Re: [Tagging] Access tags (general question, but mostly regarding bicycle)

2015-09-03 Thread Paul Johnson 
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 13:57:47 +0200
> Richard  wrote:
>
> > Imo *=designated and *=permissive also imply infomration about
> > suitability.
>
> Typically it is true - but in theory something may be legally cycleway
> and unsuitable for cyclists. It would be bicycle=designated (but it is
> mostly theory, I am unaware about any real example).


All examples presume the way is pointing away from the camera.

OK, here's one for a (rather regionally common but otherwise rare) example
of multiple lanes explicitly designated for bicycles in each direction.

highway=tertiary
bicycle=designated
bicycle:lanes:forward=designated|designated
bicycle:lanes:backward=designated|designated

http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/2uo21bX7_QTp8wtdN_J92Q/photo

Here's a little more germain example from further up (away from downtown)
the same bicycle boulevard.

highway=tertiary
bicycle=designated
lanes:forward=2
turn:lanes:forward=left|
bicycle:lanes:forward=yes|designated
lanes:backward=1
bicycle:lanes:backward=designated

http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/aCMWyhAE8Ot7McIhcCZxtA/photo

Bonus round from yet further up:

highway=tertiary
bicycle=designated
cycleway=lane
parking:lanes:right=parallel   (after the parking restriction sign at
least; before that it's fire_lane)
parking:lanes:left=no_stopping  (signs facing away from camera)
lanes:forward=2
motor_vehicle:lanes:forward=yes|no
bicycle:lanes:forward=yes|designated
lanes:backward=2
motor_vehicle:lanes:backward=yes|no
bicycle:lanes:backward=yes|designated
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access tags (general question, but mostly regarding bicycle)

2015-09-03 Thread Volker Schmidt 
Come here to my city to find heaps of designated cycleways that are nearly
unusable!
Both designated and permissive are purely legal access definitions, not
implying anything abut the practical suitability of the way.
To describe the physical suitability we have tags like: surface; width;
smoothness.

On 3 September 2015 at 14:20, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 13:57:47 +0200
> Richard  wrote:
>
> > Imo *=designated and *=permissive also imply infomration about
> > suitability.
>
> Typically it is true - but in theory something may be legally cycleway
> and unsuitable for cyclists. It would be bicycle=designated (but it is
> mostly theory, I am unaware about any real example).
>
> ___
> 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] Access tags (general question, but mostly regarding bicycle)

2015-09-03 Thread Mateusz Konieczny 
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 13:57:47 +0200
Richard  wrote:

> Imo *=designated and *=permissive also imply infomration about
> suitability.

Typically it is true - but in theory something may be legally cycleway
and unsuitable for cyclists. It would be bicycle=designated (but it is
mostly theory, I am unaware about any real example).

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

Re: [Tagging] Access tags (general question, but mostly regarding bicycle)

2015-09-03 Thread Richard 
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 10:38:21PM -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 6:39 AM, Richard  wrote:
> 
> > Just wondered - when did anyone here last see a wheelchair=no road sign?
> > Is any
> > of these 214658 tags correct?
> > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=wheelchair=no
> 
> 
> wheelchair=no is defined by http://wheelmap.org/ conventions, and is a
> suitability tag, not an access tag.
> Thus you'd never write "access:wheelchair=no", where you might write
> "access:foot=no".

Imo *=designated and *=permissive also imply infomration about suitability.

> -
> 
> The project I think would benefit from separating legal and suitability
> access tags,
> and from introducing namespaces.

+1

> Suitability tags are tricky and subjective.  For that reason they should be
> more than yes/no,
> perhaps following something more like sac_scale.

We already have the (somewhat unfortunately named) class:bicyle:*

Richard


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

Re: [Tagging] Access tags (general question, but mostly regarding bicycle)

2015-09-03 Thread Ilpo Järvinen 
Just a minor correction.

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015, Paul Johnson wrote:

> Bonus round from yet further up:
> 
> highway=tertiary
> bicycle=designated
> cycleway=lane
> parking:lanes:right=parallel   (after the parking restriction sign at least;
> before that it's fire_lane)
> parking:lanes:left=no_stopping  (signs facing away from camera)

parking:lane:* not parking:lanes:*.


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

Re: [Tagging] Access tags (general question, but mostly regarding bicycle)

2015-09-02 Thread Bryce Nesbitt 
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 6:39 AM, Richard  wrote:

> Just wondered - when did anyone here last see a wheelchair=no road sign?
> Is any
> of these 214658 tags correct?
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=wheelchair=no


wheelchair=no is defined by http://wheelmap.org/ conventions, and is a
suitability tag, not an access tag.
Thus you'd never write "access:wheelchair=no", where you might write
"access:foot=no".


-

The project I think would benefit from separating legal and suitability
access tags,
and from introducing namespaces.


Suitability tags are tricky and subjective.  For that reason they should be
more than yes/no,
perhaps following something more like sac_scale.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access tags (general question, but mostly regarding bicycle)

2015-09-01 Thread Paul Johnson 
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Ruben Maes  wrote:

> Friday 28 August 2015 19:05:52, Mateusz Konieczny:
> > For example iD - is it clearly
> > indicating that it is about legal status? I am also regularly checking
> > situation in my region and fixing new problem.
>
> In English it's called "Access".
> How it's called in other languages depends on the translators. iD is
> translated at https://www.transifex.com/ideditor/id-editor/.
>
> I'm going to change the Dutch translation to (the equivalent of) "Legal
> access restrictions".


I haven't seen it come up as an issue yet myself, but you may want to
consider rolling out similar wording for all of the translations just to
clarify (or maybe have some kind of "what's this?" or tooltip explaining
the situation).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access tags (general question, but mostly regarding bicycle)

2015-08-30 Thread John Eldredge 
Saying allowed as the prefix would be less ambiguous than access, as 
many people are likely to interpret access as is access possible.  
After all, referring to a location as not wheelchair-accessible means 
that it difficult to get to via wheelchair, not that wheelchair use is 
forbidden.


--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot 
drive out hate; only love can do that. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.




On August 28, 2015 7:42:33 AM Andy Townsend ajt1...@gmail.com wrote:


On 28/08/2015 13:15, Anders Fougner wrote:


So we should consider replacing the tagging scheme with one which
isn't misunderstood so easily.
The use of access:foot=*, access:bicycle=* has been proposed at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access_restrictions_1.5#Namespace
but just not taken into use. It looks good, though...and wouldn't be
so easily misunderstood, I believe.



Based on past experience, not going to happen, for all sorts of
reasons.  Also, I suspect that access:bicycle is just as likely to be
misunderstood as bicycle.  In addition, I suspect that most people
making these sorts of mistakes are relatively new mappers using an
editor that hides tag values from them, so it is also pointless.

Far better, when you see someone locally tagging incorrectly like that,
is to talk to them, explain the problem, and suggest which tags they
should be using.  I'm sure most cycle routers do try and take notice of
sensible tagging (though there will sometimes be problems that need to
be bounced to the router maintainers -
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33592375 and
http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=32884 spring to mind).
The surface tag is the obvious one; specifically for bikes
*mtb:scale* http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/mtb%3Ascale is
probably the most popular locally to me, but near you it might be
something else.

Cheers,

Andy (SomeoneElse)




--
___
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] Access tags (general question, but mostly regarding bicycle)

2015-08-29 Thread Florian Lohoff 
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 02:15:56PM +0200, Anders Fougner wrote:
 Hi,
 as probably most of you are aware of, common access tags such as
 foot=*, bicycle=* etc. are every often misunderstood by the people
 contributing to OSM. The problem is that people, unless they have
 read the wiki, believe that these tags define whether it is
 _possible_ to walk or cycle along a path, instead of the actual
 meaning (whether it is permitted).

Its a communication Problem. When i put a foot=no/bicycle=no on a way
i typically put a note there telling why. Sometimes even with a link
to a mapillary image showing the sign.

I have opened a lot of notes about foot/bicycle/access/hgv/psv=no 
because often these are wrong and set just be the feeling of the
mapper.

There is no solution than communication on a local level.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
 We need to self-defense - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access tags (general question, but mostly regarding bicycle)

2015-08-29 Thread Mateusz Konieczny 
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 21:21:12 +0200
Ruben Maes ruben.mae...@gmail.com wrote:

 Friday 28 August 2015 19:05:52, Mateusz Konieczny:
  For example iD - is it clearly
  indicating that it is about legal status? I am also regularly
  checking situation in my region and fixing new problem.
 
 In English it's called Access.
 How it's called in other languages depends on the translators. iD is
 translated at https://www.transifex.com/ideditor/id-editor/.
 
 I'm going to change the Dutch translation to (the equivalent of)
 Legal access restrictions.
 

I opened https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/2761 (
Rename Access section to Legal access).

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

Re: [Tagging] Access tags (general question, but mostly regarding bicycle)

2015-08-29 Thread Mateusz Konieczny 
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 15:39:45 +0200
Richard ricoz@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 07:05:52PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
  On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:52:17 +0200
  Anders Fougner anders.foug...@gmail.com wrote:
  
   Den 28.08.15 16.56, skrev Mateusz Konieczny:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:15:56 +0200
Anders Fougner anders.foug...@gmail.com wrote:
   
So we should consider replacing the tagging scheme with one
which isn't misunderstood so easily.
The use of access:foot=*, access:bicycle=* has been proposed at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access_restrictions_1.5#Namespace
but just not taken into use. It looks good, though...and
wouldn't be so easily misunderstood, I believe.
Why it would not be so easily misunderstood?
   Well, I think it could be just because people intuitively think
   that highway=path, bicycle=no means it's a trail not _suitable_
   or comfortable with a bike. The word access is simply not there,
   and then they don't even think about that as a possibility. And,
   people not into mountain biking might believe that trails are not
   usable or accessible with bikes unless they are paved or
   otherwise designed for biking.
  
  Adding access: will not improve anything as it is still not
  indicating that it is about legal access. legal_access:bicycle=*
  would at least give chance that it will be more easily understood
  (not that it would be a good idea).
  
 
 that would be one idea. Or accept the fact that people mess it up and
 subclass access into 
 * access:legal,
 * access:suitable
 
 Just wondered - when did anyone here last see a wheelchair=no road
 sign? Is any of these 214658 tags correct?
 http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=wheelchairvalue=no

Note that whellchair tag is defined as Indicate if a special place
can be used with wheelchairs.. It is not like bicycle or foot tags
that are defined to be about legal access.

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

Re: [Tagging] Access tags (general question, but mostly regarding bicycle)

2015-08-29 Thread Richard 
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 07:05:52PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
 On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:52:17 +0200
 Anders Fougner anders.foug...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  Den 28.08.15 16.56, skrev Mateusz Konieczny:
   On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:15:56 +0200
   Anders Fougner anders.foug...@gmail.com wrote:
  
   So we should consider replacing the tagging scheme with one which
   isn't misunderstood so easily.
   The use of access:foot=*, access:bicycle=* has been proposed at
   http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access_restrictions_1.5#Namespace
   but just not taken into use. It looks good, though...and wouldn't
   be so easily misunderstood, I believe.
   Why it would not be so easily misunderstood?
  Well, I think it could be just because people intuitively think that 
  highway=path, bicycle=no means it's a trail not _suitable_ or 
  comfortable with a bike. The word access is simply not there, and
  then they don't even think about that as a possibility. And, people
  not into mountain biking might believe that trails are not usable or
  accessible with bikes unless they are paved or otherwise designed for
  biking.
 
 Adding access: will not improve anything as it is still not indicating
 that it is about legal access. legal_access:bicycle=* would at least
 give chance that it will be more easily understood (not that it would
 be a good idea).
 

that would be one idea. Or accept the fact that people mess it up and subclass 
access into 
* access:legal,
* access:suitable

Just wondered - when did anyone here last see a wheelchair=no road sign? Is any 
of these 214658 tags correct?
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=wheelchairvalue=no

Richard


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

Re: [Tagging] Access tags (general question, but mostly regarding bicycle)

2015-08-28 Thread Andy Townsend 

On 28/08/2015 13:15, Anders Fougner wrote:


So we should consider replacing the tagging scheme with one which 
isn't misunderstood so easily.
The use of access:foot=*, access:bicycle=* has been proposed at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access_restrictions_1.5#Namespace 
but just not taken into use. It looks good, though...and wouldn't be 
so easily misunderstood, I believe.




Based on past experience, not going to happen, for all sorts of 
reasons.  Also, I suspect that access:bicycle is just as likely to be 
misunderstood as bicycle.  In addition, I suspect that most people 
making these sorts of mistakes are relatively new mappers using an 
editor that hides tag values from them, so it is also pointless.


Far better, when you see someone locally tagging incorrectly like that, 
is to talk to them, explain the problem, and suggest which tags they 
should be using.  I'm sure most cycle routers do try and take notice of 
sensible tagging (though there will sometimes be problems that need to 
be bounced to the router maintainers - 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33592375 and 
http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=32884 spring to mind).  
The surface tag is the obvious one; specifically for bikes 
*mtb:scale* http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/mtb%3Ascale is 
probably the most popular locally to me, but near you it might be 
something else.


Cheers,

Andy (SomeoneElse)

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

[Tagging] Access tags (general question, but mostly regarding bicycle)

2015-08-28 Thread Anders Fougner 

Hi,
as probably most of you are aware of, common access tags such as foot=*, 
bicycle=* etc. are every often misunderstood by the people contributing 
to OSM. The problem is that people, unless they have read the wiki, 
believe that these tags define whether it is _possible_ to walk or cycle 
along a path, instead of the actual meaning (whether it is permitted).


Thus, we have a bunch of trails tagged with bicycle=no because people 
think that these trails aren't nice to bike, typically with a normal 
road bike or hybrid bike, even though the trail might be awesome with a 
mountain/trail/freeride/allmountain/downhill bike... And on a map using 
the access tags to show where to bike, it will typically be shown as 
illegal to bike on these trails, due to these wrongly placed access tags.


To manually correct all these access tags, i.e. confirm whether it was 
actually illegal to bike there or whether the OSM tagger just had 
misunderstood the access tag, is a hassle since it is often hard to get 
hold of the local laws/rules.


So we should consider replacing the tagging scheme with one which isn't 
misunderstood so easily.
The use of access:foot=*, access:bicycle=* has been proposed at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access_restrictions_1.5#Namespace 
but just not taken into use. It looks good, though...and wouldn't be so 
easily misunderstood, I believe.


PS. This issue may have been discussed here or on the wiki before, but 
I'm a new member of this mailing list and I haven't managed to find a 
real discussion of this issue, other than the very short one at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:access#access:bicycle.3Dyes.


Cheers,
  Anders

--
anders.foug...@gmail.com
+47 97158863

Sent from my Commodore 64


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

Re: [Tagging] Access tags (general question, but mostly regarding bicycle)

2015-08-28 Thread Anders Fougner 

Den 28.08.15 14.41, skrev Andy Townsend:

On 28/08/2015 13:15, Anders Fougner wrote:
So we should consider replacing the tagging scheme with one which 
isn't misunderstood so easily.
The use of access:foot=*, access:bicycle=* has been proposed at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access_restrictions_1.5#Namespace 
but just not taken into use. It looks good, though...and wouldn't be 
so easily misunderstood, I believe.
Based on past experience, not going to happen, for all sorts of 
reasons.  Also, I suspect that access:bicycle is just as likely to 
be misunderstood as bicycle.  In addition, I suspect that most 
people making these sorts of mistakes are relatively new mappers using 
an editor that hides tag values from them, so it is also pointless.


Far better, when you see someone locally tagging incorrectly like 
that, is to talk to them, explain the problem, and suggest which tags 
they should be using.  I'm sure most cycle routers do try and take 
notice of sensible tagging (though there will sometimes be problems 
that need to be bounced to the router maintainers - 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33592375 and 
http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=32884 spring to 
mind).  The surface tag is the obvious one; specifically for bikes 
*mtb:scale* http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/mtb%3Ascale 
is probably the most popular locally to me, but near you it might be 
something else.
Yes, that is how I do it at the moment. We use mtb:scale, surface=* etc 
to tag the mtb trails, and I have discussed the bicycle=no issue with 
peronal messages to approximately 150 OSM users so far. Only 10-15 of 
them have responded, and all of them told me that they had misunderstood 
the tag. When asked, they also agree that they wouldn't have 
misunderstood if it the tag was called access:bicycle instead.


I have removed the bicycle=no tag on a whole bunch of trails in Norway, 
after spending too much time reading the local laws/rules in each area 
and sometimes from the responses mentioned above. However, new 
bicycle=no trails pop up faster than I manage to handle.
You can quite easily spot these trails on for example http://mtbmap.no 
which renders them in yellow, for example a bunch of trails on this 
location: http://mtbmap.no/#14/61.2376/10.4558
Some of them, inside a museum area and a golf course, are correctly 
placed, but I the others are probably wrong...


I usually compare the location with Strava heatmap in order to see if 
people actually cycle there. If it shows that a lot of people cycle 
there, I suspect that the tag is wrong, but I still have to a) ask the 
OSM user whether he consciously placed the tag, or b) check the local 
rules/laws, in order to know whether I can remove the tag...
Even when bicycle=no and mtb:scale are both defined for a trail (it 
happens quite often), I have to do that process.


I suspect that it would be much easier to maintain if the bicycle=* 
tag was replaced by access:bicycle=*.


Cheers,
  Anders

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

Re: [Tagging] Access tags (general question, but mostly regarding bicycle)

2015-08-28 Thread Mateusz Konieczny 
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:15:56 +0200
Anders Fougner anders.foug...@gmail.com wrote:

 So we should consider replacing the tagging scheme with one which
 isn't misunderstood so easily.
 The use of access:foot=*, access:bicycle=* has been proposed at 
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access_restrictions_1.5#Namespace
  
 but just not taken into use. It looks good, though...and wouldn't be
 so easily misunderstood, I believe.

Why it would not be so easily misunderstood?

Deprecating extremely widely tag and introducing one that would
be more annoying to use (autocompletion problems) is pointless.

The proper way to fix this issue is to improve editors. For start - who
makes mistakes? iD users? JOSM users?

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

Re: [Tagging] Access tags (general question, but mostly regarding bicycle)

2015-08-28 Thread Anders Fougner 

Den 28.08.15 16.56, skrev Mateusz Konieczny:

On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:15:56 +0200
Anders Fougner anders.foug...@gmail.com wrote:


So we should consider replacing the tagging scheme with one which
isn't misunderstood so easily.
The use of access:foot=*, access:bicycle=* has been proposed at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access_restrictions_1.5#Namespace
but just not taken into use. It looks good, though...and wouldn't be
so easily misunderstood, I believe.

Why it would not be so easily misunderstood?
Well, I think it could be just because people intuitively think that 
highway=path, bicycle=no means it's a trail not _suitable_ or 
comfortable with a bike. The word access is simply not there, and then 
they don't even think about that as a possibility. And, people not into 
mountain biking might believe that trails are not usable or accessible 
with bikes unless they are paved or otherwise designed for biking.


Similar to the bicycle access issue: If I run an overpass search for 
highway=path, ski=no, I get a whole bunch of hits in Norway.
100% of these are set by people who want to tell that this is a trail 
not commonly used for skiing - i.e. not by people who want to tell that 
skiing is illegal on this trail. I've never been a place where skiing 
is illegal. I think it's permitted even in the churchyard, on the 
motorway (!) and on the soccer stadium - although people tend to not 
bring their skis to these places.


Some of the other access tags (e.g. wheelchair=*) are also formally 
interpreted this way (according to the wiki). When people put 
wheelchair=no on a mountain trail (and this happens all the time...), it 
is certainly *not* because using a wheelchair is illegal there - it's 
because wheelchair users can't access this trail with their wheelchair, 
since it's too difficult or unpractical. So it is pobably just a 
different meaning of the word access in this case...



Deprecating extremely widely tag and introducing one that would
be more annoying to use (autocompletion problems) is pointless.
The bicycle tag is used a lot, but as long as it is used incorrectly 
most of the time, it is useless in my opinion. Replacing something 
useless with something better and useful, could be a good idea.

Can you find a better solution?

Another possibility could be to make the OSM editors generate a popup 
every time people use an access tag like this, e.g. ask Are you aware 
that  bicycle=* is an access tag, i.e. that setting bicycle=no which you 
now tried, means that bicycles are forbidden on this path? Click OK to 
confirm and keep the tag, click Cancel to delete the tag..
But that would probably be more annoying than changing the tag to 
something involving access, permitted or something else implying 
legal access.


Maybe the autocompletion problems can be avoided by changing the 
autocompletion setting in the OSM editors (JOSM, iD, Potlatch) on forehand?



The proper way to fix this issue is to improve editors. For start - who
makes mistakes? iD users? JOSM users?

Everyone... ;)



/Anders

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

Re: [Tagging] Access tags (general question, but mostly regarding bicycle)

2015-08-28 Thread Mateusz Konieczny 
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:52:17 +0200
Anders Fougner anders.foug...@gmail.com wrote:

 Den 28.08.15 16.56, skrev Mateusz Konieczny:
  On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:15:56 +0200
  Anders Fougner anders.foug...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  So we should consider replacing the tagging scheme with one which
  isn't misunderstood so easily.
  The use of access:foot=*, access:bicycle=* has been proposed at
  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access_restrictions_1.5#Namespace
  but just not taken into use. It looks good, though...and wouldn't
  be so easily misunderstood, I believe.
  Why it would not be so easily misunderstood?
 Well, I think it could be just because people intuitively think that 
 highway=path, bicycle=no means it's a trail not _suitable_ or 
 comfortable with a bike. The word access is simply not there, and
 then they don't even think about that as a possibility. And, people
 not into mountain biking might believe that trails are not usable or
 accessible with bikes unless they are paved or otherwise designed for
 biking.

Adding access: will not improve anything as it is still not indicating
that it is about legal access. legal_access:bicycle=* would at least
give chance that it will be more easily understood (not that it would
be a good idea).

 Can you find a better solution?

I already mentioned improving editors. For example iD - is it clearly
indicating that it is about legal status? I am also regularly checking
situation in my region and fixing new problem.

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

Re: [Tagging] Access tags (general question, but mostly regarding bicycle)

2015-08-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 


sent from a phone

 Am 28.08.2015 um 19:05 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com:
 
 Adding access: will not improve anything as it is still not indicating
 that it is about legal access. legal_access:bicycle=* would at least
 give chance that it will be more easily understood (not that it would
 be a good idea).


+1

cheers 
Martin 

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

Re: [Tagging] Access tags (general question, but mostly regarding bicycle)

2015-08-28 Thread Ruben Maes 
Friday 28 August 2015 19:05:52, Mateusz Konieczny:
 For example iD - is it clearly
 indicating that it is about legal status? I am also regularly checking
 situation in my region and fixing new problem.

In English it's called Access.
How it's called in other languages depends on the translators. iD is translated 
at https://www.transifex.com/ideditor/id-editor/.

I'm going to change the Dutch translation to (the equivalent of) Legal access 
restrictions.

-- 
The field from of an email is about as reliable as the address written on the 
back of an envelope. That's why this message is OpenPGP signed.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging