Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks
uture cases where it becomes necessary to keep them separete, which would then urge the community to draw/import them again, wasting its time. So I'm rather looking for solutions which would not entail deletion of data in that manner. With regards, Svavar Kjarrval ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks
On fös 14.júl 2017 11:08, marc marc wrote: > Le 14. 07. 17 à 12:20, Svavar Kjarrval a écrit : >> A street with a sidewalk on either side but no marked crossings: >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/64.08800/-21.89846 >> (Sidenote: If one tries to route from no. 73 to 42, >> GraphHopper suggests a long route while Mapzen assumes the user is >> already on the other side of the street) > It is a fault (and in my opinion a mistake) to tag a sidewalk separated > from the road where it is not! > there is only one point that the maper create to connect the sidewalk > and the road https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2673312760 > of course routing can only use this point, luckily ! > > A sidewalk really isolated from the road (= by a barrier) does not allow > crossing outside a crossing. This is the current situation of your example. > This is not specific to the sidewalk, the same happens with roads: > If you cut a road with 2 lanes into 2 road without any link between > them, routing will not allow you to jump from one lane to the other. The routing engine seems to have made the mistake of latching too much onto the footway and ignoring the road as a possible point of travel. I've noticed the behaviour in some routing engines using OSM data that when it finds a footway close by which has a possible route to the destination, it tends to ignore the nearby roads completely or place too little value on them. Some routing algorithms mistakenly ignore a seemingly expensive first link even though it might lead to a much cheaper overall path. My previous routing example [1] seems to demonstrate that. I do acknowledge those limits on routing engines, although it's mostly in the assumptions the programmers are prepared to make. This point is demonstrated in my quoted example [2]. Mapzen assumes the user can jump over the road (or assume the user is already there) and walk a few steps, but GraphHopper directs the user to take a complicated path via the footway in front of the house (totalling 1.1 km), only to end the directions by suggesting to the user to walk on the street itself to the front of the house with the starting pin. Mapzen seems to be prepared to assume that there are no barriers between the starting pin and the footway on the other side of the street, but GraphHopper does not do that initially but is, later on, prepared to assume that there are no barriers from the street itself and to the destination point. Routing engines aren't perfect and it's a major balancing act when it comes to performance and cost of operations. That's why I'm interested in knowing if there's something we can do, data-wise, to help the routing engines perform such tasks quickly and cheaply, with the end result being directions which would make sense to the user. At least while avoiding tagging purely for the sake of the router. > >> where the footway ends >> prematurely, the routing software doesn't know it may suggest such a >> "jump" onto the street or not, > the end of the footway must be connected to the street if you are > able/allowed to switch to the street by foot. > If needed, cut the road : one segment with sidewalk=left/righ, second > segment with sidewalk=no Just to be clear: Is it valid, in your opinion, to connect the end of a footway along a street, directly to the street itself? That is, to continue the footway but make a direct connection from the end of the footway directly to the street. I'm not objecting to such a method, I've just been hesitant to apply it without approval by documentation or the community. > >> I haven't been able to find any tag or method to do it > a road with not-separed sidewalk should be taged as such :-) Is there documentation or guides on how to apply that in different situations and how to solve some of the gray areas? > >> the "common sense approach" would expect. > routing doesn't know "common sense approach" :) > if 2 sidewalk or roads are taged as "separated without any link", > routing can't guess that a connection exists. Yep, we're not that far yet. :P But until it does, it might not hurt to help it along by aiding it make such decisions. While I do understand that need, I don't want to apply and advocate measures which might damage the data quality needlessly. [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot=64.14793%2C-21.96048%3B64.14875%2C-21.96216#map=18/64.14809/-21.96170 [2] A link with navigation routing: http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapzen_foot=64.08769%2C-21.90140%3B64.08802%2C-21.90113#map=19/64.08791/-21.90122 With regards, Svavar Kjarrval ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks
On fös 14.júl 2017 10:51, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > 2017-07-14 12:20 GMT+02:00 Svavar Kjarrval <sva...@kjarrval.is > <mailto:sva...@kjarrval.is>>: > > > A street segment with no sidewalks on either side: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/64.12876/-21.90466 > <http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/64.12876/-21.90466> > > > > This is an urban example, but probably you don't have sidewalks in > most of the country (rural areas), and it likely isn't a problem for > routing engines. > Don't know how the comment about it being an urban example contributes to this discussion, as this is a real life case needing a solution. More than half the population of the country lives in the capital area, from which all the examples are located. Therefore, that area has received the most focus of the local OSM community. > > > > A street with a sidewalk on either side but no marked crossings: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/64.08800/-21.89846 > <http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/64.08800/-21.89846> > (Sidenote: If one tries to route from no. 73 to 42, > GraphHopper suggests a long route while Mapzen assumes the user is > already on the other side of the street) > > > > > These are (IMHO) mapping errors. You can't draw isolated footway > islands and expect a router to magically understand those are > sidewalks which you can cross without a connection. E.g this: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/102907998 > There aren't even footway subtags like footway=sidewalk, but even if > there were I wouldn't expect working routing from this graph. The example was provided as a mean to visualise, not an example of a routing error (per my comment regarding it). > > > > > A street segment where the paved sidewalk ends prematurely (same as I > described, except they do widen the street in that case): > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=64.11777=-21.84680#map=19/64.11777/-21.84680 > > <http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=64.11777=-21.84680#map=19/64.11777/-21.84680> > > > > no immediate problem for routing, as they are connected Same as above, provided for visualisation. > > > > (Sidenote: I do wonder if it would be alright to put a sidewalk > talk on > the road segment at the end of that street) > > > > the properties will always refer to the whole object, so if a part of > the road has a sidewalk, another part has not, you have to split the > road and add different tags. > > I wonder how all those tags have come into OSM, and what their meaning > is? Has this pile of cryptic, undocumented abbreviations really made > it through the import process? > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/92639788 The import process was organised by the local community. The references are mostly in Icelandic words or abbreviations thereof. I'm not saying it was perfect, and in retrospect, I think it would've probably been better if they had been translated to English before the import. > > > > Routers seem to > > have a hard time knowing when it's alright to suggest the user "jump" > onto the sidewalk from the road or vice versa if there isn't a footway > such as ones used for crossings. > > > > > you should assume that routers never "jump" from one way to the other > without an explicit connection. Indeed I do, and I do understand (some of) the reasoning for it. Part of the issue is the lack of data for the router to realise that there is a connection or make it understand that it such a "jump" would be ordinary in certain circumstances. > > > Cheers, > Martin > With regards, Svavar Kjarrval ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks
On fim 13.júl 2017 13:49, Andy Townsend wrote: > Perhaps a few links to photos would help? > > It'd make it a lot easier for other people to visualise. Don't think I have such photos on me and I'm fairly sure some people wouldn't want links to copyrighted photos in Google Street View. I'll do the next-best thing and provide links to OSM locations. If people check them out on Google Street View or via other such sources, it would be their business. The areas are mainly picked for visualisation, not because I've found any specific routing issues. A street segment with no sidewalks on either side: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/64.12876/-21.90466 A street with a sidewalk on either side but no marked crossings: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/64.08800/-21.89846 (Sidenote: If one tries to route from no. 73 to 42, GraphHopper suggests a long route while Mapzen assumes the user is already on the other side of the street) A street segment where the paved sidewalk ends prematurely (same as I described, except they do widen the street in that case): http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=64.11777=-21.84680#map=19/64.11777/-21.84680 (Sidenote: I do wonder if it would be alright to put a sidewalk talk on the road segment at the end of that street) On fim 13.júl 2017 14:08, John Willis wrote: > In places complicated enough to warrant separate footpaths, then assuming > they *cannot* cross the street wherever they want (and forced to go to > crosswalks or signals) is by far the best choice. But where this complicated > sidewalk tagging ends, and the minor, residential, and service roads without > sidewalks begin interests me greatly. Is there a “footway_link” ? Not a > traditional _link road, but a logical link to when sidewalks end - do they > need some kind of “link” to the adjacent road so Routing continues on? That's one of the issues I've been wondering myself. Routers seem to have a hard time knowing when it's alright to suggest the user "jump" onto the sidewalk from the road or vice versa if there isn't a footway such as ones used for crossings. In cases where the footway ends prematurely, the routing software doesn't know it may suggest such a "jump" onto the street or not, and would be likely to give up on that segment. I do understand there are probably justified reasons for them not to do it without positive data allowing them to, so we might need to input some type of data (like a link) telling the routing software that such a connection is fine in that case. Sadly, I'm not sure what method I'd be allowed to use since I haven't been able to find any tag or method to do it. On fim 13.júl 2017 14:17, marc marc wrote: > can you give an exemple ? I never see this problem. > I just test GraphHopper and Mapzen on 2 streets without sidewalk without > any routing problem. This is, of course, not a problem when finding routes between two houses on the opposite side of the street. There are problems where the routers discover a footway nearby but that footway leads to a much longer route when in fact it would be much quicker to walk on the street itself, as the "common sense approach" would expect. Here is an example of that: https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot=64.14793%2C-21.96048%3B64.14875%2C-21.96216#map=18/64.14809/-21.96170 (Sidenote: If one moves the points much closer to the street of Aflagrandi, the routers will finally "get it", but these are not the coordinates people would utilise when looking up the starting point and the destination point.) With regards, Svavar Kjarrval ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks
Hi. A few months ago the local public transport authority started utilising OSM data to offer a service where people can type in two addresses and receive an interactive map with suggested bus routes, including the path between the addresses and the suggested bus stops. The estimated walking distance, based on the path to and from the bus stops, are used in the calculation. However, there are some issues regarding tagging I have yet to resolve and would like your advice: 1. Sometimes streets don't have formal sidewalks (no markings on the street nor signs) but there is an "common sense expectation" that pedestrians are allowed to traverse on the edge of that street, and also cross it anywhere using caution. The maximum speed is considered low enough, but they are not technically living streets. This can cause problems for routing software since it generally doesn't have a basis to assume this behaviour is alright. 2. Same as #1, but there can be sidewalks along the street and no crossings, including unmarked ones. People are expected to cross the street wherever they need, using caution. This can cause some long walking routes if the two addresses are directly opposite each other on such a street, when the "common sense" approach would be to "just go across the street". 3. Same type of street as #2, except the sidewalk just stops a few meters before the street ends. There are no clear markings on location but there's the unwritten expectation that they are supposed to continue on the street. This is common when there's a small cul-de-sac space at the end of a residential street in which they don't widen the street at the end to allow cars to turn around, but instead they let the sidewalks end prematurely. I do agree that we shouldn't tag purely for the router so I'm not suggesting that. What I am considering is if there are already commonly accepted OSM solutions already available to tackle these issues. Or, alternatively, tags or other methods which would aid routers in making such decisions and also conform with the OSM tagging norms at the same time. With regards, Svavar Kjarrval ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bus route with reversing
On fös 2.sep 2016 21:32, LeTopographeFou wrote: > Hi, > > When I add a way/node which has already been added in a relation JOSM > warn me and ask me to confirm or to cancel. So there is no issue with > JOSM, or at least with the actual revision, to add more than once a > way/node in a relation. It seems like you're right. JOSM has been suppressing that warning and always assuming the answer no. I must've, by accident or frustration, selected the radio button to never ask me that again. Since the option to re-enable the warning isn't anywhere else but the advanced preferences, I presumed the support was dropped. The corresponding preferences entry is "message.add_primitive_to_relation" (set to "true" to enable the warning). After enabling that warning, I could add both duplicated ways and nodes. Perhaps a similar thing is happening to the topic author. - Svavar Kjarrval ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Permissive turn restrictions
On fim 1.sep 2016 12:10, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Why not (also) map the ones where it isn't allowed? You probably can't count > on routing software implementing all country specific defaults (at least > currently it isn't the case with the popular osm-based ones, so they need > specific advice from the mappers in order to work well). > > To make sure that this is an relative exceptional situation in the context > (country), for your fellow mappers? in any case you could also map the > traffic sign, so your precious surveyed "insider knowledge" has better > chances to persist in the db. > > From a practical point of view, routing engines will generally be very > reluctant to suggest u-turns, because they tend to take a lot of time or > might even be close to impossible (with lots of traffic). > > This said, I could imagine restriction=allowed like you suggested. Logically, > restriction=no would also make sense, but it bears the risk of being > interpreted falsely (if someone checks for restriction=no* as short way for > no_left_turn, no_right_turn etc.) > > cheers, > Martin > Authors of routing engines are, in fact, forced to make such a decision for every traffic rule they intend to support. If they want to support u-turns, they need to decide what to do if there are no explicit u-turn rules available for each specific spot. Since the authors are unlikely to research the default cases for all areas, I would guess they use pick one to use for all countries and wait until someone files a bug report stating otherwise for their area. With so many routing engines available it's unrealistic for people in every country/area to check the defaults to verify they conform with their area. This problem is not limited to u-turns, of course. It would seem to make sense, in these types of cases, to define the general traffic rule of an area and focus on tagging the exceptions within it. Doing otherwise would introduce unnecessary complexity to their calculations and data bloat, or they would need to run a process to strip out the traffic rules which conform with their default traffic rule. This could be avoided if we provided the defaults either in the data and/or via a wiki page the routing engine authors can check. - Svavar Kjarrval ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bus route with reversing
On fös 2.sep 2016 20:54, André Pirard wrote: > On 2016-09-02 22:20, Svavar Kjarrval wrote: >> JOSM doesn't allow the user to add any repeats at all. Fortunately, it >> doesn't remove repeats which were already there. > I was showing nodes and Jo is showing ways. > Repeating nodes is not allowed but repeating ways is all-right. My statement applies, in my experience, also to ways. I haven't been able to add duplicate ways to relations for a long time (it was possible once but later disabled). It's been causing a lot of holes in the local bus relations since some of them go from A to B, circle around a neighbourhood until they return to B, and then go back to A. In some of those cases, being able to add duplicate nodes is essential for the bus route in OSM to reflect the actual one. - Svavar Kjarrval ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bus route with reversing
On fös 2.sep 2016 14:07, André Pirard wrote: > On 2016-09-02 15:19, Jo wrote: >> The way I understand this, no explicit tagging is needed. You could have >> >> aBBc >> >> Where c is the service way of the terminal. > I think that, just like within a plain highway, using the same node > (B) twice in succession makes no sense. > I bet that JOSM won't be happy about it. > JOSM doesn't allow the user to add any repeats at all. Fortunately, it doesn't remove repeats which were already there. - Svavar Kjarrval ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Address and street name inside a private housing estate
Since these are the names of the houses/estates, what'd be wrong with using addr:housename? - Svavar Kjarrval On 26/03/13 13:13, Pieren wrote: Dear the list, In France, we have some private housing estates where the streets are not named and the adresses are the housing estate name itself. For instance, the housing estate is called Lotissement Les Jardins de Tisca. The streets inside the etate are private access and are not officially named. I guess something we can find in many countries. One of our contributor wants to keep the streets unnamed and put on houses addresses the following tags : addr:housenumber with the house number and addr:street with the housing estate name. And draw a surrounding polygon for the whole housing estate with name=Lotissement Les Jardins de Tisca and landuse=residential. Is this tagging correct ? Can we leave the streets unnamed or with the tag noname=yes ? Some QA tools or validators complain about a missing street for the addr:street=Lotissement Les Jardins de Tisca. Just ignore the warnings ? Or should we consider another addr tag instead of addr:street like addr:block or addr:place, addr:neighbourhood, addr:estate ? Is the housing estate correctly tagged with landuse=residential + name ? What is your current practice locally ? Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wikidata tag
On 01/03/13 15:17, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2013/2/27 Svavar Kjarrval sva...@kjarrval.is: It works until the article name is changed in that particular language, then it won't work for any language until it's fixed, if ever. Of course one could argue it's very unlikely in the case of a famous franchise but what about less famous places that have a Wikipedia entry? Wikidata seems to be a reference to article names, so it will fail just the same in the case the articles get restructured (what happens continuously). Take the McDonald's Corp. vs. McDonald's Deutschland inc. example: currently there is only one WP article (the one about McDonald's in German language) that speaks about McDonald's Deutschland inc.. So how would you tag this? All of them might be brand=McDonald's (whether they are operated by the German company or the American one or are a franchise operated by another company (the latter is the most usual case). The actual operator would be either a third party or one of the McDonald's companies, you can tag this to operator (even if it is also of very few interest to most users). That's why the original poster later suggested franchise:wikidata instead of operator:wikidata. Let's say I create a Wikipedia referral to ACME corp. using wikipedia=is:ACME_corp and that article is used to derive the article name in the English Wikipedia and perhaps tens more languages. If the name of the article in the Icelandic Wikipedia site is later changed, Wikipedia articles in the other languages can't be derived by the Icelandic Wikipedia one, since there isn't one by that name in the Icelandic Wikipedia, therefore the Wikipedia connection is lost for all languages. A Wikidata connection would be independant of languages in that regard so this problem is far less likely to happen. Now: if it were McDonald's Deutschland to operate the place, would you then add the wikidata-tag of McDonald's to it, because the only article that apparently speaks about McDonald's Deutschland inc. is the article linked from there? It won't help anyway (to distinguish between the American and the German McD), and as soon as a McDonald's Deutschland inc. articles gets created it would also be somehow wrong. This is where the operator:wikidata tag would be useful in conjunction with the franchise:wikidata tag. The problem is that wikipedia is not a database about companies, it is an encyclopedia where it doesn't necessarily make sense to have a distinct article for every business, and this doesn't seem to be overridden by the wikidata concept (as it looks now). I agree. This would be something the data consumer would have to derive. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wikidata tag
On 27/02/13 11:37, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2013/2/27 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com: 2013/2/27 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com What is the relation between wikidata and wikipedia? Couldn't one get the wikidata-reference code by looking up the wikipedia article name? In this case it would be an unnecessary duplication of information to also have a wikidata tag. But the wikipedia tag gives you only one language article. Now, if you go on a wikipedia article and open that little map, it shows the polygon or node taken from Openstreetmap. But it only works for the language that is in the wikipedia tag. no, that's not true, there is for example the open link map which gives you the article in your language, that's the whole point of it. One language is enough to get all the others (in the general case, there are a few exceptions). It works until the article name is changed in that particular language, then it won't work for any language until it's fixed, if ever. Of course one could argue it's very unlikely in the case of a famous franchise but what about less famous places that have a Wikipedia entry? - Svavar Kjarrval signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wikidata tag
On 27/02/13 12:00, Simone Saviolo wrote: I'm honestly appalled by some of the criticism here. I think this is a great proposal and will be very useful once both sides are solid, with WikiData hosting more and more information and OSM linking lots of objects to a WikiData node. For the record, I do like the idea. Especially since I am a database nerd and know the importance of having non-interchangable IDs. As to the McDonalds/McDonalds Deutschland issue, think of a TagIngo that understands WikiData and shows you not only the code (Q) but also the name of that WikiData node. You would immediately see that there are thousands of McDonald's Corp., a hundred McDonald's Deutschland Inc., and eight Can't find node. It would be a treat to detect errors. What would be great to ease the mapper's task would be an editor that understands WikiData. Something that, as I enter the wikidata=* tag, shows a form in which what I type is looked up into WikiData; the editor would then fill the tag what the proper node ID. Also when people attempt to connect an element to an Wikipedia article, the editor could offer to link directly to the Wikidata entry instead. I'm a bit puzzled that we've been saying for years that OSM should only store geographical information, that all other information should be in a separate database, and now that there is that separate database there are so many voices against it. Regards, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] business closed for renovation - tagging best practice
On 15/01/13 14:17, A.Pirard.Papou wrote: On 2013-01-15 14:23, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote : 2013/1/15 A.Pirard.Papou a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com mailto:a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com What about suggesting the shops to post their requests to OpenStreetBugs (1)? Or offer them a simple dedicated system to edit directly in OSM (something very simple, which offers just the tags that are connected to a certain topic, and which abstracts the tags from them, e.g. a reduced version of potlatch or iD, without the possibility to edit geometry). Yes, that was also on my mind when I wrote, but I have a tendency to suggest the simplest solutions. What we're talking about now is heading towards assisted or supervised tagging, you name it. Sort of what Google wisely does to prevent anyone destroying Google Maps. Could (I'm sketching and confessing you my dream :-)) the editors, both simplified as you describe and fully featured), work in password-less mode (with warning and explanation)? Then, when OSM receives a password-less change set, after testing it for coherence, it would not apply it but send it to a pool for review? Reviewers would pick and apply them effectively. The main question is: would there be enough reviewers to do the less enjoyable job of absorbing the input timely? One could think of a quota system for everyone to do his homework to earn his membership. I have many reasons (real stories) to believe that something should be done also for improving some taggers' competence or taming the flurry of careless activity of others. One idea would be extra validation optionally done by OSM itself, much the way JOSM checks the updates better than... But here, the dream is recalled fuzzily to my brain ;-) Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging I expressed a similar idea some months ago but with all edits. But this seems to be a much simpler version of it and easier to implement. It could be implemented in a way that it could categorise the work between designated areas, like countries or large areas within them so people could limit themselves to areas they're more familiar with. If I'd accept such a suggested change, I'd be responsible for it as the edit would be registered to my account. Not all business owners have time or the interest to learn about all the available tags in OSM, nevermind registering for an account and apply them correctly. Such a system would have the potential to partially solve this problem. - Svavar Kjarrval signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Multiple purposes for buildings
Hi. How does one tag buildings which are both commercial and residential? There are two main situations I'm thinking of: 1) The part which is residential is besides the part which is commercial, but they do have the same housenumber. Do I separate the commercial part from the residential part and mark each as a separate building with the same housenumber? 2) The ground floor is commercial but the residential part is in the floors above. The housenumber is the same. Do I mark the building with commercial;residential and leave it at that? Or do I just mark buildings with multiple purposes with building=yes and wait for a tagging scheme which can handle such situations? With regards, Svavar Kjarrval signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - age groups in schools
On 28/11/12 17:06, Phil! Gold wrote: * Svavar Kjarrval sva...@kjarrval.is [2012-11-25 00:08 +]: The RFC process has started for my proposal to tag the age groups schools offer education for. More information is on the wiki page. The proposal is at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/age_group . I happen to think the existing ISCED proposal is easy to use and provides more relevant information than the age groups proposal. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ISCED I've been using it for a while now as I tag schools. I agree that the ISCED proposal answers more questions than my age group proposal. It does seem though that the tag needs to indicate what ISCED version the value belongs to, since the standard can be revised at any time. If a future version is made, we'd have to know if the value on the existing tags are according to the old or new classification. - Svavar Kjarrval ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - age groups in schools
Hi. Like I stated in the proposal, it varies a lot between countries. I agree that there are different systems determining when children get into schools and here in Iceland it's defined as a year group. However, some countries have cut off dates which don't comply with the almanac year so it's not always Jan 1st to Dec 31st. That could be defined in another tag to make the information more granular. Without such a tag, one can at least know that the school educates children who become X old that year. Regarding cases where the prefixed parts kind of answer the question, that's not always the case. Here in Iceland, we're lucky that the Ministry of Education keeps a list of all elementary schools (they're 175) and on said list there's only a handful of them which have any indication that they're elementary schools. This will most likely apply in other countries as well. Also, if such a data processing would cover the planet, it would be very time-consuming to derive such information in all the languages by hand, so said person would only want to cover areas with school names in a language he/she knows and if he/she has time to research the school system in each area to make such deductions. With this tag, the work is already done. Example case: When my neighbourhood was under construction, the elementary school there only served students for the first four years (of the mandatory 10) in the year 2005. In the year 2006 it increased to the first 7 years, in 2008 the first 9 years and finally included the 10th year in 2009. Even if the name had an indication that it was an elementary school, any deductions made from the age/year groups from reading the name would've been wrong. Also, that same elementary is also a kindergarten which makes it a bit harder to define from the name alone. So an age group, in that case, wouldn't have been such a bad idea. If OSM had progressed in 2005 as it has now, it would've been useful for many purposes to know that it didn't serve all 10 years of elementary school teaching. After this proposal has been voted on, I intend to introduce a proposal to define school areas. Age groups can play a huge role, especially in the example case above, where children in certain school years were sent to a school in another neighbourhood. So the same neighbourhood was in the area of two schools, each educating children of different school years. Without this tag in the example case above, well, we'd be boned. If anybody skips a year or repeats one, that's of course an exception this tag can't remedy. I agree about the factoid you mentioned shouldn't be in the wiki page for the tag, should it be accepted. These were just examples of uses so you'd get the gist of what the data could be used for. It was not intended as ultimate or the best examples of use. I'll find a more general case before requesting a vote on the proposal. - Svavar On 25/11/12 21:07, Steve Bennett wrote: Hi, With the exception of pre-schools, aren't most schools defined by the year group, rather than age? Around a here, a primary school is Prep to Grade 6, and high school is Year 7 to Year 12. The actual ranges of kids varies a bit - some skip years, some repeat. I can't see much use for coding an age group. To be honest, I'm not sure I even see the value in coding year groups - what does year_group=7-12 tell you that Blah Blah High School doesn't? The use case of a parent choosing where to send their kids is such a rare one, and involves so much other research that I don't think having that factoid in OSM achieves much. Steve On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Svavar Kjarrval sva...@kjarrval.is mailto:sva...@kjarrval.is wrote: Hi. The RFC process has started for my proposal to tag the age groups schools offer education for. More information is on the wiki page. The proposal is at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/age_group . With regards, Svavar Kjarrval ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - age groups in schools
Didn't know proposals made on talk pages would be valid. - Svavar On 25/11/12 22:02, Colin Smale wrote: Take a look at the discussions on this page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:amenity%3Dschool Min_age and max_age are already proposed there, as is the use of the UN classifications (ISCED) for the level of education. So I'm afraid I will be voting against your proposal; not because it is a bad idea, but because I think it should build on earlier discussions and be integrated with them. Colin On 25/11/2012 01:08, Svavar Kjarrval wrote: Hi. The RFC process has started for my proposal to tag the age groups schools offer education for. More information is on the wiki page. The proposal is at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/age_group . With regards, Svavar Kjarrval ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Proposed feature - age groups in schools
Hi. The RFC process has started for my proposal to tag the age groups schools offer education for. More information is on the wiki page. The proposal is at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/age_group . With regards, Svavar Kjarrval ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC advertising
In Iceland we sometimes have companies parking cars in public spaces or in private land after making a deal with the owner. The cars are marked with the company and almost always have advertising signs on the side. How would that be marked in your proposal? - Svavar Kjarrval On 28/10/12 03:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Please have a look at the advertising proposal, I am planning to get this soon to voting: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/advertising cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways
I think most laws require that even emergency vehicles observe restrictions like oneway streets. If there are any restrictions which can be broken in case of emergency vehicles, I think they'd program their routing software to them. - Svavar Kjarrval On 15/10/12 18:16, Eckhart Wörner wrote: Hi Colin, Am Montag, 15. Oktober 2012, 20:08:01 schrieb Colin Smale: I don't understand why emergency vehicles are so important in this discussion. In the first place they have wide-ranging exemptions from traffic rules, which (let's be honest) we are never going to tag in OSM. Secondly they are never going to be relying on OSM data (or indeed any normal sat-nav) for lane-precise routing. They are trained to use their eyes and brains to make split-second decisions on what is safe and an acceptable risk under the circumstances of that moment. Thirdly, they will be about 0.01% of the potential users of OSM data - why should we compromise service to the vast majority of real users for the hypothetical benefit of the very few. I fully agree with you; if we were going to map for emergency vehicles, we'd probably have to add oneway:conditional = no @ emergency for almost all oneway roads first. Eckhart ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
