Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki
2015-07-28 23:59 GMT+02:00 Hubert sg.fo...@gmx.de: On 28. Juli 2015 22:32 Ruben Maes [mailto:ruben.mae...@gmail.com] wrote: 2015-07-25 15:24 GMT+02:00 Andy Townsend ajt1...@gmail.com: It's also perhaps worth mentioning that the 18th Feb change (which you - and I - preferred the previous version to) was made by a wiki editor who's since been blocked (3). (3) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Xxzme For clarification: I didn't write that. Sorry, my bad, got the quotes messed up. It was Andy Townsend ajt1...@gmail.com who wrote it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki
FYI: I just took the liberty of changing the highway=footway definition back to the pre Feb 18th Version. -Original Message- From: Andy Townsend [mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com] Sent: Samstag, 25. Juli 2015 15:25 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki On 25/07/2015 13:43, Hubert wrote: Am 24. Juli 2015 um 17:50 schrieb Heiko Eckenreiter [mailto:heiko.eckenrei...@gmx.net] : Am 24.07.2015 um 17:24 schrieb Hubert: But only the way with the traffic sign will be tagged with bicycle=designated, foot=designated using the definition in the description box That is not logical, because both ways are still equally designated to pedestrians and cyclist in both situations. Today in OSM it's documented, only the ways signposted with a traffic sign should be tagged with *=designated (as described on the cited page access=designated and much more). The only wiki page with such a strict formulation I could find is the highway=footway page [1] : highway=footway is used for signposted paths designated for pedestrians only. Signposted footpaths are primarily common in residential areas, but may also exist out-of-town in recreational environments, parks etc.. . But in this context one must agree that highway=footway is equal to highway=path, foot=designated. Also this was only changed recently by Geow on June 28th. Bevor that it read : highway=footway is mainly used for residential paths designated for pedestrians only. And till Feb 18th : The tag highway=footway is used for mapping minor pathways which are used mainly or exclusively by pedestrians. Which is the definition I prefer. I believe that the recent edits to the highway=footway page by Geow resulted in it not reflecting the usage of the key - it seems to be telling people how to use a key not documenting how they do use it. I did raise it with the user concerned (1) (and interestingly other users have raised similar problems there too) but frankly have no wish to get into a wiki edit war or even a discussion with someone who doesn't even edit the map (or at least, not in that name) (2). It's also perhaps worth mentioning that the 18th Feb change (which you - and I - preferred the previous version to) was made by a wiki editor who's since been blocked (3). I only spotted the wiki change because someone spotted a large number of footways that I had surveyed being changed into paths without any information to give a clue as to physical type. We've seen other similar instances where well-meaning but ignorant wiki edits have resulted in well-meaning but ignorant tag correctors corrupting map data (changing wood=deciduous to leaf_type=broadleaved was one). Personally, to try and make sense of pages in our wiki I tend to view the history and look at the last edit by a sensible person, taking particular care to read the previous version to anything labelled e.g. cleanup. Cheers, Andy (1) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Geow (2) http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Geow (3) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Xxzme ___ 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=designated wiki
On 28/07/2015 17:35, Hubert wrote: FYI: I just took the liberty of changing the highway=footway definition back to the pre Feb 18th Version. \o/ Thanks for that. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki
2015-07-25 15:24 GMT+02:00 Andy Townsend ajt1...@gmail.com: On 25/07/2015 13:43, Hubert wrote: It's also perhaps worth mentioning that the 18th Feb change (which you - and I - preferred the previous version to) was made by a wiki editor who's since been blocked (3). (3) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Xxzme Xxzme did nothing wrong there, he just removed an image that was there twice, a very sensible edit[1]. I mean, don't blame him for things he didn't do, it's bad enough as it stands :p Geow made all the mess. [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:highway%3Dfootwaydiff=1160471oldid=1141274 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki
For clarification: I didn't write that. On 28. Juli 2015 22:32 Ruben Maes [mailto:ruben.mae...@gmail.com] wrote: 2015-07-25 15:24 GMT+02:00 Andy Townsend ajt1...@gmail.com: On 25/07/2015 13:43, Hubert wrote: It's also perhaps worth mentioning that the 18th Feb change (which you - and I - preferred the previous version to) was made by a wiki editor who's since been blocked (3). (3) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Xxzme attachment: winmail.dat___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki
Am 24. Juli 2015 um 17:50 schrieb Heiko Eckenreiter [mailto:heiko.eckenrei...@gmx.net] : Am 24.07.2015 um 17:24 schrieb Hubert: But only the way with the traffic sign will be tagged with bicycle=designated, foot=designated using the definition in the description box That is not logical, because both ways are still equally designated to pedestrians and cyclist in both situations. Today in OSM it's documented, only the ways signposted with a traffic sign should be tagged with *=designated (as described on the cited page access=designated and much more). The only wiki page with such a strict formulation I could find is the highway=footway page [1] : highway=footway is used for signposted paths designated for pedestrians only. Signposted footpaths are primarily common in residential areas, but may also exist out-of-town in recreational environments, parks etc.. . But in this context one must agree that highway=footway is equal to highway=path, foot=designated. Also this was only changed recently by Geow on June 28th. Bevor that it read : highway=footway is mainly used for residential paths designated for pedestrians only. And till Feb 18th : The tag highway=footway is used for mapping minor pathways which are used mainly or exclusively by pedestrians. Which is the definition I prefer. Other wiki pages don't use a strict formulation, but are using words like often or typically to relativize the definition. [2] access page: A preferred or designated route for a specific vehicle type or types, often marked by a traffic sign. [3] bicycle page : Where a way has been specially designated (typically by a government) for bicycle use [4] access=designated page : Typically it is used on ways legally dedicated to specific modes of travel by a law or by the rules of traffic. Now you'd like to apply the tag *=designated also to ways which are constructional intended for the specific traffic but without a traffic sign, right? I object this due to the reasons: - this is changing an existing tag definition, it's not downwardly compatible (designated would then no longer mean signposted) - it will therefore lose the possibility to distinguish between ways what are signposted and that what are not. Using designated for signposted ways only is IMO a very bad choice, since it is in contrast to the lingual meaning of the word designated. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=footway [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access [3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle [4] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki
On 25. Juli 2015 01:36 Troxel [mailto:g...@ir.bbn.com] wrote: Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com writes: Hmmm. There is a problem. We (cyclists) would like to be able to distinguish between ways that can be used legally by bicycle, and 1) that do not have any traffic sign saying this and 2) those where there is some kind of traffic sign saying explicitly that this way can be used by cyclists If that's what you want, map the signs. If a way can be legally used, then it shoudl be tagged as such, whether that's by observing signs or reading the law. My thoughts exectly. I assumed that this was the difference between 1) bicycle=yes and 2) bicycle=designated No. bicycle=designated is an official notion that bicycles are someone more authorized than cars or foot and are to be considered the primary use of a way. An example would be a path that had signs saying that while pedestrians are allowed, they must yield to bikes. +1 Your proposal is well intended, but would water down the meaning of designated and would make it equal to the simple yes That was my concern as well. Designated needs some sense of an official notion of primacy. That's not my intention. I agree that a designated path needs some sort of (official) legitimation but the a traffic sign should not be the only criteria. Hubert ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki
On 25/07/2015 13:43, Hubert wrote: Am 24. Juli 2015 um 17:50 schrieb Heiko Eckenreiter [mailto:heiko.eckenrei...@gmx.net] : Am 24.07.2015 um 17:24 schrieb Hubert: But only the way with the traffic sign will be tagged with bicycle=designated, foot=designated using the definition in the description box That is not logical, because both ways are still equally designated to pedestrians and cyclist in both situations. Today in OSM it's documented, only the ways signposted with a traffic sign should be tagged with *=designated (as described on the cited page access=designated and much more). The only wiki page with such a strict formulation I could find is the highway=footway page [1] : highway=footway is used for signposted paths designated for pedestrians only. Signposted footpaths are primarily common in residential areas, but may also exist out-of-town in recreational environments, parks etc.. . But in this context one must agree that highway=footway is equal to highway=path, foot=designated. Also this was only changed recently by Geow on June 28th. Bevor that it read : highway=footway is mainly used for residential paths designated for pedestrians only. And till Feb 18th : The tag highway=footway is used for mapping minor pathways which are used mainly or exclusively by pedestrians. Which is the definition I prefer. I believe that the recent edits to the highway=footway page by Geow resulted in it not reflecting the usage of the key - it seems to be telling people how to use a key not documenting how they do use it. I did raise it with the user concerned (1) (and interestingly other users have raised similar problems there too) but frankly have no wish to get into a wiki edit war or even a discussion with someone who doesn't even edit the map (or at least, not in that name) (2). It's also perhaps worth mentioning that the 18th Feb change (which you - and I - preferred the previous version to) was made by a wiki editor who's since been blocked (3). I only spotted the wiki change because someone spotted a large number of footways that I had surveyed being changed into paths without any information to give a clue as to physical type. We've seen other similar instances where well-meaning but ignorant wiki edits have resulted in well-meaning but ignorant tag correctors corrupting map data (changing wood=deciduous to leaf_type=broadleaved was one). Personally, to try and make sense of pages in our wiki I tend to view the history and look at the last edit by a sensible person, taking particular care to read the previous version to anything labelled e.g. cleanup. Cheers, Andy (1) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Geow (2) http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Geow (3) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Xxzme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki
On 24/07/2015 9:30 PM, Hubert wrote: access=designated wiki Hallo, during adiscussion within the german forum [1],I have been pointed to the description box of the“access=designated”wikipage [2]. It reads“A way marked for a particular use.”. I would like to change it to“A waydesignatedfor a particular use”or“A wayintendedfor a particular use.”. Probably the latter one. The reason is, that theword“marked”implies that a way is,well, marked with a traffic sign or by road paintings, which is notnecessarily true. Also the topic”generaluse case”is notthatstrictlyformulated as the“description”boxand allows the use of“designated”inamuchwiderrange of cases. Are there any objections against me change that word? For me, Yes. If it is not marked .. than how do you (or anyone) know that it is 'designated'? Ummm 'marked' could mean it is 'marked' on some plan or other rather than 'marked' by a traffic sign or by road painting ... but I'd think if it is not marked locally then the 'designation' will be ineffective. OSM is supposed to reflect what is 'on the ground' so marked is appropriate. Particularly by a traffic sign or by road painting. Happy to be persuaded otherwise... Could you provide a link to the German discussion? That may help. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki
Hmmm. There is a problem. We (cyclists) would like to be able to distinguish between ways that can be used legally by bicycle, and 1) that do not have any traffic sign saying this and 2) those where there is some kind of traffic sign saying explicitly that this way can be used by cyclists I assumed that this was the difference between 1) bicycle=yes and 2) bicycle=designated (in Germany there is also the bicycle=official in addition to bicycle=designated) Your proposal is well intended, but would water down the meaning of designated and would make it equal to the simple yes Volker (Italy) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki
I agree with Volker. To me designated meant “what it is says on the roadside signage”. Usually seen where there are unique or special circumstances restricting access. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me From: Warin Sent: Friday, 24 July 2015 13:50 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools On 24/07/2015 9:30 PM, Hubert wrote: access=designated wiki Hallo, during a discussion within the german forum [1], I have been pointed to the description box of the “access=designated” wikipage [2]. It reads “A way marked for a particular use.”. I would like to change it to “A way designated for a particular use” or “A way intended for a particular use.”. Probably the latter one. The reason is, that the word “marked” implies that a way is ,well, marked with a traffic sign or by road paintings, which is not necessarily true. Also the topic ”general use case” is not that strictly formulated as the “description” box and allows the use of “designated” in a much wider range of cases. Are there any objections against me change that word? For me, Yes. If it is not marked .. than how do you (or anyone) know that it is 'designated'? Ummm 'marked' could mean it is 'marked' on some plan or other rather than 'marked' by a traffic sign or by road painting ... but I'd think if it is not marked locally then the 'designation' will be ineffective. OSM is supposed to reflect what is 'on the ground' so marked is appropriate. Particularly by a traffic sign or by road painting. Happy to be persuaded otherwise... Could you provide a link to the German discussion? That may help.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki
Ø access=designated is not what you want. For clarification, I don’t use ‘access’=designated but ‘bicycle’=designated, ‘foot’=designated etc. Just like the wiki page sais : “The exact key/value combination http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access access=designated should never appear on an object” Ø What is wrong with using the tag bicycle=yes ? Bicycles are 'permitted' .. but not necessarily marked by/on the roadway. IMO “bicycle=yes” or “foot=yes” are not enough, also permitted is not correct since these road parts are exclusively designated for a specific road use (as you put it.) I will try to explain my issue with the example of two segregated cycle- and footway. One with a traffic sign [1] and other one without a traffic sign [2] Both ways are designated for pedestrians and cyclists, each with their own part of the way. But only the way with the traffic sign will be tagged with bicycle=designated, foot=designated using the definition in the description box That is not logical, because both ways are still equally designated to pedestrians and cyclist in both situations. Hubert [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Z241GetrennterRadUndGehweg.png [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:GetrennterRadUndGehweg.jpeg From: Warin [mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com] Sent: Freitag, 24. Juli 2015 16:20 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki On 24/07/2015 11:42 PM, Hubert wrote: Well, there a ways that are “designated” for specific road users but are not marked explicitly and must be recognized through their design. I would put that as There are ways that are intended for a specific road use... For example sidewalks. They are designated for pedestrians and could tag – ignoring the tag it as a sub key discussion – as highway=footway (implying foot=designated). Same for cycle ways, at least in Germany as you might know (Pictures 1 and 2). So requiring a way to be marked is too strong for that definition. True. access=designated is not what you want. What is wrong with using the tag bicycle=yes ? Bicycles are 'permitted' .. but not necessarily marked by/on the roadway. Hubert Picture 1 : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:RadwegOhneBenutzungspflicht.jpg Picture 2 : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:GetrennterRadUndGehweg.jpeg From: jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me [mailto:jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me] Sent: Freitag, 24. Juli 2015 15:05 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki I agree with Volker. To me designated meant “what it is says on the roadside signage”. Usually seen where there are unique or special circumstances restricting access. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me From: Warin mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, 24 July 2015 13:50 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org On 24/07/2015 9:30 PM, Hubert wrote: Hallo, during a discussion within the german forum [1], I have been pointed to the description box of the “access=designated” wikipage [2]. It reads “A way marked for a particular use.”. I would like to change it to “A way designated for a particular use” or “A way intended for a particular use.”. Probably the latter one. The reason is, that the word “marked” implies that a way is ,well, marked with a traffic sign or by road paintings, which is not necessarily true. Also the topic ”general use case” is not that strictly formulated as the “description” box and allows the use of “designated” in a much wider range of cases. Are there any objections against me change that word? For me, Yes. Meaning I object. If it is not marked .. than how do you (or anyone) know that it is 'designated'? Ummm 'marked' could mean it is 'marked' on some plan or other rather than 'marked' by a traffic sign or by road painting ... but I'd think if it is not marked locally then the 'designation' will be ineffective. OSM is supposed to reflect what is 'on the ground' so marked is appropriate. Particularly by a traffic sign or by road painting. Happy to be persuaded otherwise... Could you provide a link to the German discussion? That may help. ___ 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=designated wiki
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: access=designated is defined as A preferred or designated route for a specific vehicle type or types, which vehicle type ? For me that only makes sense if you also specify the type, so I prefer designated=xxx ( that's with JOSM asks for). for your hotel example, access=designated still does not tell me the group for which it is designated, but I'll agree there is a difference in meaning between private designated. However, for the router there is not much difference between private designated (or permit holder or ...). It will always have to ask the end-user whether it is ok to follow a road (or access a property) when that item has one of those restrictive permissions. m ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki
Am 24.07.2015 um 17:24 schrieb Hubert: But only the way with the traffic sign will be tagged with bicycle=designated, foot=designated using the definition in the description box That is not logical, because both ways are still equally designated to pedestrians and cyclist in both situations. Today in OSM it's documented, only the ways signposted with a traffic sign should be tagged with *=designated (as described on the cited page access=designated and much more). Now you'd like to apply the tag *=designated also to ways which are constructional intended for the specific traffic but without a traffic sign, right? I object this due to the reasons: - this is changing an existing tag definition, it's not downwardly compatible (designated would then no longer mean signposted) - it will therefore lose the possibility to distinguish between ways what are signposted and that what are not. To tag ways without a signpost like in your example I'd recommend just the generic tags like bicycle=yes, foot=yes and segregated=yes if appropriate. Propably describe details with width:lanes=* or similar. Best regards, Heiko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki
On 24/07/2015 11:42 PM, Hubert wrote: access=designated wiki Well, there a ways that are “designated” for specific road users but are not marked explicitly and must be recognized through their design. I would put that as There are ways that are intended for a specific road use... For example sidewalks. They are designated for pedestrians and could tag – ignoring the tag it as a sub key discussion – as highway=footway (implying foot=designated). Same for cycle ways, at least in Germany as you might know (Pictures 1 and 2). So requiring a way to be marked is too strong for that definition. True. access=designated is not what you want. What is wrong with using the tag bicycle=yes ? Bicycles are 'permitted' .. but not necessarily marked by/on the roadway. Hubert Picture 1 : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:RadwegOhneBenutzungspflicht.jpg Picture 2 : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:GetrennterRadUndGehweg.jpeg *From:*jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me [mailto:jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me] *Sent:* Freitag, 24. Juli 2015 15:05 *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki I agree with Volker. To me designated meant “what it is says on the roadside signage”. Usually seen where there are unique or special circumstances restricting access. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me *From:*Warin mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com *Sent:* Friday, 24 July 2015 13:50 *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org On 24/07/2015 9:30 PM, Hubert wrote: Hallo, during a discussion within the german forum [1], I have been pointed to the description box of the “access=designated” wikipage [2]. It reads “A way marked for a particular use.”. I would like to change it to “A way designated for a particular use” or “A way intended for a particular use.”. Probably the latter one. The reason is, that the word “marked” implies that a way is ,well, marked with a traffic sign or by road paintings, which is not necessarily true. Also the topic ”general use case” is not that strictly formulated as the “description” box and allows the use of “designated” in a much wider range of cases. Are there any objections against me change that word? For me, Yes. Meaning I object. If it is not marked .. than how do you (or anyone) know that it is 'designated'? Ummm 'marked' could mean it is 'marked' on some plan or other rather than 'marked' by a traffic sign or by road painting ... but I'd think if it is not marked locally then the 'designation' will be ineffective. OSM is supposed to reflect what is 'on the ground' so marked is appropriate. Particularly by a traffic sign or by road painting. Happy to be persuaded otherwise... Could you provide a link to the German discussion? That may help. ___ 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=designated wiki
Heiko Eckenreiter heiko.eckenrei...@gmx.net writes: Today in OSM it's documented, only the ways signposted with a traffic sign should be tagged with *=designated (as described on the cited page access=designated and much more). Now you'd like to apply the tag *=designated also to ways which are constructional intended for the specific traffic but without a traffic sign, right? It may be documented but in the US it is not common/universal practice. I object this due to the reasons: - this is changing an existing tag definition, it's not downwardly compatible (designated would then no longer mean signposted) - it will therefore lose the possibility to distinguish between ways what are signposted and that what are not. I tag things as designated when there is a strong presumption in law or culture that a particular type has priority, even if there are no signs. In conservation land, often hiking is the primary use and bicycling is permitted when the trails are not wet and bicyclists are supposed to yield to hikers. pgpwNVeri1J8T.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki
Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com writes: Hmmm. There is a problem. We (cyclists) would like to be able to distinguish between ways that can be used legally by bicycle, and 1) that do not have any traffic sign saying this and 2) those where there is some kind of traffic sign saying explicitly that this way can be used by cyclists If that's what you want, map the signs. If a way can be legally used, then it shoudl be tagged as such, whether that's by observing signs or reading the law. I assumed that this was the difference between 1) bicycle=yes and 2) bicycle=designated No. bicycle=designated is an official notion that bicycles are someone more authorized than cars or foot and are to be considered the primary use of a way. An example would be a path that had signs saying that while pedestrians are allowed, they must yield to bikes. Your proposal is well intended, but would water down the meaning of designated and would make it equal to the simple yes That was my concern as well. Designated needs some sense of an official notion of primacy. pgprGg2kwPQgK.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki
That makes sense to me. -- 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 July 24, 2015 8:11:12 AM Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder what highway=primary; access=designated means. I think JOSM even complains about this. Don't you need a type of road that already restricts the access to 1 type of vehicles for that, such as highway=bicycle ? (although in many countries that one implies foot=yes, so it isn't well defined in here neither.) Can't we just get rid of access=designated and only allow designated with a specific vehicle type, such as bicycle=designated or foot=designated ? regards m On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Hubert sg.fo...@gmx.de wrote: Hallo, during a discussion within the german forum [1], I have been pointed to the description box of the “access=designated” wikipage [2]. It reads “A way marked for a particular use.”. I would like to change it to “A way designated for a particular use” or “A way intended for a particular use.”. Probably the latter one. The reason is, that the word “marked” implies that a way is ,well, marked with a traffic sign or by road paintings, which is not necessarily true. Also the topic ”general use case” is not that strictly formulated as the “ description” box and allows the use of “designated” in a much wider range of cases. Are there any objections against me change that word? Yours Hubert [1] *http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=31980* http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=31980 [2] *http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access=designated* http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access=designated ___ 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] access=designated wiki
On 24/07/2015 11:35 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: Access is also used (misused?) for things other than highways ... A hotel may be for 'designated' persons only .. eg employees, students only for an apartment building. An entry may be 'private' for residence only. I don't have problems with the access tag on other things than highways. But what does access=designated mean in case you do not further specify the designated to XYZ ? Designated is only useful when the group of users/vehicles/.. is specified. That could be best served by a tag designated=value ? The value could be taken as text by a render thus providing for all possibilities. Much simpler than the highway access thing of individual tags of motor_vehicle=yes etc. The examples you give also fall under the access=private definition IMHO. Disagree. But 'splitting hairs' to do it. access=private is defined as Only with permission of the owner on an individual basis access=designated is defined as A preferred or designated route for a specific vehicle type or types, So private means individual permission, designated means permission for a group/type. The above hotel I used as an example maybe open to all the employees of a firm, thus 'designated'. If it were open to only to individually granted employees of a firm then it would be private. The permission is not on an individual basis but 'designated' to a group of people, not individually. I don't think access=designated can be replaced with access=private. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki
I wonder what highway=primary; access=designated means. I think JOSM even complains about this. Don't you need a type of road that already restricts the access to 1 type of vehicles for that, such as highway=bicycle ? (although in many countries that one implies foot=yes, so it isn't well defined in here neither.) Can't we just get rid of access=designated and only allow designated with a specific vehicle type, such as bicycle=designated or foot=designated ? regards m On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Hubert sg.fo...@gmx.de wrote: Hallo, during a discussion within the german forum [1], I have been pointed to the description box of the “access=designated” wikipage [2]. It reads “A way marked for a particular use.”. I would like to change it to “A way designated for a particular use” or “A way intended for a particular use.”. Probably the latter one. The reason is, that the word “marked” implies that a way is ,well, marked with a traffic sign or by road paintings, which is not necessarily true. Also the topic ”general use case” is not that strictly formulated as the “ description” box and allows the use of “designated” in a much wider range of cases. Are there any objections against me change that word? Yours Hubert [1] *http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=31980* http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=31980 [2] *http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access=designated* http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access=designated ___ 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=designated wiki
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: Access is also used (misused?) for things other than highways ... A hotel may be for 'designated' persons only .. eg employees, students only for an apartment building. An entry may be 'private' for residence only. I don't have problems with the access tag on other things than highways. But what does access=designated mean in case you do not further specify the designated to XYZ ? Designated is only useful when the group of users/vehicles/.. is specified. The examples you give also fall under the access=private definition IMHO. m ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki
Access is also used (misused?) for things other than highways ... A hotel may be for 'designated' persons only .. eg employees, students only for an apartment building. An entry may be 'private' for residence only. Those kind of restrictions have been tagged with the access tag. On 24/07/2015 11:09 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: I wonder what highway=primary; access=designated means. I think JOSM even complains about this. Don't you need a type of road that already restricts the access to 1 type of vehicles for that, such as highway=bicycle ? (although in many countries that one implies foot=yes, so it isn't well defined in here neither.) Can't we just get rid of access=designated and only allow designated with a specific vehicle type, such as bicycle=designated or foot=designated ? regards m On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Hubert sg.fo...@gmx.de mailto:sg.fo...@gmx.de wrote: Hallo, during adiscussion within the german forum [1],I have been pointed to the description box of the“access=designated”wikipage [2]. It reads“A way marked for a particular use.”. I would like to change it to“A waydesignatedfor a particular use”or“A wayintendedfor a particular use.”. Probably the latter one. The reason is, that theword“marked”implies that a way is,well, marked with a traffic sign or by road paintings, which is notnecessarily true. Also the topic”generaluse case”is notthatstrictlyformulated as the“description”boxand allows the use of“designated”inamuchwiderrange of cases. Are there any objections against me change that word? Yours Hubert [1]_http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=31980_ [2]_http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access=designated_ ___ 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] access=designated wiki
Well, there a ways that are “designated” for specific road users but are not marked explicitly and must be recognized through their design. For example sidewalks. They are designated for pedestrians and could tag – ignoring the tag it as a sub key discussion – as highway=footway (implying foot=designated). Same for cycle ways, at least in Germany as you might know (Pictures 1 and 2). So requiring a way to be marked is too strong for that definition. Hubert Picture 1 : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:RadwegOhneBenutzungspflicht.jpg Picture 2 : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:GetrennterRadUndGehweg.jpeg From: jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me [mailto:jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me] Sent: Freitag, 24. Juli 2015 15:05 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki I agree with Volker. To me designated meant “what it is says on the roadside signage”. Usually seen where there are unique or special circumstances restricting access. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me From: Warin mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, 24 July 2015 13:50 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org On 24/07/2015 9:30 PM, Hubert wrote: Hallo, during a discussion within the german forum [1], I have been pointed to the description box of the “access=designated” wikipage [2]. It reads “A way marked for a particular use.”. I would like to change it to “A way designated for a particular use” or “A way intended for a particular use.”. Probably the latter one. The reason is, that the word “marked” implies that a way is ,well, marked with a traffic sign or by road paintings, which is not necessarily true. Also the topic ”general use case” is not that strictly formulated as the “description” box and allows the use of “designated” in a much wider range of cases. Are there any objections against me change that word? For me, Yes. If it is not marked .. than how do you (or anyone) know that it is 'designated'? Ummm 'marked' could mean it is 'marked' on some plan or other rather than 'marked' by a traffic sign or by road painting ... but I'd think if it is not marked locally then the 'designation' will be ineffective. OSM is supposed to reflect what is 'on the ground' so marked is appropriate. Particularly by a traffic sign or by road painting. Happy to be persuaded otherwise... Could you provide a link to the German discussion? That may help. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
