Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-19 Thread Volker Schmidt
Martin, please do not even think about deprecating a tagging that is heavily used.like highway=crossing with bicycke=no|yes|dismount I am already ignoring the frequent JOSM Warning about the deprecated crossing=island which JOSM shows me everytime I download a stretch of road that contains this

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-17 Thread Volker Schmidt
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 09:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Generally, I would propose to only tag crossing =* on the crossing node, > but refrain from access like tags on this node (no bicycle or foot tags). > The access should be derived from the crossing ways. > This statement is only correct

Re: [Tagging] Crossing tagged on both way and node (was: What does bicycle=no on a node means?)

2020-10-15 Thread Volker Schmidt
in the router business listening in on this conversation? On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 17:39, Jmapb via Tagging wrote: > On 10/13/2020 6:30 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 17:41 Volker Schmidt wrote: > > I changed the crossing to the way we do it in many parts

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-15 Thread Volker Schmidt
May I remind my dear mapper friends, that tags are just that: tags. From the database point of view these are just couples of arbitrarily chosen, character strings. OSM uses a convention to make it easier to memorize these strings by using GB-English terms for them, but, I repeat that is just a

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-13 Thread Volker Schmidt
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 at 22:16, Emvee via Tagging wrote: > On 13/10/2020 16:07, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > > I don't try to solve it. I put in a short way for the crossing. > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/781981138 is the first example that > came to mind for me.

[Tagging] bicycle lane on mini-rounabout

2020-10-10 Thread Volker Schmidt
How do I tag a bicycle lane (way.Type element on a mini-roundabout (node-type element)?. Example: https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/-yxlx8FNVBHgMC7LH9eFNA Virus-free. www.avast.com

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a government job centre

2020-10-10 Thread Volker Schmidt
If you go to the (admittedly, very short) wiki page for office=employment_agency, you find that the picture illustrating the tag shows a German "jobcenter" of the Agentur fuer Arbeit, which is a government agency. So I think your

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity:source

2020-09-29 Thread Volker Schmidt
The main problem is the ground truth. A mapper cannot verify the supply contracts. The only exception could be the presence of a generator on the premises. Virus-free. www.avast.com

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

2020-09-29 Thread Volker Schmidt
May I injection another complication: In many jurisdictions the width available to the moving traffic is defined by white lines on the tarmac creating an additional safety/buffer zone between the marked parking spaces and the flowing traffic. On Tue, 29 Sep 2020, 12:52 Pieter Vander Vennet,

[Tagging] highway=services on bicycle routes?

2020-09-28 Thread Volker Schmidt
Can I use highway=services for a service stop on bike routes? It typically comprises restrooms, some kind of food service, bicycle repair tools/service, often bicycle rental. They go by different names. In Italy we have a number of "Bicigrill", a term "borrowed" from a trade mark for motorway fast

Re: [Tagging] admin, please remove this user from the list

2020-09-23 Thread Volker Schmidt
Thanks, Marin for bringing this up. Same problem for me. Virus-free. www.avast.com

Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

2020-09-21 Thread Volker Schmidt
I think I mentioned this already in this context: in many countries you are not allowed to cross roads everywhere you like. In Italy, for example, you are by law required to use cross-walks, unless they are further than 200m from your actual position. I know that this is very theoretical, but it

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

2020-09-19 Thread Volker Schmidt
Some thoughts that trouble me... To me it seems obvious that width values, independently on how they are measured, are at best estimates, as measuring them is in most cases dangerous or requires good technical equipment. I guess that most width values in the database are reality estimates (I

Re: [Tagging] Addition of highway=emergency_bay and priority_road=yes to Map Features?

2020-09-17 Thread Volker Schmidt
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 10:00, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > emergency bays are quite common in Italy Italy: 622 ways 2020 nodes (not limited to motorways without emergency lanes - vedi esempio ) > and Germany when there isn’t an

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

2020-09-15 Thread Volker Schmidt
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 at 10:34, Tobias Zwick wrote: > I plan to soon implement a "What is the width of this road" quest in > StreetComplete where the user can measure the width of the road using his > or her smartphone (similar to the app Measure from Google [1]). The app > will need to instruct

[Tagging] sloped kerbs

2020-09-07 Thread Volker Schmidt
How do you tag sloped kerbs/curbs like these. (I am referring to the zebra-striped sloped concrete borders of the traffic islands) barrier=kerb and kerb=sloped ? The kerb wiki page shows

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

2020-08-31 Thread Volker Schmidt
The double role issue, if it occurs, is there in either case, separate relation or role in the bicycle route relation. Regarding travel details of ferry/rail/bus sections within bicycle routes: This information, if available, should go on the the ferry/rail/bus route relations, as these means of

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

2020-08-30 Thread Volker Schmidt
Keep it simple, if the simple solution does not limit you. For the mixed transportation aspect of bicycle routes, I have the gut feeling that separate relations for each segment are overkill. At the practical level, if you take Eurovelo1 (relation 2763798

Re: [Tagging] Confusion bicycle_road <> cyclestreet

2020-08-26 Thread Volker Schmidt
Yes, there is a legal difference *bicycle_road* A German "Fahrradstrasse" (which is the prototype on which this tag seems to be modeled) is a road exclusively for bicycles in the sense that carries the the sign "Fahrradstrasse" without addition indicates that the carriageway of the road is

[Tagging] Confusion bicycle_road <> cyclestreet

2020-08-25 Thread Volker Schmidt
Hi, I have come across a new (to me) street sign In Italy: https://italy-cycling-guide.info/tips-advice/riding-in-italy/ The road is a one-lane residential road on which bicycles and pedestrians can circulate. I don't know the legal status, however (I am inquiring). In that contest I have noticed

Re: [Tagging] ref on roundabout

2020-08-23 Thread Volker Schmidt
The route ref tag on a roundabout is the logical extension of the route ref on any other road that is part of route with that ref number. The arguments for putting the ref in the route relation and not on the ways making up the route are valid along for roundabout that are part of route. Trouble

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

2020-08-23 Thread Volker Schmidt
I guess that what we have is another case of two (in reality three) tagging practices for (nearly) the same thing. name=* for a tunnel's name that is mapped with tunnel=yes seems to be common practice (at least 760 motorway tunnels in Italy are tagged this way). On the other hand we do have many

Re: [Tagging] ref on roundabout

2020-08-22 Thread Volker Schmidt
That's the approach anyway for bicycle and bus route relations on roundabouts. Yes, it causes additional work, because you need to split the roundabout way, but I do not see a way to avoid that. Volker

Re: [Tagging] Canopy Walkways

2020-08-22 Thread Volker Schmidt
l_content=webmail> <#m_-1065115381681509086_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 23:50, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 20. Aug 2020, at 23:18, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > > > What's wrong with "brid

Re: [Tagging] Canopy Walkways

2020-08-21 Thread Volker Schmidt
The footway= approach isn't so good. A canopy walkway is more a bridge type. On Fri, 21 Aug 2020, 00:28 Graeme Fitzpatrick, wrote: > > > > On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 at 07:50, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > >> >> Or maybe footway=canopy_walkway? highway= Footway and bridge=yes seem >> essential for a

Re: [Tagging] Canopy Walkways

2020-08-20 Thread Volker Schmidt
What's wrong with "bridge" ? Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> On

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -Funeral hall

2020-08-19 Thread Volker Schmidt
With respect to the proposed key, I would invite you to consider an alternative way of tagging this function. In various countries and in various religions the approaches on how to say good-bye to the dead are different. I am thinking of the "camera ardente" in Italy or the "Aufbahrung" in

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

2020-08-14 Thread Volker Schmidt
I love tree-lined roads in the country side or in city settings. I would love a router that I could instruct to find them for me. For travelling by car and by bicycle. In past periods trees were part of the road. I like the idea of easily adding this feature to the map. But I also fear the

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

2020-08-14 Thread Volker Schmidt
On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, 13:41 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging, < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > I feel that tree_lined=separate should be used if trees are separately > mapped > This would make it worse because you would have to add this to all objects with tree lines already tagged with

Re: [Tagging] RFC: service=? for all highway=service (service=parking needed, primarily, I think)

2020-08-04 Thread Volker Schmidt
On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 16:27, David Dean wrote: The main problem with this is the retrofitting of the missing service=* tags Unless we start a mega campaign to add service=* to all highway=service, we will have to live with the actual situation for ever. Some roads are "service" only and other

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

2020-08-01 Thread Volker Schmidt
Please revert this wiki change. The kerb hight values have been used in at least one project documenting wheelchair accessibility. On Sat, 1 Aug 2020, 08:53 Supaplex, wrote: > As an result of this diskussion (no strong opposition, some general > remarks, some endorsement) I added "kerb=regular"

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

2020-07-29 Thread Volker Schmidt
Problem: what is "regular" ? (and hence: what is "raised" and "lowered" ?) See for example: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-standard-curb-height-in-the-United-States-and-how-is-that-height-decided-on On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 20:58, Supaplex wrote: > Hey all, > > I started mapping detailed

Re: [Tagging] amenity=customer_service RFC

2020-07-23 Thread Volker Schmidt
Careful with "access". access=customers on an office building would imply you can drive into this building with any means of transport, provided you are a customer. On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 15:46, bkil wrote: > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 3:39 PM Volker Schmidt wrote: > >

Re: [Tagging] Hiking "guideposts" painted on rocks, trees etc.

2020-07-23 Thread Volker Schmidt
... and if the fingers are nailed on a shed, a common practice in the mountains around here? No post? Or the building is the post? On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 14:07, Paul Allen wrote: > On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 02:03, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> No. The material the guidepost is made

Re: [Tagging] amenity=customer_service RFC

2020-07-23 Thread Volker Schmidt
You are trying to address a reaIly (numerically) big problem. I would have thought anything with office=* may need an indication of the presence or less of customer service. Most likely anything that is shop=* would implicitly offer customer service. So for the 700k office=* we need to retrofit an

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

2020-07-22 Thread Volker Schmidt
On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 22:51, bkil wrote: > Although I think we've given enough evidence and _some_ of your quotes > make sense, let me add another consideration. > > This is where bicycle=dismount could be used (although it is the default > on highway=footway): >

Re: [Tagging] Hiking "guideposts" painted on rocks, trees etc.

2020-07-22 Thread Volker Schmidt
Guidebooks in a hiking/cycling route should be fine, provided they carry the role=guidepost tag. On Wed, 22 Jul 2020, 17:20 Andy Townsend, wrote: > On 22/07/2020 16:08, pangoSE wrote: > > > > I suggest you add the guidepost to a node on the path instead. > > > Please don't do this. If there's

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

2020-07-22 Thread Volker Schmidt
It's not the routers' fault. They correctly reflect the mappers' intentions. In almost all cases when we map bicycle=no it means, according to the law, you can pass if you walk your bicycle, because you are considered a pedestrian. We simply missed to realise that we overlooked the rare cases

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

2020-07-22 Thread Volker Schmidt
The boxes business is most likely leading us a bit up the Nymphenburg Schlosspark garden path. The real issue is routing for bicycles. Many (bicycle) routers I know would route you against (short) stretches of one-way roads or on short stretches of (bicycle=no) footpaths, so in those cases it is

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

2020-07-22 Thread Volker Schmidt
Apart from the island parts of Venice, there is this "famous" example, cited everytime the argument comes up: Bicycles, even walke, are not allowed in the Schlosspark Nympenburg (see leaflet): "Das Mitführen von

Re: [Tagging] Farmlands subject to rotation of crops

2020-07-22 Thread Volker Schmidt
This is a rather tricky problem, especially as the changes may not follow any particular pattern. I am not a crop mapper at all, but I can distinguish between the major local crops (in Italy). And in many cases the mapping in OSM is wrong, mostly because the data is fruit of imports which were too

Re: [Tagging] Riverbanks

2020-07-21 Thread Volker Schmidt
Please let us not forget that the wiki is supposed to document what is used in OSM. In this case it should say that two schemes exist, and, if we have good numbers for the relative use, we can add that. Putting an advice to prefer one or the other is not within the scope of the wiki in such a

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

2020-07-20 Thread Volker Schmidt
Mackie wrote: > > > On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 11:28, Paul Allen wrote: > >> On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 10:59, Volker Schmidt wrote: >> >>> manhole=drain is widely used in OSM for water drainage grids, that are >>> not suitable for people to entr

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

2020-07-20 Thread Volker Schmidt
manhole=drain is widely used in OSM for water drainage grids, that are not suitable for people to entr - se the photo on the wikipage On Sun, 19 Jul 2020, 22:55 Martin Koppenhoefer, wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 18. Jul 2020,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-16 Thread Volker Schmidt
My idea was only trying to avoid to invent tag values for OSM without consulting what other, technically more competent bodies, have done before. Looks as the FAO classification could have served as template for OSM tagging approach years back. But we now are only after tag value for bare soil,

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

2020-07-14 Thread Volker Schmidt
t;> As we already have the site relation for grouping features that are part >>> of the same thing, but disjoint, i think that it is good to use it. It also >>> solves the problem when mappers use multipolygon for two polygons sharing >>> the same edge (it is forming an in

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-14 Thread Volker Schmidt
I suggested this as a helpful guide when defining tag values. I don't think it can be used one-to-one for OSM. Bare ground, BTW, can be found also the area covered by CORINE, as it includes the Sahara for example) Volker On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 18:01, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-14 Thread Volker Schmidt
I am not a land cover expert, but have come across a great number of obviously wrong land cover tagging in OSM. Said this, why not try to use CORINE [1] definitions? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordination_of_Information_on_the_Environment On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, 11:52 Christoph Hormann,

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

2020-07-13 Thread Volker Schmidt
On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 at 22:56, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > actually all of these could be „grouped“ with tags alone, e.g distributed > museums could have an identifying „network“ tag (or sth similar). > But why invent a new network tag, if we have a site relation, waiting to be used. (I was

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

2020-07-13 Thread Volker Schmidt
Looking back at the history of the site relation, it looks as if the concept originated from schools, colleges, universities, airports, and military bases for situations where the objects are not within a well defined perimeter. Documented uses include historical sites, even though they are not

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

2020-07-13 Thread Volker Schmidt
I am not saying get rid of the network tag, I am saying we should be > consistent. In the above case, if network=UK (instead of network=ncn), > one would know it is national. First because the UK is a nation and there > is no smaller jurisdiction that follows "UK" in the tag, and because there >

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

2020-07-12 Thread Volker Schmidt
I do consider a site relation a fitting approach for a city wall. On Sun, 12 Jul 2020, 22:35 Andy Townsend, wrote: > On 12/07/2020 20:13, Taskar Center wrote: > > > > Why is the relation type on the Berlin Wall a “collection” rather than > > “boundary”? > > Over its history as an object in OSM

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

2020-06-24 Thread Volker Schmidt
, but pedestrians have precedence and cyclists have to dismount if necessary. On Wed, 24 Jun 2020, 21:05 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging, < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > Jun 24, 2020, 18:05 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > On 24. Jun 2020, at 15:43, Volker Schmidt

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

2020-06-24 Thread Volker Schmidt
I have just found a situation with mandatory oneway for pedestrians (and cyclists). https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/u7_0bEMY-iMrHiuafltvmg On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 19:31, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 15. Jan 2020, at 12:05, Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > > > >

Re: [Tagging] Milk Churn Stands

2020-06-21 Thread Volker Schmidt
In addition I think there are (wooden) platforms for churns in the same area. At least I think so, but until I find one, I cannot say for sure whether they still exist or not. On Sun, 21 Jun 2020, 15:37 Paul Allen, wrote: > On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 at 14:22, Volker Schmidt wrote: > >&

Re: [Tagging] Milk Churn Stands

2020-06-21 Thread Volker Schmidt
> On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 at 13:13, Volker Schmidt wrote: > >> >> I looked around a bit (I am a city dweller, apologies, if this is new to >> me) >> In South Tyrol (Italy) they have an interesting variant of this concept. >> The dairy uses refrigerated conta

Re: [Tagging] Milk Churn Stands

2020-06-21 Thread Volker Schmidt
Update. I looked around a bit (I am a city dweller, apologies, if this is new to me) In South Tyrol (Italy) they have an interesting variant of this concept. The dairy uses refrigerated containers which are parked in designated spots at scheduled times. The nearby farmers bring their milk to the

Re: [Tagging] Milk Churn Stands

2020-06-20 Thread Volker Schmidt
To my memory, these platforms for milk "container" collection are still in active daily use at least in some parts northern Italy, and, I think, other parts of the Alps. So it is important not to make the tag "historic" only. In some parts of Germany there used to be one-per-village small

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

2020-06-18 Thread Volker Schmidt
t; Francesco > > Il giorno lun 16 dic 2019 alle ore 13:49 Francesco Ansanelli < > franci...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > >> >> >> Il lun 16 dic 2019, 10:56 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> ha scritto: >> >>> On 16/12/19 20:21, Martin Koppe

Re: [Tagging] nhd tags - documentation page review

2020-06-14 Thread Volker Schmidt
Is it not possible to get people who were involved in the original import to check these.things? I would be wary to remove such things remotely and without knowing what information these codes carry ore once carried, I had a look at our imported waterways in Italy (which have mainly two problems:

Re: [Tagging] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-06-14 Thread Volker Schmidt
Regarding power lines: it is helpful mapping razed power lines as razed and not removing them completely, because in many cases some of the satellite pictures still show the towers, or at least the concrete foundations. This way you avd resurrection. The same argument applies to other objects as

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

2020-06-12 Thread Volker Schmidt
On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 19:41, Tod Fitch wrote: > For example, as mappers discover they can map a voie verte in France or a > “Rails to Trails” in the USA as highway=greenway and not as arbitrary > choice of track, path, cycleway or bridle path differentiated by a bunch of > foot=designated,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail (Michael Reichert)

2020-06-11 Thread Volker Schmidt
> Using electrified=rail to mean 3 rails and having a sub-tag for 4 rails is a bad thing. +1 Volker ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

2020-06-10 Thread Volker Schmidt
On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 17:45, Jack Armstrong wrote: > To map a pedestrian crossing, place a node within the way representing > the road, and set this highway=crossing tag on the node… > footway=crossing and cycleway=crossing are sometimes used on ways which > lead from a sidewalk to the

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

2020-06-10 Thread Volker Schmidt
Two points to get this thread back on track: 1) The highway=track tag has always been wider than agriculture and forestry. There is an often overlooked "etc." in the description on the wiki, and it has been there from the very first version of 26 May 2008. (see also Duck_tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - electric_bicycle and speed_pedelec

2020-06-09 Thread Volker Schmidt
I missed the voting deadline.-my apologies. I only today had time to look for official EU documentation and found this EU fact sheet that clearly supports the

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-06-08 Thread Volker Schmidt
d not invite mappers to remove already mapped objects, but only correct mapping errors. On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 05:03, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/6/20 8:02 am, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > I need to reopen this thread. > > > > I do object strongly to the invita

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - electric_bicycle and speed_pedelec

2020-06-07 Thread Volker Schmidt
On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 at 13:56, Jan Michel wrote: > Voting has ended after 14 days. There were 28 votes, 27 'yes' and one > 'abstain'. > This means, the two keywords 'electric_bicycle' and 'speed_pedelec' have > been approved for use and two new vehicle categories have been > introduced. Let's see

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-06-05 Thread Volker Schmidt
:03 by mark+...@carnildo.com: > >> > >>> On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 12:39:14 +0200 (CEST) > >>> Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jun 2, 2020, 03:52 by c933...@gmail.com: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-06-03 Thread Volker Schmidt
n Wed, 3 Jun 2020 at 07:05, Mark Wagner wrote: > On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 12:39:14 +0200 (CEST) > Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > > > Jun 2, 2020, 03:52 by c933...@gmail.com: > > > > > > > > > > > 在 2020年6月2日週二 09:26,Warin <> 61sundow...@gma

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

2020-06-02 Thread Volker Schmidt
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 16:54, Tod Fitch wrote: > My translation of these two statements combined is roughy: “We can’t > change any tagging”. I don’t find that helpful. > I fear your translation is correct. At least for tags as heavily used as highway=path and highway=track. Deprecating anything

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

2020-06-02 Thread Volker Schmidt
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 09:04, Daniel Westergren wrote: > I think the reason that this is so messed up because of the desire to tag >> according to function. A trail/path can have many users/functions, but >> it's still a dirt path. >> > > Right. But is there another way? Can we tag dirt

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-06-02 Thread Volker Schmidt
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 05:06, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > How much time do you think I should spend searching for these people who > might know of it? And then once found how much time should I spend trying > to contact them? > > Think about what you are asking an unpaid mapper to do? >

Re: [Tagging] Covered walkways?

2020-06-02 Thread Volker Schmidt
Simple mapping: covered=yes Elaborate mapping: building=roof; layer=1 (useful if the geometry matters, e.g. roof wider than footpath) Il mar 2 giu 2020, 07:36 Graeme Fitzpatrick ha scritto: > Doing some mapping around one of the local schools & wondering about the > best way to map covered

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

2020-05-31 Thread Volker Schmidt
Daniel, you wrote On Sun, 31 May 2020 at 09:18, Daniel Westergren wrote: > But words like path & footway is telling a different story and confusing > most mappers. > > And some say that highway=path either can mean a wilderness path or, if > used with foot/bicycle=designated, a combined, urban

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

2020-05-30 Thread Volker Schmidt
ult rendering of non-urban paths, to encourage the use >of mentioned subtags. > > > Would this be a fair summary? What have I missed? Who is interestet in > continuing this work in a smaller group? Or should we continue to spam this > mailing list? > > /Daniel > >

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

2020-05-29 Thread Volker Schmidt
Unfortunately it is more difficult to map properly the minor roads and ways, in comparison with the major roads. There much more variegated in appearance, in use, in rules ecc, and, at least in my part of the world there are also simply more in numbers. It is also correct that the available sets

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-05-29 Thread Volker Schmidt
My main point is that out there are things that consist of visible objects plus objects which have left visible traces, and also some pieces that have been completely erased, but of which we have documented knowledge of where they once were. The entire thing makes sense only with all its parts.

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-05-28 Thread Volker Schmidt
This is a "problem" that is being exaggerated, in my view. There are very small percentage of historic "things" in the OSM database that really do not exist anymore in the sense that they are truly invisible. There are plenty of historical "things" in OSM of which large parts still exist today,

Re: [Tagging] line=* tag on railway lines

2020-05-28 Thread Volker Schmidt
I just had a quick go on the key:line. There seems to be a plethora of meanings of this tag, some so obscure that I have not the faintest idea what they mean. Try this overpass turbo Wizard search search “type:way and highway=* and line=*” and try to make sense of the results. Volker On Thu,

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

2020-05-27 Thread Volker Schmidt
On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 20:34, Daniel Westergren wrote: > And there is (c) a non-urban trail with legal access for bicycles but in >> practice only usable with a mountain bike but lacking a MTB scale tag as >> the hiker, like me, who mapped it has no clue what MTB scale to put on it. >> > > This

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

2020-05-27 Thread Volker Schmidt
When I used the term ""hiking" path" that was meant inclusive of bicycle (MTB) use, an , in most countries also horses. The default access settings for path in most countries are foot, bicycle, horse On Wed, 27 May

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

2020-05-27 Thread Volker Schmidt
On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 15:15, Andrew Harvey wrote: > The way I see it is there are two main views of highway=footway,path in > OSM. > > 1. Is that footway is urban and path is remote/forest > 2. Is that footway is for primary walking paths (including remote/forest > paths) and that path is for

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

2020-05-27 Thread Volker Schmidt
Just to demonstrate that "hiking" paths with sac_scale=mountain_hiking properties and combined foot-cycleways are not mutually exclusive: a real-world Mapillary shot from Padova, a bustling city in the flatlands of the Po Valley (not

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

2020-05-27 Thread Volker Schmidt
On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 11:30, Daniel Westergren wrote: > To confuse things more (or maybe less...), I just realized that iD is > using highway=cycleway, bicycle=designated, foot=designated for a "Cycle > and foot path". But in JOSM, the preset for the same is using > highway=path... Similarly,

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

2020-05-26 Thread Volker Schmidt
We have now been reviving the path discussion in 73 messages, and counting ... I still feel we are not understanding each other (or is it only me who is lost?) To me a highway=path is a concept that is well defined in the wiki, and the various types can be described with existing tags. A hiking

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

2020-05-26 Thread Volker Schmidt
Please come back to my original question: *I would like to eliminate the contradiction in the wiki. What wording do you propose?* On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 10:23, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: > On 5/26/20 5:44 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > It can't hurt to specify oneway=yes. I have noticed that the

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

2020-05-24 Thread Volker Schmidt
I am aware of the histroy - I only wanted to bring up the contradiction between the two wiki pages *before* changing the wiki. On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 23:11, Florian Lohoff wrote: > On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 10:26:19PM +0200, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > I just noticed an apparent cont

[Tagging] Change of wiki page Key:access

2020-05-24 Thread Volker Schmidt
I would like to bring this up in the list. I am not happy with the recent change of the key:access page of the wiki -- Forwarded message - The OpenStreetMap Wiki page Key:access has been changed on 24 May 2020 by Flohoff, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access for the

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

2020-05-24 Thread Volker Schmidt
PS: The standard rendering assumes junction=roundabout, highway=motorway, and highway=motorway_link to be oneway=yes by default (https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1363) On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 22:26, Volker Schmidt wrote: > I just noticed an apparent contradict

[Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

2020-05-24 Thread Volker Schmidt
I just noticed an apparent contradiction regarding the use of the oneway tag between the wiki pages key:oneway and motorway . The former states: "Some tags (such as junction

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

2020-05-24 Thread Volker Schmidt
Path and trail are confusingly near in meaning. The first Google search result on the difference between the meaning of path and trail says *: *"*Pat**h** (is) a trail* for the use of, or worn by, pedestrians". So path=trail does not work semantically

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

2020-05-21 Thread Volker Schmidt
Please use full tagging and don't create implicit values after the fact. We do have the width or est_width tags,tets use them, where they are needed. On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 21:35, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > May 21, 2020, 19:20 by

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

2020-05-21 Thread Volker Schmidt
I am not a fan of the confusing use of highway=path for foot-cycleways and narrow mountain hiking ways, but that is a fact in OSM, and we need to live with that. However I would like to underline that highway=cycleway or highway=path + foot=designated + bicycle=designated do not necessarily

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

2020-05-21 Thread Volker Schmidt
Critically those things say there is a trail here, but don't say where the > trail goes as part of a route, so in that case without knowing the exact > route, I don't see how it can be marked out as a recreational route. > > A series of trail blazes or way marks tells me that I most likely on a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

2020-05-21 Thread Volker Schmidt
This wikipedia "Trail blazing" article (which takes trailblazed and wayarked as meaning the same thing), has a nice picture collection of way markings. On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 15:22, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 21/05/2020 13:48, Mateusz Konieczny via

Re: [Tagging] Proposal of new tag for technicality of trails for running

2020-05-18 Thread Volker Schmidt
There is at least one other scale: cai_scale which is similar in concept to sac_scale,but is applied to hiking relations. It's increasingly used in Italy. On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 16:48, Daniel Westergren wrote: > Hi there, > > I

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Dog hazard

2020-05-13 Thread Volker Schmidt
The hazard tagging has a problem, when you try to apply it. A dog hazard is a hazard to people by dogs or is a hazard to dogs by mountain lions or whatever. In a different thread we are discussing dooring hazard. I would love to see a more general approach to hazard and danger tagging, but do not

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

2020-05-12 Thread Volker Schmidt
In this context: I have just realised that at Venice Aiport there are (at least) the following services and corresponding counters and stop positions. busses to various destinations. They depart from a bus-stop area, but have different counters according to the bus company water busses (separate

Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

2020-05-06 Thread Volker Schmidt
ot; < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > *Betreff:* Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes > On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 02:35, Jan Michel wrote: > >> On 03.05.20 19:16, Volker Schmidt wrote: >> > I would advocate a more generic approach that remains open to other >> > types of h

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >