Re: [Tagging] RENDER
Hi André, Am 28.08.2014 um 01:41 schrieb André Pirard: Hi, Thanks for your time, Peter, and for a message which I feel like the first to want to cooperate. However, I don't feel well how your variants fit with the scenario I am dealing with, namely: * a mapper has a feature to tag * he finds the right tag definition * but that definition has no rendering * hence o he uses an approaching but wrong definition that has a rendering o or he uses RENDER *default* rendering (which could be refused). As the second (using RENDER) requires that tag to be considered on rendering, which I doubt will happen, I guess this collapses to the first option only. If there's really a map that uses RENDER, it's still better to use the wrong tags as that occurs on more maps and applications in return. variant1: how could using right tags cause (using RENDER everywhere and) prevent discussing new tags? Not using right tags, but using RENDER. OSM allows to use any tag you like. It's easy to invent a new tag, but it's hard to get that tag understood to people, applications, styles and their creators. To invent a tag I open josm or iD and add the tag to some object in OSM, that's all. To get it in use, I (up to know) have to discuss it with the community, explain why it's worth to exist, why it's the best (or one of the best ways) to be exactly how I defined it. If RENDER is used by the rendering applications, I can step over these discussions. I don't have to explain myself any more to others, I don't have to agree on anything as suddenly I can decide how my objects are going to be displayed. Why should I still take the additional time and work to get the best tag through? The worst that could happen would be that nevertheless my tag get's adopted and my RENDER-tags aren't necessary any more, but that's work for others, not for me. That's why I think discussion of new tags would be prevented: there's less motivation for it with a default tag like RENDER. variant2: you are extending the scope to other maps whose authors said they won't support RENDER ? Sure I do, that's what we have no: nobody supports RENDER and people keep tagging for their pet application. Why should that change due to one or some maps or applications follow an additional do-it-yourself-styling? Why should I stop tagging for the renderer just because osm-carto would follow my RENDER-advice, when at the same time Osmand doesn't show my features? Then I still tag them as shops as that's used there. variant3: you'll never find a solution if it's not used Sure ;) But nevertheless a possible outcome, as I didn't read any response with a positive feedback from someone who said or I know to be involved in the common map styles or applications. variant4: RENDER is of course not a way to be able to tag x=y render=yes nor to choose colors; mappers are supposed to use defined and appropriate tags. I don't understand what you want to say with that sentence, sorry... Thinking in the same direction as you did may raise some ideas like this. The lack of rendering may have two reasons that lead to the same idea: 1) lack of time for rendering to follow the tag production rate yes. 2) the tags are just too varied to find similarly varied rendering I don't think this is a reason. I would like to add three other ones: 3) Geometric space on the map is restricted, a map filled with any possible object (in any zoom level?) has to omit something. It's better to choose a subset of items to be shown, e.g. for thematic reasons (like the public transport maps) or with an estimation what are the most interesting features for the target user group. 4) A key part of maps is - well - the map KEY. This is mostly hidden on OSM, but the background is, that a map should communicate meaning, not nice drawings in the first place. Icons may communicate this meaning due to well-known real-world images (like the shopping cart for a supermarket, the burger for a fast-food restaurant, knife and fork for a restaurant); others may have to be explained, like the colors of different roads, which is usually done by the map key. While the map key is already a difficult part on osm and web maps, it would get completely impossible to achieve with RENDER, as there's no control and even less documentation, what is rendered in what way, and conflicts of different things rendered the same way will occur. 5) A map showing any possible feature get's unreadable. With more than X colors (where I guess X is below 100) most users cannot identify the right meaning of color #5f32d8 as there are lot's of similar colors as well. That's why different map styles are useful and benefitial. RENDER - to achieve what you want - would have to be used by any map style (as else people fall back to tag-for-the-renderer again); but if it is used on any map style the decision of the style makers isn't their own any more. Both lead to think of classes of objects inside
Re: [Tagging] Map Features template
And as far as I can see, the wiki translation is _mainly_ done for the sake of people that can't read english, so an entry in english doesn't really help.# People who speak english can translate it when they see something new was added to a table. The German Versions often even have a nice line at the bottom with a link to the translation page. Soon the wiki will enable a rich text editor plugin to make the wiki easier to use (and consequently invite more participation), so I want to ask people to avoid using this kind of template, because they make some pages harder to edit, without considerable advantages. I don't think this is something that everybody needs to be able to edit. Those tables are usually resereved for the most common tags, so it's enough when now and then someone compares it with taginfo and updates it. Right now the much bigger issue is that we lack tag pages and have a lot of undefined tags and different tags that stand for the same thing. That's what we need a lot of people working on. Updating those tables afterwards according to taginfo and accepted proposals is not that much work. I think it's a huge advantage that I just have to add an item to 1 table and it will be updated in 25 other tables (Well, that is if languages would use it correctly xd). Then over time native speakers can add the translation. I think it has a good purpose in pages like the main Map Features page[...] I just want people to avoid this kind of Map Features Template on normal pages. The advantage is that you make sure that the information is at least to some extent updated on all pages. Especially it makes sure that the content on the Map Features and main Key: Wiki page is the same, also in all languages (decriptions are obviously still an issue, but at least if you find a mistake the right version is then updated everywhere). In Germany we have a very extensive DE:How_to_map_a page and it's a huge pain to keep that page updated. I always end up going to individual Wiki pages then check What links here and then after fixing the German one often see that the Frech, Dutch and Polish copied that part. Great now what do I do about that? __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse
I removed it on several Wiki pages, including the Map Features template. I still have the impression that it's something a very few mappers use. The usage numbers might look big, but if you take a closer look especially at Poland it's done by 1 mapper. And I don't get the impression that he is very interested in a discussion: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=autotl=enjs=yprev=_thl=deie=UTF-8u=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.openstreetmap.org%2Fviewtopic.php%3Fpid%3D441416edit-text=act=url Especially the sacred_ground thing confuses me, maybe it's also just the translation. This also leads me to the biggest issue, the Wiki pages pretty much contains NO REAL DEFINITION, all it really says is landuse=religious - The area used for religious purposes. What follows are just examples what you can combine it with. It's not even clear if it has to be around a amenity=place_of_worship (description on the right) or that just often happens to be the case (introduction text). __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse
Il giorno 28/ago/2014, alle ore 12:46, Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de ha scritto: I still have the impression that it's something a very few mappers use. The usage numbers might look big, but if you take a closer look especially at Poland it's done by 1 mapper. +1, religious is no use and of no use (it doesn't express anything that religion=* won't express and introduces an incompatibility for mapping the actual usage of the land) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse
Andreas Goss wrote, on 2014-08-28 12:46: I removed it on several Wiki pages, including the Map Features template. I still have the impression that it's something a very few mappers use. The usage numbers might look big, but if you take a closer look especially at Poland it's done by 1 mapper. If that impression is based on the google query you had posted on 31/07/2014, this is no wonder. Your query contained the username. Like querying for red cars and getting that 100% cars are red. I see heavy use in Ireland, UK, and Japan, and there was a fellow from Japan in this discussion much in favour: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=landusevalue=religious#map And I don't get the impression that he is very interested in a discussion: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=autotl=enjs=yprev=_thl=deie=UTF-8u=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.openstreetmap.org%2Fviewtopic.php%3Fpid%3D441416edit-text=act=url Maybe he speaks only Polish? Especially the sacred_ground thing confuses me, maybe it's also just the translation. I see him mention the term, but not as a proposal for a landuse tag, and it is not used: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=landusevalue=sacred_ground Zero This also leads me to the biggest issue, the Wiki pages pretty much contains NO REAL DEFINITION, all it really says is landuse=religious - The area used for religious purposes. What follows are just examples what you can combine it with. It's a wiki, made by people. We are discussing it here, which can lead to a refined definition. Other often used tags have poor definitions as well. It's not even clear if it has to be around a amenity=place_of_worship (description on the right) or that just often happens to be the case (introduction text). I had identified 4 use cases in a mail yesterday. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] default value for oneway
Hi, The default value for oneway is no for most types of roads. That is, if the attribute has no value set, no is assumed. Which is the rationale for that default? In the European cities and towns I know the majority of streets are one-way. For example Barcelona, or Madrid, or Paris. In such areas, are contributors expected to annotate nos rather than leaving the tag blank? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Contact-Tag for Webcam
That seems likely. On August 27, 2014 2:23:33 PM CDT, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 26 August 2014 18:44, Andreas Neumann andr-neum...@gmx.net wrote: there exists a tagging for webcams in the contact-namespace (contact:webcam=*) Is this a mis-named operator:contact= ? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse
I see heavy use in Ireland, UK, and Japan, and there was a fellow from Japan I count a dozen uses in Japan. UK it's more common, but if you look closer it's again a handfull few mappers. And Polarbear a German mapper who also pushes this tag in the Wiki is for example remapping churchyards in the UK to landuse=religious e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/293297711/history Also: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Polarbear_w Maybe he speaks only Polish? Well, then he has to find someone in the community who supports him there. Or at least he could work on the definition of the Polish Wiki page. (Checked his User Page, he speaks English) Btw. I actually just now realized this page defines it as ecclesiastical territory and links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple o_O Especially the sacred_ground thing confuses me, maybe it's also just the translation. I see him mention the term, but not as a proposal for a landuse tag, and it is not used: One possible interpretation was landuse=religious = holy ground ?! It's a wiki, made by people. We are discussing it here, which can lead to a refined definition. Other often used tags have poor definitions as well. It's made by the few people who use the tags. And they don't manage to present good definition in the first place. Also other defintions usually are poor defined because a lot of people started using it and there was no real agreement. I feel like if here a few mappers want to introduce a new tag and start mapping it then at least they should make sure it's well defined how and when to use it. That's why people set up a proposals, so you can discuss it with the people what you think about tagging it like this. It's kinda complicated to argue for or against something if you don't even know what it is. It's not even clear if it has to be around a amenity=place_of_worship (description on the right) or that just often happens to be the case (introduction text). I had identified 4 use cases in a mail yesterday. ? __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] default value for oneway
Hi Xavier, no is the default value of the oneway tag as it's the most correct assumption. First as in general most roads are not oneway roads (considering any road inside and outside of cities), and second as the other case around would be even worse: If yes, this is a oneway street would be assumed, you still wouldn't know which direction the traffic is allowed. You may add oneway=no to streets where you know they are not oneway, but you have to define the oneway tag to define the traffic direction, else there's still missing data on oneways. But as the base assumption of all applications I'm aware of is that streets is oneway=no, this is usually not necessary. If in some areas, where most highways are oneways, this leads to the default being less used than the non-default, this isn't bad either as the oneway tag is necessary to get complete information. regards Peter Am 28.08.2014 um 14:20 schrieb Xavier Noria: Hi, The default value for oneway is no for most types of roads. That is, if the attribute has no value set, no is assumed. Which is the rationale for that default? In the European cities and towns I know the majority of streets are one-way. For example Barcelona, or Madrid, or Paris. In such areas, are contributors expected to annotate nos rather than leaving the tag blank? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] default value for oneway
Xavier Noria writes: In the European cities and towns I know the majority of streets are one-way. In not a single EU city I know of there is something close to a majority of streets being one-way. Even more. In most of the villages the roads are not one-way. Based on this it's a good rationale to assume a street is non one-way by default. This also applies to the cities in Asia i know of. Stephan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote, on 2014-08-28 13:16: +1, religious is no use why not, why is it not a use such as residential, commercial or retail use? and of no use (it doesn't express anything that religion=* won't express and introduces an incompatibility for mapping the actual usage of the land) could you illustrate this incompatibility for my, what would be the actual usage? Please keep in mind that there are not always clear boundaries -- a street in a city with apartments in the upper levels and shops in the ground level would probably tagged residential if the shops are just a bakery and a convenience store, while I often see retail when it is a busy shopping street with plenty of store variety. Thus counting church taxes in an administrative building certainly has a commercial aspect and I'm happy to tag the landuse so if that is in a business park with other commerce, but I don't understand your incompatibility. Tom ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] default value for oneway
I wish people in OSM would stop making things up, believing it makes their point of view stronger. On 28/08/2014 13:20, Xavier Noria wrote: In the European cities and towns I know the majority of streets are one-way. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] default value for oneway
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: I wish people in OSM would stop making things up, believing it makes their point of view stronger. What? I am not assuming one-way would be a better default. Nor I am assuming anything about the world at large. What are you talking about? I only asked questions: 1) Which is the rationale? Not because I think it is wrong, but to understand it! 2) In cities and towns where two-way streets are exceptional like Barcelona or Madrid, are people expected to tag them no? The motivation for this question is that there seems to be the convention not to tag them, and therefore you cannot tell the confirmed ones from the untagged ones. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] default value for oneway
Xavier Noria wrote, on 2014-08-28 15:45: 2) In cities and towns where two-way streets are exceptional like Barcelona or Madrid, are people expected to tag them no? The motivation for this question is that there seems to be the convention not to tag them, and therefore you cannot tell the confirmed ones from the untagged ones. As Peter pointed out, oneway=yes (or in the exeptional case of oneway against the vector of the OSM way, oneway=-1 ) is mandatory if the road is a oneway, for most categories. oneway=no can help other mappers to show it has been checked in areas of high oneway density. Like a concise note. Tom ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] default value for oneway
2014-08-28 14:45 GMT+01:00 Xavier Noria f...@hashref.com: On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: I wish people in OSM would stop making things up, believing it makes their point of view stronger. What? I am not assuming one-way would be a better default. Nor I am assuming anything about the world at large. What are you talking about? Let's put all that aside. I only asked questions: 1) Which is the rationale? Not because I think it is wrong, but to understand it! As Peter said, the default for services using OSM is always to assume a way is _not_ oneway unless tagged otherwise. 2) In cities and towns where two-way streets are exceptional like Barcelona or Madrid, are people expected to tag them no? The motivation for this question is that there seems to be the convention not to tag them, and therefore you cannot tell the confirmed ones from the untagged ones. No, I think more likely is that local mappers have not considered it a priority to add the oneway tags, or maybe there are so many that it's a difficult job that isn't finished yet. Best Dan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] default value for oneway
On 2014-08-28 15:53, Dan S wrote: As Peter said, the default for services using OSM is always to assume a way is _not_ oneway unless tagged otherwise. Unless it is tagged as junction=roundabout ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] default value for oneway
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com wrote: 2) In cities and towns where two-way streets are exceptional like Barcelona or Madrid, are people expected to tag them no? The motivation for this question is that there seems to be the convention not to tag them, and therefore you cannot tell the confirmed ones from the untagged ones. No, I think more likely is that local mappers have not considered it a priority to add the oneway tags, or maybe there are so many that it's a difficult job that isn't finished yet. At least in the Spanish mailing list, with some exceptions people generally think leaving it blank is fine for any city, because it means no anyway, so why say anything, the argument goes. Of course, in Barcelona for example assuming no is impractical, since most streets are one-way. So in the case of Barcelona I don't think that is a good practice. And that seems to be also suggested in the wiki: oneway=no is used to confirm that (a part of) a street is NOT a oneway street. (Use only in order to avoid mapping errors in areas where e.g. oneway streets are common, or to override defaults.) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] default value for oneway
For the sake of discussion, I believe the interface for setting this attribute could be different (I am a software developer). For example, in graphical interfaces like iD you could have no preselected as convenience. But if you send no, you are saying no. Otherwise, you could opt-out and leave the value as blank, that would mean unknown/unset. In APIs, the attribute would have no default. If you say no, it is no, if you send nothing, it is unset. That way you could distinguish nos from unsets. Right now you cannot because conventions promote saying nothing. I realize changing any of this may be impossible nowadays, and maybe you disagree with that proposal. But if there was a chance to revise this I know Ruby on Rails and could work on it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] default value for oneway
Right now, the oneway checkbox in iD cycles through “Yes” “No” and “Assumed to be No” (blank). There are a handful of situations that will switch this checkbox to say “Yes” “No” and “Assumed to be Yes” (blank). (for example, a `junction=roundabout` or `highway=motorway` tag) It sounds to me like iD is already working the way you describe. But definitely let us know if maybe there is an issue with translation or another way we could improve on it. I did work on this feature and am familiar with the code. Thanks, Bryan On Aug 28, 2014, at 10:32 AM, Xavier Noria f...@hashref.com wrote: For the sake of discussion, I believe the interface for setting this attribute could be different (I am a software developer). For example, in graphical interfaces like iD you could have no preselected as convenience. But if you send no, you are saying no. Otherwise, you could opt-out and leave the value as blank, that would mean unknown/unset. In APIs, the attribute would have no default. If you say no, it is no, if you send nothing, it is unset. That way you could distinguish nos from unsets. Right now you cannot because conventions promote saying nothing. I realize changing any of this may be impossible nowadays, and maybe you disagree with that proposal. But if there was a chance to revise this I know Ruby on Rails and could work on it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] default value for oneway
I believe that you haven't explicitly said so, but probably essentially want to be able to find streets that haven't been surveyed and potentially need a oneway tag and avoid false positives (aka such that are actually bi-directional). I don't believe you'll get any further with the oneway tag, but given that we have similar issues for example with name tags, you could consider something like proposed in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Internal_quality , in your case validate:no_oneway Simon PS: the noname tag is actually substantially more popular than validate:no_name but if you are inventing something new, you might as well stick to the validate: scheme. Am 28.08.2014 16:32, schrieb Xavier Noria: For the sake of discussion, I believe the interface for setting this attribute could be different (I am a software developer). For example, in graphical interfaces like iD you could have no preselected as convenience. But if you send no, you are saying no. Otherwise, you could opt-out and leave the value as blank, that would mean unknown/unset. In APIs, the attribute would have no default. If you say no, it is no, if you send nothing, it is unset. That way you could distinguish nos from unsets. Right now you cannot because conventions promote saying nothing. I realize changing any of this may be impossible nowadays, and maybe you disagree with that proposal. But if there was a chance to revise this I know Ruby on Rails and could work on it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] default value for oneway
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Bryan Housel br...@7thposition.com wrote: Right now, the oneway checkbox in iD cycles through “Yes” “No” and “Assumed to be No” (blank). There are a handful of situations that will switch this checkbox to say “Yes” “No” and “Assumed to be Yes” (blank). (for example, a `junction=roundabout` or `highway=motorway` tag) It sounds to me like iD is already working the way you describe. But definitely let us know if maybe there is an issue with translation or another way we could improve on it. I did work on this feature and am familiar with the code. Awesome! Hi there! I think iD is coherent with the contract right now. Because the contract says that if you leave the value blank, that means no. So iD has the need for a three-valued check box to be able to say unset, since I suppose the database has plenty of NULLs. I was proposing a change in the way to interpret NULLs. If the value is unset, it is unset. The same way a name can be unset. Means unknown. Then the convenience default would be moved to the UI, no would be preselected. Equally helpful, but adds certainty to the data. Of course a change like this in meaning is major, it may be even impossible in practical terms, not familiar enough with the project ecosystem. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] leisure=common
I find a bit harsh that leisure=common has been completely withdrawn from the wiki map features in the middle of the summer. If it's a UK specific tag, then move it to a special UK map features page/table, no ? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Map_Features:leisure http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dcommon Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] default value for oneway
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: I believe that you haven't explicitly said so, but probably essentially want to be able to find streets that haven't been surveyed and potentially need a oneway tag and avoid false positives (aka such that are actually bi-directional). You nailed it :). I am going out with my daughter to tag directions: https://twitter.com/fxn/status/503616557776646144 The closer I have been to distinguish that is this query: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4LR That makes me also wonder as a side-effect about the implication of the current contract and the usage patterns it promotes. Implications in particular for turn-by-turn indications, but that was secondary, my main motivation is the one above. I don't believe you'll get any further with the oneway tag, but given that we have similar issues for example with name tags, you could consider something like proposed in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Internal_quality , in your case validate:no_oneway Simon PS: the noname tag is actually substantially more popular than validate:no_name but if you are inventing something new, you might as well stick to the validate: scheme. That's interesting, I'll take into account. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=common
I believe it was withdrawn as it vague. You logic is stated on one of the pages you posted. Dave F. On 28/08/2014 16:01, Pieren wrote: I find a bit harsh that leisure=common has been completely withdrawn from the wiki map features in the middle of the summer. If it's a UK specific tag, then move it to a special UK map features page/table, no ? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Map_Features:leisure http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dcommon Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] default value for oneway
Am 28.08.2014 17:07, schrieb Xavier Noria: ... That makes me also wonder as a side-effect about the implication of the current contract and the usage patterns it promotes. Implications in particular for turn-by-turn indications, but that was secondary, my main motivation is the one above. In any case there are roughly 45 million highway segments on which a oneway tag could make sense, vs. roughly 6 million oneway=yes and 1.5 million oneway=no. I suspect that it is really -far- too late to change the semantics of this specific attribute. Simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=common
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: I believe it was withdrawn as it vague. You logic is stated on one of the pages you posted. It was in the map features page for years : An area where the public can walk anywhere (UK) I guess it is also used in US. I found some examples : https://www.google.fr/search?safe=offhl=frsite=imghptbm=ischsa=1q=village+commonoq=village+commongs_l=img.3...11667.13247.0.13578.8.7.0.0.0.0.476.476.4-1.1.00...1c.1.52.img..8.0.0.cFS7KjyXTyo If you don't know what village common is then don't use it. If we start to delete all vague definitions in the wiki, we should better start with smoothness :-) Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] default value for oneway
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: In any case there are roughly 45 million highway segments on which a oneway tag could make sense, vs. roughly 6 million oneway=yes and 1.5 million oneway=no. I suspect that it is really -far- too late to change the semantics of this specific attribute. Since nowadays NULL for a street means oneway=no a change in the semantics would be still be possible as far as the database is concerned. If you go today to the database and update all oneway attributes for streets which are blank to no, the meaning of the database is equivalent. Same for motorways, replace all NULLs with yes. Equivalent database. For a street, there is no practical difference nowadays between no and unset, which is a smell for me. Either way means no. I believe the default is useful for the UI, to preselect a value for example so that the user has to do nothing in the majority of street creations, less useful as a way to interpret NULLs because then you don't know what has been confirmed. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=common
So is leisure=common supposed to be distinct from landuse=village_green? Your search makes it seem like you're talking about the same thing. On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: I believe it was withdrawn as it vague. You logic is stated on one of the pages you posted. It was in the map features page for years : An area where the public can walk anywhere (UK) I guess it is also used in US. I found some examples : https://www.google.fr/search?safe=offhl=frsite=imghptbm=ischsa=1q=village+commonoq=village+commongs_l=img.3...11667.13247.0.13578.8.7.0.0.0.0.476.476.4-1.1.00...1c.1.52.img..8.0.0.cFS7KjyXTyo If you don't know what village common is then don't use it. If we start to delete all vague definitions in the wiki, we should better start with smoothness :-) Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=common
I've just looked up common on taginfo I'm very surprised to see virtually all are tagged with leisure= (39348). If I ever used it ( I'm unsure I have) I would have used landuse= (123). I genuinely believe this is an example of where it being the majority doesn't make it correct. In Britain a common is an area of land, usually grass, which is open for all to use, where any number of leisure activities could occur (sports, picnics, playgrounds etc), which is why I think it's vague. It needs a separate tag to able to map the leisure activities with the area. Again, I'm really surprised by the number of landuse= tags. Was there a mass edit? Dave F. On 28/08/2014 16:31, Pieren wrote: On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: I believe it was withdrawn as it vague. You logic is stated on one of the pages you posted. It was in the map features page for years : An area where the public can walk anywhere (UK) I guess it is also used in US. I found some examples : https://www.google.fr/search?safe=offhl=frsite=imghptbm=ischsa=1q=village+commonoq=village+commongs_l=img.3...11667.13247.0.13578.8.7.0.0.0.0.476.476.4-1.1.00...1c.1.52.img..8.0.0.cFS7KjyXTyo If you don't know what village common is then don't use it. If we start to delete all vague definitions in the wiki, we should better start with smoothness :-) Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=common
On 28/08/2014 16:49, Dave F. wrote: It needs a separate tag to able to map the leisure activities with the area. Scrub that bit. Separate tags aren't needed of course. My mistake. Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] default value for oneway
For a street, there is no practical difference nowadays between no and unset, which is a smell for me. Either way means no. For the software? No, there isn't a difference. For the mapper? Yes, there is a difference. Since nowadays NULL for a street means oneway=no a change in the semantics would be still be possible as far as the database is concerned. If you go today to the database and update all oneway attributes for streets which are blank to no, the meaning of the database is equivalent. Theorically speaking, yes, you could add oneway=no to every street, and get a functionally equivalent database (from the software's POV). But, in practice, people most likely wouldn't agree with that (this change would be reverted). 2014-08-28 12:33 GMT-03:00 Xavier Noria f...@hashref.com: On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: In any case there are roughly 45 million highway segments on which a oneway tag could make sense, vs. roughly 6 million oneway=yes and 1.5 million oneway=no. I suspect that it is really -far- too late to change the semantics of this specific attribute. Since nowadays NULL for a street means oneway=no a change in the semantics would be still be possible as far as the database is concerned. If you go today to the database and update all oneway attributes for streets which are blank to no, the meaning of the database is equivalent. Same for motorways, replace all NULLs with yes. Equivalent database. For a street, there is no practical difference nowadays between no and unset, which is a smell for me. Either way means no. I believe the default is useful for the UI, to preselect a value for example so that the user has to do nothing in the majority of street creations, less useful as a way to interpret NULLs because then you don't know what has been confirmed. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=common
On 2014-08-28 16:01, Pieren wrote: I find a bit harsh that leisure=common has been completely withdrawn from the wiki map features in the middle of the summer. If it's a UK specific tag, then move it to a special UK map features page/table, no ? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Map_Features:leisure http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dcommon I think leisure=common is an unhelpful tag, so should be depreceated. In the UK, a common or common land is a legal definition. Historically, it was about the right to graze animals or collect firewood there. Not just a right to walk across it. Many places which were once commons are not any more, even if they still have 'common' in the name. eg Clapham Common in London - you wouldn't be allowed to graze a herd of cows there. There have been some more recent laws, eg Commons Act 2006, which registered some common land in England. Not sure what difference the actually makes, what rights or protection does it give? More useful to tag what the land actually is, and what it is used for. eg most of the London commons could be tagged as leisure=park or natural=woodland etc. If it has a specific legal designation, then add some sort of designation tag. Craig ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] default value for oneway
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 6:52 PM, John Packer john.pack...@gmail.com wrote: For a street, there is no practical difference nowadays between no and unset, which is a smell for me. Either way means no. For the software? No, there isn't a difference. For the mapper? Yes, there is a difference. The mapper can't tell unset from no either today. If unset mean unset (as in the hypothetical proposal I am outlining), then it would mean something: I am gonna volunteer this value, this value is unknown, etc. Problem is people at large are using unset to mean no. So nowadays you can't tell. Since nowadays NULL for a street means oneway=no a change in the semantics would be still be possible as far as the database is concerned. If you go today to the database and update all oneway attributes for streets which are blank to no, the meaning of the database is equivalent. Theorically speaking, yes, you could add oneway=no to every street, and get a functionally equivalent database (from the software's POV). But, in practice, people most likely wouldn't agree with that (this change would be reverted). Wouldn't agree with the equivalence of the database, or with the patch itself issuing a SQL statement? Such a patch wouldn't make any sense unless it was part of a bigger plan. I explained that only as a way to say as far as the database is concerned the data is equivalent. But for example, every single client software of OSM that is out of control of OSM is assuming that contract. That's what I believe makes a reset (no NULLs in the database) plus semantic change for NULLs would not be possible. No way to synchronize all that client code unless that was somehow coordinated as in a major upgrade. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] default value for oneway
On Thu, 2014-08-28 at 13:52 -0300, John Packer wrote: For a street, there is no practical difference nowadays between no and unset, which is a smell for me. Either way means no. For the software? No, there isn't a difference. For the mapper? Yes, there is a difference. Since nowadays NULL for a street means oneway=no a change in the semantics would be still be possible as far as the database is concerned. If you go today to the database and update all oneway attributes for streets which are blank to no, the meaning of the database is equivalent. Theorically speaking, yes, you could add oneway=no to every street, and get a functionally equivalent database (from the software's POV). But, in practice, people most likely wouldn't agree with that (this change would be reverted). +1 To use add oneway=no in selected areas to confirm the road has been surveyed is fine, but not everywhere as that causes tag clutter and makes it difficult for a mapper to see the important tags. Phil (trigpoint) 2014-08-28 12:33 GMT-03:00 Xavier Noria f...@hashref.com: On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: In any case there are roughly 45 million highway segments on which a oneway tag could make sense, vs. roughly 6 million oneway=yes and 1.5 million oneway=no. I suspect that it is really -far- too late to change the semantics of this specific attribute. Since nowadays NULL for a street means oneway=no a change in the semantics would be still be possible as far as the database is concerned. If you go today to the database and update all oneway attributes for streets which are blank to no, the meaning of the database is equivalent. Same for motorways, replace all NULLs with yes. Equivalent database. For a street, there is no practical difference nowadays between no and unset, which is a smell for me. Either way means no. I believe the default is useful for the UI, to preselect a value for example so that the user has to do nothing in the majority of street creations, less useful as a way to interpret NULLs because then you don't know what has been confirmed. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] default value for oneway
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: +1 To use add oneway=no in selected areas to confirm the road has been surveyed is fine, but not everywhere as that causes tag clutter and makes it difficult for a mapper to see the important tags. Which tools does a hard-core mapper use to edit? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] default value for oneway
Am 28.08.2014 19:10, schrieb Xavier Noria: ... But for example, every single client software of OSM that is out of control of OSM is assuming that contract. That's what I believe makes a reset (no NULLs in the database) plus semantic change for NULLs would not be possible. No way to synchronize all that client code unless that was somehow coordinated as in a major upgrade. While just a technicality it probably is worth pointing out that in reality the change you propose would require adding 40 million or so oneway=no tags to the DB and making a new version of each of the effected objects. We have worse things in the DB, but still it would need more than just uneasiness with the current situation (which is for largish parts of the world not an issue) to justify the change Simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] default value for oneway
On Thu, 2014-08-28 at 19:16 +0200, Xavier Noria wrote: On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: +1 To use add oneway=no in selected areas to confirm the road has been surveyed is fine, but not everywhere as that causes tag clutter and makes it difficult for a mapper to see the important tags. Which tools does a hard-core mapper use to edit? In my case I mainly use josm. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] default value for oneway
Since I see the characteristics of Barcelona (and other cities/towns I know) are exceptional for most of you guys, let me share a couple of maps to explain where I am coming from. This is a typical sector of Barcelona: https://www.dropbox.com/s/k7o32zbneoi8y6q/barcelona_sample.png?dl=0 As you see, almost everything is one-way. Of course there are some important streets here and there that are two-way, but the ratio is really small. So for example, in this map from OSM that has streets with no oneway set highlighted in blue: https://www.dropbox.com/s/yjosl8lwyk3xkme/barcelona_bad_sector.png?dl=0 that area in the center with many blue lines... almost all of them are wrong. You cannot rely on that default in Barcelona at all. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] default value for oneway
2014-08-28 22:31 GMT+02:00 Xavier Noria f...@hashref.com: that area in the center with many blue lines... almost all of them are wrong. You cannot rely on that default in Barcelona at all. And in this really rare situation it is reasonable to use oneway=no. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] default value for oneway
Am 28.08.2014 um 19:10 schrieb Xavier Noria: On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 6:52 PM, John Packer john.pack...@gmail.com wrote: For a street, there is no practical difference nowadays between no and unset, which is a smell for me. Either way means no. For the software? No, there isn't a difference. For the mapper? Yes, there is a difference. The mapper can't tell unset from no either today. If unset mean unset (as in the hypothetical proposal I am outlining), then it would mean something: I am gonna volunteer this value, this value is unknown, etc. Problem is people at large are using unset to mean no. So nowadays you can't tell. Since nowadays NULL for a street means oneway=no a change in the semantics would be still be possible as far as the database is concerned. If you go today to the database and update all oneway attributes for streets which are blank to no, the meaning of the database is equivalent. No, it isn't. The interpretation of the database, and the meaning, restricted to the fact of the streets oneway-ness is the same, but no value at all does not say this is no oneway street, it says nothing more than we don't know if it's oneway or not. If somewhere oneway=no is tagged, it says (or should say): Someone verified this street to be oneway. For software there's a problem for any unknown value, so some assumption has to be made. Assuming oneway=no is the best effort assumption as it causes least harm (allows the right direction correctly, allows the wrong correction incorrectly for untagged oneways; and works for untagged non-oneways). Adding oneway=no to any highway that is untagged currently removes the information of the highway being verified, and adds no value with the given assumption. Adding oneway=no by hand on a case by case basis where you know a highway is not a oneway may be a solution; but I don't think many people would do that. Your UI proposals for a default value no to be actively unchecked by the user is dangerous as often people keep the defaults without knowledge or thinking about it, so better keep unknown/unset as the default - just as we have it right now. Theorically speaking, yes, you could add oneway=no to every street, and get a functionally equivalent database (from the software's POV). But, in practice, people most likely wouldn't agree with that (this change would be reverted). Wouldn't agree with the equivalence of the database, or with the patch itself issuing a SQL statement? Such a patch wouldn't make any sense unless it was part of a bigger plan. I explained that only as a way to say as far as the database is concerned the data is equivalent. -1, as explained above. regards Peter ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] default value for oneway
Am 28.08.2014 um 22:35 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: 2014-08-28 22:31 GMT+02:00 Xavier Noria f...@hashref.com: that area in the center with many blue lines... almost all of them are wrong. You cannot rely on that default in Barcelona at all. And in this really rare situation it is reasonable to use oneway=no. Well, yes - but only while adding oneway=yes where it needs to be set, so even here oneway=no is more like a way checked., adding oneway=no does not help very much, as long as oneway=yes is that incomplete. regards Peter ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] default value for oneway
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de wrote: Am 28.08.2014 um 22:35 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: 2014-08-28 22:31 GMT+02:00 Xavier Noria f...@hashref.com: that area in the center with many blue lines... almost all of them are wrong. You cannot rely on that default in Barcelona at all. And in this really rare situation it is reasonable to use oneway=no. Well, yes - but only while adding oneway=yes where it needs to be set, so even here oneway=no is more like a way checked., adding oneway=no does not help very much, as long as oneway=yes is that incomplete. Exactly. I interpreted Mateusz meant in Barcelona it is reasonable to set explicit nos rather than leaving defaults. Basically, the default in Barcelona is useless. Here you should tag every street. yes because it is needed in the majority of streets, and no because you cannot trust the default as a consequence. Which is fine of course, the default has to be the best one given the world-wide scope of OSM. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] default value for oneway
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de wrote: No, it isn't. The interpretation of the database, and the meaning, restricted to the fact of the streets oneway-ness is the same, but no value at all does not say this is no oneway street, it says nothing more than we don't know if it's oneway or not. That is the generic interpretation of a NULL value in programming (I am a programmer), absence of value. But your contract is that unset implies no for streets. So there you go. Got no value? I *have* to assume no. And since that's the case, the de facto usage pattern seems to be to leave oneway unset. The database has millions of NULLs for which the users mean an actual no. They didn't bother, but it is NULL for no. And that is a consequence of the design of the data model for that attribute. If this was 0-day of OSM and the attribute had possible values one-way, two-way, reversible, with an active default of two-way preselected in UIs, then you could in practice say NULL means unknown. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
