Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

2019-07-14 Thread Pee Wee
>
>
> 1.   Has this issue been discussed before and if so … what was the
> outcome?
>
> 2.   If not… do you agree with me that private front/back garden
> should not be tagged with leisure=garden but with a non-leisure tag? (if
> so… any suggestions? And what about private "gardens" that are
> partially/completely paved?)
>
>
>
>
> (PS: it is not my intention to discuss the relevance of tagging private
> front/back gardens. I just want to know how this should be tagged in case
> someone wants to. )
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Peter (PeeWee32)
>

The first part of question 1 was answered by Marc Zoutendijk on the Dutch
OSM forum.  The mailing list can be searched so here are are results
for leisure=garden.

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


Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

2019-07-14 Thread Pee Wee
> Why would a private garden require a different key? Do we tag a
> private wood / forest in a different way than one that is accessible
> by the public? Do private parking lots get a different amenity-key ?
> No, we refine this with additional tags.
> This method can be applied to private gardens as well.
>
> regards
> m
>
> Forgot to mention that since people started to map  whole residential
area's with leisure=garden even small
completely paved strips in front of a houses are tagged.  To me this is no
garden an no leisure either.  I think the current definition needs a change
in order to include or exclude these paved area's (which ever the community
wants).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

2019-07-14 Thread Pee Wee
Op vr 12 jul. 2019 om 09:13 schreef Marc Gemis :

> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 8:50 AM Pee Wee  wrote:
>
> Why would a private garden require a different key? Do we tag a
> private wood / forest in a different way than one that is accessible
> by the public? Do private parking lots get a different amenity-key ?
> No, we refine this with additional tags.
> This method can be applied to private gardens as well.
>
>
That is a good question. I would agree with you if the k/v would be e.g.
natural=garden. This describes what it is and not what it is used for.
Leisure=garden does not only describe what it is (garden) but also what it
is used for (leisure). If I look at all the other leisure values they give
me the impression that they are meant for places one can go to recreate and
mainly publicly accessible. One could argue that you can also recreate in
your own garden but still these private gardens are a dissonant from all
the other leisure values.

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


Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

2019-07-12 Thread Pee Wee
I understand but numbers don't always say much. A great part of this number
is caused by an (afaik  undocumentend and highly arbitrary)  import in the
city of Tilburg <http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/KFt>

Cheers
Peter

Op vr 12 jul. 2019 om 08:18 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com>:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 12. Jul 2019, at 07:23, Pee Wee  wrote:
>
> It seems to me that OSM leisure=garden wiki changed meaning on may 3, 2010
> when someone added a description of “Garden” from the Wikipedia garden
> description that refers to private gardens
>
>
>
> Frankly, I believe it is too late to question 2010 tagging decisions.
> Residential is by far the most used garden type qualifier:
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/garden:type#values
>
> 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


[Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

2019-07-11 Thread Pee Wee
Hi all


I would like your opinion on the next issue.


On the Dutch forum (googletranslate
)
I started a thread about the tag leisure=garden for private front/back
gardens. Reason was that I saw mappers using this for whole blocks of
houses that were not publicly accessible. That usage seemed completely
different from all the other leisure values
.

In the first versions

of the wiki page of leisure=garden there was no mentioning of private
front/back gardens.  It seems to me that OSM leisure=garden wiki changed
meaning on may 3, 2010 when someone added a description of “Garden” from
the Wikipedia garden description that refers to private gardens. In order
to differentiate from the publicly accessible gardens (with or without fee)
sometime additional tags like “access=private”  and
“garden:type=residential” are added. To me this seems better then no
additional tags at all but in fact I think private gardens (not accessible)
should not be tagged with the leisure key. On the talk page I saw that
there are more objections

to using this tag for private (non accessible) gardens.




My question to you experts are:



1.   Has this issue been discussed before and if so … what was the
outcome?

2.   If not… do you agree with me that private front/back garden should
not be tagged with leisure=garden but with a non-leisure tag? (if so… any
suggestions? And what about private "gardens" that are partially/completely
paved?)




(PS: it is not my intention to discuss the relevance of tagging private
front/back gardens. I just want to know how this should be tagged in case
someone wants to. )


Cheers

Peter (PeeWee32)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] traffic_sign:forward=*

2015-11-05 Thread Pee Wee
Just want to let you know that in NL we have 3 kind of cycle ways
.
It is quite common to tag these ways with a traffic_sign in order to
differentiate. This is not only unambiguous but it also makes things easy
to change in the OSM database in case legislation changes. For example.. if
a max speed is introduced in 1 of the 3 types it is easyly added in OSM.
Something that would but a lot more work if the signs were only nodes.

Cheers

PeeWee32



2015-11-04 11:25 GMT+01:00 Gerd Petermann :

>
> Hi Martin,
>
>
> I think you are mixing two things now. I talked about the "As part of a
> way" part, not the "On a way or area" part,
>
> which looks even more weird to me.
>
>
> Besides that: Yes, I also think that we should map a traffic_sign as a
> node with the position of the sign.
>
>
> Gerd
>
> --
> *Von:* Martin Koppenhoefer 
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 4. November 2015 11:11
> *An:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> *Betreff:* Re: [Tagging] traffic_sign:forward=*
>
>
> 2015-11-04 7:17 GMT+01:00 Georg Feddern :
>
>> If you read (and use) _only_ traffic_sign:forward - I suppose you read
>> only the german wiki page and then I understand your problem, because that
>> can not work in all cases.
>> If you read the english wiki page, you may understand the intention
>> better - as there is also a traffic_sign:backward variant mentioned.
>>
>> It shall work as in reality and as "computered" in the human mind:
>> Transform the information from the sign (node) to the way in the relevant
>> direction - with all possibilities, but even all obstacles also ...
>>
>> I do not support this "node on way" strategy - I use only the node beside
>> way as tagging for the sign itself - and "always on the right side" ;-) -
>> at least here in Germany.
>>
>
>
>
> Looks as if we agree that traffic signs are point objects at the side of a
> road, not linear stuff on a road. It doesn't make sense to have a traffic
> sign on a long part of a road, it is a point but can have effect for a
> linear piece of road (but then, it is not the traffic sign but the effect
> you want to map).
>
> Browsing the history of the page, I have found out that the idea of adding
> the key to a way is to collect a list of traffic signs that are valid for
> this way. IMHO this doesn't make a lot of sense, because the idea of
> storing the traffic signs was that of being able to verify actual tagging
> on the way (e.g. see from where to where a maxspeed is valid and where it
> changes for sure), but this idea is put from the top to the bottom if you
> repeat the actual effects (which normally do have their own tags, e.g.
> maxspeed, overtaking, access-tags, etc.) with the traffic sign tag.
>
> I propose to at least discourage the use of the traffic_sign key on ways,
> if not deprecate.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap
.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)

2014-12-25 Thread Pee Wee
First of all my compliments for seeking the opinions of the tagging mailing
list and your effort to improve OSM.

Here are my 2 cents



1 Why does OSM need to distinguish between obligatory and optional cycle
ways?

As a cyclist myself I can see some reasons why it could be useful for
routers and/or renderers. I think the proposal would improve if this was
explained a little further. (add some use cases for example)



2 Obligatory/optional for who?

When I see these words I think of means of transportation rather than types
of “highways”. In NL a cycleway can be obligatory for : bicycles, mopeds,
mofas, pedestrians. So when I see cycleway=obligatory I wonder for whom?



3 Legislation varies country to country and is not clear to all mappers.

During the discussions on the bicycle=use_sidepath  tag I noticed that the
word “compulsory/obligatory” has a different meaning in different
countries. Also many people (including mappers) don’t know exactly what the
difference is between optional and obligatory cycle ways.



4 Is the “traffic_sign=* “  an alternative?

In many counties the difference between the 2 types derives from traffic
signs. In NL we have 3 types of traffic signs for cycle ways. 1 is optional
and the other 2 are obligatory (for ordinary bicycles). On this map in my
area
http://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/~peewee32/traffic_sign/traffic_sign.htm?map=cyclewayszoom=13lat=52.15621lon=5.46077layers=BTTTFyou
can see the differences between the 3. (please wait for overpass query to
render)



Cheers

PeeWee32

2014-12-22 2:20 GMT+01:00 Ulrich Lamm ulamm.b...@t-online.de:

 Hi all,

 I've written a proposal for the tags cycleway=obligatory and
 cycleway=optional.

 Now I hope for your comments.

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




-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap
http://www.openstreetmap.org.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Dispute with user over changing wiki page

2014-11-13 Thread Pee Wee
Thanks all. We'll contact the DWG and see what they can do.

Cheers
PeeWee32

2014-11-11 23:37 GMT+01:00 Wolfgang Zenker wolfg...@lyxys.ka.sub.org:

 Hi,

 * Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com [14 19:20]:
  I thought I just wait some days for other to reply but unfortunately no
  more then yours.  The question we still have is : What can we do? I
 suppose
  the DWG will only block when harm is done to the OSM database and not on
  any wiki pages. Anyone else for a recommendation as to what we can do?

 the wiki admins can block changes to a specific wiki page with a strong
 hint to please discuss changes on the mailing list or the talk page
 before requesting an unblock of this page. Unfortunately your description
 of the problem does not sound as if this would really help, though.

 Wolfgang

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




-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap
http://www.openstreetmap.org.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Dispute with user over changing wiki page

2014-11-13 Thread Pee Wee
Good point Martin

For this issue it is irrelevant what the real life identity is of this
user. I'll not mention any of this in the e-mail to the DWG. (Not that I
know that much about this mapper)

Cheers
Peter

2014-11-13 17:56 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:


 2014-11-08 18:55 GMT+01:00 Michael Reichert naka...@gmx.net:

 My guess after reading the first sentence of your mail was right. There
 is no need to hide the name of this user. Its name is ulamm (name) from
 B. ...



 I'd kindly ask you to not point to actual or presumed real life identities
 of OSM contributors and to not disclose their (presumed/actual) place of
 residence on public lists, unless they are publicly known or the mapper has
 authorized you to do so.

 thank you,
 Martin

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




-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap
http://www.openstreetmap.org.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Dispute with user over changing wiki page

2014-11-11 Thread Pee Wee
Thanks Micheal

I thought I just wait some days for other to reply but unfortunately no
more then yours.  The question we still have is : What can we do? I suppose
the DWG will only block when harm is done to the OSM database and not on
any wiki pages. Anyone else for a recommendation as to what we can do?

Cheers
PeeWee32

2014-11-08 18:55 GMT+01:00 Michael Reichert naka...@gmx.net:

 Hi PeeWee32,

 Am 2014-11-08 um 16:47 schrieb Pee Wee:
  We are writing to you for advice on what steps we should or could take
  next. The situation is best summarized as:
 
 
  1. A user is attempting to change, without consensus, the meaning of a
 tag
  that was accepted through a proposal process. There are 2 changes that
 are
  arguable: one is a considerable change and another is a recommendation to
  add a redundant (but not wrong) tag;
 
  2. Several attempts have been made to revert the page to it's original
  state, without success;
 
  3. Several times we have advised him to go to the tagging mailing list to
  discuss these changes with more people, without success.

 My guess after reading the first sentence of your mail was right. There
 is no need to hide the name of this user. Its name is ulamm (Ulrich
 Lamm) from Bremen. He has long history of conflicts with other mappers
 in Bremen, Germany and Germany's eastern neighbours. Let me shortly
 summarize his conflicts:

 1. name:de
 In June this year he tried to delete almost all name:de tags in areas
 which belonged to Germany before World War II. He said that OSM is full
 of nazis and only capitals of foreign countries should have German names
 in OSM. He also deleted other name:*=* tags in Poland and Czech
 Republic. His motivation was that name:de=* had a higher priority than
 name=* or int_name=* in rendering at openstreetmap.org.
 http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=25719

 2. Bicycle Tagging
 This conflict exists especially in Bremen. I think you know the
 important topics of this conflict.

 In almost all topics his opinion is in difference to the opinion of OSM
 community. He is a mapping-for-the-renderer-mapper and you cannot
 discuss a topic with him.

 Both in case 1 and 2 he was reported to DWG several times. DWG told him
 that he will be blocked indefinitely if there is another conflict with
 other OSM contributors. I would like to see himself blocked. It would
 not be a loss for OSM community.

 Best regards

 Michael


 --
 Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt.


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




-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap
http://www.openstreetmap.org.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


[Tagging] Dispute with user over changing wiki page

2014-11-08 Thread Pee Wee
We are writing to you for advice on what steps we should or could take
next. The situation is best summarized as:


1. A user is attempting to change, without consensus, the meaning of a tag
that was accepted through a proposal process. There are 2 changes that are
arguable: one is a considerable change and another is a recommendation to
add a redundant (but not wrong) tag;

2. Several attempts have been made to revert the page to it's original
state, without success;

3. Several times we have advised him to go to the tagging mailing list to
discuss these changes with more people, without success.


On behalf of both John Packer and Hubert87


Cheers

PeeWee32
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - cycleway=soft_lane

2014-10-31 Thread Pee Wee
Hi Hubert

First of all I big compliment for bringing up the issue and tying to work
towards a solution.  If I look at the voting I see quite a few that would
approve if it would be tagged with a sub-tag.  My guess is that most voters
that approved will also approve if the sub-tag would be proposed. So maybe
you should propose with a sub tag and have a new vote.

Cheers
PeeWee32

2014-10-31 13:45 GMT+01:00 SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk:

  On 31/10/2014 12:02, Hubert wrote:

  I have a quick question. How  should I proceed with a voting that is a
 tie?


 Invoke the spirit of Groucho Marx?

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7cry-4pyy8

 :-)

 Cheers,

 Andy


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




-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap
http://www.openstreetmap.org.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Vandalis on access page

2014-10-24 Thread Pee Wee
Thanks Hubert

I've changed the use_sidepath
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Duse_sidepath wiki so
that it is clear that this is about cycleways that are drawn as a separate
highway.

2014-10-23 22:55 GMT+02:00 Hubert sg.fo...@gmx.de:

  I meant the two pages:


 *https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren*
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren
 and


 *https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:De:Description:Cycleway:Track*
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:De:Description:Cycleway:Track
 which is linked to

 *https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:cycleway*
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:cycleway

 Sorry for the confusion.


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




-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap
http://www.openstreetmap.org.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Vandalis on access page

2014-10-23 Thread Pee Wee
Thanks all for your reactions. I also think that the most changes made to
wiki are made in good faith and with good intentions and that is to improve
OSM. This even goes for Ulamm. He also wants to improve OSM  but it is just
the way he does this that gets me irritated.  Most of us (I guess) do this
after some sort of agreement in a part of the community. The impression I
get from Ulamm is that he is so convinced of his own opinion that he sees
this is a justification to changes all wiki's that claim differently.  When
MasiMaster and I were convinced OSM needed a tag like use_sidepath we
followed the proposal proces. Time consuming indeed but I think with a
better result then just changing wiki pages and upsetting people that did
not understand why. It kind of surprises me that Ulamm has something to do
with the soft_lane proposal.

The other thing with the way Ulamm acts is that I now am a lot more
sceptical towards OSM wiki pages. I don't know that many people that do
editing but if I see his name as one of the editors then it makes me
reserved.On top of that it is time consuming. Call me naive but I usually
believe wiki pages (unless of coarse I read something that conflicts with
my common sense ;-) ) Checking credibility of wiki pages is not really my
hobby. I'd rather do some mapping.

@ Hubert. Not sure which pages you refer to. I thought it was this
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:highway%3Dcyclewayone but you
do not seem the person that changed it.

Cheers
PeeWee32





2014-10-21 22:36 GMT+02:00 Hubert sg.fo...@gmx.de:

 Pre up: I have worked with him on the soft_lane proposal - results pending.
 I think his intentions are good and that he just takes the be bold part
 of
 the wiki too seriously, or the changes he makes are too large.
 That said, I believe that talking to others is an important part of a
 Community Project like OSM. If there are people that don't see that it will
 upset others.

 Also, FYI, I have updated the german pages on highway=cycleway und
 cycleway=* (track template page) concerning the use of cw=use_sidepath as
 defined prior (7.10 and 8.10). I hope this last a bit.

 Regards Hubert


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




-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap
http://www.openstreetmap.org.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Vandalis on access page

2014-10-21 Thread Pee Wee
Well... here's my experience with user Ulamm. He sure has taken away part
of the fun it was contributing to this project.

I've noticed he made some changes to the use_sidepath
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Duse_sidepath wiki. I
asked him in a private mail for the reason of the changes since they did
not make sense to me nor was I aware of some proposal or a discussion on
the tagging mailinglist. His changes were reverted by Mateusz but Ulamm
changed the wiki almost instantly. Ulamm could not (and still can not) give
me any reference to a discussion or whatever that would justify the changes
he made. In the private mail it was very clear to me that Ulamm wanted to
discuss with me why his change was good for OSM. I instead wanted to make
clear to him that he should get consensus first and after that change the
wiki.
For this reason I decided to continue on the TALK page instead of private
mail.  You can read that in  Talk
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:bicycle%3Duse_sidepathpage
from bicycle=yes everywhere

Apart from that fact that there is no consensus on the change he made I
also pointed him to the wiki page on tag for routing/Access restrictions
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions
with which his change conflicts.  He now states that it does not conflict
because those the road types under discussion are excluded from this wiki.
That was new to me so I was surprised. I found out that this wiki was also
changed by Ulamm by adding a paragraph by the name of Special feature:
Roadside cycletracks.  So Ulamm seems to change one wiki and justifies
with another wiki he has just changed.

My impression is that he does not want to reach consensus but just changes
wiki pages to his liking. IMHO this is a very bad development undermining
the wiki pages and the way we should should reach agreement in OSM.

I am wondering what your opinion is on this.

Cheers PeeWee32

PS :
History on use_sidepath wiki
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:bicycle%3Duse_sidepathaction=history
History Access page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictionsaction=history





2014-10-04 20:04 GMT+02:00 715371 osmu715...@gmx.de:

 Hi,

 I want to mention that user ulamm is not just doing vandalism on the
 osm-db, but also on the wiki.


 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Aaccessdiff=1076542oldid=1076413

 He is changing the information for Germany, where this is not true so
 far as I know.

 Now he is claiming this in discussions.

 Related to sidewalk-tagging he is doing the same: modify and than claim
 his proposal was right.

 You can also find suspicious modifications on [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5].

 Please bann him.

 Cheers,
 Tobias

 [1]

 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Ahighway%3Dcyclewaydiff=1078542oldid=1056509
 [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:highway%3Dcycleway
 [3]
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:De:Description:Cycleway:Track
 [4]

 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attributierung_von_Stra%C3%9Fen_in_Deutschland
 [5]
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren

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




-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap
http://www.openstreetmap.org.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Vandalis on access page

2014-10-08 Thread Pee Wee
If I understand correctly you say it would be better if the wiki stated
that the compulsory cycleway is drawn as a separte way. I think you are
right. I could changed that in the wiki. Unfortunately the user Ulamm has
changed the wiki (for the worse in my opinion) so I'll send him an email
before I make any changes.

Cheers

PeeWee32

2014-10-08 12:34 GMT+02:00 Hubert sg.fo...@gmx.de:

 Thanks for the help and the links. That was my opinion, too.

 I asked, because the use is not clear by just reading the definition and
 not looking at the examples.

 highway=road + cycleway=track + bicycle=use_sidepath together, without an
 additional highway=cycleway OSMWay (for example) seem correct by definition.

 I can understand the confusion. Should the use be made more prominent in
 the description of the value?



 Yours

 Hubert

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




-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap
http://www.openstreetmap.org.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Vandalis on access page

2014-10-08 Thread Pee Wee
I''ll wait till the edit war is over before I make any changes.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:bicycle%3Duse_sidepathaction=history

Apparently it is very difficult to discuss prior to making changes.

Cheers
PeeWee32

2014-10-08 14:18 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com:

 It is perfectly fine to revert somebody. See
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle

 2014-10-08 12:48 GMT+02:00 Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com:

 If I understand correctly you say it would be better if the wiki stated
 that the compulsory cycleway is drawn as a separte way. I think you are
 right. I could changed that in the wiki. Unfortunately the user Ulamm has
 changed the wiki (for the worse in my opinion) so I'll send him an email
 before I make any changes.

 Cheers

 PeeWee32

 2014-10-08 12:34 GMT+02:00 Hubert sg.fo...@gmx.de:

 Thanks for the help and the links. That was my opinion, too.

 I asked, because the use is not clear by just reading the definition and
 not looking at the examples.

 highway=road + cycleway=track + bicycle=use_sidepath together, without
 an additional highway=cycleway OSMWay (for example) seem correct by
 definition.

 I can understand the confusion. Should the use be made more prominent in
 the description of the value?



 Yours

 Hubert

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




 --
 Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap
 http://www.openstreetmap.org.

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



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




-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap
http://www.openstreetmap.org.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] New key proposal - paved=yes/no

2014-09-24 Thread Pee Wee

 As per Peewee post - the definition of 'paved' vs 'unpaved' is open to
 interpretation. But I don't think anyone would accept 'sand' as being
 'paved'?

I would not call sand paved but when we look at e.g.gravel / fine_gravel
the opinions will vary. The OSM based Openfietsmap
http://www.openfietsmap.nl/home/legenda(cycling map for Garmin devices)
has yet another value called semi-paved.  All based on current OSM tags.
(surface, tracktype, smoothness etc. ) In my experience this works pretty
well.

Cheers
PeeWee32
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] New key proposal - paved=yes/no

2014-09-24 Thread Pee Wee
No it not a language problem  or a dictionary issue. It's about an OSM data
consumer (openfietmap)  that thinks it is important to for cyclist to know
what type of paving can be expected.  Paved, unpaved and semi-paved to keep
it simple. I think this is OK and it works for me.

Cheers
Peewee32

2014-09-24 19:03 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:


 2014-09-24 18:40 GMT+02:00 Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com:

 I would not call sand paved but when we look at e.g.gravel /
 fine_gravel the opinions will vary. The OSM based Openfietsmap
 http://www.openfietsmap.nl/home/legenda(cycling map for Garmin
 devices) has yet another value called semi-paved.  All based on current
 OSM tags. (surface, tracktype, smoothness etc. ) In my experience this
 works pretty well.



 semi-paved does not make any sense to me (besides maybe something
 divided in two along its direction, (that would probably be half-paved)) .
 I've looked the word paved up in an online dictionary and it seems to
 confirm what I thought it would mean.
 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pave

 1
 *:*  to lay or cover with material (as asphalt or concrete) that forms a
 firm level surface for travel
 2
 *:*  to cover firmly and solidly as if with paving material
 3
 *:*  to serve as a covering or pavement
 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pavement of


 1 is dealing with asphalt or concrete (firm level surface)
 2 is dealing with different stuff (as if it was paved), i.e. comparing to
 3 is not useful for us here


 gravel does not seem to fit into any of these categories. Maybe this is a
 language problem? E.g. in German you could translate paved as either
 gepflastert/asphaltiert/betoniert or as befestigt, where the latter
 would indeed include gravel, fine gravel etc. (but in these cases paved
 would not be a suitable translation of befestigt).

 cheers,
 Martin

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




-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap
http://www.openstreetmap.org.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] New key proposal - paved=yes/no

2014-09-21 Thread Pee Wee
-1

A renderer/router is perfectly capable of deciding what he thinks is
paved/unpaved. He can decide whether he calls gravel / fine_gravel paved or
unpaved. Do not leave the decision paved/unpaved  up to the mapper. Map
what you see. As you may have guessed I prefer surface=asphalt over
surface=paved since the last one could mean that it is gravel.

Cheers
PeeWee32

2014-09-21 2:49 GMT+02:00 David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net:


 yes, agree strongly. Surface= is a good tag, provides important info but
 it is far too fine grained. Someone setting up a route cannot be
 expected to sift through all the possible values.

 Similarly, we may well have a chance to get the renderers to respect a
 clear, on/off tag like the proposed and show it on the maps too.

 I see no problem with both tags being used.

 I think sometimes we put too much detail in the database and risk making
 the data unusable because of that. Mention making the data usable, we
 see charges of tagging for the renderer. But this is important, I have
 detailed life threatening issues resulting from unclear maps. This
 proposal will provide valuable, dare I say usable info for consumers !

 David

 On Sat, 2014-09-20 at 23:42 +0200, Tomasz Kaźmierczak wrote:
  Hello all,
 
  I've posted the below message on the forum, and have been directed
  from there to this mailing list, thus re-posting it.
 
  Idea
 
  I would like to suggest making the paved key for highways (and
  probably other types of elements) official. Taginfo for paved:
  http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/paved#values
 
  The above shows that the key is already being used, but the Wiki
  doesn't describe this key, instead redirecting Key:paved to the
  article about Key:surface.
 
  Rationale
 
  Currently, the surface key is being used as a way of saying that a
  given highway is paved or unpaved, but often the value for the surface
  key is not a generic paved or unpaved, but a specific surface type is
  given.This is of course very useful for describing the particular
  surface type a given highway has. However, in some cases, a simple
  information on just whether a highway is paved or not, would be very
  useful. One such case would be navigation software – if a user chooses
  to avoid unpaved roads, the software can check the value of the
  surface key, but in practice most (all?) of the navigation software
  only checks for a subset of all the possible values the surface key
  can have. This leads to incorrect (in terms of what the user expects)
  navigation when, for example, the surface is set to some value that
  describes an unpaved road, not recognized by the navigation software –
  if the software assumes that all highways are paved, unless explicitly
  stated otherwise (by recognized values of known keys), then, in
  consequence, it assumes that the road in question is paved.
 
  If the paved key was widely used, then the navigation software would
  have a simple and clear way of checking whether a given road is paved
  or not. The default value of the paved key for highways could be yes,
  so that it would be consistent with the assumption that highways in
  general are paved.
 
  I don't mean that we should stop using the paved and unpaved values
  for the surface key – I'm sure those generic values are useful in some
  cases. However, using the paved key would be also very useful. Also,
  the surface=paved could also implicate paved=yes and similarly
  surface=unpaved could implicate paved=no, so that duplication of the
  information could be avoided when the generic paved and unpaved values
  are set for the surface key.
 
  I believe that adding an article for the paved key to the Wiki would
  encourage people to use this tag, and navigation software makers to
  implement support for it in their applications.
 
  What do you think about that?
 
 
 
  Regards,
 
  Tomek
 
  ___
  Tagging mailing list
  Tagging@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



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




-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap
http://www.openstreetmap.org.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] New key proposal - paved=yes/no

2014-09-21 Thread Pee Wee
2014-09-21 15:37 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:





  Il giorno 21/set/2014, alle ore 09:29, Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com ha
 scritto:
 
  As you may have guessed I prefer surface=asphalt over surface=paved
 since the last one could mean that it is gravel.



 while I also prefer asphalt over paved (more specific), I think it's
 difficult to find arguments for a gravel road to be considered paved


Well if an unpaved  forest path would get gravel or fine_gravel thrown on
top of it I would consider this some sort of paving that could be
classified as paved. You apparently don't. No need to argue about that ,
it only goes to show that the suggested tag would not work. ;-)

Cheers
PeeWee32
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] changing wiki , changing definitions

2014-08-25 Thread Pee Wee
Just to let you know. I got a reply. The change was more a personal wish
then something that was discussed. He reverted the change so everything is
how it was.

I also received a nice tip on how to follow changes in a wiki you're
interested in. I thought it would be good to share even though it might not
be new to all of you.



*If you are concerned about a wiki page's integrity, it is advisable to
put it into your watchlist, and then turn on email notifications. You can
put them on your watchlist by clicking on the start on the upper right
corner of the page.*
*You can turn on email notifications by going on your settings page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:Preferences?uselang=en#mw-prefsection-personal
and turn on the checkbox Email me when a page or file on my watchlist is
changed.*

Cheers
PeeWee32


2014-08-20 8:27 GMT+02:00 Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com:

 Thanks for the comments. I'll play it fair. I've just sent an email to the
 person that changed it even though I find it hard to believe that the next
 sentence was something many mappers would agree on.
 
 *Usage in cities*


 *Barcelona http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Barcelona and London
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/London also uses this tag for similar
 and practical reasons: in London, the Great West Road
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Mile_%28Brentford%29 in London is
 among a number of trunk roads where it is practically better to use a
 designated cycleway, because of a high speed limit on the main carriageway
 (40 mph or 64 km/h). *

 I'm also thinking of adding a list of countries that do and do not have
 compulsory cycleways. That should hopefully make things clearer.

 Cheers

 PeeWee32




 2014-08-19 23:29 GMT+02:00 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com:

 Am 19.08.2014 10:38, schrieb Frederik Ramm:
  Hi,
 
  On 08/19/2014 09:04 AM, Pee Wee wrote:
  Sure I could send an email to the person that changed this but what do
  you think is the best way to deal with this changing wiki pages? Or
  should I just accept that these things happen and change it back and
  send an email?
 
  Well you should certainly *first* find out the motivation behind the
  change and *then* think about whether it needs reverting (instead of
  first reverting and then asking).

 Yeah, always play fair, but keep in mind that the edit should have been
 discussed priorly, too. This way, reverting and then discussing about
 changes seems to me the right way, otherwise the wrong description is
 even longer available.

  The wiki is a living documentation and not a dead archive of past
  discussions. It is quite possible that the use of bicycle=use_sidepath
  has changed, or is changing, and of course we'd like the wiki to
  properly document current practice.

 This tag is not old enough to have changed already and only for certain
 situation in countries with compulsory cycleways.

 cu fly

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




 --
 Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap
 http://www.openstreetmap.org.




-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap
http://www.openstreetmap.org.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] changing wiki , changing definitions

2014-08-20 Thread Pee Wee
Thanks for the comments. I'll play it fair. I've just sent an email to the
person that changed it even though I find it hard to believe that the next
sentence was something many mappers would agree on.

*Usage in cities*


*Barcelona http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Barcelona and London
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/London also uses this tag for similar
and practical reasons: in London, the Great West Road
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Mile_%28Brentford%29 in London is
among a number of trunk roads where it is practically better to use a
designated cycleway, because of a high speed limit on the main carriageway
(40 mph or 64 km/h). *

I'm also thinking of adding a list of countries that do and do not have
compulsory cycleways. That should hopefully make things clearer.

Cheers

PeeWee32




2014-08-19 23:29 GMT+02:00 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com:

 Am 19.08.2014 10:38, schrieb Frederik Ramm:
  Hi,
 
  On 08/19/2014 09:04 AM, Pee Wee wrote:
  Sure I could send an email to the person that changed this but what do
  you think is the best way to deal with this changing wiki pages? Or
  should I just accept that these things happen and change it back and
  send an email?
 
  Well you should certainly *first* find out the motivation behind the
  change and *then* think about whether it needs reverting (instead of
  first reverting and then asking).

 Yeah, always play fair, but keep in mind that the edit should have been
 discussed priorly, too. This way, reverting and then discussing about
 changes seems to me the right way, otherwise the wrong description is
 even longer available.

  The wiki is a living documentation and not a dead archive of past
  discussions. It is quite possible that the use of bicycle=use_sidepath
  has changed, or is changing, and of course we'd like the wiki to
  properly document current practice.

 This tag is not old enough to have changed already and only for certain
 situation in countries with compulsory cycleways.

 cu fly

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




-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap
http://www.openstreetmap.org.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated

2014-08-19 Thread Pee Wee
In The Netherlands we more or less have agreement on this scheme
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle_tags_map#Cycleway_tagsfor
tagging cycleways, cycle streets. I've also noticed this is totally
different from the schemes used in Germany and other countries. During the
discussion on the proposal use_cycleway
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Bicycle_use_cycleway
(now accepted tag=  use_sidepath
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Duse_sidepath) we've seen
there are many (legal) differences between countries.  There is no
agreement on how to tag different kind of cycleways. That's been a reason
for me to start tagging the traffic_sign tag on cycleways
http://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/~peewee32/traffic_sign/traffic_sign.htm.
Once we get to an agreement on how to explicitly tag these we can easily
change that based on the traffic_sign tag.

My 2 cents
PeeWee32


2014-08-18 22:51 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com:




 2014-08-18 22:45 GMT+02:00 Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com:

 You mean the British legal definition of cycleway.

 Just to ad another bit of legal aspects in this. In Italy, on ways signed
 like like this
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:120px-Zeichen_240.svg.png, the
 pedestran has priority over he cyclist.


 This is true also for Poland, and cyclist may not use road next to route
 like this that would lead in the same direction.
 And there is a separate name for ways signed like this (ciąg
 pieszo-rowerowy).

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




-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap
http://www.openstreetmap.org.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


[Tagging] changing wiki , changing definitions

2014-08-19 Thread Pee Wee
This year the bicycle=use_sidepath was accepeted. After the vote I made a wiki
page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Duse_sidepath.
I've just noticed that the page was changed in such a way that it also
changes the definition. The tag can only be applied in counties that have
compulsary cycleways.  I've seen that a sentence was changed now saying
You can use this tag where a road has a parallel compulsory *or designated
*cycleway  (I've changed that back) . There is also a section added
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Duse_sidepath#Usage_in_cities
that I'm not happy with. It now seems that this tag should be used if the
mapper thinks it is safer for cyclist to take the cycleway instead of the
main road. (Do Spain and Great Britain have compulsory cycleways?)


Sure I could send an email to the person that changed this but what do you
think is the best way to deal with this changing wiki pages? Or should I
just accept that these things happen and change it back and send an email?

Cheers
PeeWee32
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated

2014-08-19 Thread Pee Wee
2014-08-19 9:11 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com:

 2014-08-19 8:22 GMT+02:00 Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com:

 In The Netherlands we more or less have agreement on this scheme
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle_tags_map#Cycleway_tagsfor
 tagging cycleways, cycle streets. I've also noticed this is totally
 different from the schemes used in Germany and other countries. During the
 discussion on the proposal use_cycleway
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Bicycle_use_cycleway
 (now accepted tag=  use_sidepath
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Duse_sidepath) we've
 seen there are many (legal) differences between countries.  There is no
 agreement on how to tag different kind of cycleways. That's been a reason
 for me to start tagging the traffic_sign tag on cycleways
 http://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/~peewee32/traffic_sign/traffic_sign.htm.
 Once we get to an agreement on how to explicitly tag these we can easily
 change that based on the traffic_sign tag.


 It is not so different. Is there some tag used to differentiate between
 following situation
 - road is one-way direction but not for cyclist, there is a contraflow lane
 - road is one-way direction but not for cyclist, there is no contraflow
 lane

 According to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway in the first
 situation cycleway=opposite_lane
 should be used and cycleway=opposite for the second situation. I also use
 oneway:bicycle=no in addition
 to this two, not instead what I think makes more sense and data is easier
 to use.

I also use oneway:bicycle=no.


 Main difference is usage of cycleway=track, cycleways like that would be
 considered as separate in Poland.

 And there is no consideration for cycleways mixed with footways
 [highway=path; bicycle=designated;
 foot=designated; segregated=yes/no].

  2014-08-19 8:22 GMT+02:00 Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com:

 That's been a reason for me to start tagging the traffic_sign tag on
 cycleways
 http://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/%7Epeewee32/traffic_sign/traffic_sign.htm.
 Once we get to an agreement on how to explicitly tag these we can easily
 change that based on the traffic_sign tag.

 Can you link proposal on wiki? I am unable to find it.


Maybe not a porposal but a wiki page.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_sign



 ___
 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] Fwd: Feature Proposal - Voting - (bicycle=use_sidepath) (was use_sideway)

2014-05-23 Thread Pee Wee
On may  16th the voting ended. The result: 26 votes,  22 approve, 4 oppose.
This means the proposal is accepted. I will do the post-vote clean up.
Thanks everyone for voting and contributing.

Cheers

PeeWee32



-- Forwarded message --
From: Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com
Date: 2014-05-02 13:32 GMT+02:00
Subject: Feature Proposal - Voting - (bicycle=use_sidepath) (was
use_sideway)
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org


On march 16 we launched the RFC for a use_sideway tag.


There has not been much discussion about the proposal. The most discussion
was on the NL forum about the name of the tag.  It was mentioned that the
word sideway is not a clear English word and can be confusing. There have
been a few other proposals for the name of this tag but it is very hard to
get consensus so we had to finally make a decision.
We changed to 
use_sidepathhttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/use_sidepath
which was also proposed before.  A google picture
searchhttps://www.google.de/search?q=sidepathsource=lnmstbm=ischsa=Xei=TVJbU4X2KMLVOfPiAQved=0CAgQ_AUoAQbiw=1920bih=933dpr=1showed
more or less the right thing. Changing the name of coarse causes
changing the URL so we set the status of the use_sideway to rejected and
created a new page:
bicycle=use_sidepathhttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/use_sidepath.


Happy voting

Cheers
PeeWee32  MasiMaster



-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmaphttp://www.openstreetmap.org
.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (bicycle=use_sidepath) (was use_sideway)

2014-05-02 Thread Pee Wee
On march 16 we launched the RFC for a use_sideway tag.


There has not been much discussion about the proposal. The most discussion
was on the NL forum about the name of the tag.  It was mentioned that the
word sideway is not a clear English word and can be confusing. There have
been a few other proposals for the name of this tag but it is very hard to
get consensus so we had to finally make a decision.
We changed to 
use_sidepathhttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/use_sidepath
which was also proposed before.  A google picture
searchhttps://www.google.de/search?q=sidepathsource=lnmstbm=ischsa=Xei=TVJbU4X2KMLVOfPiAQved=0CAgQ_AUoAQbiw=1920bih=933dpr=1showed
more or less the right thing. Changing the name of coarse causes
changing the URL so we set the status of the use_sideway to rejected and
created a new page:
bicycle=use_sidepathhttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/use_sidepath.


Happy voting

Cheers
PeeWee32  MasiMaster
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


[Tagging] Fwd: Feature Proposal - RFC - use_sideway (was bicycle=use_cycleway)

2014-03-25 Thread Pee Wee
We have not had very much response on the new
proposalhttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/use_sideway.
That could mean that most think it is OK (hopefully) but that could also be
whishfull thinking ;-)  On talk
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/use_sidewayPieren
proposed to make the proposal shorter and focus on bicycles. We followed
his advice. On the NL
forumhttp://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=408025#p408025there
was some discussion on the name of the tag.  There was an argument
that use_sideway is a wrong name for the tag because sideway is not a
proper English word and does not reflect our goal. use_adjacent_way was
proposed as an alternative or even the old use_cycleway   Any more
opinions on this?

This is also an invitation to those that will  oppose the proposal to give
us some hints on what they like to see changed in the proposal.


Cheers.

PeeWee32








-- Forwarded message --
From: Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com
Date: 2014-03-21 8:26 GMT+01:00
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - use_sideway (was
bicycle=use_cycleway)
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org


We followed Pieren's advice on the Talk
pagehttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/use_sidewayand
made the proposal
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/use_sidewaymuch
shorter.  This focuses on making clear what the proposal is and not so much
on our arguments. For those that are interested in our arguments we've made
a   sub 
pagehttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/use_sideway_arguments
including our comment on last proposal. Hope this helps.

With regard to Matthijs his question I can say that in yesterday's
newspaper (algemeen dagblad)  I read that NL has 35.000 KM of cycleways.

Not sure why Matthijs qoute's the no backward compatibility to the
existing bicycle=no (in e.g. NL) .  We've commented on that in the
proposal (which has moved to the subpage)

Cheers

PeeWee32


2014-03-17 0:07 GMT+01:00 Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl:

On 16 March 2014 17:34, Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com wrote:
  Last november we proposed the bicycle=use_cycleway.  There was a lot of
  discussion before and during voting. The voting was very close but we
  decided to reject the proposal and work on a new one.

 | no backward compatibility to the existing bicycle=no (in e.g. NL)

 Just curious: can anyone find out how many percent of the ways with
 highway=cyclepath are located in the Netherlands? It seems Tagwatch
 doesn't exist anymore, so I don't really know how to get these data.

 -- Matthijs

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




-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmaphttp://www.openstreetmap.org
.



-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmaphttp://www.openstreetmap.org
.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - use_sideway (was bicycle=use_cycleway)

2014-03-21 Thread Pee Wee
We followed Pieren's advice on the Talk
pagehttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/use_sidewayand
made the proposal
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/use_sidewaymuch
shorter.  This focuses on making clear what the proposal is and not so much
on our arguments. For those that are interested in our arguments we've made
a   sub 
pagehttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/use_sideway_arguments
including our comment on last proposal. Hope this helps.

With regard to Matthijs his question I can say that in yesterday's
newspaper (algemeen dagblad)  I read that NL has 35.000 KM of cycleways.

Not sure why Matthijs qoute's the no backward compatibility to the
existing bicycle=no (in e.g. NL) .  We've commented on that in the
proposal (which has moved to the subpage)

Cheers

PeeWee32


2014-03-17 0:07 GMT+01:00 Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl:

 On 16 March 2014 17:34, Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com wrote:
  Last november we proposed the bicycle=use_cycleway.  There was a lot of
  discussion before and during voting. The voting was very close but we
  decided to reject the proposal and work on a new one.

 | no backward compatibility to the existing bicycle=no (in e.g. NL)

 Just curious: can anyone find out how many percent of the ways with
 highway=cyclepath are located in the Netherlands? It seems Tagwatch
 doesn't exist anymore, so I don't really know how to get these data.

 -- Matthijs

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




-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmaphttp://www.openstreetmap.org
.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - use_sideway (was bicycle=use_cycleway)

2014-03-16 Thread Pee Wee
This is an RFC for a new value:
use_sidewayhttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/use_sideway.
(which is an access value)

Last november we proposed the
bicycle=use_cyclewayhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle_use_cycleway.
There was a lot of discussion before
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-November/015592.htmland
duringhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Bicycle_use_cyclewayvoting.
The voting was very close but we decided to reject the proposal and
work on a new one.

We think we've now made a better
proposahttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/use_sidewayl
(use_sideway) with more emphasis on the access issue and some more examples
with regard to routing.

Cheers
Masi Master and PeeWee32
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] How to tag an imaginary oneway barrier

2014-02-09 Thread Pee Wee
Thanks Martin

This then means that tagging a
traffic_sign:forwardhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Traffic_sign#As_part_of_a_way=*
on a node that is part of a way is also more then arguable. We'll have to
keep on searching for better ways to map traffic signs. Maybe the Finnish
style http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Finland:Traffic_signs is not so
bad after all ;-)

cheers
PeeWee32


2014-02-06 17:07 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:


 2014-02-05 17:14 GMT+01:00 Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com:

  I'd discourage this tagging (and, semantically it doesn't make sense
 anyway).

 OK but why does it not make sense semantically? It seems to me that it
 is unambigious



 it has no meaning at all. A point / node has no direction, so
 forward/backward do not make any sense, only ways can have
 forward/backward. What you want to do is an implicit relation (you want to
 say: this node a in forward direction of this way b has this
 restriction c) without creating it explicitly. As it is implicit, common
 tools won't know about it (they only know explicit relations). One could
 implement a method to determine such situations for the tools, but that
 still doesn't make the semantics nice looking, you still have a tag on a
 node which is actually about the direction of a way without the way being
 explicitly stated. A better mapping would somehow reference this way (and
 the node, i.e. a relation).

 cheers,
 Martin

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




-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmaphttp://www.openstreetmap.org
.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] How to tag an imaginary oneway barrier

2014-02-05 Thread Pee Wee
2014-02-02 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:



 a node still doesn't have a direction, the node could also be the end of
 more than one way, or there could be more ways going into the node, all of
 which would make the situation unclear, and all of which can also happen in
 the future.


I agree but I guess thats why on the traffic_sign wiki there is this
sentence *It is important to note that the affected direction can only be
unambiguously specified by using nodes which are part of exactly one
highway http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway=*. Avoid junction
nodes and nodes between two ways as well (where they have been split, but
are connected by a node). If in doubt, better simply insert a new node into
the way instead of using an existing one. *


 Advocating tagging a node would require all future map editors to take
 care about the tagging of all nodes when reversing the direction of a way
 or of the connecting nodes when simply adding ways.

I also agree but would this realy be a very big problem for editors? They
could just warn us when this happens. Also splitting a way on a node with a
forward/backward in its tag should give a warning. Much like the warning
JOSM gives when reversing a way when it's a oneway. Also the JOSM
validation is so extensive that I should not be to hard to check for
end-nodes with a forward/backward in it.


 I'd discourage this tagging (and, semantically it doesn't make sense
 anyway).

 OK but why does it not make sense semantically? It seems to me that it is
unambigious and a much easier way then the alternatives where
(unfortunately IMHO) a way is cut and I add the traffic_sign:backward node
just a little away from the cut. That does not make sense to me because the
cut is made due to the traffic sign beeing there.

I'm not saying that the option to add a node and use motorcar:backward=no
is the best but IMHO it really is not much different then the
traffic_sign:backward =  tag on a node that belongs to a way.(if its not an
end-node)

If you still don't like it just don't blame me. I got the idea from the
taffic_sign wiki ;-)

Cheers PeeWee32
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] How to tag an imaginary oneway barrier

2014-02-02 Thread Pee Wee
2014-02-02 Jo winfi...@gmail.com:

 The 4th option is to use turn restrictions on the crossing where the
 'virtual' sign is placed.

 Jo



That may very wel be the best solution. That means we have to split the way
at the location of the traffic_sign. That is kind of a shame because I was
thinking of also adding a  traffic_sign:backward:NL:C6 on the node of the
split. The traffic sign
WIKIhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Traffic_sign#As_part_of_a_waysays
this about placing traffic_sign tags on a node that is part of a way :

It is important to note that the affected direction can only be
unambiguously specified by using nodes which are part of *exactly one*
highway http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway=*. Avoid junction
nodes and nodes between two ways as well (where they have been split, but
are connected by a node). If in doubt, better simply insert a new node into
the way instead of using an existing one. 

I guess that the best place for the traffic_sign tag is then just a bit
away from the split node.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


[Tagging] How to tag an imaginary oneway barrier

2014-02-01 Thread Pee Wee
On the Dutch 
forumhttp://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=394396#p394396there
is some discussion on how to tag a common situation.
It is about a street that has no traffic sign on one end (side A) and a C6
sign http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nederlands_verkeersbord_C6.svgon
the other end (side B) .  Ofcoarse it is not allowed to enter this
street by car from side B. If you enter the street by car from side A you
are allowed to drive all the way. But you are even allowed to drive to
(lets say) half way and then return. In other words... this is not a oneway
street for motorcars. This makes the traffic sign a more or less imaginary
oneway barrier.

Let's for simplicity's sake asume the implication of the sign is
motorcar=no,  how should this be tagged?

The direction of the OSM way is from A to B. The options that were
mentioned on de forum were:

1 Cut the way where the sign is and use a relation type :
restrictionhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction.

2 Add a node on the way where the sign is and add a motorcar:backward=no to
this node. (similar to
traffic_sign:forwardhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Traffic_sign#As_part_of_a_wayon
a node that is part of a way)
3 Cut the way where the sign is into a tiny piece of way.  Add a
motorcar:backward =no  to this tiny piece of way.

Cheers
PeeWee32
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] How to tag an imaginary oneway barrier

2014-02-01 Thread Pee Wee
2014-02-01 Martin Koppenhöfer dieterdre...@gmail.com:




 1 seems the best representation,

But rather complicated I'm afraid


 2 is not working because a node has no direction

If a node is part of a way (which has a direction) a router should have
enough information to conclude in which direction there is a motorcar=no.


 and for 3 I'd rather use oneway=yes instead of motorcar:backward=no.


It is not a oneway street and if you want to make it one I'd rather use the
oneway:motorcar=yes/-1  (depending on the direction of the way)

Cheers PeeWee32


 Cheers,
 Martin

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




-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmaphttp://www.openstreetmap.org
.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] End voting bicycle=use_cycleway

2013-12-15 Thread Pee Wee

 1.   There are no absolute rules as to when it is approved/rejected
 (and I can understand that)



there are for voting: we require at least 15 votes and a majority of yes
votes. Of course a won voting doesn't make your tag approved or used by
the community.



 2.   For some reason it seems that the ones that make the proposal
 can not vote. This is a barrier to team up with others because you then
 loose votes.



where do you get this from? First time I hear this.

Don't know exacly where I heard that but as Pieren said if the proposal is
good enough you  don't need the votes of the authors. What a shame because
then it would have been a majority (by 1 vote and not counting the
abstains)   but still not approved  ;-)

Anyway : We'll work on a better proposal but it may take some time.
Patience is a vitrue ;-)

Cheers PeeWee32


2013/12/15 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com


 2013/12/15 Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com

 1.   There are no absolute rules as to when it is approved/rejected
 (and I can understand that)



 there are for voting: we require at least 15 votes and a majority of yes
 votes. Of course a won voting doesn't make your tag approved or used by
 the community.



 2.   For some reason it seems that the ones that make the proposal
 can not vote. This is a barrier to team up with others because you then
 loose votes.



 where do you get this from? First time I hear this.




 3.   Only if you have a wiki account you can vote.



 yes, but they are cheap and fast to get.



 4.   You can vote no without having given any objections to the
 proposal before voting.



 yes,  but where is the problem? Of course it is desirable to participate
 as early as possible in the process, but in the end we all have also other
 things to do, so sometimes you only get to read the details of a certain
 proposal when it is already in the voting phase.


 5.   You can always vote no just for an irrelevant reason. (and that
 is subjective, I know)



 yes, but you shouldn't ;-)



 6.   There are more then 1 million mappers and only a few vote (24
 in this case).





 as Pieren stated, there are less then 1M mappers, currently IIRR something
 like 300.000 (with at least 1 edit), but most of them aren't very involved
 and have only done few edits (less than 10). You won't want those people
 with typically few dedication to and few experience with OSM to vote on
 tags (IMHO).

 cheers,
 Martin

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




-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor
openstreetmaphttp://www.openstreetmap.nl/.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] End voting bicycle=use_cycleway

2013-12-14 Thread Pee Wee
Thanks Matthijs, Fly, Erik ,Ilpo and Martin for your reply. I’ll say a few
words on how I look at the matter. I have not discussed all this with
co-author MasiMaster so this is my personal view.



*Proposal  process (with or without voting) *

As Fly stated a proposal is not needed to start using new tags. And yes we
can start a new proposal without voting.  The advantage of  a proposal and
discussion is that it improves documentation. We’ve gained more insight
after the voting because of discussion in the voting
sectionhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle_use_cycleway#Voting
and comments on the bicycle=use_cycleway
talkhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Bicycle_use_cycleway
page. This will help us improve the proposal. What surprised me a bit was
that discussions really  started during voting. Remember this was my first
proposal and I’ve only recently joined the tagging mailinglist so I may
have been a bit naïve. For me the discussion about the proposal is the most
important part of the proposal process.



*To vote of not to vote?*

To be honest I do not really take the voting too seriously. Why?

1.   There are no absolute rules as to when it is approved/rejected
(and I can understand that)

2.   For some reason it seems that the ones that make the proposal can
not vote. This is a barrier to team up with others because you then loose
votes.

3.   Only if you have a wiki account you can vote.

4.   You can vote no without having given any objections to the
proposal before voting.

5.   You can always vote no just for an irrelevant reason. (and that is
subjective, I know)

6.   There are more then 1 million mappers and only a few vote (24 in
this case).



So even if the proposal is rejected I see no harm in starting to use the
tag because  it adds information to the database. And this proposal is not
going to start an edit war either because it is not replacing any accepted
tag. In 
Bremenhttp://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/~peewee32/use_cycleway/Bicycle_use_cycleway.htm?map=cyclewayszoom=14lat=53.08661lon=8.82539layers=BFFFTFFF
there are already roads tagged with this value. Even if the “final”
proposal is different then it is fairly easy to change these tags.



*Improvements in the next proposal*

*Country specific access on these roads.*

We’re thinking about making a country specific access scheme for various
vehicles/situations on roads next to a compulsory cycleway. Something
similar to 
thishttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#Germanyand
we’re going to need some help from others for this as you can
understand.



*Give more and better examples*

I think some have thought that parallel cycleway is always a straight
cycleway next to a straight road. And as a consequence said it will not
improve routing because a router should give preference to the cycleway. A
situation like 
thishttp://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=52.508705%2C13.273662point=52.509385%2C13.270111vehicle=BIKElocale=nl
one could have made things clearer but could also confuse.



*Routing or no routing in the proposal*

Although I am convinced the new tag will improve routing we failed to make
this clear (to all) in the proposal. We’ve had NO voters because of this.
Routing is a consequence of proper (access) tagging. We have 2 options in
our next proposal. 1) Not mention routing at all  or 2) mention it and give
some very good examples.  W now think that we should not mention routing at
all but you never know what we’re going to do. Better routing might
convince some but it is also something that might complicate things.

The fact that routers usually have the option of shortest route seems to be
unknown or hard to understand. Though I probably do not have to convince
you I will give one more example just for the record. I’ll use Bremen this
time because of some roads being tagged with bicycle=use_cycleway.

Here’shttp://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=53.080705%2C8.816603point=53.081736%2C8.820584vehicle=bikelocale=nl
what most routers would do when you want shortest route. They’ll propose a
route over roads where you are not supposed to ride your bicycle.
Here’shttp://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/~peewee32/use_cycleway/Bicycle_use_cycleway.htm?map=cyclewayszoom=18lat=53.08103lon=8.81895layers=BTTTTFFFthe
same situation showing which roads are tagged with
bicycle=use_cycleway. That should give routers enough information to
propose a better route.



Cheers

PeeWee32


2013/12/14 Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl

 On 13 December 2013 19:37, Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com wrote:
  We want to thank all the contributors to this discussion.  We think  and
  hope we have enough information to work on  new proposal.

 Thank you for not giving up, and for trying to improve the proposal.

 I think many of the no-votes were the result of a lack of
 understanding. Perhaps it would be good to find a couple of real-world
 illustrations

[Tagging] End voting bicycle=use_cycleway

2013-12-13 Thread Pee Wee
Today the voting of the
bicycle=use_cyclewayhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Bicycle_use_cyclewayended.
 Voting results:



Yes:  10 (not counting the 2 that made the proposal)

No:  11

Abstain:  3



This is reason enough for us to work on a better proposal so we reject the
current one.

We want to thank all the contributors to this discussion.  We think  and
hope we have enough information to work on  new proposal.  It’s been an
interesting discussion  with various views that differ quite a lot.

Our conclusion is that most (but not all) think that  tagging bicycle
access on these roads is a good idea regardless of HOW. The access differs
from both  ordinary roads that allow cycling and roads with an explicit ban.
Currently there is no broad consensus on HOW  to tag these. Basically there
are 5 different ways that are suggested.

1.   “bicycle= use_cycleway “  (= proposal)

2.   “bicycle=restricted” (no additional  key/value)

3.   “bicycle=restricted” combined with a new key/value combination
(e.g. “bicycle:restriction=use_cycleway”)

4.   “bicycle:restriction=use_cycleway”  (regardless of a  bicycle= )

5.“bicycle=no” combined with a new key/value (e.g.
“bicycle:use_cycleway=yes” or “bicycle:restriction=use_cycleway” )



The new proposal will  (most likely) focus on :

1 The need to tag bicycle access on these roads (Should we tag bicycle
access?)

2  What tags to use (How should we tag these?)



We will report back once we’ve come up with a version that is ready to be
discussed again. Thanks again.



Cheers

PeeWee32  MasiMaster
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] End voting bicycle=use_cycleway

2013-12-13 Thread Pee Wee
@ Martin

I understand what you are saying. With regard to routing I did not expect
we had to explain why it could be improved by this new tag. There have been
some examples like this
onehttp://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=52.508705%2C13.273662point=52.509385%2C13.270111vehicle=BIKElocale=nlshowing
that a router that wants SHORTEST way has no way of knowing it
should not take the main road. Still routing is a difficult issue. And as
some say... routing is not something to be mapped as a prime goal so our
aim is to just focus on bicycle access. A better routing is then a spin
off. Discussions about routing leads away from  bicycle access as the
main goal. I think (but you never know ;-) )  it is easier to explain that
bicycle access on these roads differs from roads with explicit ban or roads
that allow cycling (always). Having said that it still is difficult to
come to some sort of agreement but we're going to give it a try.

Cheers
PeeWee32


2013/12/14 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com


 2013/12/13 Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com

 Today the voting of the 
 bicycle=use_cyclewayhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Bicycle_use_cyclewayended.
  Voting results:



 Yes:  10 (not counting the 2 that made the proposal)

 No:  11

 Abstain:  3



 This is reason enough for us to work on a better proposal so we reject
 the current one.



 if you look at the reasons from the rejecters you'll find that the vast
 majority of them neglected in general that this was something to be tagged,
 either they said the routing software should solve this (impossible btw.,
 if there is no hint in the data, how should the router do it?), or they
 existing tags would suffice (these said you should tag bicycle=no or
 destination on the road, what is not working and has already been
 discussed).

 As these are the reasons for opposing this, a better proposal very
 likely won't change anything (when the problem is not understood, no
 solution will be agreed on).

 cheers,
 Martin

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




-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor
openstreetmaphttp://www.openstreetmap.nl/.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Bicycle=use_cycleway

2013-12-03 Thread Pee Wee
As far as I know it is not common to change the wiki while voting. I want
to change many things but I understand why it is not fair to change while
voting. Today I noticed that user Emkey08 added info to wiki (Rationale
routing) . Is this OK?

Cheers
PeeWee32


2013/12/2 Jonathan bigfatfro...@gmail.com

 Thankfully I don't live in Germany :-)

 http://bigfatfrog67.me


 On 01/12/2013 22:58, Martin Koppenhöfer wrote:


 Am 01.12.2013 um 22:47 schrieb Jonathan bigfatfro...@gmail.com:

  :-)  This whole discussion assumes cyclists obey traffic rules!  In the
 UK cyclists ride where they like!  :-)


 In Italy as well, but in Germany they might even withdraw your driving
 license (for the car) if you did certain infractions


 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




-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor
openstreetmaphttp://www.openstreetmap.nl/.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Bicycle=use_cycleway

2013-11-29 Thread Pee Wee
Today voting has started. I hope our answers/comments to some objections
have been good enough for your support. Happy voting.

Cheers

PeeWee32
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Bicycle=use_cycleway

2013-11-29 Thread Pee Wee
Sorry this was my firts proposal.

Wikilink   http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle_use_cycleway


2013/11/29 Pieren pier...@gmail.com

 On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com wrote:

 Probably a link to the wiki would help...

 Pieren

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




-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor
openstreetmaphttp://www.openstreetmap.nl/.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] country specific scheme - was: Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway

2013-11-16 Thread Pee Wee
Thanks for this information. Openfietsmap contacted me to get more detailed
info. I'll send you an e-mail.


2013/11/15 Masi Master masi-mas...@gmx.de

 Am 15.11.2013, 16:45 Uhr, schrieb Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com:

  2013/11/14 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com


 2013/11/14 Ronnie Soak chaoschaos0...@googlemail.com

  For the access tags (and we do discuss access tags here), it is common
 practice to have country-specific defaults on certain highway types as
 listed in the wiki [1] and only tag what contradicts those defaults.





 I'm not sure any of the current routers uses these country specific
 defaults. My guess is that normal roads will always be allowed for
 everybody except specified explicitly differently, and motorways and
 roads
 with motorroad=yes will exclude certain slow vehicles. Cycleways will
 allow
 cycling and footways walking and usually not cycling. If some country
 specific defaults are different and nothing is tagged, it probably won't
 work. Usually mappers do add default properties explicitly on roads and
 ways, and the more mature a region is mapped, the more of those
 attributes
 you'd usually find.

 cheers,
 Martin

  I think many mappers are very happy with these country specific access
 rules. This will prevent an overload of tags on roads. There is only one
 router I know personnaly and that is the creator of the Openfietsmap
 http://www.openfietsmap.nl/homeGarmin map. His map (lite version) is
 also worldwide
 http://garmin.openstreetmap.nl/available.
 He uses this country specific scheme.

 Part of his script is here. I think it makes clear that trunk roads are
 not
 accessabel for bicycles in some countries regardless of any bicycle=no
 tag.

 highway=trunk  mkgmap:country ~
 '(NLD|BEL|LUX|FRA|DEU|AUT|CHE|
 DNK|HUN|ROU)' { set highway=motorway }
 highway=trunk  bicycle=no { set highway=motorway }
 highway=trunk { set highway=primary }


 In Germany trunk generally is able to cycle.
 In Germany we tag car-roads/fast-roads with motorroad=yes, this could
 be trunk and primary (and perhaps secondary too?). This roads are forbidden
 (implicit) for bicycles and foot.

 Think the added 2 (and changed 4th) lines are better:

 motorroad=yes  mkgmap:country ~
 '(DEU)' { set highway=motorway }   //think for CH and AT the same
 highway=trunk  mkgmap:country ~
 '(NLD|BEL|LUX|FRA|AUT|CHE|
 DNK|HUN|ROU)' { set highway=motorway }
 highway=trunk  bicycle=no { set highway=motorway }
 highway=trunk { set highway=primary }

 --

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




-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor
openstreetmaphttp://www.openstreetmap.nl/.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway

2013-11-15 Thread Pee Wee
2013/11/14 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com


 2013/11/14 Ronnie Soak chaoschaos0...@googlemail.com

 For the access tags (and we do discuss access tags here), it is common
 practice to have country-specific defaults on certain highway types as
 listed in the wiki [1] and only tag what contradicts those defaults.




 I'm not sure any of the current routers uses these country specific
 defaults. My guess is that normal roads will always be allowed for
 everybody except specified explicitly differently, and motorways and roads
 with motorroad=yes will exclude certain slow vehicles. Cycleways will allow
 cycling and footways walking and usually not cycling. If some country
 specific defaults are different and nothing is tagged, it probably won't
 work. Usually mappers do add default properties explicitly on roads and
 ways, and the more mature a region is mapped, the more of those attributes
 you'd usually find.

 cheers,
 Martin

 I think many mappers are very happy with these country specific access
rules. This will prevent an overload of tags on roads. There is only one
router I know personnaly and that is the creator of the Openfietsmap
http://www.openfietsmap.nl/homeGarmin map. His map (lite version) is
also worldwide
http://garmin.openstreetmap.nl/available.
He uses this country specific scheme.

Part of his script is here. I think it makes clear that trunk roads are not
accessabel for bicycles in some countries regardless of any bicycle=no
tag.

highway=trunk  mkgmap:country ~
'(NLD|BEL|LUX|FRA|DEU|AUT|CHE|
DNK|HUN|ROU)' { set highway=motorway }
highway=trunk  bicycle=no { set highway=motorway }
highway=trunk { set highway=primary }

Cheers
PeeWee32
http://www.openstreetmap.nl/.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway

2013-11-15 Thread Pee Wee
The proposed tag is also for odd vehicles. In NL and DE some bicycles with
certain measurments may use the adjacent road. Not just for destination
purposes. So I'm afraid  a bicycle=destination will not work.


2013/11/16 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org



 On Friday, November 15, 2013, Masi Master wrote:

 Am 15.11.2013, 17:13 Uhr, schrieb Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org:

  On Tuesday, November 12, 2013, Masi Master wrote:

  Hi all,
 I'm the co-author of this proposal.
 There are a difference about bicycle-forbidden and a compulsory
 cycleway.

 In Germany it is allowed to leave the cycleway for a leftturn, if you
 choose the normal leftturn-lane (which cars use). Or in Austria training
 with a racebike is allowed to don't look after compulsory cycleway. I.e.
 for the last case the router can give you an option to allow
 bicycle=use_cycleway-roads.


 Then you really want bicycle=destination and this whole use_cycleway
 crud
 is redundant if you've mapped the cycleway correctly.  I see no
 compelling
 argument to change the world when access=destination already exists for
 exactly this situation.


 First, we call this value designated.
 Then we have also cycleways without compulsory, which have also a
 (different) sign. Belongs the bicycle=designated-tag only to them with
 compulsory? Why this tag is generally implicit in highway=cycleway? We have
 also cycleways without signs, which are non-compulsory.
 So there are no uniformly tagging for compulsory cycleways on the
 cycleway.

 I.e., if I hate cycleway and need a route without to use cycleways, how
 does it work with compulsory cycleways? Banning all cycleways don't work,
 because near a compulsory cycleways I ride illegally on the road. I have to
 ban all cycleways and all roads which have a compulsory cycleway
 (=bicycle=use_cycleway).


 Sounds about right. If you have a cycleway next to a road that you can
 only use to access locations on it's frontage, or for odd turn situations,
 seems like the cycleway could be explicitly tagged bicycle=designated, and
 the road adjacent as bicycle=destination.  This, and maybe some turn
 restriction relations to handle spots where cyclists need to switch to the
 other roadway to turn, should be ample to deal with all but the most bogus
 routers.

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




-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor
openstreetmaphttp://www.openstreetmap.nl/.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway

2013-11-14 Thread Pee Wee
A question and some remarks


Considering  routers and not breaking routing.

A few of you have made remark concerning breaking schemes and routers
getting in to problems. I do not understand this. Ronnie Soak e.g. wrote “I
would prefer an additional tag over a replacement for bicycle=no, as this
would allow an easier migration due to not breaking older routers.”

The definition of the tag is: This is a highway (i.e. tertiary) with a
classification
that allows cycling
generallyhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#Germany
*without* bicycle forbidden sign and *with* a parallel compulsory
cycleway.

This means that currently these roads (except NL) do not have a bicycle=no
or a bicycle=yes tag.  So this tag is NOT  replacing any previous tag. If
it would replace a current bicycle=no I propably would not have proposed
any new tag at all ;-)  The absence of any “bicycle=” tag is the reason for
this proposal.


So if these roads would be tagged with a bicycle=use_cycleway nothing
changes in routers because they don’t know the tag and it does not replace
any current tag. The first router that picks up this new tag will be able
to propose a good route.  So why would routers have a problem with this new
tag?


Restriction instead of use_cycleway

Some have said not to be happy with the name “use_cycleway” and instead use
something with “restriction” etc.   It is true that it is a restriction but
the only reason for this restriction is the fact that there is a parallel
compulsary cycleway. If this cycleway would not be there, there would not
be restriction.  So there is a clear relation between the cycleway and the
restriction on the road. I think it is best if we have a tag that refers to
the cycleway. This way we and routers know that the restrictions are based
on (country specific)  rules.



Sign on one “highway” has access implication on an other “highway”

The traffic administration want to keep signs as simple as possible and
right they are. Not only to keep overview but also because it is undoable
to have signs for every exceptional vehicle or means of transportation.  That’s
why only the most common vehicles are on access traffic signs. If you
drive/ride an exceptional vehicle you are supposed to know where to ride
based on signs with only most common vehicles on it. I think this proposal
is about a more or less strange situation. Most traffic signs we see have
access information about the road on which it is placed.  In this situation
it is clearly different. Access information on the cycleway (compulsory)  means
that an ordinary bicycle has to use the cycleway (in most cases) and has no
access to the main road. As far as access is concerned the 2 are linked.
This would not be the case if the administration would have come up with a
new traffic sign on the parallel road saying “in these  situations you may
use this road but apart from that, use the cycleway”.  In that case I am
sure we would have come up with a tag somewhere in between bicycle=no and
bicycle=yes.


2013/11/14 Ronnie Soak chaoschaos0...@googlemail.com

 Robert argued here that country-specific restrictions should be always
 expressed by tags so that routers don't need to know those specific
 rules/laws.
 He gave the maxspeed tags as an example, which we explicitly tag even if
 they are based on implicit laws.

 I think this generalization is goes too far.

 For the access tags (and we do discuss access tags here), it is common
 practice to have country-specific defaults on certain highway types as
 listed in the wiki [1] and only tag what contradicts those defaults.
 I don't see why it would be needed to switch that to explicitly tagged
 values. Opposed to maxspeed, we are talking a large set of different tags
 here where both tagging as well as legislation is in constant change.

 Based on these asumptions, I would argue that it would be enough to
 specify if a compulsory exist or not and leave the details of which type of
 vehicle can under which conditions use the road or not to the router, which
 should implement those based on national defaults. So at least the
 legislation changes can be implemented at a central point.
 (This is already the default, so no additional change needed for that.)

 I would prefer an additional tag over a replacement for bicycle=no, as
 this would allow an easier migration due to not breaking older routers.
 (This is why I would vote 'no' on the proposal.)

 I would also say that stating that there IS a compulsory cycleway is a
 first step, but not enough. To check for certain conditions (width,
 direction, reachable destination, obstacles, surface), the router would
 need to know WHICH way is the compulsory cycleway.
 We can either do this with a relation combining the highway and the
 cycleway(s) or with tags and self-created references. I would clearly
 prefer the first.

 I think neither storing all the information needed for those decissions in
 the highway tags 

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway

2013-11-13 Thread Pee Wee
Thanks all for your comments. I understand most of the comments made here.
Most of them were discussed on the German
forumhttp://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=21938(in
English) and the Dutch
forum http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=22151(in Dutch).  I
should have directed you to these links in the first place instead of just
making a reference at the bottom of the Wiki. Sorry for that.


I’ll  get back to the most important issues/ suggestions/ approaches.


Roberts remark about the word “official” is correct. I should have written
“compulsory” instead. That is changed. Sorry for the confusion.


I’ll add a bit more context to this proposal. The main goal is to improve
routing for ordinary bikes but also for other vehicles.  In NL (where I
live) there is a great cycling OSM community and we have many cycleways.
Routing for bicycles was not very good some years ago but when mappers
started adding bicycle=no to both type1 and typ2 roads routing improved a
lot. In fact I think it is almost perfect.  Because I  was facing poor
bicycle routing in Germany I thought it would be good if German mappers
would also add the bicycle=no to both type1 and type2 roads. As you can
read in the 
linkedthreadhttp://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=21938to
the German forum there were many that were not convinced that was a
good
idea (to put it mildly ;-) ).  They convinced me. That was the reason I
proposed a new tag in the NL forum.  I think in general in the NL forum
most understood why there should be a new tag but… the consequence of that
would be that many roads with bicycle=no had to be retagged.  Someone
suggested that I should try and see if the German mappers would adopt this
new tag. That was the reason I teamed up with German mapper Masimaster to
propose the new tag.


I think most mappers agree that it is not wise to just add a bicycle=no to
a road that has no explicit ban for bicycles. The question is how to tag
this road when there is a parallel compulsory cycleway?


Instead of this bicycle=use_cycleway  we could use bicycle=no an
additionally a “my special vehicle/situation=yes”.  There are a few reasons
why I do not think this is a good idea.


1 Mapper are no legal experts

In OSM we rely on mappers and not legal experts. An ordinary mapper in NL
(where I live) does not know what the legal status is of many extraordinary
vehicles and there are many.  I have a 3 wheel velomobile with such
measurements that I am  allowed to ride these type 2 roads (but not the
typ1).  Hardly anyone I speak knows this. I’m also sure they don’t know the
legal status of  horse carriages, skateboards, sedgeways etc. The problem
is that there are no traffic signs for all these exceptional vehicles so
how should a mapper know?


2 too many tags

Imagine that all special vehicles and situations would be tagged.  How
would we see all these tags in the editor. I’m afraid it would be a
complete mess in OSM. Simply to many tags so we loose overview which might
scare mappers away.


3 Changing law needs changing tags

Imagine that in NL law would change in such a way that groups of
race-cyclist of more then 10 are allowed to use the type2 way. Then this
would have to be mapped. Who is going to do this? If we would have the
bicycle=use_cycleway nothing had to be changed.  I think we have to be
carefull with mapping legal access in OSM unless the traffic signs are
obvious. In fact I think that if we map in such a way that we (and routers)
know what traffic sings are present, routing for any vehicle should be
fairly easy.


4 country specific

All the exceptional vehicles and situations vary from country to country.
Imagine tags like “three wheel bicycle wider then .75m=yes” in NL and
“three wheel bicycle with combuston engine  250Watt=yes”  in an other
coutry.  This is just going to be too much for most mappers. I would not
start mapping these exceptions abroad because I just don’t know all legal
aspects.


In short:  Mapping this way will never happen in such an extend that it  will
improve routing for bicycles (both ordinary and exceptional ones) .

So all this made me feel it was an illusion to improve bicycle routing by
adding different tags for all these exceptional vehicles/situations. This
could work in theory but it simply will never work in practice

So, it had to be as simple a possible. Something any mapper could see in
reality based on traffic signs and roads and cycleways.  That’s the reason
why we have added a definition of the tag.


Bicycle=use_cycleway means:

This is a road with a classification that allows
cyclinghttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#Germany
*without* a bicycle forbidden sign *with* a parallel compulsary cycleway
on which you are supposed to ride your ordinary bicycle.


I hope this gives more context and explains why we’ve come up with this tag.


Cheers PeeWee


2013/11/13 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk

 In the UK there is no 

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway

2013-11-12 Thread Pee Wee
Together with user Masimaster I've made a proposal for a new tag to improve
bicycle routing. I think (and hope) the wiki is clear enough but I’ll say a
few words about this new tag.


The tag http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle_use_cycleway is
introduced to separate 2 kinds of roads where you are not supposed to ride
your bike.


The first is a road with a traffic sign (bicycle icon with red edge) that
makes clear it is forbidden to ride a bicycle . (common tag: bicycle=no)

The second is a road that has a parallel compulsory cycleway but does not
have the bicycle forbidden sign.  On this type of road you’re not supposed
to ride your bike but there are exeptions.


Legally  these 2 roads are not the same. For example.. in NL some 3
wheel  bicycles
with certain measurements are allowed to ride the second type of road.  In
other countries there is also a legal difference. For this reason we
propose this new tag.


Cheers


PeeWee32
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway

2013-11-12 Thread Pee Wee
2013/11/12 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com

 Pee Wee

 A couple of questions.

 How does this improve mapping/routing over using bicycle=no?

For an ordinary bike I do not think that routing will differ from the
situation where we would tag all these type 2 way's with a bicycle-no .
The problem is that there are many mappers that do not think it is wise to
add a bicycle=no on a road that has no explicit ban for bicycles. And they
do have a point because there are many exceptions. On the DE forum there's
been a discussion http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=21938about
this (in english).  The new tag makes better routing possible for all these
exeptions without tags like my special vehicle=yes or a team with more
then 10 racebikes=yes etc.


How does your proposal distinguish the exceptions to the rule that you gave
 as an example below?

I'm afraid I do not understand what you mean. Could you give an example?


 Cheers
 Dave F.

 On 12/11/2013 18:16, Pee Wee wrote:


 Legallythese 2 roads are not the same. For example.. in NL some 3
 wheelbicycles with certain measurements are allowed to ride the second type
 of road.In other countries there is also a legal difference. For this
 reason we propose this new tag.



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




-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor
openstreetmaphttp://www.openstreetmap.nl/.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway

2013-11-12 Thread Pee Wee
2013/11/12 Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl

 I support the idea in principle. However, would it be possible to
 propose a tag that is backwards compatible with the current scheme,
 and does not break existing renders / routers? For example, something
 like bicycle=no, bicycle:use_cycleway=yes?

 -- Matthijs


If I understand correctly you're saying that the combination of a
bicycle=no  bicycle:use_cycleway=yes could mean the same thing as the
proposed tag. I think it could but I'm not realy in favour of this. The
main reason is that I prefer a bicycle= tag so there are no contradicting
options possible and things get clear in just 1 tag. What if a road would
be tagged with a bicycle=yes  bicycle:use_cycleway=yes. What
information would this give to a router?

I don't understand what kind of problems routers/renderers whould have.
Could you explain a little. Remember that most roads for which this new tag
is introduced do not have a bicycle=  tag yet. (with the exeption of NL)


 On 12 November 2013 18:16, Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com wrote:
  Together with user Masimaster I've made a proposal for a new tag to
 improve
  bicycle routing. I think (and hope) the wiki is clear enough but I’ll
 say a
  few words about this new tag.
 
 
  The tag is introduced to separate 2 kinds of roads where you are not
  supposed to ride your bike.
 
 
  The first is a road with a traffic sign (bicycle icon with red edge) that
  makes clear it is forbidden to ride a bicycle . (common tag: bicycle=no)
 
  The second is a road that has a parallel compulsory cycleway but does not
  have the bicycle forbidden sign.  On this type of road you’re not
 supposed
  to ride your bike but there are exeptions.
 
 
  Legally  these 2 roads are not the same. For example.. in NL some 3 wheel
  bicycles with certain measurements are allowed to ride the second type of
  road.  In other countries there is also a legal difference. For this
 reason
  we propose this new tag.
 
 
  Cheers
 
 
  PeeWee32
 
 
  ___
  Tagging mailing list
  Tagging@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 

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




-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor
openstreetmaphttp://www.openstreetmap.nl/.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging