[Tagging] Count of urinals
Hi, I was asked by a woman if she can map the count of urinals (or something other appropriate name in english?) in a toilet. Because it is very important for women to count their waiting time. So I'd like to propose a tag to count the urials. For example: amenity=toilets urinals:female=4 May I add this combination to the wiki page? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Toilets Though it's dificult for men to map :) Shu Higashi ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Count of urinals
2012/5/26 Shu Higashi > Hi, > > I was asked by a woman if she can map the count of urinals (or > something other appropriate name in english?) in a toilet. > Because it is very important for women to count their waiting time. > So I'd like to propose a tag to count the urials. > > For example: > amenity=toilets > urinals:female=4 > > May I add this combination to the wiki page? > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Toilets I see that the keys (f.e. male/female) are used only for toilets.. Can we discuss about transformation in something with namespaces like toilet:* for those keys? I see also this extension[0]. If you want to start tagging count we could think something like toilet:seated:count=* and so on... To distinguish between man and woman toilet:male:seated:count=* is good? > > Though it's dificult for men to map :) > > Shu Higashi > > Stefano [0] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:amenity%3Dtoilets#By_type_.28squat_vs._seated.3B_urinals.3B_flushing_mechanism.29 > ___ > 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] Cycle lanes & cycle tracks - my findings and a proposal
Hi All, Sorry for the late reply after starting this thread a few days ago. I was surprised to see how far this topic has expanded (even into OSM should have fault lines so we can re-align after earthquakes!), so I just want to refocus on cycling. 1. A Quick Recap >From the countries that I have researched so far (UK, Netherlands, Germany) there is a consistent difference between a cycle LANE (Fietsstrook, Radfahrstreifen), and a cycle TRACK (Fietspad, Radwegen). In all countries a cycle LANE is a area within the main roadway (carriageway) that is allocated for cycle use. It is indicated by a painted line on the road surface. For all purposes in OSM it can be considered as a 'lane' as there is no separation from the other lanes that form the road and therefore nothing physically stopping a cyclist from changing to a different lane at any point along the road. Motor vehicles may be prohibited from using this lane (UK: "Mandatory cycle lane") or not (UK: "Advisory", Netherlands "Fietssuggestiestrook"). Contrast this to a cycle TRACK, which is physically separate from the main roadway. The separation may be a kerb, barrier/wall, strip of grass or just a row of parked cars. In different countries the TRACK may be one-way or two-way, shared with pedestrians, mandatory for cyclists, and so on. Irrespective of all of these things is the key fact that the cycle TRACK is physically separated and therefore the cyclist cannot simply move from the track to the main roadway at any point / at will. 2. The cycleway=* tag The current cycleway tag attempts to cater for both of these and as a result it is not particularly clear for new users. I believe the fact that renderers and routing software haven't picked up the cycleway tag with any widespread enthusiasm is evidence that improvements can be made. 3. So what is important For a cyclist I feel that the most important thing is "I am travelling from A to B with my child. How _safe_ is it for cyclists? Will there be cycle lanes and/or cycle tracks to use in the _direction_ of my travel?" Based on this question the useful things to know are: * Direction * Safety 3a. Cycle LANES By having a tag specifically for cyclelanes we can indicate both direction and type of lane (an partial indication of safety). For example: highway=secondary cyclelane:forward=share_busway cyclelane:backward=advisory Exact lane positioning can then be picked up by the lanes fans ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes) 3b. Cycle TRACKS As these are physically separate from the other lanes of the main roadway (and therefore a cyclist is not free to switch back and forth between cycle track and roadway), my personal preference is to map them as a separate way. Our German mappers raised the concern that cyclists must use the cycletrack and are not allowed to use the roadway unless the cycletrack is obstructed, for example. They have pointed out that they do not like the use of bicycle=no on the main highway as cyclists are not legally banned from using the road in all circumstances. Although I think they are being hopeful that bicycle=no is only being used when it is illegal, can I suggest bicycle=secondary, bicycle=non-primary, or bicycle=alternative for this case (another suggestion already made is bicycle=destination)? For cases where it is difficult to draw a separate way then consider: highway=secondary cycletrack:left=two-way Any feedback will be much appreciated, but please keep in mind the ease of the system for new users and long-term maintainability. Cheers, Rob p.s. In my opinion "no" is not a strong enough word to ensure that it is only used when access is illegal/prohibited, especially when shown in Potlatch2's drop down menu with no explanation. Much better would be access=illegal -> please start a new thread if you would like to discuss this :-) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cycle lanes & cycle tracks - my findings and a proposal
In Denmark, they use lanes/tracks that are immediately alongside the road and separated by a shallow kerb, and turn into lanes on the approach to junctions. You can certainly move on and off them very easily. On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Rob Nickerson wrote: > > Hi All, > > Sorry for the late reply after starting this thread a few days ago. > > I was surprised to see how far this topic has expanded (even into OSM > should have fault lines so we can re-align after earthquakes!), so I just > want to refocus on cycling. > > > 1. A Quick Recap > From the countries that I have researched so far (UK, Netherlands, > Germany) there is a consistent difference between a cycle LANE > (Fietsstrook, Radfahrstreifen), and a cycle TRACK (Fietspad, Radwegen). > > In all countries a cycle LANE is a area within the main roadway > (carriageway) that is allocated for cycle use. It is indicated by a painted > line on the road surface. For all purposes in OSM it can be considered as a > 'lane' as there is no separation from the other lanes that form the road > and therefore nothing physically stopping a cyclist from changing to a > different lane at any point along the road. Motor vehicles may be > prohibited from using this lane (UK: "Mandatory cycle lane") or not (UK: > "Advisory", Netherlands "Fietssuggestiestrook"). > > Contrast this to a cycle TRACK, which is physically separate from the main > roadway. The separation may be a kerb, barrier/wall, strip of grass or just > a row of parked cars. In different countries the TRACK may be one-way or > two-way, shared with pedestrians, mandatory for cyclists, and so on. > Irrespective of all of these things is the key fact that the cycle TRACK is > physically separated and therefore the cyclist cannot simply move from the > track to the main roadway at any point / at will. > > > 2. The cycleway=* tag > The current cycleway tag attempts to cater for both of these and as a > result it is not particularly clear for new users. I believe the fact that > renderers and routing software haven't picked up the cycleway tag with any > widespread enthusiasm is evidence that improvements can be made. > > > 3. So what is important > For a cyclist I feel that the most important thing is "I am travelling > from A to B with my child. How _safe_ is it for cyclists? Will there be > cycle lanes and/or cycle tracks to use in the _direction_ of my travel?" > > Based on this question the useful things to know are: > > * Direction > * Safety > > 3a. Cycle LANES > > By having a tag specifically for cyclelanes we can indicate both direction > and type of lane (an partial indication of safety). For example: > > highway=secondary > cyclelane:forward=share_busway > cyclelane:backward=advisory > > Exact lane positioning can then be picked up by the lanes fans ( > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes) > > > 3b. Cycle TRACKS > > As these are physically separate from the other lanes of the main roadway > (and therefore a cyclist is not free to switch back and forth between cycle > track and roadway), my personal preference is to map them as a separate > way. > > Our German mappers raised the concern that cyclists must use the > cycletrack and are not allowed to use the roadway unless the cycletrack is > obstructed, for example. They have pointed out that they do not like the > use of bicycle=no on the main highway as cyclists are not legally banned > from using the road in all circumstances. Although I think they are being > hopeful that bicycle=no is only being used when it is illegal, can I > suggest bicycle=secondary, bicycle=non-primary, or bicycle=alternative for > this case (another suggestion already made is bicycle=destination)? > > For cases where it is difficult to draw a separate way then consider: > > highway=secondary > cycletrack:left=two-way > > > Any feedback will be much appreciated, but please keep in mind the ease of > the system for new users and long-term maintainability. > > Cheers, > Rob > > > p.s. In my opinion "no" is not a strong enough word to ensure that it is > only used when access is illegal/prohibited, especially when shown in > Potlatch2's drop down menu with no explanation. Much better would be > access=illegal -> please start a new thread if you would like to discuss > this :-) > > > > > > > > > ___ > 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] Cycle lanes & cycle tracks - my findings and a proposal
>In Denmark, they use lanes/tracks that are immediately alongside the road >and separated by a shallow kerb, and turn into lanes on the approach to >junctions. You can certainly move on and off them very easily. OK. I assume they are not allowed to be used by cars? In these cases the track can be tagged as part of the highway (as in the example in my previous email), however as many people have pointed out it is difficult to add all the detail unless you draw it as a separate way. I was about to write that someone suggested to use some form of "degree of separation" but thought it was rude not to credit them. Turns out the suggestion was yours! Unfortunately the suggestion was misunderstood to mean "angle". To clarify "degree of separation" can also be read as "amount of separation". Possible values could include "shallow kerb". Regards, RobJN ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Update of article highway=mini_roundabout
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 5/25/2012 2:16 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote: >> >> Am 25.05.2012 um 01:44 schrieb Nathan Edgars II: >> >>> I'd register my disapproval, but it would simply be ignored, so I'll just >>> ignore the new guidelines and continue tagging as I have been. >> >> >> I'm curious: what exactly do you disapprove, why, and what are your >> suggestions to improve the current situation? > > > Most obviously, the restriction on right-of-way. There are things that you tag as mini-roundabouts, where traffic in the roundabout does not have right-of-way? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Update of article highway=mini_roundabout
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote: > I'll just want to let you know, that I reworked the article about > mini-roundabouts and want to update it within the next days. You can > find it here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Imagic/Werkstatt "If there is only a single vehicle, or two vehicles traveling in opposite directions, it is common to drive straight across the middle rather than going around." Isn't this illegal? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Update of article highway=mini_roundabout
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote: > "If there is only a single vehicle, or two vehicles traveling in > opposite directions, it is common to drive straight across the middle > rather than going around." > > Isn't this illegal? I think it is illegal, but that doesn't stop it being common! __John ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Update of article highway=mini_roundabout
On May 26, 2012 10:43 AM, "Anthony" wrote: > > On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote: > > I'll just want to let you know, that I reworked the article about > > mini-roundabouts and want to update it within the next days. You can > > find it here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Imagic/Werkstatt > > "If there is only a single vehicle, or two vehicles traveling in > opposite directions, it is common to drive straight across the middle > rather than going around." > > Isn't this illegal? Sure, but so is pulling in to the intersection and stopping while waiting to make a permissive left or making a U turn at a traffic light, but that doesn't stop places with a high Californian influence from considering it common practice. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Count of urinals
Hi Stefano, > toilet:male:seated:count=* is good? It seems good to me. 2012/5/26, sabas88 : > 2012/5/26 Shu Higashi > >> Hi, >> >> I was asked by a woman if she can map the count of urinals (or >> something other appropriate name in english?) in a toilet. >> Because it is very important for women to count their waiting time. >> So I'd like to propose a tag to count the urials. >> >> For example: >> amenity=toilets >> urinals:female=4 >> >> May I add this combination to the wiki page? >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Toilets > > > > I see that the keys (f.e. male/female) are used only for toilets.. > Can we discuss about transformation in something with namespaces like > toilet:* for those keys? > I see also this extension[0]. > If you want to start tagging count we could think something like > toilet:seated:count=* > and so on... > To distinguish between man and woman > toilet:male:seated:count=* is good? > > >> >> Though it's dificult for men to map :) >> >> Shu Higashi >> >> > Stefano > > [0] > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:amenity%3Dtoilets#By_type_.28squat_vs._seated.3B_urinals.3B_flushing_mechanism.29 > > >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
