Hi Martin & members,
Besides the frequently named bridge, there are several oil / petroleum wells in
the same category man-made.
I reccon no one has ever counted them, you could Fill the Albert Hall with them.
In my humble opinion its a not very well thought idea and the describtion of
the old English man made is undoubtely sex less.
Greetz.
________________________________
Van: tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org <tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Verzonden: donderdag 15 oktober 2020 11:41
Aan: tagging@openstreetmap.org <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
Onderwerp: Tagging Digest, Vol 133, Issue 35
Send Tagging mailing list submissions to
tagging@openstreetmap.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
tagging-ow...@openstreetmap.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Tagging digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: What does bicycle=no on a node means? (Martin Koppenhoefer)
2. Re: Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
(Martin Koppenhoefer)
3. Re: Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
(Robert Delmenico)
4. Re: railway=station areas (Martin Koppenhoefer)
5. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Rideshare Access (nathan case)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 09:42:59 +0200
From: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
<tagging@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?
Message-ID: <c85ef38e-696f-4a66-a131-d8b6e0270...@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
sent from a phone
> On 13. Oct 2020, at 23:42, Volker Schmidt <vosc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I changed the crossing to the way we do it in many parts of Europe, i.e. a
> crossing node and a crossing way.
I thought the standard was highway=crossing on the nodes where they cross the
road and highway=footway with footway=crossing on the way segment between the
kerbs (if sidewalks are mapped) or between the crossing nodes (if several
carriageways are present).
The crossing=* tags in this scheme go on the nodes, and after some wiki
fiddling a long time ago, possibly also on the ways.
The idea to use crossing=* as a on ways stems from user ULamm
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Acrossing&type=revision&diff=1077856&oldid=1068935
And became successively popular:
https://taghistory.raifer.tech/#way/highway/crossing&way/crossing/
The reason for the edit is “see discussion”, but frankly, looking at the
discussion, it is all but convincing that this edit was justified:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Key:crossing&oldid=1093129#Node_or_line
Generally, I would propose to only tag crossing =* on the crossing node, but
refrain from access like tags on this node (no bicycle or foot tags). The
access should be derived from the crossing ways.
This still fails to add crossing specifics for situations where the crossing
ways are not mapped, so alternatively we could state that we only add positive
access tags to crossings. Imagine I would add hgv=no or motorcycle=no tags to
pedestrian crossings, IMHO this would be as correct as adding bicycle=no,
because neither of them can cross at the pedestrian crossing, but overall it
could be seen as very bad tagging because of the ambiguity (for the road users).
Cheers Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201015/1e67f4aa/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 10:36:13 +0200
From: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
<tagging@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to
key:human_made
Message-ID: <43016bbc-f429-447c-afd2-8533ecca7...@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
sent from a phone
> On 15. Oct 2020, at 02:57, Robert Delmenico <rob...@rtbk.com.au> wrote:
>
> I also understand that generally speaking the use of man_made is commonly
> accepted as a gender neutral term, but in reality it has been adapted that
> way due to past practices of gender bias.
I fear in „human“ there is still a man, even in every woman there‘s a man, as
in female there is a male. Overall it looks as if English is not suitable for
gender neutral language, everything refers back to men. I propose to use German
as the language for tags.
It might look like an impossible endeavor at first glance to retag those
millions or billions of objects, but if you dig deeper you will find that many
tags are already more German than English, so ultimately it wouldn’t be as much
change as it may sound initially.
Cheers Martin
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 19:46:14 +1100
From: Robert Delmenico <rob...@rtbk.com.au>
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
<tagging@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to
key:human_made
Message-ID:
<ca+ktxmjz+x0jwy74jod18xeokbs1gz-_axzhd3npywxpefc...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Good point Martin. Someone else has suggested artificial as another
alternative. I'm open to all feedback at this stage and happy if anyone
wants to add onto the proposal the pros and cons of that's allowed.
Rob
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020, 7:38 pm Martin Koppenhoefer, <dieterdre...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 15. Oct 2020, at 02:57, Robert Delmenico <rob...@rtbk.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > I also understand that generally speaking the use of man_made is
> commonly accepted as a gender neutral term, but in reality it has been
> adapted that way due to past practices of gender bias.
>
>
> I fear in „human“ there is still a man, even in every woman there‘s a man,
> as in female there is a male. Overall it looks as if English is not
> suitable for gender neutral language, everything refers back to men. I
> propose to use German as the language for tags.
> It might look like an impossible endeavor at first glance to retag those
> millions or billions of objects, but if you dig deeper you will find that
> many tags are already more German than English, so ultimately it wouldn’t
> be as much change as it may sound initially.
>
> Cheers Martin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201015/ab3e9f8b/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 11:27:14 +0200
From: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
<tagging@openstreetmap.org>
Cc: Dave F <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com>, "John D." <j...@mail.ru>
Subject: Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas
Message-ID: <c6014839-6257-4fd0-9f98-bfd4a0a52...@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
sent from a phone
> On 14. Oct 2020, at 15:44, Dave F via Tagging <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> wrote:
>
> Please send messages to forum, John.
from where are you citing here? A private email?
Can we please discuss publicly here, and keep private discussion private?
Thank you,
Cheers Martin
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 09:41:04 +0000
From: nathan case <nathanc...@outlook.com>
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
<tagging@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Rideshare Access
Message-ID:
<db7pr01mb4966236284819ae5d89f856cd4...@db7pr01mb4966.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Clare: this is a good discussion to have.
It seems as though the emergence of rideshare services is still being addressed
at various legal levels but, at least in the UK, rideshare vehicles are not
classed taxis and so are not ordinarily entitled to use bus/taxi lanes. If
situations exist where rideshares are specifically allowed (or not), and that
access is distinct from taxi or a regular motor_vehicle, then a key should
exist to denote that. I note that the proposal has been updated to reflect such
cases.
> Joseph Eisenberg: But you will also need to add a definition of a "rideshare
> vehicle", since this will need to be translated for places where Lyft and
> Uber do not operate, and where English is not used (e.g. Indonesia).
> Unfortunately I don't see a good online source for a definition.
Perhaps such definitions are dependent upon local/national legislation. In your
follow on examples, do those services enjoy the same access rights as PSVs? If
yes, then perhaps they should simply be covered by that tag? If they do not, do
they have any additional or fewer access rights than simply
motor_vehicle/cycle? If not, then perhaps they should simply be covered by
those respective tags?
So a definition could be something along the lines of: “A private hire vehicle,
often booked through an online service or a mobile application, that does not
enjoy the same legal standing as a taxi service. Exact definition may depend on
local law but usually denotes services such as Uber and Lyft.”
A taxi that also takes bookings/collects fares via an app is still a taxi, in
my opinion.
Regards,
Nathan
From: Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 12:32 AM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Rideshare Access
Clare,
The "proposal" section currently fails to include the actual proposal: that is,
what new key and tags are you proposing to use?
It looks like the proposal is: "approve the use of the new key "rideshare="
with values "yes" and "no" to specify legal access for rideshare vehicles."
But you will also need to add a definition of a "rideshare vehicle", since this
will need to be translated for places where Lyft and Uber do not operate, and
where English is not used (e.g. Indonesia). Unfortunately I don't see a good
online source for a definition.
Is a Gojek motorcycle a rideshare vehicle? See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gojek
What about pedicabs (tricycles) which are hailed with a smartphone app?
Or should only passenger cars be included?
What about taxis which also get fares via an app?
- Joseph Eisenberg
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 1:44 PM Clare Corthell via Tagging
<tagging@openstreetmap.org<mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
Hi Tagging List,
Here is the RFC for the proposal for rideshare vehicle access:
Proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Rideshare_Access
Discussion:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proposed_features/Rideshare_Access
This proposes the addition of rideshare as a use-based access mode for
land-based transportation. This would enable mapping restriction or permission
of rideshare vehicles to nodes and ways. As mentioned in the proposal example
cases<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Rideshare_Access#Case_.231:_Denver_Airport>,
this typically arises in dense traffic patterns such as airport pickup zones.
This proposal originated from the experience of the Lyft mapping team seeking
to improve the accuracy of routes we build from an OSM-based map. Because our
rideshare operations are North America based, we bring a perspective that
centers the policy for right-of-way in this context. We would especially
appreciate feedback on the applicability of this tagging to other parts of the
world.
Looking forward to your commentary and feedback.
Clare
--
Clare Corthell
Product Manager, Lyft Mapping
How Lyft Creates Hyper-Accurate Maps from Open-Source Maps and Real-Time
Data<https://eng.lyft.com/how-lyft-creates-hyper-accurate-maps-from-open-source-maps-and-real-time-data-8dcf9abdd46a>
[Image removed by sender.]
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201015/ffe6d69d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 344 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL:
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201015/ffe6d69d/attachment.jpg>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
------------------------------
End of Tagging Digest, Vol 133, Issue 35
****************************************
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
