Re: [Tagging] OHV greater than 50 inches (wide)

2020-09-02 Thread brad
For your example, I would just tag it as motor_vehicle=yes.    From what 
I've seen, If OHV's >50" are legal, pretty much any motor vehicle is legal.


On 9/1/20 2:30 PM, Mike Thompson wrote:


In specifying access constraints for the roads it manages, the US 
Forest service makes a distinction between ATVs, highway vehicles, and 
"OHVs > 50"."
The first two categories correspond to the tags motorcar=* and atv=* I 
think, but I have not been able to find an existing tag that 
corresponds to "OHVs > 50"."  There is an ohv=* tag, but it seems to 
apply to all OHVs regardless of width as well as motorcycles.


What do you recommend?

Mike


___
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] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-27 Thread brad



On 7/27/20 11:19 AM, Rob Savoye wrote:

On 7/27/20 11:00 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:

I'd go with highway=track and tracktype=*, surface=* and smoothness=*
tags as necessary.  Given how inconsistent the 3 and especially 4 digit
US forest service roads tend to be, I'd expect tracktype and smoothness
are underutilized despite their relative importance on those roads.

   That's roughly what I've been doing, Drive or hike there, and decide
on the values for those tags while standing there. I'm still curious
about "narrow" though. :-) I don't think smoothness gets rendered
though, and everything is usually a grade2, so somewhat meaningless.
I'm in central Colorado, & around here, I agree, tracktype is not 
useful, the tracks here are mostly solid, grade 2 or 3, but could be a 
high clearance, or 4wd road due to rocks and ledges.
However, smoothness could, and should be rendered.   The old maps 
usually distinguished between

improved - smoothness=bad or better than bad
high clearance - smoothness=very_bad (the wiki specifically mentions 
high clearance for this tag)

4wd - smoothness=horrible

In my area an almost bigger issue is that a lot of roads shown on OSM, 
and on the county GIS, are actually private and closed.   That may not 
be an issue for you though, if you have an emergency, and bolt cutters.


In regards to your initial question, I've never seen the key narrow 
used, or lanes on an unpaved road.   I think width would be better. That 
probably wouldn't get rendered either, I've never considered it.

itself.  If the placard has a horizontal orientation (read from left to
right), then it's intended to be passable by most vehicles but may or
may not be paved.  If the placard has a vertical orientation (read from
top down), then don't count on your car being able to make it, you'll
probably need something with ground clearance and 4WD if it's
traversable at all with a motor vehicle.

   Yep, we teach our trainees that, and since we use current USGS topo
maps as basemaps in OsmAnd, you get that and the OSM data. Best of both.
Sure beats the days we used a thick paper map book, and a bag of topo maps.

   Personally though, what the USFS uses to determine that difference
doesn't seem consistent, and over many years, the road conditions change
drastically due to erosion. I prefer to go there in a high-clearance
vehicle or UTV and decide after driving it.

- rob -

___
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 - (Ground)

2020-07-13 Thread brad
Has as an example been found yet?   There are areas that are void of 
vegetation for most of the year, or even years, that change with the 
right amount of rain.


On 7/13/20 3:47 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
Many desert climates can be mapped as natural=sand (for dunes and 
other areas of sand), natural=bare_rock (for bedrock and large 
stones), natural=scree, natural=shingle, or natural=heath (for areas 
of dwarf shrubs), but we still need a tag for unvegetated areas which 
are not sand, rock, stones or vegetation. While these areas are rare 
in many climates, they can cover fairly large spots in some very dry 
areas, and we should provide more precise tagging since 
"natural=desert" could be any of these things (or even natural=scrub)


– Joseph

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 2:24 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:




sent from a phone

> On 13. Jul 2020, at 23:16, Peter Elderson mailto:pelder...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> As I understand it, it is soil. That is something.


sure, you could also spend a lifetime mapping rocks, and when
you’re done, you start mapping smaller rocks ;)

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] Path or track with many fallen trees

2020-06-25 Thread brad
Usually this time of year there are many trees down from the winter, and 
trail users or the forest service will eventually get around to clearing 
them.   If there aren't enough motivated users, and/or the FS has 
abandoned it,  one of Andrews ideas is probably appropriate.


On 6/25/20 6:56 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
It's a tricky one, but whatever is done I would need re-checking 
frequently to know when it was cleared.


You could just add a single barrier=log somewhere as a rough 
approximation, or add barrier=log to the way segment which is 
affected. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier=log says it 
should only be used on a node, but if you don't know exactly where 
then I'd say using it on the way would be fine.


You could also consider using one of the stages of decay lifecycle 
prefix 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix#Stages_of_decay eg 
disused:highway=track, where disused is "Not currently available for 
use, but could be reinstated easily".


For a path my rule of thumb is sac_scale=demandig_mountain_hiking 
means you need to use your hands and arms to get over something, so if 
that's the case because of logs, then I'd tag it that way.


Lastly you can add a description so users could be presented with a 
text notice about the way 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:description


On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 09:46, Mike Thompson > wrote:


Hello,

How would you recommend tagging a path or track that has many
fallen trees across it? There are too many to map each one with a
node tagged barrier=log.  Foot travel is legal, but physically
difficult.  Horse and bicycle travel are legal but probably
physically impossible.  Motorized travel is prohibited, and would
probably be physically impossible anyway.

Thanks in advance for your input.

Mike

___
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] Help explain the difference between path and track

2020-06-09 Thread brad



On 6/9/20 7:27 PM, Warin wrote:

To me in OSM a 'path' has always been too narrow for a motor car (4WD or not) 
to pass.
If it is wide enough for a car then it is not a 'path' in OSM so they must be 
tagged in some other way.
Descriptions of 'path':

On 10/6/20 5:53 am, brad wrote:

"If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), and
 it is not legally signposted or otherwise only allowed for
 pedestrians, cyclists or horseriders, it is often better tagged as a
 highway <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=track 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack>  orhighway <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=service 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dservice>.

 "

 to this:
 "If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), it
 is often better tagged as ahighway <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=track 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack>  orhighway <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=service 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dservice>.

 "



Or possibly:
A path should not be wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m),for these wider ways see highway 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=track 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack>  orhighway <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=service 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dservice>.

<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dservice>

On 10/6/20 10:29 am, Kevin Kenny wrote:

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 6:13 PM Tod Fitch  wrote:


The two major factions seem to be set in their ways: “It is only a track if it 
is used for agriculture or forestry” on one side. “It has the same physical 
characteristics as a track, so it is a track even if it is currently used for 
hiking, bicycling, riding horses, or by ATVs” on the other side.

That also spills into is it a track or a service (driveway)? Depends on if it 
goes to a barn or a house! But I can’t tell without trespassing, how can I map 
it?

First step, I think, is to be less pedantic about function on things that look 
exactly like a track. Mappers in all the areas I’ve looked at will tag a way 
that is unpaved and about the width of a four wheeled vehicle as a track 
regardless of current use. Maybe it is being used as a driveway. Maybe it is 
being used as a bicycling/hiking/equestrian trail. Maybe it accesses a field. 
Maybe it hasn’t been used for a while and just hasn’t decayed or been overgrown 
into nothing. Who knows? But it looks like a track. Saying that the way “isn’t 
for forestry or agricultural use” so it can’t be a track is worthless: Real 
world mappers have voted otherwise with their tagging.

In terms of function, 'track' and 'service' (with or without
'driveway') are practically interchangeable - at least in terms of
what they provide to the road network. They're both distinguished by
the fact that they don't 'go anywhere'. They typically serve only a
single establishment - public roads that serve multiple establishments
are typically at least 'unclassified'.



In Australia the word 'track' is used in a much broader sense than that used in 
the OSM wiki.
The OSM tagging practice in Australia uses 'track' in that same broader sense - 
so not just agriculture and forestry but also other operators/uses e.g. 
National Parks.
Some of these 'tracks' were put in to enable fire fighting - usually locally 
called 'fire trails'.
Maps generally show these in the same way as forestry trails hence the 
preference to tag them the same way in OSM as 'we' are used to seeing them 
rendered that way.

+1
In the western US, most of the rough, 4wd, or high clearance roads on 
federal land are also tagged as track.   They meet the definition in a 
loose way.    It is established practice.
We're never going to get consensus on this since many of us mappers and 
users think the definition is wrong.  It was written for some other 
locale with different conditions.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2020-06-09 Thread brad
A track does have a different function, it can handle a 2 track vehicle, 
a path can't.


If functional is sacrosanct,  why do we have motorway?   A motorway 
could just be a trunk or primary with extra tags denoting limited access.


On 6/9/20 2:11 PM, Mike Thompson wrote:



On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 1:55 PM brad <mailto:bradha...@fastmail.com>> wrote:

>
> It already says this:
> "Some highway=track are used for various leisure activities - 
hiking, cycling, or as jeep/ATV trails. "
> on the track wiki. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack
Right, there is nothing that says that a track cannot be used for 
additional purposes, only that its primary function is agricultural or 
forestry.


> I propose changing the path page from this:
> "If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), and 
it is not legally signposted or otherwise only allowed for 
pedestrians, cyclists or horseriders, it is often better tagged as a 
highway=track or highway=service. "

>
> to this:
> "If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), it 
is often better tagged as a highway=track or highway=service. "
1) So we are getting away from the whole notion of "functional 
classification"?  highway=track will only be a proxy for some 
physical/legal access characteristics?
2) If we are going to use this definition I would propose stronger 
language than "often better tagged", perhaps "should almost always be 
tagged."


Mike

___
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] Help explain the difference between path and track

2020-06-09 Thread brad

It already says this:
"Some highway =track 
are used for various leisure activities - hiking, cycling, or as 
jeep/ATV trails. "

on the track wiki. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack

I propose changing the path page from this:
"If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), and it 
is not legally signposted or otherwise only allowed for pedestrians, 
cyclists or horseriders, it is often better tagged as a highway 
=track 
 or highway 
=service 
. "


to this:
"If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), it is 
often better tagged as a highway 
=track 
 or highway 
=service 
. "


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath

To clarify, we could change the track page from this:
"This tag  represents roads for 
mostly agricultural use, forest tracks etc.; often unpaved (unsealed) 
but may apply to paved tracks as well, that are suitable for /two/-track 
vehicles, such as tractors or jeeps."

to this:
"This tag  represents roads for 
agricultural use, forest tracks, *recreation*, etc.; often unpaved 
(unsealed) but may apply to paved tracks as well, that are suitable for 
/two/-track vehicles, such as tractors or jeeps. "


On 6/9/20 11:52 AM, Mike Thompson wrote:



On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 8:43 AM Andrew Harvey > wrote:

>
> If the way is used by "law enforcement, emergency, and maintenance 
staff" motor vehicles then I'd tag it highway=track and if it's 
designated for walking then foot=designated + motor_vehicle=private, 
since it's wide enough and occasionally used by vehicles, even for a 
path that is mostly used for walking.
This is just the opposite advice I got on this list about a similar 
situation a couple of weeks ago. As a community we need to have some 
consistency.  There is another user (other than I or cosmocatalano) 
who is going around making the exact opposite changes as 
cosmocatalano.  If the community agrees with you and cosmocatalano, I 
will map accordingly and make changes in my local area along those 
lines, but I don't want to have the same conversation here two weeks 
from now.


> you'd need to still indicate it's usable by motor vehicle
width= + 
smoothness=very_bad/bad/intermediate/good/excellent





On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 00:32, Mike Thompson mailto:miketh...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I know we have had this discussion before, but perhaps some of
you that are more elegant (and diplomatic) can comment on:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/85034574


These ways exist only to provide recreation to those on foot,
bicycle or horseback.  One will occasionally see a park
maintenance vehicle, such as a side by side ATV (I don't think
one could even get a regular four wheeled vehicle back
there.), but the public is not allowed to operate motor
vehicles on these ways.

Mike

___
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


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


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

2020-06-09 Thread brad
I think if it's wide enough for a normal motor vehicle and is open for 
that, even if only service & emergency, it should not be =path.   track 
or service


On 6/9/20 8:42 AM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
If the way is used by "law enforcement, emergency, and maintenance 
staff" motor vehicles then I'd tag it highway=track and if it's 
designated for walking then foot=designated + 
motor_vehicle=private, since it's wide enough and occasionally used by 
vehicles, even for a path that is mostly used for walking. If you tag 
it as highway=path then you'd need to still indicate it's usable by 
motor vehicle with motor_vehicles=private (though that's only the 
legal use, not sure how you'd then tag the physical ability for it to 
accommodate motor vehicles).




On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 00:32, Mike Thompson > wrote:


I know we have had this discussion before, but perhaps some of you
that are more elegant (and diplomatic) can comment on:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/85034574


These ways exist only to provide recreation to those on foot,
bicycle or horseback.  One will occasionally see a park
maintenance vehicle, such as a side by side ATV (I don't think one
could even get a regular four wheeled vehicle back there.), but
the public is not allowed to operate motor vehicles on these ways.

Mike

___
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] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

2020-06-08 Thread brad
I think it would be absurd to try to tag dangerous wildlife areas. It 
would just be an enormous region for rattlesnakes and mountain lions in 
the US.  Same for grizzlys up north or snakes in the south.   We have 
signs warning of rodents carrying plague around here, should we tag that 
too?


On 6/8/20 5:13 AM, Alan Mackie wrote:



On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 01:27, Jarek Piórkowski > wrote:


On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 at 19:17, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> As for tagging 'dangerous areas' .. areas that pose danger such
as some favelas cannot be tagged in OSM. I see the same logic
applied to dangerous areas caused by wildlife.

Big difficulty in defining where to place cut-off for dangerous and
when an area is dangerous... Ultimately most of the world has some
dangerous wildlife. If very unlucky you could be gored by a boar
within city limits of Berlin. Bears are semi-regularly found in some
suburbs of Vancouver. Where would you draw the line?


Signs are often posted for dangerous wildlife or trail conditions. I 
think the signs themselves would be more than welcome in OSM.


I don't know how this would be incorporated into a wider "area" type 
structure though. I imagine the boundaries of these areas are quite 
nebulous?


___
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] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

2020-05-31 Thread brad



On 5/31/20 3:34 AM, Daniel Westergren wrote:
Ok, I took the liberty of drafting a proposal for a general 
description of how to map pathways (that is, all highways that are not 
for motor-vechicles). See 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10PtBPFDW3EHrBHl5sy8L-_5a0xNR1w-9YXt-gmfMB_M/edit?usp=sharing 



I find the wiki terrible for collaborations like this, as is the wiki 
discussion. I've therefore used Google Docs, although I realize not 
all are happy with that. The document is open for anyone with the link 
to view and comment and depending on what people say we can move this 
to another platform if needed. And the end result obviously needs to 
be in the wiki.


I divided the mapping/tagging of pathways into:

 1. function (highway=footway|cycleway|path)
 2. legal access (access=*)
 3. usability (surface, smoothness & width, basically to denote
usability for people of ordinary ability)
 4. technicality (trail_visibility, sac_scale, mtb:scale and a
possible hiking difficulty tag, basically to describe a ways
difficulty in more detail)
 5. additional tags (that I don't really see the use for, such as
informal=yes/no and incline)

Comments are welcome. Is this a good start to clarify this mess?

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.   Don't forget dirt bikes & ATV's (<50 
inchs, 127 cm) in this assessment.  Many trails are open to, and used 
by, everyone including motor vehicles.    Perhaps this just means that 
footway & cycleway are non-motorized, and path could be.


The sermon that keeps getting repeated is don't tag for the renderer.   
We shouldn't tag for a lousy renderer, but we should tag for the user & 
sometimes the rules laid down are wrong.


I'm OK with taking this off this list & I can add my comments to the 
google docs doc.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2020-05-26 Thread brad


On 5/26/20 8:26 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 6:59 AM Andrew Harvey  wrote:

 From what I can tell, the ask is a tag for a specific type of way which the 
person needs experience or preparedness before undertaking. But I'm lost and 
still not completely understanding what exactly this new tag would cover 
exactly and what it wouldn't.

I've said repeatedly - but people are not listening - that what's
needed is the opposite. More specific ways to tag the hazards of a
technical trail is the exact opposite of what I want.

A data consumer cannot draw any inference from the absence of a tag.

We already have an enormous cauldron of tag soup to describe
smoothness, surface, width,incline, steps, visibility, tracktype,
overall technicality (sac_scale, mtb_scale), and $LC_DEITY knows what
else, to characterize specific hazards. Many of these (smoothness,
surface, visibility) have ways to characterize freedom from those
hazards. Some (most notably sac_scale and mtb_scale) do not. This lack
is _part_ of the problem, so _part_ of what I want is to be able to
say something like `mtb_scale=0` or `sac_scale=no` - to say, "this way
is non-technical." But that's a very minor issue.

i don't think that it's going to work to have to enumerate every
possible hazard and assert that a way is free from it. Rather, in
general, for a footway, we need a way to assert 'this path is
generally OK for a person with less-than-ideal physical fitness or
small children in tow." For a cycleway, we need a way to assert, "this
path is generally OK for a road bike." This assertion cannot be made
by omitting tags. A router cannot tell the difference between 'the
mapper didn't say anything about difficulties or hazards', and 'the
mapper thinks it's OK.'

(Feel free to stop reading here. The rest of this message tries to add
detail. The key point is "a positive assertion that the given way is
OK for a pedestrian/cyclist of ordinary ability".)



The assertion needs to be as simple as possible.  which is what leads
to the discussion of separating urban paths from technical trails
using a top-level key (and the misconception that there's actually a
difference between `cycleway` and `path`).  I agree with the others
who say that train left the station a long time ago, and we're
unlikely to catch up with it to board it.

What I'm asking for is some minimal set of tags, that we can expect a
mapper to provide as a matter of course, to assert that a way is free
from unusual hazards. To assert that a walker of ordinary ability,
dressed in ordinary street clothes, and perhaps with small children in
tow, can use the path. To assert that a cyclist of ordinary ability,
aboard an ordinary road bike can ride it. Adding more tags to describe
that something does have difficulties or hazards will not help.

Emphasis there is also on the word, 'minimal'. What is the minimal
information that a mapper needs to provide to let a router draw that
conclusion? Obviously, if we were civil engineers assessing trail
safety for people with disabilities, small children, or racing wheels,
we'd have a lot of formal evaluations to conduct. But if I have to
bring a clinometer (or transit and rod, etc.), make the delicate
distinction between pea gravel and compacted-mixed-gravel-with-fines,
or cobblestone and sett, and so on, before I can say, "this is a
regular old path in the city park", it's not going to happen!  The
best I can do is to presume that whoever built the path did the job,
or do the required analysis on a set of ways that's too small to be
really useful.

The other side of the same coin is that I shouldn't need expert
knowledge and a detailed characterization of the hazards to be able to
map, "nope! Not going there today!" We enjoy over-classifying
everything, and making the fine distinctions is wonderful. But how far
would we have got in mapping if a mapper couldn't say, "there's a
bridge here" without needing to know the difference between a
king-post and a bowstring truss?

All of the tags that assert technical hazards are, in the current
scheme, trolltags. We've rejected that sort of thing for cars. We no
longer say `highway=tertiary demolished=yes` or `highway=tertiary
construction=yes` because we recognize that the secondary tag says,
"just kidding! You actually can't drive on this!"  We realized that
routers for cars can't make effective use of an entirely open-ended
set of tags that all say, "don't use this road", and we've changed the
schema to fix it, with things like the lifecycle prefix.  I want the
same level of respect for walkers and cyclists.

It comes down to two basic questions:
- What is the minimum set of information that a mapper needs to
assert, to have a bicycle or pedestrian router assess that a way is
usable by a pedestrian or cyclist of ordinary ability?
- What is the minimum set of information that a data consumer needs to
take into account when making that assessment?

By paying careful attention to eliminating 

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

2020-05-26 Thread brad

Since the name effects how the tag is used, the name is not irrelevant

On 5/26/20 4:57 AM, Andrew Harvey wrote:


Exactly the name of any tag in OSM is completely irrelevant, it's as 
you say how it's used and documented which matters. The iD editor 
chooses to localise and abstract away the actual tag name to what it's 
known as locally. The tag value is only meaningful for OSM insiders.


___
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] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

2020-05-25 Thread brad

I meant in my area

On 5/25/20 3:47 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:




May 25, 2020, 20:34 by bradha...@fastmail.com:

'm not sure anyone maps sidewalks.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.24167/21.01532=N

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/footway=sidewalk (only part of 
separately

mapped sidewalks has it)


___
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] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

2020-05-25 Thread brad
I think I agree with what Kevin is saying, but I confess I'm not sure 
what the problem is.   In my area, even looking at a nearby big city,  
most of the 'paths' are dirt trails.   There are some cycleways too.   
I'm not sure anyone maps sidewalks.
I think the fundamental problem is the original redundant 
footpath/cycleway/bridleway/path tags.   Trying to use the function 
instead of the physical characteristics.   It works for roads, but not 
for multiuser trails.


Someone asked what the hierarchy is.   Trails don't usually have a 
hierarchy like roads do.
Someone discussed purposely built paths vs naturally created trails.  
This doesn't work.  A lot of new trails are being built and they are 
designed and built by man and machine.  In steep terrain many old 
naturally created trails are eroded and rutted and closed down, or 
rerouted, or maintained by volunteers.


On 5/25/20 11:51 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:


Let me reiterate that the subkey that's needed is actually the one
that asserts 'this IS what one would expect of an urban or suburban
footway', rather than 'this is a relatively unimproved "natural"
trail'. We already have many attributes that would indicate that a
trail might be relatively unimproved (`surface=ground`; `incline=*`;
`wheelchair=no`; `width=*`, `smoothness=*`, `sac_scale=*` and so on).
The fundamental problem is that it is not safe to draw any conclusion
from the absence of such a tag. A mapper may have tagged a wilderness
trail as `highway=path` or `highway=footway` and simply not added the
other attributes.

The best way to help the data consumer will be to have a tagging
scheme that allows asserting 'this IS an urban/suburban/front-country
footpath' as well as 'this is a relatively unimproved trail'.  It's
true at the start that providing such a thing will leave most
`highway=path` features ambiguous, but it at least would open a way
forward for disambiguating them. `path=trail` will NOT accomplish that
goal, because it still leaves two choices: 'this is a trail', and
'this is unknown/ambiguous'.



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


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

2020-05-23 Thread brad



On 5/23/20 5:59 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 5:42 PM John Willis via Tagging
 wrote:

=path is such a horrible catch-all tag and one that is extremely entrenched - I 
am surprised no one has implemented a path=trail subtag, similar to sidewalk, 
so we can separate all the hiking trails and other “hiking” paths, and then 
apply different hiking limitations you wouldn’t expect to find on a sidewalk or 
playground way.

Mixing trails and sidewalks in the path key is as horrible as mixing up runways 
and train tracks in a “highway=not_car” way.

Yeah. But it's so entrenched that trolltags are probably the only way
out of the mess. And sac_scale is _surely_ not the right trolltag! The
problem with sac_scale is that it's an impossible scale. I'm told that
https://youtu.be/VKsD1qBpVYc?t=533 is still only a 2 out of 6 on that
scale, and that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y5_lbQZJwQ is still
only a 3. Note that one misstep on either of those trails can easily
mean death.



Similar problem with mtb:scale .

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


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

2020-05-21 Thread brad

Perhaps highway=service?

I don't agree with calling a 2 track/road a path and I don't think that 
common usage, or the wiki says this either.


/"This //tag //represents 
//*roads for mostly agricultural use*//, //*forest tracks*//etc.; often 
unpaved (unsealed) but may apply to paved tracks as well, that are 
suitable for //two//-track vehicles, such as tractors or jeeps. "

/

I think the "etc" could mean a lot of things, such as mining roads, fire 
roads, emergency access roads, etc /

/

/"If the way is not wide enough for a two-track vehicle, it should be 
tagged as //highway 
=path 
//."/


and
/"Consider //highway 
=path 
//for ways so 
narrow that they can only accommodate pedestrians, equestrians, 
bicyclists, and motorcycles without sidecars."


and/

"highway =track 
 - for roads 
for agricultural use, gravel roads in the forest etc."


These quotes are from:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack

On 5/21/20 7:06 AM, Mike Thompson wrote:


On Wed, May 20, 2020, 8:11 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:

>
> There are no tags on the way to suggest it is not a 'track'.
>
> Motor vehicles are not excluded in anyway, for example 
'motor_vehicle=private, comment=Recreational use, motor vehicles for 
maintenance only'
While it is not (yet) tagged that way, in fact  motor vehicles are not 
allowed, except for official park vehicles.


___
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] relations & paths

2020-05-14 Thread brad



On 5/14/20 5:53 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:




May 15, 2020, 01:36 by jm...@gmx.com:

On 5/14/2020 12:07 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:

May 14, 2020, 16:40 by jm...@gmx.com <mailto:jm...@gmx.com>:

On 5/14/2020 10:01 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:



On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 5:48 AM Steve Doerr
mailto:doerr.step...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

On 14/05/2020 09:31, Jo wrote:



On Wed, May 13, 2020, 17:44 Jmapb mailto:jm...@gmx.com>> wrote:

Regarding the original question -- in what
circumstances are single-member
walking/hiking/biking route relations a good
mapping practice -- what would be your answer?


Always


Doesn't that

violatehttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element
?


No.  The route traverses the way, it's not the way.


Okay. But surely this doesn't mean that every named footway
or path should be part of a route relation.

The bike trail that brad linked to,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6632400 -- I've never
been there but I don't offhand see any reason to call it a
    route. (Brad has been there, I assume, because it looks like
he updated it 2 days ago.) There's no information in the
relation tags that isn't also on the way itself. Is there any
benefit to creating a route relation in cases like this?

Better handling of future way splits, consistency.


I can see the advantage of using a route relation as a somewhat
future-proof persistent identity -- a relation URL that will show
the whole trail even if the way is split to add a bridge, specify
surface, etc. At the same time, though, it feels like a bit of a
stretch to declare any named trail of any length as a route,

Named way is not enough to be a route.

Named path across forest is just a path. Route would be a signed path 
through a forest,

with two objects:

- path across forest (with or without name)
- signed route (that has some topology, signs, maybe also a name)

So you're saying any path with a sign should be a route.   Should that 
extend to all tracks, and roads of all varieties also?    I assume you 
are not limiting this to 'path across forest', it could be path across 
desert,  or prairie, or town park?


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


Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

2020-05-13 Thread brad

It isn't a route, except in OSM, it's just a trail.

On 5/13/20 9:09 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:



On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 9:23 AM brad <mailto:bradha...@fastmail.com>> wrote:


It isn't part of a route, it's the whole route.


 I think that's a difference without a distinction in this case.  Data 
consumers still need to know the route is there.


___
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] relations & paths

2020-05-13 Thread brad

It isn't part of a route, it's the whole route.

On 5/12/20 8:58 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:37 PM brad <mailto:bradha...@fastmail.com>> wrote:


OK, but it seems redundant to me.   A trail/path get tagged as a
path.
There's a trailhead and a sign, it gets a tagged with a name.  
Why does
it need to be a route also?


Same reason all 0.11 miles of I 95 in Washington DC is part of a 
route.  It's part of a route.


___
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] relations & paths

2020-05-12 Thread brad
OK, but it seems redundant to me.   A trail/path get tagged as a path.  
There's a trailhead and a sign, it gets a tagged with a name.   Why does 
it need to be a route also?


On 5/12/20 11:43 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:03 PM Peter Elderson  wrote:

My view is that a route should have an indication on the ground. A sign, a 
trailhead, something. No verifiable indication whatsoever, then it's not a 
route.

The length or the number of ways in the route does not make a difference to me.

That's indeed the meaning of 'waymarked' in Waymarked Trails.  If a
trail has a distinguishable waymark (signage, blaze, ducks,
guideposts, whatever is used in a given locale) it gets a relation. No
waymark, it doesn't. Length has nothing to do with it.

I'll bend the rules slightly for named routes that are listed in
multiple guidebooks, because otherwise some major trails would be
lost. The Benton MacKaye Trail is not waymarked in certain wilderness
areas, but is described in numerous guides, named, and maintained to
the extent of occasionally cutting brush, clearing blowdown, and
repairing water bars on the treadway. In general, wilderness trails,
even if nominally waymarked, require good navigational skills, since
trail visibility may be very poor indeed. The more remote trails also
don't have a lot of vegetation control or get a lot of traffic. I've
occasionally gone an entire day without meeting another party -
although that was often 20-30 km from anywhere you can park a car,
which filters out a lot of hikers.

In the US, walking and MTB trails are likely to have only a splash of
paint on trees at intervals.  The blue-green paint blazes seen in
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14018094576 are pretty typical.
The trails that they mark range in length from a few hundred metres
(short access trails leading to parking lots, campsites, views,
whatever) to a few thousand km (the National Scenic Trails). In remote
areas, trails might go a few hundred metres between even paint blazes;
they don't have a lot of reassurance markings. More popular trails, or
ones nearer the 'front country' are likely to have marks frequent
enough that you're always in sight of one.




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


Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

2020-05-12 Thread brad
We had a pretty lengthy discussion last October subject:'Cycling 
relation misuse' .  I got the impression that a route should be more 
than just a short trail.


Are you saying that every trail should be route?
Example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6632400

My subject line should have been route relations.

On 5/11/20 10:23 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:

Waymarked Trails associates waymarks only with routes, and assumes
that any waymarked route, from local to international, will have a
route relation describing it.

Is there a reason that you see route relations for shorter routes as
being 'wrong'?

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:17 PM brad  wrote:

I see a lot of relations, type:route, which are only short
trails/paths.   This is wrong isn't it?   Do you suppose that folks are
doing this to get better rendering?
Brad

___
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] relations & paths

2020-05-11 Thread brad
I see a lot of relations, type:route, which are only short 
trails/paths.   This is wrong isn't it?   Do you suppose that folks are 
doing this to get better rendering?

Brad

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


Re: [Tagging] Is there any tagging scheme for carillons already?

2020-05-06 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Paul, this thread is not trying to convince you to go tag carillions. It's
to figure out how to tag them, for people that *do *want to tag them and
would find that useful. If it's not your thing that's fine, just sit this
one out. Cheers, Brad

On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 2:28 PM Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 19:59, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I understand you are mostly interested in visual aspects, but OSM doesn’t
>> have to limit itself to this, IMHO carillons are mostly about music so
>> whether you can see them is not so important.
>>
>
> Already covered under attraction=carillon.  I don't have a problem with
> that,
> or with similar non-visual POIs like concert halls, theatres, etc.  They're
> of interest to a relatively large group of people.  People want to know
> about
> these things.
>
> > I don't think we need to tag the fact that a carillon is in a church
>> bell tower,
>> > or how many bells it has.  We distinguish between a bell tower and a
>> clock
>> > tower because they are visibly very different and constitute landmarks .
>> > Other than that, we don't need to know what is inside.
>>
>> I disagree.
>>
>
> Others within OSM disagree with both of us and think lots of things
> that we both agree are useful have no business being represented on
> a map.  I take a different view to them: if it is useful to more than a
> very tiny minority of people then it can and should be mapped.  "Useful"
> includes using it as a landmark for navigation or to confirm that
> you really are where you think you are (so inscriptions on plaques
> are useful because there could be more than one plaque in
> the area where you are and the one you're stood in front may
> not be the one you think it is).  "Useful" includes people wanting
> to find a POI of that particular type, or finding a specific
> POI.  "Useful" includes opening hours so you don't waste
> time going somewhere that isn't open that day.
>
> How many people care if a church clock escapement uses a pendulum
> or is electronic?  How many people care if a church has four bells or five?
> How many people care if the church bells are rung by tugging on
> ropes or by a carillon?  The answer to that last question is not many,
> unless it performs frequently and regularly so they could plan an
> excursion to hear it.
>
> I don't think tagging carillons in churches is important at this time.
> There are still plenty of things to map that are of far more interest
> to far more people.  But if somebody thinks it is really important
> I won't oppose it, because "any tag you like" means there's no way
> for any of us to stop it happening, the best we can hope for is to
> guide the choice of tags to be sensible.  So you write a proposal
> and I won't vote against it unless I think the key and/or value
> you propose is flawed.  I might even vote for it.  But I think it
> will be applicable to such a small number of POIs and be of
> interest to such a tiny fraction of mappers and users that it's
> not worth the effort.
>
> --
> Paul
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Definition and usage of Key:mtb:scale:imba?

2020-04-22 Thread brad
I'm going to change my mind.   I don't think mtb:scale:imba should be 
deprecated.   It should be used instead of mtb:scale because it is 
better.   The IMBA Trail Difficulty Rating System was designed for all 
trails, not just bike park trails or trails with features. It follows 
that OSM should use it for all trails too, not just IMBA signed trails, 
or bike park trails.      I agree with everything that user Opadeira is 
proposing and I'll add some comments to the wiki talk page.



On 4/22/20 7:12 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 at 03:03, brad <mailto:bradha...@fastmail.com>> wrote:


I've never seen an official IMBA rating on a sign.


I have, 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/9/96/Serrata_Mountain_Bike_Track_Board_Map.jpeg


I see both mtb:scale and mtb:scale:imba both used. The wiki for
mtb:scale doesn't make sense.   It's either skewed for extremely
extreme riding or they don't understand gradient.   It says that
for mtb:scale=1, gradient<40%.   This is meaningless.   Nobody can
ride up an unpaved grade that is 40%, or probably even 30%.   A
steep trail is 15%.   A really steep, almost unrideable, very
difficult hiking, trail is 20%.    Going downhill, anything above
25% is a double black, only a small percentage of riders can ride,
unless it is very smooth with really good traction.


I agree, I find it very hard to set mtb:scale confidently based on the 
descriptions on the wiki.


In my opinion, mtb:scale:imba could be deprecated, and the wiki
for mtb:scale updated & clarified.


I would disagree on that, mtb:scale:imba is still useful to mark 
officially signposted or designated ratings of the track made 
according to the IMBA system, like in the first photo I posted.


I'd be very keen to review any improvements to mtb:scale though, I 
have very low confidence in all the ones I've tagged so far as I feel 
like every time I read the wiki I have a different opinion



___
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] Definition and usage of Key:mtb:scale:imba?

2020-04-22 Thread brad

I've never seen an official IMBA rating on a sign.
I see both mtb:scale and mtb:scale:imba both used.   The wiki for 
mtb:scale doesn't make sense.   It's either skewed for extremely extreme 
riding or they don't understand gradient.   It says that for 
mtb:scale=1, gradient<40%.   This is meaningless.   Nobody can ride up 
an unpaved grade that is 40%, or probably even 30%.   A steep trail is 
15%.   A really steep, almost unrideable, very difficult hiking, trail 
is 20%.    Going downhill, anything above 25% is a double black, only a 
small percentage of riders can ride, unless it is very smooth with 
really good traction.


The tag has been used with common sense, but inconsistently, instead of 
the wiki definition.


In the US, we us a green/blue/black/doubleBlack system which I would not 
consider an IMBA system, but merely a subjective rating by whoever made 
the map,  usually a local mtb club or land manager. IMBA probably 
clarified it, but it probably predates IMBA.   The apps trailforks and 
mtbproject use green/blue/black/doubleBlack ratings as determined by the 
users.  For the most part it's consistent, but one does have to be 
cognizant of the local bias.
The imba rating system was not invented for bike parks, so the OSM use 
for bike parks doesn't make much sense.


In my opinion, mtb:scale:imba could be deprecated, and the wiki for 
mtb:scale updated & clarified.


On 4/22/20 5:00 AM, Simon Poole wrote:


IMHO, the problem is using mtb:scale:imba 
 in place 
of mtb:scale for normal trails which I suspect the intent of the 
original wording was to avoid that happening.


Simon

Am 22.04.2020 um 10:53 schrieb Andrew Harvey:
I've been using mtb:scale:imba on any kind of trail where signage at 
the site notes an IMBA rating, in this way it's verifiable based on 
the sign. I don't know what "bikepark" and "north shore" mean here 
but while some of these trails which have an IMBA rating can be 
consider together as part of a collection of trails and that 
collection does have a name sperate to the individual tracks (which I 
guess is what bikepark means) others which do have signposted IMBA 
ratings are standalone and not part of a named collection of trails.


So if it has an official or signposted IMBA rating, it should be 
tagged regardless of the trail being "natural" or with "artificial 
obstacles" and regardless if it's part of a mountain bike "park" or not.


On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 at 17:29, Joseph Eisenberg 
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Another user would like to redefine the definition of
"Key:mtb:scale:imba"

See suggestions at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:mtb:scale:imba:

This tag was approved in the proposal
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/mtb:scale -
with the description "The IMBA Trail Difficulty Rating System
shall be used for bikeparks. Especially for North Shore. It is
adapted to mtb trails with artificial obstacles. For "natural"
trails it is advised to use the mtb:scale/mtb:uphill:scale." -
linked to
http://www.imba.com/resources/trail_building/itn_17_4_trail_difficulty.html

Can other mappers who use this tag frequently confirm whether it
is limited to specifically designed and built bike trails, like
those found in "bikeparks"?

-- Joseph Eisenberg
___
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


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


Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

2020-04-06 Thread brad

I don't think we want or need an mtb= tag.
Even though we don't need a path=mtb tag, I'd be OK with it.  It would 
be a shortcut instead of adding some of the other tags.  I don't think 
routers for cycle touring should rely on this though.
I live in a popular mtb location (Colorado, USA), and I don't think I've 
come across an mtb=*  way.   My tag searching skills are weak, but on 
taginfo it looks like very few instances of this tag in the rocky mtns, 
quite a few in Europe.



On 4/5/20 3:52 AM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
I agree with Martin here, if tags are used but not documented on the 
wiki, discussion on the mailing lists or through a proposal process, 
how would such tags hold any meaning? Different editors probably add 
it to mean different things. We can't really make any assumptions 
about what they mean, which is why this whole discussion exists so we 
can have some kind of contract between people entering tags and people 
consuming data, so we have a shared understanding of the meaning of 
those tags.


Anyone who's used the mtb= tags so far, it would be great to hear what 
this was meant to mean.


On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 at 19:08, Martin Koppenhoefer 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:




Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 11:03 Uhr schrieb Yves mailto:yve...@mailbox.org>>:

As a side note: I would be worried to redefine the mtb=yes/no
tag that is not documented but widely used.



how can it be "redefined" if there isn't documentation about it?

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


Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

2020-04-02 Thread brad
Your kind of right, but It's a better set of tags than what exists for 
most of the ways in the western US,  There are probably thousands of 
miles of trail in the western US that have not much more than 
highway=path tagging.   It's a safe assumption that they are not paved, 
or recommended for a skinny tired road bike.
I'm not screwing up routing, the router should not assume that a path is 
paved unless it says it is, or is tagged as cycleway.


On 4/2/20 2:58 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

brad wrote:

The proper tag is highway=path, foot=yes, horse=yes, bike=yes.

That's an utterly terrible set of tags _unless_ you also specify a surface
tag.

highway=cycleway is, by default, a way whose construction standards are
"good enough to ride a bike on". Great! I can route along it.

highway=path doesn't provide that assurance. It just says "this is a path of
some sort". highway=path, bicycle=yes might be a wonderful paved path. It
might also be a 50cm-wide cliff-edge path where, by some freak of
legislation, you're permitted to ride along there. To your death. (There are
lots of mountain paths in Scotland that would qualify for that. No-one would
tag them as highway=cycleway. But bikes are technically permitted.)

If you tag trails with "highway=path, foot=yes, horse=yes, bicycle=yes" and
nothing else, you are royally screwing up routing. Please don't.

Yours, a frustrated bike router author.



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

___
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] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

2020-04-02 Thread brad

On 4/2/20 1:32 PM, Dave F wrote:

On 02/04/2020 20:02, brad wrote:


No need for sympathy, I strongly agree with what you're saying. I 
think it's unfortunate that we even have the cycleway and footway 
tags, but they need to be treated as special cases of highway=path,


Are you also suggesting removing the "special cases" of motorway/trunk 
etc & just having highway=road?


DaveF

No to motorway, a motorway is a divided, limited access highway, 
distinct from other types of highway.   Trunk is ambiguous, it wouldn't 
bother me if it was removed.


The wiki for cycleway, the 1st line:
"The highway <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=cycleway 
tag indicates a separate way for the use of cyclists. "

All of the example pictures show a paved path or track.
IMHO, A rough dirt trail, used by several user groups should not be 
tagged as a cycleway.



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


Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

2020-04-02 Thread brad



On 4/2/20 10:56 AM, Dave F via Tagging wrote:

And here we go again...

If a way is designated for riding a bicycle then it's a cycleway, 
irrelevant of severity or conditions.




The trouble with this is that very few trails are 'designated' for 
riding a bicycle.  They are legal for bikes, hikers, and horses. 
Cycleway is a lousy tag for a multiuse trail.  Fortunately most of the 
tagers where I ride, travel, and contribute follow my philosophy.

The proper tag is highway=path, foot=yes, horse=yes, bike=yes.


cycleway with mtb:scale combination is a valid tag.
mtb:scale gives an indication of what equipment would probably be 
required.


The problem, as so often in OSM, is subjectivity.

I do the occasional off-road riding and, going on the photographs on 
the wiki, I'm damned if I can distinguish severity between them.
 mtb:scale should be expanded to include level ways as value 0 as 
locations dedicated to MTBing often have gentle routes specifically 
for beginners/children.


DaveF

On 02/04/2020 10:10, Volker Schmidt wrote:

If a highway is mtb:scale=2 it is definitely not a cycleway. It is a
highway=path with mtb:scale=2
If this were to encounter a "cycleway" with mtb:scale=2 , I would consider
this an error and retag it as highway=path without hesitation.

I agree, that this is not explicitly stated in the bicycle wiki page, and
should be added there, but I would assume that this is the common
understanding. Anything else would cause major problems with the huge stock
of existing highway=cycleway in OSM that have no mtb:scale tag. Routers for
non-MTB bicycles would all need to change and evaluate the mtb:scale tag.

There is already a similar problem with the OpenCycleMap rendering in the
sense that it renders a dedicated cycle path in the same way as a path with
bicycle=yes. This has the effect that many MTB friends have added
bicycle=yes to "normal" hiking paths to make them appear as MTB friendly on
the map, but also with the problem that when I look at that map I wrongly
see a cycle paths where I would never be able to pass with my loaded
touring bike.

Please keep paths that can only be used by MTB clearly different from
cycleways that can be used non-MTB bicycles.



On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 10:11, Andrew Harvey  wrote:


My view based on current usage, reading of the wiki and general opinion is
that highway=cycleway is meant for any path that is either
designed/intended for bicycles or specifically designated (signposted) for
bicycles, irrespective of if it's an urban track or mountain biking track.

So a mountain bike track and an urban cycle track should both be tagged
with highway=cycleway as the primary tag. surface= and smoothness= can help
for both to help guide users on which kind of bicycle the track is suitable
for, and mtb:scale=/mtb:scale:imba= are used to indicate this is a
designated mountain biking track.

highway=path is specifically for a general use / unspecified path, which a
mountain biking track may be if it's informal/shared, but purpose built and
signposted mountain bike tracks don't fall into that category.

A similar thing applies to hiking tracks, sometimes they are designated
walking paths so use highway=footway + surface + sac_scale, but sometimes
they are just an unmarked or mixed use path so are highway=path + surface +
sac_scale.

Open to other opinions or comments.

On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 18:56, Phyks  wrote:


Hi,

A discussion in CyclOSM issue tracker [1] spotted that there exists
around 3500 highway=cycleway around the world which have specific
mountain bikes (MTB) tags. In particular, around 800 highway=cycleway
around the world declare a mtb:scale greater than 2, which would make
them impassable without a proper mountain bike. Such cycleways would not
be passable with a regular city bike. One example of such a case is at
[2].

Looking at the wiki page [3],
"the highway=cycleway tag indicates a separate way for the use of
cyclists"
which does not mandate explicitly that a cycleway be accessible with any
kind of bikes and should also cover dedicated paths for MTB. However,
the documentation around cycleways and bike features is very oriented
towards city cycling and there is no illustration about MTB-specific
cycleways.

So, is this considered a valid tagging or should it be represented by
another highway class (path, track, etc)? If this is valid, I propose to
add a statement in the wiki explicitly mentioning that cycleways can be
restricted for specific kinds of bicycles, for future questions.

Best,

[1]https://github.com/cyclosm/cyclosm-cartocss-style/issues/208
[2]https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/86978431#map=17/41.26426/-73.91907
[3]https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway

--
Phyks

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


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

2020-04-02 Thread brad



On 4/2/20 10:02 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 11:54 AM Greg Troxel  wrote:

However, around me there is a convention that any
dirt/unimproved/in-the-woods sort of thing is path, and
in-town/paved/manicured sorts of are highway=footway.

I started tagging trails as 'path' - and found that the locals
immediately changed them to 'footway' or 'cycleway' except for shared
paths. 'surface' and 'smoothness' are better ways to disambiguate
whether we're talking about a rocky singletrack or an asphalt
rail-trail.

How many trails are there that are not shared use?

I am mildly curious how many places there are in mountain bike trails
that prohibit hikers.   Around me, every trail  that is open at all is
open to hiking, and some are open to bicycles and horses, some aren't.
(Additionally some are closed to bicyles and horses when wet.)

As I said in my earlier post, there are some around here that are
specifically posted for MTB use. I don't think hiking on them is
exactly prohibited, but it's surely discouraged. Obviously, you won't
get a ticket for hiking out with a disabled bike or whatever, but you
really shouldn't plan to go hiking there. A number of those trails are
designated for x-c ski in the winter, and hiking on ski tracks would
be extremely inconsiderate, whether it's lawful or not.
Out west, I don't think there are any public trails that I've come 
across that ban hikers.  The exception would be ski areas that have 
developed downhill mtb trails.


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


Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

2020-04-02 Thread brad



On 4/2/20 4:33 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote:

There is another aspect:
The wiki page highway=cycleway states also
" Tagging a way with highway 
=cycleway implies 
that the route is designated for bicycles."
This means it implies, at least in Italy and Germany, that this is 
equivalent to this sign, which in turn implies that, the use of this 
way is mandatory for cyclists, if the cycleway accompanies a road.

Obviously this concept does not apply to a MTB-only paths.
I sympathise with the MTB fraction in OSM, but I strongly suggest that 
MTB-only paths be tagged as highway=path plus suitable MTB tagging and 
cycleways remain cycleways that are suitable for (nearly) all bicycles 
(the "nearly" regards in particular wider bicycles).


No need for sympathy, I strongly agree with what you're saying.  I think 
it's unfortunate that we even have the cycleway and footway tags, but 
they need to be treated as special cases of highway=path,





On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 12:19, Volker Schmidt > wrote:





But highway=path is for unspecified, mixed use or generic
paths. A designated mountain bike track is not that, it's a
path specifically for bicycles.

If mountain bike tracks should be tagged as highway=path, then
the definition of path needs to be changed to not be an
unspecified or mixed use path.

No.
If the MTB path is not open to pedestrians, you add foot=no, and
possibly horse=no, in addition to your mtb:scale tags

Sure, you could say if you have a cycleway with
smoothness=horrible and tracktype=grade5 and foot=no and horse=no 
you have the same thing, but ther,

Please keep paths that can only be used by MTB clearly
different from cycleways that can be used non-MTB bicycles.


I always assumed that's what the mtb:*=* tags were for, but
smoothness= is also suitable here since it even lists specific
types of bicycles which would be suitable
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness

Yes, the mtb: tags would in theory be able to convert als a
cycleway in an MTB track - see above, but it is much simpler to
keep the meaning that a cycleway is a cycleway and implies that
you can use it with a normal bicycle.


___
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] landuse meadow getting the right description emphases

2020-03-15 Thread brad



On 3/15/20 6:31 PM, Warin wrote:

On 16/3/20 11:02 am, brad wrote:



Perhaps we should deprecate landuse=meadow

I think there could be a distinction between a meadow (something that 
may have more 'other stuff' than grass), and grassland.



What 'other stuff'?


Grass covers a lot more than the domestic stuff most are thinking of. 
Some grasses get to over 2 metres (6 foot) tall.



There are a lot of native species in a mountain, or riparian meadow that 
are not grasses.


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


Re: [Tagging] landuse meadow getting the right description emphases

2020-03-15 Thread brad



On 3/15/20 3:14 PM, Warin wrote:

On 16/3/20 6:01 am, brad wrote:

On 3/14/20 9:47 PM, Warin wrote:

Hi,
The present description of landuse=meadow is;
An area of meadow or pasture: land primarily vegetated by grass and other 
non-woody plants, mainly used for hay or grazing.
That places the land cover before the land use. The emphases should be on the 
land use, the land use should be first?
Possibly a better description:
An area of meadow or pasture: land primarily used to produce hay or for grazing 
of animals. Usually vegetated by grass and other non-woody plants.



I am trying to get mappers not to use this for areas of grass land that could 
be more appropriatly tagged natural=grassland.

Thoughts?

I disagree.  Perhaps a regional definition?  I think meadow is the 
land cover, pasture is the land use

This would match my definition:
Meadow:  "a field with grass and often wild flowers in it: "
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/meadow
or
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/meadow
"A meadow is a field which has grass and flowers growing in it. "

Locally, (Colorado, USA), we might call a grassy area high in the 
mountains an alpine meadow, and it may not have any domesticated 
animals grazing it.



Is that not the tag natural=grassland? The tag natural=grassland is 
for a land cover of grass .. I think that is what you want.



The key' landuse' should not be used for land cover, so landuse=meadow 
should not be used for any land cover.


The presence of grass is an indication that the land use of grazing or 
cropping of hay might, just might take place.


Good point.  I overlooked the left side of that equation, landuse= . 
I still don't like landuse=meadow, but I guess this is British English, 
so I won't argue the point


landuse = pasture, or hay
and
natural = meadow (or natural=grassland)
Make more sense to me.
Note that the definitions for meadow that I quoted talk about a 
landcover, not a landuse.   Perhaps we should deprecate landuse=meadow


I think there could be a distinction between a meadow (something that 
may have more 'other stuff' than grass), and grassland.


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


Re: [Tagging] landuse meadow getting the right description emphases

2020-03-15 Thread brad

On 3/14/20 9:47 PM, Warin wrote:

Hi,
The present description of landuse=meadow is;
An area of meadow or pasture: land primarily vegetated by grass and other 
non-woody plants, mainly used for hay or grazing.
That places the land cover before the land use. The emphases should be on the 
land use, the land use should be first?
Possibly a better description:
An area of meadow or pasture: land primarily used to produce hay or for grazing 
of animals. Usually vegetated by grass and other non-woody plants.



I am trying to get mappers not to use this for areas of grass land that could 
be more appropriatly tagged natural=grassland.

Thoughts?

I disagree.  Perhaps a regional definition?  I think meadow is the land 
cover, pasture is the land use

This would match my definition:
Meadow:  "a field with grass and often wild flowers in it: "
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/meadow
or
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/meadow
"A meadow is a field which has grass and flowers growing in it. "

Locally, (Colorado, USA), we might call a grassy area high in the 
mountains an alpine meadow, and it may not have any domesticated animals 
grazing it.



On 3/14/20 11:46 PM, Warin wrote:

On 15/3/20 4:36 pm, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:


The presence of mainly grass (or sedges, clover, other herbaceous
plants) is just as important as the presence of grazing or occasional
hay-cutting, to define a meadow or pasture.

The grass is not there once cut, the remains are stubble. Hence the word 
'usually' can be employed?
Minor point, but I think most grasses are perennial, so it's still there 
even if its cut.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Cooker or Stove in the kitchen?

2020-01-16 Thread brad
For American English,   I think the common usage is still stove for a 
one piece unit.   Cooktop/oven for separate units, but I think 
stove/oven might be common also.


On 1/15/20 9:20 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 10:26, Joseph Eisenberg 
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> wrote:


British English speakers:


I hope Australian English counts? :-)

If you are mapping a device which burns fuel or uses electricity to
cook food in a pot or pan, is this a "cooker" or a "stove" or
something else?


They're stoves out here - electric stove, gas stove etc

What if it has an oven included, or doesn't?


One piece unit is still a stove, or if it's separate there's a stove & 
an oven


  Thanks

Graeme

___
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] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-13 Thread brad



On 1/12/20 4:23 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
Paris is the capital of France because it has all the main government 
facilities: the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and most 
ministries.


Routes that are mapped in Openstreetmap need to be signed or marked in 
a visible way. Otherwise every Stava user will add their favorite 
training loop to the map as a running route or road cycling route.


Joseph
I think this is an overreaction.    There are many routes that meet the 
wiki description (and my own reasonableness test) that are not signed or 
marked.    I do see many routes in my area that should not be routes, 
but that is only a minor annoyance.





On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 2:02 AM Florimond Berthoux 
mailto:florimond.berth...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:


Asking me how do I know that Eurovelo 3 is for tourism or bicycle
trekking is like asking me how do I know that Paris is the capital
of France.
« Is there a sign saying that Paris is the capital of France? May
be we should remove that tag, don't you think?... »

You don't need sign post to have a route, do you have a sign post
at the intersection of those routes ?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/45.1485/-4.1705
I doubt that.

This is how the Wiki define a route:
« A *route* is a customary or regular line of passage or travel,
often predetermined and publicized. Routes consist of paths taken
repeatedly by people and vehicles: a ship on the North Atlantic
route, a car on a numbered road, a bus on its route or a cyclist
on a national route. »
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route

So to paraphrase this for road biking route :
« A road bicycle *route* is a customary or regular line of passage
or travel, often predetermined and publicized as such. Road
bicycle routes consist of paths taken repeatedly by road cyclist. »

And if you don't know then don't tag it and don't manage it.

Le sam. 11 janv. 2020 à 23:35, Joseph Eisenberg
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> a
écrit :
>
> >  I am not against distinguishing more types of cycling routes,
I am all for it, as long as it's verifyable, mappable with clear
tagging, and manageable.
>
> +1
>
> I started using Openstreetmap because I wanted to add touring routes
> and recreational bike routes in RideWithGPS and then found out that
> http://ridewithgps.com uses Openstreetmap data which I could
edit. And
> I get to work and take kids to school and shop by bike - I haven't
> owned a car for 9 years.
>
> So I would love to have more information about what streets and
roads
> are best for getting from point A to B, and which ones are nice for
> training rides and which ones are fun for tours.
>
> But tags have to be verifiable: if the next mapper can't confirm
that
> a tag as right, the data in Openstreetmap will not be maintained
> properly. Subjective tags cannot work.
>
> I have seen this happen: before I mapped here, I used to try to
> improve the bike routes in Portland Oregon for Google Maps. But
since
> there was no definition of a "preferred" bicycle street, and it was
> hard to delete a preferred route once it was added, the bike
layer was
> full of disconnected segments. Some were from old city maps of bike
> routes, some were based on the personal preference of the
mapper, and
> some were actually signed or marked on the ground, but you couldn't
> tell them apart.
>
> If there is a sign or marking that specifies that a certain route is
> designed for mountain bikes or for bike racing, then sure, you
can tag
> that. But most bike routes do not have anything to specify that they
> are more for commuting or more for recreation, and in that case we
> can't tag the distinction.
>
> Fortunately, database users (like routing applications) can look at
> other Openstreetmap data, like surface=* tags on ways, and external
> data like elevation models, to determine if a route is a difficult
> single-track trail through the hills versus a flat paved path
along a
> canal, and use this to help route cyclists appropriately.
>
> - Joseph Eisenberg

-- 
Florimond Berthoux

___
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] hiking and foot route relations - is there any consistent difference?

2020-01-11 Thread brad
Great story Kevin.   I hope they learned something from their 
experience.   +1 on the boots,   things change, back in the old days 
when I could still  backpack it was pretty much a given that you should 
have sturdy boots.   Now most of the long distance hikers, like you, 
have gotten wiser and are wearing lighter footwear.


This seems all too typical for OSM.    Redundant tags, and over specify 
things.


Brad

On 1/11/20 9:08 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:

On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 10:03 AM Joseph Eisenberg
 wrote:

To clarify, I don't see any problem with the existence of multiple
tags with similar meanings.

But I plan to edit the wiki page to describe how they are actually
used, mentioning that there is a wide amoun of overlap in meaning.

No problem there! In a 'folksonomy', that's going to happen, and as
someone observed, 'status quo wins.'

I can recall an encounter that my daughter had on Windham High Peak,
arguably  the easiest of the Catskill 3500 listed summits (and please
don't start arguing that Bearpen, Slide, or Hunter is easier, that's
not the point!) with a father and son who were visiting from a part of
New Jersey that's both flat and urban.

Them: "Wow, the guidebook is horrible! It said this is an easy
three-mile hike from Route 23!"
Her: "Well, yeah, (looks at phone), GPS says 3.1."
Them: "That's _easy?_"
Her: (thinking for a moment): "No scrambling, no broken rock to cross,
no streams you can't just step over, no dense brush, no deep mud, no
beaver activitty... what's the problem?"
Them: (groaning), "I don't want to see a _hard_ trail around here!
That was straight up hill all the way!"
Her: "Uhm, well, it _is_ a mountain."

With subjective assessments that disparate, there are always going to
be variability and outliers in the tagging.

The whole discussion of boots is pretty odd. I'm thoroughly a
Westerner, and I do multi-day backpacking trips in terrain like
http://image.newyorkupstate.com/home/nyup-media/width2048/img/catskills/photo/2016/05/03/20267771-standard.jpg
wearing trail-running shoes. The boots come out only when the snow
does.

The 'vigour' key is probably a bad one, because it's purely
subjective. SAC and YDS scale, among others, are also pretty bad
because almost all 'hiking' routes are at the lowest grade on them,
and because you really have to be a specialist to grade a route.

___
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 - park_drive

2019-12-09 Thread brad

It isn't limited to that.

On 12/7/19 4:49 PM, Martin Scholtes wrote:

Am 07.12.2019 um 18:59 schrieb brad:

We already have park_ride tag.   I don't see the new tag adding anything?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:park%20ride?uselang=en-US
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/133916328

"park and ride" rather describes the change to public transport and not
the continuation of driving with others in a private vehicle.

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

2019-12-07 Thread brad

On 12/6/19 7:59 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:



On Thu, Dec 5, 2019, 04:09 Martin Scholtes > wrote:


Hello,

I would like to inform you that I have made a suggestion about
park and
drive. This resulted from a discussion in the OSM DE Telegram Chat.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/park_drive
Definition: Information that can be taken on this parking lot to
form a
carpool.

I would be pleased about suggestions.


I'm thinking this should be a subtag of park and ride ragging already 
existing.  There's quite a few Park and Ride lots in places that don't 
confer exclusive use of transit, and usually if you see a Park and 
Ride lot in the rural midwestern US, there's a good chance it is 
exclusively for for carpooling commuters.



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

We already have park_ride tag.   I don't see the new tag adding anything?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:park%20ride?uselang=en-US
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/133916328

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


Re: [Tagging] Service road - Can it be a driveway if serving multiple houses?

2019-11-05 Thread brad
I live in a single family home with a shared driveway.  The next door 
neighbor house is 7 meters from my house.  The driveway is about 10 
meters shared, then it splits, about 10 meters to each garage.    If it 
were mapped, I think it should be tagged as driveway, but I don't think 
it's relevant to map.


On 11/5/19 9:21 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

I’d like to add gated communities: these are completely private settlements, 
with restricted access, but there is still a road hierarchy that may merit more 
distinction than just service with and without a driveway qualifier (i.e. we’ll 
usually solve these with access restrictions).

For me a driveway is either a service on private ground leading to just one 
house (or maybe duplex/apartment house or other residential building) or to the 
backstage area of a commercial place like the loading zone of a supermarket. 
When roads are leading to several properties I would use at least service 
without the driveway qualifier, or residential.

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


Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

2019-10-13 Thread brad
I'm in favor of being flexible for cycling routes.   A good example is 
the great divide mtb route in Canada & US.   It is probably not signed 
very well, if at all.   It was created by a non-profit & I don't think 
it is an official government route.   It is used by quite a few people, 
both on bikes and motorbikes.   It is in OSM and should remain so.



On 10/12/19 3:35 AM, Warin wrote:

On 12/10/19 20:13, John Willis via Tagging wrote:
On Oct 12, 2019, at 5:10 PM, Richard Fairhurst  
wrote:


A new route_type= tag on the relation would be a
good way to go.

Route=
cycle_touring
road_touring
cyclist
road_cyclist
road_cycling

  ?

I think the word “race” should be left out, unless it is for mapping 
actual racing routes.




Cycling can be left off - already in the network tag.

Not 'type' - says nothing.

'road' would be ? Narrow tyres?

mtbs we already have .. but

commuter - local commuter routes to/from shops, transport hubs

touring - longer distance routes

fitness/exorcise - for the locals

scenic/cafe - for local meetings?


Some of the routes around me are well sign posted .. others are not so 
well done.
Some local council issue maps .. some of these routes are usefull 
others are dreaming.


In some parts of the world there are no marked 'cycling routes' yet 
cyclists travel from one point to another using roads/tracks and paths 
that most motor vehicle don't.. it would be nice if these could be 
mapped in OSM as there is usually no other source.


I don't think a requirement that bicycle routes must have signage fits 
the entire world.





___
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 - Voting - Campsite properties

2019-09-17 Thread brad
I think it's valid tag for a campsite,   It's not much different than 
any other self service coin operated laundry.


On 9/17/19 4:27 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 17. Sep 2019, at 08:29, Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:

I didn't think shop=laundry would work for a laundry room at a campsite.


I agree this seems strange, shop=laundry is about a laundry business, while a 
camping is about a camping business and the “laundry service” is secondary (and 
a service of the camp site, not a business on its own).

Ciao 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


Re: [Tagging] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread brad

So is F street, or 1st street a name or a ref?

On 8/18/19 10:27 AM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

It looks like "CR 2" is a "ref" rather than a name, and so is FS
729.2B. A ref=, short for "reference number" (or more properly
"reference alphanumeric string") is a set of letters and numbers that
identifies a feature.

While it's best to have the common name in the tag name=, like
name=Corkscrew Gulch Road, it's okay to have more than one ref in the
tag ref, separated by semicolons. Many database users can handle this.
Eg:

name=Corkscrew Gulch Road
ref=CR 2;FS 729.2B

If there are other, less common actual names, consider using
alt_name=* or loc_name=* (local, informal names), but in this case it
looks like there is just one name, but multiple reference numbers.

Joseph

On 8/19/19, Rob Savoye  wrote:

On 8/18/19 9:41 AM, Paul Allen wrote:


Assuming that "CR 2" is a name and not a ref, one possibility that
springs to mind, and which will no doubt be highly controversial is

   Yes, it's county designated name. It's gets messier than that, as
sometimes "CR 2" might include multiple other road segments, all with
different names common and USFS names. We prefer the common name or the
USFS name, but I have no control over what Dispatch gives us.


name=CR 2 / Corkscrew Gulch Road / FS 729.2B alt_name=CR 2; Corkscrew
Gulch Road; FS 729.2B
If you have several name or several ref, you can use the “;”
separator

   Ah, I've used that elsewhere, didn't think about it for road names.
The problem though is since the name gets displayed, too many long road
names obscures the map. I've had similar problems with house addresses
in the more densely populated areas. When I produce a KML file from OSM
data, I put all the names in the description popup. That works in GPS
map apps, but not in OsmAnd. Plus I wonder if that would break routing...

- rob -

___
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] Road hierarchy

2019-08-05 Thread brad

R - unclassified
A - unclassified
B - track
C - residential



On 8/4/19 3:46 AM, Tomas Straupis wrote:

All right, let's make it more detailed and more extended.

R
R
RAAA
R  A
R
R
R
R

Now A and C are ways leading into the inner territory of residential
building(s). But A has another important road B getting out of it, and
C does not. Which means A has through traffic while C does not. But
all of them are very minor ways visible as two tracks on the ground.
Way C is used say twice in a week.

Now I would like to skip road C at small scale, but leave A, because I
want to leave B.

Can we agree on some scheme to tag this (do data augmentation), so
that less people doing cartography stuff have to resort to heavy
generalisation operation such as road pruning?

___
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] Charging stations: socket::output -- which format for the value?

2019-07-30 Thread brad

On 7/30/19 2:59 AM, Warin wrote:

On 30/07/19 12:38, brad wrote:
I don't have an opinion about kw or w, but if the value is only a 
number, then to prevent confusion and reduce mistagging the key 
should specify, output-kw=22 .


OSM typically places unit after the value.
For examples see 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features/Units#Explicit_specifications

+1  I think this is best.







On 7/29/19 5:00 AM, dktue wrote:
I'd vote for kW aswell (and a value of "22" then), since we're not 
always using SI and not always base-unit-values (see kilometers per 
hour).


Am 29.07.2019 um 12:53 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:



Am Mo., 29. Juli 2019 um 12:39 Uhr schrieb dktue 
mailto:em...@daniel-korn.de>>:


Hello,

the OSM-Wiki-page on charging stations [1] defines the tag
socket::output=watt

wheres the examples contain values like "22 kW".

What would the preferred format be? "22000" or "22 kW"? I would
like to
clearify this on the wiki-page.

Personally I would prefer "22000" as it fits with other
OSM-values (no
units).



generally people are encouraged to add units for disambiguation 
reasons and to use locally used units and preferably SI units.


For power, no default units are currently specified on this page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features/Units

And it doesn't even mention horsepower for power, a unit that for 
many people may be more evocative than Watt (everybody can imagine 
30 horses, but how much are 22 kW?) ;-)


Personally, if we were to set up a default for power units, I would 
prefer kW, because if we'd use Watt we will get very high numbers 
for MW (e.g. needed for power generators). Presuming, we would have 
the same standard unit for all things power, and not different 
defaults for socket and say power stations.


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


Re: [Tagging] Charging stations: socket::output -- which format for the value?

2019-07-29 Thread brad
I don't have an opinion about kw or w, but if the value is only a 
number, then to prevent confusion and reduce mistagging the key should 
specify, output-kw=22 .



On 7/29/19 5:00 AM, dktue wrote:
I'd vote for kW aswell (and a value of "22" then), since we're not 
always using SI and not always base-unit-values (see kilometers per hour).


Am 29.07.2019 um 12:53 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:



Am Mo., 29. Juli 2019 um 12:39 Uhr schrieb dktue 
mailto:em...@daniel-korn.de>>:


Hello,

the OSM-Wiki-page on charging stations [1] defines the tag
socket::output=watt

wheres the examples contain values like "22 kW".

What would the preferred format be? "22000" or "22 kW"? I would
like to
clearify this on the wiki-page.

Personally I would prefer "22000" as it fits with other
OSM-values (no
units).



generally people are encouraged to add units for disambiguation 
reasons and to use locally used units and preferably SI units.


For power, no default units are currently specified on this page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features/Units

And it doesn't even mention horsepower for power, a unit that for 
many people may be more evocative than Watt (everybody can imagine 30 
horses, but how much are 22 kW?) ;-)


Personally, if we were to set up a default for power units, I would 
prefer kW, because if we'd use Watt we will get very high numbers for 
MW (e.g. needed for power generators). Presuming, we would have the 
same standard unit for all things power, and not different defaults 
for socket and say power stations.


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] track smoothness/quality

2019-07-09 Thread brad
I'm not sure what you mean by misleading.    The image I linked on jul 6 
could be tagged as grade3 , It's mostly solid.    Is that misleading?    
But you need 4 wheel drive, or an off road capable motorcycle to drive 
it.     Also look at the photos on the smoothness page.   None of them 
are soft.


I'll find some more photos.    Any photos I share are wide open to 
share.  Is there a license overlay that you need on them?


On 7/9/19 11:11 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:


8 lip 2019, 03:22 od bradha...@fastmail.com:

wiki page

Can you link image of track
on rock/rocky surface where tagging
it as grade1, grade2, grade3 would
be misleading?

It at least should be documented at the tracktype
wiki page.

It would be nice to have image on an
open license to be able to use it directly on Wiki.

___
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] track smoothness/quality

2019-07-08 Thread brad
I see tracktype as redundant with Surface, also very subjective, and not 
useful.   Smoothness is very useful.


On 7/7/19 7:41 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

No.

While tracktype= has some issues, smoothness= is more subjective and 
less generally useful.


Surface= is very helpful and more objective, so it should be 
mentioned,but I believe it is already suggested on most of the minor 
highway, path and track pages.


On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 10:24 AM brad <mailto:bradha...@fastmail.com>> wrote:


Do we have close to a consensus that tracktype is not globally
useful?
The Key:highway wiki page and map_features could be changed from
"To describe the quality of a track, see tracktype
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype>=*.:
to
"To describe the quality of a track, use smoothness=* and
surface=*.   In some regions tracktype is also useful."



On 7/7/19 3:12 AM, Warin wrote:


There is a visibility tag.

So 'tracktype' should have that removed from its consideration.

Maintenance frequency ? Yet another tag. And not something all
that usefull.

I don't think 'tracktype' is all that usefull.

Surface .. yes. Relatively easy to understand.
Smoothness ... yes. Should give an indication of required ground
clearance.
Steepness? Yes - the tag is incline.

Compaction? Not a value I'd use.
Bear rock that have never been compacted can be harder that a
road that has been compacted.
Rather have a tag for 'hardness' that 'compaction'.

But when it rains .. it can turn a 'good road' (compacted, hard,
smooth and fairly level) into a bottomless pit (deep mud), or a
skating ring (wet clay).

And then there are Australian 'salt lakes' .. a dry hard crust on
top .. with black goo underneath if you break through.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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] track smoothness/quality

2019-07-07 Thread brad

Do we have close to a consensus that tracktype is not globally useful?
The Key:highway wiki page and map_features could be changed from
"To describe the quality of a track, see tracktype 
=*.:

to
"To describe the quality of a track, use smoothness=* and surface=*.   
In some regions tracktype is also useful."



On 7/7/19 3:12 AM, Warin wrote:


There is a visibility tag.

So 'tracktype' should have that removed from its consideration.

Maintenance frequency ? Yet another tag. And not something all that 
usefull.


I don't think 'tracktype' is all that usefull.

Surface .. yes. Relatively easy to understand.
Smoothness ... yes. Should give an indication of required ground 
clearance.

Steepness? Yes - the tag is incline.

Compaction? Not a value I'd use.
Bear rock that have never been compacted can be harder that a road 
that has been compacted.

Rather have a tag for 'hardness' that 'compaction'.

But when it rains .. it can turn a 'good road' (compacted, hard, 
smooth and fairly level) into a bottomless pit (deep mud), or a 
skating ring (wet clay).


And then there are Australian 'salt lakes' .. a dry hard crust on top 
.. with black goo underneath if you break through.


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


Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

2019-07-07 Thread brad
It's a typical mtn road, used mostly for recreation today, track is 
appropriate.


On 7/7/19 2:37 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 7. Jul 2019, at 01:51, brad  wrote:

It is still used for a couple of  mines (worked by 1 or 2 people), but mostly 
recreational use.


if this is an access road to mines it might not be a track but a service road?

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


Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

2019-07-06 Thread brad
That is true if the terrain is agreeable.  Often it is steep and a very 
loose rocky surface so 4wd is necessary.  Even if it isn't very steep, 
since it is not maintained very often, if at all, erosion creates 
hazards in the road also requiring 4wd or at least a very high clearance 
vehicle.


*"Tracktype* is a measure of how well-maintained a track or other minor 
road is..."



On 7/6/19 6:21 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
I would think that an unimproved track across naturally solid rock or 
naturally well-compacted gravel would not be tracktype=grade5 - while 
it might be bumpy, it’s probably passable by any vehicke with 
sufficient clearance and tire size, even when wet, unlike a track of 
unimproved clay, silt or loam which requires 4wd or is simply 
impassable when it rains? But I’m not an expert on 4wd.


On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 8:58 AM brad <mailto:bradha...@fastmail.com>> wrote:


What wiki are you looking at?   At
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype, grade5 says
"Soft.
Almost always an unimproved track lacking hard materials, same as
surrounding soil. "

What if the surrounding soil is hard materials???
Clearly written by someone that has not seen rocky soil.

Brad

On 7/3/19 2:09 AM, Mark Wagner wrote:
> Option 3 won't work.  Locally, tracks come in two basic types:
>
> 1) A logging road created by a work crew with a bulldozer.  Cut down
> any trees, scrape off any remaining vegetation, level the road
> side-to-side, and call it done.  These roads range in quality from
> "easily passable by a passenger car" to "high-clearance
> four-wheel-drive vehicle required".
>
> 2) A ranch road created by a truck driving the same route repeatedly
> for years.  These are generally fairly smooth, but the older
ones are
> only passable by a high-clearance truck because of the central ridge
> between the tracks.
>
> According to the wiki, these are uniformly "grade5" ("Almost
always an
> unpaved track lacking additional materials, same surface as
surrounding
> terrain."), although calling them "soft" is misleading, since
the local
> soil produces a rock-hard surface during the summer and fall (and a
> muddy one during spring melt). They're tagged pretty much at
random as
> anything from "grade1" to "grade5".
>


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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] track smoothness/quality

2019-07-06 Thread brad
What wiki are you looking at?   At 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype,  grade5 says

"Soft.
Almost always an unimproved track lacking hard materials, same as 
surrounding soil. "


What if the surrounding soil is hard materials???
Clearly written by someone that has not seen rocky soil.

Brad

On 7/3/19 2:09 AM, Mark Wagner wrote:

Option 3 won't work.  Locally, tracks come in two basic types:

1) A logging road created by a work crew with a bulldozer.  Cut down
any trees, scrape off any remaining vegetation, level the road
side-to-side, and call it done.  These roads range in quality from
"easily passable by a passenger car" to "high-clearance
four-wheel-drive vehicle required".

2) A ranch road created by a truck driving the same route repeatedly
for years.  These are generally fairly smooth, but the older ones are
only passable by a high-clearance truck because of the central ridge
between the tracks.

According to the wiki, these are uniformly "grade5" ("Almost always an
unpaved track lacking additional materials, same surface as surrounding
terrain."), although calling them "soft" is misleading, since the local
soil produces a rock-hard surface during the summer and fall (and a
muddy one during spring melt). They're tagged pretty much at random as
anything from "grade1" to "grade5".




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


Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

2019-07-06 Thread brad

Here's one,
https://www.dropbox.com/s/agj4njek1r35vnz/2018-10-03-13.06.54r.jpg?dl=0
Maybe gets some maintenance every 10 or 20 years or so.  It is probably 
never soft, so it doesn't fit any tracktype definition. It is still used 
for a couple of  mines (worked by 1 or 2 people), but mostly 
recreational use.   This is higher altitude than most, but not unusual 
in the western US.


I think tracktype as specified is only useful for a small portion of the 
world.  Useful for flat, wet regions.



On 7/2/19 11:02 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

...

2) Take the leading sentence mentioning Solid/Soft out of the
tracktype description (or de-emphasize it)

I am dubious about redefining extremely
popular tags. For start - can you link
some photos of places where current
definition is a problem?

The best would be photos on licenses
allowing upload to OSM Wiki or
Wikimedia Commons.

___
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] track smoothness/quality

2019-07-02 Thread brad

A pretty standard nomenclature on maps in the US for unpaved roads is
Improved Road
Unsurfaced Road (High Clearance)
Four Wheel Drive
Other variations exist , but not too dissimilar.
Pretty simple and anyone who spends time in the mountains or forest gets 
a feel for what it means and has an idea what to expect.   OSM is a mess 
in this regards.   The inconsistency make it difficult if not impossible 
to render a good map.


As I read the OSM wiki,  smoothness=* is the relevant tag to distinguish 
between a 2wd road, a high clearance road, and a 4 wheel drive road.    
Surface is important too, but isn't sufficient if it's dirt/unpaved/ground.


Unfortunately, the wiki for highway, in the section for track says: " To 
describe the quality of a track, see tracktype 
=*. "
But, as described in the wiki,  tracktype is not very relevant to the 
western US, since the first sentence of the description is 
Solid/Mostly*/Soft.  Perhaps relevant to the English countryside, but 
the roads around here are usually Solid, but could be 
smoothness:very_horrible.   It seems redundant with surface=* also.
It looks like the common usage is to just use tracktype intuitively 
(grade5 is 4wd even if it's Solid), and ignore the wiki & the smoothness 
tag.  Unfortunately its usage is inconsistent.  I see roads that are 
clearly (by onsite inspection) 4wd, tagged as grade2 and some graded 
gravel roads tagged as grade2.
Tracktype could be sufficient if clarified, and if we were starting from 
scratch that's what I would prefer.


As I see it, two paths forward to improve this situation.
1) Change the wiki for highway so it mentions Smoothness=*, and 
de-emphasize  tracktype=*
2) Take the leading sentence mentioning Solid/Soft out of the tracktype 
description (or de-emphasize it), and add more verbage about high 
clearance or 4 wheel drive.    There is some discussion on the 
key:tracktype discussion page about adding grade6+.
3) Ignore the wiki, and just use tracktype.   I see in the discussion 
page that is what many are doing.


Thoughts?





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


Re: [Tagging] Tag for Cornices?

2019-05-11 Thread brad
I think they definitely should not be tagged as cliff. Personally, I 
don't think they should be tagged, but maybe I could be convinced.    
They are seasonal, and depending on the year they may exist or not, or 
be in a different place. They may be consistent in BC, but that 
isn't true worldwide.

Brad
Colorado, USA

On 5/11/19 6:59 AM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

Another user asked about a tag for a snow cornice, a cliff-like or
overhanging snow and ice feature that often forms along a ridge in
winter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_cornice

"There doesn't appear to be a way to tag cornices, which are
essentially naturally ocurring seasonal snow cliffs. Cornices are
major obstacles to backcountry skiing, snowshoeing and mountaineering.
Where I live in British Columbia they almost always form in the same
place every year due to the consistency of the prevailing wind. Can I
just tag natural=cliff + seasonal=winter? ScottNelson (talk) 07:37, 11
May 2019"

I don't think these features are a type of cliff, since they are often
seasonal and can shift position, being largely made of snow and
affected by the wind direction.

Should they get their own, tag, e.g. natural=cornice?

___
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] tracktype=*;*;*

2019-05-09 Thread brad

I'm seeing some tracks with multiple tracktype's like this:

Way 364707088 [highway=track,  name=FR 514, tracktype=grade2;grade1;grade3]

Is this generally accepted practice?
If so, why?

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


Re: [Tagging] Waterway tributary role

2019-04-11 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Seems like this is essentially replaced by the destination key?

On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 4:24 PM marc marc  wrote:

> Le 11.04.19 à 12:48, Eugene Podshivalov a écrit :
>
> > I could not find any reference on the wiki.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Frodrigo/Relation:Waterway
> ___
> 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] historic=archaeological_site with site_type=rock_art, rock_painting definitions

2019-04-01 Thread Brad Neuhauser
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 7:55 AM Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 06:47, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Within OSM 'we' could adopt that rock_art is where both carving and
>> painting are used together? That would distinguish it from either of the
>> above.
>>
>>
>> There are some 22 uses of site_type=rock_art, I think most of them would
>> go to either site_type=rock_painting or site_type=petroglyph only
>> leaving a very few of this type.
>>
>
> Site_type=* is a subtag of historic=*.  Both are largely the demesne of
> the mapper Lutz because
> they were defined by him for use on his historic place project:
> http://gk.historic.place/
>
> I'm not saying he is the ultimate arbiter of those tags, because OSM is
> anarchic and nobody
> controls anything.  However, his project is the only carto I know of where
> those tags are
> rendered.  You are free to add any site_type you wish, even without prior
> discussion here,
> but if you want them to be rendered anywhere it's best to get in touch
> with Lutz and discuss
> it with him.
>
> BTW, I don't know if Lutz is male or female but trying to rewrite the
> above in gender-neutral
> language is difficult.
>
> Not too bad to rewrite really :)

Site_type=* is a subtag of historic=*.  Both are largely the demesne of the
mapper Lutz because
the tags were defined by them for use on their historic place project:
http://gk.historic.place/

I'm not saying Lutz is the ultimate arbiter of those tags, because OSM is
anarchic and nobody
controls anything.  However, the historic place project is the only carto I
know of where those tags are
rendered. You are free to add any site_type you wish, even without prior
discussion here,
but if you want the tags to be rendered anywhere it's best to get in touch
with Lutz and discuss
it with them.
Cheers, Brad



> Paul
>
> ___
> 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 - Runway Holding Positions

2019-03-29 Thread Brad Neuhauser
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 2:14 PM Steven Estes  wrote:

> Sorry, I was confused.  It looks the tag format would be
> aeroway=holding_position:type=runway.
>

I think you have a typo here, in practice this would be two separate
key/value tags: aeroway=holding_position and holding_position:type=runway.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Feature Proposal - Voting - Dog poop area (dog_toilet)

2018-06-11 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Just an FYI, pet/service animal "relief areas" are now required in US
airports of a certain size. That's probably why the four places tagged
amenity=pet_relief_area are in US airports. See
http://petfriendlytravel.com/airports

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 4:08 AM, José G Moya Y.  wrote:

> Thank you!
>
> Regards,
>
> José
>
> El lun., 11 de junio de 2018 7:59, 
> escribió:
>
>> There is already:
>>
>>
>>
>> amenity=waste_basket + waste=dog_excrement
>>
>>
>>
>> often co-located with a:
>>
>>
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:vending%3Dexcrement_bags
>>
>>
>>
>> Tagging of collection bags and bins should probably make use of existing
>> tags for such features instead of adding new ones.
>>
>>
>>
>> Same in regards to availability of water, though I haven’t looked into
>> what if any existing tags are already used for that.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* José G Moya Y. 
>> *Sent:* Monday, 11 June 2018 15:49
>> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <
>> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Feature Proposal - Voting - Dog poop area
>> (dog_toilet)
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Just a question. I think someone else (or maybe myself) asked it on a
>> previous discussion. You provide means to tag collection bags and bins.
>>
>> How do we tag when we only have the bins (but not a dedicated poop area)?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>> Greetings from Madrid,
>>
>>
>>
>> José Moya
>>
>>
>>
>> El lun., 11 de junio de 2018 0:54, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
>> escribió:
>>
>> On 11/06/18 02:51, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 10. Jun 2018 14:50 by joost.schou...@gmail.com:
>>
>> The four options could be moved somewhere else; I just left them for
>> reference. What should I do with them? I'd hate to just delete it.
>>
>>
>>
>> I edited page to describe them as considered and rejected alternatives.
>>
>>
>> I would move them (all the detail) to the 'discussion page' to remove
>> clutter. Leave a comment on it on the main page referring to the discussion
>> page if they want more info.
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Outdoor tribunes/ seating steps

2018-03-20 Thread Brad Neuhauser
The tags amenity=theatre, theatre:type=amphi is used for this:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/theatre%3Atype=amphi

Kind of clunky, but at least doesn't assume it's a building.

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 12:27 PM, Tomasz Wójcik  wrote:

> I think there is a problem with outdoor tribunes/ seating steps correct
> tagging.
>
> - leisure=stadium tag is for whole complex, not only for stadium (it
> includes side pitches, parking etc.)
> - building=stadium tag is for stadium as a building (in OSM we assume that
> building is a construction, where we can enter "inside" it)
> - building=grandstand tag is for tribunes, but there is assumption, that
> it's kind of a building (as building=* these areas are rendered like any
> other building, which is suggesting, that there is classic building or roof
> in this place)
>
> Looking at tribunes/ seating steps in amphitheatres or parks etc., they
> absolutely aren't a buildings. Examples:
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/
> Amfiteatr_-_Przemyśl1.jpg/800px-Amfiteatr_-_Przemyśl1.jpg
>
> http://www.nagawki.pl/gallery/Amfiteatr.jpg
>
> https://d-nm.ppstatic.pl/kadr/k/r/fd/dd/57bf29eda3e82_o,
> size,933x0,q,70,h,a2d028.jpg
>
>
> I think we need separate tag for them.
>
> ___
> 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] Tagging fraction house numbers?

2018-03-12 Thread Brad Neuhauser
I found it hard to pull out usage of "1/2" through taginfo, but was able to
search for usage of the UTF-8 version (½):
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=%C2%BD#values It's used very few
times (~200) and many are by the same user, which seems like more argument
against using UTF-8.

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 11:17 AM, James  wrote:

> so far the fractions I've seen are ½ and ¾ and ¼. On phones it's very easy
> to input fraction in unicode(press and hold the numerical value of the
> numerator: 1 for ½, ¼ or 2 for ⅔), but I agree that dealing with Bom of
> UTF-8 usually ends up being messed up and is why I'm asking what the norm
> for OSM is
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018, 12:04 PM Vladimír Slávik, 
> wrote:
>
>> Technical: Unicode will be hard to manipulate by hand without a table of
>> characters/symbols to copy from. Subsequent editors or users down the chain
>> of tools will break it. Most prominently, search may break, because users
>> will not know how to input 1/2. (Oh look, I just didn't, either...).
>>
>> Is it common to have more complicated fractions? Here we append letters
>> to do the same, and I have seen places where they had to go all the way to
>> "h" - which would be 1/8 for you? Or 8/8? Does unicode even have 8/8? I
>> haven't been able to find a decisive answer.
>> -- Původní e-mail --
>> Od: James 
>> Komu: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <
>> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
>> Datum: 12. 3. 2018 16:46:40
>> Předmět: [Tagging] Tagging fraction house numbers?
>>
>> https://i.imgur.com/eigT5hX_d.jpg?maxwidth=640=thumb;
>> fidelity=medium
>>
>> How should this be tagged in housenumber? Using unicode ( ½ ) or ASCII(
>> 1/2 )?
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Tagging for an American Wild & Scenic river

2018-02-02 Thread Brad Neuhauser
"Wild and Scenic River" is specifically mentioned on the wiki as
boundary=protected_area, protect_class=5. Look at the table for
nature-protected areas
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area#Nature-protected-areas>,
and scroll down to the US section. Cheers, Brad

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 10:47 PM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 9:54 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3 February 2018 at 12:00, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 7:44 PM, Dave Swarthout <daveswarth...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I asked this question last week of the OSM Help community:
>>>>
>>>> I'm looking for tagging that will indicate that a particular river in
>>>> the United States is a "Wild and Scenic River" as defined by the Wild &
>>>> Scenic Rivers Act. I have searched with Overpass for waterway=* that also
>>>> has a scenic=yes tag but it turned up no results. Can anyone provide some
>>>> guidance and/or examples?
>>>>
>>>> Like you, I know of the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers
>>> designations.
>>> Like you, I lack a good way to tag them.
>>> If nobody else has come up with anything - and do let's also ask on
>>> talk-us,
>>> since this is a peculiarly American designation - then let's invent
>>> something
>>> and Wikify it.
>>>
>>> Without knowing the details of just what a "Wild Scenic" river is, could
>> you use the nature=conservation tag in conjunction with waterway=?
>>
>
> Wild and Scenic Rivers are linear protected areas designated by statute in
> the US.  https://www.rivers.gov/
>
> Designating the waterway itself is a good start, but Wild and Scenic
> Rivers (also Recreational Rivers in New York State) generally also have
> associated corridors that should have some sort of boundary=protected_area
> (and we can debate what protect_class might be appropriate) associated with
> them.
>
> I'm aware of several rivers that are so designated that I've visited, but
> I've not done the necessary research to figure out how to represent them
> and their corridors. The Federal program has downloadable Public Domain
> data on its web site that I have not examined.
>
> My home state of New York actually has very few of them that are Federally
> designated - the Delaware, on the Pennsylvania line. This is because the
> State anticipated the Federal government and came up with its own
> designations http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/32739.html and came up with
> its own program to administer them http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6033.html
> .
>
> The Federal program is not universally loved: https://www.flickr.com/
> photos/66934423@N00/10605220
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Unofficial name change of "Lake Calhoun" in Minneapolis, Minnesota

2017-06-08 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Hi I live in Minneapolis and am excited for this change. For Clifford and
whoever else is interested, here's an article that has the Dakota
pronunciation for Bde Maka Ska and some other area lakes:
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/10/14/bdemakaska-lake-calhoun

Locally there's been an increasing awareness of the indigenous land we are
living on--for example see this map the city did with some of the
indigenous place names within Minneapolis:
https://streets.mn/2017/06/05/map-monday-dakota-and-ojibwe-place-names-in-minneapolis/
As an OSM tie-in, I've been adding Dakota (name:dak) and Ojibwe (name:oj)
names for some physical features in Minnesota.

Cheers,
Brad (aka neuhausr)

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Clifford Snow <cliff...@snowandsnow.us>
wrote:

>
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Tom Hardy <rhardy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Huh.  That one flew right by me.  Noted.  Now I have to learn to
>> pronounce it.
>
>
> Me too. Next time I'm in Minneapolis I don't want to see like a tourist
> and pronounce it incorrectly.
>
> FYI - We "renamed" our county because the original person was also a slave
> owner. Fortunately we went from being named after William R. King to Martin
> Luther King, Jr. So King County became King County. Much easier.
>
> --
> @osm_seattle
> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>
> ___
> 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] Tagging town/village/hamlet - am I misunderstanding something?

2017-03-27 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Two issues:

1) Recommended OSM tagging for place=* on smaller settlements is on the
wiki:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place#Populated_settlements.2C_urban_and_rural
You can see it's based mainly on population and is not directly correlated
to the form of government. Seems like admin_level=* is the place for levels
of government--see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_admin_level  (Ft
Montgomery has a population of about 1500, so I'd agree with Martin to tag
it as place=village.)

2) The rendering of labels for places varies. If you take a look at the
area on the four map layers on osm.org, a Fort Montgomery label appears 0,
1, or 2 times. So tag for what it is, not for rendering.

Brad


On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As a side note, your example Fort Montgomery, NY, to me doesn't look like
>> a hamlet, there's an elementary school, shops, a fire department, gas
>> station, hotel, cafe, sports grounds, and a significant amount of houses, I
>> would consider calling this a village.
>>
>
> Local convention in New York is to follow the legal definitions. Fort
> Montgomery is legally a hamlet.  New York has a few 'hamlets' that are
> actually small cities. (Levittown, population about 52,000, is the largest
> of these.) Villages, towns, and cities are incorporated places with their
> own local governments. Hamlets have no local government other than the
> township and county that they're in.
>
> ___
> 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] Snowmobile routes

2016-09-27 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Minnesota has a bunch too.
http://dnr.state.mn.us/snowmobiling/interactive_map/index.html  I'm sure
it's the same for other states. I personally don't snowmobile but have just
noticed many ways tagged in OSM since they sometimes follow bike routes. :)

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I agree that route=snowmobile makes more sense. Since there were exactly
> zero uses of the tag in the US, I missed it entirely. (Then again, I don't
> know how many jurisdictions have numbered snowmobile routes overlaid on the
> highway and trail networks!)
>
> Are we agreed, then, on the following?
>
>- roles should be the same as for route=road
>- name, network and ref should be filled in where available. In
>general, either a name or a network/ref pair is expected.
>- US:NY:snowmobile:corridor and US:NY:snowmobile:secondary are
>reasonable choices for the network
>
> If I don't hear cries and screams, expect a proposal on the Wiki at some
> point. (I also haven't abandoned access=permit, just gotten sidetracked on
> some actual mapping and haven't got back to it yet.)
>
> Incidentally, US:NY:snowmobile:corridor and US:NY:snowmobile:secondary
> form an extensive network of about 15000 km. There's a route map at
> http://www.nysnowmobilewebmap.com/webmap/ The numbered routes are in red
> (corridor) and orange (secondary). Blue are un-numbered routes belonging to
> local clubs. The underlying GIS data that were used for that map are free
> for us to use, but I do NOT propose an import because they don't meet my
> standards of data quality. Just to begin with, they are digitized at an
> inappropriately small scale.
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Brad Neuhauser <brad.neuhau...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> It may not be "officially recognized" but route=snowmobile is used some
>> [0], and IMHO makes a lot more sense than route=road!
>>
>> [0] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/route=snowmobile
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> I thought sure that I had raised this question before, but a quick troll
>>> through the archives doesn't seem to show it.
>>>
>>> New York State has an extensive network of designated snowmobile routes,
>>> intended to be long-distance continuous paths. In some cases, they follow
>>> highways, or logging roads on state land. In other cases, the state offers
>>> grants to private landowners to maintain the route, funded out of
>>> snowmobile registration fees. (At least that's my understanding of how the
>>> system works. I'm not a snowmobilist). Except where the route is groomed
>>> alongside a highway (or sometimes on the highway - not all our roads are
>>> open to motor vehicles in winter), other motor vehicles are ordinarily
>>> forbidden.
>>>
>>> These routes are marked with a highway shield, with reassurance markers
>>> at intervals. There are even two tiers of routes: 'corridor' and
>>> 'secondary'. Both are long-distance routes, so they are not appropriate for
>>> the name=* field on a track or path. (Example: Haul Road No. 1 in the Dutch
>>> Settlement State Forest is blazed for both the New York Long Path
>>> (route=hiking) and Snowmobile Corridor Route 7B. A highway shield on a
>>> snowmobile route looks like https://flic.kr/p/nPeMwe.
>>>
>>> We don't (yet?) have a 'route=snowmobile' officially recognized. What I
>>> used recently when a hike (gathering map data for something else) took me
>>> for a while on a snowmobile corridor was 'route=road
>>> network=US:NY:snowmobile:corridor ref=7B'. (If it had been a secondary
>>> route, it would of course have been US:NY:snowmobile:secondary.) I feel a
>>> little uncomfortable about route=road, which seems to be tailored for motor
>>> vehicles, but the tagging would be in all ways the same - type, network,
>>> route, ref are all there, and even most of the roles are possible (there
>>> are link trails, for instance, providing access to nearby highways, or
>>> places where a route splits into a one-way pair).
>>>
>>> Does this sound plausible?
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Snowmobile routes

2016-09-26 Thread Brad Neuhauser
It may not be "officially recognized" but route=snowmobile is used some
[0], and IMHO makes a lot more sense than route=road!

[0] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/route=snowmobile

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> I thought sure that I had raised this question before, but a quick troll
> through the archives doesn't seem to show it.
>
> New York State has an extensive network of designated snowmobile routes,
> intended to be long-distance continuous paths. In some cases, they follow
> highways, or logging roads on state land. In other cases, the state offers
> grants to private landowners to maintain the route, funded out of
> snowmobile registration fees. (At least that's my understanding of how the
> system works. I'm not a snowmobilist). Except where the route is groomed
> alongside a highway (or sometimes on the highway - not all our roads are
> open to motor vehicles in winter), other motor vehicles are ordinarily
> forbidden.
>
> These routes are marked with a highway shield, with reassurance markers at
> intervals. There are even two tiers of routes: 'corridor' and 'secondary'.
> Both are long-distance routes, so they are not appropriate for the name=*
> field on a track or path. (Example: Haul Road No. 1 in the Dutch Settlement
> State Forest is blazed for both the New York Long Path (route=hiking) and
> Snowmobile Corridor Route 7B. A highway shield on a snowmobile route looks
> like https://flic.kr/p/nPeMwe.
>
> We don't (yet?) have a 'route=snowmobile' officially recognized. What I
> used recently when a hike (gathering map data for something else) took me
> for a while on a snowmobile corridor was 'route=road
> network=US:NY:snowmobile:corridor ref=7B'. (If it had been a secondary
> route, it would of course have been US:NY:snowmobile:secondary.) I feel a
> little uncomfortable about route=road, which seems to be tailored for motor
> vehicles, but the tagging would be in all ways the same - type, network,
> route, ref are all there, and even most of the roles are possible (there
> are link trails, for instance, providing access to nearby highways, or
> places where a route splits into a one-way pair).
>
> Does this sound plausible?
>
> ___
> 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] Turn Lane Tagging?

2016-06-11 Thread Brad Neuhauser
On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Tijmen Stam  wrote:

> On 2016-06-11 23:11, Tijmen Stam wrote:
>>
>> On 11-06-16 04:16, James Mast wrote:
>>>
 I've been using the "turn:lanes:*=none;slight_right" &
 "slight_left;none" tags to indicate which side a new lane has been added
 on a highway when going from 1 to 2 lanes (sometimes
 "slight_left;slight_right" if the original lane is centered between the
 two new lanes).  How else are people to properly identify which side the
 new lane is being added to?

>>>
>>> NOO!
>>>
>>> That's what the transit:-tag is for:
>>> 
>>>
>>
> On 11-06-16 23:22, Colin Smale wrote:
> > I assume "transition" is meant, and not "transit"...
>


> c) nope, the wiki clearly states the "transit" key and that's what the
> Lane and road attributes reacts to. I think transition would've been better
> too.
>

You mean, the *proposal* on the wiki (that has mainly been edited by one
person, and that has not even been voted on) states that "transit" is the
key. So, in fact now would be a *perfect* time to change the key to
something that 1) makes better sense in vernacular English and 2) won't
have a chance to be confused with transit in the sense of "public transit"
or "mass transit". (note that https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Transit
even redirects to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Model railroad exhibition/show

2016-05-22 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Subtagging tourism=attraction seems reasonable to me, such as
tourism=attraction, attraction=model_railway

There is a bit of usage of club=model_railway
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=model_railway#values

On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 5:45 AM, Tijmen Stam  wrote:

> Is there a proper tag for a model railroad layout open to the public?
> I am talking about small-scale, non-ridable layouts inside a building, and
> am thinking about a leisure= tag on a node.
> I explicitly do NOT want to layout the entire rail.
>
> Examples:
> http://www.train-miniature-gaillacois.fr/crbst_9.html (very outdated site)
> http://www.miniatur-wunderland.com/ (which is tagged with the generic
> tourism=attraction)
>
> Tijmen
>
> ___
> 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] Tagging airport approach aid systems

2015-11-05 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Hi, I've been the person updating the aeroway=navigationaid wikipage over
the past year or two, so I messaged geozeisig about the "Please use
airmark=beacon instead" banner. It sounds like the German OSM community
came up with the airmark=beacon scheme, and it is more fully documented on
the German version of the page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:airmark%3Dbeacon

We agree it would be good to come up with one scheme if possible, rather
than parallel schemes. I've put together a table comparing the schemes at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:aeroway%3Dnavigationaid. Any
input there or on the tagging list is welcome!

Thanks, Brad (neuhausr)

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 6:45 AM, David Marchal <pene...@live.fr> wrote:

> Hello, there.
>
> I'm trying to map some approach aid systems on a local airport, but I have
> trouble choosing the correct tags: the wiki mentions aeroway=navigationaid,
> and navigationaid=* to precise type, but this page has a banner telling to
> use airmark=beacon, an almost empty page with no instruction to precise the
> type of aid; the airmark tag wiki page is also empty. How should I map the
> approach aid systems? Which landuse should I use for the underlying land,
> as this land is only maintained for the approach aid system, nothing else?
>
> Hoping you can help me,
>
> Regards.
> ___
> 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] How to tag cricket nets?

2015-09-28 Thread Brad Neuhauser
There is a different approach that some have taken to use the sport as the
key and indicate it is a practice area via the value, for example:

golf=driving_range (sometimes on its own, sometimes with sport=golf,
leisure=golf_course and/or leisure=pitch) [0] [1]
baseball=batting_cage (usually with leisure=pitch, sport=baseball) [2]

[0]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course#Details_within_a_golf_course
[1] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/golf=driving_range
[2] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/baseball=batting_cage

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> On 29 September 2015 at 13:55, Kieron Thwaites 
> wrote:
>
>> Out of all of the below suggestions, I prefer:
>>
>> leisure:practice=*
>> sport=*
>>
>> This, to me, is the most backwards-compatible option, as you could retain
>> a
>> leisure=* tag on the object.  It also gives scope to tag indoor cricket
>> nets
>> (the larger cricket clubs and major cricket stadiums have these) --
>> something
>> like leisure:practice=fitness_centre; sport=cricket would work there.
>>
>
> So for cricket nets,
>
> leisure=pitch (they are still a kind of pitch)
> sport=cricket (they are related to the sport of cricket)
> leisure:practice=nets (they are practice pitches, of type nets)
>
> ___
> 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] To mark as covered, or to not mark as covered?

2015-05-28 Thread Brad Neuhauser
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Richard ricoz@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 01:09:56PM -0500, Brad Neuhauser wrote:
  If this is like many fuel stations, it's probably just a roof with no
  walls. Typically, I've seen those tagged building=roof. In that case, the
  covered=* tag seems redundant.

 true, but I consider building=roof somewhat poor as the roof isn't
 usually floating in the air but there are pylons, sometimws one or
 more walls and often a building attached.

 Richard

 does it make a difference whether the roof is attached to walls (or a
building), or whether it's on pylons? the wiki for building=roof says it
can be used when a structure is open on at least 2 sides, which would seem
to include a structure with no walls.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] To mark as covered, or to not mark as covered?

2015-05-28 Thread Brad Neuhauser
If this is like many fuel stations, it's probably just a roof with no
walls. Typically, I've seen those tagged building=roof. In that case, the
covered=* tag seems redundant.

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Bryan Housel br...@7thposition.com
wrote:

 Isn’t that exactly the situation that `covered` is for - so that
 validators don’t raise a warning about the way passing through a building?
 (I don’t use this tag myself, but I assumed that’s why it exists).


  On May 28, 2015, at 1:41 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:
 
  Here is another excessively mapped covered tag:
  http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/182529550
 
  ___
  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] shop=confectionery / pastry / candy / sweets

2015-05-12 Thread Brad Neuhauser
We're kind of circling back to the discussion from 2013. For example, see
this talk page about the failed bread bakery proposal:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposal/bread_bakery

IIRC, the main thing that came out of that was it became clear that
different cultures have very different expectations of what goods they
would find at a bakery.

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 4:34 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
 wrote:


 2015-05-11 17:10 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com:

 In my experience, most places that sell pastries would be better tagged
 as bakery. Even if they only sell pastries (ie no bread), they do have to
 bake them, right? :)



 I wouldn't tag a place as bakery which doesn't sell bread. This is also in
 line with the osm wiki:

 A *bakery* is a shop selling bread. Bakeries normally bake fresh bread
 on the premises. Normally also sell pastries, cakes, etc. Often do fresh
 sandwiches or baguettes. Often do decorated cakes.
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dbakery



 Besides that I am not really happy with the definition there, as it is
 very Britain / central European (German) centric. Baguettes or decorated
 cakes are particular kind of baked goods that won't be found all around
 the world in bakeries.

 The main purpose of a bakery is to make and sell bread.
 Whether they also sell pizza, or what kind of bread they sell, whether
 they also sell sweets, coca cola, milk, flowers, sunglasses or olive oil is
 secondary and should not (IMHO) appear in the main definition.

 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


Re: [Tagging] shop=confectionery / pastry / candy / sweets

2015-05-11 Thread Brad Neuhauser
In my experience, most places that sell pastries would be better tagged as
bakery. Even if they only sell pastries (ie no bread), they do have to bake
them, right? :)

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 5:43 AM, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com
wrote:

 On 11/05/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
  I believe there is some overlap between the shop values
 
  confectionery
  pastry
  candy
  sweets
 
  shop=confectionery is used much more often than the other 3 (10K vs. 300
  vs. 100 vs. 50) and is likely covering all of these, but is quite
 generic.
  For the very reason it can be used for both: pastry (baker's confections)
  and candy (sugar confections), it is often less useful IMHO (at least
  without subtag, which is currently not documented). often, because in
  some countries these tend to be distinct shops, but in other contexts
 there
  might be shops that are offering both kind.
 
  If you are looking for sugar confections or baker's confections, finding
 a
  shop that only sells the other variant of confections will not be helpful
  but rather a big annoyance.
 
  From previous discussions on this matter I believe to remember that
  pastry is actually not covering the entire subset of baker's
 confections,
  so the term might be less appropriate.
 
  sweets is not very specific neither, is not defined in the wiki and can
  maybe cover both, candy and pastry, or might be a synonym for candy/sugar
  confections (I am not sure about this, would be nice to hear what the
  natives say). It also doesn't seem to add any additional information with
  respect to confectionery, so I would suggest to deprecate its use
  completely.
 
  I think we could deal with this situation in several ways:
 
  a) use confectionery, pastry and candy as competing top-level tags and
  suggest to be the most specific where possible (i.e. aim to have only
 mixed
  shops tagged with the generic confectionery tag and recommend the more
  specific pastry and candy tags where applicable).
 
  b) recommend to only use confectionery as the main top level tag and use
  subtags like bakers_confectionery=yes and/or sugar_confectionery=yes to
  make the distinction
 
  c) your suggestion here
 
  Personally I favor b). What do you think?

 My initial reaction was there's no overlap between pastry and
 confectionery, they are totally different things. Some cultural
 background: in France, shops selling candys are very rare, but shops
 selling pastries are very common because bread shops are everywhere
 and usually also sell pastries and danishes. Pastry-only shops are
 quite rare. See also shop=patisserie (62 uses).

 But using shop=confectionery and refining that into raw sug^W^Wsubtags
 makes sense too.

 For the subtag itself, I'm not a fan of FOO_confectionery=yes: I think
 that confectionery=FOO follows established tag-creation best practices
 better. It's used a bit in the db already. And if one needs to tag
 multiple types, either confectionery=FOO;BAR or
 confectionery:FOO=yes confectgionery:BAR=yes works for me (but I
 prefer the later).

 ___
 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] Tagging of historic=monument

2015-05-07 Thread Brad Neuhauser
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 12:11 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:

 There is confusion between monument and memorial ... suggest follow the
 definitions under the OSM tag historic .. where
 monument is large ... as in you can walk inside it, over it.
 memorial is small .. say a plaque

 As far as I can tell, the distinction is about size, but vague words like
small and large used, and the examples given are at the extreme ends
(building vs. plaque). People need more guidelines to know where the
dividing line is in the middle. For example, is there a certain height (3m?
5m? 10m?) where a tower or pillar changes from memorial to monument? Or a
certain amount of area (10 sq m? 25? 100?) something covers to change from
memorial to monument?

By way of example, on the historic=memorial page, there is a photo of a
stone cross over 5m tall which could certainly fit the way monument is
defined on that page An object, especially large and made of stone, built
to remember and show respect to a person or group of people

I don't especially care where the line is, but if people are concerned
about mistagging then this should be clarified.

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


Re: [Tagging] Tag: shop: hifi

2015-05-01 Thread Brad Neuhauser
shop=hifi has almost 6000 uses, so it must fill a need for some people.
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/shop=hifi

If hifi is too specific for you, you could always use shop=electronics.

Also, there is this note on the hifi wiki page regarding hifi vs.
electronics:
The suggested distinction is that a shop=electronics shop is primarily
focused on consumer electronics, and may sell hi-fi components, but is not
focused on them and not a meeting point for audiophiles, However that's
quite a subtle and subjective distinction, and something which may be
better represented as a property tag of a shop=electronics

(side note: looking at a random assortment in the UK, I do see some hifi
that might be mistagged--for example, I'd expect HMV to be tagged as
shop=music not shop=hifi?)

Cheers, Brad

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:10 AM, pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com
wrote:

 Hi,

 Somewhere else in OSM world, 'hifi shops' has been mentioned. I take this
 to mean in connection with 'musical entertainment systems' such as 'radio',
 CD players and other audio reproduction electronics. As such, I feel the
 term 'hifi' is too 'narrow' and inadequate for the range of equipment that
 can perform this function. I think a good example is Richer Sounds
 http://www.richersounds.com/ - looking at their horizontal top menu:

 Hi-Fi
 TV  Home Cinema
 Speakers
 Streaming, Wireless  Multi-room
 Systems
 Portable Audio
 Headphones
 Gaming
 Accessories  Furniture
 Clearance
 Installations
 Tech Blog


 Hence I wonder if a more appropriate tag for such shops can be found ?

 --
 Mike.
 @millomweb https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction -
 For all your info on Millom and South Copeland
 via *the area's premier website - *

 *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family,
 property  pets*

 TCs https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail

 ___
 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] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

2015-04-30 Thread Brad Neuhauser
+1 on addr:unit or ref over addr:housenumber. I think ref makes more sense
than addr:unit on remote/isolated pitches (ie hike-in sites, not drive-in).

In addition, I've seen cases where individual pitches are named instead of
numbered. It's not mentioned, but to clarify, I'm assuming that would just
use name

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:

  On 30/04/2015 11:17 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:

  On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 5:37 PM, John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote:

  That sounds like “tagging for the renderer” to me.

  When rendering lags tagging behavior, there is that temptation.


 Rendering will always lag behind tagging.

 If tagging is to be rendered then adding another tag to have it rendered
 will lead to the original tag being ignored by renders .. Catch 22.

  Also, it's more likely to be rendered if the tagging is well-defined and
sensible. If the tagging is awkwardly trying to fit into a particular
rendering, or overly complicated, it's probably not going to be used by
mappers long-term.

I think detailed renderings of campgrounds sounds like a perfect case for a
specialized map, maybe on a new map, or added to one of these:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/List_of_OSM-based_services#Biking.2C_Geocaching.2C_Hiking.2C_Sport
So I wouldn't sweat whether it's rendered right now or not, someone is
going to scratch that itch.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] sport=shooting Shooting Range

2015-04-13 Thread Brad Neuhauser


 Usually we have names for the area where things take place (pitch, track,
 pool) and the sport (sport=*)

 A range is one of those places. Usually there are no mixed ranges (archery
 and rifles, etc) are separate

 So leisure=range + sport=archery for an archery range or sport=shooting
 for a shooting range.

 I've usually seen leisure=pitch used with archery. Scanning through the
few features tagged with leisure=range, they appear to all be shooting
ranges.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] sport=shooting Shooting Range

2015-04-13 Thread Brad Neuhauser
I get your, er, point, although I don't think you would want to randomly
wander into a batting cage or hockey rink in the middle of practice either.
:)

The bigger issue is there are over 1300 sport=archery tags, and both on the
wiki and in actual usage, leisure=pitch (or sports_centre) is what's used
with them, not range. Maybe there's a distinction one could make for range,
but frankly, archery is the tag that'll let people know there are likely to
be arrows flying around.

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 7:19 AM, John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote:





 I've usually seen leisure=pitch used with archery. Scanning through the
 few features tagged with leisure=range, they appear to all be shooting
 ranges.



 The only big difference between them is the noise level and the length of
 the projectile. They both have designated stands for the person, the
 no-mans land of the range, targets of various forms, and some kind of
 projectile containment system (high walls, steel plate, dirt bank, etc).

 There are quite a few archery ranges (on school grounds) here in Japan,
 and I sure as hell never want to accidentally go on one thinking it is a
 pitch.

 A 3m long traditional bow looks like it could put a practice arrow through
 my body.

 It has the word range in its title for a reason.

 ___
 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] waterway=lock_gate - is it only for nodes?

2015-03-17 Thread Brad Neuhauser
 We always recommend that all natural and cultural features are tagged as
 per OSM Wiki  only add Seamark tags where there is a non-coincident
 definition and the nautical definition is of special navigational
 importance.

 Locks  their gates do not fall into that category  so we do not
 recommend using Seamark tags for these objects. Where you may find them is
 probably where data has been imported from S57 ENC charts  the importer
 has not re-tagged (or double tagged) them.

 That's good to know, thanks! However, I don't see any such recommendation
on the gate page that was referenced above (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenSeaMap/Gates), or on other
OpenSeaMap tagging pages (ie
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenSeaMap/Seamark_Objects). Is there
something I'm missing?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] waterway=lock_gate - is it only for nodes?

2015-03-16 Thread Brad Neuhauser


 For boat navigation purposes this should be crosslinked:
   http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenSeaMap/Gates


Isn't it the other way around? That is, the people who tagged
seagate:category:gate=lock (24 objects) should be making sure to also tag
waterway=lock_gate (15K objects), not vice versa.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk

2015-03-12 Thread Brad Neuhauser
I'm wondering, there seems to be potential overlap with
tourism=information. From what is written on the reception desk page, it
seems like the main difference is that the tag reception_desk also controls
access to a site, and a reception desk which only gives information may as
well be tagged tourism=information. Is that accurate?

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de wrote:

 - It's not simple at all. Using amenity
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:amenity=* for this makes it
 impossible to combine it with such POIs. Also why amenity at all? For me
 it looks like a I didn't find anything better, I mean amenity
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:amenity=reception_desk
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dreception_desk can't
 even stand on its owm.

 with which POI should this be combined _on the same object_? I mean,
 this is a tag for a reception desk, obviously it can be combined with
 other amenities by putting it inside them, but you won't have many
 objects that are at the same time a reception desk and don't know,
 toilets? An example why this is a problem would help to understand the
 reservation.


 Look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:amenity and tell me those
 don't have reception desks.

 And you can't put them inside and amenity if it's just a node of a
 building like for example many doctors. By adding *=reception_desk to such
 a node it would be clear that someone did not just put a random node
 somewhere on the building, but that the doctor is actually there.

 Also what about receptions at big companies, factories etc. where you
 often also have a gate. Do you just use the tag for that? Is reception_DESK
 really fitting?

 http://bavaria-werkschutz.de/cms/files/img/header-teaser/Werkschutz.jpg

 __
 openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎



 ___
 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] Canopy radius for natural=tree

2015-02-23 Thread Brad Neuhauser
diameter crown also doesn't appear to be vernacular English,
unfortunately. Crown diameter or crown spread seem to be more widely
used.  For example, see
http://www.treeterms.co.uk/definitions/crown-diameter, and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_crown_measurement#Crown_Spread_Methodologies

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:

  On 24/02/2015 5:09 AM, althio wrote:

 From usage at
 http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=tree#combinations

 I will suggest you look into:
 145 135 diameter_crown
 http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/diameter_crown=*


 Missing documentation in the wiki?

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:natural%3Dtree#Size

 The suggestion there is tree_spread .. also undocumented.

 diameter_crown looks to be used by JOSM ... pity they did not document it.

 ___
 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] Practice pitch?

2015-02-22 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Personally I'd probably include leisure=pitch. Maybe for some people, the
batting cage is the game? :)

I think baseball=batting_cage makes sense (like golf's driving range). The
golf example doesn't make clear whether it'd be best to include the sport
tag too. I'm inclined to include sport=baseball too, then one query could
get baseball diamonds as well as batting cages.

Cheers,
Brad

On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 7:24 AM, John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote:

 Here is the location of the batting cage business I started mapping (they
 have a small cafe inside of the main building)
 Across the big street is a driving range.
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/36.35556/139.04995

 Baseball=? brought up the batting cages tag in iD, so I used that. But is
 that really a pitch?

 Javbw

 On Feb 22, 2015, at 9:12 PM, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote:

 I’m trying to tag businesses in Japan, and 2 common sports businesses I
 have seen are Golf Driving Ranges  - giant netted monstrosities that are
 everywhere all over Japan. I mean everywhere - there are tons of them.
 They are not part of a golf course, just a stand-alone business on a hill,
 in a field, or occasionally on top of buildings in big towns.  They are
 often the tallest structure in a rural town.

 The next is batting cages - small areas with enclosed pitching machines,
 arranged linearly like a driving range, but with pitching machines and a
 much smaller enclosed area. there are several just in my little town.

 I saw there is a golf=driving_range - so I was tagging the driving range
 itself as a pitch and then the (sometimes 2-3 story) building that you
 drive from, and then finally on the commercial landuse sports=golf +
 golf=driving_range. (this is where the fence=net came up).

 There are also a lot of batting practice places - the national sport of
 Japan is baseball, and a common High school sport, so there are a lot of
 commercial (and occasionally some private) batting cages.

 They are not part of a greater sports complex, but a business you go just
 to practice batting.  There are usually pitching practice cages at baseball
 fields as well.

 I was trying to figure out how to tag a batting cage business today.

 I found an old proposal for “practice pitch”

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


 which might be good to revisit and approve, as these facilities are
 clearly not for the playing, but rather the practice of a specific aspect
 of the sport.  I feel kinda guilty tagging a drivng range or a batting
 practice netted area as a “pitch” because only the ball collection machines
 go there - but it is also clearly where the practice is happening.


 If this approach isn’t correct, please let me know how to tag a baseball
 batting practice business.

 Otherwise I will try to clean up this proposal for RFC and voting.


 javbw.

 ___
 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] tag for portages?

2015-02-22 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Thanks for the feedback! portage=* was my initial instinct, but I was
starting to second guess after finding the other tags. Cheers, Brad

On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com
wrote:

 This seems like a good place for highway=path + portage=yes
 Because these are definitely still paths (and sometimes coincident with a
 land based path).

 whitewater=portage_way seems overly specific, as does canoe=portage.

 ___
 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] tag for portages?

2015-02-22 Thread Brad Neuhauser
The portages I'm talking about, people carry their canoe as they walk along
the trail, so those things aren't relevant. You seem to be talking about
something different--can you expand on what you mean?

On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 8:45 AM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote:

 How about adding the side ?

 portage=left/right/both
 portage:left=*

 Are there any major differences in construction/use ?
 I know wooden portages but there might be other material.

 Any thoughts how to deal with mircromapping, e.g. adding the portage as
 own object next to a path. What tags should remain on the highway ?

 Cheers fly

 Am 22.02.2015 um 15:25 schrieb Brad Neuhauser:
  Thanks for the feedback! portage=* was my initial instinct, but I was
  starting to second guess after finding the other tags. Cheers, Brad
 
  On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com
  wrote:
 
  This seems like a good place for highway=path + portage=yes
  Because these are definitely still paths (and sometimes coincident with
 a
  land based path).
 
  whitewater=portage_way seems overly specific, as does canoe=portage.
 


 ___
 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] tag for portages?

2015-02-21 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Hi, I'd like to add some tags for canoe portages (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portage) in wilderness areas. These would be
trails tagged highway=path plus some tag to designate that they're used for
portaging between lakes. I have found three different tags that are
currently used to tag portages (there may be others?), and am wondering if
anyone has recommendations about what would be best.

1) portage=* (223 objects)  http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/portage
2) whitewater=portage_way (227 objects)
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/whitewater=portage_way
3) canoe=portage  (67 object)
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/canoe=portage

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


Re: [Tagging] ?=maze

2015-02-20 Thread Brad Neuhauser
The maze/labyrinth distinction is there. When I hear of modern labyrinths,
it's usually in the context of religious/spiritual uses (since there's only
one way, it lends itself to a walking meditation). Mazes are generally like
a recreational puzzle, where you're trying to find your way.  Whether
that's different enough for a separate tag, or just a subtag, I'm not sure.

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:24 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Some forms of mazes and labyrinths

 1.
 - part of or entire garden (often of a castle or stately home or similarly
 representative building), like this one:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maze#mediaviewer/File:Longleat_maze.jpg
 or this one:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maze#mediaviewer/File:Hedge_Maze,_St_Louis_Botanical_Gardens_%28St_Louis,_Missouri_-_June_2003%29.jpg

 These are typically permanent and do last more than a few weeks

 IMHO could be a garden:style
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Garden_specification


 Not sure if this should comprise stone mazes when put in similar context,
 e.g. Donnafugata Castle:

 http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5_VDLUa6b-A/T4LEVS-CuAI/Bxk/9qCCsJ9iyCM/s1600/P1110213.JPG

 or in this Chinese garden:

 http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/ruine-labyrinth-china-peking-yuanmingyuan-18665768.jpg



 2.  seasonal stand alone labyrinths, often made of corn, typical in
 southern Germany but also elsewhere, e.g.
 http://www.maislabyrinth-eutingen.de/bilder?page=2

 one suggestion could be
 amenity=maze as these are dedicated mazes.



 3. Finger labyrinth, engraved mazes

 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labyrinth#mediaviewer/File:Duomo_Lucca_cathedrale_Lucques_labyrinthe.jpg

 maybe tourism=artwork and subtype(s)?



 4. Labyrinth mosaics and floor pavings
 E.g. in portugal, Conimbriga

 http://www.bilder-reiseberichte.de/labyrinthe/bilder/conimbriga-portugal-03-51.jpg
 Or in France, Chartre

 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labyrinth#mediaviewer/File:Labyrinth_at_Chartres_Cathedral.JPG

 ___

 FWIW, I have assumed in my contributions that maze and labyrinth would
 be exchangeable (indeed in German they are), but the English wikipedia
 suggests they are not (they claim: maze=several ways through, labyrinth:
 just one way).

 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


Re: [Tagging] length=

2015-01-27 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Quick note: for milestones, the tag used is distance, not length. There's a
wiki page with all unit tags if you're into that sort of thing:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features/Units

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Michał Brzozowski www.ha...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Just FYI, at OSM-PL people map highway milestones - as nodes near
 highways - which is less prone to error due to people editing
 geometry..
 The map: http://osmapa.pl/konkursy/pikietaz/

 Michał

 ___
 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] Adding water=fishpond to the wiki

2015-01-04 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Have you looked at what tagging people are using (if any) within
landuse=aquaculture and/or landuse=fishfarm areas?

On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote:

 2015-01-04 20:25 GMT+01:00 Lukas Sommer sommer...@gmail.com:

 But we have also yet an existing tag water=pond for ponds. We would
 have to change the defination for this tag from “a pond”
  to “a pond – but not if this is a pond that serves for fishing” –
 sounds complicate …


 A pond is the same as a lake - only smaller. A fishpond isn't used for
 fishing. It's used for farming fish. You can often recognize them from
 satellite imagery. Here's an example:

 https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/45.5208/16.9470




 ___
 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] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag

2015-01-03 Thread Brad Neuhauser
On Saturday, January 3, 2015, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 
  Not sure why a church / temple/ shrine/ mosque landuse would be drawn
 any differently than an office park or a retail shop.

 This could get interesting. St Matthew Lutheran in Beaverton, OR has a Les
 Schwab Tire Center on it's property.

Makes sense if they're...holy rollers. rimshot

Sorry, couldn't resist.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

2014-12-17 Thread Brad Neuhauser

 About supervision vs. childcare, we have lots of free supervised
 playgrounds here which do not offer child care, and and I have no
 experience with staffed child care facilties at malls etc. But for me
 amenity=kindergarten seems to be an good match to child_care you would
 have in a mall.


I know this tag has been at times contentious in the past, due to cultural
and linguistic issues, but some people at least are starting to use
amenity=childcare. According to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dchildcare, it's for a
place where amenity=kindergarten doesn't seem appropriate, for example
because there's no educational component. I think staffed child care at
malls (or at Ikea) would be a case where this would apply.

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - admin_title=*

2014-12-17 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Sorry, the German examples don't mean much to me. Do the examples below
show what you're proposing?

name=Chicago, admin_title=city, admin_level...
name=California, admin_title=state, admin_level

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote:

 This is about a new attribute for administrative devisions.

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

 --
 Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
 Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

 ___
 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] natural=bay as nodes are evil

2014-10-30 Thread Brad Neuhauser
I think this appears to be the reference Richard mentioned:
http://www.iho-ohi.net/iho_pubs/standard/S-23/S23_1953.pdf

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 08:41:18AM +0100, Marc Gemis wrote:
  Could we try an example to see whether mappers agree on bay areas ? could
  you draw the Gulf of Biscay on a map ?
 
  This guy did it :
 
 http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-9_Y031ZiZQ/THowBMn81dI/Ci8/inSvDDa1DC4/s1600/Golf+van+Biskaje.jpg
 
  I might have extended it a bit further to the west on the Spanish
 coast...

 note that the big bodies of water such as the bay of biscay have been
 defined
 by the international hydropgraphic organization, wikipedia provides the
 link.

 Those definitions should be probably mapped, but most likely with a
 special tag
 rather than our natural=bay because their definition of gulf of mexico is
 obviously
 not compatible with our definition of bay (refering to the sentence
 fragment in Cuba,
 through this island to the meridian of 83°W which includes a landmas to
 the
 definition)

 Richard

 ___
 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] Pre-RFC: shop=mall versus shop=shopping_centre

2014-10-21 Thread Brad Neuhauser
I agree with Matthjis--I don't see much of a clearly defined and widely
agreed on difference between the two. Given that, and the small usage of
shopping_centre, I agree with should deprecate shopping_centre.

Cheers, Brad

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 4:43 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 The third is functionally an esplanade (far, far more people walk it than
 drive it), and it's official name is the Portland Mall.  Originally it only
 had bus lanes on it, but Portland being too cheap to install bus traps and
 not exactly having the most rigorous enforcement decided to add a third
 lane about six years ago for through and left turning cars as well to
 prevent interfering with transit service.

 On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 2:00 AM, Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com wrote:

 Paul,

 according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mall your first two examples
 are malls, the third one would not be a mall.

 Volker

 On 21 October 2014 07:57, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 I'm thinking this is a shopping mall
 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Eaton_Centre_HDR_style.jpg,
 and this is a shopping center
 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Strip_Mall_Troy.jpg.
 Not to be confused with a mall http://i.imgur.com/MDVBYKF.jpg.

 On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Matthijs Melissen 
 i...@matthijsmelissen.nl wrote:

 Dear all,

 We have currently two tags with a closely related, if not identical,
 meaning: shop=mall (26 643 instances) and shop=shopping_centre (182
 instances).

 Is there a difference between these two tags, or should we deprecate
 shop=shopping_centre in favour of shop=mall?

 -- Matthijs

 ___
 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



 ___
 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] service= tag confusion

2014-10-20 Thread Brad Neuhauser
I see from the page history that I added service=* to the wiki page, but
I'm sorry to say I cannot remember exactly why. :( While service=* is
definitely in use with car repair shops, it does seem to create the
possibility of confusion. I'd be happy to at least change the wording to
indicate this, or remove it if that's the consensus.

EDIT: looking into this further, service=tyres|dealer|parts|repair, which
are the largest usage of the car repair-service tags (500-1800 uses,
depending), all have wiki redirects to the Russian shop=car page (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU%3ATag%3Ashop%3Dcar). In looking at
the service=tyres map on taginfo, the majority of usage is in Russia too
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/service=tyres#map  Does anyone know
someone who could bring this up on the Russian talk list? (or can read the
Russian wiki page?)

As for alternatives, some people have used car_repair=* but Martin's idea,
though complex, would better allow multiple values.

Cheers,
Brad

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:59 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
 wrote:


 2014-10-20 4:22 GMT+02:00 Jack Burke burke...@gmail.com:

 Is service a valid tag to use with shop=car_repair, and the wiki page for
 service is deficient?  Or is the wiki page for shop=car_repair in error?



 Maybe using the service namespace to create more specific tags would be
 more inline with the current tagging scheme, like it is done for bicycle
 repair (etc.) service:
 http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=service%3Abicycle

 i.e.
 service:car:*=*
 (or service:motorcar ?)

 FWIW, I do not recall the naked service subtag being proposed or
 discussed for car repair businesses.

 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


Re: [Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb

2014-10-16 Thread Brad Neuhauser
In addition to tomb=* and cemetery=grave, there's also this proposal:

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

The proposal states it is mainly for [graves] without historic value
And, it doesn't recommend using relation=person ;)

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 2:00 AM, sabas88 saba...@gmail.com wrote:



 2014-10-16 8:33 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com:

 It seems that are serious problems with this tag, is there somebody
 interested in
 this topic who want to make a better proposal?

 (1) This tag can not be used on the same object as
 historic=archaeological_site -
 despite the fact that many archaeological sites are excavated tombs.

 (2) There is no clear limit for notability, most likely this tag will be
 in future used to
 describe any grave. Even now, some people are using it this way. The same
 happened with natural=tree - originally defined as lone or significant
 tree.

 (3) There is no proposed tag to use for ordinary grave, further
 encuraging using this tag in way other than defined.


 There are used these two
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tomb
 and
 http://taginfo.osm.org/tags/cemetery=grave#overview

 The first is a structured proposal, the second is just used


 see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dtomb

 ___
 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] Problems with historic=tomb

2014-10-16 Thread Brad Neuhauser
responses inline

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
 wrote:


 2014-10-16 16:14 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com:

 In addition to tomb=* and cemetery=grave, there's also this proposal:

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

 The proposal states it is mainly for [graves] without historic value



 Thank you for pointing to this. It seems strange to add the grave:
 prefix to all keys, e.g. ref, inscription etc. because typically you
 can get this context by the object to which a tag is applied to. If this
 context is not clear from the mapping than this is usually a sign that
 there is some problem in the mapping (several entities mixed up into one
 osm object).

 I just noticed it when a user in my area tagged a couple graves this way.
I agree that all the grave: seems unnecessary. In particular, name, ref,
inscription, and memorial could probably all be used as-is. I put a note on
the Discussion page. Do people tag birth/death dates along with
historic=tomb?


 I do not understand the mainly for graves without historic value part.
 Does this exclude graves with historic value, or is it simply a hint that
 there are far more graves for ordinary people than there are for famous
 ones?

 I don't know, but my guess would be it was in counterpoint to the note
that was on historic=tomb restricting its use mainly to notable people's
burial sites. Do you think historic=tomb, tomb=tombstone should be used for
ordinary graves or would a different tag be better?


 cheers,
 Martin

 PS: Usage of the cemetery=grave tag should be discouraged: single graves
 aren't subtypes of cemeteries (and we shouldn't encourage different tagging
 schemes for graves on cemeteries and graves on churchyards, at least IMHO).

 +1

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


Re: [Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb

2014-10-16 Thread Brad Neuhauser
 I do not understand the mainly for graves without historic value part.
 Does this exclude graves with historic value, or is it simply a hint that
 there are far more graves for ordinary people than there are for famous
 ones?



 I don't know, but my guess would be it was in counterpoint to the note
 that was on historic=tomb restricting its use mainly to notable people's
 burial sites. Do you think historic=tomb, tomb=tombstone should be used for
 ordinary graves or would a different tag be better?



 I'm not a native English speaker, but to me it seems strange. What do you
think? I thought that an ordinary grave (a wooden coffin in a hole dug into
the earth) won't qualify as tomb and that there was some structure
required for a tomb. I don't like tomb=tombstone because I'd see the
tombstone (that's the same as a headstone, isn't it?) as part of a tomb or
grave, but not as a subtype for the tomb as a whole in a way that the other
values like pyramid, rock-cut tomb or tumulus are.


As a native English speaker, I agree, tomb seems very different than an
ordinary grave with a tombstone. From looking at wikipedia, the difference
mainly seems to be that a tomb has a structure containing the remains,
whereas with a grave, the remains are buried underground. So in that sense,
tomb=tombstone seems even more odd.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


  1   2   >