Re: [Tagging] Long Tail ( was Removal of amenity from OSM tagging)

2015-05-19 Thread SomeoneElse

On 19/05/2015 11:50, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

Am 19.05.2015 um 01:47 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com:

How about if first edits caused some sort of flag that experienced users see, 
and can welcome and thank the new user
for registering and contributing.  This is possible now, but not really part of 
the standard tool set and definitely not part of the culture.


Around here I know some people doing it, myself included. I'm using an rss feed 
generated by Pascal Neis' new mapper service, together with IFTTT (to get an 
email automatically), feedback is always positive (if any).



The Polish and Italian communities do or did send automatic messages to 
all new mappers in their area (or actually, 75% of them, to see what 
effect sending vs not sending had).  I did some analysis on the 
retention of those mappers and couldn't find any kind of correlation:


https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/welcomewg/2013-March/22.html

Whether there's a correlation against quality of edits wasn't looked at 
(and would need a definition of quality of course).


Ages ago I wrote this up:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:SomeoneElse/new_mapper_messages

That's still more or less what I do locally although I tend to use 
changeset discussions now (give them chance to fix their own errors 
first unless they're causing serious damage, then offer to help). In the 
UK there are probably a dozen or so people looking after new mappers 
in their own different areas. From looking at Pascal Neis' site:


http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussions#2/36.0/-10.5

it appears that it's fairly common in other areas of the world too. 
Also, it's worth mentioning that despite people sometimes describing OSM 
as unfriendly the vast majority of changeset discussion comments, 
especially to new users, are very friendly and happy to help.


Cheers,

Andy



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


Re: [Tagging] Estate agent

2015-05-17 Thread SomeoneElse

On 17/05/2015 16:52, Paweł Marynowski wrote:

Hi all,
it looks like since 2010 there is no consensus about how to tag estate 
agent - shop vs. office. Quick look at taginfo gives clear 
information, that office=estate_agent is much more popular.




Surely both are potentially valid?  Some estate agents' premises are 
very definitely shops, yet other estate agents work primarily from 
offices (where the emphasis isn't on facing the customer there).


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] man_made=apiary or ?

2015-05-12 Thread SomeoneElse

On 12/05/2015 18:13, Anders Anker-Rasch wrote:


Hi,

first post on the tagging list so I'll try to be short.

Apiary tagging is still in limbo - and has been so for some years 
now as I can see from the talk. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/apiary


How can I get this subject moving again for a vote, or get more people 
involved as to decide the best practice?





Personally, I wouldn't worry especially about voting.  Taginfo suggests 
the following uses of apiary and beehive etc.:


http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=apiary#values

http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=beehive#values

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=craftvalue=beekeeper

Based on that, if you're tagging an actual physical beehive I'd suggest 
man_made=beehive; if you're tagging an area where there are lots of 
beehives I'd suggest landuse=apiary.


(to try and answer the other question) FWIW at least where I am in the 
UK we don't see the continental movement of bees that happens in the 
US as beekeepers move their hives around following various crops, 
although a quick web search suggests that there is a pollination 
services industry here.  I can't comment on other countries, though 
wikipedia suggests that migratory beekeeping is mainly a US thing.  
However, even when hives are moved around for pollination don't they 
still have a nominal home?


Cheers,

Andy


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


[Tagging] Gravel (was Re: Tagging Digest, Vol 68, Issue 35, and before that surface=pebbles - surface=pebblestone ?)

2015-05-12 Thread SomeoneElse

On 12/05/2015 12:19, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


2015-05-11 18:14 GMT+02:00 Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com 
mailto:vosc...@gmail.com:


I only now, after having lived for many years in the UK, I realise
that the definition of gravel is wider than the equivalent of the
German Splitt. I thought them equivalent.

Looking it up in the English Wikipedia I found contradictory
information.

In
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravel_road
gravel is crushed stone and raoughly aequivalent to the German
Splitt

But in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravel
gravel is more generic and can, for example,  also be pebbles of
different sizes.




from my researches it seemed that gravel was completely different to 
Splitt and wouldn't contain it. But I now have looked at yet another 
dictionary and it seems to be included (because pounded is likely a 
synonym for crushed here):

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/gravel

So my conclusion is that gravel can be either naturally worn or 
crushed stone and is about the grain size. Please note that Splitt 
is only appropriate for crushed stone, otherwise you would have to use 
Kies (pebbles).


I'd agree that it's all about the grain size.  The wikipedia page* 
that's already been linked mentions the Krumbein scale that I vaguely 
remember from college.


When tagging surfaces in OSM I personally try not to use too many 
different values - if there's something vaguely appropriate in the top 
entries here I'd use that:


http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/surface#values

note that that's the .org.uk taginfo not the .org one - there have been 
relatively few imports and mechanical edits there so it's a better 
representation of what the surveying mapper actually tagged, though a 
similar country taginfo for a country with few imports and mechanical 
edits should do just as well.


Cheers,

Andy

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_size



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


Re: [Tagging] access tags (was contact: tags)

2015-05-11 Thread SomeoneElse

On 11/05/2015 09:42, André Pirard wrote:


The problem is that if you don't find a phone number you may miss a 
phone call but that if you use wrong access or routing tags you will 
instantly have GPSes send cars, bikes or pedestrian on the wrong road.
It's really difficult to have it understood that GPS software blindly 
obeys rules and that tags must also strictly obey the same rules for 
the GPSes to work.  The many many routing tags errors are a real 
PITA.  Even wrong instructions in the documentation causing 
contributors to be misinformed.  Is OSM suitable for GPS 


Hell yes*  :)

Seriously, I presume that's a rhetorical question.  I've been using OSM 
data in a car satnav (in the UK) for years, and when in someone else's 
car sometimes end up playing the BMW-vs-Google-vs-OSM-on-an-eTrex 
game, and (apart from postcodes, which is a different issue to access 
tags) OSM pretty much always wins.  I suspect that that might not be the 
case in e.g. raw TIGER-infested areas of the US, but in the UK and in 
Australia I genuinely haven't had a problem.


Cheers,

Andy

* Sorry, I've been been watching far too much general election coverage 
over the last few weeks.


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


Re: [Tagging] access tags (was contact: tags)

2015-05-11 Thread SomeoneElse

On 11/05/2015 08:32, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

On Mon, 11 May 2015 00:27:55 -0700
Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:


I think the concern about data consumers in general is far higher on
this tagging list, then among actual data consumers.


Agreed.

For phone data it may be true, but for access tags (note the thread 
title) it is certainly not true - it is unlikely that anybody supports 
for example access:foot



For my own use I've been doing it for a while, ever since (some) people 
started using it:


https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L351

You could argue that prefixing all access tags with access: might 
make it easier for mappers, but only if you simultaneously submit 
patches for iD, P2, JOSM, Vespucci, et al, _and_ get a general concensus 
that the existing accepted values should be mechanically edited.  Good 
luck with that.


Cheers,

Andy

PS: Not OSM or map related in any way, but sometimes very relevant to 
this list:


http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog18.html



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


Re: [Tagging] surface=pebbles - surface=pebblestone ?

2015-05-10 Thread SomeoneElse
Regardless of pebbles vs pebblestone, where did the distinction of 
gravel=sharp, pebblestone=rounded come from?   Is there any way to 
easily see who first contributed a particular section of a wiki page?


I'm not convinced that the wiki is documenting usage in OSM here.  A bit 
like natural=wood / landuse=forest, I suspect that you wouldn't be able 
read anything much based on whether something was tagged as 
surface=gravel, pebbles or pebblestone.


Cheers,

Andy




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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

2015-05-06 Thread SomeoneElse

On 06/05/2015 03:54, David Bannon wrote:
Anyway, the issue is, perhaps confusion in some minds about =camp_site 
and =caravan_site. Most (but not all) camp_sites will also take 
caravans and RV's. But Tourism=caravan_site is for the caravan ONLY 
type of place.


Here (in the UK) I'd differentiate such places locally as to whether 
they appear to be mostly for tents or caravans (there tend to be fewer 
motorhomes - what the Americans call RVs - over here than caravans).  
Another differentiator might be the organisation that the site is part 
of.  If it's The Caravan Club it's more likely to be mostly for 
caravans than tents.  However there seems to be more overlap between 
camping and caravanning organisations and sites now than there used to 
be, so in some cases either tag could apply equally.


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] inuse, defacto

2015-04-17 Thread SomeoneElse

On 17/04/2015 14:38, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:

A more useful metric is how many different contributors used the tag.


Is anyone aware of any analysis of who (or how many users) first used 
particular tags, or who (or how many users) accepted a tag by making a 
subsequent change to an object?


I've not done any (other than per-tag one-offs) but I'm sure someone 
somewhere must have done something...


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] Regional stylesheets for osm-carto (Was: rendering of local power lines)

2015-03-12 Thread SomeoneElse

On 12/03/2015 17:11, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:



It's technically possible to divide that, at least along fairly coarse 
boundaries.


(not that it's particularly relevant to the tagging list, but just in 
case anyone wasn't aware) that's what Mapquest already do:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=9/50.9714/1.3307layers=Q

Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] Regional stylesheets for osm-carto (Was: rendering of local power lines)

2015-03-12 Thread SomeoneElse

On 12/03/2015 21:11, John Willis wrote:

On Mar 12, 2015, at 6:56 PM, SomeoneElse li...@atownsend.org.uk wrote:

The standard map has an impossible job - trying to be a nice map


This is true, and thanks for linking to the resources to set up the server for 
a special version.

However, what I would like to see implemented, I think, is not impossible.


I'd therefore suggest that you do exactly that!  The current OSM 
stylesheet didn't just magic itself into existance - someone sweated 
blood to get the carto style to match the look of the preceding 
godawful-to-maintain osm.xml stylesheet, something that people (myself 
included) sometimes forget.


However, now that it exists it's FAR more customisable than what went 
before.  It's much easier to now say I think X feature should be Y 
colour (or Z width, or whatever) and to show a screenshot of a small 
area with that in place.


That tends to be how things in OSM happen - someone says hey, let's do 
it this way - here's an example of something that I've done that's not 
quite finished, but shows what can be done.



...

If I was a coder, rather than an old Mac Tech now teacher, I would love to 
learn the code, however I'm dependent on others in the community to create the 
code for such a system.



Would/did you ever say to your students you'll never be able to do 
that?   I'd be very surprised if you did...


Cheers,

Andy

(and apologies for the offtopic rant)


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


Re: [Tagging] Regional stylesheets for osm-carto (Was: rendering of local power lines)

2015-03-12 Thread SomeoneElse
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 7:21 PM, johnw jo...@mac.com 
mailto:jo...@mac.com wrote:


...  which is a real detriment to the OSM/-carto render in Japan ...




So create your own rendering (either on your own, or with the rest of 
the Japanese community).  Many different ones exist already - for 
example if you go to http://www.openstreetmap.de/karte.html you'll see a 
very German style.


The standard map has an impossible job - trying to be a nice map, 
providing feedmap to mappers that an esoteric thing that they've just 
mapped is now present on the map and trying to work for everyone around 
the world regardless of country or urban / rural location.  It's not 
going to the best representation of map data for Japan for the same 
reason that it can't be the best representation of map data for 
Englandor anywhere else - it's compromised by having to work 
internationally.


Depending on what you want to change, small changes to an existing map 
style need not be a particularly difficult job.  Assuming what you want 
is an OSM-like tile server, the basics of setting that up are described 
here(1).  MapBox's TileMill Crash Course is here(2).  I also have some 
notes here(3), here(4) and here(5) - but I'm sure that there are lots of 
other ones - try looking at presentations from previous SOTMs.


Cheers,

Andy

(1) 
https://switch2osm.org/serving-tiles/manually-building-a-tile-server-14-04/

(2) https://www.mapbox.com/tilemill/docs/crashcourse/introduction/
(3) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:SomeoneElse
(4) https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style
(5) https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/openstreetmap-carto-AJT

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


Re: [Tagging] Survey points

2015-03-11 Thread SomeoneElse

On 11/03/2015 10:23, Malcolm Herring wrote:

On 11/03/2015 09:46, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:

Care to review them ?


I took a quick look at these objects  the few that I examined were 
actually created as areas, rather than had been converted from a node. 
The most egregious example is this one: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/199650922. It is a square with sides 
over 500m, and a note that reads do not move this node!!??




Looking at the edit, that's more likely to be a just newbie faux pas 
isn't it?  The do not move this node stuff is used regularly for 
French survey points.  May this is the survey point:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2096332697

Perhaps a changeset discussion comment or OSM note might be the way forward?

Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways

2015-03-10 Thread SomeoneElse

On 10/03/2015 14:37, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
OSM apparently only cares about railways. 


No, no, no!  OSM cares _passionately_ about semicolons:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-January/thread.html#21258

Cheers,

Andy

:)


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


Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways

2015-03-09 Thread SomeoneElse

On 09/03/2015 15:16, Matthijs Melissen wrote:

On 9 March 2015 at 15:06, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote:

So is there a bug tracker that I have missed for the stylesheet?

Yes, it was pointed out to you already:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1320

But as mentioned, developer time is limited. Although bug reports are
useful, writing a pull request is typically a quicker way to get
desired rendering on the map than filing a bug report.


To be fair, someone did submit a pull request to resolve exactly this 
issue and it was summarily closed:


https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/641

I can understand the decision not to render abandoned railways, but it's 
a little disingenuous to suggest that the reason that they aren't 
getting rendered is due to the lack of a pull request (although I'm sure 
that there are lots of other features for which pull requests would be 
welcome).


Best Regards,

Andy




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


Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways

2015-03-09 Thread SomeoneElse

On 09/03/2015 14:22, ael wrote:

I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused
on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render
bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance
to tall vehicles and boats, so really should show up on standard
rendering.



Mapnik the software is just fine; it's our standard map that's the 
problem.


This was discussed to death on 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542 and frankly 
there's nothing more to be said that hasn't already been said there on 
the subject.


However please DO tag what's on the ground.  Just because one online map 
is incapable of rendering large physical features as they appear is not 
a good reason to tag things incorrectly.  Other maps do render abandoned 
railways; if the standard map doesn't work for you, don't use it (it 
doesn't for me and I don't).


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways

2015-03-09 Thread SomeoneElse

On 09/03/2015 20:03, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:

The core problem is:
*railway=abandoned*
Refers to railway service, and does not describe what's on the ground.


No.

railway=abandoned has been used from almost year 0 in OSM to indicate 
where the rails have been removed but the route is still visible in 
some way.  See http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dabandoned .


And yes, if it's a highway=track now, you can of course map it as that 
as well.  If it's not visible (e.g. someone's build a factory on it) 
it's NOT railway=abandoned.


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - register

2015-03-06 Thread SomeoneElse

On 06/03/2015 11:48, ael wrote:

I don't know if any of the Dartmoor boxes are marked in OSM. A very
Addition: I just found one of them:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/node/1129854737
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/50.65508/-3.97769layers=D

ael




I suspect that a better tag than place=locality could certainly be 
found :)



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


Re: [Tagging] Wiki vote threshold

2015-03-04 Thread SomeoneElse


2015-03-04 9:35 GMT+01:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com 
mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com:


After, say, 1 year in any one status, move them to status  ...
'Expired', 'Resting',  'Paused ' or ?



... pining for the fjords?  This tag's not dead, it's 

Cheers,

Andy

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


Re: [Tagging] route=foot

2015-03-01 Thread SomeoneElse

On 01/03/2015 21:48, fly wrote:

Am 01.03.2015 um 22:04 schrieb SomeoneElse:

On 01/03/2015 20:17, fly wrote:

Wait a minute, out of the 25,000 over 21,000 have a network=* which
leads me to the assumption that most should be tagged route=hiking.

What makes you think that?

Come on, just have a look at the numbers [1],

15,581 + 5,700  21,000

fly

[1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/route=foot#combinations


Could you explain what you're trying to say here with more words?  I 
really don't understand what you're getting at here at all.


Cheers,

Andy




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


Re: [Tagging] route=foot

2015-03-01 Thread SomeoneElse

On 01/03/2015 20:17, fly wrote:
Wait a minute, out of the 25,000 over 21,000 have a network=* which 
leads me to the assumption that most should be tagged route=hiking.


What makes you think that?

This is a genuine question, by the way - I suspect at the root of this 
might be a difference in the meaning between the English phrases foot 
route, walking route and hiking route, and their nearest 
equivalents in other languages.  English can be a bit vague; in many 
ways it's a shame that the base language of OSM isn't a bit more 
German (with some Dutch words for canals and water management thrown in).


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-18 Thread SomeoneElse

On 18/02/2015 19:15, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:


Remember that OSM tags are based on UK English.  dump_station should 
be fine.




Maybe I've lived a sheltered life, but I'd never heard the term before 
this thread.  When I had caravan holidays inflicted upon me as a child, 
Elsan* disposal point was the usual term, though that was many years ago.


Cheers,

Andy

* a brand name


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


Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and, terminal without building tag

2015-02-15 Thread SomeoneElse

On 15/02/2015 11:17, Tom Pfeifer wrote:


I find that landuse=churchyard vs. 
landuse=religious+religion=christian have

the same meaning, with the advantage that the latter works multicultural.


No.

If you read back up through this and previous threads, you'll see that 
landuse=religious simply has no meaning at all to many people, whereas 
landuse=churchyard (in the context of the British English language 
used in OSM) clearly has a well-defined meaning. Ask someone to describe 
a churchyard, and they'll be able to.  Ask someone to describe a 
religious landuse and they probably won't be able to (but like I said 
and the example that I gave, there may well be places where it's still 
the best fit).


As I said in the changeset discussion here

http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/25035328

If someone's surveyed a place and thinks that it is best tagged as 
landuse=churchyard then it is NOT an accepted style of mapping for 
someone to change that based on aerial imagery, simply based on 
discussions on the tagging list. We map what we see and what we know; 
the strength of Openstreetmap is its local mappers.


For the avoidance of doubt, this doesn't mean that the area around a 
non-Christian place of worship should be tagged as a churchyard - 
local mappers should be allowed to pick the thing that best describes 
their local situation.  Having never been to all of the different kinds 
places of worship on all continents I can't prescribe what that is, and 
if you haven't you shouldn't too.


Best Regards,

Andy Townsned


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


Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and, terminal without building tag

2015-02-15 Thread SomeoneElse

On 15/02/2015 01:24, Warin wrote:



What 'landuse' would you say it is? It does not fit in any of the 
values given on the wiki

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landuse

There are over 2,900 tagged landuse=religious currently. as shown by 
the taginfo.


You can't always take taginfo numbers at face value.  For example, in 
the UK much of the usage of landuse=religious was introduced by this 
changeset:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/25035328

That includes many examples such as this one:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/242868714/history

which was previously landuse=churchyard but was changed to the less 
descriptive landuse=religious.  Now it may be that, following a visit, 
it was clear that for some reason a landuse=churchyard tag wasn't 
appropriate here, and it's possible (but unlikely) that there were 
visits to similar churchyards the length and breadth of the UK, but I 
somehow doubt it.  I've now asked in a changeset discussion comment what 
the source of that change was.


It's true however that there are also examples where local mappers have 
found landuse=religious useful:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33098290

That's just the area around a church building, but isn't really a 
churchyard as such.


Cheers,

Andy



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


Re: [Tagging] building=yes on nodes?

2015-02-14 Thread SomeoneElse

On 14/02/2015 07:45, Lukas Sommer wrote:

Hello.

The english wiki page key:building says that this key may not be used
on nodes.


... it also says that it shouldn't be used on relations, which would 
exclude perfectly valid multipolygons, such as this one:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/109230

It appears that again people are trying to use the wiki to tell other 
people how to map rather than describe how things tend to be mapped.  
There actually seems to have been a minor edit war about it.  Here's the 
discussion:


http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Talk:Key:building#onRelation.3F

It's a shame, because it means when people see stuff in there that 
obviously doesn't match how people map things they'll just ignore the 
information in there that _is_ useful.


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] length=

2015-01-30 Thread SomeoneElse

On 30/01/2015 14:12, St Niklaas wrote:

 From: François Lacombe fl.infosrese...@gmail.com

 Since OSM editing tools aren't AutoCAD you can't be 100% precise on the
 geometry.


Exactly so.



Francois if you’re using JOSM you’re be able to work up till 0,06 - 
0,04 =0,02 m accuracy




No.  Unless you can measure accuracy on the ground to that level of 
precision, you simply can't*.  The imagery sources availble to OSM 
aren't that accurate, and even the aggregated traces of many, many 
consumer GPS units won't hit that accuracy.  0.06m is a tiny amount 
compared to the amount that natural processes can cause a particular 
location to move**.


A good rule of thumb for OSM is don't try and map more accurately than 
your sources.  If you only have aerial imagery, or only have a few GPS 
traces, don't try and map every last hedgerow, since you simply don't 
know how accurate the sources that you're working from are.  Instead, go 
out and collect more data.  For example, once you know how aerial 
imagery compares to lots of GPS traces (and vice-versa - GPS traces can 
have a systematic offset due to terrain and even what side of a road 
people are allowed to walk down) you're in a much better position to 
contribute.


Cheers,

Andy

PS:  Please don't reply to digest posts largely unedited.  The very 
first line in your reply mail was, quoted, When replying, please edit 
your Subject line so it is more specific.  Even if you do edit a digest 
post down it'll still destroy the threading of the mailing list.  Many, 
many people rely on this to make the process of reading lists such as 
tagging less of a chore (it's much easier to mark a thread as read 
than it is to go through every post about semicolons, patron saints or 
pipelines one by one).  If you don't have a mail reader than can handle 
non-digest mail, you probably need to change the way that you read mail.


* The exception is where you're triangulating from points measured with 
an accuracy beyond what consumer kit can provide.  I'm looking forward 
to seeing triangulation via theodolite from X in an OSM source tag :)


** http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12732335
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] RFD pipeline sub tag substance

2015-01-28 Thread SomeoneElse

On 28/01/2015 11:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


2015-01-28 8:48 GMT+01:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com 
mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com:


Unfortunately this does not have a tag for non drinking water ..
possible values could be

non-potable_water

grey_water



I like grey_water


grey water has a specific meaning (waste water that isn't sewage and 
can be further used for e.g. irrigation).  If that's what you mean - 
great.  If you just mean water that you can't drink, then just use 
something that describes it, like water.


Although http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:substance says water == 
fresh water for drinking purposes that doesn't match the real world.  
Mappers adding e.g. irrigation pipes aren't going to check the wiki; 
they'll just say that's a water pipe, so data consumers can't assume 
that substance=water == fresh water for drinking purposes.


Cheers,

Andy



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


Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, REMOVED

2015-01-28 Thread SomeoneElse

On 28/01/2015 13:05, Richard Welty wrote:


i changed them to highway:unbuilt, rather than deleting them so
that they would stop rendering and wouldn't get added back in later.



I guess that that makes sense here in a fix the mapper kind of way 
(I've certainly done similar things), but generally I wouldn't have 
thought that things that were once proposed but are now never going to 
be built belonged in OSM at all.


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, REMOVED

2015-01-28 Thread SomeoneElse

On 28/01/2015 21:57, John F. Eldredge wrote:


Well, you also have the status proposed, but no start date set, 
which would fit some subdivision maps I have seen. I am not sure how 
one would tag that.


Again, I probably wouldn't add that, until it has got a projected start 
date (and a budget!).  In the UK at least, local authorities often 
propose all sorts of pie-in-the-sky schemes for bypasses etc. for 
political reasons.  Until they've got funding it makes no sense to 
assume that they're going to happen.


To me it makes sense for something like HS2 phase 2*1 (the new high 
speed rail lines north of Birmingham) to be in OSM, despite the 
necessary act of parliament not having been passed yet*2, because there 
is funding and considerable political will behind it.  The Lincoln 
Eastern Bypass*3, not so much*4.


Cheers,

Andy

*1 http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4124756

*2 
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9P3WYTZTWRkJ:http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn06624.pdf%2B%22hs2+phase+2%22+act+of+parliamenttbs=li:1hl=enct=clnk


*3 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/167220760/history

*4 
http://thelincolnite.co.uk/2014/07/lincoln-eastern-bypass-rejected-public-inquiry/



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


Re: [Tagging] sidewalk=* or footway=* (Hubert)

2015-01-20 Thread SomeoneElse

On 20/01/2015 13:01, Hubert wrote:


I just found the following Thread ion the GB mailing list:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2012-August/013663.html

(I haven’t read it yet.) Is that the one you where referring to?




That's certainly one of them, yes.  I have a vague recollection that 
there might be more, as implied here:


https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2012-August/013670.html

Cheers,

Andy

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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging road illumination quality

2015-01-19 Thread SomeoneElse

On 20/01/2015 01:21, Warin wrote:


As a camera/light meter should try to reproduce the human eyes 
response I'd think it would be a good approximation - certainly 
acceptable compared to a subjective human assessment of 
'bright/good/bad/average'.


Perhaps what you need to do is to make some measurements (using a 
smartphone or old-style lightmeter) over a period of a couple of weeks, 
at night in both cloudy and non-cloudy weather conditions, and with both 
full and no moon.


Write that up as a diary entry, and then people will be able to 
reproduce what you've done to measure illumination elsewhere?


Cheers,

Andy

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


Re: [Tagging] sidewalk=* or footway=* (Hubert)

2015-01-19 Thread SomeoneElse

On 19/01/2015 23:19, Warin wrote:


To me, sidewalk is American English.
British English is more footway?
 footpath is common Australian English.


In English English* footpath means either that thing at the side of 
the road that Americans call a sidewalk or a path not at the side of 
the road primarily intended for pedestrians (but less wide than a 
pedestrianised street).  Footway means the same as footpath 
essentially, but less in common usage and more usually used in legal 
contexts.


The use of sidewalk to describe the thing at the side of the road was 
discussed on talk-gb and was generally accepted there even by those 
(like me) who tend not to like Americanisms because it's not ambiguous, 
whereas the alternatives (footpath and pavement) both are.


Cheers,
Andy

* I can't speak for the Scots or the Welsh or any others.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC: Reverse Vending Machine

2015-01-11 Thread SomeoneElse

On 11/01/2015 11:25, makko wrote:
... However, I do not know how widespread the term reverse vending 
machine is. ...


In the UK, it isn't common - at least, I'd not heard of it before this 
thread.


Interestingly, one of the links from the WP page is to a UK company that 
claims to have a trademark on the term.


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] religion=multi* ?

2015-01-09 Thread SomeoneElse

On 10/01/2015 00:17, John Willis wrote:

Similarly, animal sacrifice and practicing voodoo at the airport's prayer room 
might get you arrested.



Not even poodles? :)

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-January/020847.html

Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] religion=multi* ?

2015-01-08 Thread SomeoneElse

On 08/01/2015 22:21, johnw wrote:


On Jan 8, 2015, at 11:11 PM, Tom Pfeifer t.pfei...@computer.org 
mailto:t.pfei...@computer.org wrote:


...
My favourite would be multi as is is concise and also used in 
sport=multi,


The exact word is nondenominational, but multi fits with OSM 
definitions. Maybe referencing that word on the wiki definition is the 
way to go.




Well - maybe.

But as well as non-denominational places (Airport chapels perhaps?) 
there are also places shared between faiths - in the UK at least 
multifaith is commonly used for that.


Or just multi, as was originally suggested.

Cheers,

Andy

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


Re: [Tagging] hrmpf.

2015-01-02 Thread SomeoneElse

On 01/01/2015 23:34, Rainer Fügenstein wrote:


pipeline mapping is the field of a small minority of mappers.
considering this logic, established tags in fields of minority
interests can never be changed, unless it becomes the interest of the
majority.


You might be surprised.  As well as people who are interested in 
pipelines they're often also a useful navigation feature (if not always 
as obvious as, say, an overhead power line).  Near me in the English 
midlands features such as the Derwent Aqueduct and underground fuel 
supply lines become very obvious once you start recognising the features 
- and they have very different features on the surface because of the 
different thing being carried.  In many ways it's similar to the 
electricity supply tagging changes that have happened over the years - 
those changes didn't always appear to consider the usefulness of those 
features to people using them for navigation.  In other places 
overground pipelines are very important to people interested in wildlife 
migration, for example.


apart from that, the main criticism is the change of type=* to
sustance=* (which was also done in the changeset) as a result of the
proposal. I see a point here, considering that the change of a tag
affects map styles, software, ... as mentioned by SomeoneElse.



To be clear, I don't think that anyone's criticising the change itself, 
just the notification of it.  If people are using existing data they 
need to get some warning that it's about to change (separately from the 
more in depth discussions on the tagging list about how best to tag 
something new).  The only thing that the proposal process in the wiki 
says about existing data is never use a vote result as a justification 
for large-scale re-tagging of existing objects.  Now two pipelines 
clearly isn't large-scale, but it would still have been nice for data 
consumers to know that the change was happening.


Cheers,

Andy

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


Re: [Tagging] oneway=no spams

2014-12-28 Thread SomeoneElse

On 28/12/2014 16:01, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:

I think that those editors should only make undefined, yes and -1
selectable, or omit the no values on upload at last, except for motorways,
motorway_links and roundabouts.

I don't believe that there's yet an automatic interface between mailing 
list and code, so you'd probably want to discuss that over at 
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues :-)


However, explaining politely to the new mappers concerned what's going 
on (and it is mostly new mappers) is probably more productive - a 
oneway=no gives you something to talk about, and they'll probably have 
some questions for you, too.


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] Date of survey

2014-12-23 Thread SomeoneElse

On 22/12/2014 19:56, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:


Whether on the changeset or on the object - whichever is most 
appropriate, automatically adding the current date as survey:date 
whenever a source=survey is entered could be a nice optional editor 
functionality.


In addition to current limited adoption (see 
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/date%3Asurvey ) automatically 
adding date tags via the editor doesn't tell you anything that you 
can't get from the object history after the fact anyway.  That also 
doesn't do anything for the case where you've checked that e.g. the 
correct name for a shop is still X.  There used to be something at 
unexpired.osm24.eu that could be used to keep track of what you'd 
checked recently, but it doesn't seem to be working at the moment.


There's probably a good solution to the problem waiting to be written 
(preferably one that doesn't bloat the OSM database - you don't want to 
create a new version of every item that you check just to add an updated 
date:survey).


Maybe (thinking out loud here) something that could generate a personal 
list of shops in a given area as e.g. garmin waypoints, allowing you to 
change the colour of the waypoint when you've checked a shop in the 
field.  Then back at home a _local_ list is updated with shop X 
surveyed on Y date, and that shop isn't generated in the list of 
Garmin shops to check until some defined time in the future?  If it 
helps anyone, you may be able to borrow from 
https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/osmimport_02 which does some of the 
same things, although it's designed for a different job.


Cheers,

Andy




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


Re: [Tagging] craft=builder definition?

2014-12-16 Thread SomeoneElse

On 16/12/2014 17:05, Andreas Goss wrote:
Just found this tag (craft=builder) on Taginfo and it has been used by 
a few times, but it does not seem very clear what it means:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Builder

So is there any good definition for this tag or should I just create a 
Wiki page that people should use more spefific craft etc. tags?




Of the links there, The Builders 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Builders, a /Fawlty Towers/ episode 
might be most useful.  :-)


In English this sense of builder normally means a (usually small) 
company that performs (house) building work, or a person that works for 
such a company.


A larger company that designs and oversees the construction of large 
housing estates (or other commercial or industrial property) might also 
be described as a firm of builders, but it's not as good a fit.


Cheers,

Andy

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


Re: [Tagging] Survey of street/road layouts and their tagging

2014-12-12 Thread SomeoneElse

On 12/12/2014 13:13, Ulrich Lamm wrote:


See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ulamm/Tables_of_street_layouts



This could benefit from an explanation of what problem you're trying to 
solve here.  The wiki's full of I think we should tag X like Y pages 
but without any arguments for a change to motivate mappers to change 
their habits it's not going to happen.


Currently, for example, obligatory is used only 40 times, and 10 of 
those are nudism:


http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=obligatory#values

Also the mainly biological term facultative is used as if it's an 
accepted tag, but there are only 49 uses, in the centre of Bremen:


http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway=facultative

(and it's not common English by any stretch of the imagination - maybe 
versions of it are more used in Romance languages where the latin root 
is more obvious)


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] man_made=adit_entrance

2014-12-06 Thread SomeoneElse

On 06/12/2014 18:06, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
There is a proposed tag man_made=adit that is a good idea. But I think 
that it
would be better to use man_made=adit_entrance for adit entrances - too 
make it
clear and obvious what should be tagged and to make it closer to 
natural=cave_entrance


That would be closer to the English usage of the word adit round near 
me (Derbyshire, England - lots of mining and lots of rain, so lots of 
adits to let the water out).


To be absolutely clear - an adit isn't just the entrance, it's the 
(nearly horizontal) passage from the entrance into the mine. Wikipedia 
doesn't always get things right (especially when it comes to 
distinguishing between different regional Englishes) but it does a 
pretty good job here:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adit

(better than our wiki tag page IMHO)

Cheers,
Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] man_made=adit_entrance

2014-12-06 Thread SomeoneElse

On 06/12/2014 18:43, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:

On 06.12.2014 19:06, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

There is a proposed tag man_made=adit that is a good idea. But I think that it
would be better to use man_made=adit_entrance for adit entrances - too make it
clear and obvious what should be tagged and to make it closer to
natural=cave_entrance

Wikipedia says: An adit (from Latin aditus, entrance)[1] is an entrance to
an underground mine...

An adit_entrance would be an entrance to an entrance.



Look up Pendle Hill some time :-)

Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] pipeline flow direction; was: Feature Proposal - RFC - Pipeline Extensions

2014-11-18 Thread SomeoneElse

On 18/11/2014 08:37, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

while flow_direction=oneway doesn't imply any specific direction

It is well established that oneway=yes means in direction of the way 
and oneway=-1 in opposite direction than the way.




To be clear, oneway=yes means _traffic_ direction in the direction of 
the way, not _flow_ direction.  In the case of waterways, these can be 
different.


For waterways the _flow_ direction is assumed to be in the direction of 
the way (and yes, this causes issues with some canals and drains).


However as written the wiki page currently says 
flow_direction=forward/backward/both - it makes sense to me to avoid 
the word oneway to avoid confusion.


Cheers,

Andy

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


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

2014-10-31 Thread SomeoneElse

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

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

 Ihave a quick question.Howshould 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


Re: [Tagging] Default maxspeed unit on waterways

2014-10-29 Thread SomeoneElse

On 29/10/2014 19:48, Richard Z. wrote:
ouch. Luckily we don't map anything in UK vs US gallons or UK vs US 
barrels or tons.. or do we?


US tons, certainly (and it has caught mappers out in the past when 
they've been looking for rogue values to correct).


The UK uses (generally) metric measures for maxweights, a combination of 
both UK and metric for heights, and UK motorways have distances on signs 
in miles and what people from the USA would call mile markers in 
kilometers.  Confused, you will be...


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] Pre-RFC: shop=stationery, shop=office_supplies

2014-10-21 Thread SomeoneElse

On 21/10/2014 05:24, Toby Murray wrote:
... I considered Staples to be different enough to deserve a different 
tag. I am not convinced that I am right... just stating at how I 
arrived at my tagging decision.





... that was pretty much my thought process with shop=office_supplies too.

I'd be happy to reconsider, but it'd be nice to still have a way of 
telling the two apart by some form of sub-tag.


OSM's big strength is people on the ground able to classify things that 
don't fit neatly into categories, and which may not make any sense to 
someone looking at the data from elsewhere.


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] Retag: craft=sweep = craft=chimney_sweep

2014-10-03 Thread SomeoneElse

On 03/10/2014 09:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I guess this depends on the region. In Germany they are sort of 
authority not only for cleaning but for chimney and combustion plant 
verification and certification of the installed instances. Typically 
you will have no choice, the whole country is divided into sweeping 
districts with one sweeper for each district (they've been monopolies 
by law until 2012), and you will have to have your stoves and chimneys 
and boilers and smoke tubes etc. controlled periodically by your 
sweeper...




That doesn't much sound primarily like a chimney sweep at all, but some 
official function to do with gas etc. certification.


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] Retag: craft=sweep = craft=chimney_sweep

2014-10-03 Thread SomeoneElse

On 03/10/2014 12:23, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


2014-10-03 13:17 GMT+02:00 SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk 
mailto:li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk:


That doesn't much sound primarily like a chimney sweep at all, but
some official function to do with gas etc. certification.



exactly. This is what chimney sweeps in Germany are, an official 
function to control gas, burners, boilers, stoves etc. and to 
certificate them. Until 2 years ago you couldn't even choose someone, 
you had to take the one and only official company with the license for 
your area. (But they had to charge you the official price, no price 
flexibility possibile obviously).




If they're a German-specific thing then why not use the German word 
rather than co-opt an English one that doesn't actually match the 
primary function that these people perform?


Cheers,

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


Re: [Tagging] name and brand tags

2014-09-24 Thread SomeoneElse

On 24/09/2014 15:24, Richard Welty wrote:



true, but are we better off with that in operator= than in
name= ?

richard



Not if they're different.  As an example, here's a hotel:

http://www.royaloakhotel.com/

The brand is Best Western.  The name is something like Royal Oak 
Hotel.  The operator isn't actually mentioned on the website, but 
there's a sign in reception that says owned and operated by XYZ or 
similar.


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] Route relations - Forward Backward

2014-09-06 Thread SomeoneElse

On 06/09/2014 07:38, Jo wrote:
I hope noboby is still using the older way of adding bus routes for 
adding new bus routes to OSM.





Lots of people are, because they understand how they work :-)

Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

2014-08-27 Thread SomeoneElse

On 07/08/2014 16:53, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



culvert isn't a bridge type at all (in my understanding),


(on the other part of this)

I'd agree that culvert isn't a type of bridge.  I think that some of 
the confusion in OSM came from someone finding an old American drawing 
of a car driving _over_ an open culvert _on_ a bridge, and thinking that 
the name of the drawing (The Culvert) referred to the bridge.  It's 
back in the list archives somewhere.


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] Proposed change to Tag:access=designated page

2014-08-24 Thread SomeoneElse

On 24/08/2014 11:43, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:

For me, designated means that there's a respective sign, e.g. a cycleway
sign = bicycle=designated.

For compulsory use, *=official was introduced, but that tag is rather
useless without a relation to the way where access is forbidden.



I'd tend to use designated rather than yes where there's a sign 
saying go this way where there wouldn't normally be one; where it's 
somehow an exception.  For an example of this, have a look here:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/53.36141/-1.25996

(it's a brand new road, so no background imagery I'm afraid)

The footpath from the south is a public footpath (an English/Welsh 
legal term which means that you're allowed to walk on it, despite it 
being across private land, where you wouldn't normally be allowed to 
go*).  I've interpreted that as foot=yes rather than 
foot=designated***.


The road is a dual carriageway with an armco barrier, but with no 
signage at either end saying that you can't walk along or across it.  
There is a wide cycleway/footway at each side of the road.


There is signage at the north end of the southern footpath pointing 
pedestrians to the right (to cross the road at the crossing near the 
roundabout).  I've interpreted this as foot=designated on the southern 
and northern bits of cycleway to the crossing.


Footways (and even bridleways) crossing dual carriageways in the UK 
aren't rare; other than the bit of the highway code**  that says follow 
the signs, there isn't anything that says that it's foot=no across 
the road, which is why I've used =designated on the route via the 
crossing.


That's my interpretation, anyway.

Cheers,

Andy

* I love our legal system
** The user friendly summary of all of the various bits of road 
legislation
*** There are UK mappers who add foot=designated to all public 
footpaths, but they're very much in the minority.

 and arguably could in the future be mapped as separate ways.

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposed change to Tag:access=designated page

2014-08-20 Thread SomeoneElse

On 20/08/2014 12:38, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

Currently only weakest reason to use this tag are described. I propose to
add Typically it is used on ways legally dedicated to specific modes 
of travel

by a law or by the rules of traffic. as described on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:access%3Ddesignated



The problem with legally dedicated is that it might mean are legally 
allowed to use or are legally required to use rather than an 
alternative.  I've always understand designated to suggest the second 
of these and yes the first.


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated

2014-08-19 Thread SomeoneElse

On 19/08/2014 09:23, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
FWIW, the documented default in OSM (if such thing as defaults is 
accepted anyway) is foot=no according to this page linked from the 
cycleway definition: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions


That wiki page can say what it likes, but it doesn't change the rest of 
the physical world :-)


It's worth noting that all of the countries listed there (bar a few, 
some already mentioned) have foot=yes on a cycleway either all the 
time or in some circumstances - and of course you can separately list 
access tags for bicycle, foot, or spacehoppper if you think that it 
needs to be clarified.


Let's keep highway=cycleway for this thing looks like it is designed 
for cyclists (with separately defined access and other tags as 
required), highway=footway for this thing looks like it is designed 
for pedestrians (with separately defined access tags such as 
bicycle=yes as required).


Back to the original point, I suspect that the may be just a suggested 
route text of the original page might not have meant route as in 
signed cycle route from town A to town B but something much shorter 
between this street and that street for example.


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated

2014-08-18 Thread SomeoneElse

On 18/08/2014 20:54, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Another point was that ways with signs like this 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:120px-Zeichen_240.svg.png 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/a/aa/120px-Zeichen_241.svg.png 
are neither cycleways nor footways, they are both at the same time 
(especially the segregated=no version).


They _exactly_ fit the British English definition of a cycleway, 
actually (in fact, most places that I've been apart from Germany) - you 
can both walk and cycle on them.


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human

2014-08-14 Thread SomeoneElse

On 14/08/2014 12:18, Dan S wrote:

2014-08-14 12:01 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at:

...
I am not sure about English terminology. In German, we call natural cavities
Höhlen (caves), and artificial cavities Stollen (adits?). A straight
Stollen with an entrance on each end is a Tunnel (tunnel). I think that
the meaning of the English word tunnel is just the same as in German. In
that case, tunnels and caves are mutually exclusive.

Not in my native opinion, but let's see what other natives think too.


Sometimes I think that it's a real shame that OSM didn't start in 
Germany - it'd much easier to be _precise_ about some things.


The word adit is rarely if ever used in common parlance - locally to 
me (Derbyshire, England) it's usually used to describe mineworking 
drainage tunnels.  Wikipedia (1) suggests a more general use for 
horizontal shafts (for e.g. into a drift mine) but I'm not familiar with 
that usage (and there are many mineworkings very local to me, including 
one major former drift mine).  It certainly doesn't refer to all 
artificial cavities.


It's also worth bearing in mind that whatever word you use there isn't a 
simple distinction between natural and artificial caverns - many 
early mineworkings were extensions of natural cave systems (and cavers 
also sometimes extend natural systems to connect them and allow 
further exploration).


Cheers,

Andy



(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adit


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


Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human

2014-08-14 Thread SomeoneElse

On 14/08/2014 12:22, André Pirard wrote:


I know I still have to learn that OSM is fuzzy, but using cave=yes 
for paths would first need a definition of it in the highway=*  page.


No, it really wouldn't(1).

Cheers,

Andy

(1) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like - and yes, that 
page does discuss Documenting tags not in Map Features and What not 
to map too.





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


Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human

2014-08-14 Thread SomeoneElse

On 14/08/2014 12:35, John Packer wrote:

One question.
How would people map a cave?



(answering in case it wasn't a completely rhetorical question):

One option is the same way that people mapped before GPSs arrived - 
accurately measure a baseline and triangulate from it.  Obviously it's 
substantially harder to do in a confined space with low light than 
elsewhere.


These days you might also be able to make some use of the accelerometer 
in some mobile phones.  See also here: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Indoor_mapping .


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] Bitcoin: Distinction of purchase through website and cash register/Point of sale

2014-08-14 Thread SomeoneElse

On 14/08/2014 13:19, Markus Lindholm wrote:

No, that's a bad idea. I believe there's a clear consensus that
payment:bitcoin=yes is not a proper tag for a shop that doesn't accept
bitcoin at its physical location.



I'd fully agree with that.  Most of the bitcoin taggers seem just to 
be using OSM for a form of SEO and to appear on Coinmap - they don't 
seem interested in recording anything other than the magic word 
bitcoin or even recording those details accurately.


I am aware of exactly one brick-and-mortar business that allegedly takes 
bitcoin(1), and I've never seen anyone actually paying with it there.


Cheers,

Andy

(1) http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/25285250

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


Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?

2014-08-13 Thread SomeoneElse

On 13/08/2014 05:54, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:



Some people consider freeform values in bridge tag as a problem and 
think that bridge tag should have only yes/no values and specific

type of bridge should be stored in a separate tag.


People are entitled to their opinions, but I'd argue that freeform 
tagging is one of the main things that's made OSM the success that it is.




It is notable as these people maintain Default Style - see
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/440


Unfortunately recent changes to the default style have made it less 
useful in the big world outside a couple of a couple of well-mapped 
European cities, and less useful if you want a map to use to navigate 
with rather than create something pretty to hang on the wall (1).


Just as we shouldn't tag incorrectly for the renderer, we shouldn't 
avoid mapping detail because if we do so it won't get rendered.


Even without these changes the default style is already less relevant 
than it was because of the many other map styles available and many 
different ways of viewing OSM data (the take-up of OSMAnd being one 
example, CraigsLists's (unfortunately out of date!) OSM-based maps are 
another).


Cheers,

Andy



(1) 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/747#issuecomment-50188728



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


Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

2014-08-11 Thread SomeoneElse
For the benefit of anyone looking at taginfo stats in this thread, it's 
worth mentioning that there's some non-survey-based editing going on:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/24690099

Cheers,

Andu


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


Re: [Tagging] Using highway=footway as an area

2014-08-10 Thread SomeoneElse

On 09/08/2014 17:06, Dave F. wrote:

Hi

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.49428/-0.12149

I've noticed highway=footway is being used as an area across Lambeth 
Bridge: North side as a closed polygon; South side within a relation. 
(checking the history previously they were both highway=pedestrian.


Regardless of whether it's mapped as a footway or as a pedestrian area 
it looks like a fairly extreme case of mapping for the renderer with no 
thought given to map usability.  If you look in the area of this node:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2622468074

The data as it exists now suggests that there's no access west from this 
footway island to the pedestrian crossing across Millbank, or actually 
anywhere on the west bank of the Thames.  This pedestrian island 
functionally duplicates the real footway 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/256600109 (from which you can get north 
and south, though not west)


I'd be in favour of a similar linear / area split as there is with 
rivers = waterway=river - is the line of the river for e.g. routing 
purposes; waterway=riverbankthe outline of the bank which can be used 
for rendering but ignored for routing.


Cheers,
Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] seafood vs fishmonger (was Re: Synonymous values in the shop key)

2014-07-31 Thread SomeoneElse

On 31/07/2014 09:27, Holger Jeromin wrote:
The voting was performed using the extended North-American 
definition - there including fresh water: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/seafood_shop 


... and exactly 8 people voted in favour.  That's clearly a ringing 
endorsement. :-)


So i see no problem in tagging seafood for every dead fish. Is there 
really a shop selling only fresh water fish or salt water fish? 


It's a fair bet in OSM that for any X, somewhere in the world, there is 
a shop selling X.


Cheers,

Andy



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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:leisure=gym

2014-07-31 Thread SomeoneElse

On 31/07/2014 11:54, Andreas Labres wrote:

sport=fitness seems to have won:



Not really, because that might apply to e.g. exercise bars in a park 
rather than a gym as such.


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] sport=horse_racing unnecessary sport=equestrian

2014-07-24 Thread SomeoneElse

On 24/07/2014 10:35, Andreas Goss wrote:

Is there a reason to keep sport=horse_racing?


horse racing is a very different animal (pun intended) to e.g 3 day 
eventing, country point-to-points, gymkhanas, etc.


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] Townhouse

2014-07-21 Thread SomeoneElse

On 21/07/2014 00:51, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


... but looking into WP showed that in Britain the meaning refers to 
the town or city residence of a member of the nobility 
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobility or gentry 
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentry, as opposed to their country 
seat: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Townhouse_(Great_Britain) 
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Townhouse_%28Great_Britain%29


Please don't trust wikipedia on British English usage; the word 
townhouse on its own with no context simply does not have that 
connotation to me.


Cheers,

Andy

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


Re: [Tagging] Townhouse

2014-07-21 Thread SomeoneElse

On 21/07/2014 10:29, Volker Schmidt wrote:
Wikipedia is rather precise on the different meanings - see my earlier 
post with links.


Volker


Sure - I understand that you were correctly flagging the ambiguity 
associated with the term, but what I was saying was that one of those 
three definitions doesn't match any common usage in British English of 
which I'm aware.


For example, if you said X is a townhouse you wouldn't think that X 
was where Lord so-and-so lived while not at his country pile, but if you 
said X is the town house of Lord so-and-so it would.


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Vending Machines: Drink Food

2014-07-21 Thread SomeoneElse

On 21/07/2014 18:49, Andreas Goss wrote:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Vending-Dinks%26Food


(offlist)

You might want to fix the typo in the page name...

Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] Problem with access=designated

2014-07-15 Thread SomeoneElse

On 13/07/2014 19:44, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

According to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dofficial
access=designated often includes ways that have no legal dedication
like e.g. recommended routes of a local bicycle club



Presumably here you don't actually mean access=designated but instead 
mean something like foot=designated or horse=designated (i.e. foot 
or horse traffic is suggested by signage to use a particular route).


access=designated (43k in taginfo - [1]) is surely meaningless. 
Looking locally (e.g. [2]), I suspect what people really mean is 
private or perhaps permissive.


And no, I'd never suggest that recommended routes of a local bicycle 
club would be even bicycle=designated for that reason alone.


Cheers,

Andy


[1] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/access=designated

[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/42400330

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


Re: [Tagging] Synonymous values in the shop key

2014-07-10 Thread SomeoneElse

On 10/07/2014 10:50, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:


According to Wikipedia In North America, although not generally
in the United Kingdom, the term seafood is extended to fresh water
organisms eaten by humans, so all edible aquatic life may be referred
to as seafood..



We really, really, can't rely on wikipedia as a guide to English usage, 
especially not British English usage.  I'd definitely have different 
expectations of a shop=seafood and shop=fish.


Some however (bags vs bag) are I suspect far more straightforward - 
although someone may come forward and explain the difference to someone 
as ignorant about bags as I...


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging-rendering relations

2014-07-09 Thread SomeoneElse

On 09/07/2014 16:39, Matthijs Melissen wrote:

On 9 July 2014 16:24, Daniel Koć dan...@xn--ko-wla.pl wrote:

W dniu 09.07.2014 14:19, Matthijs Melissen napisał(a):
So - what about making the testing map and adding there all the already
documented features for the start? Maybe we should discuss it elsewhere,
because we're far from the tagging: what is a better place - talk list or
maybe carto issue tracker?

I think either the talk or the dev list. What you propose sounds like
a fork of the carto-stylesheet, so would by definition be out of scope
of the issue tracker.



Historically, the standard style was a for mappers style - it was 
designed to show features that mappers had mapped.  That has been 
changing (largely without community involvement or review).  I tried to 
kick off discussion here:


https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2014-June/070074.html

and would have welcomed input from the people changing the standard 
style from its previous purpose to explain exactly what they thought 
that the standard style was _for_.  Unfortunately, none was forthcoming.


I would certainly welcome (on the talk list rather than the tagging 
list) some information about what the group of people currently editing 
the standard style are actually trying to achieve with it.  It seems 
like the end goal is something a bit like what the Mapquestion Open 
style already provides (a summary of road information, not much else), 
which seems a curious design decision given that Mapquest Open tiles are 
already available as a style on the front page.


Cheers,

Andy



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


Re: [Tagging] Subsequent wikipedia links

2014-06-30 Thread SomeoneElse

On 30/06/2014 10:34, Andreas Goss wrote:

but I was aware it conflicts with the language version


The best solution would be to just use Wikidata. If editors supported 
that, then they could also always show the titel of the Wikidata tag 
to avoid errors.


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wikidata


So in this two particular cases (Bayford's head office and building, and 
Buxton College with its two websites), what _actual_ tag values would 
you suggest?


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] Subsequent wikipedia links

2014-06-30 Thread SomeoneElse

On 30/06/2014 10:57, Andreas Goss wrote:


If the building is important I would tag the company as a seperate 
node on the building and then there is no confusion with the basic tag 
anymore.


I'd agree (that in the Bayford's HO case) having the company details on 
a node within the building would be the best way to go, but my question 
was really what should go on the other side of the equals sign.


We're presumably suggesting wikidata=$something but what is $something?

Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] Subsequent wikipedia links

2014-06-30 Thread SomeoneElse

On 30/06/2014 11:12, Andreas Goss wrote:
We're presumably suggesting wikidata=$something but what is 
$something?


Every Wikidata entry has an ID. You can find it in the URL and behind 
the title:


OpenStreetMap: Q936
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q936

So you would use wikidata=Q936


That's the wikidata article for OSM, which isn't relevant to Bayford, or 
the building in which they are based.  Which wikidata article(s) would be?


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] Where do source tags belong?

2014-06-30 Thread SomeoneElse

On 30/06/2014 22:17, Tod Fitch wrote:

At least in JOSM if you do a ctrl-h on a selected object it shows you the 
source entry text that given on the change set (if it exists which it usually 
doesn't on older change sets). If the other editors don't show that, then they 
should be fixed.


For info, P2 shows it in its history (in brackets after the changeset 
comment).  I don't know how to view history in iD (but that doesn't mean 
that you can't; I struggle to understand how to do a lot of things in 
iD).  You could of course argue that it's less of a priority for iD as 
its target audience is new users; streamlining the editing process 
wherever possible, and that they'll graduate onto other editors as they 
become more proficient.


Cheers,

Andy


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


[Tagging] Subsequent wikipedia links

2014-06-29 Thread SomeoneElse

Dear wikipedia taggers,

There seems to be some doubt as to how the second and subsequent 
wikipedia links are handled.  Here's an example of the problem:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/117544396/history

Of the six versions 2 are initially mapping it and refining the mapping; 
the other four are Mispelled or erroneous tags, multiple fix, 
Mispelled or erroneous tags (again), and fixing typos in key 
wikipedia and correcting some variants (which seems to think that 
there's a wikipedia language called operator).


Another example (this time with 7 non-mapping revisions) is:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/118355113/history

Would it be possible for wikipedia taggers to come to some sort of 
agreement as to the valid tagging _before_ hitting the editor? 
Otherwise, this one will run and run.


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] Basic question about functional classification of highways

2014-06-17 Thread SomeoneElse

Andrew Shadura wrote:


Both maxspeed=countrycode:zone type and maxspeed=zone type 
are evil, as we need to have a separate DB for those zonal limits. 
Please, just use maxspeed=number.




Any router that deals with more than one type of traffic will need to do 
that anyway, as many places have different limits that apply to cars, 
lorries, buses, things towing other things, etc.  The calculation is 
then something like The speed limit for cars here is X.  For me that 
therefore means that the road type is Y and the speed limit for me is Z.


I've argued in the past for recording the fact that something isn't a 
numeric speed limit, but along with other people in the UK have adapted 
to the requirements of people writing car routers (which presumably 
support no other form of traffic*) by using maxspeed:type=whatever 
where it's a non-numeric maxspeed (leaving source:maxspeed for sign 
etc.), as that's often still needed too.


Cheers,

Andy

* I've yet to see a bicycle router enforce the (pedalling) furiously 
implications of 
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/10-11/89#pb3-l1g18  , for example!


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


Re: [Tagging] generalized survey and consequences

2014-06-09 Thread SomeoneElse

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



Actually the source:maxspeed tag was discussed years ago (2009 IIRR) 
on this list and by the time approved. The idea to use maxspeed:type 
instead is very new compared to this, and there wasn't any actual 
proposal to see whether this was backed by the community, rather then 
what appears to be a national initiative of some folk in the british 
comunity in order to make up something different to how it is done 
elsewhere:

http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/maxspeed%3Atype#map
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/source:maxspeed#map


... another interpretation as to what actually happened is that 
source:blah was in widespread use since the beginning of time for the 
source of the blah key (survey, local_knowledge, whatever). Then at 
some point people decided to use source:maxspeed to refer to the zone 
(e.g. if a road's in an urban area, and urban areas in your country have 
a 30 km/h speed limit regardless of signage, then it's OK to say that 
the source of the maxspeed is something like DE:zone:30 or similar).


In the UK maxspeed:type is usually used with national speed limits, 
not zone-based ones.  The source of the maxspeed is therefore survey, 
local_knowledge or similar, and maxspeed:type is used to indicate 
that it is a national maximum speed limit, not a numeric one.  It's 
important to record what the sign actually says, not just the number 
that that sign happens to currently represent - historically the 
national speed limit for different classes of road for cars has changed, 
and it may again in the future.


There was (a couple of years ago) a significant usage of 
maxspeed=national or similar in the UK.  this caused a certain amount 
of toys being thrown out of prams from people (mostly from countries 
where the posted limit is always numeric) who expected the maxspeed 
value to always be a number.  The compromise was to store store the 
actual posted sign value in maxspeed:type, and what number that happens 
to currently correspond to in maxspeed (and the actual source, if it 
needs to be stored, in maxspeed:source for compatibility with other 
source keys).


Cheers,

Andy



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


Re: [Tagging] highway=track access

2014-06-05 Thread SomeoneElse

Greg Troxel wrote:

I may be alone in thinking this, but I find the legal Right of Way
notion to be critical, and an important distinction between
highway=unclassified and highway=track or highway=service.


Well, ish - but what's important is that all aspects that can be mapped 
(legal, physical, etc.) are.  I'd always apply the duck test to 
something to decide between unclassified, service and track, and if 
separate information is available about legal access, add that too.  
Here, for example:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/50733252

is something that has the same legal access as an unclassified road 
(legally it is a road) but physically it's far from it, hence highway=track.



So the description of BOAT sounds very much like highway=unclassified,
and arguably with physical tags.


No, it's a specific England-and-Wales legal designation that implies 
certain access rules.



Sort of related, there's a long-standing issue that dirt roads (e.g.,
highway=residential surface=unpaved) do not get rendered differently,
and this can lead people to wrongly mark them as tracks, when legally
they are roads.  I suspect that people in all-paved and people in
zero-paved areas don't see this as important, but I live in a town where
some people live on dirt roards, and was recently in an area of Vermont
where many roads are not paved, and it's a big deal in route planning.
Perhaps now with carto it's just a question of someone sending a patch,
but it seems like there has been reluctance to render unpaved roads
differently.


I don't think that one patch is going to cut it here.  What's 
important to one group of map users in one area is very different to 
what's useful to another somewhere else.  The standard map style is 
already very fussy in some respects (does path really need a separate 
rendering from footway et al?), and other maps made with OSM data 
(including Mapquest's and http://www.openstreetmap.de/karte.html) tend 
to be a bit less busy.  Adding more detail makes it more useful to you 
but makes it less useful to someone else.


For me on foot, legal rights-of-way (designation in 
England-and-Wales-speak) is what's important, so maps that I create for 
my own use always incorporate that.  You in Vermont would no doubt want 
something different, just as the German community did, and the HOT / 
osm-fr people did.


If you're prepared to (mis)use existing styling elements from the 
current map, you don't even have to touch the map style at all - just 
rewrite the data as it goes into the rendering database (1) (if you're 
talking about a web map) or edit the mappings in the style file (2) (the 
equivalent for a Garmin map).  If you just want Vermont, then based on 
the PBF extract size at Geofabrik, you could probably render all the 
tiles down to a reasonable zoom level and fit it on an SD card on your 
phone, so a small virtual server set up as per (3) sat on a desktop or 
laptop PC is more than capable of handling it.


Cheers,

Andy


1) https://github.com/openstreetmap/osm2pgsql/blob/master/README_lua.md

2) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mkgmap/help/Custom_styles

3) http://switch2osm.org/loading-osm-data/

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


Re: [Tagging] highway=track access

2014-06-03 Thread SomeoneElse

Janko Mihelic' wrote:
2014-06-03 8:55 GMT+02:00 John Sturdy jcg.stu...@gmail.com 
mailto:jcg.stu...@gmail.com:



They're not necessarily service roads --- they don't have to lead to
any premises at all; they're simply minor roads, usually unsealed.


Then maybe:
highway=unclassified  + unclassified=byway + surface=unpaved?
Or highway=road + road=byway + surface=unpaved.



Some (but very few) BOATs near me say service road to you when you 
look at them; most just say track or even bridleway.  The only 
unclassified ones I can find are as a result of some newbie's* mapping 
and probably could benefit from a resurvey to see if they're best 
described as service roads or something else.  I certainly wouldn't use 
highway=road if I'd been and had a look, as that implies that no survey 
has taken place.


Essentially - map the physical and legal attributes separately; but map 
both as accurately as you can.


Cheers,

Andy


* me, back in 2009.  The overpass query for info was:

osm-script output=json timeout=25
  !-- gather results --
query type=way
  has-kv k=highway v=unclassified/
  has-kv k=designation v=byway_open_to_all_traffic/
  bbox-query {{bbox}}/
/query
  !-- print results --
  print mode=body/
  recurse type=down/
  print mode=skeleton order=quadtile/
/osm-script

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


Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes (again)

2014-05-30 Thread SomeoneElse

Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:

(Please, don't make a voodoo doll of me because I am bringing this
discussion back.)

Too late! :)


We had a long discussion in
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-April/017247.html
and now I saw in the English wiki
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:noexit this:

Use the noexit=yes tag on a way to indicate that the way is leading
to a dead end.

I really don't remember having a consensus about this (and thus this
info shouldn't be in the wiki).


So edit the wiki to say that there's no concensus, and add a citation 
linking to the tagging list discussion?  That would make the page more 
honest than it is at the moment.


Cheers,

Andy

(who tends to use the wiki rather like a drunk uses a lamppost)



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


Re: [Tagging] highway=track access

2014-05-30 Thread SomeoneElse

Dave F. wrote:


I believe byway shouldn't be deprecated. In my area most of them are 
signed as just 'byway' on the ground. 


I think that it varies greatly by area.  Some highway authorities use 
just Byway; some have more explicit signage; some in some cases none 
at all.


 I think many that have been tagged with designation=* have been 
sourced from OS data.


There's always the risk that people who didn't quite get the memo do 
this (just as the occasional source=Google Maps still appears).  I can 
think of one example back in 2012:


https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2012-April/013098.html

where a number of externally-sourced designations seemed to be used.  
I've since resurveyed a fair number of those, and in many cases they 
were now signed as byways; where they weren't I changed the designation 
back to the signage on the ground.  Here's one example of an area that 
on resurvey was actually far more complicated than either my original 
tagging or what it had been armchaired to:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.88254/-0.74203

Can you think of a specific example where something has been tagged with 
designation=*, isn't signed on the ground and must have been sourced 
from the OS (or other incompatible data)?


Cheers,

Andy


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


[Tagging] byway vs track ( was: highway=track access )

2014-05-20 Thread SomeoneElse

Dave F. wrote:


Going slightly off topic, I notice the UK listing is missing byway, a 
recognised highway classification.


Dave F.


Is there a notable physical difference between a byway in England and 
Wales and a track?  Byway Open to All Traffic and Restricted Byway 
are both legal definitions (i.e. designation tag), but is there a 
physical difference too?


The one class that I'd possibly suggest as being missing are quad-bike 
trails used by farmers in upland areas, but I really don't have a good 
suggestion as to what to tag those as.


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] [OpenStreetMap] #5163: paths and tracks rendering indistinguishable: your opinion?

2014-05-19 Thread SomeoneElse

André Pirard wrote:

Hi,

This is about OSM ticket https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/5163:
The rendering of highway=path and highway=track is barely 
distinguishable.


Just my 2p, but personally I don't think that the rendering of 
highway=track and highway=path on the standard map are barely 
distinguishable.  Arguably (very much IMHO) there's too much 
differentiation of different sorts of tracks, paths, footways, 
bridleways, and cycleways rather than too little.


If you feel strongly about it why not knock up a rendering with more 
differentiation between track and path and invite people to compare with 
the current standard map?


Cheers,

Andy

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


Re: [Tagging] [OpenStreetMap] #5163: paths and tracks rendering indistinguishable: your opinion?

2014-05-19 Thread SomeoneElse

André Pirard wrote:

On 2014-05-19 18:35, SomeoneElse wrote :





If you feel strongly about it why not knock up a rendering with more 
differentiation between track and path and invite people to compare 
with the current standard map?
¿¿¿ ¡¡¡  That is exactly what I did with showing OSM and IGN 
(SomeoneElse's ;-)) maps side by side !!!  ???
No other map would think of not differentiating better those two ways 
and all the similar cases.


Sorry, I should have been clearer - I meant a modification to the 
existing osm-carto style that makes the difference clearer  The IGN map 
doesn't differentiate between paths and tracks by colour, but by an 
extra-long dash, something that I don't think that osm-carto uses (but 
there's no technical reason why it couldn't).  The advantage to seeing 
this on a web-based slippy map compared to a picture in a list message 
is that it allows you to move to features that you're familiar with, and 
compare the map with your mental picture.


For example, when the cycle.travel maps appeared, some routes near me 
looked obviously wrong.  This turned out to be a tracktype 
mistagging problem rather than a rendering one, but it had been there 
for a while because it just wasn't obvious on other renderings, and 
wouldn't be obvious to anyone not familiar with the routes concerned.


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] highway=track access

2014-05-19 Thread SomeoneElse

Richard Fairhurst wrote:

Hi all,

There are almost 8m highway=track objects in the database (thanks 
taginfo!), third only to =residential and =service (thanks TIGER!).


I'm interested to know what level of access people believe this 
implies in their home countries.


Here in the UK, for example, highway=track is often used for private 
farm tracks, so you can't safely route over it unless access tags have 
been added. But evidently that's not always the case elsewhere.


Here's how I'd interpret a highway=track with no access tabs in 
England or Wales (or at least the bits that I tend to frequent), 
particularly with regard to foot access:


1) If it's got no other tags on it (e.g. no surface or tracktype tags), 
then there's a risk been added from imagery alone, and I wouldn't assume 
that I could route over it (especially not to get me home before dark 
on a circular route).


2) If it's got any sort of other tags on it (surface, tracktype, 
designation, width, mtb_scale) I'd assume that someone's been down 
there, so access is at least not physically prevented.  I also find 
background GPS layer that iD uses for this useful (though I doubt that 
you could do much with that?).  It doesn't mean that access is legal 
though, so I wouldn't assume that I could use it.


3) If I was recommending to someone else whether or not to take a route 
over a highway=track in England or Wales, I wouldn't suggest it unless 
it had either explicit access tags (or a designation tag that suggests 
that it ought to have an access tag).


Cheers,

Andy





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


[Tagging] access=designated - what do we think it means?

2014-04-11 Thread SomeoneElse
Currently, there are 41,000 things tagged access=designated (1).  I can 
understand what =designated means for a specifc transport type (foot, 
bicycle, etc.) but not access.  The wiki (2) also doesn't know.


What do we think that someone means when they tag something as 
access=designated?


Cheers,

Andy


(1) http://taginfo.osm.org/tags/access=designated#overview

(2) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aaccess%3Ddesignated


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


Re: [Tagging] shop for baby strollers only

2014-04-04 Thread SomeoneElse

André Riedel wrote:

At the moment stroller is used for ramps or ways as access condition.



But it's ambiguous, even in American.  It's a noun meaning pushchair 
only in American; in both English AND American it means a person going 
for a walk.  I can't comment on other English variants (AU, SA, Scots 
etc.).


It makes sense to avoid the ambiguity (more so on access ramps than 
shops, obviously).  It's for the same reason that when tagging a 
roadside footpaths I'll use the American word sidewalk for it instead 
of the English one.


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

2014-04-04 Thread SomeoneElse

Richard Welty wrote:

and if you are not sure about the extent of the structure or its nature
there's no harm in nipping out a short section, setting layer=1 and
skipping the other tagging (bridge=yes or whatever.) you have
accurately represented what you know and maintained correct
topology.



... providing there's a QA site that will continue to flag that as an 
error.


The fact that a QA site flags an error is good if something isn't 
correct; it means that someone can go and have a look and map it 
properly.  Another option would be to add an OSM note, I guess.


We sometimes forget that the aim is to have data that actually 
represents the world, not data that generates no errors on QA sites


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

2014-04-03 Thread SomeoneElse

fly wrote:

Is noexit=yes useful on ways ?



Asking a slightly broader question, in what situations is noexit=yes 
useful at all, except as a cue to subsequent mappers in the very rare 
situation that one way ends very close to another one and there's 
absolutely nothing (not a wall, footpath, anything) between them?


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

2014-04-03 Thread SomeoneElse


On 03/04/14 23:27, Richard Welty wrote:

On 4/3/14 6:06 PM, Richard Z. wrote:



http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Advanced_relationships
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer

umm, the term only seems to appear here. google does not
find any references to it. from this i have to assume that the
term brunnel is something that was proposed and maybe
even standardized, but never gained traction.



The only sense in which I remember it being used in the real world is
this one:

http://www.csmonitor.com/1984/1204/120446.html/%28page%29/2

As in, a crossing scheme for e.g. the English Channel comprising both
bridge and tunnel - not the thing that seems to be being proposed here
at all.

Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting Extended - amenity=boat_sharing

2014-03-29 Thread SomeoneElse

On 29/03/2014 12:41, nounours77 wrote:

As discussed in my earlier post, I think voting is important even for specific 
service tags to make them offical.


Not really - OSM doesn't have official tags.  It has commonly used 
ones, and people agree not to use the same tag to mean different things, 
but a lack of interest in a proposal is a pretty good indicator that, 
er, no one is actually interested.


If you think that something is important enough to be mapped, then map 
it!  If you think people are using different tags to express what is 
essentially the same concept, discuss it with those people to see if it 
is the same concept or if there are nuances that anyone is missing.  
Please don't expect people who have no knowledge of the real-world 
concept that you're trying to capture to be able to offer a useful opinion.


Re the comments in your parent message:

 Please, what is your vision of OSM? A or B?

It's neither.  It's a big pile of data, which contains things that 
everyone and no-one are interested, but which are _verifiable_.  It's 
easy to combine that data with other data, both on the fly in an 
application or statically beforehand.


Re OsmAnd, if you want an OsmAnd map to contain your tag, then simply 
make your own maps containing that tag:


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OsmAnd#Create_your_own_maps

(from the contents section at the top of the first page of the OsmAnd wiki)

There are as many potential maps as mappers - please don't be 
discouraged that a majority of the extremely broad range of OSM mappers 
don't find some niche feature relevant, as that's true of almost all of 
the long tail of tags that differentiates OSM from top-down-mandated 
alternatives such as Google et al.


Cheers,

Andy





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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - opening hours holiday select

2014-03-14 Thread SomeoneElse

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
IMHO summer_holiday would be preferable because we should avoid 
abbreviations


... and people have already used the abbreviation SH for School 
Holidays (which I'd argue also ought not to be abbreviated for the same 
reason).


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] Hot springs

2014-03-04 Thread SomeoneElse
(and in case anyone's not aware) sulfur would be sulphur in British 
English.


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - amenity=boat_sharing

2014-03-03 Thread SomeoneElse

nounours77 wrote:

Dear all,

Just to remind you that the proposal

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boat_sharing

is still open for comments.


If you think that it's an important thing to map, and it fulfills the 
usual criteria (e.g. verifiability), I'd just go and map it - I wouldn't 
worry too much about a formal proposal and  the lack of interest that 
there is with it.


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - opening hours open until

2014-02-25 Thread SomeoneElse

Robin `ypid` Schneider wrote:

So I created a short proposal:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/opening_hours_open_until

In a related point, we need to be careful that when trying to translate 
all of the data in opening_hours into something that a computer can 
understand that information isn't lost.  Breakfast until 11am usually 
makes perfect sense to a human in the context of the rest of the tags on 
an item.


As another example, this pub node:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1479235861/history

had opening hours of 12:00-late changed to 12:00+.  In context (a 
pub in an old English town centre) 12:00-late carries meaning that 
12:00+ does not, despite it confirming to some rules artificially 
imposed by https://github.com/ypid/opening_hours.js .


We certainly shouldn't be mechanically changing opening_hours tags that 
don't quite correspond to those rules when we don't quite understand the 
cultural context of the original tags.


Cheers,

Andy




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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - All You Can Eat

2014-02-14 Thread SomeoneElse

John Packer wrote:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/All_you_can_eat


What does taginfo suggest people are currently tagging places with an 
all you can eat option as?


I'm not convinced that this necessarily needs a proposal...

Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] Canal banks

2014-02-03 Thread SomeoneElse

Christoph Hormann wrote:
And you forget 4.5 million natural=water without any water=* of which 
quite a lot could be riverbanks.


Most of those will just be random imports though, won't they?  Until 
someone even has a look at an aerial, it's difficult to say much about them.


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] Propose the tag shop=military_surplus

2013-12-06 Thread SomeoneElse

Axelos wrote:


The wiki is not intended to suggest tags to make homogeneous the 
database ?


The wiki's an excellent place for documenting tag usage, but one of the 
things hugely in OSM's favour is that there's no enforced list of legal 
tags - if something has never been tagged before, or not much, you can 
just go out and use any tag without asking for permission first.  In 
this case, there doesn't seem to me much mapping of the concept, and 
where it has been mapped, military_surplus seems to have been most used, 
so I'd just use that.


Cheers,

Andy


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


Re: [Tagging] Propose the tag shop=military_surplus

2013-12-05 Thread SomeoneElse

Axelos wrote:


I proposed the tag shop=military_surplus for the shops selling used 
military equipment.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Military_surplus


If you think that it makes sense to tag a particular shop that way just 
go ahead and use it.  You can use any tags you like.  Taginfo can see 9 
others so far:


http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=military+surplus#values

You can also have a look in taginfo for other possible shop values 
that might apply - it could be that one of those is used by people 
instead of military_surplus.


Cheers,

Andy


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


  1   2   >