Re: [Tagging] Sidewalk tagged on highway=cycleway
+1
I think this should be tagged with lanes, to be compatible with road lane
tagging:
bicycle:lanes:forward=designated|no
foot:lanes:forward=no|designated
Or if this looks a bit complicated (it does to me) invent a new tag,
something like:
designated:lanes:forward=bicycle|foot
Janko Mihelić
2015-01-01 22:30 GMT+01:00 Hubert sg.fo...@gmx.de:
+1. I'm also removal. But I can unterstand the idea behind it. However it
should be discussed some more.
Am 1. Januar 2015 22:09:49 MEZ, schrieb 715371 osmu715...@gmx.de:
Hi,
there is a sentence on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway
which says
It is also possible to use {{Tag|sidewalk|right}}/*=left [on
highway=cycleway] to indicate which side of the segregated path
pedestrians should walk on (where right/left is relative to the way's
direction).
It was originally contributed by ulamm and modified by RobJN after a
short discussion (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:RobJN).
But this is the opposite of what is written on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sidewalks
The inclusion of sidewalk information makes it easier to provide
effective pedestrian routing, and in particular good narrative
descriptions of pedestrian routes along motorised roads. The sidewalk
tag is not needed on non-motorised thoroughfares, for example
highway=footway/cycleway/path/brideway/track.
I think there better solutions to the problem than ulamm's.
If there are no further arguments, I will remove the sentence from the
first citation. What is your opinion on that?
Cheers
Tobias
--
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
--
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail
gesendet.
___
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] Sidewalk tagged on highway=cycleway
+1. I'm also removal. But I can unterstand the idea behind it. However it
should be discussed some more.
Am 1. Januar 2015 22:09:49 MEZ, schrieb 715371 osmu715...@gmx.de:
Hi,
there is a sentence on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway
which says
It is also possible to use {{Tag|sidewalk|right}}/*=left [on
highway=cycleway] to indicate which side of the segregated path
pedestrians should walk on (where right/left is relative to the way's
direction).
It was originally contributed by ulamm and modified by RobJN after a
short discussion (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:RobJN).
But this is the opposite of what is written on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sidewalks
The inclusion of sidewalk information makes it easier to provide
effective pedestrian routing, and in particular good narrative
descriptions of pedestrian routes along motorised roads. The sidewalk
tag is not needed on non-motorised thoroughfares, for example
highway=footway/cycleway/path/brideway/track.
I think there better solutions to the problem than ulamm's.
If there are no further arguments, I will remove the sentence from the
first citation. What is your opinion on that?
Cheers
Tobias
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
--
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Sidewalk tagged on highway=cycleway
I support revert of ulamm's edit.
2015-01-01 22:09 GMT+01:00 715371 osmu715...@gmx.de:
Hi,
there is a sentence on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway
which says
It is also possible to use {{Tag|sidewalk|right}}/*=left [on
highway=cycleway] to indicate which side of the segregated path
pedestrians should walk on (where right/left is relative to the way's
direction).
It was originally contributed by ulamm and modified by RobJN after a
short discussion (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:RobJN).
But this is the opposite of what is written on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sidewalks
The inclusion of sidewalk information makes it easier to provide
effective pedestrian routing, and in particular good narrative
descriptions of pedestrian routes along motorised roads. The sidewalk
tag is not needed on non-motorised thoroughfares, for example
highway=footway/cycleway/path/brideway/track.
I think there better solutions to the problem than ulamm's.
If there are no further arguments, I will remove the sentence from the
first citation. What is your opinion on that?
Cheers
Tobias
___
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] Accuracy of survey
While realigning the coastline is possible, they will be surveying for a decade or so just to figure out everything that moved. No, not a decade. While it will take some amount of time for changes to propagate to cartographic products according to their update cycle, the 'figuring out what moved' happens in essentially real time across the major geodetic network, and probably across a month depending on the ephemeris of the JAXA and ESA SARsat http://vldb.gsi.go.jp/sokuchi/sar/index-e.html platforms, although that is probably according to some sort of priority criteria derived from the GNSS data. See Geospatial Information Authority of Japan, １．Continuous observation at the GNSS-based control stations and ４．Synthetic Aperture Radar observation at http://www.gsi.go.jp/ENGLISH/page_e30068.html Coastal survey is longer, because of temporal interval required to interpolate and detect sea level extremes between the phasing of the tides and the satellites, look angles, etc. Michael Patrick Geospatial Analyst http://www.gsi.go.jp/ENGLISH/page_e30068.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Sidewalk tagged on highway=cycleway
Hi,
there is a sentence on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway
which says
It is also possible to use {{Tag|sidewalk|right}}/*=left [on
highway=cycleway] to indicate which side of the segregated path
pedestrians should walk on (where right/left is relative to the way's
direction).
It was originally contributed by ulamm and modified by RobJN after a
short discussion (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:RobJN).
But this is the opposite of what is written on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sidewalks
The inclusion of sidewalk information makes it easier to provide
effective pedestrian routing, and in particular good narrative
descriptions of pedestrian routes along motorised roads. The sidewalk
tag is not needed on non-motorised thoroughfares, for example
highway=footway/cycleway/path/brideway/track.
I think there better solutions to the problem than ulamm's.
If there are no further arguments, I will remove the sentence from the
first citation. What is your opinion on that?
Cheers
Tobias
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] hrmpf.
Hi, On 01/01/2015 11:52 PM, Rainer Fügenstein wrote: short summary: manually editing 13 nodes is a mechanical edit that needs to be discussed in advance, this list here is unimportant, nobody reads proposals and 18:4 yes votes don't count. I think it's a slippery slope problem. Agreed that 13 nodes is not a lot. But at how many would you draw the line? 20? 100? 500? How many objects would you mechanically-edit without any extra discussion and solely based on an 18:4 vote in a tagging discussion? Perhaps we should allow such edits as long as their number doesn't exceed the number of people having voted. So up to 22 objects would have been ok in this case ;) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] hrmpf.
On 1 January 2015 at 22:52, Rainer Fügenstein r...@oudeis.org wrote: can you please check the comments on this changeset: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27805365 One of the points of discussion is on which list the discussion should have been held, talk or tagging. Apparently, Paul Norman has changed the policy in this respect on 30 October 2013, as far as I know without communicating this to the community: http://wiki.osm.org/w/index.php?title=Mechanical_Edit_Policydiff=960438oldid=846223 As the proposal was started only two weeks after this change, I don't think it can be held against the proposer that he was not aware of the Wiki page that had changed silently. -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] hrmpf.
hey guys, can you please check the comments on this changeset: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27805365 short summary: manually editing 13 nodes is a mechanical edit that needs to be discussed in advance, this list here is unimportant, nobody reads proposals and 18:4 yes votes don't count. either I'm missing the point here or [censored]. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] hrmpf.
frederik, FR I think it's a slippery slope problem. Agreed that 13 nodes is not a FR lot. But at how many would you draw the line? 20? 100? 500? all 13 nodes have been checked and edited by me manually (not using search-and-replace). since this case is not covered in the mechanical edit policy, IMHO this policy does not apply. therefore, it should not matter if 13, 20, 100, 500 nodes have been changed this way. the main reason for the edit was the fact that those nodes contained both man_made=pipeline AND pipeline=marker tags, which was even wrong considering the old version of the pipeline wiki page. FR How many FR objects would you mechanically-edit without any extra discussion and FR solely based on an 18:4 vote in a tagging discussion? pipeline mapping is the field of a small minority of mappers. considering this logic, established tags in fields of minority interests can never be changed, unless it becomes the interest of the majority. apart from that, the main criticism is the change of type=* to sustance=* (which was also done in the changeset) as a result of the proposal. I see a point here, considering that the change of a tag affects map styles, software, ... as mentioned by SomeoneElse. I followed the proposal process step by step, and it does say nothing about notifying others. thanks to Matthijs for his research comment. cu ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] hrmpf.
On 1 January 2015 at 23:26, Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi wrote: However, I'd recommend you to use upload selection multiple times for smaller areas so it wouldn't look suspicious to those who care about mechanical edits only if they have a big bbox (or even use big bbox as the practical definition for the mechanical edit like it seems to occur here) ;-). I have heard this suggestion multiple times, and in my opinion it really indicates that the mechanical edit policy is counterproductive. Unfortunately, I don't see a clear solution. -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] hrmpf.
On Thu, 1 Jan 2015, Rainer Fügenstein wrote: can you please check the comments on this changeset: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27805365 short summary: manually editing 13 nodes is a mechanical edit that needs to be discussed in advance, this list here is unimportant, nobody reads proposals and 18:4 yes votes don't count. either I'm missing the point here or [censored]. Won't this apply to your change: You can even use your editor's search-and-replace function for that but only if you check each individual action caused by this, rather than just mechanically changing things. Note that it's enough to check each individual ACTION which you probably could immediately do with two glances in JOSM taglist :-). ...So you should be out of scope already after that check regardless of the number of objects. However, I'd recommend you to use upload selection multiple times for smaller areas so it wouldn't look suspicious to those who care about mechanical edits only if they have a big bbox (or even use big bbox as the practical definition for the mechanical edit like it seems to occur here) ;-). -- i.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging private property
Yes, owner may be used on areas (for example I encountered it used on landuse=forest). But I think that typically it is not really useful information to tag - hard to verify, changes in unnoticeable ways, hard to use (the same owner may be named in many ways). Also, legal ownership structure is sometimes overcomplicated for legal purposes (no, it is not owned by city - it is is owned by company A, owned by foundation B that is controlled by city). 2015-01-02 7:33 GMT+01:00 Megha Shrestha meghashrest...@gmail.com: Do we tag the whole area as owner =* ??? On Jan 2, 2015 12:16 PM, Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com wrote: Is it private as in restricted access or is it private as in owned by some individual? In the first case I would use access=private on area, in the second I would not tag it as it is not so important and this data is hard to maintain ( BTW, proper tag for this situation would be owner=*). 2015-01-02 6:00 GMT+01:00 Megha Shrestha meghashrest...@gmail.com: I came across a problem while tagging private properties of people. There is amenity = school to tag school area but is there any way to tag a land property that belongs to a private owner (household) and contains building within that land. Also how can you tag a private property which is unused? ___ 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 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging private property
Do we tag the whole area as owner =* ??? On Jan 2, 2015 12:16 PM, Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com wrote: Is it private as in restricted access or is it private as in owned by some individual? In the first case I would use access=private on area, in the second I would not tag it as it is not so important and this data is hard to maintain ( BTW, proper tag for this situation would be owner=*). 2015-01-02 6:00 GMT+01:00 Megha Shrestha meghashrest...@gmail.com: I came across a problem while tagging private properties of people. There is amenity = school to tag school area but is there any way to tag a land property that belongs to a private owner (household) and contains building within that land. Also how can you tag a private property which is unused? ___ 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] Tagging private property
Is it private as in restricted access or is it private as in owned by some individual? In the first case I would use access=private on area, in the second I would not tag it as it is not so important and this data is hard to maintain ( BTW, proper tag for this situation would be owner=*). 2015-01-02 6:00 GMT+01:00 Megha Shrestha meghashrest...@gmail.com: I came across a problem while tagging private properties of people. There is amenity = school to tag school area but is there any way to tag a land property that belongs to a private owner (household) and contains building within that land. Also how can you tag a private property which is unused? ___ 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] hrmpf.
Hi! 2015-01-02 0:34 GMT+01:00 Rainer Fügenstein r...@oudeis.org: FR I think it's a slippery slope problem. Agreed that 13 nodes is not a FR lot. But at how many would you draw the line? 20? 100? 500? all 13 nodes have been checked and edited by me manually (not using search-and-replace). since this case is not covered in the mechanical edit policy, IMHO this policy does not apply. In my opinion this does not qualify as mechanical edit. This was clearly just a fix of an extremely limited number of nodes. Happy New Year, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] hrmpf.
hi, IJ Won't this apply to your change: no, because I still insist on the fact that changing 13 nodes manually is not a mechanical edit. neither by the (small) number, nor by the way it was done. the main critique here is that a tag was changed during the proposal process (type=* to substance=*). the proposal process was followed step by step, and it says nothing about consulting the MEP or any mailing list other than this. cu ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Tagging private property
I came across a problem while tagging private properties of people. There is amenity = school to tag school area but is there any way to tag a land property that belongs to a private owner (household) and contains building within that land. Also how can you tag a private property which is unused? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
