Re: [Tagging] No proposal labeling
multitude of options to choose from Yes ok but the problem with this options is that the brainstorming process is so distributed and for every channel you need logon etc. For me for example I dont like mailinglists that much just cause of the push communication form. So I thaught that the pros of a wiki is its united caracter but I understand that there are people that dont like a wiki, too. So how can we unite this communication process in the future? Well but nevertheless this is about how to cleanup the feature wiki. How can we improve this wiki focused approach of feature evolution either proposed/vote based or not? Matthias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relation for saying x is attached to y?
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Sebastian Klein basti...@googlemail.com wrote: Isn't it kind of obvious, that a photovoltaic type power generator is located on top of the building rather than inside or below? You may assume a basic level of intelligence from the user of the data and add only information that has more than one option. E.g. is the post box attached to a wall or does it stand on its own? In this example you would not need a relation, since the post box node can simply be joined with the building way. Assuming a basic level of intelligence really harms machine reuse of data. Even things that seem really obvious to a person can be complex, tedious, and error-prone to code. Using relations and other tags to make relationships very explicit makes reusing data much easier. One example is bus stops. When a bus stop is near a way, it's obvious to a person what that means - but pretty tricky for a program to use for routing. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How do you map handicapped parking? (and other questions)
2010/8/29 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: Is there a way to distinguish an older gnarly tree suitable for climbing from a recently-planted tree? I would use height and the circumference of the trunk (usually measured at 1 metre or 1.3 metres above ground) to give an approximation. You can also tag the age by putting the planting date, if you know about this. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features
2010/8/29 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: culvert=yes is ambiguous: does it refer to the object on top or underneath? our tags refer to the object they are associated with. Simple like that, isn't it? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:47 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/8/29 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: culvert=yes is ambiguous: does it refer to the object on top or underneath? our tags refer to the object they are associated with. Simple like that, isn't it? OK, so if you have culvert=yes on a short section of way, does that mean it goes through the structure or over it? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] No proposal labeling
Am 30. August 2010 08:08 schrieb Matthias Meißer dig...@arcor.de: multitude of options to choose from Yes ok but the problem with this options is that the brainstorming process is so distributed and for every channel you need logon etc. For me for example I dont like mailinglists that much just cause of the push communication form. So I thaught that the pros of a wiki is its united caracter but I understand that there are people that dont like a wiki, too. I see it like this, that the wiki is the place to document stuff. Discussions should already have been taken place to a certain point, but in case you have to add something important for you, there is also the possibility for every wikipage to add remarks to the discussion-page there. Well but nevertheless this is about how to cleanup the feature wiki. How can we improve this wiki focused approach of feature evolution either proposed/vote based or not? you're still insisting on proposed/voted nevertheless you were told that parts of the community (myself excluded) don't like/support it. Some people try to sneak in features to the main feature list (hence violating the community rules that only widely accepted and in-use features should be added), but mostly this will not succeed, especially when they are disputed features, because someone will remove them. I don't see a point in removing undisputed features from the list though, just because they don't meet some formal criteria. Additionally according to my experiences, most of the confusion is not arising by new features, but by redefinition or amendment of already existing ones. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features
2010/8/30 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:47 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/8/29 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: culvert=yes is ambiguous: does it refer to the object on top or underneath? our tags refer to the object they are associated with. Simple like that, isn't it? OK, so if you have culvert=yes on a short section of way, does that mean it goes through the structure or over it? Can you show me the example? I don't understand structure and I would like to know, which kind of way it is (what are the other tags?). Over and under are modelled by layer-tags in OSM. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relation for saying x is attached to y?
On 8/30/10 9:06 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/8/29 Pierenpier...@gmail.com: On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps a site relation? I'm not sure it's necessary; any application that needs that information can calculate whether the polygons overlap. Yes, the topology shows what is inside or outside the polygon. And you can use the tag layer to say what is on the top of what. +1, but site-relations might still be useful in the context of power generators. There are situations where the single objects do not overlap but are side a side, for example you might have 3 generators with 3 chimneys and want to model which chimney is connected to which generator. i'd lean towards site relations being useful because i think that the computational complexity of doing lots of polygon intersections is being underestimated. yes, for small bounding boxes it's ok, but consider if you needed to do it on a larger scale, it'd make certain tasks completely unreasonable (i'm not sure what those tasks might be yet, haven't thought about it.) richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relation for saying x is attached to y?
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: i'd lean towards site relations being useful because i think that the computational complexity of doing lots of polygon intersections is being underestimated. yes, for small bounding boxes it's ok, but consider if you needed to do it on a larger scale, it'd make certain tasks completely unreasonable (i'm not sure what those tasks might be yet, haven't thought about it.) Yep. Polygon collisions can also be accidental, like when two objects from slightly different sources (say one gps, one aerial imagery) are near each other. A relation is a very explicit statement. Other generic relation types that would be very useful: - these objects are mutually accessible by foot (to avoid having to invent artificial foot paths in order to get good routing) - these objects express the same thing as that object but in more detail (eg, one line representing a pair or more of train lines) - these objects are one (like a very generic multipolygon, could also work to form multiways) Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] now i'm completely stumped...
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 3:29 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: Weight Watchers? Dale Carnegie Training? Arthur Murray Dance Studio? OSM is not setting out to build an ontology of business types. Does that help? Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sauna
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de wrote: Hi Kim, why exactly do you want to convert a widely used tag (amenity=sauna, ~1000 uses) to a very rarely used tag (leisure=sauna, ~13 uses). Agreed. Unless there is something very clearly broken with the naming of the tag (power=sub_station comes to mind), it's a bad idea to change a tag to something that is marginally more correct. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relation for saying x is attached to y?
2010/8/30 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: Yep. Polygon collisions can also be accidental, like when two objects from slightly different sources (say one gps, one aerial imagery) are near each other. I'd consider this mapping failure actually. More than believing in gps- and imagery-precision the mapper should care about topology. Other generic relation types that would be very useful: - these objects are mutually accessible by foot (to avoid having to invent artificial foot paths in order to get good routing) you can do this with the area-relation (not restricted but restrictable to foot) - these objects express the same thing as that object but in more detail (eg, one line representing a pair or more of train lines) interesting, but maybe difficult to do. - these objects are one (like a very generic multipolygon, could also work to form multiways) can't you already do this with current multipolygons? (OK, only for areas, for ways there are routes). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relation for saying x is attached to y?
2010/8/30 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: - these objects express the same thing as that object but in more detail (eg, one line representing a pair or more of train lines) in this actual example you don't need relations but can do as with streets (lanes-tag). I'm not sure on the best syntax though: should it be tracks=4 or lanes=4? The latter is less correct regarding the language but doesn't require additional tags. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] now i'm completely stumped...
2010/8/30 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 3:29 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: Weight Watchers? Dale Carnegie Training? Arthur Murray Dance Studio? OSM is not setting out to build an ontology of business types. Does that help? why not? OSM is setting out to build an ontology of the world. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relation for saying x is attached to y?
* M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com [2010-08-30 17:40 +0200]: 2010/8/30 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: - these objects express the same thing as that object but in more detail (eg, one line representing a pair or more of train lines) in this actual example you don't need relations but can do as with streets (lanes-tag). I'm not sure on the best syntax though: should it be tracks=4 or lanes=4? The latter is less correct regarding the language but doesn't require additional tags. There is a proposal for a tracks= tag: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Multiple_Tracks -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army. -- Edward Everett --- -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-dev] Extracting national boundaries
2010/8/30 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: But France and Slovakia for example don't seem to have a single relation as a starting point. There is the one for France (land_area): http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/11980 just a lateral note: there is some inconsistency. name = France name:de = Französische Republik IMHO it should be either name=République française or name:de=Frankreich You could also go for official_name=République française, official_name:de=Französische Republik, ... I'm not sure if this is needed, probably you would do better just use the wikipedia-interlanguage-links. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features
2010/8/30 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:08 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Can you show me the example? I don't understand structure and I would like to know, which kind of way it is (what are the other tags?). http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/48598384 If this was tagged culvert=yes rather than bridge=culvert, it wouldn't be clear whether it's a bridge or tunnel. That's true, but IMHO the wrong way is tagged there: the culvert should go on the waterway, i.e. where it is. I also saw another strange thing there: your waterways are tagged oneway=yes. What does that mean? Is this for boat-traffic? Do the boats pass the culvert? According to the wiki oneway is used for access-restrictions, i.e. it is a legal tag, not a physical one. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:38 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/8/30 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/48598384 If this was tagged culvert=yes rather than bridge=culvert, it wouldn't be clear whether it's a bridge or tunnel. That's true, but IMHO the wrong way is tagged there: the culvert should go on the waterway, i.e. where it is. What do you mean by where it is? The culvert is the structure that carries the road over the waterway. I also saw another strange thing there: your waterways are tagged oneway=yes. What does that mean? Is this for boat-traffic? Do the boats pass the culvert? According to the wiki oneway is used for access-restrictions, i.e. it is a legal tag, not a physical one. How else would you tag water flow? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features
Ok this seem to be a problem but again, is this related in some way with 'Non proposed features'? Matthias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] No proposal labeling
Some people try to sneak in features to the main feature list (hence violating the community rules that only widely accepted and in-use features should be added), but mostly this will not succeed, especially when they are disputed features, because someone will remove them. I don't see a point in removing undisputed features from the list though, just because they don't meet some formal criteria. But why not? Ok i don't like it to have rules just to have rules, too. But if we try to moderate the list (pros were said allready) there have to be some rules? We have to keep in mind, that this doesn't mean, that the tags aren't in the wiki anymore neither, that nobody has to tag stuff that way. Additionally according to my experiences, most of the confusion is not arising by new features, but by redefinition or amendment of already existing ones. I agree but how can we avoid it without doing some moderation and keep the list clean? This results in the funny situation that I have to do a proposal to modify/extend a non proposed feature that is in conflict on the list ;) Matthias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features
Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: That's true, but IMHO the wrong way is tagged there: the culvert should go on the waterway, i.e. where it is. What do you mean by where it is? The culvert is the structure that carries the road over the waterway. I'm not sure i have understand, but (for me) a culvert can't carries a road over ; a culvert is a kind of tube that goes under a structure to allow water to go throught a roadrail... Wikipedia for example tell : A culvert is a device used to channel water. It may be used to allow water to pass underneath a road, railway, or embankment for example. Culverts can be made of many different materials; steel, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and concrete are the most common. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culvert What you describ a structure that carry the road over is a bridge for me. I also saw another strange thing there: your waterways are tagged oneway=yes. What does that mean? Is this for boat-traffic? Do the boats pass the culvert? According to the wiki oneway is used for access-restrictions, i.e. it is a legal tag, not a physical one. How else would you tag water flow? Water flow is the way direction (the direction it has been drawn, if opposite, reverse the way). oneway=yes do not indicate any direction just that there is only one direction possible, the direction is indicate by the direction of the original drawing. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driver Direction of the way should be downstream. oneway tag is design to indicat access restriction. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Oneway -- Pierre-Alain Dorange ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Pierre-Alain Dorange pdora...@mac.comwrote: I'm not sure i have understand, but (for me) a culvert can't carries a road over ; a culvert is a kind of tube that goes under a structure to allow water to go throught a roadrail... Wikipedia for example tell : A culvert is a device used to channel water. It may be used to allow water to pass underneath a road, railway, or embankment for example. Culverts can be made of many different materials; steel, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and concrete are the most common. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culvert And if you go ahead with this article: When boxes or pipes are placed side-by-side to create a width of greater than twenty feet, the culvert is defined as a bridge in the United States Some examples: http://www.horizontalholes.com/images/Box_Culvert_Job_09.jpg http://rscallahan.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/May242006011.jpg Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features
On Monday 30 August 2010 19:19:21 Nathan Edgars II wrote: How else would you tag water flow? Somewhere, probably lost in the depths of time, it was agreed that waterflow is modeled by the direction of the waterway way without a oneway tag. Oops it's not lost. It's on the waterway=river and waterway=stream wiki pages. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 5:51 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/8/28 Anthony o...@inbox.org: On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:56 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: if there is no footway, it shouldn't be tagged as such. Agreed. But what is a footway? The dictionary says it's a narrow way or path for pedestrians. I don't see anything about grass being disqualified. The definition you quoted said: way or path. In the aerial images posted here there was neither of them. If was just grass. No way. I'm not sure which aerial you're referring, but I also don't see why a strip of grass wouldn't qualify as a way or path. You can actually see informal footways/paths quite well in aerial imagery. If they are there and you have good resolution images. Usually the grass is aside then, because grass doesn't grow where people (or animals) walk. It disappears even if it was there before. Well, all the places where I'd tag a footway are places where people walk. So I guess there's not a problem. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features
On 08/30/2010 03:35 PM, Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote: Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: That's true, but IMHO the wrong way is tagged there: the culvert should go on the waterway, i.e. where it is. What do you mean by where it is? The culvert is the structure that carries the road over the waterway. I'm not sure i have understand, but (for me) a culvert can't carries a road over ; a culvert is a kind of tube that goes under a structure to allow water to go throught a roadrail... Wikipedia for example tell : A culvert is a device used to channel water. It may be used to allow water to pass underneath a road, railway, or embankment for example. Culverts can be made of many different materials; steel, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and concrete are the most common. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culvert What you describ a structure that carry the road over is a bridge for me. I also saw another strange thing there: your waterways are tagged oneway=yes. What does that mean? Is this for boat-traffic? Do the boats pass the culvert? According to the wiki oneway is used for access-restrictions, i.e. it is a legal tag, not a physical one. How else would you tag water flow? Water flow is the way direction (the direction it has been drawn, if opposite, reverse the way). oneway=yes do not indicate any direction just that there is only one direction possible, the direction is indicate by the direction of the original drawing. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driver Direction of the way should be downstream. oneway tag is design to indicat access restriction. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Oneway Does direction of the original drawing mean that the nodes should be marked from upstream to downstream? If not, how do you specify the direction of a waterway when mapping it? Also, how do you reverse a way? The wiki page for the direction key only gives the examples of clockwise vs. counterclockwise for a round-about, and up/down for steps. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How do you map handicapped parking? (and other questions)
On 29 August 2010 16:28, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Z%C3%BCrich_-_B%C3%BCrkliplatz_IMG_0525_ShiftN.jpg (or something less fancy) is what I think of a pavilion as. http://apps.ocfl.net/dept/cesrvcs/parks/parkdetails.asp?parkid=66 agrees that the park has rental pavilions (second icon in the amenity list). Definitely a cultural thing then. To me, that's a bandstand. I have seen the word pavilion used occasionally for this, but it's not what would come to mind first. Not that it matters, as long as it's documented well. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features
On 8/30/10 6:49 PM, Stephen Hope wrote: On 31 August 2010 08:36, John F. Eldredgej...@jfeldredge.com wrote: Also, how do you reverse a way? In JOSM, you just use Reverse way. Don't know about potlatch, but it would have to be there somewhere, or you can't get one way streets to work properly. there's a little arrow in a circle icon on the bottom left side in potlatch 1.whatever, click on it to reverse the currently selected way. the arrow generally indicates which way the selected way points, and reverses itself when clicked. note that with ways such as 270 degree exit/entrance ramps, the arrow kind of compromises on the mid way direction. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
2010/8/30 Anthony o...@inbox.org: The definition you quoted said: way or path. In the aerial images posted here there was neither of them. If was just grass. No way. I'm not sure which aerial you're referring, but I also don't see why a strip of grass wouldn't qualify as a way or path. http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-34.854348,138.535446z=22t=hnmd=20100614 You can actually see informal footways/paths quite well in aerial imagery. If they are there and you have good resolution images. Usually the grass is only beneath then, because grass doesn't grow where people (or animals) walk (frequently). It disappears even if it was there before. Well, all the places where I'd tag a footway are places where people walk. +1. People can walk on almost every grass covered area, but I wouldn't invent footways just because you can walk there, I would tag them where people actually do walk. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Street names
At 2010-08-29 09:03, Pieren wrote: On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote: When tagging a street name and it seems that the street signs are incorrect - all businesses on that street use the alternate spelling as their street address - which name to use? Using the 'Correct name is confusing when navigating to the street because the street sign won't exactly match the street you're being directed onto. Using the name on the sign would result in no match when searching for the street. In such case, I set the official name (the one fixed by the administration) on the tag name and the other one in alt_name with a note explaining that the street sign is misleading. I look up the street name in the city and/or county records, which are available online for many counties. If the signage and the records agree, I put the signed name in name and put the one that is used by businesses in alt_name. If, instead, the records and the one that is used by businesses agree, and the signage is wrong, I put the one that is used by businesses in name and the signed name in alt_name. I also report the signage error to the responsible public works department (usually the city in incorporated areas, otherwise the county). I also add a FIXME tag with a note to re-check it in the future. I've been responsible for a number of sign corrections. In both cases, I add a note tag with an explanation of what I found and did. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
On Tue, 31 August, 2010 9:18:21 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-34.854348,138.535446z=22t=hnmd=20100614 +1. People can walk on almost every grass covered area, but I wouldn't invent footways just because you can walk there, I would tag them where people actually do walk. I am the one who mapped the footway in the link above. And not just from the aerial imagery, but also on my bike to gather the street names. People actually do walk there, on the grassy strip between the roadway and the houses. You're not supposed to walk on the asphalt road surface. Otherwise you're likely to be run over. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 7:48 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/8/30 Anthony o...@inbox.org: The definition you quoted said: way or path. In the aerial images posted here there was neither of them. If was just grass. No way. I'm not sure which aerial you're referring, but I also don't see why a strip of grass wouldn't qualify as a way or path. http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-34.854348,138.535446z=22t=hnmd=20100614 http://maps.google.com/maps?f=qsource=s_qhl=engeocode=q=-34.854348,138.535446sll=28.0725,-82.548614sspn=0.010981,0.01472ie=UTF8ll=-34.854396,138.535563spn=0.000638,0.00092t=hz=20layer=ccbll=-34.854406,138.535454panoid=A6Al6CHbuWxD2rMFncHI3Acbp=12,354.25,,0,21.14 Same answer? You can actually see informal footways/paths quite well in aerial imagery. If they are there and you have good resolution images. Usually the grass is only beneath then, because grass doesn't grow where people (or animals) walk (frequently). It disappears even if it was there before. Well, all the places where I'd tag a footway are places where people walk. +1. People can walk on almost every grass covered area, but I wouldn't invent footways just because you can walk there, I would tag them where people actually do walk. Okay, but you're the only one who brought up tagging footways in the middle of nowhere, just because there's grass there. Grass is a legitimate surface for a footway. That doesn't mean that all grass is part of a footway, any more than all asphalt is part of a road. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Anthony wrote:
Grass is a legitimate surface for a footway. That doesn't mean that
all grass is part of a footway, any more than all asphalt is part of a
road.
This is very cultural.
Au city situation
The part of the Road Reserve which is between the property boundary of the
householder and the kerb and guttering is publicly owned, and is the correct
place to walk.
At the same time the householder is expected to maintain the area, with grass,
and water, fertilise and mow the area, preventing the wear marks which
indicate a footway.
Deviants make extensions of their gardens and put in a formal footpath through
the garden area. You may not prevent persons walking there under normal
circumstances.
Rarely does the council provide a concreted strip suitable for light wheeled
traffic - children's bikes, {prams, strollers, pushers}, wheelchairs, etc.
Au rural situation
same legal rights and obligations but landholders don't actively encourage
grass to grow. They may use glyphosate instead.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: On Monday 30 August 2010 19:19:21 Nathan Edgars II wrote: How else would you tag water flow? Somewhere, probably lost in the depths of time, it was agreed that waterflow is modeled by the direction of the waterway way without a oneway tag. Oops it's not lost. It's on the waterway=river and waterway=stream wiki pages. So how do you specify that (a) you mapped a waterway but don't know the direction of flow, (b) it's a stagnant channel with no real flow, or (c) it's an artificial drainage canal with flow changing based on rainfall and opening or closing of gates? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features
On 30/08/2010 21:48, Pieren wrote: And if you go ahead with this article: When boxes or pipes are placed side-by-side to create a width of greater than twenty feet, the culvert is defined as a bridge in the United States And if you go on reading it says This is a requirement of the federal bridge inspection standards and ensures that the culvert is inspected on a regular basis^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culvert#cite_note-0 . So in this case doesn't mean is a bridge but the bit over the top is defined legally as a bridge so that it has to be inspected to make sure that it doesn't collapse in the same way that bridges have to be. For info, Chambers (a paper dictionary - remember them?) defines it as follows: 'culvert, noun. an arched channel for carrying water beneath a road, railway, etc. [Perhaps from French couler to flow - Latin colare.]' Naturally, this is a British English definition - it doesn't mean that Americans using the word for any part of the engineering used to send water under and something else over are wrong; they're just speaking a different language to me. The use of British English (actually an England-and-Wales only dialect as far as highway types go) in OSM is a historical accident, but it's what we've got, and redefining tag use based on another dialect or a mixture is likely to just cause a mess. Personally I wouldn't object if someone started mapping man-made water features in Dutch (they have more words for them) provided that it was clear what they meant! ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
I don't think that he has said that ALL grass should be marked as a footway, only that this particular strip of grass should be marked as a footway. If enough people walk on that stretch of grass, it will eventually contain a bare-dirt path. I don't see that we would necessarily need to wait until the bare-dirt path appears before tagging it. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [Tagging] sidewalks From :mailto:o...@inbox.org Date :Mon Aug 30 20:19:57 America/Chicago 2010 On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 7:48 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/8/30 Anthony o...@inbox.org: The definition you quoted said: way or path. In the aerial images posted here there was neither of them. If was just grass. No way. I'm not sure which aerial you're referring, but I also don't see why a strip of grass wouldn't qualify as a way or path. http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-34.854348,138.535446z=22t=hnmd=20100614 http://maps.google.com/maps?f=qsource=s_qhl=engeocode=q=-34.854348,138.535446sll=28.0725,-82.548614sspn=0.010981,0.01472ie=UTF8ll=-34.854396,138.535563spn=0.000638,0.00092t=hz=20layer=ccbll=-34.854406,138.535454panoid=A6Al6CHbuWxD2rMFncHI3Acbp=12,354.25,,0,21.14 Same answer? You can actually see informal footways/paths quite well in aerial imagery. If they are there and you have good resolution images. Usually the grass is only beneath then, because grass doesn't grow where people (or animals) walk (frequently). It disappears even if it was there before. Well, all the places where I'd tag a footway are places where people walk. +1. People can walk on almost every grass covered area, but I wouldn't invent footways just because you can walk there, I would tag them where people actually do walk. Okay, but you're the only one who brought up tagging footways in the middle of nowhere, just because there's grass there. Grass is a legitimate surface for a footway. That doesn't mean that all grass is part of a footway, any more than all asphalt is part of a road. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- 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 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features
I would expect that case (c) would still have the water flowing downhill. Even if you have a series of pumps, water in the sections between the pumps will still flow downhill, not uphill. About the only time I would expect any counterflow would be if water were to be added to a given section rapidly enough that its surface level was temporarily higher than in the upstream section, making that a downhill flow also. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features From :mailto:nerou...@gmail.com Date :Mon Aug 30 20:44:53 America/Chicago 2010 On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: On Monday 30 August 2010 19:19:21 Nathan Edgars II wrote: How else would you tag water flow? Somewhere, probably lost in the depths of time, it was agreed that waterflow is modeled by the direction of the waterway way without a oneway tag. Oops it's not lost. It's on the waterway=river and waterway=stream wiki pages. So how do you specify that (a) you mapped a waterway but don't know the direction of flow, (b) it's a stagnant channel with no real flow, or (c) it's an artificial drainage canal with flow changing based on rainfall and opening or closing of gates? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- 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 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:10 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features From :mailto:nerou...@gmail.com Date :Mon Aug 30 20:44:53 America/Chicago 2010 So how do you specify that (a) you mapped a waterway but don't know the direction of flow, (b) it's a stagnant channel with no real flow, or (c) it's an artificial drainage canal with flow changing based on rainfall and opening or closing of gates? I would expect that case (c) would still have the water flowing downhill. Even if you have a series of pumps, water in the sections between the pumps will still flow downhill, not uphill. About the only time I would expect any counterflow would be if water were to be added to a given section rapidly enough that its surface level was temporarily higher than in the upstream section, making that a downhill flow also. Depends. The canals may be flat (or nearly so, such that one can't know which way is downhill) and managed by pumps. I believe this is common in reclaimed swamp lands. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] No proposal labeling
2010/8/31 Matthias Meißer dig...@arcor.de: This results in the funny situation that I have to do a proposal to modify/extend a non proposed feature that is in conflict on the list ;) Are you talking about scuba diving centres? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] No proposal labeling
Sry I don't understand your point. If you limit a sports shop saying sports=football it is clear that he spots on football related things only, right? Matthias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features
If you procedd posting culvert related mails under this general topic nodoby will be able to find them in the future. So please return to the right discussion topic. Matthias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] No proposal labeling
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Matthias Meißer wrote: Sry I don't understand your point. If you limit a sports shop saying sports=football it is clear that he spots on football related things only, right? well that would be four different sports covered immediately in Australia ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
