Re: [Tagging] Footway as painted lane in highway
On 27.03.2013 05:18, Steve Bennett wrote: It sounds essentially like a sidewalk - the only distinction being that it's not raised above the road surface. So why not just use footway=sidewalk? The footway=lane tag sounds nice, but it sounds like such a rare occurrence that it will never get much rendering/routing support. Maybe if you want to be really accurate: highway=whatever, footway=sidewalk, sidewalk=lane. footway=sidewalk is not documented used as an add-on tag to highway=whatever, but for sidewalks which are mapped as separate ways. In this case, a separate way seems quite clearly not a good choice, considering that there is no physical separation whatsoever. For sidewalks as add-on tags to the main highway, we commonly use sidewalk=left/right/both/no. So I would suggest sidewalk=right, plus sidewalk:right=lane in analogy to the existing cycleway:right=lane. Tobias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Historic huts
What about: amenity=shelter historic=alpine_hut ruins=yes (if appropriate) Volker (Padova, Italy) On 27 March 2013 05:16, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Just wondering how best to tag the historic alpine huts we have in the mountains of southeast Australia. Some basic properties: - usually fully enclosed (4 walls and a roof) although not necessarily weatherproof - usually have fireplaces - sometimes in good enough condition to sleep in (bring your own mattress and bedding) - primarily of historical interest, rather than for accommodation. That is, you might have lunch in the hut, or camp next to it - you wouldn't hike without a tent and plan to sleep in the huts. (They often have rodent and/or snake inhabitants...) - could possibly be completely uninhabitable or ruined. (Hiking maps here typically don't make much distinction, they might say Smith Hut (ruins)) - typically built between 1850 and say 1920 by stockmen (cattle farmers). - only maintained for their heritage value - no one improves them, there's no hut warden or anything. Is this just an Australian thing? tourism=basic_hut seems like the closest, but still promises accommodation. I think most Australians would know what to expect, but there are frequent stories of unhappy Europeans expecting hot meals in the middle of nowhere... An example of a hut I visited on the weekend, Kelly Hut near Licola. Rough wooden walls, corrugated iron roof, stone chimney, dirt floor. There's a very rough sleeping platform (no mattresses), no table or chairs. The door is a sheet of corrugated iron. I'd have lunch in there, especially on a cold day, but I wouldn't sleep in there unless desperate. Steve ___ 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] Footway as painted lane in highway
Hi! 2013/3/27 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de: footway=sidewalk is not documented used as an add-on tag to highway=whatever, but for sidewalks which are mapped as separate ways. In this case, a separate way seems quite clearly not a good choice, considering that there is no physical separation whatsoever. For sidewalks as add-on tags to the main highway, we commonly use sidewalk=left/right/both/no. So I would suggest sidewalk=right, plus sidewalk:right=lane in analogy to the existing cycleway:right=lane. I was just about to write the same. The key sidewalk is used over 260,000 times, the least used sidewalk=left is still used over 13,000 times. So you can expect some support there. The suggested sidewalk:right=lane isn't used right now but certainly makes sense and is in line with cycleway, as Tobias already pointed out. So a clear +1 from me to sidewalk=left/right/both + sidewalk:xxx=lane . best regards, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Historic huts
Hi! 2013/3/27 Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com: What about: amenity=shelter historic=alpine_hut ruins=yes (if appropriate) Simple. Straight forward. Mostly established tags, besides the value of historic. +1 from me. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Historic huts
The English/Scottish word for it is bothy. But it might be better to use something a bit more internationally-intelligible. On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com wrote: What about: amenity=shelter historic=alpine_hut ruins=yes (if appropriate) Volker (Padova, Italy) On 27 March 2013 05:16, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Just wondering how best to tag the historic alpine huts we have in the mountains of southeast Australia. Some basic properties: - usually fully enclosed (4 walls and a roof) although not necessarily weatherproof - usually have fireplaces - sometimes in good enough condition to sleep in (bring your own mattress and bedding) - primarily of historical interest, rather than for accommodation. That is, you might have lunch in the hut, or camp next to it - you wouldn't hike without a tent and plan to sleep in the huts. (They often have rodent and/or snake inhabitants...) - could possibly be completely uninhabitable or ruined. (Hiking maps here typically don't make much distinction, they might say Smith Hut (ruins)) - typically built between 1850 and say 1920 by stockmen (cattle farmers). - only maintained for their heritage value - no one improves them, there's no hut warden or anything. Is this just an Australian thing? tourism=basic_hut seems like the closest, but still promises accommodation. I think most Australians would know what to expect, but there are frequent stories of unhappy Europeans expecting hot meals in the middle of nowhere... An example of a hut I visited on the weekend, Kelly Hut near Licola. Rough wooden walls, corrugated iron roof, stone chimney, dirt floor. There's a very rough sleeping platform (no mattresses), no table or chairs. The door is a sheet of corrugated iron. I'd have lunch in there, especially on a cold day, but I wouldn't sleep in there unless desperate. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ 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] Tagging Digest, Vol 42, Issue 26 Historic huts
Hi Steve and Volker, Message: 4 Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:16:13 +0100 From: Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Historic huts Message-ID: CALQ-OR5=qtjqyk25mxdfh1axmxbuvxtyifcgabtf1wy5qti...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 What about: amenity=shelter historic=alpine_hut ruins=yes (if appropriate) Volker (Padova, Italy) On 27 March 2013 05:16, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Just wondering how best to tag the historic alpine huts we have in the mountains of southeast Australia. Some basic properties: - usually fully enclosed (4 walls and a roof) although not necessarily weatherproof - usually have fireplaces - sometimes in good enough condition to sleep in (bring your own mattress and bedding) - primarily of historical interest, rather than for accommodation. That is, you might have lunch in the hut, or camp next to it - you wouldn't hike without a tent and plan to sleep in the huts. (They often have rodent and/or snake inhabitants...) - could possibly be completely uninhabitable or ruined. (Hiking maps here typically don't make much distinction, they might say Smith Hut (ruins)) - typically built between 1850 and say 1920 by stockmen (cattle farmers). - only maintained for their heritage value - no one improves them, there's no hut warden or anything. Is this just an Australian thing? tourism=basic_hut seems like the closest, but still promises accommodation. I think most Australians would know what to expect, but there are frequent stories of unhappy Europeans expecting hot meals in the middle of nowhere... An example of a hut I visited on the weekend, Kelly Hut near Licola. Rough wooden walls, corrugated iron roof, stone chimney, dirt floor. There's a very rough sleeping platform (no mattresses), no table or chairs. The door is a sheet of corrugated iron. I'd have lunch in there, especially on a cold day, but I wouldn't sleep in there unless desperate. Steve Since the hut is situated in Australia, why name it Alpine hut ? I always thought the Alps to be a European mountain range. In rural uninhabited areas there will be shelters like it all over the world. I would rather name it neutral, fi (mountain) hut, cabin or lodge. Despite of the former use, for cattle, hunting or just for emergency like Alpine shelters in remote areas. If it’s not maintained I would use abandoned instead of ruins. And yes without maintenance it would graduatedly become a ruin but that’s mainly the climate. amenity=shelter, (mountain)hut, cabin or lodge historic=cattle or stockmen, hunting or mining. disused, abandoned or ruin=yes Just to avoid the disappointment of reaching a hut being a ruin or inhabetable. Greetz Hendrik ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 42, Issue 26 Historic huts
2013/3/27 St Niklaas st.nikl...@live.nl: Since the hut is situated in Australia, why name it Alpine hut ? I always thought the Alps to be a European mountain range. In rural uninhabited areas there will be shelters like it all over the world. well, the alps are in Europe, no doubt, but that doesn't necessarily mean that alpine hut isn't a prototype that could be found also outside the alps (and therefor the tag might be useful also outside the alps). Not sure what exactly the OSM definition for an alpine hut is, especially as there were some modifications to this page last year which now state that the hut must be managed during the opening period (not true for some place I know of, which I would nonetheless classify as alpine_hut). http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Atourism%3Dalpine_hutdiff=768391oldid=689867 cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 42, Issue 26 Historic huts
An alpine hut is a hut in high mountains as the alpine climate is a high-mountain climate or an alpine plant is a plant that grows in alpine climates. Alpine hut is used in this sense in OSM. There is even a wine growing area in Australia called Alpine Valleys, if I am not mistaken. :-) Volker On 27 March 2013 14:21, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/3/27 St Niklaas st.nikl...@live.nl: Since the hut is situated in Australia, why name it Alpine hut ? I always thought the Alps to be a European mountain range. In rural uninhabited areas there will be shelters like it all over the world. well, the alps are in Europe, no doubt, but that doesn't necessarily mean that alpine hut isn't a prototype that could be found also outside the alps (and therefor the tag might be useful also outside the alps). Not sure what exactly the OSM definition for an alpine hut is, especially as there were some modifications to this page last year which now state that the hut must be managed during the opening period (not true for some place I know of, which I would nonetheless classify as alpine_hut). http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Atourism%3Dalpine_hutdiff=768391oldid=689867 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] Tagging Digest, Vol 42, Issue 26 Historic huts
See wikipedia for comparison: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montane_ecology#Alpine_grasslands_and_tundra regards Peter Am 27.03.2013 14:21, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: 2013/3/27 St Niklaas st.nikl...@live.nl: Since the hut is situated in Australia, why name it Alpine hut ? I always thought the Alps to be a European mountain range. In rural uninhabited areas there will be shelters like it all over the world. well, the alps are in Europe, no doubt, but that doesn't necessarily mean that alpine hut isn't a prototype that could be found also outside the alps (and therefor the tag might be useful also outside the alps). Not sure what exactly the OSM definition for an alpine hut is, especially as there were some modifications to this page last year which now state that the hut must be managed during the opening period (not true for some place I know of, which I would nonetheless classify as alpine_hut). http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Atourism%3Dalpine_hutdiff=768391oldid=689867 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] Tagging Digest, Vol 42, Issue 26 Historic huts
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 02:21:09PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2013/3/27 St Niklaas st.nikl...@live.nl: Since the hut is situated in Australia, why name it Alpine hut ? I always thought the Alps to be a European mountain range. In rural uninhabited areas there will be shelters like it all over the world. well, the alps are in Europe, no doubt, but that doesn't necessarily mean that alpine hut isn't a prototype that could be found also outside the alps (and therefor the tag might be useful also outside the alps). Not sure what exactly the OSM definition for an alpine hut is, especially as there were some modifications to this page last year which now state that the hut must be managed during the opening period (not true for some place I know of, which I would nonetheless classify as alpine_hut). http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Atourism%3Dalpine_hutdiff=768391oldid=689867 offtopic There is a Region in Australia called the Australian Alps - Ski resorts and snow most time of the year. I got stuck with a 4WD - loughing about road signs closed because of snow at 30°C outside - 2 hours and a couple thousand meters later i got stuck in 40cm of snow. This was during April. /offtopic Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Historic huts
2013/3/27 Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com: What about: amenity=shelter historic=alpine_hut ruins=yes (if appropriate) looking at the tags maybe historic=wilderness_hut would be better (according to a proposal and the current wiki state, tourism=alpine_hut is for places where you can get food and accomodation, while tourism=wilderness_hut is for places that offer less comfort and are not usually managed, i.e. you bring what you need). http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/wilderness_mountain_buildings http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dwilderness_hut you could also add building=hut if you are adding the object as an area and you could have a look at the shelter_type tags if the hut can provide shelter: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shelter_type%3Dbasic_hut cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Longitudinal Zebra
On 2013-03-26 15:41, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote : 2013/3/26 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com mailto:a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com Hi, I dig this because of the similar problem with different story and paint. This is the gate in a one-way school service road http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.5351mlon=5.628629zoom=18layers=M where parents drive and drop or pick the kids. Very wisely, the administration has painted what is better called a /*passage pour piétons* / than a /*pedestrian crossing* / because it does not *cross* a road but goes *along* on one half of it (it crosses the main road and the children continue to walk on it up to the gate (mark)). Unfortunately, the only OSM vision of a pedestrian crossing is a single node restricting it to be perpendicular to the road. as you described it above it isn't a crossing, because nothing is crossed, right? So maybe crossing might not be the right tag. That said there are currently 6955 ways tagged with the tag crossing=*, admittedly much less than nodes (367635), but still it is quite possible to map like this. Indeed, as I said, passage would have seemed less odd than crossing, but we won't change that key. A crossing(=*) is my way of thinking of one too; I have always wondered why OSM calls it a highway. But Osmose just flagged as errors bicycle=yes alone. It wanted us to add network=bicycle. The reason was that both appear together more than 50 times!!! So, I think crossing=* would be booked again for contravening people's habits. On 2013-03-26 16:16, Nathan Edgars II wrote : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway%3Dcrossing * * *| | * * * *| | * *| | * (in fixed width, use HTML or reconfigure your text mode :-) On 2013-03-26 15:53, Volker Schmidt wrote : I would map this as e dedicated footway connected to the zebra crossing on the main street. You mean a separate highway, don't you? It allows highway=* and that is something having been tried now. But Osmose is scolding because I have a way tagged like one of its nodes!!! Osmose is always hiding and jumping from behind a bush ;-) Furthermore, security wise, I prefer to make it clear that it's a single road. On 2013-03-27 09:23, Martin Vonwald wrote : Hi! 2013/3/27 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de: footway=sidewalk is not documented used as an add-on tag to highway=whatever, but for sidewalks which are mapped as separate ways. In this case, a separate way seems quite clearly not a good choice, considering that there is no physical separation whatsoever. For sidewalks as add-on tags to the main highway, we commonly use sidewalk=left/right/both/no. So I would suggest sidewalk=right, plus sidewalk:right=lane in analogy to the existing cycleway:right=lane. I was just about to write the same. The key sidewalk is used over 260,000 times, the least used sidewalk=left is still used over 13,000 times. So you can expect some support there. The suggested sidewalk:right=lane isn't used right now but certainly makes sense and is in line with cycleway, as Tobias already pointed out. So a clear +1 from me to sidewalk=left/right/both + sidewalk:xxx=lane . I think I'll have to do as if it's not a Z crossing but a side lane. BTW, drivers exiting (on the right) have to stop on the Z crossing, which is forbidden. They could at least have painted it on the left side!!! sidewalk=right sidewalk:right=lane Thanks for your help. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Historic huts
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: looking at the tags maybe historic=wilderness_hut would be better (according to a proposal and the current wiki state, tourism=alpine_hut is for places where you can get food and accomodation, while tourism=wilderness_hut is for places that offer less comfort and are not usually managed, i.e. you bring what you need). Seems sensible. Just noticed the (contradictory) tag shelter_type=* (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shelter_type). Maybe the right thing is: amenity=shelter (you can take refuge from the rain here) shelter_type=weather_shelter (seems to describe the current role of the hut, only for emergencies) historic=wilderness_hut (historically, people slept and cooked here) tourism=attraction (to increase the chance that the historic=* actually renders as something...) Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
