Re: [Tagging] tunnel=building_passage or covered=yes

2016-09-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 
2016-09-18 21:12 GMT+02:00 Tobias Knerr :

> On 11.09.2016 12:46, Dave F wrote:
>
>> But it's *not a tunnel*
>>
>
> Before there was any dedicated tag for it, many people mapped it as
> tunnel=yes, so people definitely appear to intuitively consider it
> tunnel-like.



or maybe they just choose a tag that gets them the rendering they desire.
;-)




>
> That's why the new value was also put into the tunnel key.
>
> Technically, covered might have been better, but either one is a lot
> better than tunnel=yes. At least it can now be clearly distinguished from
> actually tunnels.



+1, and your choice of words ("actual tunnel") suggests you don't see them
as "real" tunnels either ;-)

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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=building_passage or covered=yes

2016-09-18 Thread Tobias Knerr 

On 11.09.2016 12:46, Dave F wrote:

But it's *not a tunnel*


Before there was any dedicated tag for it, many people mapped it as 
tunnel=yes, so people definitely appear to intuitively consider it 
tunnel-like. (Perhaps that's also a language issue, not sure.)


That's why the new value was also put into the tunnel key.

Technically, covered might have been better, but either one is a lot 
better than tunnel=yes. At least it can now be clearly distinguished 
from actually tunnels.


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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=building_passage or covered=yes

2016-09-12 Thread Dave F 

On 12/09/2016 01:15, Daniel Koć wrote:

W dniu 11.09.2016 17:53, Dave F napisał(a):

Well, OK. 'Classification' then (which gives indications to who can 
use it).


I still hold my position. Classification doesn't tell who can use it, 
rather the purpose.


Hmm.. 'Motorway', when first mapped, had the assumption of  a surface 
suitable to take vehicles at high speed & bike riders weren't permitted.

This is now gradually changing with specific sub-tag to clarify.

Service road and corridor are clear about it: first is for "last mile" 
servicing roads (and not who can drive there), the second one is for 
connecting rooms inside the building.


I've no idea what you're talking about here.




How are they second class?



This is where secondary tags become useful. If renderers wants to


This is exactly why it is a second class citizen - it needs a 
secondary tagging.


Err.. No. It gives clarity & detail. See my note about motorways above.


What would you say if we had:

highway=road
road:class=primary
road:link=yes

instead of highway=primary_link? And this sub-type has only 250k of uses.


I'd say use primary_link as it involves less typing, but both are equal 
in meaning & standing.


Highway=path may be as generic as say highway=road, highway=pedestrian 
is more or less as luxury as motorway - and we have highway=footway 
for all the other uses. Even path/footway difference is not clear, so 
we try to fix it with adding surface.


Yes. Richard Faihurst has called for the end of 'path'. All should be 
footway & defined further by using sub-tags.





show, for instance, all paths in one style, they easily can by
filtering just highway=footway* If they want to differentiate
different surfaces*, access restrictions etc, they can do that by
referring to secondary tags.


But you can also use surface for roads to differentiate them. Yet we 
mainly rely on roads purpose, not the surface.


Again, see my motorway comment.



Pedestrian ways can be also serving different purposes (and so they 
should have different rendering, as we do for roads):

- corridors
- cemetery, park and allotments alleys
- long-distance outdoor hiking trails
- sidewalk
- crossing
- via ferrata

and probably some other specific types for which we even have a proper 
name for.


Well, yes & no
Yes: This is done using sub-tags as I clearly showed above.
No: You know cemetery & park paths are cemetery & park paths because 
they're in a cemetery or park. (OSM is geospatially aware - see 
discussions in Talk about is_in tag)


Dave F.

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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=building_passage or covered=yes

2016-09-11 Thread Daniel Koć 

W dniu 11.09.2016 17:53, Dave F napisał(a):

Well, OK. 'Classification' then (which gives indications to who can use 
it).


I still hold my position. Classification doesn't tell who can use it, 
rather the purpose. Service road and corridor are clear about it: first 
is for "last mile" servicing roads (and not who can drive there), the 
second one is for connecting rooms inside the building.



How are they second class?



This is where secondary tags become useful. If renderers wants to


This is exactly why it is a second class citizen - it needs a secondary 
tagging.


What would you say if we had:

highway=road
road:class=primary
road:link=yes

instead of highway=primary_link? And this sub-type has only 250k of 
uses.


Highway=path may be as generic as say highway=road, highway=pedestrian 
is more or less as luxury as motorway - and we have highway=footway for 
all the other uses. Even path/footway difference is not clear, so we try 
to fix it with adding surface.



show, for instance, all paths in one style, they easily can by
filtering just highway=footway* If they want to differentiate
different surfaces*, access restrictions etc, they can do that by
referring to secondary tags.


But you can also use surface for roads to differentiate them. Yet we 
mainly rely on roads purpose, not the surface.


Pedestrian ways can be also serving different purposes (and so they 
should have different rendering, as we do for roads):

- corridors
- cemetery, park and allotments alleys
- long-distance outdoor hiking trails
- sidewalk
- crossing
- via ferrata

and probably some other specific types for which we even have a proper 
name for.


--
"To co ludzie zwą marskością wątroby/ Tak naprawdę jest śmiercią z 
tęsknoty" [Afro Kolektyw]


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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=building_passage or covered=yes

2016-09-11 Thread Dave F 


On 11/09/2016 15:24, Daniel Koć wrote:

W dniu 11.09.2016 15:48, Dave F napisał(a):

On 10/09/2016 12:43, Daniel Koć wrote:


BTW: There's also another interesting and quite established tag - 
highway=corridor, which I've found lately:


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcorridor


Oh Great Scott.
It doesn't tell anyone who can travel along it. It's useless. All
descriptions of a highway should be in secondary tags.


For me that's what the access=* tag is for.


Well, OK. 'Classification' then (which gives indications to who can use it).



We have dozen primary types and subtypes (_link) of roads defined and 
all the pedestrian squeezed into just 3 general types with no clear 
distinction - I think this is not healthy to treat them as a second 
class citizens any longer.


How are they second class?



On standard style (osm-carto) you have all the colors to know the road 
class just by looking at it, while we have still no clue when the path 
should be rendered earlier (outdoor) or later (indoor) than standard, 
and this would be very useful, even if still using just one color.


This is where secondary tags become useful. If renderers wants to show, 
for instance, all paths in one style, they easily can by filtering just 
highway=footway* If they want to differentiate different surfaces*, 
access restrictions etc, they can do that by referring to secondary tags.


* On a suggestion by Richard Fairhurst the OSM carto now emphasises a 
footway if it has a surface=" sub-tag


Dave F.



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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=building_passage or covered=yes

2016-09-11 Thread Daniel Koć 

W dniu 11.09.2016 15:48, Dave F napisał(a):

On 10/09/2016 12:43, Daniel Koć wrote:


BTW: There's also another interesting and quite established tag - 
highway=corridor, which I've found lately:


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcorridor


Oh Great Scott.
It doesn't tell anyone who can travel along it. It's useless. All
descriptions of a highway should be in secondary tags.


For me that's what the access=* tag is for.

We have dozen primary types and subtypes (_link) of roads defined and 
all the pedestrian squeezed into just 3 general types with no clear 
distinction - I think this is not healthy to treat them as a second 
class citizens any longer.


On standard style (osm-carto) you have all the colors to know the road 
class just by looking at it, while we have still no clue when the path 
should be rendered earlier (outdoor) or later (indoor) than standard, 
and this would be very useful, even if still using just one color.


--
"To co ludzie zwą marskością wątroby/ Tak naprawdę jest śmiercią z 
tęsknoty" [Afro Kolektyw]


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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=building_passage or covered=yes

2016-09-11 Thread Dave F 


On 10/09/2016 12:43, Daniel Koć wrote:


BTW: There's also another interesting and quite established tag - 
highway=corridor, which I've found lately:


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcorridor


Oh Great Scott.
It doesn't tell anyone who can travel along it. It's useless. All 
descriptions of a highway should be in secondary tags.


Dave F.

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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=building_passage or covered=yes

2016-09-11 Thread Richard 
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 11:46:36AM +0100, Dave F wrote:
> But it's *not a tunnel*

that makes 2 votes for covered=building_passage and phasing out
tunnel=building_passage

Richard

> 
> On 10/09/2016 12:23, Simone Saviolo wrote:
> >Yes, an obvious one: a building_passage *goes through a building* :)
> >
> >Semantically it is quite important to distinguish between a
> >colonnade/arcade and a building passage (BTW, also arcades and colonnades
> >have their own tag). covered=yes just implies that the building is over
> >the highway, but it might even mean that a protruding balcony "covers" the
> >way.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Simone
> >
> >2016-09-10 13:09 GMT+02:00 Dave F  >>:
> >
> >Hmm...
> >The building_passage tag (65 445) is a new one to me.
> >http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/tunnel=building_passage
> >
> >
> >Looking at the wiki it's very similar to covered=yes (254 624)
> >http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/covered
> >
> >
> >I thought there was a discussion here where it was agreed to be a
> >tunnel it would need to be below natural ground (ie a mountain or
> >river bed).
> >These 'building_passage' all appear to be at ground level.
> >
> >Is there a difference I'm not aware of?
> >
> >Dave F.
> >
> >On 10/09/2016 11:42, LeTopographeFou wrote:
> >>
> >>Hello,
> >>
> >>I've noticed several typo errors in tag values. I would like to
> >>fix them when it is obvious. When they all came from one user,
> >>it's easy to contact him and agree on a fix. When it's worldwide
> >>and multi contributors it becomes difficult to identify the right
> >>contributor for each tag and contact them one by one (unless
> >>there is a tool to say "this value for this key of this/those
> >>object(s) have been assigned by Xxx, Yyy..."). In all cases I
> >>want to document the edit in the wiki. But do I have to ask for a
> >>vote/discussion for automated typo edits? The wiki is unclear on
> >>this point.
> >>
> >>So I've made a proposal here for a first edit:
> >>
> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits/LeTopographeFou#.23002_-_Typos_with_tunnel.3Dbuilding_passage
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >>Thank you for your feedback
> >>
> >>  * vote is ok
> >>  * don't worry, document and do when it's obvious
> >>  * edit one by one/contact authors one by one
> >>  * do nothing and let the time do his work
> >>  * are you silly? automated edits are evil for typos!
> >>  * ... ?
> >>
> >>
> >>Yours,
> >>-- LeTopographeFou
> >>
> >>
> >>___
> >>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
> 

> ___
> 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] tunnel=building_passage or covered=yes

2016-09-11 Thread Dave F 

But it's *not a tunnel*

On 10/09/2016 12:23, Simone Saviolo wrote:

Yes, an obvious one: a building_passage *goes through a building* :)

Semantically it is quite important to distinguish between a 
colonnade/arcade and a building passage (BTW, also arcades and 
colonnades have their own tag). covered=yes just implies that the 
building is over the highway, but it might even mean that a protruding 
balcony "covers" the way.


Regards,

Simone

2016-09-10 13:09 GMT+02:00 Dave F >:


Hmm...
The building_passage tag (65 445) is a new one to me.
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/tunnel=building_passage


Looking at the wiki it's very similar to covered=yes (254 624)
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/covered


I thought there was a discussion here where it was agreed to be a
tunnel it would need to be below natural ground (ie a mountain or
river bed).
These 'building_passage' all appear to be at ground level.

Is there a difference I'm not aware of?

Dave F.

On 10/09/2016 11:42, LeTopographeFou wrote:


Hello,

I've noticed several typo errors in tag values. I would like to
fix them when it is obvious. When they all came from one user,
it's easy to contact him and agree on a fix. When it's worldwide
and multi contributors it becomes difficult to identify the right
contributor for each tag and contact them one by one (unless
there is a tool to say "this value for this key of this/those
object(s) have been assigned by Xxx, Yyy..."). In all cases I
want to document the edit in the wiki. But do I have to ask for a
vote/discussion for automated typo edits? The wiki is unclear on
this point.

So I've made a proposal here for a first edit:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits/LeTopographeFou#.23002_-_Typos_with_tunnel.3Dbuilding_passage



Thank you for your feedback

  * vote is ok
  * don't worry, document and do when it's obvious
  * edit one by one/contact authors one by one
  * do nothing and let the time do his work
  * are you silly? automated edits are evil for typos!
  * ... ?


Yours,
-- 
LeTopographeFou



___
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


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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=building_passage or covered=yes

2016-09-10 Thread Richard 
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 12:09:56PM +0100, Dave F wrote:
> Hmm...
> The building_passage tag (65 445) is a new one to me.
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/tunnel=building_passage
> 
> Looking at the wiki it's very similar to covered=yes (254 624)
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/covered
> 
> I thought there was a discussion here where it was agreed to be a tunnel it
> would need to be below natural ground (ie a mountain or river bed).
> These 'building_passage' all appear to be at ground level.

old discussions mention it should have been covered=building_passage 
but because back when it was introduced there was a greater chance 
to get tunnel=building_passage rendered tunnel was used instead.

So it remains as a slightly odd exception to tunnel=* and covered=*

Richard



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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=building_passage or covered=yes

2016-09-10 Thread Daniel Koć 

W dniu 10.09.2016 13:23, Simone Saviolo napisał(a):

Yes, an obvious one: a building_passage *goes through a building* :)

Semantically it is quite important to distinguish between a
colonnade/arcade and a building passage (BTW, also arcades and
colonnades have their own tag). covered=yes just implies that the
building is over the highway, but it might even mean that a protruding
balcony "covers" the way.


BTW: There's also another interesting and quite established tag - 
highway=corridor, which I've found lately:


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcorridor

--
"To co ludzie zwą marskością wątroby/ Tak naprawdę jest śmiercią z 
tęsknoty" [Afro Kolektyw]


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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=building_passage or covered=yes

2016-09-10 Thread LeTopographeFou 

Thank you for your feedback.

This is an important topic but I think that fixing a typo and approving 
a tag are two different needs. Whether this tag is validated or not, I 
think it should be fixed because the intent of those contributors was to 
put building_passage and not those fancy variations, even if they are 
wrong. It can also help to highlight errors in some tools.


Yours,

LeTopographeFou

Le 10/09/2016 à 13:23, Simone Saviolo a écrit :

Yes, an obvious one: a building_passage *goes through a building* :)

Semantically it is quite important to distinguish between a 
colonnade/arcade and a building passage (BTW, also arcades and 
colonnades have their own tag). covered=yes just implies that the 
building is over the highway, but it might even mean that a protruding 
balcony "covers" the way.


Regards,

Simone

2016-09-10 13:09 GMT+02:00 Dave F >:


Hmm...
The building_passage tag (65 445) is a new one to me.
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/tunnel=building_passage


Looking at the wiki it's very similar to covered=yes (254 624)
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/covered


I thought there was a discussion here where it was agreed to be a
tunnel it would need to be below natural ground (ie a mountain or
river bed).
These 'building_passage' all appear to be at ground level.

Is there a difference I'm not aware of?

Dave F.

On 10/09/2016 11:42, LeTopographeFou wrote:


Hello,

I've noticed several typo errors in tag values. I would like to
fix them when it is obvious. When they all came from one user,
it's easy to contact him and agree on a fix. When it's worldwide
and multi contributors it becomes difficult to identify the right
contributor for each tag and contact them one by one (unless
there is a tool to say "this value for this key of this/those
object(s) have been assigned by Xxx, Yyy..."). In all cases I
want to document the edit in the wiki. But do I have to ask for a
vote/discussion for automated typo edits? The wiki is unclear on
this point.

So I've made a proposal here for a first edit:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits/LeTopographeFou#.23002_-_Typos_with_tunnel.3Dbuilding_passage



Thank you for your feedback

  * vote is ok
  * don't worry, document and do when it's obvious
  * edit one by one/contact authors one by one
  * do nothing and let the time do his work
  * are you silly? automated edits are evil for typos!
  * ... ?


Yours,
-- 
LeTopographeFou



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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=building_passage or covered=yes

2016-09-10 Thread Simone Saviolo 
Yes, an obvious one: a building_passage *goes through a building* :)

Semantically it is quite important to distinguish between a
colonnade/arcade and a building passage (BTW, also arcades and colonnades
have their own tag). covered=yes just implies that the building is over the
highway, but it might even mean that a protruding balcony "covers" the way.

Regards,

Simone

2016-09-10 13:09 GMT+02:00 Dave F :

> Hmm...
> The building_passage tag (65 445) is a new one to me.
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/tunnel=building_passage
>
> Looking at the wiki it's very similar to covered=yes (254 624)
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/covered
>
> I thought there was a discussion here where it was agreed to be a tunnel
> it would need to be below natural ground (ie a mountain or river bed).
> These 'building_passage' all appear to be at ground level.
>
> Is there a difference I'm not aware of?
>
> Dave F.
>
> On 10/09/2016 11:42, LeTopographeFou wrote:
>
> Hello,
> I've noticed several typo errors in tag values. I would like to fix them
> when it is obvious. When they all came from one user, it's easy to contact
> him and agree on a fix. When it's worldwide and multi contributors it
> becomes difficult to identify the right contributor for each tag and
> contact them one by one (unless there is a tool to say "this value for this
> key of this/those object(s) have been assigned by Xxx, Yyy..."). In all
> cases I want to document the edit in the wiki. But do I have to ask for a
> vote/discussion for automated typo edits? The wiki is unclear on this point.
>
> So I've made a proposal here for a first edit:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits/
> LeTopographeFou#.23002_-_Typos_with_tunnel.3Dbuilding_passage
>
> Thank you for your feedback
>
>- vote is ok
>- don't worry, document and do when it's obvious
>- edit one by one/contact authors one by one
>- do nothing and let the time do his work
>- are you silly? automated edits are evil for typos!
>- ... ?
>
>
> Yours,
>
> --
> LeTopographeFou
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://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] tunnel=building_passage or covered=yes

2016-09-10 Thread Dave F 

Hmm...
The building_passage tag (65 445) is a new one to me.
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/tunnel=building_passage

Looking at the wiki it's very similar to covered=yes (254 624)
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/covered

I thought there was a discussion here where it was agreed to be a tunnel 
it would need to be below natural ground (ie a mountain or river bed).

These 'building_passage' all appear to be at ground level.

Is there a difference I'm not aware of?

Dave F.

On 10/09/2016 11:42, LeTopographeFou wrote:


Hello,

I've noticed several typo errors in tag values. I would like to fix 
them when it is obvious. When they all came from one user, it's easy 
to contact him and agree on a fix. When it's worldwide and multi 
contributors it becomes difficult to identify the right contributor 
for each tag and contact them one by one (unless there is a tool to 
say "this value for this key of this/those object(s) have been 
assigned by Xxx, Yyy..."). In all cases I want to document the edit in 
the wiki. But do I have to ask for a vote/discussion for automated 
typo edits? The wiki is unclear on this point.


So I've made a proposal here for a first edit: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits/LeTopographeFou#.23002_-_Typos_with_tunnel.3Dbuilding_passage


Thank you for your feedback

  * vote is ok
  * don't worry, document and do when it's obvious
  * edit one by one/contact authors one by one
  * do nothing and let the time do his work
  * are you silly? automated edits are evil for typos!
  * ... ?


Yours,
--
LeTopographeFou


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


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