Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
>
> 2009/12/1 Liz 
>>
>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Mike Harris wrote:
>> > Broadly agree but why is 'meadow' not a land use? I believe that it is -
>> > in
>> > rural England at least ... See
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meadow
>>
>> meadow is a statement of what grows there
>> landuse could be grazing or recreation or hay production
>
> while this might be correct in Terms of language or not (see Mike Harris'
> post), it doesn't meet with OSM reality, where landuse and landcover are
> used sinonimously. Mapfeatures state that landuse is a physical feature
> (strange, isn't it?).

Yes, de facto OSM puts lots of "land cover" items into "landuse".
That doesn't make it right.  The "landuse" tag should be for "land
use" or "land cover", not both.

Regarding the use of "leisure=park" to represent the ability to travel
over an area, does that mean we have to cut out the areas of a park
which physically can't be traveled over (a building, a pond, a marsh
area)?  Or should the presence of one of these (or other non-routable)
features at the same layer override the routability (or change it, as
I guess technically you could swim/wade across the pond :)?  I took
leisure=park to be a "use" designation.  I see from the wiki it's
technically a description of land cover, though, in which case I'm
wrong to include a building within a park as part of the
"leisure=park".

I never took anything other than highway (positive) and barrier
(negative) to be definitive statements regarding routing.  But maybe
that could work.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/12/1 Liz 

> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Mike Harris wrote:
> > Broadly agree but why is 'meadow' not a land use? I believe that it is -
> in
> > rural England at least ... See
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meadow
>
> meadow is a statement of what grows there
> landuse could be grazing or recreation or hay production
>

while this might be correct in Terms of language or not (see Mike Harris'
post), it doesn't meet with OSM reality, where landuse and landcover are
used sinonimously. Mapfeatures state that landuse is a physical feature
(strange, isn't it?).

cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Mike Harris]

To quote from the wikipedia link I included

"Especially in the United Kingdom and Ireland, the term meadow is commonly
used in its original sense to mean a haymeadow; grassland cut annually for
hay"

I cannot see the difference between "grassland cut annually for hay" and
"hay production". By definition a meadow is not used for grazing (or there
wouldn't be any hay) and only informally for recreation (lovers in the
grass).

Note the same wikipedia link defines 'pasture' where the land use is
grazing.

Mike Harris
 

> -Original Message-
> From: Liz [mailto:ed...@billiau.net] 
> Sent: 01 December 2009 09:01
> To: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
> 
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Mike Harris wrote:
> > Broadly agree but why is 'meadow' not a land use? I believe 
> that it is 
> > - in rural England at least ... See 
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meadow
> 
> meadow is a statement of what grows there landuse could be 
> grazing or recreation or hay production
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Liz]

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Mike Harris wrote:
> Broadly agree but why is 'meadow' not a land use? I believe that it is - in
> rural England at least ... See
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meadow

meadow is a statement of what grows there
landuse could be grazing or recreation or hay production



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Mike Harris]

Broadly agree but why is 'meadow' not a land use? I believe that it is - in
rural England at least ... See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meadow

Mike Harris
 

> -Original Message-
> From: Anthony [mailto:o...@inbox.org] 
> Sent: 01 December 2009 00:12
> To: Roy Wallace
> Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org; m...@koppenhoefer.com
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
> 
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Roy Wallace 
>  wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Anthony  wrote:
> >>
> >> What if I map the entire section of grass which is within 
> the right 
> >> of way as a polygon with highway=path, area=yes?  That's how we 
> >> represent infinite overlapping criss-crossing 
> "invisible-paths", like 
> >> a pedestrian mall.
> >
> > Not bad. But what makes that area of grass a "path" as 
> opposed to just 
> > an area of grass you can walk on (e.g. landuse=meadow or 
> something + 
> > foot=yes)? Is there a difference?
> 
> Well, I didn't know landuse tags were routable.  And 
> landuse=meadow sounds to me like a terrible tag ("meadow" is 
> not a type of usage of land).
> 
> But I think the key difference is that the area of land is 
> located in a right of way.  And a second key difference is 
> that it's useful for routing purposes.
> 
> > I tend to think "paths" should be limited to elongated 
> areas, designed 
> > for or used typically for travel (other than for large 
> vehicles like 
> > cars), with usually a constant or slowly varying width. There's 
> > probably a better definition though.
> 
> I'd say this strip of land qualifies by that definition.  
> Length, about 80 meters.  Width: about 10-15 meters.  Used 
> quite often for pedestrian travel (it's the way you get to 
> the park, plus school children regularly walk across it on 
> their way to/from school).  The width is fairly constant.
> 
> Frankly, I don't see much point in using an area, unless 
> you're going to use an area for basically everything.  I was 
> kind of being sarcastic about that.  But whatever.
> 
> 
> 


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Mike Harris]

This may be too England-oriented to be generally useful but for what it is
worth ...

If the area of grass is a meadow or park over which there exists a large
number of equivalent 'invisible' routes that could physically walked I would
only use an area tag such as 'meadow' or 'park' and add 'path' for visibly
walked routes.

BUT ... and it is a big BUT in England and Wales ... if the area is crossed
by a 'public right of way' (e.g. a 'public footpath') as defined in England
and Wales then I would map the line of this (if known from acceptable
sources) as highway=footway, designation=public_footpath, surface=grass,
etc. whether or not the way was visible on the ground.

My reasoning is (a) that it is useful and perhaps important to record the
line of a way where the public has the legal right to walk and (b) that in
practice many - and in some areas the majority - of public footpaths that
cross pastures / fields / meadows (in particular), parkland (sometimes) and
even arable / cropped land (sometimes) are not visible on the ground (even
though in the case of arable land this is usually an illegal obscuration).
This is so much the case that it applies quite often in my area even to
named long-distance routes and to omit the segments would create unnecessary
and misleading breaks in the continuity of a 'route' relationship.

Just my thoughts for what they are worth ..

Mike Harris
 

> -Original Message-
> From: Roy Wallace [mailto:waldo000...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: 30 November 2009 21:10
> To: Anthony
> Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org; m...@koppenhoefer.com
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
> 
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Anthony  wrote:
> >
> > What if I map the entire section of grass which is within 
> the right of 
> > way as a polygon with highway=path, area=yes?  That's how 
> we represent 
> > infinite overlapping criss-crossing "invisible-paths", like a 
> > pedestrian mall.
> 
> Not bad. But what makes that area of grass a "path" as 
> opposed to just an area of grass you can walk on (e.g. 
> landuse=meadow or something + foot=yes)? Is there a difference?
> 
> I tend to think "paths" should be limited to elongated areas, 
> designed for or used typically for travel (other than for 
> large vehicles like cars), with usually a constant or slowly 
> varying width. There's probably a better definition though.
> 
> 
> 


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Steve Bennett]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Anthony  wrote:

> I vote for once for each jurisdiction.  But I vote strongly against
> doing so using a wiki.
>

Not quite sure what you're voting against. I would suggest using the wiki to
collect and organise information on jurisdictional varations, current
tagging practice, and proposed practice, then codifying that information in
something like XML.

Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Anthony]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Roy Wallace  wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
>  wrote:
>>
>>> If a German cycleway is *different*
>>> in some important way to a UK (or whatever) cycleway, it should
>>> ultimately be tagged *differently*. I find this obvious.
>>
>> what's the difference? Minimum width differs 5 cm? Kind of sign? Forbidden
>> to pedestrians? Obligatory for bicycles? Forbidden to 25ccm? Blue lines
>> instead of white ones? If every smallest difference will cause another
>> top-tag, we'll get thousands of them.
>
> If you're indicating something that might be useful for someone (e.g.
> foot=yes/no), then yes, it should ultimately be recorded.

Even if it's not "on the ground"?

Seems easier for the mappers/routers to go through a preprocessing
stage where they rename all cycleways in Germany from
"highway=cycleway" to "highway=german_cycleway", than to expect
mappers to redundantly tag like that.  Kind of like the whole is_in
fiasco.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Anthony]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Roy Wallace  wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Steve Bennett  wrote:
>>
>>> Um...what??? That will not write itself. Do you expect us to
>>> successfully digitize and maintain a database of all laws of all
>>> countries?
>>
>> What do you think? Work with me, here.
>
> I think that would be a nightmare, and would not work. If anything, it
> would introduce MORE inconsistency due to 1) difficulty maintaining
> the lawbook and 2) a more complicated set of guidelines and more
> complicated wiki, making it even LESS likely that people will follow
> it consistently.
>
> As I've said, I'd prefer to stick to *mapping what's on the ground*,
> *according to the guidelines in the wiki*. This is the only way to get
> global consistency, which I think is important for the reasons I've
> already described.

If the law of one jurisdiction says bicycles are allowed on all roads
except freeways, and the law of another jurisdiction says bicycles are
allowed on all roadways with speed limits less than 45, and there
aren't any signs "on the ground" making people aware of this, and we
don't want to maintain a database of laws, what are we to do?

I like the idea of mapping only "what's on the ground".  But it can be
taken to far.  Does anyone honestly suggest that we shouldn't tag a
road's name using any knowledge other than what's literally "on the
ground" - on a street sign?  Should we really do away with pretty much
all boundary=* tags altogether (or replace them with nodes at the
points where there are signs)?  "Map what's on the ground" is a good
guideline, but there have to be exceptions.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Roy Wallace]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
>> If a German cycleway is *different*
>> in some important way to a UK (or whatever) cycleway, it should
>> ultimately be tagged *differently*. I find this obvious.
>
> what's the difference? Minimum width differs 5 cm? Kind of sign? Forbidden
> to pedestrians? Obligatory for bicycles? Forbidden to 25ccm? Blue lines
> instead of white ones? If every smallest difference will cause another
> top-tag, we'll get thousands of them.

If you're indicating something that might be useful for someone (e.g.
foot=yes/no), then yes, it should ultimately be recorded. Eventually.
And yes, eventually, I would expect OSM will have more tags than it
does now, as the scope of the project expands (note this doesn't mean
it has to expand illogically, or without structure).

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Anthony]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 7:38 AM, Roy Wallace  wrote:
> That will not write itself. Do you expect us to
> successfully digitize and maintain a database of all laws of all
> countries? In a wiki, even? That's ambitious! I'd prefer to stick to
> mapping what's on the ground.

You can map what's on the ground, then.  But in order to make a decent
routing application, someone is going to have to maintain a database
of certain laws in any states they wish for their routing application
to work.  There's really no question about that.  The only question is
whether you want to store that information in every single element of
the database, or store it once for each jurisdiction.

I vote for once for each jurisdiction.  But I vote strongly against
doing so using a wiki.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/12/1 Anthony 


> I'd say this strip of land qualifies by that definition.  Length,
> about 80 meters.  Width: about 10-15 meters.  Used quite often for
> pedestrian travel (it's the way you get to the park, plus school
> children regularly walk across it on their way to/from school).  The
> width is fairly constant.
>
>
what about highway=pedestrian, area=yes, surface=grass?


> Frankly, I don't see much point in using an area, unless you're going
> to use an area for basically everything.


in the end yes.

cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/12/1 Roy Wallace 

>
> One meaning per tag is essential.


it depends what this meaning is. If you intend by meaning: cycleway is a way
with a bicycle-sign: fine, if you intent that all access rights should be
implicitly and globally given: no.


> If a German cycleway is *different*
> in some important way to a UK (or whatever) cycleway, it should
> ultimately be tagged *differently*. I find this obvious.
>
>
what's the difference? Minimum width differs 5 cm? Kind of sign? Forbidden
to pedestrians? Obligatory for bicycles? Forbidden to 25ccm? Blue lines
instead of white ones? If every smallest difference will cause another
top-tag, we'll get thousands of them.

cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Anthony]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Roy Wallace  wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Anthony  wrote:
>>
>> What if I map the entire section of grass which is within the right of
>> way as a polygon with highway=path, area=yes?  That's how we represent
>> infinite overlapping criss-crossing "invisible-paths", like a
>> pedestrian mall.
>
> Not bad. But what makes that area of grass a "path" as opposed to just
> an area of grass you can walk on (e.g. landuse=meadow or something +
> foot=yes)? Is there a difference?

Well, I didn't know landuse tags were routable.  And landuse=meadow
sounds to me like a terrible tag ("meadow" is not a type of usage of
land).

But I think the key difference is that the area of land is located in
a right of way.  And a second key difference is that it's useful for
routing purposes.

> I tend to think "paths" should be limited to elongated areas, designed
> for or used typically for travel (other than for large vehicles like
> cars), with usually a constant or slowly varying width. There's
> probably a better definition though.

I'd say this strip of land qualifies by that definition.  Length,
about 80 meters.  Width: about 10-15 meters.  Used quite often for
pedestrian travel (it's the way you get to the park, plus school
children regularly walk across it on their way to/from school).  The
width is fairly constant.

Frankly, I don't see much point in using an area, unless you're going
to use an area for basically everything.  I was kind of being
sarcastic about that.  But whatever.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/12/1 Steve Bennett 

>
> I've referred to "Jurisdictions" a few times for this reason. I imagine US
> states are possibly even more individual. Would we go as far as
> councils/municipalities? Probably not. (Although, as I mentioned somewhere
> earlier, the City of Melbourne prohibits bike riding in parks, while other
> councils don't. My preferred solution would be tag paths in the former as
> footway, and in the latter as cycleway).
>
> no, I wouldn't tag all ways in a park as cycleways, just because you can
also ride a bike. I would tag both as footway (or service if big enough for
cars to drive, with access-tags) and put bicycle=yes/no aside, as long as
they are not dedicated cycleways.

cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/12/1 Tobias Knerr 

> Roy Wallace wrote:
> > The point I was making was that it should *not* be necessary to
> > *require* "a database of all laws of all countries" to know what
> > highway=cycleway means.
>

+1. even if for implicit regulations this would be needed, at least the
consensus could be (like you suggested) that cycleway is a marked cycleway.
Whether I'm allowed to use it with a 25ccm motorcycle (mofa) or not, could
be optionally tagged or considered as implicitly given by local law.


> Do you only suggest that there should be exactly one meaning per tag, or
> would you also want the same tags to be used all over the world?
>
>
what do you mean by this? The meaning is always different. Do we need
different tags for roads in the UK because the drive on the left? IMHO no.

cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Liz]

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Steve Bennett wrote:
> I'm not sure that those roads (Hume Highway) should be marked as motorway,
>
> > but
> > got no comment on the talk-au list when i asked for comments.
>
> The Hume Freeway is definitely a motorway. There are places between
> Melbourne and Sydney where it's just a highway, but it's dual carriage
> almost the whole way through Victoria. The Western Freeway also allows
> bikes. (And for anyone who hasn't tried it, riding on a motorway has some
> serious slipstreaming benefits!)
i agree with you
there are many km of Hume Highway in NSW which are marked as motorway, when 
they are technically not so, they are a high quality dual carriageway. But 
there are no flyovers, traffic can cross the lanes to enter and leave the 
road.



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Roy Wallace]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Tobias Knerr  wrote:
> Roy Wallace wrote:
>> The point I was making was that it should *not* be necessary to
>> *require* "a database of all laws of all countries" to know what
>> highway=cycleway means. There should be one definition that is
>> consistent for the whole world. For example, "this path is marked with
>> a sign with a bicycle symbol on it". If people also want to put in
>> exhaustive information inferred from a law book, I'd prefer they go
>> ahead and use "foot=no + source:foot=lawbook". If people prefer to
>> leave out the inferred information, and instead write routers with
>> country-specific defaults, that's cool, too.
>>
>> But highway=cycleway tags in the OSM database should all mean the same thing.
>
> Do you only suggest that there should be exactly one meaning per tag, or
> would you also want the same tags to be used all over the world?
>
> It makes a difference for possible approaches like using
> highway=Fahrradweg (or DE:cycleway or any other value that isn't exactly
> "cycleway") for German cycleways, as that would still be "one meaning
> per tag".

One meaning per tag is essential. If a German cycleway is *different*
in some important way to a UK (or whatever) cycleway, it should
ultimately be tagged *differently*. I find this obvious.

The details of how they should be tagged are of secondary importance.
To answer your question specifically, I don't have so much of a
problem with highway=fahrradweg, though I doubt that's the best way to
do it. If highway=fahrradweg at least has the same meaning in all
usages, it would be an improvement!

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Steve Bennett]

Various comments:

I'm not sure that those roads (Hume Highway) should be marked as motorway,
> but
> got no comment on the talk-au list when i asked for comments.
>

The Hume *Freeway* is definitely a motorway. There are places between
Melbourne and Sydney where it's just a highway, but it's dual carriage
almost the whole way through Victoria. The Western Freeway also allows
bikes. (And for anyone who hasn't tried it, riding on a motorway has some
serious slipstreaming benefits!)

>This is one area where national defaults won't help - you'd have to get
down to local rules.

I've referred to "Jurisdictions" a few times for this reason. I imagine US
states are possibly even more individual. Would we go as far as
councils/municipalities? Probably not. (Although, as I mentioned somewhere
earlier, the City of Melbourne prohibits bike riding in parks, while other
councils don't. My preferred solution would be tag paths in the former as
footway, and in the latter as cycleway).

>The point I was making was that it should *not* be necessary to
>*require* "a database of all laws of all countries"

This statement is unnecessarily scary. "Database". "All laws". "All
countries". Like I said, think about it. Of course not. The variations are
minor, and represent a tiny proportion of the traffic laws of each country.
And we could certainly have defaults that most countries match.

Remember, the goal here is to have a situation where the most intuitive and
convenient way to tag stuff where people live is as consistent as possible
with the rest of the world. A cultural/legal matrix is the right way to do
that.

Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Tobias Knerr]

Roy Wallace wrote:
> The point I was making was that it should *not* be necessary to
> *require* "a database of all laws of all countries" to know what
> highway=cycleway means. There should be one definition that is
> consistent for the whole world. For example, "this path is marked with
> a sign with a bicycle symbol on it". If people also want to put in
> exhaustive information inferred from a law book, I'd prefer they go
> ahead and use "foot=no + source:foot=lawbook". If people prefer to
> leave out the inferred information, and instead write routers with
> country-specific defaults, that's cool, too.
> 
> But highway=cycleway tags in the OSM database should all mean the same thing.

Do you only suggest that there should be exactly one meaning per tag, or
would you also want the same tags to be used all over the world?

It makes a difference for possible approaches like using
highway=Fahrradweg (or DE:cycleway or any other value that isn't exactly
"cycleway") for German cycleways, as that would still be "one meaning
per tag".

Tobias Knerr

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Liz  wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Cartinus  wrote:
> >> > On Monday 30 November 2009 22:25:36 Roy Wallace wrote:
> >> >> 1) I can convince you guys that this approach is the best way to get
> >> >> global consistency, and that that's important;
> >> >> 2) people realise that editors can be used to avoid additional
> >> >> keystrokes and so there is actually no cost in adding foot=yes;
> >> >
> >> > I've been told that when OSM started (I wasn't involved then) that
> >> > every motorway had to be tagged horse=no+foot=no+bicycle=no.
> >> >
> >> > There is a reason they stopped doing that.
> >>
> >> The reason is that that's *globally* redundant.
> >
> > not exactly correct.
> > We do have highway marked motorway in Au where bicycles are allowed.
>
> Ok, rephrased: the reason they stopped is because it wasn't necessary.
> Obviously, we have a problem here. I'm suggesting some solutions.


I'm not sure that those roads (Hume Highway) should be marked as motorway, but 
got no comment on the talk-au list when i asked for comments.



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Roy Wallace]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Liz  wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Cartinus  wrote:
>> > On Monday 30 November 2009 22:25:36 Roy Wallace wrote:
>> >> 1) I can convince you guys that this approach is the best way to get
>> >> global consistency, and that that's important;
>> >> 2) people realise that editors can be used to avoid additional
>> >> keystrokes and so there is actually no cost in adding foot=yes;
>> >
>> > I've been told that when OSM started (I wasn't involved then) that every
>> > motorway had to be tagged horse=no+foot=no+bicycle=no.
>> >
>> > There is a reason they stopped doing that.
>>
>> The reason is that that's *globally* redundant.
>>
>
> not exactly correct.
> We do have highway marked motorway in Au where bicycles are allowed.

Ok, rephrased: the reason they stopped is because it wasn't necessary.
Obviously, we have a problem here. I'm suggesting some solutions.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Roy Wallace]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Tobias Knerr  wrote:
> Roy Wallace wrote:
>>
>>> Routing software that is aware of the local laws of each country seems 
>>> obvious.
>>
>> Um...what??? That will not write itself. Do you expect us to
>> successfully digitize and maintain a database of all laws of all
>> countries? In a wiki, even? That's ambitious! I'd prefer to stick to
>> mapping what's on the ground.
>
> If we map what's on the ground, then we create a map database containing
> "here is an oneway sign, over there is a cycleway sign". That's
> nice, but if I want to do routing with this, I need information such as
> "can I use way w in direction d with vehicle v?" - and in order to know
> this, I need another database that tells me what a sign means in that
> part of the world (for example: are pedestrians allowed to walk on ways
> with a cycleway sign?).
>
> If we don't want a traffic law database, then we need to tag the
> required information directly. But then mappers don't just map physical
> reality. They interpret the signs (and other information) using their -
> hopefully correct - knowledge of the laws.
>
> Both can work, but /someone/ has to do the transfer from reality to road
> network attributes - either software (using a traffic laws DB) or humans
> (mapping more than just what's on the ground).

Good points. You did find a flaw in my argument - that I was sort of
advocating exhaustive tagging as well as only mapping what's on the
ground. Funnily enough, I actually find both of these extremes
acceptable. But that's not the point...

The point I was making was that it should *not* be necessary to
*require* "a database of all laws of all countries" to know what
highway=cycleway means. There should be one definition that is
consistent for the whole world. For example, "this path is marked with
a sign with a bicycle symbol on it". If people also want to put in
exhaustive information inferred from a law book, I'd prefer they go
ahead and use "foot=no + source:foot=lawbook". If people prefer to
leave out the inferred information, and instead write routers with
country-specific defaults, that's cool, too.

But highway=cycleway tags in the OSM database should all mean the same thing.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Liz]

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Cartinus  wrote:
> > On Monday 30 November 2009 22:25:36 Roy Wallace wrote:
> >> 1) I can convince you guys that this approach is the best way to get
> >> global consistency, and that that's important;
> >> 2) people realise that editors can be used to avoid additional
> >> keystrokes and so there is actually no cost in adding foot=yes;
> >
> > I've been told that when OSM started (I wasn't involved then) that every
> > motorway had to be tagged horse=no+foot=no+bicycle=no.
> >
> > There is a reason they stopped doing that.
>
> The reason is that that's *globally* redundant.
>

not exactly correct.
We do have highway marked motorway in Au where bicycles are allowed.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Roy Wallace]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Cartinus  wrote:
> On Monday 30 November 2009 22:25:36 Roy Wallace wrote:
>> 1) I can convince you guys that this approach is the best way to get
>> global consistency, and that that's important;
>> 2) people realise that editors can be used to avoid additional
>> keystrokes and so there is actually no cost in adding foot=yes;
>
> I've been told that when OSM started (I wasn't involved then) that every
> motorway had to be tagged horse=no+foot=no+bicycle=no.
>
> There is a reason they stopped doing that.

The reason is that that's *globally* redundant.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Tobias Knerr]

Roy Wallace wrote:
>
>> Routing software that is aware of the local laws of each country seems 
>> obvious.
> 
> Um...what??? That will not write itself. Do you expect us to
> successfully digitize and maintain a database of all laws of all
> countries? In a wiki, even? That's ambitious! I'd prefer to stick to
> mapping what's on the ground.

If we map what's on the ground, then we create a map database containing
"here is an oneway sign, over there is a cycleway sign". That's
nice, but if I want to do routing with this, I need information such as
"can I use way w in direction d with vehicle v?" - and in order to know
this, I need another database that tells me what a sign means in that
part of the world (for example: are pedestrians allowed to walk on ways
with a cycleway sign?).

If we don't want a traffic law database, then we need to tag the
required information directly. But then mappers don't just map physical
reality. They interpret the signs (and other information) using their -
hopefully correct - knowledge of the laws.

Both can work, but /someone/ has to do the transfer from reality to road
network attributes - either software (using a traffic laws DB) or humans
(mapping more than just what's on the ground).

Tobias Knerr

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Cartinus]

On Monday 30 November 2009 22:25:36 Roy Wallace wrote:
> 1) I can convince you guys that this approach is the best way to get
> global consistency, and that that's important;
> 2) people realise that editors can be used to avoid additional
> keystrokes and so there is actually no cost in adding foot=yes;

I've been told that when OSM started (I wasn't involved then) that every 
motorway had to be tagged horse=no+foot=no+bicycle=no.

There is a reason they stopped doing that.

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Roy Wallace]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Steve Bennett  wrote:
>
>> Um...what??? That will not write itself. Do you expect us to
>> successfully digitize and maintain a database of all laws of all
>> countries?
>
> What do you think? Work with me, here.

I think that would be a nightmare, and would not work. If anything, it
would introduce MORE inconsistency due to 1) difficulty maintaining
the lawbook and 2) a more complicated set of guidelines and more
complicated wiki, making it even LESS likely that people will follow
it consistently.

As I've said, I'd prefer to stick to *mapping what's on the ground*,
*according to the guidelines in the wiki*. This is the only way to get
global consistency, which I think is important for the reasons I've
already described.

>> Let's get the tagging schemes right first. Seriously, it's not
>> going to be a big deal to e.g. add foot=yes/no to cycleways.
>
> You: It's easy to add "foot=yes".
> Me: It's hard to get everyone to consistently add "foot=yes".
>
> Just so we're clear on that. Can we move on?

Me: It *will be* easy to get everyone to consistently add "foot=yes" when:
1) I can convince you guys that this approach is the best way to get
global consistency, and that that's important;
2) people realise that editors can be used to avoid additional
keystrokes and so there is actually no cost in adding foot=yes;
3) this mess is sorted out, and the guidelines for
path/footway/cycleway are consolidated and improved (made clear)

Re: 3), I often hear people say "it's such a mess, I gave up asking on
the email list and now I just use cycleway when [ insert custom
definition ]".

>> Let's get the tagging right first - editor improvements will follow.
>>
> If by "get the tagging right" you mean "analyse the problem, work out what
> people are doing, and come up with the most efficient set of tags for people
> to use", then yes. But I don't think you mean that.

I do mean that! Assuming that, by "most efficient", you mean "most
likely to result in a complete and consistent map of the Earth". And
before you say "but that's not necessarily efficient", part of being
"likely to result in a good outcome" is that mappers remain motivated
to contribute - so this does take into account that the tags have to
be satisfying to use.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Roy Wallace]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Anthony  wrote:
>
> What if I map the entire section of grass which is within the right of
> way as a polygon with highway=path, area=yes?  That's how we represent
> infinite overlapping criss-crossing "invisible-paths", like a
> pedestrian mall.

Not bad. But what makes that area of grass a "path" as opposed to just
an area of grass you can walk on (e.g. landuse=meadow or something +
foot=yes)? Is there a difference?

I tend to think "paths" should be limited to elongated areas, designed
for or used typically for travel (other than for large vehicles like
cars), with usually a constant or slowly varying width. There's
probably a better definition though.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Lester Caine]

Anthony wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Roy Wallace  wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
>>  wrote:
 An area of grass is - to me - not a path. A path, IMHO, is something
 that exists independently of people walking or not walking on it (i.e.
 usually you can *see* that it resembles a path).
>>> -1, a path is either planned and constructed (the ones you are refering to)
>>> or it "creates itself" by frequent use (e.g. shortcuts on grass). IMHO the
>>> latter are even more valueable to the project because they are usable but
>>> you don't find them in other maps.
>> A shortcut through grass that you can see, sure! e.g.
>> http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/18/97/189701_92c9a5d5.jpg
>>
>> But if you can't see it - sorry - you're not going to convince me that
>> there is a path.
>>
>> If you can see some grass, sure, map that. But just being able to walk
>> on the grass does not turn the grass into a path. Otherwise, in any
>> area of grass there would actually be *infinite* overlapping,
>> criss-crossing "invisible-paths". :P
>>
> What if I map the entire section of grass which is within the right of
> way as a polygon with highway=path, area=yes?  That's how we represent
> infinite overlapping criss-crossing "invisible-paths", like a
> pedestrian mall.
> 
> On the right is a road.  On the left is a lake.  In the middle, is a
> path, made out of grass.  It's probably not much wider than the road.
> And only about half of it is within the right of way.

I think that is probably covers some of the 'paths' that I need to describe. 
They are really large areas of grass which can be walked across to get to other 
points, rather than a 'tag' on the side of a near by road  using the road 
to 
do the 'pedestrian' routing is simply wrong but so also is drawing an imaginary 
additional set of ways except where they are specifically marked.

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Anthony]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Steve Bennett  wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Anthony  wrote:
>>
>> What if I map the entire section of grass which is within the right of
>> way as a polygon with highway=path, area=yes?  That's how we represent
>> infinite overlapping criss-crossing "invisible-paths", like a
>> pedestrian mall.
>
> I'm kind of hoping future routers will assume people can walk anywhere
> within parks, if it saves time. For most of the parks I've been dealing
> with, it would make far more sense to map the occasional barrier rather than
> all the open space.

Maybe, but this isn't in the park.  This is on the way to the park.
The "way".  Ha.  No pun intended.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Steve Bennett]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Anthony  wrote:

> What if I map the entire section of grass which is within the right of
> way as a polygon with highway=path, area=yes?  That's how we represent
> infinite overlapping criss-crossing "invisible-paths", like a
> pedestrian mall.
>

I'm kind of hoping future routers will assume people can walk anywhere
within parks, if it saves time. For most of the parks I've been dealing
with, it would make far more sense to map the occasional barrier rather than
all the open space.

(I confess I've been dreaming of a super-router that plots a path, then
quickly walks you through it, checking that you're happy with its
decisions...)

Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Anthony]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Roy Wallace  wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
>  wrote:
>>>
>>> An area of grass is - to me - not a path. A path, IMHO, is something
>>> that exists independently of people walking or not walking on it (i.e.
>>> usually you can *see* that it resembles a path).
>>
>> -1, a path is either planned and constructed (the ones you are refering to)
>> or it "creates itself" by frequent use (e.g. shortcuts on grass). IMHO the
>> latter are even more valueable to the project because they are usable but
>> you don't find them in other maps.
>
> A shortcut through grass that you can see, sure! e.g.
> http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/18/97/189701_92c9a5d5.jpg
>
> But if you can't see it - sorry - you're not going to convince me that
> there is a path.
>
> If you can see some grass, sure, map that. But just being able to walk
> on the grass does not turn the grass into a path. Otherwise, in any
> area of grass there would actually be *infinite* overlapping,
> criss-crossing "invisible-paths". :P
>
What if I map the entire section of grass which is within the right of
way as a polygon with highway=path, area=yes?  That's how we represent
infinite overlapping criss-crossing "invisible-paths", like a
pedestrian mall.

On the right is a road.  On the left is a lake.  In the middle, is a
path, made out of grass.  It's probably not much wider than the road.
And only about half of it is within the right of way.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Steve Bennett]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Roy Wallace  wrote:

> Um...what??? That will not write itself. Do you expect us to
> successfully digitize and maintain a database of all laws of all
> countries?


What do you think? Work with me, here.


> In a wiki, even? That's ambitious! I'd prefer to stick to
> mapping what's on the ground.
>


> I agree that tedious busywork is not good. But we have computers -
> surely we're able to use presets etc. so that more
> verbosity/explicitness requires negligible amounts of additional
> labour.


Yes...macros and scripts are always a first step in improving usability.
Smarter data structures and algorithms, and better analysis of needs and
solutions is the next.


> Let's get the tagging schemes right first. Seriously, it's not
> going to be a big deal to e.g. add foot=yes/no to cycleways.


You: It's easy to add "foot=yes".
Me: It's hard to get everyone to consistently add "foot=yes".

Just so we're clear on that. Can we move on?


> Let's get the tagging right first - editor improvements will follow.
>
> If by "get the tagging right" you mean "analyse the problem, work out what
people are doing, and come up with the most efficient set of tags for people
to use", then yes. But I don't think you mean that.

Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Roy Wallace]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Steve Bennett  wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Roy Wallace  wrote:
>>
>> I think we should aim for a globally consistent database, because
>> 1) I travel a fair bit (I've never been to Bulgaria, but maybe someday
>> soon)
>> 2) I do NOT want to be limited to "Noppia-compatible" routing software
>> if I visit Noppia (etc.)
>
> Consider it "internationally aware" software. Routing software that is aware 
> of the local laws of each country seems obvious.

Um...what??? That will not write itself. Do you expect us to
successfully digitize and maintain a database of all laws of all
countries? In a wiki, even? That's ambitious! I'd prefer to stick to
mapping what's on the ground.

>> 3) I think it's not that hard to be globally consistent - it just
>> comes at the cost of verbosity (which is cheap)
>
> I think verbosity is expensive. My experience is with Wikipedia, where
> everyone always thinks the labour is free. It may be free, but it's finite.
> And the more you get people to waste their time doing tedious busywork, the
> less time they spend doing useful things.

I agree that tedious busywork is not good. But we have computers -
surely we're able to use presets etc. so that more
verbosity/explicitness requires negligible amounts of additional
labour. Let's get the tagging schemes right first. Seriously, it's not
going to be a big deal to e.g. add foot=yes/no to cycleways. Look at
the big picture - we're making a map of the entire world. We're trying
to find the best and easiest way to do it. Remember that additional
labour adding foot=yes/no can *avoid* future labour spent sorting out
messes like this one. And it can give us a better quality result.

>> Adding tags that help clarify what I mean does not piss me off. I am
>> quite happy to add direction=clockwise to roundabouts if necessary.
>> Ultimately, why not aim to have direction=* applied to ALL
>> roundabouts?
>
> Sure, by all means, have that tag applied. But forcing someone to manually
> add it when the roundabout in question is in a left-drive country is
> insulting. Maybe the client could add it automatically. I don't know.

Well, I don't find it insulting. And yes, the "client" (editor) could
certainly add it automatically. Remember that we are also not limited
to current versions of current editors - editors can be improved.

Let's get the tagging right first - editor improvements will follow. I
think we shouldn't "tag for the editor" (if you know what I mean) :P

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/11/30 Roy Wallace 

> A shortcut through grass that you can see, sure! e.g.
> http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/18/97/189701_92c9a5d5.jpg
>
> But if you can't see it - sorry - you're not going to convince me that
> there is a path.
>
>
+1, I completely agree with you. Only visible paths (where visibility
indicates frequent use, if it is not in use, there won't be a visible
trail). I guess I misunderstood you before.

cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Richard Mann]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Steve Bennett  wrote:

>  Liz wrote:
> >we can have a cycleway
> >und einen Fahrradweg
>
> Yep. And cycleway ~= Fahrradweg.
>
>
> Steve
>

There are umpteen ways of resolving it. The problem is that we don't have a
process for agreeing which. I wouldn't go for a different highway value
personally.

Richard
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Emilie Laffray]

2009/11/30 Steve Bennett 

>  On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
>
>> I think it's critical that this stuff be summarised on the wiki.
>> Besides being highly relevant to those who want to know *how to tag
>> things*, it might help us find a way forward out of this mess.
>>
>
>
> Yep. Even if some of us don't agree that long term the "usecase vs country"
> matrix is appropriate, it would be a very useful discussion point if we
> could map out *current practice* this way. "Oh, the French do that???"
>

+1

Emilie Laffray
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Steve Bennett]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Roy Wallace  wrote:

> I think we should aim for a globally consistent database, because
> 1) I travel a fair bit (I've never been to Bulgaria, but maybe someday
> soon)
> 2) I do NOT want to be limited to "Noppia-compatible" routing software
> if I visit Noppia (etc.)
>

Consider it "internationally aware" software. Routing software that is aware
of the local laws of each country seems obvious. We'll limit the variations
as much as possible, of course.


> 3) I think it's not that hard to be globally consistent - it just
> comes at the cost of verbosity (which is cheap)
>

I think verbosity is expensive. My experience is with Wikipedia, where
everyone always thinks the labour is free. It may be free, but it's finite.
And the more you get people to waste their time doing tedious busywork, the
less time they spend doing useful things.



> Adding tags that help clarify what I mean does not piss me off. I am
> quite happy to add direction=clockwise to roundabouts if necessary.
> Ultimately, why not aim to have direction=* applied to ALL
> roundabouts?


Sure, by all means, have that tag applied. But forcing someone to manually
add it when the roundabout in question is in a left-drive country is
insulting. Maybe the client could add it automatically. I don't know.


> I know you have a different position, which is fine. I'm
> surprised that you feel "one extra tag is a lot of extra effort" -
> have you tried various editor presets, auto-complete, selecting
> multiple entities before applying a tag, etc.?
>

Auto-complete, yes, and I still think plus-s-o-enter-n-enter is too many
keystrokes to add "source=nearmap". (It's even worse in josm:
alt+b-s-o-tab-n-enter).

Maybe I need to use josm to do something like search for everything I've
touched that has no source and bulk-update. But that could make mistakes.

Will investigate "editor presets".

Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Peter Childs]

2009/11/30 Roy Wallace :
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
>  wrote:
>>>
>>> An area of grass is - to me - not a path. A path, IMHO, is something
>>> that exists independently of people walking or not walking on it (i.e.
>>> usually you can *see* that it resembles a path).
>>
>> -1, a path is either planned and constructed (the ones you are refering to)
>> or it "creates itself" by frequent use (e.g. shortcuts on grass). IMHO the
>> latter are even more valueable to the project because they are usable but
>> you don't find them in other maps.
>
> A shortcut through grass that you can see, sure! e.g.
> http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/18/97/189701_92c9a5d5.jpg
>
> But if you can't see it - sorry - you're not going to convince me that
> there is a path.
>
> If you can see some grass, sure, map that. But just being able to walk
> on the grass does not turn the grass into a path. Otherwise, in any
> area of grass there would actually be *infinite* overlapping,
> criss-crossing "invisible-paths". :P
>

Perhaps what we need here is a tag that says you can walk anyway you
like within this area, Like a large town squares, playing field, etc I
know that places like Scotland there is a "Right to Roam" but for most
of us, we need to keep to paths but sometimes areas are less
strict Walking routing software could see this area and take the
shortest route across the area.

Peter

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Steve Bennett]

 On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:

> I think it's critical that this stuff be summarised on the wiki.
> Besides being highly relevant to those who want to know *how to tag
> things*, it might help us find a way forward out of this mess.
>


Yep. Even if some of us don't agree that long term the "usecase vs country"
matrix is appropriate, it would be a very useful discussion point if we
could map out *current practice* this way. "Oh, the French do that???"

Liz wrote:
>we can have a cycleway
>und einen Fahrradweg

Yep. And cycleway ~= Fahrradweg.


Steve

[originally sent to Roy only by mistake - still not used to mailing lists
that don't have reply-to list.]
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Roy Wallace]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>>
>> An area of grass is - to me - not a path. A path, IMHO, is something
>> that exists independently of people walking or not walking on it (i.e.
>> usually you can *see* that it resembles a path).
>
> -1, a path is either planned and constructed (the ones you are refering to)
> or it "creates itself" by frequent use (e.g. shortcuts on grass). IMHO the
> latter are even more valueable to the project because they are usable but
> you don't find them in other maps.

A shortcut through grass that you can see, sure! e.g.
http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/18/97/189701_92c9a5d5.jpg

But if you can't see it - sorry - you're not going to convince me that
there is a path.

If you can see some grass, sure, map that. But just being able to walk
on the grass does not turn the grass into a path. Otherwise, in any
area of grass there would actually be *infinite* overlapping,
criss-crossing "invisible-paths". :P

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Roy Wallace]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:14 PM, Steve Bennett  wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Roy Wallace  wrote:
>>
>> Does it matter?? How hard is it to tag cycleways and bridleways with
>> foot=yes/no??
>>
>> I would have no problem with that, if it helped give us consistency.
>
> From a purely pragmatic perspective, the more repetitive tasks you assign to
> people, the less likely it is that those tasks will be performed
> consistently. I'm not convinced that telling people how to perform a task,
> and getting them to do it 10,000 times will lead to 10,000 correctly
> performed tasks.

Good point, but I think it's ok to first work out how we *should* be
tagging, before we assume that people will stuff it up.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/11/30 Richard Mann 

> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Nick Whitelegg <
> nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> This would simply be highway=cycleway, I think the general assumption is
>> that pedestrians are permitted unless "foot=no" is added.
>>
>> The crux of the matter is that this is not what the wiki says, and not
> what at least some in Germany would like:
>
> The "UK" view appears to be: foot can go anywhere (except motorways) unless
> you say foot=no
> The "German" view appears to be: foot can go anywhere except motorways,
> cycleways and bridleways
>
> And we have no way of resolving this :(
>

there is some ways to resolve this:
- use a polygon (border) to determine whether the path is in Germany or in
the UK
- explicitly tag foot=yes in the UK or foot=no in Germany on those ways (or
both for best consistency).
- use path like described in the wiki and tag according to the right of ways
and tags proposed


cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Roy Wallace]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Steve Bennett  wrote:
>
> Am I out of line here? Of course I want to see a globally consistent, useful
> database. But ultimately, I want to see the most number of users happy with
> their local data. And if that means tags mean something slightly different
> in Cambodia than they do in Ireland, then...what was the problem again?

Ok, let me summarise my position, before this thread derails.

I think we should aim for a globally consistent database, because
1) I travel a fair bit (I've never been to Bulgaria, but maybe someday soon)
2) I do NOT want to be limited to "Noppia-compatible" routing software
if I visit Noppia (etc.)
3) I think it's not that hard to be globally consistent - it just
comes at the cost of verbosity (which is cheap)

Adding tags that help clarify what I mean does not piss me off. I am
quite happy to add direction=clockwise to roundabouts if necessary.
Ultimately, why not aim to have direction=* applied to ALL
roundabouts? I know you have a different position, which is fine. I'm
surprised that you feel "one extra tag is a lot of extra effort" -
have you tried various editor presets, auto-complete, selecting
multiple entities before applying a tag, etc.?

For me, your example of a road tagged with:

"bicycle=yes;car=yes;bus=yes;surface=paved;smoothness=5;colour=black;lines=white;parking=parallel;lanes=2"

just looks like a very well-mapped road. "Good job", I would say to
the mapper, as they were obviously very thorough. Seriously.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/11/29 Roy Wallace 

> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Anthony  wrote:
> >
> > When is there a path and when is there not a path?  I walk through an
> > area of grass every time I go to the park near my house.  Isn't that a
> > "path" which is part of "reality"?
>
> An area of grass is - to me - not a path. A path, IMHO, is something
> that exists independently of people walking or not walking on it (i.e.
> usually you can *see* that it resembles a path).
>

-1, a path is either planned and constructed (the ones you are refering to)
or it "creates itself" by frequent use (e.g. shortcuts on grass). IMHO the
latter are even more valueable to the project because they are usable but
you don't find them in other maps.

cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Steve Bennett]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Roy Wallace  wrote:

> Does it matter?? How hard is it to tag cycleways and bridleways with
> foot=yes/no??
>
> I would have no problem with that, if it helped give us consistency.
>

>From a purely pragmatic perspective, the more repetitive tasks you assign to
people, the less likely it is that those tasks will be performed
consistently. I'm not convinced that telling people how to perform a task,
and getting them to do it 10,000 times will lead to 10,000 correctly
performed tasks.

(At about this stage, maybe someone should introduce some statistics into
the discussion, like number of cycleways/footways/paths tagged in various
combinations in various countries.)

Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Roy Wallace]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Richard Mann
 wrote:
>
> I didn't resolve it because either the UK view or the German view (or some
> other view) has to be the default. What we can't agree is which should be
> the default.

Does it matter?? How hard is it to tag cycleways and bridleways with
foot=yes/no??

I would have no problem with that, if it helped give us consistency.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Steve Bennett]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Jonathan Bennett <
openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk> wrote:

> Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> > [...] I tend to
> > believe I can ride my bike wherever the hell I want unless there's a
> > sign saying otherwise.
>
> That's fine for your personal decision making. However, for OSM we need
> to provide people with as much information as possible so they can make
> their own, possibly different, decisions.
>

In case it wasn't clear, I was using the above statement to explain my
difficult in judging accurately where bikes are actually "allowed" to go.
There aren't many signs. Real observation-based tagging (surface,
smoothness, width etc...) seems like less shakey ground.


> If you don't *know* the legal situation this gets tricky, but that's
> something we can clear up within each country eventually.
>
>
Ok.

Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Roy Wallace]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Steve Bennett  wrote:
>
> I wish we could codify these "general assumptions". Because they won't be
> universal, which means there is bad map data being generated.

I think it's critical that this stuff be summarised on the wiki.
Besides being highly relevant to those who want to know *how to tag
things*, it might help us find a way forward out of this mess.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Steve Bennett]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Roy Wallace  wrote:

> 1) I told them that *the wiki recommends* that they do need to use
> cycleway=opposite where appropriate.
>
> 1a) This is different to *me* telling them what to do - the wiki
> carries more weight as it is the outcome of discussion (see the
> discussion page, for example). It's also where newbies go to learn how
>

Ok, to recap, I said
>
> IMHO "Don't piss off the whole world, just piss off one country" is a bad
> solution, if there is no need to piss off anyone at all.

And you said:
>+1

(It's ok if you don't agree with the position, but you're having it both
ways - saying you don't want to piss off Noppia, but then complaining when
the Noppians get pissed off.

to map, and where others (me, at least) go for reference. Using a
> common set of guidelines like this is key to maintaining consistency.
>

Across all countries? Why?


> Also, importantly, if the Noppians think something is suboptimal in
> the wiki, and want to re-open the discussion, propose something else,
> etc., there are mechanisms available for that.
>

But they're only one country. As long as there is an assumption that
everyone has to follow the same rules, then there are going to be losers.


>
> 1b) Is it really so hard to add cycleway=opposite where applicable?
>

Yep. Like I said, I refuse to add "direction=clockwise" to mini_roundabouts.
One extra tag is a lot of extra effort, when the total number of tags you're
adding is usually 2-3.


> Really? Maybe I'm missing something (but then again, I'm one of those
> strange people who have no problem adding source=* tags to everything
> I change). I am always a little perplexed at some people's aversion to
> extra tags - we have autocomplete, presets, DB compression, ... I
> don't think it is ever worth compromising consistency to save
> keystrokes.
>

What if you had to type "bicycle=yes" on every single road? It would suck.
How about "car=yes"? How about
"bicycle=yes;car=yes;bus=yes;surface=paved;smoothness=5;colour=black;lines=white;parking=parallel;lanes=2;"
on every road?

2) They may think "everyone" knows the rules in Noppia, but this is
> unlikely to be true. e.g. what if I visit Noppia on holiday or
> business?




> What if my routing software uses the defaults for oneway=*
> as described in the wiki?
>

Then your routing software needs to be Noppia-compatible. And since,
theoretically, we have published an RFC explaining all the international
variations in an XML file, what the rules are, that's easy.


>
> 3) You say the citizens "refuse" to follow the wiki's recommendations.
> If they do realise that this is a problem, I cannot imagine that they
>

They don't have a problem. Their maps render fine, and they know exactly how
oneway streets.


> would refuse to change their practices - after all, usually OSM
> contributors do want to contribute to a consistent i.e. useful OSM
>

Locally consistent.


>
> But Steve, the point is that surely the Noppians also want to come up
> with a solution that gives us the best possible OSM database. Right? I
> would ask them: what do they think is the best way to achieve that?
>

That's one goal. I suspect most people's goals are more pragmatic and
localised. Do I really care what the Bulgarian OSM data looks like? Not
unless I'm going there. Do I care what the Melbourne data looks like? Yes.
Do I care what the Melbourne bike path data looks like? Yes, a lot.

Am I out of line here? Of course I want to see a globally consistent, useful
database. But ultimately, I want to see the most number of users happy with
their local data. And if that means tags mean something slightly different
in Cambodia than they do in Ireland, then...what was the problem again?

Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Liz]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Richard Mann wrote:
> I didn't resolve it because either the UK view or the German view (or some
> other view) has to be the default. What we can't agree is which should be
> the default.
not at all
we can have a cycleway 
und einen Fahrradweg



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Jonathan Bennett]

Steve Bennett wrote:

> [...] I tend to
> believe I can ride my bike wherever the hell I want unless there's a
> sign saying otherwise. 

That's fine for your personal decision making. However, for OSM we need
to provide people with as much information as possible so they can make
their own, possibly different, decisions.

Record legal access rights using access=* and bicycle=* tags, and record
physical characteristics using width=* and surface=* tags, and include
any barrier=* on the path. Routers can choose whether only to use legal
routes that way, or add to path cost where there's a bike-unfriendly
barrier in the way.

If you don't *know* the legal situation this gets tricky, but that's
something we can clear up within each country eventually.

-- 
Jonathan (Jonobennett)

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Richard Mann]

I didn't resolve it because either the UK view or the German view (or some
other view) has to be the default. What we can't agree is which should be
the default.

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Steve Bennett  wrote:

>  On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Richard Mann <
> richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>  The "UK" view appears to be: foot can go anywhere (except motorways)
>> unless you say foot=no
>> The "German" view appears to be: foot can go anywhere except motorways,
>> cycleways and bridleways
>>
>> And we have no way of resolving this :(
>>
>
> I think you just did resolve it.
>
> I guess the other alternative is to have some new concept of "German
> bikepath" and "German bridleway", which all renderers will render the same,
> but which routers will distinguish.
>
> Steve
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Roy Wallace]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Steve Bennett  wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Roy Wallace  wrote:
>>
>> > IMHO "Don't piss off the whole world, just piss off one country" is a
>> > bad
>> > solution, if there is no need to piss off anyone at all.
>>
>> +1
>> I see your point, but WOW, that seems like a lot of extra STUFF to
>> maintain - and we don't have a good track record with maintenance (see
>> the wiki... :P). You don't need it. Use this, which is exactly as
>> *already documented in the wiki*:
>>
>> UC1: oneway=yes; cycleway=opposite
>> UC2: oneway=yes
>
> You just pissed off Noppia. You just told them that every single oneway
> street has to be explicitly marked "cycleway=opposite". The citizens of
> Noppia resent this, and most of them refuse to put it in. "After all", they
> reason, "everyone knows that you can ride the wrong way up any oneway
> street".
>
> And you reply...?

Hmm good question...

Several thoughts:

1) I told them that *the wiki recommends* that they do need to use
cycleway=opposite where appropriate.

1a) This is different to *me* telling them what to do - the wiki
carries more weight as it is the outcome of discussion (see the
discussion page, for example). It's also where newbies go to learn how
to map, and where others (me, at least) go for reference. Using a
common set of guidelines like this is key to maintaining consistency.
Also, importantly, if the Noppians think something is suboptimal in
the wiki, and want to re-open the discussion, propose something else,
etc., there are mechanisms available for that.

1b) Is it really so hard to add cycleway=opposite where applicable?
Really? Maybe I'm missing something (but then again, I'm one of those
strange people who have no problem adding source=* tags to everything
I change). I am always a little perplexed at some people's aversion to
extra tags - we have autocomplete, presets, DB compression, ... I
don't think it is ever worth compromising consistency to save
keystrokes.

2) They may think "everyone" knows the rules in Noppia, but this is
unlikely to be true. e.g. what if I visit Noppia on holiday or
business? What if my routing software uses the defaults for oneway=*
as described in the wiki?

3) You say the citizens "refuse" to follow the wiki's recommendations.
If they do realise that this is a problem, I cannot imagine that they
would refuse to change their practices - after all, usually OSM
contributors do want to contribute to a consistent i.e. useful OSM
database. If they can't see that ignoring the wiki can be dangerous,
then I would probably leave the room in frustration.

But Steve, the point is that surely the Noppians also want to come up
with a solution that gives us the best possible OSM database. Right? I
would ask them: what do they think is the best way to achieve that?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Steve Bennett]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Richard Mann <
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> The "UK" view appears to be: foot can go anywhere (except motorways) unless
> you say foot=no
> The "German" view appears to be: foot can go anywhere except motorways,
> cycleways and bridleways
>
> And we have no way of resolving this :(
>

I think you just did resolve it.

I guess the other alternative is to have some new concept of "German
bikepath" and "German bridleway", which all renderers will render the same,
but which routers will distinguish.

Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Richard Mann]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Nick Whitelegg <
nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk> wrote:

> This would simply be highway=cycleway, I think the general assumption is
> that pedestrians are permitted unless "foot=no" is added.
>
> The crux of the matter is that this is not what the wiki says, and not what
at least some in Germany would like:

The "UK" view appears to be: foot can go anywhere (except motorways) unless
you say foot=no
The "German" view appears to be: foot can go anywhere except motorways,
cycleways and bridleways

And we have no way of resolving this :(
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Steve Bennett]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Nick Whitelegg  wrote:

> Do you know whether bikes can access the path? If a designated bike path,
> use "highway=cycleway"/"bicycle=designated" (optional). If you're not
> sure, use highway=footway and leave the bicycle tag out or use
> "bicycle=unknown".
>

That's a really hard question. Reflecting my biases here, but I tend to
believe I can ride my bike wherever the hell I want unless there's a sign
saying otherwise. I actually find it very to objectively decide whether
paths in my neighbourhood are "bicycle=yes". There are some narrow laneways
that I ride through - no idea if anyone else does, or whether the council
expects people to. Paths through gardens and parks are the same.

(I've noticed in the media sometimes a prevailing assumption that you can
ride a bike on a road, or on a designated bike path...and that's it. But I
think it has more to do with lack of imagination than actual restrictions.)


>
> >2) Multi-use paths, like in new housing developments. Usually paved,
> >and connecting streets together.
>
> If a definite cycle path:
> highway=cycleway
>
> If not:
> highway=footway; foot=permissive; [bicycle=unknown]
>

Lol. If I knew what a "definite cycle path" was, this thread wouldn't exist.
Well, I guess if there are painted bikes on the ground, it's "definite". But
that's not many.


> This would simply be highway=cycleway, I think the general assumption is
> that pedestrians are permitted unless "foot=no" is added.
>

I wish we could codify these "general assumptions". Because they won't be
universal, which means there is bad map data being generated.

Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Nick Whitelegg]

>I'm doing a lot of mapping of pedestrian and bike paths around my
>area, and am having trouble deciding when to use path, when footway,
>and when cycleway. I'm particularly troubled by the way Potlatch
>describes "path" as "unofficial path" - making it sound like an
>unpaved line of footprints carved through the grass.

I don't think "highway=path" means "unofficial path". Though different 
people have interpretations, highway=path seems to be used most often for 
dirt paths in the countryside. An unofficial path where the landowner has 
allowed access (or doesn't mind access) should be tagged as highway=path 
*and* foot=permissive. Without the foot tag, many would assume the path's 
private.

>Could someone give me guidance on a few specific scenarios:
>1) In the parks near me, there are lots of paths, which I guess were
>probably intended for pedestrians, but cyclists use them too.
>Sometimes paved, sometimes not. I've been tagging them "highway=path,
>bicycle=yes" (to be safe).

I generally use footway, rather than path, for paved paths but again this 
is a contentious point.
Do you know whether bikes can access the path? If a designated bike path, 
use "highway=cycleway"/"bicycle=designated" (optional). If you're not 
sure, use highway=footway and leave the bicycle tag out or use 
"bicycle=unknown".

>2) Multi-use paths, like in new housing developments. Usually paved,
>and connecting streets together.

If a definite cycle path:
highway=cycleway

If not:
highway=footway; foot=permissive; [bicycle=unknown]

>3) Genuine multi-use paths along the sides of creeks or freeways.
>Frequently with a dotted line down the middle. Most people think of
>them as bike paths, but plenty of pedestrians use them too.
>"highway=cycleway, foot=yes" seems the most satisfying, but according
>to the definition, it should just be a "path"? I tend to assume it's a
>cycleway if the gap between two entrances ever exceeds a kilometre or
>so...

This would simply be highway=cycleway, I think the general assumption is 
that pedestrians are permitted unless "foot=no" is added.

Nick






___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Steve Bennett]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Roy Wallace  wrote:

> > IMHO "Don't piss off the whole world, just piss off one country" is a bad
> > solution, if there is no need to piss off anyone at all.
>
> +1
> I see your point, but WOW, that seems like a lot of extra STUFF to
> maintain - and we don't have a good track record with maintenance (see
> the wiki... :P). You don't need it. Use this, which is exactly as
> *already documented in the wiki*:
>
> UC1: oneway=yes; cycleway=opposite
> UC2: oneway=yes
>

You just pissed off Noppia. You just told them that every single oneway
street has to be explicitly marked "cycleway=opposite". The citizens of
Noppia resent this, and most of them refuse to put it in. "After all", they
reason, "everyone knows that you can ride the wrong way up any oneway
street".

And you reply...?

Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Mike Harris]

As an Englander who has lived, albeit briefly, in Germany I do perhaps
recognise the difference between Germany and England as regards cycleways. I
think - but am not certain - that Germany is relatively unusual in having a
lot of cycleways that are NOT for pedestrians (foot=no) as Cartinus
suggests.

However, segregated cycleways are - I believe - common in both countries
(and others) - i.e. there are parallel 'lanes' for cyclists and pedestrians
(even if the separation / segregation is only by a  painted white line - and
[only in England, of course, never in Germany (;>)] - often ignored by both
classes of user). Rather than use something a bit complicated like
"highway=cycleway+footway=lane" I tend to prefer the advice given in the
wiki at:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated

which even addresses the dreaded snowmobile issue.

In a more general vein the use of the designated= tag has 'solved' a number
of related problems - at  least for me.

But long live chaos, anarchy and OSM ... (:>)

Mike Harris
 

> -Original Message-
> From: Cartinus [mailto:carti...@xs4all.nl] 
> Sent: 30 November 2009 00:31
> To: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
> 
> On Sunday 29 November 2009 23:10:15 Steve Bennett wrote:
> > Before you go, do you think there is potential at least to have 
> > consistency within each country?
> 
> I'm not the one that leaves, but the answer would be yes.
> 
> It's fairly simple to put foot=no on all cycleways in what is 
> probably the only country with rules for cycleways that are so strict.
> 
> The often mentioned German paths with a white line in the 
> middle (that separates cyclists and pedestrians) could have 
> been done with highway=cycleway+footway=lane or something 
> similar. That is analogous to how we treat e.g. a tertiary 
> road with cycle lanes.
> 
> etc. etc. etc.
> 
> The path crowd however wanted "one solution for everything" 
> and can't accept that people didn't want to redo all existing 
> tagging. Especially not in places where it simply works.
> 
> The result is that some people use path as it is designed, 
> some people don't use path at all and other people use path 
> for what the translated word path means in their language 
> (often some kind of unpaved footway).
> 
> --
> m.v.g.,
> Cartinus
> 
> 
> 


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Roy Wallace]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Steve Bennett  wrote:
>
> IMHO "Don't piss off the whole world, just piss off one country" is a bad
> solution, if there is no need to piss off anyone at all.

+1

> Yes, but I would like us to define what the different national defaults are,
> so that everyone can work off the same playbook.

I'm not a fan of this solution, because usually I don't think it's
necessary - not in this case, anyway (read on...).

> For example, in Noppia, bikes can do the wrong one down one way streets. One
> way streets are just tagged oneway, nothing special.
> In Stevia, they can't.
>
> We define use cases:
> UC1) Oneway street with bikes allowed in wrong direction
> UC2) Oneway street with bikes not allowed in wrong direction
>
> We have a 2x2 matrix:
>
>    UC1
> UC2
> 
> Noppia: oneway=true  | oneway=true;bicycle=oneway
> Stevia: oneway=true;bicycle=twoway   | oneway=true
>
> That's the table that needs to go in the wiki so that everyone understands
> how to code the same thing in different countries.
>
> Meanwhile the area for Noppia could be tagged
> "bicycle_rule:wrong_way_in_oneway_permitted" or whatever.

I see your point, but WOW, that seems like a lot of extra STUFF to
maintain - and we don't have a good track record with maintenance (see
the wiki... :P). You don't need it. Use this, which is exactly as
*already documented in the wiki*:

UC1: oneway=yes; cycleway=opposite
UC2: oneway=yes

(see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:oneway and
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway).

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Roy Wallace]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Nop  wrote:
>
> It would also be possible to solve the problem generically for the whole
> planet.
>
> The real problem is that many people claim that there is no problem or
> that they have already solved it and everybody should just do as they do.

+1

> Several of the approaches would work on their own if they were completed
> to cover all use cases - but not with other interpretations using the
> same tags in different ways thrown in between.

+1. I wonder how to proceed...

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Steve Bennett]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Cartinus  wrote:
> Yes, because there are two solutions to that "problem".
>
> 1) Add an extra tag in that single country that differs from the rest of
the
> world. But don't bother all the other mappers.

IMHO "Don't piss off the whole world, just piss off one country" is a bad
solution, if there is no need to piss off anyone at all.

> 2) Any sufficiently sophisticated router will pre-process the data and it
can
> do something with different national defaults.

Yes, but I would like us to define what the different national defaults are,
so that everyone can work off the same playbook.

For example, in Noppia, bikes can do the wrong one down one way streets. One
way streets are just tagged oneway, nothing special.
In Stevia, they can't.

We define use cases:
UC1) Oneway street with bikes allowed in wrong direction
UC2) Oneway street with bikes not allowed in wrong direction

We have a 2x2 matrix:

   UC1
UC2

Noppia: oneway=true  | oneway=true;bicycle=oneway
Stevia: oneway=true;bicycle=twoway   | oneway=true

That's the table that needs to go in the wiki so that everyone understands
how to code the same thing in different countries.

Meanwhile the area for Noppia could be tagged
"bicycle_rule:wrong_way_in_oneway_permitted" or whatever.

Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Cartinus]

On Monday 30 November 2009 08:29:22 Nop wrote:
> Let me apply your logic to a different use case. Just imagine that in my
> country there is a law that generally allows bicycles to use a one-way
> road in both directions.
>
> So I would define one-way as "mainly or exclusively intended for use in
> one direction, bicycles may use both" and I claim that this is sufficient.
>
> If you have a more rigid law where one-way is strictly for all vehicles,
>   it does not matter, fuzzy logic is good. Right?

Yes, because there are two solutions to that "problem".

1) Add an extra tag in that single country that differs from the rest of the 
world. But don't bother all the other mappers.

2) Any sufficiently sophisticated router will pre-process the data and it can 
do something with different national defaults.


-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus


P.S. Gosmore ignores oneway for bicycle routing, but not for car routing. One 
wonders why?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Nop]

Hi!

Steve Bennett schrieb:
> 
> Before you go, do you think there is potential at least to have
> consistency within each country?

It would be possible to solve the problem for each country.

It would also be possible to solve the problem generically for the whole 
planet.

The real problem is that many people claim that there is no problem or 
that they have already solved it and everybody should just do as they do.

Several of the approaches would work on their own if they were completed 
to cover all use cases - but not with other interpretations using the 
same tags in different ways thrown in between.

bye
Nop

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Nop]

Hi!

Cartinus schrieb:
> On Sunday 29 November 2009 22:53:58 Nop wrote:
>> Richards view works only in the UK and fails
>> terribly in Germany and other countries.
> 
> Richards view works in a lot more countries than the UK. You can see it even 
> works in Germany by just looking at how Germany is currently mapped. Fuzzy 
> logic is flexible and extensible, that's why it works.

Let me apply your logic to a different use case. Just imagine that in my 
country there is a law that generally allows bicycles to use a one-way 
road in both directions.

So I would define one-way as "mainly or exclusively intended for use in 
one direction, bicycles may use both" and I claim that this is sufficient.

If you have a more rigid law where one-way is strictly for all vehicles, 
  it does not matter, fuzzy logic is good. Right?

I don't think so.

But again, it is a waste of time to discuss whether there is a problem 
at all when we have chaotic and contradictory tagging for very basic use 
cases. That is a problem.


bye
Nop

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Steve Bennett]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Richard Fairhurst
 wrote:
>
> Cartinus wrote:
>> It's fairly simple to put foot=no on all cycleways in what is probably
>> the only country with rules for cycleways that are so strict.
>
> Indeed.

Yeah, but from the point of view of a resident of that country, doing
the mapping..."why should I put 'foot=no' on every cycleway? that's so
redundant!"

I have a similar issue with the suggestion that I'm supposed to mark
every mini_roundabout "direction=clockwise". I refuse. Some day the
renderers and routers will get smart enough to figure out that EVERY
mini_roundabout goes clockwise in this country, and every other
left-drive country.

So do we just need a more managed approach to interjurisdictional
variation? We have some ad hoc tables for things like freeways. Why
not make this approach more structured, and possibly encoded, so that
we can use plain old "cycleway" in different countries, and have a
table that explains to routers what that means?

Currently the definitions on each page are very vague, as they try and
capture commonalities across all countries, even though actual
practice is more specific.

Steve

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Cartinus]

On Sunday 29 November 2009 22:53:58 Nop wrote:
> Richards view works only in the UK and fails
> terribly in Germany and other countries.

Richards view works in a lot more countries than the UK. You can see it even 
works in Germany by just looking at how Germany is currently mapped. Fuzzy 
logic is flexible and extensible, that's why it works.

Where it doesn't work is in the minds of people who want one rigid solution 
that solves everything in total detail. A solution that preferably looks like 
some programming logic.

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Richard Fairhurst]

Cartinus wrote:
> It's fairly simple to put foot=no on all cycleways in what is probably 
> the only country with rules for cycleways that are so strict.

Indeed.

> The often mentioned German paths with a white line in the middle 
> (that separates cyclists and pedestrians) could have been done with 
> highway=cycleway+footway=lane or something similar.

highway=cycleway, segregated=yes . There are zillions of these in Britain
too.

(I'd also observe that it's already accepted that you parse highway values
according to the country. A UK primary road is not the same at all as a
French voie express, but both of them are tagged with highway=trunk.)

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Path-vs-footway-vs-cycleway-vs...-tp26551214p26568023.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Cartinus]

On Sunday 29 November 2009 23:10:15 Steve Bennett wrote:
> Before you go, do you think there is potential at least to have
> consistency within each country?

I'm not the one that leaves, but the answer would be yes.

It's fairly simple to put foot=no on all cycleways in what is probably the 
only country with rules for cycleways that are so strict.

The often mentioned German paths with a white line in the middle (that 
separates cyclists and pedestrians) could have been done with 
highway=cycleway+footway=lane or something similar. That is analogous to how 
we treat e.g. a tertiary road with cycle lanes.

etc. etc. etc.

The path crowd however wanted "one solution for everything" and can't accept 
that people didn't want to redo all existing tagging. Especially not in 
places where it simply works.

The result is that some people use path as it is designed, some people don't 
use path at all and other people use path for what the translated word path 
means in their language (often some kind of unpaved footway).

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Steve Bennett]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Nop  wrote:
> EVERY contradictory interpretation has a substantial number of followers
> - that IS the problem. Richards view works only in the UK and fails
> terribly in Germany and other countries. But sorry, I really am fed up
> with the pointless discussions on this matter, so I'll refrain from
> plucking apart the details. It has all been said before.

Before you go, do you think there is potential at least to have
consistency within each country?

Steve

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Nop]

Hi!

Cartinus schrieb:
>> If you negate the existence of a problem that has been widely confirmed,
>> you're not likely to contribute to a solution.
>>
> 
> Except that I am far from alone with my opinion. See e.g. Richards 
> explanation 
> somewhere at the start of this thread and the widespread opposition the path 
> tag gets.

EVERY contradictory interpretation has a substantial number of followers 
- that IS the problem. Richards view works only in the UK and fails 
terribly in Germany and other countries. But sorry, I really am fed up 
with the pointless discussions on this matter, so I'll refrain from 
plucking apart the details. It has all been said before.

bye
Nop

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Cartinus]

On Sunday 29 November 2009 19:37:08 Nop wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Cartinus schrieb:
> > I am of the opinion that the "old" fuzzy definitions weren't a problem at
> > all and the path tag should only be used for things that really don't fit
> > in them. (Like the snowmobile trail.)
>
> I guess you are right. Adding a sixth contradictory opinion probably
> will not help.
>
> If you negate the existence of a problem that has been widely confirmed,
> you're not likely to contribute to a solution.
>
> bye
>   Nop

Except that I am far from alone with my opinion. See e.g. Richards explanation 
somewhere at the start of this thread and the widespread opposition the path 
tag gets.

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

P.S. Please keep list discussions on the list.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Cartinus]

On Sunday 29 November 2009 09:31:27 Nop wrote:
> It is an attempt. If you find something missing or have another
> suggestion for a solution, why don't you add it?

Because I am not allowed to.

The page starts with stating that if you don't agree with the problem, then 
you are not allowed to contribute.

Then it tells us about all the problems that the "old" fuzzy definitions 
cause. Next it barely recognises that the path tag isn't perfect either.

I am of the opinion that the "old" fuzzy definitions weren't a problem at all 
and the path tag should only be used for things that really don't fit in 
them. (Like the snowmobile trail.)

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Anthony]

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Mike Harris  wrote:
> Btw - no need for highway=grass, why not use highway=path (or =footway, see
> previous message) + surface=grass (which seems well-established).

I was just proposing a compromise.  I don't care what the tags are so
long as they are well-defined.  highway=qwijibo (or
highway=invisible_path) is fine with me.

The wiki right now says that highway=path is to be used for paths,
which is incredibly unhelpful.  There are also some examples, which
suggest to me that a "path", as used by OSM, means essentially "any
highway (place open to the public where people travel) which doesn't
fall under another highway=* tag".

If I thought the wiki was a productive work environment, I'd try to
add that more specific definition there.  But I don't.

If that isn't the definition, then I propose "highway=highway", to
have that definition.  Personally, I don't see much sense
distinguishing between different types of "highway"s except in areas
where there is a formal legal designation.  Number of lanes should be
represented by lanes=*.  Maximum speed should be represented by
maxspeed=*.  Surfaces can be described with surface=*.  Access is
determined by access=*.  Importance can then be determined,
objectively, during a preprocessing stage which factors in all these
conditions along with the physical connections.  It should then be the
job of computers to combine all those elements together and decide
what colors to paint things.

I don't see that happening, so I'll just make my best guess as to
which highway=* tag to use, and not particularly worry about it
(except when someone tells me that I can't use *any* of the highway=*
tags for something which ought to be in the routing network).

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Mike Harris]

Btw - no need for highway=grass, why not use highway=path (or =footway, see
previous message) + surface=grass (which seems well-established).

Mike Harris
 

> -Original Message-
> From: Anthony [mailto:o...@inbox.org] 
> Sent: 29 November 2009 04:30
> To: Roy Wallace
> Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
> 
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Roy Wallace 
>  wrote:
> > The following, IMHO, are not sufficient reasons to tag an area of 
> > grass as a path: 1) you walk on it; 2) you think it would help 
> > routing. Analogy: 1) Just because you sit on something, 
> that doesn't 
> > make it a chair; 2) Just because you want others to be 
> recommended to 
> > sit on it, that doesn't make it a chair.
> 
> Bad analogy.  If I look in a dictionary under "chair", there 
> is no definition which says "a thing that is sat upon".  But 
> if I look under "path", there is a definition which says "a 
> route, course, or track along which something moves".
> 
> >>> A path, IMHO, is something
> >>> that exists independently of people walking or not 
> walking on it (i.e.
> >>> usually you can *see* that it resembles a path).
> >>
> >> Usually, or always?
> >
> > Um... so the question is, if you can't see a path, can it 
> still be a 
> > path?
> 
> No, my question was whether you really meant to use the word 
> "usually".
> 
> > Answer: No, because otherwise your mapping is not verifiable:
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability.
> 
> The fact that an area of land is within a legally defined 
> right of way is verifiable.  The fact that it is suitable for 
> travel is verifiable.
>  The fact that people use it for travel is verifiable.
> 
> I suppose in that sense I can *see* that it resembles a path.
> 
> > Oh, and if you like highway=grass, use that!
> 
> I like highway=path.  More general.
> 
> 
> 


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Steve Bennett]

> 1) Re: connecting paths across small grass areas - don't mark a path
> where there isn't one, and especially don't do it for the purpose of
> trying to make routers work better. Map reality - that will always
> work best in the long term. (just my personal preference)

IMHO accessible paths *must* be marked, because it's impossible to
write a router that will guess correctly. I agree that it would be
preferable not to have these hints to the router appear in the
renderer, and to be distinguished somehow. I'd almost be inclined to
invent a tag with a clearly whimsical name like highway=invisible_path
(to avoid adding to the chaos). Or even "highway=none bicycle=yes"
etc.

>
> 2) Re: when to use path/footway/cycleway etc. - firstly, I prefer
> highway=path because it is more extensible. Any
> highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway can be expressed in terms of a
> highway=path with additional access tags.

Yes. You have spelt out exactly what is wrong with this approach, with
the terms "can be expressed...with additional...tags". Succinct is
good. Semantically rich tags are good.

 In this way, using
> highway=path can be more explicit, because of ongoing disagreements in
> the definition of footway/cycleway/bridleway.

> 3) Re: what does  really mean? - rather than everyone giving
> their personal opinion on e.g. what highway=path means, for new users
> I would strongly recommend reading the wiki carefully and using that.

The wiki (in my perusal thus far) suffers from a lack of consistency
and a lack of authority. There's nowhere that says "THIS is what a
path is, and nothing else". Like Wikipedia's policies, for example.

Steve

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Mike Harris]

Not to suggest that there is a 'right' or a 'wrong' approach - but merely to
note that I (England mostly) - and I believe some others in England and
perhaps elsewhere) have a different approach - this is, I stress, what I
currently do - and has evolved as a result of my own (limited) experience in
mapping and participation in various group discussions:

1. All ways that are not available other than to pedestrians are
highway=footway - whether urban paved footways or rural unpaved 'footpaths'.
Even a rural 'footpath' that is barely discernible where it crosses, for
example, pasture, is highway=footway if it is a legal public footpath.

2. Highway=path is only used for a route - usually ill-defined and often in
upland areas where the precise legal line of a public footpath is often less
meaningful than the customary route (e.g. up a mountain) - in the sense that
people walk it.

3. Highway=track is used similarly for something that is wider and, at least
in principle, available for use by a four-wheeled (off-road e.g. a farm
tractor) vehicle.

3. I would then define legal status, where known, using a designated= tag
and surface condition using a combination of tracktype= and/or surface= as
appropriate. I would also add ref= where the reference number of the way was
known.

4. I would always add foot=yes (or at least foot=permissive) for clarity and
also add bicycle ¦ horse = yes ¦ permissive ¦ no as appropriate.

5. I would reserve highway=cycleway for something that was (a) built
primarily for use by bicycles - whether beside a motor road or not and was
(b) (only relevant in England and Wales) not a public
footpath/bridleway/byway (as these have legally defined rights for different
classes of user). I would then add foot=yes (unless pedestrians were
actually forbidden) for additional clarity and perhaps an indication as to
whether it was a shared way for cyclists and walkers or a longitudinally
divided dual use way.

6. I would use a route relation to define medium- / long-distance routes -
e.g. a long-distance path or a national/regional cycleway - adding names and
reference numbers to the relation.

Again, I stress, this is just what I do - in the interest of transparency -
and not in any way to suggest that it is better or worse than what Lesi or
anyone else has adopted. This is OSM - the ultimate popular democracy!

Have fun mapping!

Mike Harris
 

> -Original Message-
> From: Lesi [mailto:l...@lesi.is-a-geek.net] 
> Sent: 28 November 2009 14:29
> To: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
> 
> The footway/cycleway/path choas is the one of the biggest 
> drawbacks of OSM.
> 
> Here's my approach:
> - A footway is a mostly paved way in a city. It's a way which 
> was mostly built by an authority. You can walk on it safely 
> in high heels.
> - A path is a narrow way, which is mostly not paved and was 
> not built by somebody. This can be short cuts in cities, ways 
> in a forest which are to narrow to be tagged as tracks or 
> hiking trails in the mountains. If it's raining you could get 
> dirty shoes.
> You can indicate that the path is (not) suitable for bikes 
> with bicycle=yes/no.
> You can ride with your bike everywhere in my area, so I do 
> not use cycleway.
> 
> lesi
> 
> 
> 
> 


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Mike Harris]

Good advice ... +1!

Mike Harris
 

> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com] 
> Sent: 28 November 2009 19:43
> To: Steve Bennett
> Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org; tagg...@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
> 
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Steve Bennett 
>  wrote:
> > Ok, since I'm new here,
> 
> You're new here?  Welcome to OSM.
> 
> > I'll ask the obvious question: does it matter whether this stuff is 
> > done the same across different countries? Is it not ok if 
> "cycleway" 
> > has slightly different semantics in different jurisdictions?
> 
> A map is an abstraction and can not hope to perfectly 
> represent all of the wonderful variations of 'things' we see. 
>  There are likely to be several ways to do some of the things 
> that you want to do.  Some of these variations will have 
> subtle benefits and some will be matters of personal 
> preference. Others will be noticeably different than what you 
> will see in other jurisdictions.
> 
> Look to see what other are doing locally and in similar places.
> Learn and adapt what you see as best practice in other places.
> Have fun.
> 
> 
> 


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Nop]

Hi!

Cartinus schrieb:
> On Sunday 29 November 2009 01:34:19 Nop wrote:
>> 2) AFAIK the only attempt at a neutral display of the different opinions
>> is here:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path
> 
> That page is far from neutral, because the only solutions it offers are doing 
> something with the path tag.

It is an attempt. If you find something missing or have another 
suggestion for a solution, why don't you add it?

bye
Nop


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Lester Caine]

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
>> Instinctively, I want to tag it a cycleway...but there's absolutely
>> nothing to justify that. Nowhere will you see any primacy given to
>> cycling over walking. Conundrum.
> 
> highway=cycleway doesn't mean cycles have priority. It just means it's 
> intended for pedestrian and cycle use. There's no suggestion of primacy 
> for either.
> 
> (Incidentally, I missed out the footnote from my last mail, which was 
> going to say that in some countries (like the UK) cycles are permitted 
> on bridleways; nonetheless it's most sensible to treat highway=bridleway 
> as a path for pedestrian and horse use, and tag over and above that if 
> it's a cyclable one.)

http://www.horsedata.co.uk/Jargon.htm I think nicely covers most of the options.
But 'cycleway' is still a rather woolly term, with many specially constructed 
cycle routes using that term only for a fully-segregated cycle route, however 
sustrans.org.uk works on the basis that the national cycle network is also for
'walkers, wheelchair uses and horseriders' and this is where the 'path' 
designation sort of came from since many vehicle free routes are not footway, 
cycleway or bridalway.

Personally I would only use cycleway where the 'path' was specifically 
restricted to cycles for reasons of safety - such as the segregated routes that 
form part of a main vehicle way, lanes on the side such as described in 
http://www.cycling.bham.ac.uk/other/RoadDesignTerminology.shtml but at this 
point we are getting back to the 'micromapping' question on when does a single 
'way' get replaced with a group of parallel ways each with their correct 
designation . around here it is the footpaths which do not follow directly 
the 'roadway' and many of them are 'pavements' where cycling is specifically 
banned.

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Anthony]

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Roy Wallace  wrote:
>> Oh, and if you like highway=grass, use that!
>
> I like highway=path.

With surface=grass, of course!

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Anthony]

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Roy Wallace  wrote:
> The following, IMHO, are not sufficient reasons to tag
> an area of grass as a path: 1) you walk on it; 2) you think it would
> help routing. Analogy: 1) Just because you sit on something, that
> doesn't make it a chair; 2) Just because you want others to be
> recommended to sit on it, that doesn't make it a chair.

Bad analogy.  If I look in a dictionary under "chair", there is no
definition which says "a thing that is sat upon".  But if I look under
"path", there is a definition which says "a route, course, or track
along which something moves".

>>> A path, IMHO, is something
>>> that exists independently of people walking or not walking on it (i.e.
>>> usually you can *see* that it resembles a path).
>>
>> Usually, or always?
>
> Um... so the question is, if you can't see a path, can it still be a
> path?

No, my question was whether you really meant to use the word "usually".

> Answer: No, because otherwise your mapping is not verifiable:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability.

The fact that an area of land is within a legally defined right of way
is verifiable.  The fact that it is suitable for travel is verifiable.
 The fact that people use it for travel is verifiable.

I suppose in that sense I can *see* that it resembles a path.

> Oh, and if you like highway=grass, use that!

I like highway=path.  More general.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Roy Wallace]

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>
>> An area of grass is - to me - not a path.
>
> Never?  Or just not generally?

I'll rephrase. The following, IMHO, are not sufficient reasons to tag
an area of grass as a path: 1) you walk on it; 2) you think it would
help routing. Analogy: 1) Just because you sit on something, that
doesn't make it a chair; 2) Just because you want others to be
recommended to sit on it, that doesn't make it a chair.

The only reason I would tag an area of grass as a path is if, when I
asked a typical stranger, "hey, is that over there a path?", they
replied yes. If I ask "is this a chair?"...you get the picture.

In that sense, of course, the photos you linked to are paths. Common sense.

>> A path, IMHO, is something
>> that exists independently of people walking or not walking on it (i.e.
>> usually you can *see* that it resembles a path).
>
> Usually, or always?

Um... so the question is, if you can't see a path, can it still be a
path? Answer: No, because otherwise your mapping is not verifiable:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability.

> If there were some other tag for me to use (say highway=grass), fine.
> But none of the other highway tags are appropriate, and the routing
> information needs to be designated somehow.  The area of grass I have
> in mind exists in a legal right of way.  It's not like I'm talking
> about cutting through someone's backyard.  It's a perfectly legitimate
> path of travel.  It should provided in walking directions.  And that
> means having some sort of highway tag.

I don't have an easy answer for your problem. I would urge caution,
though, in tagging things that aren't verifiable.

Actually, I remember trekking recently, using an OSM map, that
connected one track to another. The tracks actually *weren't
connected* in any way other than through a short stint through dense
forest. This is the problem: when you tag in order to have things
"provided in walking directions", this can lead you astray. Oh, and if
you like highway=grass, use that!

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Anthony]

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Roy Wallace  wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Anthony  wrote:
>>
>> When is there a path and when is there not a path?  I walk through an
>> area of grass every time I go to the park near my house.  Isn't that a
>> "path" which is part of "reality"?
>
> An area of grass is - to me - not a path.

Never?  Or just not generally?

What if the grass is slightly bare?
http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/18/97/189701_92c9a5d5.jpg

Cut short?  
http://www.agrigarden.co.nz/Data/Media/Images/Path%20through%20grass%20resize.jpg
http://img2.allposters.com/images/PTGPOD/GPBO05-3171-001-FB.jpg

Through an otherwise impassible area?
http://www.chimacumwoods.com/images/Path%20to%20south.JPG

Marked by a sign?  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/images/5/52/PathSnowmobile.jpg

> A path, IMHO, is something
> that exists independently of people walking or not walking on it (i.e.
> usually you can *see* that it resembles a path).

Usually, or always?

Usually, fine, I agree.  Always, that just doesn't coincide with my
definition of "path".  To me, the fact that you can usually recognize
a path is an effect, not a cause.

If there were some other tag for me to use (say highway=grass), fine.
But none of the other highway tags are appropriate, and the routing
information needs to be designated somehow.  The area of grass I have
in mind exists in a legal right of way.  It's not like I'm talking
about cutting through someone's backyard.  It's a perfectly legitimate
path of travel.  It should provided in walking directions.  And that
means having some sort of highway tag.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Cartinus]

On Sunday 29 November 2009 01:34:19 Nop wrote:
> 2) AFAIK the only attempt at a neutral display of the different opinions
> is here:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path

That page is far from neutral, because the only solutions it offers are doing 
something with the path tag.


On Sunday 29 November 2009 02:15:14 Roy Wallace wrote:
> That's fair enough. My main point was that you can at least be assured
> that other mappers are using the same documentation (the wiki as a
> whole) to decide how to tag their ways. If you ask on this email list,
> you cannot be assured of that.

Actually you can't, because there is a whole horde of experienced mappers that 
gave up on the wiki-mess. But they do speak up from time to time on the 
mailinglists.

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Roy Wallace]

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Nop  wrote:
>
>> So if consistency is the goal, you cannot rely on various personal
>> opinions that exist only in people's minds and in email discussions
>> from time to time (which no doubt only a small proportion of mappers
>> ever read). You must write it down for reference. And if what's
>> written down has flaws, they must be fixed.
>
> No help there. The major contractiory interpretations of the tags around
> this topic are all "documented" in the wiki in contradictory ways. It just
> depends on which page you find first and what conlusions you derive from
> rather fuzzy definitions.

I know. I didn't mean to say the *content* of the wiki is necessarily
good, just that I think the *concept* of the wiki is a better way to
aim for consistency than throwing around personal opinions from time
to time.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Roy Wallace]

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Anthony  wrote:
>
> When is there a path and when is there not a path?  I walk through an
> area of grass every time I go to the park near my house.  Isn't that a
> "path" which is part of "reality"?

An area of grass is - to me - not a path. A path, IMHO, is something
that exists independently of people walking or not walking on it (i.e.
usually you can *see* that it resembles a path).

>> 3) Re: what does  really mean? - rather than everyone giving
>> their personal opinion on e.g. what highway=path means, for new users
>> I would strongly recommend reading the wiki carefully and using that.
>
> "A generic path, either multi-use, or unspecified usage."
>
> Umm, okay.  I take that to mean anything course of travel that isn't
> covered by one of the other highway tags.

That's fair enough. My main point was that you can at least be assured
that other mappers are using the same documentation (the wiki as a
whole) to decide how to tag their ways. If you ask on this email list,
you cannot be assured of that.

As an aside, about highway=path...the definition of "generic" is
"descriptive of all members of a genus", so I take it to mean that -
quite intuitively - all paths are a kind of path, regardless of
whether you can ride a bicycle or walk or snowmobile on them :) But
I'm not going to get into this discussion again - instead let's go and
improve http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Nop]

Hi!

Roy Wallace schrieb:
> The newbie reading these conflicting responses either 1) becomes
> confused, or 2) begins to think that best practice is to invent your
> own meaning for existing tags and then pass this secret knowledge on
> to only the newbies who ask via email. This is not a good outcome.

The newbie - who usually assumes that there is a simple and 
straightforward answer to the simple question "how to I tag a footway" - 
becomes confused - and frustrated that such a basic thing is unsolved 
and not looking like it's going to be solved one of these years. To the 
newcomer, this is somewhere between unexpected and crazy.

 > So if consistency is the goal, you cannot rely on various personal
 > opinions that exist only in people's minds and in email discussions
 > from time to time (which no doubt only a small proportion of mappers
 > ever read). You must write it down for reference. And if what's
 > written down has flaws, they must be fixed.

No help there. The major contractiory interpretations of the tags around 
this topic are all "documented" in the wiki in contradictory ways. It 
just depends on which page you find first and what conlusions you derive 
from rather fuzzy definitions.

> Note also that by the wiki serving as a "reference" I do not mean that
> the wiki page for, say, footway must give only the one "true"
> definition. It should 1) document the usage of tags as they occur in
> the database, 2) detail any ongoing controversy and 3) if a consensus
> exists, give a clear recommendation on how the tag should be used by
> new mappers.

1) The same tags are used with up to 5 different meanings - usually one 
wiki page only states one interpretation, but there are many different 
pages.
2) AFAIK the only attempt at a neutral display of the different opinions 
is here: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path
3) There has never been anything approaching a consensus. Not even 
close. The discussion has been going around in circles since I first 
thought there had to be a simple answer to a simple question. Which is 
about a year. :-)

bye
 Nop


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Anthony]

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Roy Wallace  wrote:
> I have a couple of thoughts:
>
> 1) Re: connecting paths across small grass areas - don't mark a path
> where there isn't one, and especially don't do it for the purpose of
> trying to make routers work better. Map reality - that will always
> work best in the long term. (just my personal preference)

When is there a path and when is there not a path?  I walk through an
area of grass every time I go to the park near my house.  Isn't that a
"path" which is part of "reality"?

> 3) Re: what does  really mean? - rather than everyone giving
> their personal opinion on e.g. what highway=path means, for new users
> I would strongly recommend reading the wiki carefully and using that.

"A generic path, either multi-use, or unspecified usage."

Umm, okay.  I take that to mean anything course of travel that isn't
covered by one of the other highway tags.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Roy Wallace]

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Liz  wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
>> I would strongly recommend reading the wiki carefully and using that.
> but Roy, the wiki is written by committee and it is a good example of the
> failure of the committee process
> the minority report cannot be distinguished from the majority report
>
> so a newbie reading the wiki is just going to become confused when it is a
> non-vehicular way

I think you missed my point - let me clarify.

If a newbie asks "hey guys, what's a footway?" and they get 50
responses saying "well, I think it's..." and "well I've been using..."
and "no, no, it's really...", that will get us nowhere. Plus, what
about the newbies who *don't ask?!*

The newbie reading these conflicting responses either 1) becomes
confused, or 2) begins to think that best practice is to invent your
own meaning for existing tags and then pass this secret knowledge on
to only the newbies who ask via email. This is not a good outcome.

Please let me stress that I am not saying the wiki is in a good state!
But it is the best thing to refer to as a reference for tag meanings,
because it is *documented*. That is, for the 10,000's of mapper who
are out there adding footways right now and are *not on this list*,
one must assume they are doing so on the basis of the definition in
the wiki. That is certainly what I did and will continue to do.

So if consistency is the goal, you cannot rely on various personal
opinions that exist only in people's minds and in email discussions
from time to time (which no doubt only a small proportion of mappers
ever read). You must write it down for reference. And if what's
written down has flaws, they must be fixed.

Note also that by the wiki serving as a "reference" I do not mean that
the wiki page for, say, footway must give only the one "true"
definition. It should 1) document the usage of tags as they occur in
the database, 2) detail any ongoing controversy and 3) if a consensus
exists, give a clear recommendation on how the tag should be used by
new mappers.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Liz]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
> I would strongly recommend reading the wiki carefully and using that.
but Roy, the wiki is written by committee and it is a good example of the 
failure of the committee process
the minority report cannot be distinguished from the majority report

so a newbie reading the wiki is just going to become confused when it is a 
non-vehicular way


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Roy Wallace]

I have a couple of thoughts:

1) Re: connecting paths across small grass areas - don't mark a path
where there isn't one, and especially don't do it for the purpose of
trying to make routers work better. Map reality - that will always
work best in the long term. (just my personal preference)

2) Re: when to use path/footway/cycleway etc. - firstly, I prefer
highway=path because it is more extensible. Any
highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway can be expressed in terms of a
highway=path with additional access tags. In this way, using
highway=path can be more explicit, because of ongoing disagreements in
the definition of footway/cycleway/bridleway.

3) Re: what does  really mean? - rather than everyone giving
their personal opinion on e.g. what highway=path means, for new users
I would strongly recommend reading the wiki carefully and using that.
I'm sure there are plenty of mappers who read the wiki and nothing
else, and if consistency is the goal, I think the wiki should serve to
document the current consensus as well as current disagreements. Of
course, the wiki needs improving, and I personally think we should
make this a priority. See, for example, some of the latest efforts to
improve the situation:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Cartinus]

On Saturday 28 November 2009 14:37:12 Steve Bennett wrote:
> Next question: how popular is this viewpoint? Is this a minority way
> of thinking?

It was the only viewpoint before highway=path was "invented". Now it is one of 
several competing viewpoints without a clear winner.

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Richard Weait]

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Steve Bennett  wrote:
> Ok, since I'm new here,

You're new here?  Welcome to OSM.

> I'll ask the obvious question: does it matter
> whether this stuff is done the same across different countries? Is it
> not ok if "cycleway" has slightly different semantics in different
> jurisdictions?

A map is an abstraction and can not hope to perfectly represent all of
the wonderful variations of 'things' we see.  There are likely to be
several ways to do some of the things that you want to do.  Some of
these variations will have subtle benefits and some will be matters of
personal preference. Others will be noticeably different than what you
will see in other jurisdictions.

Look to see what other are doing locally and in similar places.
Learn and adapt what you see as best practice in other places.
Have fun.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[John F. Eldredge]

Underwater bicycling, the next Olympic sport...

---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
>From  :stevag...@gmail.com
Date  :Sat Nov 28 08:24:57 America/Chicago 2009

(Australian bias showing, I'm unable to conceive of the idea of
cycling from one country to another...)



-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Lesi]

The footway/cycleway/path choas is the one of the biggest drawbacks of OSM.

Here's my approach:
- A footway is a mostly paved way in a city. It's a way which was mostly 
built by an authority. You can walk on it safely in high heels.
- A path is a narrow way, which is mostly not paved and was not built by 
somebody. This can be short cuts in cities, ways in a forest which are to 
narrow to be tagged as tracks or hiking trails in the mountains. If it's 
raining you could get dirty shoes.
You can indicate that the path is (not) suitable for bikes with 
bicycle=yes/no.
You can ride with your bike everywhere in my area, so I do not use cycleway.

lesi


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Steve Bennett]

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 1:09 AM, Ben Laenen  wrote:
> And at one time it was that easy in OSM, but the real world really isn't. In
> some countries it may work fine, but in other countries the distinction
> between the three has no connection with the actual situation and would
> introduce a number of ambiguities where you don't really know anymore whether
> something is allowed or not.

Ok, since I'm new here, I'll ask the obvious question: does it matter
whether this stuff is done the same across different countries? Is it
not ok if "cycleway" has slightly different semantics in different
jurisdictions?

(Australian bias showing, I'm unable to conceive of the idea of
cycling from one country to another...)

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Ben Laenen]

Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Richard Fairhurst
> 
>  wrote:
> > highway=footway -> a path intended for pedestrian use
> > highway=cycleway -> a path intended for pedestrian and cycle use
> > highway=bridleway -> a path intended for pedestrian and horse use[1]
> 
> Boy, I like this way of thinking. Of course, it must be controversial
> given the preceding comments, but it does make a lot of sense.

And at one time it was that easy in OSM, but the real world really isn't. In 
some countries it may work fine, but in other countries the distinction 
between the three has no connection with the actual situation and would 
introduce a number of ambiguities where you don't really know anymore whether 
something is allowed or not.

Take cycleways for example. Over here mopeds are allowed on paths that are 
signed as cycleway. Now, on the other hand we also had paths which weren't 
cycleways but allowed bicycles (but no mopeds) tagged as cycleway. Conflict 
between the two: would a route planner now allow mopeds on them or not? Sure, 
one could explicitly tag the moped=yes/no but (a) mappers forget about it, and 
(b) even if they don't, they often do not know the exact rules. And not 
forgetting that (c) traffic code isn't some static thing, it changes over time 
and what has been allowed on a certain path with certain signs, may not be in 
future.

Hence the addition of highway=path was actually a welcome additional tag. Now 
we can tag the paths that are legal cycleways as highway=cycleway (and 
likewise for footpaths and bridleways), and other paths with the generic 
highway=path. The traffic signs on those paths can then be translated to 
access tags.

Greetings
Ben

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk