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

21 maj 2020 kl. 09:21 skrev Daniel Westergren : > > Expanding on the discussion about attributes for trails. What's the current > status of the highway=path mess? OSM is increasingly becoming more useful for > forest trails than for car roads (for which other sources are usually more >

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

Expanding on the discussion about attributes for trails. What's the current status of the highway=path mess? OSM is increasingly becoming more useful for forest trails than for car roads (for which other sources are usually more up-to-date, to be honest). But the default rendering doesn't

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

May 21, 2020, 04:34 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > On 20/5/20 10:49 pm, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> Thanks for rescuing the useful content from that proposal. >> >> I reused images from older proposal, hopefully it is OK >> (but oif unwanted - feel free to revert) >> >> At least for

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

May 21, 2020, 09:21 by wes...@gmail.com: > OSM is increasingly becoming more useful for forest trails than for car roads > (for which other sources are usually more up-to-date, to be honest). > Not really relevant and depends on a location. > But the default rendering doesn't differentiate

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

Yeah, I'm sure it can differ quite a lot from country to country. I live in Sweden, where we have very good official sources for roads from Lantmäteriet and Trafikverket, that some Swedish navigation services are using. I also feel that Google Maps is very far ahead in terms of updating main

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

On 21.05.2020 09:21, Daniel Westergren wrote: > OSM is increasingly becoming more useful for forest trails than for car roads > (for which other sources are usually more up-to-date, to be honest). Which "other sources" are more up-to-date for car roads? Where I map, new roads are documented in

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

Yeah, I've seen the pattern of route=piste for ways, I guess it is a case of newbies over-gardening. Don't specifically exclude route=piste from your proposal: my point was to completely omit 'other recreational routes' if you don't master them to avoid unnecessary discussion. When the proposal

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

Hi, On 21.05.20 10:33, Ture Pålsson via Tagging wrote: > What I suppose that I wish to say with all this is that in practice, I > have seen highway=path used to mean anything from something that is not > even visible on the ground, An interesting side thread to this is not about the visibility

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

May 21, 2020, 11:42 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > Routing someone over "access=no" is a really dumb idea. > Obviously,  except cases of overriding tags like foot=yes, Similarly anyone creating highway=footway + danger="you will be shot" + "access=no" + foot=yes" should probably switch to

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

> > Obviously we're not tagging for the renderer and the default OSM rendering > is discussed elsewhere. > > Then why you mention it? > I was trying to give a context. Sorry if it's not relevant everywhere. My point is that the usage of highway=path for forest and mountain trails has increased

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

May 21, 2020, 11:31 by frede...@remote.org: > If we map "highway=path" + "danger=you will be shot" and then someone > gets shot because their Android app only looked at highway=path, can we > *really* sit back and say "their fault, we don't map for the Android app"? > In that case access=no

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

> > An interesting side thread to this is not about the visibility but about > the accessibility - at DWG we've recently received a plea from a member > of a volunteer mountain rescue team to remove the highway=path attribute > from a dangerous approach to a mountain that was only suitable for >

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

May 21, 2020, 13:18 by wes...@gmail.com: >>> Obviously we're not tagging for the renderer and the default OSM rendering >>> is discussed elsewhere. >>> >> Then why you mention it? >> > > I was trying to give a context. Sorry if it's not relevant everywhere. My > point is that the usage of

Re: [Tagging] Adding values healthcare=dispensary and healthcare=community_care?

Hi Mario, the three low-range facilities are called: "Puesto de Salud", "Subcentro > de Salud", and "Centro de Promoción de Salud". I've never seen one of > them, personally speaking, I'm just interpreting the information at > >

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

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:36 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > > Would you also say then that a way tagged as highway=path/footway/cycleway, width=4 would be an error? > > No. Here in Portland, Oregon, most of the "multi-use paths" (mainly cycleways, but also used by pedestrians and sometimes

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

May 21, 2020, 23:15 by miketh...@gmail.com: > > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 1:35 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > May 21, 2020, 19:20 by > miketh...@gmail.com> : > > > > So are we saying highway=path/cycleway/footway implies width<3

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

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 1:35 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > > May 21, 2020, 19:20 by miketh...@gmail.com: > > So are we saying highway=path/cycleway/footway implies width<3 (or some similar value)? > > Yes, but it may be larger. Especially busy

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

Please use full tagging and don't create implicit values after the fact. We do have the width or est_width tags,tets use them, where they are needed. On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 21:35, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > May 21, 2020, 19:20 by

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

> Would you also say then that a way tagged as highway=path/footway/cycleway, width=4 would be an error? No. Here in Portland, Oregon, most of the "multi-use paths" (mainly cycleways, but also used by pedestrians and sometimes horses) are 3 to 4 meters wide, and occasionally even wider. Police

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

sent from a phone >> On 21. May 2020, at 23:17, Mike Thompson wrote: > A way that is used to access a private residence from a public road is > highway=service, service=driveway (functional classification), unless it is > too long (exact distance not specified), or too rough (physical >

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

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:52 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I guess the “if the driveway is too long, make a part of it service”-rule is actually there to help data consumers (if it’s very long it might be worth showing it earlier, assuming you hide driveways earlier than service roads). Isn't

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

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:15 PM Volker Schmidt wrote: > > Please use full tagging and don't create implicit values after the fact. > We do have the width or est_width tags,tets use them, where they are needed. I agree! For the way in question, I tagged its width (as well as smoothness, max_speed,

Re: [Tagging] Adding values healthcare=dispensary and healthcare=community_care?

Thank you for the detailed answer. Indeed, this amenity=health_post tag is similar to the "poste de santé" in the DRC. It is the exact match of one of the 5 low-range health facility types among the 14 types of health facilities currently documented in the country (

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

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:49 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > There is also an old problem how large footway should be to qualify as a pedestrian road, > > with varied opinions. > Would you also say then that a way tagged as highway=path/footway/cycleway,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

On 22/5/20 3:20 am, Peter Elderson wrote: Nodes with roles in the route relation deserve another proposal to make it "official". The CAI-project sounds promising, I will look into it once this business is done! My wife is learning Italian, so maybe she can even translate the text (into Dutch,

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

May 21, 2020, 19:20 by miketh...@gmail.com: > So are we saying highway=path/cycleway/footway implies width<3 (or some > similar value)? > Yes, but it may be larger. Especially busy cycleway, or cycleway on curve, or cycleway on a slope may be noticeably larger. There is also an old problem

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

Critically those things say there is a trail here, but don't say where the > trail goes as part of a route, so in that case without knowing the exact > route, I don't see how it can be marked out as a recreational route. > > A series of trail blazes or way marks tells me that I most likely on a

Re: [Tagging] Adding values healthcare=dispensary and healthcare=community_care?

The tag amenity=health_post has been mainly used in Nepal, with some use in Guinea (West Africa) and northern Ethiopia: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/UeI Those in Guinea are usually named "Poste de santé de " - so perhaps they are similar to the Poste de Santé in your area? E.g. nodes 4218024825

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for COVID Vouchers

Hi! I am late, sorry. @Martin: you're right, i know the difference between goods and services. I've red the page and that sentence you've quoted ("These might include..." so it not exlude others... but maybe just in services cathegory) let me go on hoping in a larger use of that tag. @Francesco:

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

Nodes with roles in the route relation deserve another proposal to make it "official". The CAI-project sounds promising, I will look into it once this business is done! My wife is learning Italian, so maybe she can even translate the text (into Dutch, for our post-corona hiking and biking season?)

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

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 9:24 AM brad wrote: > > 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. It is not really "2 track" as its surface is uniformly graded and covered with gravel from side to side (there are not separate ruts

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

sent from a phone > On 21. May 2020, at 17:50, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > This leads me to what I really wanted to say: > Trail route relations (and cycling route relations) could or should (?) > include the guideposts, and for that purpose we need a role for these nodes: > role=guidepost

Re: [Tagging] Adding values healthcare=dispensary and healthcare=community_care?

Thanks again for the suggestions. healthcare=community_health_worker seems a good value choice, as it is defined on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_health_worker. community_health_service is more likely to refer to services provided to the community involving doctors and nurses, which

Re: [Tagging] Adding values healthcare=dispensary and healthcare=community_care?

Hello everybody. thank you Claire for alerting the Telegram group 'OSM Africa Tagging' about your message on this list! I forwarded your invitation to the groups América Central, LatAm, Panamá, and Colombia. yesterday we had a look at the typologies that exist from an official point of

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

On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 17:25, Daniel Westergren wrote: > Expanding on the discussion about attributes for trails. What's the > current status of the highway=path mess? OSM is increasingly becoming more > useful for forest trails than for car roads (for which other sources are > usually more

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

On 21/05/2020 10:50, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: Similarly anyone creating highway=footway + danger="you will be shot" + "access=no" + foot=yes" should probably switch to pickpocketing, telemarketing or other less harmful activity. While "danger" isn't a much used tag (and I'm

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

On 21/05/2020 13:48, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: May 21, 2020, 14:17 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: It's still tricky. Around here, few trails are actually signposted; some don't have a sign anywhere! They're marked with paint blazes in the woods, guideposts in the fields,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 12:42 AM Andrew Harvey wrote: > On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 12:35, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> The exclusion of the black trail as a possible 'excursion' in the main >> route is a judgment call. I'd be very careful about it. >> >> Why is one excluded where the other

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

This wikipedia "Trail blazing" article (which takes trailblazed and wayarked as meaning the same thing), has a nice picture collection of way markings. On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 15:22, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 21/05/2020 13:48, Mateusz Konieczny via

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

May 21, 2020, 14:17 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > It's still tricky. Around here, few trails are actually signposted; > some don't have a sign anywhere! They're marked with paint blazes in > the woods, guideposts in the fields, and cairns above the tree line. > Not a native speaker, but I

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

To my understanding, signposting is one way of waymarking. I've now changed the text to "signposted or otherwise waymarked". Hope that's English? I checked the dictionary for the terms, they are correct, I think, but it didn't mention what people actually call it around the globe. Best, Peter

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

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

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 22:49, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > May 21, 2020, 14:17 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > > It's still tricky. Around here, few trails are actually signposted; > some don't have a sign anywhere! They're marked with paint blazes in >

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

For those who missed it, a related discussion was just had on this list about differentiating mountain-biking trails from cycleways. See the resulting proposal for path=mtb https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:path%3Dmtb and threads from April in Tagging:

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

May 21, 2020, 16:00 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com: > > > On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 22:49, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> >> >> >> May 21, 2020, 14:17 by >> kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com>> : >> >>> It's still tricky. Around here, few trails are actually

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

Is it ok for you to leave that discussion out of this proposal? Let's say: if it is decided that there is a route with additional sections verifiably belonging to the route, this role-set can be used in the route relation to indicate the purpose of the special sections. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

Yes, the requirements are the same. The important part is that this proposal is not changing what can be included in the route relation, and sections that are not part of a route still cannot be included in it. May 21, 2020, 16:38 by pelder...@gmail.com: > Is it ok for you to leave that