Re: [Tagging] RFC: place=quarter, Parts of settlements, proposed hierarchy: suburb - quarter - neighbourhood
2011/9/28 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: On 9/27/2011 8:26 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: How? What's wrong with all of the sub-Manhattan entities being place=neighborhood? not sure if there is something wrong there, so you could (as local mapper) decide to do it like this. In other parts of the world mappers have expressed the desire to have this hierarchy (they identified 3 levels necessary for their area), that's the reason for the quarter proposal. Maybe quarter would be the best tag for the boroughs, but it seems like a horrible term for something that's not literally a quarter of the city. A borough is an administrative entity and therefore already represented with admin_level and boundary. Generally you shouldn't interpretate the tags literally but see them as a code, where the actual meaning is by (our=OSM) definition (generally in the wiki). It does not make sense to have one tag for quarters and one for sestieres http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sestiere . An osm-suburb is not a (suburb=in suburbia). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: place=quarter, Parts of settlements, proposed hierarchy: suburb - quarter - neighbourhood
Martin, I'm not sure the NYC example is helping. You mentioned this was discussed on the German mailing list--can you give some other examples from Germany (or whereever) about how this might be used? Thanks, Brad On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 3:57 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/9/28 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: On 9/27/2011 8:26 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: How? What's wrong with all of the sub-Manhattan entities being place=neighborhood? not sure if there is something wrong there, so you could (as local mapper) decide to do it like this. In other parts of the world mappers have expressed the desire to have this hierarchy (they identified 3 levels necessary for their area), that's the reason for the quarter proposal. Maybe quarter would be the best tag for the boroughs, but it seems like a horrible term for something that's not literally a quarter of the city. A borough is an administrative entity and therefore already represented with admin_level and boundary. Generally you shouldn't interpretate the tags literally but see them as a code, where the actual meaning is by (our=OSM) definition (generally in the wiki). It does not make sense to have one tag for quarters and one for sestieres http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sestiere . An osm-suburb is not a (suburb=in suburbia). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lanes tag, way forward
2011/9/22 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi: Sorry if I raise the discussion again but our documentation about lanes still doesn't clarify our position on how we count lanes (e.g. psv lanes) and turning lanes: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes (3) Few days back there were, globally, 721 turnlanes relations last edited by only 31 users. Nice stats. Could you say how you retrieve such numbers ? I would love to find stats about relations and relations roles in OSM db. The turnlanes plugin seems to work splendidly Am I the only one who think that the turnlanes plugin is splendid but unworkable for average contributors, reserved to one editor (JOSM) and resulting data (relations) obscure/opaque/cryptic for humans ? Did someone tried a different, simpler proposal about turning lanes ? Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lanes tag, way forward
Pieren wrote: Am I the only one who think that the turnlanes plugin is splendid but unworkable for average contributors, reserved to one editor (JOSM) and resulting data (relations) obscure/opaque/cryptic for humans ? No, you're certainly not the only person who thinks that! cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Lanes-tag-way-forward-tp6820097p6840486.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bike safety
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/9/27 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: On 9/27/2011 4:57 PM, Gérard wrote: Given that studies disagree about what makes a street safe for cyclists, any tagging would be based not on safety but on how comfortable the mapper feels while riding in his or her preferred style. Use hazard:bicycle if there's a specific hazard (e.g. door zone bike lane, badly-positioned drainage grates, angled railway crossing, attack dogs that chase cyclists). Otherwise safety depends much more on how defensively the cyclist rides than how the street is designed. +1 Unfortunately this is true. What's needed is to document the objective facts about a roadway that can then be interpreted to give a safety level tailored to each rider, whether a 10 year old biking to school or a seasoned road biker who doesn't mind occupying a travel lane on a 35 mph road. We need to look at existing bike level of service metrics and figure out what components can be easily recorded by the average mapper, and create our own set of metrics to determine road safety: http://www.bikelib.org/bike-planning/bicycle-level-of-service/ (search bicycle level of service for many more) Some of of the more important ones: Through lanes (see recent lanes=* discussion, ambiguity of total vs. through lanes, maybe lanes:through=*) Width of outside lane (no tags for this AFAIK) Shoulder details (width, surface: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Shoulder) Traffic volume (will have to post-process from government/private data, as almost 100% think this doesn't belong in OSM, due to variability and difficulty of measurement) Speed limit (maxspeed=*) Perhaps we should start a new discussion thread on developing these criteria? -Josh ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bike safety
On 9/28/2011 12:08 PM, Josh Doe wrote: Width of outside lane (no tags for this AFAIK) Shoulder details (width, surface: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Shoulder) This only applies if you ride as far right as possible. It's safer to ride in the middle of the right lane, and causes little inconvenience if there's low traffic or more than one lane in each direction. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bike safety
Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On 9/28/2011 12:08 PM, Josh Doe wrote: Width of outside lane (no tags for this AFAIK) Shoulder details (width, surface: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Shoulder) This only applies if you ride as far right as possible. It's safer to ride in the middle of the right lane, and causes little inconvenience if there's low traffic or more than one lane in each direction. Riding a bicycle in the middle of the outside lane will cause little inconvenience to motorized traffic if there are multiple lanes each way AND traffic is light. If you try this at rush hour, I guarantee you will tick off a lot of motorists, and possibly even receive a ticket from the police for impeding traffic, depending upon the local traffic laws. -- 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - bike safety
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com wrote: Unfortunately this is true. What's needed is to document the objective facts Then we can delete the keys smoothness , sac_scale, mtb:scale and tracktype. But, oh no, they seem to be widely used. Perhaps because they summarize in a simple tag a list of parameters which are otherwise complicated and painful to add when you really contribute to OSM. What was possible for all these scale tags could be reproduced for bike hazard, no ? We just need a clear definition with objective facts for each value. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bike safety
This discussion has happened before. I guess it will happen again. The argument that more hard-core riders can't judge the bicycle friendliness of a road is ridiculous. Any bicycle friendliness tags will obviously be targeted at average commuting cyclists. The fact that *I* ride along a road regularly in padded lycra shorts doesn't mean I would recommend it to others or that little Bobby should use it to get to school. There may certainly be occasional differences of opinion but, well... welcome to OSM. And yes, it would be nice to have every minute detail of a road tagged in OSM. But let's be realistic here. Especially in the US, we're lucky to even have mappers to correct major geometry problems. Lanes, maxspeeds, shoulder width, etc won't be in a usable condition in OSM (at least in most of the midwestern US) for years to come. But people who are intereseted in cycling can (and have) easily add a single tag and get some basic data into the system. If the data ever gets good enough that these general, somewhat subjective tags aren't needed then by all means, remove them. As always with OSM, things iterate towards completeness. Toby ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bike safety
On 9/28/2011 2:13 PM, Toby Murray wrote: But people who are intereseted in cycling can (and have) easily add a single tag and get some basic data into the system. I can accept this. But don't call it safety, since it's not. Call it something that makes it clear that it's about how comfortable a beginning or timid cyclist will be on the road. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bike safety
Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On 9/28/2011 2:13 PM, Toby Murray wrote: But people who are intereseted in cycling can (and have) easily add a single tag and get some basic data into the system. I can accept this. But don't call it safety, since it's not. Call it something that makes it clear that it's about how comfortable a beginning or timid cyclist will be on the road. The degree of safety (for any rider) and the suitability for inexperienced riders are also dependent on factors such as traffic levels at different times of day, weather conditions, and the like, so any routing advice has to be taken with a grain of salt. -- 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
[Tagging] rest_area and service road
What is our recommendation for tagging the access roads entering or leaving motorway service(s) areas ? Is is highway=service like here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=48.808617lon=9.047404zoom=18layers=M Or highway=motorway_link like here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.678414lon=-115.965905zoom=18 The wiki is not clear about this. I found : Use highway=service for the roads within the service area. on this page : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dservices But also : motorway_link can also be used for the slip roads into and out of motorway service/rest areas here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway_link Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] rest_area and service road
On 9/28/2011 3:04 PM, Pieren wrote: What is our recommendation for tagging the access roads entering or leaving motorway service(s) areas ? No consensus. Keepright accepts either. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bike safety
Toby Murray wrote: The argument that more hard-core riders can't judge the bicycle friendliness of a road is ridiculous. Any bicycle friendliness tags will obviously be targeted at average commuting cyclists. It might seem obvious to you, but something else seems obvious to me! And that's the rub. The issue isn't that hard-core riders are unable to see things from the point of view of average commuting cyclists. It's that no two people, no matter their level of expertise, agree on what is friendly. Here in the UK, the debate is polarised between those who believe roads are naturally bike-friendly (traditionally the CTC, many local cycle campaigns, commentators such as John Franklin) and those who believe roads are not naturally bike-friendly and targeted infrastructure is needed (Sustrans, some newer local cycle campaigns, the Cycle Embassy of Great Britain). There is absolutely no way you are going to get the two to agree on which road is bike-friendly and which isn't, nor on the criteria for how bike-friendliness is measured. FWIW, I'm very much of the second opinion, and I know a mapper 15 miles down the road who's very much of the first: so I can't see how it would work on OSM within my locality, let alone globally. (I'm not even sure how you define average commuting cyclist. I'm faster uphill than my wife, and slower than her on the flat. Which of us is average? Do you tag a road with a steepish gradient for me, or for her?) The fact that *I* ride along a road regularly in padded lycra shorts I'm a pretty hard-core cyclist. I've never worn lycra in my life. Like I say, no two cyclists have the same opinions. :) And yes, it would be nice to have every minute detail of a road tagged in OSM. But let's be realistic here. Objective tagging does not have to be user-hostile. Quite the opposite. Firstly, objective facts are much easier to record. Take Wikipedia. The learning curve for Wikipedia is incredibly steep, because you have so much knowledge to learn before you can make a significant contribution - so many rules (the WP:ABCD type of thing), so many templates, so much markup. By contrast, simple OSM tagging requires much less prior knowledge. You want to tag a 30kph limit, you just click the way and enter 30 into the speed limit box. It's a simple objective fact. You don't have to read up on policies and guidelines before tagging. Obscure multi-factor scales don't work like that: you have to read up on the criteria, then do a whole bunch of thinking as to what value the way merits, then someone else disagrees with your reasoning, tags it differently, and you end up with an edit war. Sounds like Wikipedia? It does to me. Secondly, you can structure the tags in easily comprehensible ways. Vehicles per day is a really difficult number to get a handle on. A traffic=1500vpd tag is never going to catch on, unless by import. But vehicles per minute is much simpler. Anyone can say whether, on average, there's more or less than one car per minute outside their front door. But it's just as useful - it so happens that 1 vehicle per minute actually equates to a very commonly used measure of road quietness anyway... :) And thirdly, editors can and do abstract away a lot of the burden of tagging. One of the things I've noticed with Potlatch 2 is that, increasingly, people on help.osm.org say I want to tag a random obscure thing; someone replies with use the tag thing=obscure; and the original questioner comes back saying er, how do I do that?. The Advanced panel is unknown to new users, and that's absolutely how it should be; because we've made it easy to tag the majority of things. Saying users can't cope with adding all these details rather assumes that the OSM community isn't smart enough to build tools to make it easy, and I can assure you we are. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Feature-Proposal-RFC-bike-safety-tp6837720p6841619.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bike safety
Pieren wrote: Then we can delete the keys smoothness , sac_scale, mtb:scale and tracktype. But, oh no, they seem to be widely used. YMMV. I've never seen the first three in the wild in the UK. tracktype was once popular but is largely being supplanted by objective use of the surface= tag. We just need a clear definition with objective facts for each value. Or better still, just tag the objective facts. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Feature-Proposal-RFC-bike-safety-tp6837720p6841630.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] rest_area and service road
On Thu, September 29, 2011 04:08, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 9/28/2011 3:04 PM, Pieren wrote: What is our recommendation for tagging the access roads entering or leaving motorway service(s) areas ? No consensus. Keepright accepts either. I generally use motorway_link because motorway 'rules' apply on the slip road. Best wishes, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] rest_area and service road
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 08:10:43 +0900 From: a.erring...@lancaster.ac.uk To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] rest_area and service road On Thu, September 29, 2011 04:08, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 9/28/2011 3:04 PM, Pieren wrote: What is our recommendation for tagging the access roads entering or leaving motorway service(s) areas ? No consensus. Keepright accepts either. I generally use motorway_link because motorway 'rules' apply on the slip road. Best wishes, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging This is what I do as well. I consider them as motorway_link's till they either the ramp splits for trucks and cars OR the parking lane starts (when it isn't a split rest area). -- James ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
