Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:traffic_calming=hillocky

2020-12-20 Thread Yves via Tagging
Maybe it's time to create a sub-category of traffic_calming=bump with another 
tag for the peace of mind of data consumer and not bridle too much (though I 
think it is not possible) the creativity of traffic calming features creators?
Yves 

Le 20 décembre 2020 11:42:56 GMT+01:00, "Tomáš Hurýn"  a 
écrit :
>ok, so we can call value fo this tag: circle_humps. What do you all think of 
>it?
>
>Dne neděle 20. prosince 2020 0:31:07 CET, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging 
>napsal(a):
>> Round Circle Speed Humps
>> 
>> >Saturday, December 19, 2020 5:29 PM -06:00 from Paul Allen
>> >: 
>> >
>> >On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 at 23:19, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging < 
>tagging@openstreetmap.org > wrote:
>> >>https://streetsolutionsuk.co.uk/collections/speed-ramps/products/round-yel
>> >>low-circle-speed-humps-50mm?variant=19772633645113>
>> > 
>> >That didn't take me where you intended.  I had to navigate from where I
>> >ended up to those things.  Ended up at the URL you gave, but couldn't get
>> >there directly.  It calls them speed bumps.  Which doesn't answer my
>> >original question of whether the word "bumb" in the proposal was a typo or
>> >yet another kind of traffic calming device.
>> > 
>> >It also doesn't directly answer if these function in the same way as
>> >rumble strips or as speed bumps, but from the name I'd guess
>> >they're not an alternative to rumble strips.
>> > 
>> >--
>> >Paul
>> > 
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:traffic_calming=hillocky

2020-12-19 Thread Yves via Tagging
I don't think they can be categorized with the ones designed to make noise.
It looks like they are intended to work as bumps, but cheaper and easier to 
install.
Yves 

Le 19 décembre 2020 23:47:29 GMT+01:00, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>On 20/12/20 9:24 am, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:
>> I've seen these in the US also, but I never knew what they were 
>> called.  I understand that the purpose of them is simply to make noise 
>> when a car drives over them, as they don't slow you down in any 
>> appreciable way like a speed bump/hump.
>>
>> We already have a tag for "a traffic calming device that makes noise 
>> when a car drives over it", which is a rumble strip 
>> (see: traffic_calming=rumble_strip).  Note, I am talking about the 
>> kind that go all the way across the road, and not the kind in the 
>> shoulder of the road that make noise when you veer out of your lane.
>>
>> I usually think of rumble strips as grooves in the road, but it 
>> strikes me that these micro-speed-bump things are essentially the same 
>> thing -- they make noise when a car goes over it to alert the driver 
>> of something.
>>
>> I'm uncomfortable with hillock/hillocky as a value. Cursory searches 
>> seem to indicate that this isn't a term in use, in any flavor of English.
>
>
>Rumble strips I am familiar with. They not only cause a noise but a 
>vibration too, felt by the people inside the vehicle but not a large 
>vehicle deflection.
>
>Are the simply a new kind of rumble strip? So 
>traffic_calming=rumble_strip, rumble_strip:structure=circle, 
>rumble_strip:orientation=transverse
>
>Alternatively perhaps a better name would be rumble circles?
>
>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 5:08 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
>> mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>> > On 19. Dec 2020, at 22:53, Jeremy Harris > > wrote:
>> >
>> > traffic_calming=multi_bump  ?
>>
>>
>> or
>> traffic_calming=mini_bumps ?
>>
>> when they come up with something smaller that could still be
>> micro_bumps ;-)
>>
>>
>> Cheers Martin
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

2020-12-05 Thread Yves via Tagging


Le 5 décembre 2020 19:19:31 GMT+01:00, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 a écrit :
>
>you guys are finding real world examples for every weird situation that nobody 
>expected to even exist. Traffic lights for rock fall somewhere?
>
>Cheers Martin  
They are no so rare, I remember one going down from La Grave toward Grenoble in 
the alps. No picture at hand though, and not sure they belong or not to the 
road section that has to be rebuilt. 

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


Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

2020-11-30 Thread Yves via Tagging
Creating a new tag for this is not a bad idea.
Yves 

Le 30 novembre 2020 21:27:33 GMT+01:00, Seth Deegan  a 
écrit :
>You could add a `note=*` to every element. You should probably contact the
>mappers of that region and explain to them not to add them.
>
>I agree that in this case, mapping animal tracks is *especially *necessary.
>If someone isn't going to map it now, they're going to do so in the future
>(as you've seen), incorrectly.
>
>On a related idea, OSM should probably implement "Area Notes" into the API
>to notify mappers how to map specific areas.
>
>lectrician1 
>
>
>On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 1:44 PM s8evq  wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> With the Belgian community, we have been in contact with Natuurpunt, our
>> main national nature conservation organization. They are slowing using more
>> and more OSM and recently came to us with the following remark.
>>
>>
>> "Some mappers have added paths that are not actually real paths for
>> humans, but simply flattened walking routes made by the cows. I assume that
>> these are visible on aerial photographs, and in the field they may also
>> look like trails. However, it is really not the intention that people
>> should walk there. They change regularly and we also do not want to put
>> signs 'forbidden entry' all over the area.
>> We could delete them from OSM, but then of course soon later, an active
>> micromapper might add them again."
>>
>> Most people seem to think paths made by cattle or wildlife should NOT be
>> mapped at all (
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Pascal%20Cuoq/diary/1). However,
>> when there are micromappers around, they tend to map ALL THE THINGS. Not
>> mapping these "animal trails" that you know about, means they will likely
>> show up on the map as a simple highway=path, added by somebody else.
>> Therefor, we would prefer to map them with a tag like highway=animal_track,
>> to make sure mappers see that this thing was analyzed before and should NOT
>> be mapped as a regular path. Do you have any suggestions for a tag or a
>> different approach?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

2020-11-26 Thread Yves via Tagging
And hazards for niche practices (climbing, whitewater sports, ski touring,...) 
that are actually mapped in OSM are not generally signposted or 'official'.
Maybe we can't expect this proposal to cover them, but you can't prevent users 
to use the tag hazard to map them.
Yves 

Le 26 novembre 2020 10:10:45 GMT+01:00, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 a écrit :
>Am Do., 26. Nov. 2020 um 08:25 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
>tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
>
>>
>>- It is not explicitly mentioned, but it would be a good idea to have
>>explicit mention
>>- is it OK to tag hazard that
>>-
>>- - exists
>>- - is unsigned
>>- - government has not declared that it exists (maybe government is
>>dysfunctional/missing like
>>- in Somalia, or it is covering-up the problem, or it has higher
>>priorities - for example during war)
>>
>>
>
>+1. This may also depend on the context. The same kind of hazard on a road
>may well be signposted, but not on a hiking trail in a forest.
>
>Cheers,
>Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Elevated housing estate

2020-11-25 Thread Yves via Tagging
I guess the level won't be completely sealed and may serve for something once 
the building is inhabited.
Wait and them!
Yves 

Le 25 novembre 2020 02:26:22 GMT+01:00, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
 a écrit :
>On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 11:20, Joseph Eisenberg 
>wrote:
>
>> Is the whole ground level a parking lot or parking structure, perhaps?
>>
>
>No.
>
>It's built right beside a Creek, on a flood-plain (yeah, thanks Council!),
>so it's done like that so that the apartments are up away from the water
>the next time the Creek floods!
>
>Thanks
>
>Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Pumping proposal

2020-11-22 Thread Yves via Tagging
Given the number exposed here by Martin, and the fact that there is a few 
established data consumers, I think that preserving the pump tag as it is now 
and refine it with another tag would be a good idea indeed.
Yves 

Le 22 novembre 2020 02:58:07 GMT+01:00, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 a écrit :
>
>
>sent from a phone
>
>> On 22. Nov 2020, at 02:32, François Lacombe  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> It's true proposed tagging deprecates the current pump=* definition 
>> according to rationale and wishes to use the pump word in a more appropriate 
>> way.
>
>
>this would deprecate around 20k pump values describing a pump type, plus 15k 
>yes/no.
>
>Looking at the no-values, 23% are not in combination with man_made 
>https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/pump=no#combinations
>i.e. this is also used on other objects to state buildings there is no pump.
>I would also suggest you modify your proposal in a way that it is compatible 
>with the current use of the pump tag
>
>Cheers Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

2020-11-16 Thread Yves via Tagging
On the history of elements, this tool is particularly good I think :
https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/
Yves ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-11 Thread Yves via Tagging
We should get rid of all tags too close to natural language.
I propose a unified tagging scheme:
material = dihydrogen monoxyde
formula = H2O
flowing = yes/no
depth = xx

Wait, in fact this could be extended to anything from building to trees!!
Yves 

Le 10 novembre 2020 06:26:39 GMT+01:00, Joseph Eisenberg 
 a écrit :
>The tag water=pond was added with a large number of other types of
>"water=*" in 2011, but it has a poorly defined description.
>
>"A pond : a body of standing water,
>man-made in most cases, that is usually smaller than a lake. Salt
>evaporation ponds should be tagged with landuse
>=salt_pond
>, open-air
>swimming pools — with leisure
>=swimming_pool
>."
>
>So it might be artificial, like a landuse=reservoir or water=reservoir, but
>smallish. Or it might be natural like a water=lake, but smallish. However,
>nothing on the water=lake page defines a lower limit for the size of a lake.
>
>This is a shame, because all the other values of water=* are clearly
>defined as only natural, or only artificial, and waterway=* features are
>also clearly divided. Furthermore, the original lags landuse=reservoir and
>landuse=basin were also clearly artificial, while lakes were natural.
>
>But the biggest problem is that there is no way to define a lower size for
>a lake or reservoir, or an upper size for a pond. And the size of the area
>is easier available from the geometry of the feature, so it doesn't need to
>be mentioned in the tag.
>
>I think the best option is to deprecate water=pond and suggest using
>water=lake for natural lakes, even small ones, and use water=reservoir or
>water=basin (or landuse=reservoir or =basin if you prefer) for the
>artificial ones.
>
>-- Joseph Eisenberg
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

2020-11-09 Thread Yves via Tagging


Le 9 novembre 2020 10:08:42 GMT+01:00, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 a écrit :
>Am Mo., 9. Nov. 2020 um 09:37 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
>tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
>
>> In short: technically CC0 may be used, but it would be confusing as ODBL
>> would still
>> apply anyway.
>>
>> See https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_Compatibility#CC0
>>
>> "CC0 licenced material is in general compatible, however the license only
>> extends
>> to material the licensor actually has rights in and specifically avoids
>> making a
>> statement on the status of any third party material included."
>>
>> So you could license this as CC0, but it does not mean that other
>> limitations are
>> not applying (limited extraction of just some shapes from OpenStreetMap may
>> be doable without triggering ODBL - see
>>
>> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline
>> but such project would likely quickly pass it).
>>
>
>
>For the avoidance of doubt, there is currently no data from OpenStreetMap
>in OpenGeographyRegions, and there will not be in the future, so that the
>data can be used without limitations. My intention is using it together
>with OSM data, but of course you can use it with whichever data you want.
>
>These regions, although it would be legally possible, should not be
>imported in OSM either, because they are in medium and large scale
>resolution and not suitable by their nature (not well defined on small
>scales, fuzzy boundaries, etc.).
>
>Cheers
>Martin

Ah, I thought this could be used to host extremely big fuzzy MPs that we 
otherwise do not welcome in OSM. 
Yves 

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


Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

2020-11-08 Thread Yves via Tagging
Maybe I'm wrong, but can I use OSM tiles to help tracing a 'Blue Valley' 
polygon, simplify or copy a multipolygon 'Martin' s wood' or whatever and 
declare it cc0? 
Yves 


Le 8 novembre 2020 11:08:57 GMT+01:00, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 a écrit :
>
>
>sent from a phone
>
>> On 8. Nov 2020, at 10:08, Yves  wrote:
>> 
>> * CC0 doesn't allow to derive data from OSM
>
>
>it does. The whole point (for me) to start this was to provide data that can 
>be combined with OpenStreetMap. What would be your suggestion for a licence? I 
>would be willing to double licence it with WTFPL, would that help?
>
>
>Cheers Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

2020-11-08 Thread Yves via Tagging
Good initiative Martin, at first sight I'll make two comments :
* CC0 doesn't allow to derive data from OSM
* as geometries are fuzzy in nature, there should be a way to accept several 
geometries for a same entity, be it only to avoid long discussions on boundaries
Yves 

Le 8 novembre 2020 09:47:04 GMT+01:00, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 a écrit :
>
>
>sent from a phone
>
>> On 8. Nov 2020, at 09:24, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> I really like an idea of separate database/layer for such fuzzy objects.
>
>
>I have started a project to collect such fuzzy objects. Data is stored in a 
>git repo in Geojson representation. Pull requests welcome.
>https://github.com/dieterdreist/OpenGeographyRegions
>
>Cheers Martin 
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

2020-11-07 Thread Yves via Tagging


Le 7 novembre 2020 12:47:45 GMT+01:00, Tomas Straupis  
a écrit :
> Fuzzy features (like
>continents, mountain ranges, bays etc. should probably be moved to a
>separate database).
>
I often thought an 'Openlabelmap' database containing geometries to help with 
the labeling of such features could help solving the issue of mapping this 
larges or fuzzy geographical places the same manner we can map a bench or a 
road.
Yves 

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

2020-10-21 Thread Yves via Tagging
"Phase 4: All man_made tags to be removed 2031-01-01 00:00 UTC+0"
I think that is as reasonable as it could be.
Yves 

Le 21 octobre 2020 04:46:34 GMT+02:00, Robert Delmenico  a 
écrit :
>*Link to proposal page:*
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/artificial
>*Definition*:  A tag for identifying human-made (artificial) structures
>added to the landscape.
>
>Please discuss this proposal on the discussion page for the proposal.
>
>Kind Regards,
>
>Robert Delmenico
>rtbk
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging