "it is unknown/unsurveyed if this fuel is present here", i.e. it would make a pressure on mapper to either: - invest a lot of time to map EVERYTHING, or - better map NOTHING if they didn't have that time (in order not to create more confusion / false data) e.g. if "fuel=octane_98;diesel" was tagged, it would be ambiguous - does it mean that there there is no LPG, or that the mapper didn't care to survey that separated area of fuel station where LPG is being held? I do not believe that is how most of us are using it. For example if you use the template for restaurants and fast_food (but not cafes for some reason) in JOSM, you get a combobox where you can select one or more values for "cuisine". I would not assume that if I select indian or sushi that it excludes asian. -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Combining "locked=yes" with various access tags
On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 18:39:19 -0500 Greg Troxel wrote: >Niels Elgaard Larsen writes: > >> We have to accept that the tagging is never complete. And when >> surveying, it is often easier to tag "locked" than "access" (we can >> se the lock or try to open the gate but there are often no signs). >> So the tagging might reflect that we know that a gate is usually >> locked, but we do not know who can use the gate. >> >> At least "locked" should imply access=destination or private for >> routers. > >I don't see it that why. access=private, probably. access=destination >means you can use a way if you decide to go someplace that you need to >use the way to get to. But that's wrapped up with can you. If a way is access=destination, a router should only take you there if you have set your routing destination close by. And if it is your destination, most likely you have the necessary keys or someone will let you in, because you live there, you are a customer, you are visiting someone, you deliver something, you intend to pay for access, etc. >It's a little unclear to me what a "locked=no" gate is. Here is one that I use daily: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3498950779 It has a lock, but is never locked. The fence is only a meter high, and you need to pass the gates to access the main entraces of Koldinggade 20-24. I do not know why these two gates have a lock. Probably the company setting them up just used the same handles and locks as the two higher gates just south of there. Those two gates are locked. > I'm guessing >it's a physical barrier than anyone can easily move out of the way. So >arguably a barrier without locked shouldn't preclude routing, just a >2-minute delay. > >Then there is 'access=' on the barrier. This doesn't make a lot of >sense to me as in practice access is about the way, and the gate is >either: > > not locked, and not an impediment, but might keep cows in > > locked, and an enforcer of something that is alraedy true > >or > > locked, and enforcing no travel when people have a legal right to do > so. Still, routers should not attempt to use this. > > >So maybe: > > foot=yes on a barrier=gate means that a person on foot can pass the > gate (perhaps by walking around it) with minimal difficulty, such > that the gate's presence should not affect routing > > barrier=gate locked=no (or no locked, default?) means that all modes > may physically pass, with a mode-specific typical cost > > barrier=gate locked=yes means that all modes may not pass, unless > there is a mode-specific foot=yes or bicycle=yes > > >The real problem is that locked refers to the ability to open the gate, >but many modes pass without opening, and we really care about "can this >mode actually traverse". so locked=yes is a shorthand for all modes >of travel and we don't have a foot:can-walk-around=yes tag. Until we >deal with that head on, this is going to be messy. > >> According to the wiki, motor_vehicle=no means that motor vehicles are >> not allowed to travel through the barrier. The wiki does not say that >> having a key to the lock changes that. > >agreed. > > >So we need three properties: > > legal right of access, perhaps only needed on ways > > physical ability to pass a gate > > is the gate locked, and if so which modes does that apply to > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Combining "locked=yes" with various access tags
Zeev Stadler: I would like the help of the list to clarify the meaning of having a "locked=yes" tag on a barrier node together with some allowed access tags. The introduction to the "locked" tag wiki page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:locked <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:locked> says: access <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access>=* is used to describe the legal permission to travel through a barrier but does not indicate in emergencies what the physical access is Therefore, my understanding is that 1. As far as non-emergency routing, the "locked" tag should be ignored. We have to accept that the tagging is never complete. And when surveying, it is often easier to tag "locked" than "access" (we can se the lock or try to open the gate but there are often no signs). So the tagging might reflect that we know that a gate is usually locked, but we do not know who can use the gate. At least "locked" should imply access=destination or private for routers. A router that suggests shortcuts passing locked gates will not be popular. 2. A "locked=no" tag indicates that a legal access restriction is not enforced by a lock and therefore could be overcome in case of an emergency. 3. A "locked=yes" tag indicates that the legal access restriction is enforced by a lock and therefore cannot be overcome in case of an emergency. The "How to map" description in the wiki page seems to assume a gate or a barrier with a simple "access=no". It is not clear with respect to any permitted access methods. For example, barrier node with the following tags: tag value barrier gate motor_vehicle no locked yes bicycle yes footyes The wiki on motor_vehicle say: "This property is used for all types of roads but not for gates." I think this tagging says: * There is a locked gate that blocks motor vehicles * There are no access restrictions for pedestrians and bikes This is not the interpretation of other people, as seen in a discussion on a GraphHopper routing issue Yes. According to the wiki, motor_vehicle=no means that motor vehicles are not allowed to travel through the barrier. The wiki does not say that having a key to the lock changes that. motor_vehicle=permit/private, locked=yes would be more appropriate if you wanted to say that cars need a key to pass. We should also recognize that we do in fact use access tags for other things than legal access. For example "bicycle" is defined as "Legal restriction for cyclists." But on cycle_barrier the wiki says: == bicycle=no - "a normal bicycle will not physically fit (without dismantling it or lifting it over the barrier)" bicycle=dismount - "barrier prevents users of normal bicycles from riding through, but you can push a bike through" == motorcar=no might just mean that a car is too big to pass through the gate, and having a key would not make a difference. We could also tag e.g., motor_vehicle=key or motor_vehicle=unlock It would make sense to tag the legal access on the way and then on the barrier specify what you have to do to pass it. For example it is common on private property https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/2757#issuecomment-1434806229 <https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/2757#issuecomment-1434806229> There you could also find a picture of such a barrier. Please help us resolve the differences ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] caravans en-de inconsistency
Andy Townsend: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1qjp 1087 examples worldwide combined with "highway" tag where it can be assumed to be an access tag Some also have a motorhome tag. And some, I am skeptical about. E.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/981233122 First, the place is Wohnmobilstellplatz, i.e. motorhome place. And then there is a road that allows camping trailers but not motorhomes. Second, motor_vehicle=no, caravan=yes must mean that you can push and pull you camping trailer by hand, but are not allowed to pull it with your motorcar. This is probably not what the tagger meant to express. Maybe you could use a conditional to say that you can only drive there if are pulling a camping trailer. confusingly there is also "caravans", which isn't supposed to be an access tag, but: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1qjq Yes, it probably never means that you are allowed to stop you caravan on the road to sleep in it. So why do we need the caravans tag? There are of course camp areas where you are allowed to drive an RV, but not park it for the night, but that should be clear from the context (whether the caravan tag is on a highway or tourism object). 437 examples worldwide combined with "highway" tag where it can be assumed to be an access tag -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] caravans en-de inconsistency
On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 09:15:51 +1000 Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: >When I created https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dcaravan, >I defined them as: > >"recreational vehicles such as towed caravans (a.k.a travel trailers, >pop-tops, camper trailers, tent trailers, 5th wheelers etc); powered, >self-propelled motorhomes (camper vans, expedition vehicles, truck >trailers / slide-ons etc); & similar types of vehicle. > >For ease, on this page they are all referred to as caravans", together >with example photos of them all. > >Maybe that should be copied across to >https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:caravan? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:caravan has another definion of caravans than https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:caravans Is it really necessary to two different tags for this? What would it mean if an object was tagged with tourism=campsite,caravans=yes,caravan=no? If we change the meaning in Key:caravan then how will we tag that e.g, motor homes is allowed on a highway, but camping trailers are not? There are thousands of campsite and caravan_sites tagged with caravans=no. If you drive in a motorhome, you would like to know if that means that you cannot stay there. >Thanks > >Graeme > > >On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 at 09:09, Niels Elgaard Larsen >wrote: > >> In the wiki EN:Key:caravans can mean either a camping trailer >> or a motorhome. >> >> But in German, DE:Key:caravans only means a camping trailer (de: >> wohnwagen) >> >> The result is that there are 222 objects tagged with: >> >> tourism=caravan_site >> caravans=no >> >> >> Some even with: >> >> tourism=caravan_site >> capacity:caravans=48 >> caravans=no >> >> Some of them in other countries than Germany. >> I find this very confusing. >> >> Wikipedia agrees with the Germans on the caravans key. >> And on the wiki for Key:access, "caravan" is listen under >> Non-motorized vehicles. >> But then "tourism=caravan_site" makes little sense for motorhome >> sites (de: stellplatz). "motorhome_site" or "rv_site" would have >> been better. >> >> I guess it would work to tag motorhome stopovers, that does not >> accomodate trailers with: >> >> tourism=caravan_site >> caravans=no >> motorhome=yes >> >> Can we at least agree on whether caravans include motor_homes and >> make the English and German wiki agree on that? >> >> >> ___ >> 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] caravans en-de inconsistency
In the wiki EN:Key:caravans can mean either a camping trailer or a motorhome. But in German, DE:Key:caravans only means a camping trailer (de: wohnwagen) The result is that there are 222 objects tagged with: tourism=caravan_site caravans=no Some even with: tourism=caravan_site capacity:caravans=48 caravans=no Some of them in other countries than Germany. I find this very confusing. Wikipedia agrees with the Germans on the caravans key. And on the wiki for Key:access, "caravan" is listen under Non-motorized vehicles. But then "tourism=caravan_site" makes little sense for motorhome sites (de: stellplatz). "motorhome_site" or "rv_site" would have been better. I guess it would work to tag motorhome stopovers, that does not accomodate trailers with: tourism=caravan_site caravans=no motorhome=yes Can we at least agree on whether caravans include motor_homes and make the English and German wiki agree on that? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] foreign names for stuff, was: "Mörthe und Mosel"
On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 11:00:57 +0100
Anne- Karoline Distel wrote:
>I personally found old, yet now maybe offensive names on OpenStreetMap
>very useful when I was trying to locate senders' locations of
>postcards written by German soldiers in WW1 from the eastern and
>western front.
But it may not be so useful for Germans traveling to those locations
and using the names on their OSM map when communicating with locals.
> No other online map would have been any help to me,
But should such names not be on OpenHistoricalMap, if they are no
longer in use.
>especially since many of the placenames were written phonetically. And
>it was another point for me to believe in OSM. I say, keep those, but
>don't willy nilly translate place names. Historic truth beats
>dictionary truth.
>
>Anne
>
>--
>Sent from my Android phone with WEB.DE Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>On 04/01/2023, 22:16 Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi,
>>
>> On 1/4/23 13:05, Marc_marc wrote:
>> > or nothing due the fact that the only "Mörthe und Mosel“
>> > is on https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/51856
>> > with a name=* in french :)
>>
>> It does have a name:de though, like other French departements - I was
>> rahter surprised to read "Großer Osten" on a map with German labels,
>> and later found out that there are indeed German tourist guides for
>> this part of France that carry this name.
>>
>> It is not always easy to determine whether a name is (a) harmless
>> and in use, (b) a silly translation that has no basis in reality
>> ("pont neuf" = "Neue Brücke", or the recently discovered Latin name
>> "sub tilias" for the well-known street "Unter den Linden" in
>> Berlin), or (c) a tactless reminder of times of occupation.
>>
>> We shold prioritize names that are actually signposted on the ground,
>> and for those that aren't, at least require a clear indication that
>> the name is actually used in everyday language by living beings.
>>
>> Bye
>> Frederik
>>
>> --
>> Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Tagging a hole in the ground
On Sun, 1 Jan 2023 12:48:30 +0100 Troels Arvin wrote: >Hello, If it can be harmful then https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Ahazard%3Dhole >When I was trekking south of Olympos in Tyrkey, I came across some >ruins which were not on OSM. Within the ruins there is a hole in the >ground, approximately 6 meters deep. I don't know what the hole has >been used for. Maybe it's a dried out well, or it has been used for >storage: http://troels.arvin.dk/osm/topics/hole_in_ground_in_tyrkey/ > >I've tried to tag it in a meaningful way, first and foremost because >the hole is easy to overlook when walking around in the area, and it >would be rather harmful for anyone falling into it. > >However, my efforts don't result in anything showing up in >openstreetmap.org default map: >https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10287990615#map=18/36.36082/30.47644 > >Have I tagged this in a good way? Or does someone have suggestions for >improving it? > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Hvad stiller vi op med tour de France ruterne?
Volker Schmidt: (using Google's English translation of the Danish text) Yes, sorry, I meant to send it to the Danish list. In addition a bicycle route has to be signposted. I doubt that the the fact that the TdF in a given year ran over a certain set of roads is something that is to be inserted in a geographical database, as is OSM. It is certainly not something that can be represented by a bicycle route relation. I tend to agree. I just did not want to delete it without discussing it with the Danish mappers. You are right. It is not signposted. And it is not maintained in any way. If roads are changed, I.e, an intersection changed to a roundabout, how would that affect the "route"?. If you want to document the 2022 route, which could be useful, a GPX file would be the solution. Il giorno sab 15 ott 2022 alle ore 18:13 Niels Elgaard Larsen <mailto:elga...@agol.dk>> ha scritto: Fx https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13488959/ <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13488959/> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14315474 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14315474> Enten skal de slettes. Eller hvis der er cyklister, der synes at det er sjovt at cykle på historiske ruter, så skal de ændres så de bruger cykelstier i stedet for vejstykker hvor man ikke må cykle. Eller route tagget skal ændres til noget andet end "bicycle", fx "historic:bicycle" og kalde ruten "Tour de France 2022 inspireret". For vejene var jo kun afspærret til brug for cyklister en enkelt dag. Vi kan ikke have cykelruter, der bruger veje tagget med bicycle=no -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Hvad stiller vi op med tour de France ruterne?
Fx https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13488959/ https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14315474 Enten skal de slettes. Eller hvis der er cyklister, der synes at det er sjovt at cykle på historiske ruter, så skal de ændres så de bruger cykelstier i stedet for vejstykker hvor man ikke må cykle. Eller route tagget skal ændres til noget andet end "bicycle", fx "historic:bicycle" og kalde ruten "Tour de France 2022 inspireret". For vejene var jo kun afspærret til brug for cyklister en enkelt dag. Vi kan ikke have cykelruter, der bruger veje tagget med bicycle=no -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Literal translation of street names
Janko Mihelić: A user in my city (Zagreb) started translating street names into English, and I don't know what to do about it. Start by writing a comment on the changeset. An example of translation is Butcher Street for Mesnička ulica, or Stone Street for Kamenita ulica. I found a few of these in Berlin, for example,Straße der Erinnerung translatedRoad of Remembrance. These are valid translations, but it isn't helpful for a map. If an english user of our map saw "Road of Remembrance", she won't be able to find that street sign, or explain to a taxi driver where she wants to go. Yeah, we had similar issues in Copenhagen. Eg translating Bredgade as de:Breite Straße and en:Broad Street I did an overpass turbo search. "The circle bridge" https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/338137146 might be OK, although every English source in the Wikipedia article refers to it by its danish name "Cirkelbroen". But I am a bit skeptical of "The Bicycle Snake" https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/290045953 The OSM user also created an English Wikipedia article by the same name. But the name is a pun on the Danish word "slange" that can mean both snake and tube and as a verb, "to wind". The Danish name "cykelslangen" translates as "bicycle inner tube" if you are not trying to be funny. I think I've seen someone talk against such translations, but I can't find a wiki page that talks about it. I can create one if there is consensus that this is wrong tagging. Or maybe just add a few sentences about it on the name=* wiki page. The problem is, he is doing valid work, so it feels wrong to just delete it. Another way to deal with this is to create a new tag, name:literal_translation:en=* or just literal_translation:en=*. Another question, what is the right name:en=* in these cases, or is there none? There is none. We would not want to have hundreds of name:CC tags with identical values for every single piece of road. Erinnerung Road? Thanks! Janko Mihelić ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Default access for service=driveway?
På Tue, 22 Dec 2020 10:14:39 +0100 Frederik Ramm skrev: >Hi, > >1. Should a routing engine automatically assume that something tagged a >"driveway" is not suitable for through traffic? We must have millions of intersections between driveways and cycle paths and sidewalks along roads. Certainly it is legitimate to route from e.g. a bicycle path through the beginning of the driveways to the main road. That is way to cross the road. >2. If you map such driveways, would you add access=private (or >access=destination) in OSM... > >2a. ... even if there is no specific signage locally? >2b. ... if there is a sign that says "access to houses X,Y,Z" without >saying that other access is forbidden? >2c. ... if there is a sign that says "private driveway"? > >Bye >Frederik > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:traffic_calming=hillocky
Martin Koppenhoefer: sent from a phone On 19. Dec 2020, at 23:27, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: I understand that the purpose of them is simply to make noise when a car drives over them, as they don't slow you down in any appreciable way like a speed bump/hump. I thought they would make people drive slower, while retaining a possibility for bicycles to pass in between. That is what the proposal says. But there is no way a bicycle could pass between those seen on the proposal page at anything near normal bicycling speed. If you want to allow bicycle In Denmark we have a larger version of round speed bumps. Usually only 2 or three in each direction. https://aarhus.lokalavisen.dk/aarhus_midt/2dzeno-Carsten-Hedegaard-Simonsen-kigger-ned-p%C3%A5-vejbump/alternates/LANDSCAPE_640/Carsten%20Hedegaard%20Simonsen%20kigger%20ned%20p%C3%A5%20vejbump They are named "pukkelbump" which translates as hump bumps. More informally they are called turtle bumps. So maybe we should call them hedgehog bumps and turtle bumps. I guess these would be counted in? https://www.durabump.com/ <https://www.durabump.com/> Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Drawing/painting schools
Hauke Stieler: Hi, today I encountered a drawing/painting school [0] that offers workshops and classes for children and adults. I do not not consider them real schools. I have taken inspiration from, Paint Your Style in Berlin: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4235447795 Which is tagged with a leisure=ceramic_painting tag. Similarly: amenity=dancing_school is strongly discouraged in favor of leisure=dancing,dance:teaching=yes so maybe leisure=painting painting:teaching=yes There is one existing leisure=painting: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3677738107 which is https://www.paintingwithatwist.com/ And all those pictures of date nights where everyone have a glass of wine indicates to me that a leisure tag is correct. Now that I look at taginfo, I see that there are 5 leisure=ceramic_painting of which I created 3, and one leisure=pottery_painting POI (Color Me Mine). They all look very similar and Color Me Mine has a lot of studios: https://www.colormemine.com/locations/ So for consistency, which one should it be: ceramic_painting or pottery_painting? Is there a tag for these schools? I haven't found any, so how about establishing amenity=painting_school (or =drawing_school?) analogous to amenity=music_school. Any thoughts on that? Hauke [0] https://maldumal.de/hamburg/ (unfortunately there's no English version of that site) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards
Volker Schmidt: Hi, In the case of signed hazards, I see two alternative ways of tagging the signing: * (only for nodes and ways highway segments) by adding source:xxx=sign like we do with speed limits I this it the best option. * by mapping the relative signs as nodes That often will not work. For example in Denmark on road with high speed limits animal crossing hazards are usually signed ahead of the hazard like this: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo&pKey=7G5cfeYYHs7T_TQD4l-ifw&signs=true&points=true&lat=55.54605389678716&lng=9.557919996586406&z=17 The same for hidden driveways in North America. Insertion of signposted hazards do not require any assessment of the presence of the hazard by the mapper. Signposted hazards are most often signalling dangers for vehicle drivers. Let's take the sign for hazard=cyclists (crossing), which warns clearly the vehicle drivers on the carriageway, that there could be cyclists crossing. There is normally no such warning on the crossing cyclists' path. We have warning signs for speed bumps on bicycle lanes and for low height when a bicycle lane go under a low brige. This of course should be tagged by using traffic_calming and max_height on the highway=cycleway Then we have also the asymmetric situations: e.g. car drivers are warned by a sign that there will be cyclists crossing, but the (bigger) hazard of cars hitting the cyclists on the same crossing is not signposted for cyclists. Around here I think that is reasonable because it is usually when a road is crossed by a small unpaved path, that is used by cyclists. If it is a real cycle path it would have a yield sign for cyclists. -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards
Brian M. Sperlongano: Niels, thanks for the list. I found another Danish hazard Crossing golfers: https://hopcycling.pl/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/L9720954.jpg -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards
På Thu, 26 Nov 2020 09:11:25 -0500 I am missing values for: horse riding: https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_47.png hazard:animal=horse should only be for wild horses Crossing bicyclists: https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_45.png Slippery road: https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_50.png How do we map "slippery when wet"? Or ice? Loose rocks on the road: https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_52.PNG Dangerous road edge: https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_54.png low airplanes and helicopters: https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_82.png https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_83.png Queue risk: https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_44.png Dangerous intersections https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_85.png "Brian M. Sperlongano" skrev: >I am not opposed to including unsigned hazards, if that's the >consensus. I was trying to address anticipated concerns about tagging >unverifiable things. It could be verified in other ways. For example official reports based on statistics. Or newspaper articles on accidents caused by crossing animals on a certain stretch of road. > For example, someone in a western country >tagging a curve hazard on every instance of a bend in the road and not >just the signed parts. I agree. In fact there is not much point in tagging even the signed parts. The reason for those signs is that the driver cannot see road ahead or that it is difficult to judge the sharpness from the perspective of a car. But with a map it can be done. A data consumer is in a better position to decide if turns are hazards. When using a navigation system, I can look at the screen and judge if the next turn could be a problem. I could also tell my navigation software which vehicle I am driving and it could use that information together with my current position, my actual speed and the data on the road ahead to decide if I should be alerted. For the same reason there is also no reason to tag signed hazards for: Tunnels: https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_68.png Steep inclines/declines: https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_69.png level crossing without gates: https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_71.png bridges that open: https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_79.png Quays without guards: https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_80.png because all those can be inferred from other tags. >On Thu, Nov 26, 2020, 8:06 AM Yves via Tagging > wrote: > >> And hazards for niche practices (climbing, whitewater sports, ski >> touring,...) that are actually mapped in OSM are not generally >> signposted or 'official'. >> Maybe we can't expect this proposal to cover them, but you can't >> prevent users to use the tag hazard to map them. >> Yves >> >> Le 26 novembre 2020 10:10:45 GMT+01:00, Martin Koppenhoefer < >> dieterdre...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>> >>> Am Do., 26. Nov. 2020 um 08:25 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via >>> Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: >>> - It is not explicitly mentioned, but it would be a good idea to have explicit mention - is it OK to tag hazard that - - - exists - - is unsigned - - government has not declared that it exists (maybe government is dysfunctional/missing like - in Somalia, or it is covering-up the problem, or it has higher priorities - for example during war) >>> >>> +1. This may also depend on the context. The same kind of hazard on >>> a road may well be signposted, but not on a hiking trail in a >>> forest. >>> >>> 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] RFC: vaccination / COVID-19 vaccination centres
På Wed, 25 Nov 2020 13:34:24 + Andy Townsend skrev: >As an aside, it's probably worth explaining why people sometimes say >that OSM isn't a place for one-off temporary things I mostly use OsmAnd. I update it every month, but that is of course mostly because i want to my own edits. I have added a lot of POI's. Mostly restaurants, cafes, bars etc. Some are pop-up restaurants, beach bars that might not be there next year, etc. Usually I add them because it is useful for users if they have for example agreed to meet in a specific bar. If there are lots of other options around there is little risk of annoying users. If it is in the middle of nowhere, we should be more careful. Currently everything in Denmark have to close at 22:00, but I leave opening hours for bars and nightclubs that are open late and even add later hours based on the establishments websites, because: 1. offline use. 2. I could not promise to revert them all back to normal then covid19 is over and I doubt that other mappers would. 3. It could change any day to 20:00, 23:00 or something else. 4. It would add no real information anyway because *everything* has to close at 22 and everyone here knows it. Many places are closed because of covid19. I do not delete them but add access:covid19=no >(for example, a >music festival that usually happens over a couple of days, once a >year). I see nothing wrong in mapping recurring events if they are tagged with something like opening_hours=Jul Sa[2],Su[2] or even: opening_hours="a weekend in august",website="https://xxx.example.org"; No one will be traveling to a music festival unless they know that it is on. But if you are going there, it is useful to have in OSM. > The reasoning goes that although some people look at OSM data >"live", many do not. Many (perhaps most) 3rd-party consumers of OSM >update only rarely, and by definition all offline apps show data as it >was at some point in the past. If the data that they grab happens to >coincide with a temporary event in OSM their users will be very >confused. Only if it is not tagged as a temporary event or with specific dates. >There comes a point, of course, when a "temporary " thing is worth >mapping. I've mapped https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/601820045 as >closed because it's been that way for a couple of years and (despite >the council signage) is pretty unlikely to be sorted out in the next >few weeks. For me the most difficult to handle is roads. I was just driving on motorways that had roadworks lasting to next summer, changing max speed from 130 to 80. But other times I discover low max speed from road work that was finished a long time ago. I would like a good way to tell routers that for the next couple of months to expect going at half speed on a stretch of road. >At what stage something changes from a "one-off temporary" thing to >something definitely worth mapping is a question worth discussing, >though. I think that covid19 vaccinations centers are important enough. We also have a lot of Olympic villages in OSM. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] COVID-19 vaccination centres
På Wed, 18 Nov 2020 22:14:35 +0100 Francesco Ansanelli skrev: >Hello, >Covid19 have been used as suffix, so how about: > >healthcare:speciality=vaccination >vaccination:covid19=yes You are right. That is better. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] COVID-19 vaccination centres
Tom Pfeifer: Related tags & pages: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/COVID-19_-_How_to_Map related to the "staying open" mapping effort health_service:prevention:vaccination=yes|no (455x, 80% no, no Wiki page) which I see unsuitable as it does not use the healthcare key The wiki mentions healthcare:speciality=vaccination although it is not used/ Then we could have healthcare:speciality:vaccination=covid19;covid21 healthcare:covid19, 7x (covid_test, hospital, 1 user, no wiki) tom ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*
erator but is connected to the grid. Unfortunately, it would then not be consistent with the use by the Healthsites Mapping Project, although this already has the inconsistent *electricity=none* tag which should probably be changed directly to *electricity=no.* Here is the link to that suggestion I made https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/electricity#multiple_values <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/electricity#multiple_values> and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/electricity#origin_of_different_sources <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/electricity#origin_of_different_sources> The whole point of the proposal process is to identify these potential issues, resolve them, and get community agreement. If the goal is just to implement someone else's standard then we can't use the wisdom of the community here to improve the tag, therefore I'm not too fussed about making this match what another project is using, instead we should aim to have the best tags and documentation as the outcome of this proposal process. Then if that's different, other projects closely tied to OSM can migrate to the OSM community accepted schema. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging> _______ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] religous bias - Feature Proposal - Voting - (Chapel of rest)
woll...@posteo.de: Thanks for all the interventions. To avoid that the discussion becomes inconclusive again, could everybody rate the following "favourable", "acceptable" or "unfavourable"? amenity=mourning favorable amenity=place_of_mourning amenity=mourning_room acceptable amenity=viewing_arrangements unfavourable amenity=deceased_viewing acceptable -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] User deleting many roads in Brazil
Erick de Oliveira Leal: Good morning, a user in Brasil is deleting many roads, I think all of its changeset need to be reverted. Could you give us an English summary of the discussion on the changesets. Examples of bad changesets: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/92345676 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/92345676> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/ <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/92345676>92703956 <http://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=92703956> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/ <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/92345676>92610958 <http://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=92610958> ___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
Robert Delmenico: I originally put the call out really to gauge if there was much interest in changing the term man_made because of its use of 'man', and was interested in hearing the thoughts from other mappers as really this proposal isn't just mine. If there was no interest I would just abandon it and move on - that's how the system works yeah? Here's my thoughts based on the feedback received so far Regardless of the origin of the term, the current use of 'man' is to identify adult males. Not really, and "man_made" does not mean that it was made by males. I don't think the use of 'man_made' offends women, but who am I to decide that as I am a adult male. It seems to me that a lot of males like to speak for women on these issues. Why? Can't they speak for themselves? I feel that by using any masculine or feminine terms where a suitable alternative exists instills the stereotypes based on these terms. Marriam-webster: == Definition of man-made : manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings == We don't refer to firefigters as firemen anymore, not do we refer to airline attendants as airline hostesses. The world is changing and OSM should adapt to these changes if there is enough interest from the OSM community. As I mentioned in another email, we do use terms such as midwife. -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
Jo: Are they really people who see the tag man_made and go: Oh, women didn't contribute to this! The tag says so... The same people that think that man_made=manhole* implies access:women=no But i guess that would become human_made=humanhole We will also have to make it healthcare=midhuman Isn't it obvious that man in this case stands for its original meaning: Mensch, ser humano, etc? Changing it in the database is trivially easy. Letting everyone who uses OSM data know and give them a chance to adapt to the change, not so much. Polyglot On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 10:16 AM Shawn K. Quinn <mailto:skqu...@rushpost.com>> wrote: On 10/18/20 16:04, Oliver Simmons wrote: > Doing this would make over 3M objects have their date updated to the > present, when the last meaningful change may have been over 5 years ago. > It creates the illusion of data being up-to-date when all that was > changed was a tag key. +1 In addition to this, it increases revision and changeset counts needlessly. -- Shawn K. Quinn mailto:skqu...@rushpost.com>> http://www.rantroulette.com <http://www.rantroulette.com> http://www.skqrecordquest.com <http://www.skqrecordquest.com> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Face and license blurring (GDPR territories)
Simon Poole: Am 07.10.2020 um 01:13 schrieb Niels Elgaard Larsen: ... You will probably have to let users add and remove blurs. That is what Mapillary do. They do not, they stopped providing that facility literally years ago, and they've gone as far as no longer storing unblurred images even for a limited time now. They stopped it for a while. Then they put it back in. Now (checked today) under edit there is a "edit privacy blurs" there is still a "Download unprocessed originals" option. Maybe they had too many positives. Then testing AI solutions, make sure to test it on images with a lot of street signs. -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (shop=direct marketing)
Wieland Kestler: > Hi everyone! > > > > Due to the discussion in the german OSM-Telegram-group I made a proposal for > tagging > points where people can buy e.g. game (meat) directly from the forester. What does "directly" mean? That forester probably did not shoot the animal himself. He most likely is not allowed to butcher it. And it might not actually be him selling the meat when you pick it up. shop=farm might be a stretch for game, although I do know a place selling deer meat that have all the deers inside a big fence. shop=farm is already used for eggs and honey. I would also assume that horse dung being sold usually does not come from wild horses. As for shop=farm not being permanently available, we have the "opening_hours" and "seasonal" tags. We can also use shop=farm,openeing_hours="by appointment" if there is not a shop infrastructure. > > > For more details see the proposal page: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shop%3Ddirect_marketing > > For comments use the discussion page: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/shop%3Ddirect_marketing > > > > Tanks! > > > > Wieland > > > > > > > _______ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page
Mateusz Konieczny via talk: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information > > Do you think that this page is a good description of community consensus? > > The page has > "This page is under development (May 2020). It may not yet reflect community > consensus." > and I would like to check whatever it matches community consensus well or > mismatches it. I think we should avoid language such as "There is no need to split residential landuse into individual plots". Of course there is a need for someone somewhere to tag just about everything. For example, if you want to buy a house you would want to see where the plot is. This is not about needs, but about privacy, and maybe data quality. -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page
Mateusz Konieczny via talk: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information > > Do you think that this page is a good description of community consensus? > > The page has > "This page is under development (May 2020). It may not yet reflect community > consensus." > and I would like to check whatever it matches community consensus well or > mismatches it. I think we should avoid language such as "There is no need to split residential landuse into individual plots". Of course there is a need for someone somewhere to tag just about everything. For example, if you want to buy a house you would want to see where the plot is. This is not about needs, but about privacy, and maybe data quality. -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging for board games themed pubs
Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging: > > > > 11 Sep 2020, 12:21 by p...@trigpoint.me.uk: > > On Fri, 2020-09-11 at 11:39 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: >> board_games=yes seems clearly superior >> > > +1 > > A lot of pubs have board games available for customers to play, or they > did in > normal times. > > Themed implies that is the raison d'etre for the pubs existance and you > would > only go there to play board games, which would attract a very limited > clientel. I agree. e.g., https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7179650900 Which have an entrance fee and then more than 400 board games to play. or https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5418045880 https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7896767327 > Also many pubs have darts and dominos available for customers to play. > > Though it may make sense to somehow > distinguish pub with dominos and darts > from pub that has 100+ different board > games and "going there to play games" > is actually typical. could we have something like board_games=yes/no/permitted/designated ? -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] maps/navigation data source
Martin Koppenhoefer: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 5. Sep 2020, at 16:43, ben.ki...@mail.de wrote: >> >> Which are the world regions OSM data is better in? Which are world regions >> OSM data is equal good? > > > generally urban areas and touristic monuments are covered, few countries have > good coverage in the country side, but there’s a lot to do everywhere, it may > also depend on the kind of data ;-) > > For example housenumbers are incomplete even in the most active countries, House numbers are complete in Denmark. They are imported from official data. -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture
Joseph Eisenberg: > RE: "Would something like hindrance:target = lying_down or hindrance:target = > sitting > be more clear?" I do no like negative formulations. > > While this is somewhat less ambiguous, it looks and sounds quite strange in > English, > and it's quite long. > > How about "lying_down=obstructed", "sitting=obstructed", "skating=obstructed" > or > something like that? Better. But why not sitting=no, etc. as for skating, could we not just set smoothness to something different than excellent. > I also think it would be a good idea to tag the physical obstructions, like > width=, > length=, slope=, arm_rests=, spikes=, skatestoppers=, etc, as others have > mentioned. -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Aerialway stations
dktue: > Hi, > > I was wondering why there's no way to distinguish valley and upper stations of > aerialways in OpenStreetMap. > > Usually an aerialway consists of > > * one valley station > * zero or more mid stations > * one upper station (or "mountain station") > > What do you think you tagging this information with You could tag the aerialway with incline=up/down > station=valley_station/mid_station/upper_station > > ? > > Cheers > dktue > > [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aerialway=station > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags
On Thu, 6 Aug 2020 17:12:48 +1000 Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: >OK, now you've all got me confused! > >I always thought that access=yes means that it is open to the general >public, while access=no means that it's not open to the public? The issue is that it becomes the default for all other transport mode access. I once had OsmAnd direct me to turn my car right on a very tiny path. It was tagged as highway=foot,access=yes ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?
Martin Koppenhoefer: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 30. Jul 2020, at 14:04, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> >> To me as a citizen of a EU country it does not feel like the EU is a >> higher-level administrative body than the country. Yes, countries have >> decided to contractually transfer some rights and responsibilities to >> the EU but that doesn't (in my mind) mean the EU is some form of >> super-state. Quitting the EU if you don't like it is much easier than >> seceding from a country. > > > To me it is not a question how easy it is for a nation to leave the > supranational entity. The EU does have legislative and jurisdictional powers > above the member countries, Yes. > guidelines they issue have to be converted into national law, directives have to. EU regulations are immediately enforceable > and the European Court is above the national courts. > > Cheers Martin > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names
Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging: > > > > 8 Jul 2020, 16:35 by elga...@agol.dk: > > Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > Disclaimer: this is all US law. If you live in another country, YMMV. > > > Yes, facts are not copyrightable. > > In Europe we unfortunately have the Database Directive > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_Directive > > Which is probably what Google would use. > > They might not win, but OSM should not spend unnecessary time in courts. > Who wants a new SCO vs IBM/(Linux)? > > > > https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/710/can-i-use-google-streetview-to-help-create-maps > > == > The question has been closed for the following reason "The question has > turned into a > debate, which would be better suited for the legal-talk@ mailing list. > OSM's position > on sources is to be whiter-than-white, and not to use any third-party > sources for > which we do not have explicit permission. Please direct any further > follow-ups to > legal-talk@. Thanks --Richard" by Richard 31 May '12, 17:15 > > Exactly, we are not Pirate Bay > or Internet Archive or Wikidata > and we are not on exciting adventure > of what kind of copyright rules we can > ignore. Indeed, we are the ones that can say: we do not need your help. When it comes to mapping the physical world, we can do it ourselves, bottom up. > "hmm, it can be justified if we > interpret law this way" or > "they are unlikely to sue because" > are not a good reasons to do something > in OpenStreetMap. And I can see the point in that line of thinking. Because who can say that they do not need The Beatles or The Beach Boys or NYT articles because they can just make something better themselves? But wrt mapping, we can all just get in our car or on our bicycle today and make something that it better than Google Street View. It will be better because if we do it today it will be more current than Google Street View. For a while at least. > Why? See case of Internet Archive > that always was on kind of edge of > copyright law and recently went > too far. > > Now they are in a serious legal > trouble that has potential to end existence > of Internet Archive with Wayback > Machine and Open Lending Library > (where the trouble started). > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names
Matthew Woehlke: > On 08/07/2020 09.57, Matthew Woehlke wrote: >> On 07/07/2020 18.04, Paul Allen wrote: >>> Copyright prevents us using Google Streetview for mapping, but we can use >>> it for >>> illustrative purposes. >> >> Honestly, I would *strongly* question whether that is enforceable in the US >> (maybe >> it is in some overprotective European nations?). When I take a picture of >> something, the *expression* of the scene I capture is subject to copyright, >> but the >> *subject matter* is not. (Well, not subject to *my* copyright, anyway; >> something >> like a sculpture or building can be copyrighted by the creator thereof.) >> Neither >> Google nor anyone else can copyright facts by recording them in a photograph. > > Sorry, but I feel like I need to clarify this further. > > Are the *actual photographs* in Google Street View copyrighted? Yes; in > theory there > was a "creative choice" about where and when to take the photographs. If OSM > were to > reproduce said photographs, or excerpts thereof, that would be a problem. > > Is the *content* of the photographs copyrighted? No, or at least, not by > Google, > except to the extent that content is a result of Google's actions. If the > photo has > not been materially altered (stuff like blurring faces and license plates > doesn't > matter for our purposes, because we wouldn't be "copying" that sort of thing > in any > way), then the *contents* of that photo are exactly as free of copyright > claims as if > someone else had taken a photo at the same time and location and declared it > public > domain. > > Whether or not the *contents* are subject to copyright (most likely *not* > Google's, > unless we're talking about e.g. the Google campus) is a whole other kettle of > fish, > that potentially affects *anyone* going to the site and recording information. > > Disclaimer: this is all US law. If you live in another country, YMMV. Yes, facts are not copyrightable. In Europe we unfortunately have the Database Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_Directive Which is probably what Google would use. They might not win, but OSM should not spend unnecessary time in courts. Who wants a new SCO vs IBM/(Linux)? https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/710/can-i-use-google-streetview-to-help-create-maps == The question has been closed for the following reason "The question has turned into a debate, which would be better suited for the legal-talk@ mailing list. OSM's position on sources is to be whiter-than-white, and not to use any third-party sources for which we do not have explicit permission. Please direct any further follow-ups to legal-talk@. Thanks --Richard" by Richard 31 May '12, 17:15 == I have been adding speed limits to Danish highways. Something that would probably be a lot easier with Google Street View. But I use Mapillary, OSC, and sometimes my own surveys. -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Specialty Coffee
Martin Koppenhoefer: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 8. Jul 2020, at 15:04, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote: >> >> €20 espressos in Venice should quality. But I am not so sure about the >> specialty. I see that I made a typo. I meant "should qualify". > > > it’s not as if a coffee in Venice costs 20€ a cup, you will get good coffee > for 1€ in any normal bar. It costs 20€ if you sit on San Marco’s square in a > posh cafe with waiters and live orchestra music. It’s the location and the > presentation that you pay for, not the coffee. Yes that is what I meant. The same here in Copenhagen. The expensive places does not have the best coffee. -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Specialty Coffee
Jake Edmonds via Tagging: >> >> Price, maybe. Specialty coffee (or anything else) costs more. However, >> blind tasting of wine has shown that perceived quality is strongly >> influenced by presentation (if it looks expensive, people think it >> tastes better). > > Maybe that’s true but if people are looking for it, it should be searchable? Then we need something objective. Maybe coffee_species or coffee_brand in the same way that we have breweries for restaurants. If a restaurant only have beer from one brewery, then it is probably boring, especially if it is one of the big global companies. If it has beers from 10+ breweries on tap then it probably cater to customers interested in beer and some of them will be interesting or good. Even or especially if I do not know any of the breweries. >> So rather than tagging it as specialty, or of high quality, just >> tag it as expensive=yes. At least that is verifiable. If >> it's more than (say) twice the average price, it's expensive. > > Twice as expensive as what? €20 espressos in Venice should quality. But I am not so sure about the specialty. https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/venice-st-marks-square-cafe-prices-tourists-san-marco-a8481376.html >> Or maybe we just don't bother. That would be my preference. >> >> -- >> Paul >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > ___________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Specialty Coffee
Jake Edmonds via Tagging: > ‘Specialty coffee is a term for the highest grade of coffee available, microbrewery beer is not necessarily special or better. It is made on the premises. Specialty coffee is just about the quality and price which is very subjective. We also do not have special tags for specialty wine or whiskey or bread. For food we do have start but only stars that are awarded by recognised tourism boards. In short, how would we deal with verifiability requirement? > typically > relating to the entire supply chain, using single origin or single estate > coffee[1][2]. The term was first used in 1974 by Erna Knutsen in an issue of > Tea & > Coffee Trade Journal. Knutsen used specialty coffee to describe beans of the > best > flavor which are produced in special micro-climates.[3] > > Specialty coffee is related to what is known as the Third Wave of Coffee[4], > especially throughout North America. This refers to a modern demand for > exceptional > quality coffee, both farmed and brewed to a significantly higher than average > standard.’ > > 'While specialty coffee in North America is rarely offered in major coffee > chains, > the Third Wave of Coffee[4] has resulted in a significant increase in > specialty > coffee consumption. Independent, ‘Australian-style’, or artisan cafes have > opened in > multiple cities[13][14][12]. An SCAA report estimated the US had 29,300 > specialty > coffee shops in 2013, up from 2,850 in 1993[15]. This thing seems a bit US-centric to me. > Europe is already a major coffee market accounting for 30% of global > consumption, but > is seeing a growth in demand for specialty coffee while overall demand remains > stable[16]. Yes, there are many new very good coffeeshops here in Europe. But I would not know how to separate specialty coffee from not-specialty. Except that coffee-shops that are not part of a chain tend to have a better selection of coffee. > In 2016, specialty coffee was Europe’s fastest growing major restaurant > category, with an increase of 9.1% from 2014-2015.’ > > From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specialty_coffee > > > amenity=cafe & cuisine=coffee_shop are used to tag establishments most known > for > serving coffee. This includes large chains like Starbucks that serve a > variety of > coffee based drinks made with commercially roasted beans, independent cafe’s > serving > either nothing but black, American style, drip coffee and those making > specialty > coffee drinks. > > There are tags for the preparation method: > > * drink:filter_coffee > * drink:espresso > * drink:coffee:automatic > > While consumers might have a preference for the way their drink is prepared, > the > coffee source is also an important factor. > > I have looked through the wiki and taginfo and the closest thing I could find > is one > use cafe of diet:specialty_coffee, but I’m not sure that’s an appropriate > namespace. > real_ale has 1819 uses for beer with no namespace. Are suggestions? > > Other tags: > microroasting=yes has 64 uses, mainly on amenity=cafe, in the same way > microbrewery=yes is used for pubs. > > Existing information: > European Coffee Trip has 1893 cafe’s serving specialty coffee in Europe. > https://europeancoffeetrip.com/city-guides/ > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Is there any case of valid numeric addr:housename - for example addr:housename?
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 20:55:07 +0200 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >sent from a phone > >> On 1. Jul 2020, at 04:35, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Highly likely these are errors. However it is not impossible that a >> number could be used as a house name. > > >can you give an example? > >By which definition a number written as number can be a „name“? Here is a map of a hospital https://publikationer.regionh.dk/pdf/full-12684/kort-over-rigshospitalet-blegdamsvej.pdf e.g. "86" is tagged by me with name="86" https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/283107636/history#map=17/55.69781/12.56517 The postal address of the building is "Esther Møllers Vej 6" I tagged it like that because I had trouble finding it when I had to go there to visit a patient. > >If it is, I would suspect a tagging error, because if the name is >„fiftyfour“, you should not write it „54“ or „LIV“ > >Probably most cases can be solved remotely by looking at the >surroundings. > >I agree that we could ask the mappers in the remaining cases. > >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] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráreň, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...
Paul Allen: > On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 12:58, bkil http://bkil.hu>+a...@gmail.com > <mailto:a...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 12:11 PM Martin Koppenhoefer > > > > almost everytime find someone who does not agree, and while I have read a > lot of > things from Paul that made sense in other contexts, in this particular > discussion > it appeared to me that he was sometimes giving interpretations of > established > tags that didn't find other supporting voices. > > > So it appears to me, too. My mental taxonomy of what is and is not a cafe > clearly differs from that of other mappers in the UK. Well, here is a gourmet restaurant serving burgers: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5416925514 https://andershusa.com/the-noma-burger-rene-redzepi-reopens-with-take-away-and-wine-bar-copenhagen-denmark/ From the point of a user, when I am about driving with my wife and we want to stop for a nice lunch, I search for cafes and restaurants somewhat nearby. If we drive 10 Km to end up at a McDonals-like place we will be disappointed. If it is a gastropub selling burgers and french fries with a glass of wine or beer we will be happy. > For me the seating > is important. It is usually the case that a place without seating will > normally sell fast food because people don't like standing in a queue for > 20 minutes. But I appear to be alone in thinking of McDonalds as a > cafe with a particular cuisine and limited menu (and bizarre lengths of > crispy potato instead of proper chips). > > Approach it from the other direction. Cafes in the US (called Diners there) > sell burgers, amongst other things. A diner might have a menu very > similar to McDonalds. Is that now a fast food joint rather than a cafe? > If so, what if it limits the menu in summer and has a more expanded one > in winter? > > Things blur a lot in the real world and drawing lines is hard. Especially > when > marketers insist on erasing them. There is a chain of transport cafes in > the UK which describes them as "roadside restaurants." Over the issue > of seating versus food speed, I appear to be alone. > > -- > Paul > > > ___________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráreň, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...
Paul Allen: > On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 12:02, Jake Edmonds via Tagging > <mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote: > > While it might be used in Paul’s area, McDonalds is not a cafe where I am > from, > and would put money on most British people calling it a fast food > restaurant > > > I am surprised that there is anywhere in the world that would glorify a > McDonalds sit-down area with the term "restaurant." Me too. >Candle-lit quarter > pounders for two? Would sir like wine with that? I do expect restaurants to offer wine. Around here at least. But I have also mapped restaurants in e.g., Jordan and Morocco where you would not expect restaurants to have wine. Those that do serve wine should be tagged with drink:wine=served. Something that I do bother about in Europe. > However, taking another look at the wiki for fast food, I see it covers > sit down as well as takeaway only. Which surprised me (never having > had to map a McD). For me there is a very, very big distinction between > a takeaway-only place and somewhere you can sit down to eat. Counter-only > service is not a biggie. Speed of the food is somewhat important but speed > is a continuous variable, even at a single establishment: I can go to a > chip shop and, if there's no queue, have my order filled in under a minute; > or I can go in and they've run out of chips and I have to wait 10 minutes > while they fry more. Whether or not I can sit down out of the rain > matters far more to me. > > But we have what we have: a tag that seems specially crafted for McD, > whether it has seating or not, as opposed to a tag for somewhere with > no seats at all. I do not think it is just for McDonalds. Here in Copenhagen there are some Pizza joints that have a couple of small tables, and sometimes a few more outside in the summer. They have no service, cutlery, napkings or anything and are mostly used by customers waiting to pick up a pizza. Put once in a while you see people eating there. -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Are rowboats covered by "boat=*" or "canoe=*"?
Joseph Eisenberg: > The wiki page Key:boat <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:boat> says > that tag > is to specify > > "Legal access restriction for boats. In the sense of OSM these are small > boats and > pleasure crafts, including yachts." > > The picture shows a "no rowboats" sign: File:A.16_Fahrverbot.svg > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:A.16_Fahrverbot.svg> > > But there is also a key canoe=* - the page Key:canoe > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:canoe> says: > > "Legal access restriction for boats without a motor or a sail like canoes, > kajaks or > rowboats." > > I can see how canoes and kayaks are basically the same, since both are narrow > boats > that usually carry 1 or 2 people and are propelled by paddles. And Stand Up Paddle? > But should rowboat access restrictions be under this key > canoe=yes/no/designated, or > are they under boat=yes/no/designated - or something else? rowboats are not canoes. We are missing a more generic term. In the international rules it is "vessels under oars" I checked the tags in Denmark. Gudenåen and Skjern Å has canoe=permissive. But rowboats are also allowed (I have rowed on Gudenåen several times). Tåning Å has boat=yes, canoe=yes, motorboat=no There was also a floating pier tagged with canoe=yes. And that is probably not for rowboats. Clubs typically have different piers for rowboats and kayaks. I would say that we could have both "canoe" and "rowboat" and that both canoe and rowboat are also boat, just as e.g., hgv is also motor_vehicle. rowboats should not be canoes. In particular canoe=portage and canoe=put_in is wrong for rowing boats. Rowing clubs: https://agol.dk/elgaard/roklubber.html -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"
On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 19:35:43 +0100 Paul Allen wrote: >On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 19:24, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > >> >> I agree with this, maybe we can make the description even more >> explicit to underline that these are specific features with a >> specific temporal and cultural background and formal solution, not >> just any underground aqueducts. > > >I'm not sure that we can, or should, map cultural background. I agree. The Wikipedia article mentions quanats in Italy, Luxembourg, China, Chile, etc. And who knows maybe someone will build quanats other places in the future. Just as biergarten might be german culture, but we use all over the world: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/amenity=biergarten > Nor >should two >identical POIs be tagged differently because of the date they were >constructed >(other than tagging one as historical or adding a date). For me the >thing about >qanats is that they differ in several significant ways from "ordinary" >underground >aqueducts and we shouldn't force square pegs into round holes. > > >> It’s a tag in arab language because it was developed in Persia and >> brought into the territories that “they“ settled/conquered. >> > >That happens to be why the British English name for them is "qanat." >Had the British managed to colonialize a different part of the world >first they might >have had a different name in British English. The tag is in British >English, >which just happens to be the same as the Arabic name for the feature. > >For me, it deserves a different method of tagging from somewhat similar >objects because it is a different thing. The name used for the tag is >taken from the British English name for the thing if British English >has a name for it, otherwise we argue and bicker for a week or two >here before settling on the local name. :) > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"
On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 20:16:52 +0100 Philip Barnes wrote: >On Sat, 2020-06-20 at 15:42 +0200, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote: >> >> And we already have plenty of those: >> >> Piste >> Gabion >> Kindergarten >> chicane >> kneipp_water_cure >> bureau_de_change >> aikido >> krachtbal >> boules >> futsal >> adit >> gasometer >> >Bungalow >Robot Bugalow i knew. But now I learned that shop=robot is in the wiki. >and sometimes British and American English borrow from different >languages >Courgette - Zuccini which is one I know >Aubergine Yes, but they are not in the wiki. building=terrace is an example of the British english version. >In terms of food a lot of words are borrowed from different languages >and combined with a strange measuring system makes American recipies >totally baffling. > >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] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"
Paul Allen: > On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 13:17, Christoph Hormann <mailto:o...@imagico.de>> wrote: > > > I think this is a good idea. Both in the sense of establishing a distinct > tagging for it that does not engross qanats with other types of > underground > waterways and in the sense of using a non-English and non-European term > where the > most descriptive and clear term comes from a non-European language. > > > I agree with you there. Sort of. English has no equivalent term because > the UK has no equivalent structure. But English has done what it always > does with such things when it needs to refer to such things - it made them > loan words. And we already have plenty of those: Piste Gabion Kindergarten chicane kneipp_water_cure bureau_de_change aikido krachtbal boules futsal adit gasometer > Qanat IS a word that appears in English dictionaries and it IS > the British English name for such structures. Some languages prefer > to come up with new words of their own rather than borrow words from > another language; English, being a mongrel tongue, has no such qualms. > > > We have other cases of such tags in OSM but still in a proposal process > which > is dominantly discussed in English this is rare and kind of a litmus test > for how > culturally diverse tagging in OSM can be and if the cultural geography of > non-European regions can be mapped in the classifications used locally > just as we > are used to doing it in Europe and North America. > > > We should definitely map things that do not physically occur in > English-speaking parts of the world. But we should use the British English > name (which may or may not have been derived from the local name) to tag > them. > > -- > Paul > > > ___________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Should we map things that do not exist?
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 13:12:49 -0400 Kevin Kenny wrote: >What do you mean by 'just unused?' Waiting to be demolished. >If I'm in the field, looking at the alleged powerline, and finding >nothing, why would I not simply make them go away (with a lifecycle >prefix to protect against someone else tracing from obsolete aerials)? Yes of course. But I usually do not do that. They seldom follow roads here and farmers do like that you walk through their crops to check for missing power lines. And the power lines and poles/towers are easy to spot on the aerials. > I see no poles, no wires, no markers warning people not to dig. If >there's still a cutline visible, I might tag `man_made=cutline`. >Otherwise, the power company might own the right-of-way, but we >ordinarily don't map that sort of cadastre. > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Should we map things that do not exist?
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 15:20:56 +0100 Paul Allen wrote: > >That is where the was: lifecycle prefix and notes are useful: to >prevent armchair mappers resurrecting something from imagery on the >internet. Yes. And I would not delete, e.g., power lines that are visible on aerials. Also because I would not be sure that were really removed and not just unused. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Should we map things that do not exist?
Martin Koppenhoefer: == there aren't only written/drawn sources by the way. Oral tradition can also be relevant. Your grandpa told your dad and your dad told you, why not? == That is what the history is for. Also it does not scale to more than one change. The road where I live have been changed many times. Part of it just got replaced with a cycleway. Certainly there are oral tradition and tales about shops and restaurants. Even without a grandpa. I know places that have had 5+ different shops and restaurants. But do we really want to keep many objects representing different restaurants at the same place, when we already have Some stores are tagges as vacant or disused. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3405891059 Which makes some sense if there still is a physical separate store. And it could be useful, e.g. for someone wanting to lease it. But this one should not have the name. And it is not really a shop. I think it should somehow be tagged as retail space for lease. Because maybe it will be leased by a dentist or an accountant. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Should we map things that do not exist?
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 14:09:10 +0100 Paul Allen wrote: >On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 14:02, Niels Elgaard Larsen >wrote: > >> >> I have deleted some powerlines tagged >> as removed. >> > >Are they still visible in any of the aerial imagery available to >mappers? If >so, deleting those power lines tagged as removed may lead to their >resurrection. No. At least not in any of major aerials. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Should we map things that do not exist?
Martin Koppenhoefer: == Warin, can you give an example for something historic that is not there any more in reality and should be removed from OpenStreetMap? Through all the years I have never encountered anything like this mapped in OpenStreetMap. == I have deleted some powerlines tagged as removed. Typically because they have been removed and replaced with underground lines, which are correctly mapped. I might take a year before traces of the poles are completely gone as farmes plow over the spots and put new crops there. But lines in the air will be removed without a trace. And of course highways are changed all the time. When a 4-way intersection is replaced with a roundabout we de not keep the four pieces of the road inside the roundabout tagged as razed. We have the history for that. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
