Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
2013/3/16 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk Absolutely wrong, obeying traffic rules is 100% the drivers responsibility. There already enough numpties on the road, without giving them another reason to blame the satnav. A satnav should only use the presence of give ways and stops to calculate routing times and hence the optimum route. I disagree. While it's true that no navigator can relieve the driver from its responsibility of driving with care, I don't see why a navigator shouldn't warn the driver about features. By your line of reasoning, PNAs shouldn't warn you about the speed limit either. A PNA does the same job that a friend on the passenger seat would do: the job is to let you know things you probably don't know. A person can understand whether you noticed the red light, and would warn you just if it looks like you missed it; an automatic navigator could simply tell you Give way 100 metres ahead, I see nothing wrong with that. Again, imagine being in a large street of a large city and not knowing the neighbourhood. In that scenario, you can't just go slow enough to take your time and read the signs: you would be legally entitled to do so, but in fact you would be more dangerous (and in danger) than safe. In that scenario, every little help with getting information would be great. Of course you could never count on it, but some voice hints could help you look for the right things with your eyes. Ciao, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 21:31 -0500, Paul Johnson wrote: On Saturday, March 16, 2013, Philip Barnes wrote: A junction with stop sign will take longer to accomplish as the presence of the stop sign indicates reduced visibility. Except in places that tend to overuse stop signs. The west coast states, Idaho, and to a lesser extent other states that allow motorcycles and bicycles to roll stop signs (Oklahoma has this rule primarily because our state's legislature misguidedly thinks pavement traffic sensors are based on weight, not magnetism; the big cities and ODOT have largely subverted this by switching to optical sensors since the law went into effect), tend to post stop signs where yield signs, even all-way yields (such as are common on minor intersections in the central plains), would be more appropriate. I am a little confused as to why sensors would be used in conjunction with a stop or give way/yield? I On traffic lights they are common, although haven't seen the rubber tubes to detect weight for probably 30 years. Most are wire sensors in the road, although PIR are used on narrow bridges so the lights can often change as you approach them. I think that a 4 way stop/yield should tagged as such, as it deserves its own routing time calculation. It is a very different thing than a give way or stop where you are joining or crossing a major road. In my experience of driving in Canada, 4 way stops are used in places where a mini-roundabout would more appropriate. (As a 13 year old brit, visiting Canada for the first time, I can remember asking my uncle what yield meant. Its not something that is used in UK English in that way). Absolutely wrong, obeying traffic rules is 100% the drivers responsibility. There already enough numpties on the road, without giving them another reason to blame the satnav. A satnav should only use the presence of give ways and stops to calculate routing times and hence the optimum route. I have a strong feeling, based on existing usage, that warnings for stops and give ways will be generated by the folks with the knowledge to do so, with understanding that doing so is not fool proof. This information in a satnav is still handy for the sake of knowing whether or not OSM is aware of these objects while surveying. I was not saying stop and give ways should not be mapped, just that satnavs should not use that information to guide the driver on the craft of driving, or the 'rule of the road'. However there are many things that a mapper must dig deeper that mapnik in order to check. Checking turn restrictions for instance. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
On Fri, 2013-03-15 at 11:53 +0100, Simone Saviolo wrote: 2013/3/15 Pieren pier...@gmail.com It is for navigation. Imagine a corner right before an intersection: the navigator would warn you that you'll have to give way or to stop, and you'll prepare the corner accordingly. I don't know any commercial car navigation system that warns you about give-ways or stops. This doesn't mean that future navigators shouldn't. I would very much disagree with you here, it is up to the driver to remain alert and to drive within the limits of what they can see. The golden rule is never drive so fast that you cannot stop, safely, within the distance you can see to be clear. On single track roads half that distance. Perhaps because it has no influence on the route itself. Don't mix routing with navigating. Give ways and Stops do influence routing as they add time to a journey. A longer route that avoids give ways and stops can often be quicker. Particularly turns which require a gap in traffic in both directions on the road you are joining. (A right turn in drive on left countries, and a left turn in drive on the right countries. Most drivers will select routes avoiding some junctions due to the time taken, the queues that can form etc. Providing this information to routers will help them produce better routes. A junction with stop sign will take longer to accomplish as the presence of the stop sign indicates reduced visibility. And that the decision to stop or go depends on the actual traffic. Also the decision to stop because a traffic light is red. Also the decision to stop because there's a queue. This doesn't make it pointless to signal that there is a traffic light ahead, or that queues may be possible (there's even a road sign for that). Again traffic signals affect the time taken to negotiate a junction, it may be more or less time than a give way, but it is still part of the algorithm. And you cannot rely on OSM for your driving decisions. Imagine that your navigator warns you 4 times to give way and the information is missing in OSM for the fifth... Still better than having none. Absolutely wrong, obeying traffic rules is 100% the drivers responsibility. There already enough numpties on the road, without giving them another reason to blame the satnav. A satnav should only use the presence of give ways and stops to calculate routing times and hence the optimum route. Phil (tripoint) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
On Saturday, March 16, 2013, Philip Barnes wrote: A junction with stop sign will take longer to accomplish as the presence of the stop sign indicates reduced visibility. Except in places that tend to overuse stop signs. The west coast states, Idaho, and to a lesser extent other states that allow motorcycles and bicycles to roll stop signs (Oklahoma has this rule primarily because our state's legislature misguidedly thinks pavement traffic sensors are based on weight, not magnetism; the big cities and ODOT have largely subverted this by switching to optical sensors since the law went into effect), tend to post stop signs where yield signs, even all-way yields (such as are common on minor intersections in the central plains), would be more appropriate. Absolutely wrong, obeying traffic rules is 100% the drivers responsibility. There already enough numpties on the road, without giving them another reason to blame the satnav. A satnav should only use the presence of give ways and stops to calculate routing times and hence the optimum route. I have a strong feeling, based on existing usage, that warnings for stops and give ways will be generated by the folks with the knowledge to do so, with understanding that doing so is not fool proof. This information in a satnav is still handy for the sake of knowing whether or not OSM is aware of these objects while surveying. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
It is for navigation. Imagine a corner right before an intersection: the navigator would warn you that you'll have to give way or to stop, and you'll prepare the corner accordingly. I don't know any commercial car navigation system that warns you about give-ways or stops. Perhaps because it has no influence on the route itself. And that the decision to stop or go depends on the actual traffic. And you cannot rely on OSM for your driving decisions. Imagine that your navigator warns you 4 times to give way and the information is missing in OSM for the fifth... But I guess that this discussion is repeating the same arguments we had about stop signs. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
2013/3/15 Pieren pier...@gmail.com It is for navigation. Imagine a corner right before an intersection: the navigator would warn you that you'll have to give way or to stop, and you'll prepare the corner accordingly. I don't know any commercial car navigation system that warns you about give-ways or stops. This doesn't mean that future navigators shouldn't. Perhaps because it has no influence on the route itself. Don't mix routing with navigating. And that the decision to stop or go depends on the actual traffic. Also the decision to stop because a traffic light is red. Also the decision to stop because there's a queue. This doesn't make it pointless to signal that there is a traffic light ahead, or that queues may be possible (there's even a road sign for that). And you cannot rely on OSM for your driving decisions. Imagine that your navigator warns you 4 times to give way and the information is missing in OSM for the fifth... Still better than having none. Regards, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:13 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: It is for navigation. Imagine a corner right before an intersection: the navigator would warn you that you'll have to give way or to stop, and you'll prepare the corner accordingly. I don't know any commercial car navigation system that warns you about give-ways or stops. Perhaps because it has no influence on the route itself. And that the decision to stop or go depends on the actual traffic. And you cannot rely on OSM for your driving decisions. I choose my route based on what's in OSM all the time...literally about half of my workday is in the car. Imagine that your navigator warns you 4 times to give way and the information is missing in OSM for the fifth... But I guess that this discussion is repeating the same arguments we had about stop signs. But that goes with any electronic navigation and driving aid and isn't OSM specific. Hell, in Oklahoma there's places where you just have to know the ramp connects to the highway you want to go to because they signed it as the most common destination exclusivley (such as the south end of OK-11 where it meets I-244; on I 244, it's simply signed Tulsa International Airport with no mention that you're on OK 11 until you're after the curve). Or the Pacific Northwest, thanks to lax record keeping and a lack of public push to stop it, the meth heads will steal and recycle anything metal, in which you just have to know that you're supposed to stop or give way, since they're not huge on pavement markings except on the most major streets there. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
Hi everyone! I noticed that the proposal for a give_way type relationship [1] has been in draft for nine solid years. It seems a great solution to the current limitations of highway=give_way and highway=stop, also because it reuses a tagging scheme that is widely accepted both by mappers and by consumers for turn restrictions. I suggest that discussion on this proposal be revived. It should undergo the regular voting process and finally become an approved relation type. It may also be that it became a de facto standard in the meanwhile. Does somebody know of a router that uses this relation, possibly to provide navigation indications? Regards, Simone [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Give_way ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
A good idea. Just thought I should mention the relation through_route, which is related to this, where the main road though a junction so that routers can give correct turn instructions, although none I know of support this. Often the through route is not the straight ahead, so a turn is often ignored by routers when joining or leaving via a road that has a give way. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 14/03/2013 14:43 Simone Saviolo wrote: Hi everyone! I noticed that the proposal for a give_way type relationship [1] has been in draft for nine solid years. It seems a great solution to the current limitations of highway=give_way and highway=stop, also because it reuses a tagging scheme that is widely accepted both by mappers and by consumers for turn restrictions. I suggest that discussion on this proposal be revived. It should undergo the regular voting process and finally become an approved relation type. It may also be that it became a de facto standard in the meanwhile. Does somebody know of a router that uses this relation, possibly to provide navigation indications? Regards, Simone [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Give_way ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
On 14/03/13 14:43, Simone Saviolo wrote: I noticed that the proposal for a give_way type relationship [1] has been in draft for nine solid years. It seems a great solution to the current limitations of highway=give_way and highway=stop, also because it reuses a tagging scheme that is widely accepted both by mappers and by consumers for turn restrictions. I suggest that discussion on this proposal be revived. It should undergo the regular voting process and finally become an approved relation type. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Give_way If it has sat around unloved for years why would voting for it make it suddenly useful? Discuss it, try using it, help support its use in software if you can, but please don't go through the broken, pointless charade of voting for a tag that has been untouched for years. Voting for tags to 'approve them' is stupid - there are *no* approved tags in OpenStreetMap, only ones that people find useful. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
I suppose the main downside is that it requires a relation. I've not mapped give-way relationships myself, but it would be good to map them, and the node method seems simpler and would involve less database bloat than adding a relation at, basically, every junction. I would think the node method would be sufficient for most junctions, while the relation method could be available for any more complex cases. As far as I can see, with the node method, the important thing to remember is that the give-way node needs to be closer to the intersection node to which it applies than to any other intersection node on the way, which doesn't seem too difficult to achieve. It should perhaps be made clear in the wiki that there is not necessarily an actual Give Way sign: it can be used to represent a give-way line as well. Steve On 14/03/2013 14:43, Simone Saviolo wrote: Hi everyone! I noticed that the proposal for a give_way type relationship [1] has been in draft for nine solid years. It seems a great solution to the current limitations of highway=give_way and highway=stop, also because it reuses a tagging scheme that is widely accepted both by mappers and by consumers for turn restrictions. I suggest that discussion on this proposal be revived. It should undergo the regular voting process and finally become an approved relation type. It may also be that it became a de facto standard in the meanwhile. Does somebody know of a router that uses this relation, possibly to provide navigation indications? Regards, Simone [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Give_way ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
2013/3/14 Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net On 14/03/13 14:43, Simone Saviolo wrote: I noticed that the proposal for a give_way type relationship [1] has been in draft for nine solid years. It seems a great solution to the current limitations of highway=give_way and highway=stop, also because it reuses a tagging scheme that is widely accepted both by mappers and by consumers for turn restrictions. I suggest that discussion on this proposal be revived. It should undergo the regular voting process and finally become an approved relation type. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Give_way If it has sat around unloved for years why would voting for it make it suddenly useful? Discuss it, try using it, help support its use in software if you can, but please don't go through the broken, pointless charade of voting for a tag that has been untouched for years. Voting for tags to 'approve them' is stupid - there are *no* approved tags in OpenStreetMap, only ones that people find useful. I agree with you. What I'm trying to do is remind people that this proposal exists, so that people may start using it. The first step to do this is to let people know about it. The second one is to drag it out of that Draft status, so that those who find it by searching the wiki don't come to the conclusion that they shouldn't use it. Regards, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
2013/3/14 Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com I suppose the main downside is that it requires a relation. I've not mapped give-way relationships myself, but it would be good to map them, and the node method seems simpler and would involve less database bloat than adding a relation at, basically, every junction. I would think the node method would be sufficient for most junctions, while the relation method could be available for any more complex cases. As far as I can see, with the node method, the important thing to remember is that the give-way node needs to be closer to the intersection node to which it applies than to any other intersection node on the way, which doesn't seem too difficult to achieve. It should perhaps be made clear in the wiki that there is not necessarily an actual Give Way sign: it can be used to represent a give-way line as well. I see your point, and I've tagged a few highway=give_way and highway=stop nodes myself. However, since we are already mapping turn restrictions as relations, I think it wouldn't be so absurd to map give-way's and stops that way too. Granted, there are much more stops than the turn restrictions that need to be described explicitly. I think the two ways may coexist: the node method being easier on the mappers, and the relation being easier on the consumers. Regards, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
2013/3/14 Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com 2013/3/14 Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com I suppose the main downside is that it requires a relation. I've not mapped give-way relationships myself, but it would be good to map them, and the node method seems simpler and would involve less database bloat than adding a relation at, basically, every junction. I would think the node method would be sufficient for most junctions, while the relation method could be available for any more complex cases. As far as I can see, with the node method, the important thing to remember is that the give-way node needs to be closer to the intersection node to which it applies than to any other intersection node on the way, which doesn't seem too difficult to achieve. It should perhaps be made clear in the wiki that there is not necessarily an actual Give Way sign: it can be used to represent a give-way line as well. I see your point, and I've tagged a few highway=give_way and highway=stop nodes myself. However, since we are already mapping turn restrictions as relations, I think it wouldn't be so absurd to map give-way's and stops that way too. Granted, there are much more stops than the turn restrictions that need to be described explicitly. I think the two ways may coexist: the node method being easier on the mappers, and the relation being easier on the consumers. Maybe I should have a look at the proposal first, but wouldn't you have give_way or stop node anyway? If it is near to an intersection, why would it be hard on consumers to deal with it? I think you'd only need a relation if the directionality isn't what one would normally expect, i.e. you enter the street from the intersection and then you are supposed to give way, maybe to a cycleway or a crossing. Although even that is normal. Because traffic that makes a turn has to yield for traffic traveling straight on. Jo ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
On 2013-03-14 15:43, Simone Saviolo wrote : Hi everyone! I noticed that the proposal for a give_way type relationship [1] has been in draft for nine solid years. It seems a great solution to the current limitations of highway=give_way and highway=stop, also because it reuses a tagging scheme that is widely accepted both by mappers and by consumers for turn restrictions. I suggest that discussion on this proposal be revived. It should undergo the regular voting process and finally become an approved relation type. It may also be that it became a de facto standard in the meanwhile. Does somebody know of a router that uses this relation, possibly to provide navigation indications? Regards, Simone [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Give_way From wikipedia: In road transport, a YIELD (Canada, Ireland, and the United States) or GIVE WAY (Hong Kong and most Commonwealth countries) traffic sign indicates that a vehicle driver must prepare to stop if necessary to let a driver on another approach proceed (but has no need to stop if his way is clear). A driver who stops has yielded or given his right of way to another. Canada etc... are not the only countries in the world and highway=give way http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dgive_way mentions an international standard sign. URLs (links) to more information would be very much welcome A driver who stops in Belgium has *NOT* yielded or given his right of way to another. This rule might have changed for compatibility with other European regulations. Even more that wrong speed limits, this misinformation can lead to accidents. It should be changed in the wiki. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
On 14.03.2013 17:01, Jo wrote: 2013/3/14 Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com mailto:simone.savi...@gmail.com 2013/3/14 Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com mailto:doerr.step...@gmail.com I think the two ways may coexist: the node method being easier on the mappers, and the relation being easier on the consumers. Maybe I should have a look at the proposal first, but wouldn't you have give_way or stop node anyway? If it is near to an intersection, why would it be hard on consumers to deal with it? I think you'd only need a relation if the directionality isn't what one would normally expect, i.e. you enter the street from the intersection and then you are supposed to give way, maybe to a cycleway or a crossing. Although even that is normal. Because traffic that makes a turn has to yield for traffic traveling straight on. Funny, I was thinking about who to add a give_way to node which is already tagged with traffic_lights just a few days ago. I know quite a couple of them. cheers fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
Simone Saviolo wrote: I noticed that the proposal for a give_way type relationship [1] has been in draft for nine solid years. That's fiendishly clever given that OpenStreetMap didn't exist nine years ago... cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Proposed-relation-give-way-tp5753138p5753183.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net That's fiendishly clever given that OpenStreetMap didn't exist nine years ago... ^^ But, a silly question : where does it help to put so much efforts in tagging a give-way traffic sign ? It's not for routing. If it is for rendering, a simple node is enough. So why a relation ? for blind drivers ? Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: But, a silly question : where does it help to put so much efforts in tagging a give-way traffic sign ? It's not for routing. If it is for rendering, a simple node is enough. So why a relation ? for blind drivers ? Not quite. Blind pedestrians would benefit from knowing that traffic might not necessarily stop if they're looking left for the traffic they're merging into instead of right for a pedestrian determined to leave the sidewalk. I'm also going to have to disagree on the routing aspect. Knowing *which way* is supposed to give way (or stop) can be weighted when making routing decisions (since in terms of free flow, from greatest flow to least, you have no control, toll plaza that takes ETC (Oklahoma PIKEPASS, Kansas KPASS, etc), railroad crossing, give way, traffic signals, stop, coins-only cash toll plaza, cash toll plaza). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
2013/3/14 Pieren pier...@gmail.com On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net That's fiendishly clever given that OpenStreetMap didn't exist nine years ago... ^^ But, a silly question : where does it help to put so much efforts in tagging a give-way traffic sign ? It's not for routing. If it is for rendering, a simple node is enough. So why a relation ? for blind drivers ? It is for navigation. Imagine a corner right before an intersection: the navigator would warn you that you'll have to give way or to stop, and you'll prepare the corner accordingly. Additionally, if you're in an unknown city you're probably already busy trying to follow the other cars' traffic, the navigation hints and other stuff, so you might miss some road signs; if we mark it, the navigator could warn you about a stop. It's a great safety measure. Ciao, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
Why wouldn't something like a node tagged highway:forward=give_way work? -James ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
Am 15/mar/2013 um 02:00 schrieb James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com: Why wouldn't something like a node tagged highway:forward=give_way work? Because a node doesn't have direction. Why does it have to be a node of the way? You could set the node slightly right (or left where people drive on the strange side) of the road and project it in preprocessing to the nearest road to get the link. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Am 15/mar/2013 um 02:00 schrieb James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com: Why wouldn't something like a node tagged highway:forward=give_way work? Because a node doesn't have direction. Why does it have to be a node of the way? You could set the node slightly right (or left where people drive on the strange side) of the road and project it in preprocessing to the nearest road to get the link. You'd still need direction. Give ways such as on pretty much any midwestern left-handed entrance ramp still put the YIELD sign on the right of the ramp, turned slightly towards the road for which it applies. Since the main roadway has more shoulder than the ramp, the sign at left entrances tends to be substantially closer to the motorway, which has the right of way and doesn't yield. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
