Re: [Talk-us] Off-highway vehicle recreation areas

[Joseph Eisenberg]

A leisure=park is supposed to be similar to a town park; an area with
managed vegetation where you might walk around or recreate. An OHV area is
not like this: "A park is an area of open space for recreational use,
usually designed and in semi-natural state with grassy areas, trees and
bushes. ... This tag is intended for (usually urban) parks with managed
greenery, located within settlements and nearly always open to general
public."

The tag leisure=sports_centre might be appropriate for an area that is
specifically developed and designed for ATVs and motorcycles.

"A *sports centre* is a distinct facility where sports take place within an
enclosed area. It can be a building (indoor sports centre), just outside
(outdoor sports centre) or contain indoor and outdoor sports features mixed
together."

However, if this is a large semi-natural area that just happens to have a
number of track or trails, then it's similar to a forested area with hiking
trails or mountain bike paths. In this case it might or might not be part
of a boundary=protected_area

In the case of the Hungary Valley SVRA, it is managed by the California
State Parks system: https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=405 - I believe this
is a boundary=protected_area

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 12:54 PM brad  wrote:

> Good question.   At first glance I don't think Leisure=park is wrong.  The
> wiki is characteristically narrow since it says that it is green.
> leisure=sports_center or landuse=recreation_ground would be better.
> leisure=pitch doesn't seem right even thought the sport=motocross wiki page
> references it.   These OHV areas are typically more than a simple motocross
> track.   leisure=nature_reserve sure doesn't seem right!
>
> On 6/5/20 4:55 PM, Tod Fitch wrote:
>
> I have noticed a couple of off-highway vehicle recreation areas that are 
> tagged with things that seem incorrect to me: As generic parks or as 
> protected areas.
>
> Consider the Hungry Valley State Vehicle Recreation Area [1][2][3][4] and the 
> Wildomar OHV Area [5][6].
>
> My problem is that I can’t tell from the wiki and taginfo what might more 
> appropriate or more accepted tagging. It seems there is tagging for tracks 
> used for motocross. And people have used access tags for ATVs. But I don't 
> see a documented tagging for an area that contains a trail system for use by 
> multiple types of off-highway vehicles. I have some thoughts on what might be 
> appropriate, but would rather hear from others.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --Tod
>
> [1] 
> https://www.riderplanet-usa.com/atv/trails/info/california_10003/ride_413b.htm
> [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6179378
> [3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/367714413
> [4] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/367714414
> [5] 
> https://www.riderplanet-usa.com/ATV/trails/info/california_03947/ride_7684.htm
> [6] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/248540505
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing 
> listTalk-us@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] USFS Roads - name and ref

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 4:15 PM Bob Gambrel  wrote:

> Paul's in depth answer of my question was very helpful. Luckily I am not
> concentrating on road/highway routes. I like the concept of:
>
> We should be moving forward towards
> all routes being tagged in a route relation so we can phase out route
> attributes on ways, freeing those up for *the way's attributes.*
>
> That intuitively makes sense. It seems to me that most routes these days
> are really a collection of ways (collected by the route relation).
>

This was *literally* a reason relations became a thing in API 0.5.  Though
the design problem being solved was mostly "The UK has Sustrans and MOT
routes and existing ref=* can't deal with both", not that "EU routes also
cross through the UK" and "the US has three national networks, at least 70
state networks, over 200 indian networks, and nearly 4000 county networks
for highways, not counting the potential for nearly the same number of the
same for cyclists".  Not a problem yet but wouldn't surprise me, especially
now that a lot of places are moving bicycle infrastructure from "nice to
have if we have money left over" to "no hurry, 20 years ago is fine" thanks
to COVID19, that we might need to make route=bicycle relations have the
same network=* tags as route=road, down the line.


> I explained this to some city planners, newer to OSM than I was, with
> three examples (an Interstate that actually includes a Ferry, clearly not
> part of a single paved way, a bus route traversing many different streets,
> and the MRT (Miss. River Trail) which consists of streets, highways, bike
> paths, ...)
>

There's an Interstate that traverses a ferry??  I knew of two drawbridges
and six traffic signals but a ferry's a new one on me.  But yeah, routes
are frequently highway=* agnostic within the limits of the type of vehicle
that the route is intended for, for the most part (granted, Historic Route
66 has at least one staircase in it now).
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] USFS Roads - name and ref

[Bob Gambrel]

Paul's in depth answer of my question was very helpful. Luckily I am not
concentrating on road/highway routes. I like the concept of:

We should be moving forward towards
all routes being tagged in a route relation so we can phase out route
attributes on ways, freeing those up for *the way's attributes.*

That intuitively makes sense. It seems to me that most routes these days
are really a collection of ways (collected by the route relation). I
explained this to some city planners, newer to OSM than I was, with three
examples (an Interstate that actually includes a Ferry, clearly not part of
a single paved way, a bus route traversing many different streets, and the
MRT (Miss. River Trail) which consists of streets, highways, bike paths,
...)

Keeping the data important to the way on the way and the data relevant to
the route in the relation is perfect. (Well at least very good)
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Rail tagging in US (and North America): operator=* and reporting_marks=*

[stevea]

I point out for those who might not know this:  rail tagging, despite excellent 
efforts by the ORM folks (largely in Germany, I understand) to encourage OSM to 
follow global tagging conventions for ORM, have already quite seriously 
fractured (necessarily) into country-specific tagging standards.  (Or in the 
case of North America, three-country-specific, as while there are differences 
in these three countries, they are relatively minor and do share a lot of 
commonality, quite intentionally, because of the large amount of interchange 
traffic between them).  This country-specificity is in both our tagging and in 
our wiki, and again, quite extensively.

SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Rail tagging in US (and North America): operator=* and reporting_marks=*

[stevea]

Volker (hello!) discusses that the tag (used in the USA, but not extensively) 
of "reporting_marks" isn't (I paraphrase him a bit) "as international as OSM 
might like it," and proposes presumed-better tag "operator_identifier" (I 
correct a minor spelling error in his posted suggestion).  Volker also mentions 
that this tag seems to be meant for rolling stock, asking on what sorts of OSM 
data the tag will be applied.

Meanwhile, Chuck (hello!) answers that reporting_marks will be applied to ways 
(perhaps not as originally intended to identify the owner / operator of rolling 
stock) but that this use of reporting_marks (or operator_identifier, it isn't 
yet decided) is semantically an excellent OSM syntactic synonym for 
"short_name_of_operator."  (I agree).

I'm of mixed opinion on this.  On the one hand, I agree with Volker that 
"regional tagging" (as in all of North America, as "reporting_marks" are used 
in all three countries) should be discouraged in OSM in favor of more worldwide 
standards / tagging, especially as they already exist (though, 
"operator_identifier" comes up empty in taginfo).  However, as this tag doesn't 
yet exist (in Europe or elsewhere), that diminishes its value, except going 
forward (and there's nothing wrong with that).  And, the tag "reporting_marks" 
(also, "reporting_mark" is used more often, though primarily by one mapper, 
Chuck and I have discussed these two tags should be conflated into 
"reporting_marks" as a single tag) already DOES exist, and it IS an existing 
"regional standard."  So, I'm sitting on the fence, seeing both potential 
solutions have merit.

What I think might work is for North American rail mapping to continue to 
"standardize" on using "reporting_marks" as a tag with a value that effectively 
stands in for "short_name_of_operator" (and we should wiki-document this) and 
others should chime in (please) with what I agree with Chuck is a good use of 
this simple (and widespread:  in all of Canada, USA and Mexico, which 
interchange a lot of rail with each other) "rail standard," 
regional-to-North-America though it is.  If Germany or European and / or Asian 
/ African / South American countries want to something like this, they might 
get started now, using (as I propose North America does) using their own flavor 
of "reporting_marks" (as originally intended to identify rolling stock) as a 
novel and useful method to identify carriers (owners / operators) on OSM ways 
as a synonym for short_name_of_operator.  Then, at some point in the future 
when there can be some global OSM harmonization of these, a proposal to roll 
them all into "operator_identifier" (which suits me just fine) can take place 
as a good idea that will standardize this sort of tagging worldwide.

But in the meantime, I think it a good idea for these to develop locally / 
regionally, with the terminology to both mappers and those familiar with 
railroad terminology (as it is used locally / regionally) being used.  That 
will "root" and better establish these tags, I believe this is (almost?) 
necessary (first).  The globalization / standardization can happen later.  This 
seems a workable approach, though I'd like to hear from others who might posit 
that a "no, let's globalize such tagging immediately" approach is better.

SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] USFS Roads - name and ref

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 3:46 PM Bob Gambrel  wrote:

> Paul Johnson says
>
> Ultimately consider adding a route relation with network=US:NSFR:Forest
> Name:FH/FR as well so we can finally kill off route tagging on things that
> are not routes.
>
>
> I am not doing any mapping for forest roads, but the above caught my eye.
> I am doing a lot of bike path/trail mapping as well as mapping cycle
> routes. I understand the idea of adding a route relation. What confuses me
> a little above is:
>
>  so we can finally kill off route tagging on things that
> are not routes.
>
> I think you might be saying that there are ways that seem to have a route
> name in the name field and they shouldn't. Instead they should have the way
> be part of a relation that has the name of the route.
>

Route name and route ref.  Pennsylvania and Oregon (at a minimum) have
state highways and state routes, that are not always (particularly on older
roads) the same.  Oregon, for example, has a lot of state highways, *all of
which are numbered*, that have no state route, and most of the 20 or so
oldest routes now traverse multiple different highways, with only routes
created after about 2000 having the same highway and route number
consistently and no plans to retcon.  Right now, practice is to ignore the
ref (even if no route traverses it) that the state actually uses for the
way, and instead ref=* gets tagged with the route that traverses over it
(or leave it off if there is no route).  This isn't orthogonal, *at all*,
with how anything else is tagged.  The ref=* on the way in this case, is
not an attribute that belongs to the way.  It belongs to the route.  I get
*why* it's that way, but the introduction of relations as a basic primitive
10 years ago obsoleted this practice.  We should be moving forward towards
all routes being tagged in a route relation so we can phase out route
attributes on ways, freeing those up for *the way's attributes.*

Please be patient if I am using some wrong terms above. Still learning
> the OSM lingo. I am really just trying to understand the last part of what
> you said. (Especially if you think it might apply to cycle routes too)
>

No problem.  The takeaway is, yes, go ahead and use the existing ref=*
practice on the way, but please also create the route relation if it
doesn't exist yet.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] USFS Roads - name and ref

[Bob Gambrel]

Paul Johnson says

Ultimately consider adding a route relation with network=US:NSFR:Forest
Name:FH/FR as well so we can finally kill off route tagging on things that
are not routes.


I am not doing any mapping for forest roads, but the above caught my eye. I
am doing a lot of bike path/trail mapping as well as mapping cycle routes.
I understand the idea of adding a route relation. What confuses me a little
above is:

 so we can finally kill off route tagging on things that
are not routes.

I think you might be saying that there are ways that seem to have a route
name in the name field and they shouldn't. Instead they should have the way
be part of a relation that has the name of the route.

Please be patient if I am using some wrong terms above. Still learning
the OSM lingo. I am really just trying to understand the last part of what
you said. (Especially if you think it might apply to cycle routes too)
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] USFS Roads - name and ref

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 3:24 PM brad  wrote:

> On 6/6/20 9:24 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 8:24 AM Mike Thompson  wrote:
>
>> ref:
>> The wiki states that these should be ref=FR + . In
>> practice:
>> * ref:usfs=FS + 
>> * ref=FS + 
>> Most of the changesets that added a "ref:usfs" tag include a very helpful
>> comment that this issue was discussed on the tagging list at sometime in
>> the past and that this was the consensus, e.g. [2].  If this continues to
>> be the consensus, can we change the wiki?
>>
>>
> ref=FS 
>
> Ultimately consider adding a route relation with network=US:NSFR:Forest
> Name:FH/FR as well so we can finally kill off route tagging on things that
> are not routes.  Not sure we really need the FH/FR distinction, however,
> since within the same forest, they're all the same network: The 2 digit
> routes are major, the 3 digits are minor (like parking lots and
> campgrounds) and the 4 digits are usually only usable by log trucks and
> 4x4s.  Trails are another matter.
>
> I prefer ref=FS xxx   too.   I think the tagging discussion that suggested
> ref:usfs was using that for the route relation.
>

 Why would that even be necessary to have a ref:usfs subkey on a route
relation, though?  It's already in the NFSR network.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] USFS Roads - name and ref

[brad]

On 6/6/20 9:24 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 8:24 AM Mike Thompson > wrote:


ref:
The wiki states that these should be ref=FR + . In practice:
* ref:usfs=FS + 
* ref=FS + 
Most of the changesets that added a "ref:usfs" tag include a very
helpful comment that this issue was discussed on the tagging list
at sometime in the past and that this was the consensus, e.g.
[2].  If this continues to be the consensus, can we change the wiki?


ref=FS 

Ultimately consider adding a route relation with 
network=US:NSFR:Forest Name:FH/FR as well so we can finally kill off 
route tagging on things that are not routes.  Not sure we really need 
the FH/FR distinction, however, since within the same forest, they're 
all the same network: The 2 digit routes are major, the 3 digits are 
minor (like parking lots and campgrounds) and the 4 digits are usually 
only usable by log trucks and 4x4s.  Trails are another matter.


I prefer ref=FS xxx   too.   I think the tagging discussion that 
suggested ref:usfs was using that for the route relation.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Off-highway vehicle recreation areas

[stevea]

Tod Fitch  writes:

> I have noticed a couple of off-highway vehicle recreation areas that are 
> tagged with things that seem incorrect to me: As generic parks or as 
> protected areas.

The one near me (way/40263471, Hollister Hills State Vehicular Recreation Area, 
SVRA) I myself have tagged landuse=recreation_ground, but I've been taken to 
task for doing that, as it isn't one of these as our wiki defines it, even 
though the name of it seems like a good match (it isn't).  However, I suffer 
from the same problem, as I don't know what a better tag is, either.  
California State Parks (who manages them) prioritizes them as "recreation 
opportunity," although their web site says "provisions in California law 
require actions to stabilize soils and to provide for healthy wildlife 
populations in OHV recreation areas."  So there are some leisure=nature_reserve 
aspect to these, one could argue (but this is for the restoration of the lands 
for the primary purpose of offering the ORV recreational opportunity).  I agree 
with you that neither leisure=park nor boundary=protected_area are appropriate 
on these sorts of areas.  They are specifically set aside (by the state) as 
areas for rather intensive landuse by off-road vehicles, and they can be quite 
extensive.  Hungry Valley SVRA is about 30 square miles in area, with well over 
100 miles of ORV trails, not something small by any definition.

> Consider the Hungry Valley State Vehicle Recreation Area [1][2][3][4] and the 
> Wildomar OHV Area [5][6].

It appears we are both in California and "suffer" from "how best to tag?" about 
these.  Nor (as is Hungry Valley) is BOTH boundary=protected_area (it isn't) 
and leisure=nature_reserve correct.  Plain and simply, "not."

Hungry Valley even has at least two "inholdings" (areas internal to the SVRA) 
which ARE boundary=protected_areas, the Freeman Canyon and Gorman Cultural 
Preserves.  Oddly, these are tagged boundary=national_park, which isn't quite 
correct, either.  Located between two major earthquake faults, Hungry Valley is 
quite interesting geologically.

> My problem is that I can’t tell from the wiki and taginfo what might more 
> appropriate or more accepted tagging. It seems there is tagging for tracks 
> used for motocross. And people have used access tags for ATVs. But I don't 
> see a documented tagging for an area that contains a trail system for use by 
> multiple types of off-highway vehicles. I have some thoughts on what might be 
> appropriate, but would rather hear from others.

I'm coming up empty of "what to do?" but I am finding quite a few of these with 
quite-poorly tagged boundaries.  Surely, OSM can do better than this, but Tod 
asks an excellent question:  "with what tags, please?"

SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Off-highway vehicle recreation areas

[brad]

Good question.   At first glance I don't think Leisure=park is wrong.  
The wiki is characteristically narrow since it says that it is green.   
leisure=sports_center or landuse=recreation_ground would be better.   
leisure=pitch doesn't seem right even thought the sport=motocross wiki 
page references it.   These OHV areas are typically more than a simple 
motocross track. leisure=nature_reserve sure doesn't seem right!


On 6/5/20 4:55 PM, Tod Fitch wrote:

I have noticed a couple of off-highway vehicle recreation areas that are tagged 
with things that seem incorrect to me: As generic parks or as protected areas.

Consider the Hungry Valley State Vehicle Recreation Area [1][2][3][4] and the 
Wildomar OHV Area [5][6].

My problem is that I can’t tell from the wiki and taginfo what might more 
appropriate or more accepted tagging. It seems there is tagging for tracks used 
for motocross. And people have used access tags for ATVs. But I don't see a 
documented tagging for an area that contains a trail system for use by multiple 
types of off-highway vehicles. I have some thoughts on what might be 
appropriate, but would rather hear from others.

Thanks!

--Tod

[1] 
https://www.riderplanet-usa.com/atv/trails/info/california_10003/ride_413b.htm
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6179378
[3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/367714413
[4] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/367714414
[5] 
https://www.riderplanet-usa.com/ATV/trails/info/california_03947/ride_7684.htm
[6] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/248540505


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] USFS Roads - name and ref

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 8:24 AM Mike Thompson  wrote:

> ref:
> The wiki states that these should be ref=FR + . In
> practice:
> * ref:usfs=FS + 
> * ref=FS + 
> Most of the changesets that added a "ref:usfs" tag include a very helpful
> comment that this issue was discussed on the tagging list at sometime in
> the past and that this was the consensus, e.g. [2].  If this continues to
> be the consensus, can we change the wiki?
>
>
ref=FS 

Ultimately consider adding a route relation with network=US:NSFR:Forest
Name:FH/FR as well so we can finally kill off route tagging on things that
are not routes.  Not sure we really need the FH/FR distinction, however,
since within the same forest, they're all the same network: The 2 digit
routes are major, the 3 digits are minor (like parking lots and
campgrounds) and the 4 digits are usually only usable by log trucks and
4x4s.  Trails are another matter.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] USFS Roads - name and ref

[Max Erickson]

Abbreviations are predominant in US highway refs, so I think that it is
fine to use one in USFS road refs.

At some point in time I had used ref=USFS xxx but changed stuff that I had
edited to ref=FS xxx. The usage of FS in Michigan is largely a product of
either my editing directly or my discussion with other mappers (and looking
at Overpass Turbo and Taginfo, something like 45% of all refs with the
string "FS" in them...).

I don't remember really, but I think I started with USFS because it was
nearly entirely unambiguous, and then I switched because the usage of FS
was more common.

ref:usfs=FS looks wrong to me, if usfs is in the key, then it doesn't
belong repeated in the value (unless there's 2 reference systems in use,
which there are, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_Highway is not the
same thing as the Forest Service logging roads)).

The use of ref:usfs also has the problem that it hides useful data on
general purpose maps that don't specifically use it.

If ref is to be used, I expect you won't arrive at any real consensus about
what to use as a prefix, because it's easy to have an opinion about it
(bikeshedding basically). I guess if enough people pick one we might get
close.


Max
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] USFS Roads - name and ref

[Mike Thompson]

Hello,

This question concerns ways maintained/operated by the US Forest Service
(USFS) and signed with vertical  markers, e.g. [0]. These signs typically
display a three digit number, with an optional decimal point (dot/period)
followed by another number and/or a letter.

Name:
The wiki [1] states that these should name=Forest Road + .
In practice, either from other mappers, or from the original TIGER import,
I have seen:
* just what is on the sign
* Fire Road + 
* FR + 
* Forest Development Road + 
* FDR + 
* Forest Service Road + 
* FS + 
* United States Forest Service Road + 
* ...(many more variations)
Does the wiki reflect the consensus of the US mapper community (which I am
part of) on how these should be named, or should they be named in some
other manner? To complicated matters, it seems that the Forest Service
itself is not consistent and the exact wording of a name will depend on
what brochure, map board, or dataset from the Forest Service you are
looking at. I don't really have a preference, except to say 1) Many of the
above examples include abbreviations, which OSM generally refrains from,
and 2) I think we should be consistent.

ref:
The wiki states that these should be ref=FR + . In
practice:
* ref:usfs=FS + 
* ref=FS + 
Most of the changesets that added a "ref:usfs" tag include a very helpful
comment that this issue was discussed on the tagging list at sometime in
the past and that this was the consensus, e.g. [2].  If this continues to
be the consensus, can we change the wiki?


Mike




[0] Left sign in this image:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:US_Forest_Service_Vertical_Marker.png
[1]
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging#Tagging_Forest_Roads
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/73470389
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us