Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
Therefore the proposal explicitly states: *Again: informal campgrounds shall only be mapped if there is an important reason to select the place over other places in the neighbourhood. If the place is a spot along the road, chosen just because it got dark, then it shall not be mapped.* On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 5:55 PM Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: Informal campgrounds exist in areas where you are allowed to camp anywhere except... (like in Sweden) or where no rules exist informal campgrounds shall only be mapped if there is an important reason ... Nearby presence of public facilities, Their security, Their sheer beauty, Remote sites which means potentially everywhere... imagine a similar proposal for pissing on trees tagged as informal toilets ? 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] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
Two issues I think the proposal should address: 1) Use separate tagging for a place you can park a caravan or car overnight (as per your example), compared to a place you can pitch a tent without getting hassled. They really are not the same thing. 2) Tagging large areas. For example default rules exist in the USA on land of the US Forest Service (USFS) land, or Bureau of Lumber and Mining (BLM). Camping is generally allowed anywhere it's not specifically prohibited. Yet within those areas are established informal campsites. It's not clear if OSM should tag these large areas with a camping tag, or simply inform the prospective camper of who owns the land. Regulations change from time to time, so it's perhaps best to refer the reader to the official source: the website of the owner, land agency, or store. OSM here is acting a bit like old hobo chalk marks, where transients would leave coded symbols to each other about places they found food or shelter. It exists outside the official realm. Readers of a map however should be clear which camp sites are permissive (e.g. you might get away with it) and which ones are official (a rule says it's OK to do). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Imports] Resubmitted proposal: mechanically removing all denotation=cluster and fixme=set_better_denotation tags worldwide
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 2:41 AM, Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com wrote: I am confused by No human entered fixme values will be harmed. in description and removing all (...) in the title. The fixme tags added by the tree bot are proposed for bulk deletion without additional review. Other fixme notes added by humans will either be resolved in the normal manner, or left untouched. Removing all means the given tag/value will be purged from the OSM dataset. Gone. Wiped out. Exterminated. Removed. Deleted. Trashed. Never more to see the light of day. Pining for fjords. For example the value denotation_1=cluster is proposed for deletion from: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3029914468/history ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 4:59 AM, Felix Hartmann extremecar...@gmail.com wrote: (e.g. a road with some pottholes described as horrible). And with smoothness and other verbal gradings - 10-15% of all ratings seem to be way off because the mapper never read/understood that scale. This in turn makes it impossible to be used in a map because it is too unreliable. +1 on this. The tags are highly unreliable. In part because it's unclear if you are supposed to tag the *worst spot* (one pothole) or the *average experience* (potholes every 3 meters)? A road of sustained moderate sand might be far worse for some vehicles, compared to a road with one deep sand spot. Conversely a deep sand spot might stop certain vehicles that could readily pass over miles of moderate sand. --- I think a description is often far more useful to a map reader: *description*=Forest road well maintained in summer, but not graded during winter. Has two stream crossings with 10 inch high rocks, easily passed on a bicycle or motorbike, but difficult for low clearance vehicles. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Haul Channel
The problem with frequency=XXX.XXX MHz is that many people known only the channels (e.g 9). And it's not just frequency, it's encoding (GMRS/CB/etc) On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Sam Dyck samueld...@gmail.com wrote: Could the road be given property tags; tag haul_road=yes frequency= as per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:frequency ? or a single property tag; frequency:haul_road= then use the same value system as key:frequency? That may make the meaning clear? As duplexing is not used you don't need to stipulate it. Haul channel is just the term I've heard used, the channel 9 I reference on the wiki is used on an actual road where it refers to 154.635 MHz. I'm not sure about the term haul_road. Given the ambiguity of the term (Isn't every road with truck traffic a haul road?) would it make more sense to just use frequency=XXX.XXX MHz on any road where applicable? This would eleminate the need for new tags. ___ 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] Current status of the key smoothness=*
Am 13.03.2015 um 18:42 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: A road of sustained moderate sand might be far worse for some vehicles, compared to a road with one deep sand spot. if the problem is the exception I would rather use the hazard tag for this and not downgrade the whole road, if parts of a way are like a and others like b, I'd split the way, if you'd have to split every 2 meters I'd go for the worse rating and not split cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
This is covered by example 2.1 On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 3:50 PM Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote: There is no mention of one very common type of camp_site, the campground inside a National Park. It is a definitely a designated site but it is also noncommercial, in the sense that it is not run for profit as a business would be. On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: I have completely reworked the proposal with all feedback received. Can you please give any additional comments before I move to the voting stage? Jan http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site%3D* Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 24/02/2015 4:41 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: A strongly related discussion: tagging the difference between an official trail, and shortcut / use trail / squatter trail. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Link to this discussion? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ 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 established, unofficial and wild campings
This is covered in tagging #5 On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 4:50 PM John Sturdy jcg.stu...@gmail.com wrote: I think it would be good to mark these, with a suitable description; prohibited, no, or closed perhaps? If it's still a landmark that people will recognize as a campsite, it can be useful for navigation, and it may help to implement the prohibition, in that people turning up there will have some kind of indication that it is not to be used for the purpose that, on the ground, it looks like it's meant for. __John On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:45 AM, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: What to do with places where one cannot camp? Sure camp_site=prohibited or camp_site=no [for an icon: a tent with a slash through it :-) ] or even camp_site=disused -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Haul Channel
Could the road be given property tags; tag haul_road=yes frequency= as per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:frequency ? or a single property tag; frequency:haul_road= then use the same value system as key:frequency? That may make the meaning clear? As duplexing is not used you don't need to stipulate it. Haul channel is just the term I've heard used, the channel 9 I reference on the wiki is used on an actual road where it refers to 154.635 MHz. I'm not sure about the term haul_road. Given the ambiguity of the term (Isn't every road with truck traffic a haul road?) would it make more sense to just use frequency=XXX.XXX MHz on any road where applicable? This would eleminate the need for new tags. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*
And description is utterly useless for any kind of automated processing - for example routing. 2015-03-13 18:42 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 4:59 AM, Felix Hartmann extremecar...@gmail.com wrote: (e.g. a road with some pottholes described as horrible). And with smoothness and other verbal gradings - 10-15% of all ratings seem to be way off because the mapper never read/understood that scale. This in turn makes it impossible to be used in a map because it is too unreliable. +1 on this. The tags are highly unreliable. In part because it's unclear if you are supposed to tag the *worst spot* (one pothole) or the *average experience* (potholes every 3 meters)? A road of sustained moderate sand might be far worse for some vehicles, compared to a road with one deep sand spot. Conversely a deep sand spot might stop certain vehicles that could readily pass over miles of moderate sand. --- I think a description is often far more useful to a map reader: *description*=Forest road well maintained in summer, but not graded during winter. Has two stream crossings with 10 inch high rocks, easily passed on a bicycle or motorbike, but difficult for low clearance vehicles. ___ 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 established, unofficial and wild campings
Ref1: good point. Any recommendation for the tags to be used? Ref 2: isn't this covered by example 2.1? Aren't the permissive ones at the bottom of your mail covered by example 4.4? On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:36 PM Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: Two issues I think the proposal should address: 1) Use separate tagging for a place you can park a caravan or car overnight (as per your example), compared to a place you can pitch a tent without getting hassled. They really are not the same thing. 2) Tagging large areas. For example default rules exist in the USA on land of the US Forest Service (USFS) land, or Bureau of Lumber and Mining (BLM). Camping is generally allowed anywhere it's not specifically prohibited. Yet within those areas are established informal campsites. It's not clear if OSM should tag these large areas with a camping tag, or simply inform the prospective camper of who owns the land. Regulations change from time to time, so it's perhaps best to refer the reader to the official source: the website of the owner, land agency, or store. OSM here is acting a bit like old hobo chalk marks, where transients would leave coded symbols to each other about places they found food or shelter. It exists outside the official realm. Readers of a map however should be clear which camp sites are permissive (e.g. you might get away with it) and which ones are official (a rule says it's OK to do). ___ 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 established, unofficial and wild campings
The statement: *Again: informal campgrounds shall only be mapped if there is an important reason to select the place over other places in the neighbourhood. If the place is a spot along the road, chosen just because it got dark, then it shall not be mapped.* On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 10:14 PM Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: For the UK that is correct. In countries where informal camping is allowed see statement with supporting examples in the proposal. *Again: informal campgrounds shall only be mapped if there is an important reason to select the place over other places in the neighbourhood. If the place is a spot along the road, chosen just because it got dark, then it shall not be mapped.* On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 10:09 PM jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me wrote: In the UK Wildcamping is illegal, you have to request the landowners permission or face charges of trespass. There are two exceptions, Scotland allows wildcamping, not sure of the limitations if any. And Dartmoor National Park, again not sure of any specific restrictions. So, only officially designated campsites, mainly privately run, should be mapped, I feel. Jonathan --- http://bigfatfrog67.me *From:* Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com *Sent:* Friday, 13 March 2015 14:47 *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org There is no mention of one very common type of camp_site, the campground inside a National Park. It is a definitely a designated site but it is also noncommercial, in the sense that it is not run for profit as a business would be. On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: I have completely reworked the proposal with all feedback received. Can you please give any additional comments before I move to the voting stage? Jan http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site%3D* http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site%3D%2a Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 24/02/2015 4:41 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: A strongly related discussion: tagging the difference between an official trail, and shortcut / use trail / squatter trail. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Link to this discussion? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ 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 established, unofficial and wild campings
In the UK Wildcamping is illegal, you have to request the landowners permission or face charges of trespass. There are two exceptions, Scotland allows wildcamping, not sure of the limitations if any. And Dartmoor National Park, again not sure of any specific restrictions. So, only officially designated campsites, mainly privately run, should be mapped, I feel. Jonathan --- http://bigfatfrog67.me From: Dave Swarthout Sent: Friday, 13 March 2015 14:47 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools There is no mention of one very common type of camp_site, the campground inside a National Park. It is a definitely a designated site but it is also noncommercial, in the sense that it is not run for profit as a business would be. On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: I have completely reworked the proposal with all feedback received. Can you please give any additional comments before I move to the voting stage? Jan http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site%3D* Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, Jan van Bekkum www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 24/02/2015 4:41 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: A strongly related discussion: tagging the difference between an official trail, and shortcut / use trail / squatter trail. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Link to this discussion? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
For the UK that is correct. In countries where informal camping is allowed see statement with supporting examples in the proposal. *Again: informal campgrounds shall only be mapped if there is an important reason to select the place over other places in the neighbourhood. If the place is a spot along the road, chosen just because it got dark, then it shall not be mapped.* On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 10:09 PM jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me wrote: In the UK Wildcamping is illegal, you have to request the landowners permission or face charges of trespass. There are two exceptions, Scotland allows wildcamping, not sure of the limitations if any. And Dartmoor National Park, again not sure of any specific restrictions. So, only officially designated campsites, mainly privately run, should be mapped, I feel. Jonathan --- http://bigfatfrog67.me *From:* Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com *Sent:* Friday, 13 March 2015 14:47 *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org There is no mention of one very common type of camp_site, the campground inside a National Park. It is a definitely a designated site but it is also noncommercial, in the sense that it is not run for profit as a business would be. On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: I have completely reworked the proposal with all feedback received. Can you please give any additional comments before I move to the voting stage? Jan http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site%3D* http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site%3D%2a Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 24/02/2015 4:41 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: A strongly related discussion: tagging the difference between an official trail, and shortcut / use trail / squatter trail. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Link to this discussion? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ 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] Current status of the key smoothness=*
And please do not claim that everyone will look in the wiki what the values actually mean. Please stay realistic ;-) Hmm, mappers or end users ? Honestly, i don't consider either numeric or two or three word tags can be expected to convey enough info. So i would suggest most primary users do need to look at the wiki. Given that, numeric tags would be better at forcing people to look at the wiki ! Words easier to guess and perhaps get wrong ! But I'd not promote that as a model, rest assured. I don't feel strongly about numeric or word based values. Happy with either. So i will start a new thread to flush out who does. David . Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: Hi! 2015-03-13 2:06 GMT+01:00 David dban...@internode.on.net: No, numeric values are not a good choice - really not. I also don't like the values much, but at least it's clear that good is better than bad. But Martin, its not a good or bad situation, thats the point. Some people seek out extremely challenging roads to traverse. While dead smooth is good while getting there, why bother to go there if its going to be smooth all the way ? That's not what I meant. If someone has no idea about the meaning of the values and just look at the existing tags, one may guess correctly, that good means smoother than bad. But what is smoother? grade1 or grade5? And please do not claim that everyone will look in the wiki what the values actually mean. Please stay realistic ;-) And to answer the next argument: but if people don't know the exact meaning and also don't look in the wiki, we can not be sure that they use the values correctly. Yes. We can also not be sure that they use the values correctly IF the look in the wiki. But the chances that we get more appropriate values is much higher with smoothness=good than with smoothness=grade97, because a good smoothness will have a much wider common understanding than smoothness=31415whatever. Best regards, Martin P.S: I'm aware that we will not reach consensus about this on this mailing list ;-) ___ 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] Smoothness possible values, straw poll.
Been a good discussion on new tags for smoothness=. Time, imho, to ask people to indicate just what they do like. How about a show of hands for one or more of - 1. Numeric tags, perhaps grade1 .. grade8 similar to tracktype. 2. Words that describe the smoothness - glassy -smooth -rough -bumpy - rutted 3. Words that describe the (wheeled) vehicle that might use it - Any_vehicle, city_car_bike, 4x4_mtb, off_road_vehicle, extreme_vehicle, none. Don't fuss over the actual values i have quoted, i am sure we can do better. But you can see the differing emphasis. In every case, assume we can/will have a good description behind each value. Or not ? It might also be worthwhile indicating how strong you feel about your choice. I'd prefer #1, #3 then, if i must, #2. 2 assumes too much about what makes the road difficult. David . Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: Hi! 2015-03-13 2:06 GMT+01:00 David dban...@internode.on.net: No, numeric values are not a good choice - really not. I also don't like the values much, but at least it's clear that good is better than bad. But Martin, its not a good or bad situation, thats the point. Some people seek out extremely challenging roads to traverse. While dead smooth is good while getting there, why bother to go there if its going to be smooth all the way ? That's not what I meant. If someone has no idea about the meaning of the values and just look at the existing tags, one may guess correctly, that good means smoother than bad. But what is smoother? grade1 or grade5? And please do not claim that everyone will look in the wiki what the values actually mean. Please stay realistic ;-) And to answer the next argument: but if people don't know the exact meaning and also don't look in the wiki, we can not be sure that they use the values correctly. Yes. We can also not be sure that they use the values correctly IF the look in the wiki. But the chances that we get more appropriate values is much higher with smoothness=good than with smoothness=grade97, because a good smoothness will have a much wider common understanding than smoothness=31415whatever. Best regards, Martin P.S: I'm aware that we will not reach consensus about this on this mailing list ;-) ___ 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 established, unofficial and wild campings
I would like another value of camp site added - a trekking campsite. Do you think Item two does not fit ? Designated campgrounds (camp_site=designated) - areas that are made available for camping on a non-commercial basis, but that are equipped with no or few facilities and charge no or a nominal fee; David . johnw jo...@mac.com wrote: I added some comments to the discussion page - I would like another value of camp site added - a trekking campsite. There needs to be a very hard separation between a spot where camping is “suggested” (perhaps by people who know where some good places to make camp) when trekking vs a clearing near a road for people to crash on a road trip, a campsite for thick canvas tents on a wooden platform (like a boy scout camp or a city park camp in Japan), a place for you to roll up with the minivan and a 6 person tent, and a place for a full-on caravan. I feel this proposal takes care of the latter, but the Backpacking/trekking sites is very murky - it may be informal, but to use the same iconography of something that has any services whatsoever, or might be chosen because of proximity to access (along a roard or a quiet spot near a town) - a trekking site will be very inaccessible and the only amenities are probably trees and a stream, and a soft place to pitch a tent on, and that’s it. So I propose a value just for places where it’s the most ideal spot in a wilderness area to pitch a tent (not everywhere possible, of course). I can think of 2 or 3 camp sites I used when trekking that were the ideal camping spot for an entire lake or area, and I’d like to mark them to suggest them to future trekkers - but I don’t want to fool people into thinking there is some source of water or a bed or a roof, or anything besides a good spot to pitch a dome tent - so I suggest that iconography be different (a dome tent vs the standard triangle tent) to show this drastic difference. Javbw ___ 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 established, unofficial and wild campings
I think a nice, scenic spot with a creek and some trees to block the wind 25km from the nearest parking lot in the middle of 4000m mountains a visible only on foot or by donkey is very different than a turnout on the side of the road, or a spot inside a large camping complex made around a car entrance for a state park. Especially when the only one doing the designation is the tagger themselves - they are just informal spots that happen to be good - nothing that is labeled on a map from the park service - as you are allowed to camp wherever you wish anywhere in hundreds of square kilometers - knowing that there is a good spot near the trail one lake further to the north or further down the trail is useful - though not official or designated. I have spent a lot of time in my youth looking at topographic maps and looking at guides for backcountry/trekking routes, and most of the places I have gone start at these more official camps - but the best spots I have gone back to time after time are just sand under a tree or a flat spot near a cave in the desert - and mapping them for other Trekkers would be useful only if they are not confused at all with all of the other, more substatial or easily accessed spots in a camp or along a road. Javbw On Mar 14, 2015, at 1:14 PM, David dban...@internode.on.net wrote: I would like another value of camp site added - a trekking campsite. Do you think Item two does not fit ? Designated campgrounds (camp_site=designated) - areas that are made available for camping on a non-commercial basis, but that are equipped with no or few facilities and charge no or a nominal fee; David . johnw jo...@mac.com wrote: I added some comments to the discussion page - I would like another value of camp site added - a trekking campsite. There needs to be a very hard separation between a spot where camping is “suggested” (perhaps by people who know where some good places to make camp) when trekking vs a clearing near a road for people to crash on a road trip, a campsite for thick canvas tents on a wooden platform (like a boy scout camp or a city park camp in Japan), a place for you to roll up with the minivan and a 6 person tent, and a place for a full-on caravan. I feel this proposal takes care of the latter, but the Backpacking/trekking sites is very murky - it may be informal, but to use the same iconography of something that has any services whatsoever, or might be chosen because of proximity to access (along a roard or a quiet spot near a town) - a trekking site will be very inaccessible and the only amenities are probably trees and a stream, and a soft place to pitch a tent on, and that’s it. So I propose a value just for places where it’s the most ideal spot in a wilderness area to pitch a tent (not everywhere possible, of course). I can think of 2 or 3 camp sites I used when trekking that were the ideal camping spot for an entire lake or area, and I’d like to mark them to suggest them to future trekkers - but I don’t want to fool people into thinking there is some source of water or a bed or a roof, or anything besides a good spot to pitch a dome tent - so I suggest that iconography be different (a dome tent vs the standard triangle tent) to show this drastic difference. Javbw ___ 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 established, unofficial and wild campings
...compared to a place you can pitch a tent without getting hassled Should we be trying to assure people about safety issues at all ? I don't think so, far too big an issue. Better let people decide based on how others are apparently using the site. People have their own tolerances and views of risk. 2) Tagging large areas. For example default rules exist in the USA I think we should let the default behaviour in a county be just that. If the default within a park (that is itself mapped) is to allow camping, then its unnecessary to detail it again. But particular noteworthy sites within that area could be specificialy mapped. David . Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: Two issues I think the proposal should address: 1) Use separate tagging for a place you can park a caravan or car overnight (as per your example), compared to a place you can pitch a tent without getting hassled. They really are not the same thing. 2) Tagging large areas. For example default rules exist in the USA on land of the US Forest Service (USFS) land, or Bureau of Lumber and Mining (BLM). Camping is generally allowed anywhere it's not specifically prohibited. Yet within those areas are established informal campsites. It's not clear if OSM should tag these large areas with a camping tag, or simply inform the prospective camper of who owns the land. Regulations change from time to time, so it's perhaps best to refer the reader to the official source: the website of the owner, land agency, or store. OSM here is acting a bit like old hobo chalk marks, where transients would leave coded symbols to each other about places they found food or shelter. It exists outside the official realm. Readers of a map however should be clear which camp sites are permissive (e.g. you might get away with it) and which ones are official (a rule says it's OK to do). ___ 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] Toll enforcement devices
On 14/03/2015 11:31 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: OsmAnd was telling me that I was passing a toll_booth on a German motorway, however it was just one of the camera bridges operated by TollCollect, and applicable only for toll:hgv=yes. However toll is not collected when passing this point, it is collected for using a certain road segment. Checking the wiki I found the tagging for toll technology quite underdeveloped, or do I miss something? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Abarrier%3Dtoll_booth limits the use for A place where a road usage toll or fee is collected, which is semantically fine and therefore does not apply to those bridges, which would be enforcement devices rather collection stations. You pay at terminals elsewhere. Thus my next stop was https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:enforcement but, interestingly, it does not know yet about toll at all, yet. No .. enforcement from the wiki is permanently installed devices that measure and document traffic violations a toll is not a traffic violation. Thus 'enforcement' is for traffic iolations - like speeding, red light running, tailgating .. basically breaking a law. Travelling on a toll road is not breaking a law unless you fail to pay - and then you would not be booked under a traffic law, well not here. I know that there are other countries where toll is collected the moment you pass under such camera bridges, thus for those cases barrier=toll_booth seems to be correct. A toll booth is a physical object .. most automatic toll collection things have no resemblance to an old toll booth. barrier=toll_booth also seems to be abused for tagging paying stations for parking fees, this seems inappropriate as well? Seems to be vending=parking_tickets. Yes .. but some toll booths may still exist for parking too. Locally here toll booths exist and are used by the 'National Parks' to collect entrance fees ... usually only on peak days (holidays, some weekends). = Perhaps a new relation:toll to address the issue... that could have different payment methods, cover a single point (or a line across a highway) or a point to point charge system. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
I added some comments to the discussion page - I would like another value of camp site added - a trekking campsite. There needs to be a very hard separation between a spot where camping is “suggested” (perhaps by people who know where some good places to make camp) when trekking vs a clearing near a road for people to crash on a road trip, a campsite for thick canvas tents on a wooden platform (like a boy scout camp or a city park camp in Japan), a place for you to roll up with the minivan and a 6 person tent, and a place for a full-on caravan. I feel this proposal takes care of the latter, but the Backpacking/trekking sites is very murky - it may be informal, but to use the same iconography of something that has any services whatsoever, or might be chosen because of proximity to access (along a roard or a quiet spot near a town) - a trekking site will be very inaccessible and the only amenities are probably trees and a stream, and a soft place to pitch a tent on, and that’s it. So I propose a value just for places where it’s the most ideal spot in a wilderness area to pitch a tent (not everywhere possible, of course). I can think of 2 or 3 camp sites I used when trekking that were the ideal camping spot for an entire lake or area, and I’d like to mark them to suggest them to future trekkers - but I don’t want to fool people into thinking there is some source of water or a bed or a roof, or anything besides a good spot to pitch a dome tent - so I suggest that iconography be different (a dome tent vs the standard triangle tent) to show this drastic difference. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Smoothness possible values, straw poll.
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 02:00:51PM +1100, David wrote: Been a good discussion on new tags for smoothness=. Time, imho, to ask people to indicate just what they do like. How about a show of hands for one or more of - 1. Numeric tags, perhaps grade1 .. grade8 similar to tracktype. 2. Words that describe the smoothness - glassy -smooth -rough -bumpy - rutted 3. Words that describe the (wheeled) vehicle that might use it - Any_vehicle, city_car_bike, 4x4_mtb, off_road_vehicle, extreme_vehicle, none. 4. Combined: grade1 ... grade8 glassy smooth ... any_vehicle ... extreme_vehicle and grade1;glassy;any_vehicle (or surface_grade=1 roughness=glassy approved_for=any_vehicle). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Toll enforcement devices
OsmAnd was telling me that I was passing a toll_booth on a German motorway, however it was just one of the camera bridges operated by TollCollect, and applicable only for toll:hgv=yes. However toll is not collected when passing this point, it is collected for using a certain road segment. Checking the wiki I found the tagging for toll technology quite underdeveloped, or do I miss something? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Abarrier%3Dtoll_booth limits the use for A place where a road usage toll or fee is collected, which is semantically fine and therefore does not apply to those bridges, which would be enforcement devices rather collection stations. You pay at terminals elsewhere. Thus my next stop was https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:enforcement but, interestingly, it does not know yet about toll at all, yet. The fix seems to be simple, add enforcement=toll to the enforcement relation, and tag those bridges as devices. A bit trickier might the from/to nodes in the relation, the easiest would be just two nodes along the way under the bridge in proximity to indicate to which carriageway the camera belongs. I know that there are other countries where toll is collected the moment you pass under such camera bridges, thus for those cases barrier=toll_booth seems to be correct. barrier=toll_booth also seems to be abused for tagging paying stations for parking fees, this seems inappropriate as well? Seems to be vending=parking_tickets. tom ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*
+1 On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 4:45 AM David dban...@internode.on.net wrote: I think this should be resolved with lots and lots of photos.. I think it would be a mistake to put too much emphasis on photos. In my experience, photos very rarely show the true usability of a road or track. It does really need to be looked at in context, the issues averaged out by eye. One, or even a set of snapshots just does not cut it ! And talking of issues, last time this discussion came up, from memory, we identified about 20 separate issues that might need to be considered. So lets not talk about trying to identify measurables. The smoothness tag, as described, already takes the right direction, it tries to judge the usability of the road. And, honestly, thats what people want to know ! Lets improve it with better values, sure a heap of photos if thats what people want. But clear words that describe just what sort of vehicle could traverse the road. So, questions, for better values, numerical or verbal ? Is it acceptable for a tag to have two, parallel sets of values, why not ? If we can get past there, we can then look for more descriptive sets of words David . Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: I think this should be resolved with lots and lots of photos, which the community then segregates into classes. Smoothness on asphalt is something entirely different than smoothness on sand, or smoothness on ground. When a mapper is in doubt, just look at 10 photos which are determined to be grade3, and then you can be sure that's the right value. Janko ___ 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] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk
- Of course it is not tourism, but amenity: it is not a goal by itself, but an amenity of something larger. There probably more reception desks at industrial compounds etc. than at campsites; - If you can't tag it as an area you still will place the note as accurately as possible where the reception desk is; anyhow it should be part of an area relation. We have been in situations that the camping reception was outside the campground itself, two blocks away in a shop On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 4:49 AM Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: One personal factual example; 5 buildings with an area including parking, landscaping etc .. of about 2 square kilometers One reception desk. Yes only one. The node of reception desk is spatially within the area .. so 'connected' to the rest .. as are the car parks within the area. On 13/03/2015 11:25 AM, Andreas Goss wrote: anything that is big enough to have a reception is better represented by an area than by a node- IMHO. At the time I micromap the reception I'd likely also convert the node POI into an area So how do you now connect the reception with the area? What if you have different levels? __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ 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] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk
2015-03-13 1:25 GMT+01:00 Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de: anything that is big enough to have a reception is better represented by an area than by a node- IMHO. At the time I micromap the reception I'd likely also convert the node POI into an area So how do you now connect the reception with the area? What if you have different levels? Either use a site relation (if the reception area is not inside the feature or if there might be other reasons to believe that the spatial connection is not sufficient) or simply trust in the spatial connection (typically the reception is inside the feature for which it is the reception). Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Resubmitted proposal: mechanically removing all denotation=cluster and fixme=set_better_denotation tags worldwide
I am confused by No human entered fixme values will be harmed. in description and removing all (...) in the title. 2015-03-12 19:15 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: Resubmitting by request of maper Sly: The edit described at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edits/Bryce_C_Nesbitt was modified based on mailing list input, and sits at complete removal of the cluster value for denotation, along with a certain fixme value. The cluster value was introduced to mean non-special tree. The tag was spread by a hotly disputed and partially reverted bot, and the tag moved from there, finding its way onto a rather random assortment of trees, water towers and sea buoys. Removing just the bot added tags is not enough to fix the damage caused. No other values of denotation are at risk. No human entered fixme values will be harmed. The edit is proposed worldwide, though the impact is highly clustered. Simple typos such as *dentoation=clustar* may be handled at the same time. Named trees with denotation=cluster are likely mis-tagged now. Landmark trees marked cluster will be handled manually when noted. For example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3321396264/history ___ 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] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk
+1 for amenity -1 for tourism +1 for reception_point (it might not be a desk, right? point=desk?) is there some JOSM/other validation issue with an amenity being inside another amenity? if so, then, I woudl hope that would be addressed..and if not, yay! or... http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:information landuse=reception_point -- Alex On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: - Of course it is not tourism, but amenity: it is not a goal by itself, but an amenity of something larger. There probably more reception desks at industrial compounds etc. than at campsites; - If you can't tag it as an area you still will place the note as accurately as possible where the reception desk is; anyhow it should be part of an area relation. We have been in situations that the camping reception was outside the campground itself, two blocks away in a shop On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 4:49 AM Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: One personal factual example; 5 buildings with an area including parking, landscaping etc .. of about 2 square kilometers One reception desk. Yes only one. The node of reception desk is spatially within the area .. so 'connected' to the rest .. as are the car parks within the area. On 13/03/2015 11:25 AM, Andreas Goss wrote: anything that is big enough to have a reception is better represented by an area than by a node- IMHO. At the time I micromap the reception I'd likely also convert the node POI into an area So how do you now connect the reception with the area? What if you have different levels? __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ 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] Current status of the key smoothness=*
Hi! 2015-03-13 2:06 GMT+01:00 David dban...@internode.on.net: No, numeric values are not a good choice - really not. I also don't like the values much, but at least it's clear that good is better than bad. But Martin, its not a good or bad situation, thats the point. Some people seek out extremely challenging roads to traverse. While dead smooth is good while getting there, why bother to go there if its going to be smooth all the way ? That's not what I meant. If someone has no idea about the meaning of the values and just look at the existing tags, one may guess correctly, that good means smoother than bad. But what is smoother? grade1 or grade5? And please do not claim that everyone will look in the wiki what the values actually mean. Please stay realistic ;-) And to answer the next argument: but if people don't know the exact meaning and also don't look in the wiki, we can not be sure that they use the values correctly. Yes. We can also not be sure that they use the values correctly IF the look in the wiki. But the chances that we get more appropriate values is much higher with smoothness=good than with smoothness=grade97, because a good smoothness will have a much wider common understanding than smoothness=31415whatever. Best regards, Martin P.S: I'm aware that we will not reach consensus about this on this mailing list ;-) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk
+1 for reception_point +0 for amenity -1 for tourism -10 for landuse 2015-03-13 10:01 GMT+01:00 Alex Rollin alex.rol...@gmail.com: +1 for amenity -1 for tourism +1 for reception_point (it might not be a desk, right? point=desk?) is there some JOSM/other validation issue with an amenity being inside another amenity? if so, then, I woudl hope that would be addressed..and if not, yay! or... http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:information landuse=reception_point -- Alex On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: - Of course it is not tourism, but amenity: it is not a goal by itself, but an amenity of something larger. There probably more reception desks at industrial compounds etc. than at campsites; - If you can't tag it as an area you still will place the note as accurately as possible where the reception desk is; anyhow it should be part of an area relation. We have been in situations that the camping reception was outside the campground itself, two blocks away in a shop On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 4:49 AM Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: One personal factual example; 5 buildings with an area including parking, landscaping etc .. of about 2 square kilometers One reception desk. Yes only one. The node of reception desk is spatially within the area .. so 'connected' to the rest .. as are the car parks within the area. On 13/03/2015 11:25 AM, Andreas Goss wrote: anything that is big enough to have a reception is better represented by an area than by a node- IMHO. At the time I micromap the reception I'd likely also convert the node POI into an area So how do you now connect the reception with the area? What if you have different levels? __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ 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 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Resubmitted proposal: mechanically removing all denotation=cluster and fixme=set_better_denotation tags worldwide
Do it. On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: Resubmitting by request of maper Sly: The edit described at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edits/Bryce_C_Nesbitt was modified based on mailing list input, and sits at complete removal of the cluster value for denotation, along with a certain fixme value. The cluster value was introduced to mean non-special tree. The tag was spread by a hotly disputed and partially reverted bot, and the tag moved from there, finding its way onto a rather random assortment of trees, water towers and sea buoys. Removing just the bot added tags is not enough to fix the damage caused. No other values of denotation are at risk. No human entered fixme values will be harmed. The edit is proposed worldwide, though the impact is highly clustered. Simple typos such as *dentoation=clustar* may be handled at the same time. Named trees with denotation=cluster are likely mis-tagged now. Landmark trees marked cluster will be handled manually when noted. For example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3321396264/history ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*
On 13/03/2015 7:00 PM, Martin Vonwald wrote: Hi! 2015-03-13 2:06 GMT+01:00 David dban...@internode.on.net mailto:dban...@internode.on.net: No, numeric values are not a good choice - really not. I also don't like the values much, but at least it's clear that good is better than bad. But Martin, its not a good or bad situation, thats the point. Some people seek out extremely challenging roads to traverse. While dead smooth is good while getting there, why bother to go there if its going to be smooth all the way ? That's not what I meant. If someone has no idea about the meaning of the values and just look at the existing tags, one may guess correctly, that good means smoother than bad. But what is smoother? grade1 or grade5? And please do not claim that everyone will look in the wiki what the values actually mean. Please stay realistic ;-) And to answer the next argument: but if people don't know the exact meaning and also don't look in the wiki, we can not be sure that they use the values correctly. Yes. We can also not be sure that they use the values correctly IF the look in the wiki. But the chances that we get more appropriate values is much higher with smoothness=good than with smoothness=grade97, because a good smoothness will have a much wider common understanding than smoothness=31415whatever. Best regards, Martin P.S: I'm aware that we will not reach consensus about this on this mailing list ;-) I'm for verbal description rather than a number - easier to understand. If I come across a road marked 'smoothness=medium' and later come across a road with worse smoothness I can see which way to go with the verbal value, if the value was a simple number I'd nave no idea..and may skip the data entry due to time limits, laziness and added complexity. Some decades ago I looked at road classifications .. for 'off road' vehicles, I was after erosion problems at the time ... I think there may be some classification system for smoothness .. certainly there was for the load bearing of a terrain. Some US military publication had some tech data in it .. amonst some 40 odd publications I skimmed through at the time. Might try to look that up? Depends on how easy it is to find it in the library catalogue ... it is better than google .. but they have a different system of course. Photos help ... but I'd like some word guidance too. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*
Yes it's easier to understand. But the praxis clearly showed that if we have verbal grading - then the quality is much much worse. I love the intention of smoothness - but in real life the verbal descriptors make it very hard to argue to use it in a map. Not because it is off by +-1 but because in 10-15% of cases I've seen the worse values used, they were plain wrong. (e.g. a road with some pottholes described as horrible). On the other hand tracktype seems to be used pretty consistently. It may be off bei +-1, but usually no more. And with smoothness and other verbal gradings - 10-15% of all ratings seem to be way off because the mapper never read/understood that scale. This in turn makes it impossible to be used in a map because it is too unreliable. On 13 March 2015 at 11:09, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 13/03/2015 7:00 PM, Martin Vonwald wrote: Hi! 2015-03-13 2:06 GMT+01:00 David dban...@internode.on.net: No, numeric values are not a good choice - really not. I also don't like the values much, but at least it's clear that good is better than bad. But Martin, its not a good or bad situation, thats the point. Some people seek out extremely challenging roads to traverse. While dead smooth is good while getting there, why bother to go there if its going to be smooth all the way ? That's not what I meant. If someone has no idea about the meaning of the values and just look at the existing tags, one may guess correctly, that good means smoother than bad. But what is smoother? grade1 or grade5? And please do not claim that everyone will look in the wiki what the values actually mean. Please stay realistic ;-) And to answer the next argument: but if people don't know the exact meaning and also don't look in the wiki, we can not be sure that they use the values correctly. Yes. We can also not be sure that they use the values correctly IF the look in the wiki. But the chances that we get more appropriate values is much higher with smoothness=good than with smoothness=grade97, because a good smoothness will have a much wider common understanding than smoothness=31415whatever. Best regards, Martin P.S: I'm aware that we will not reach consensus about this on this mailing list ;-) I'm for verbal description rather than a number - easier to understand. If I come across a road marked 'smoothness=medium' and later come across a road with worse smoothness I can see which way to go with the verbal value, if the value was a simple number I'd nave no idea..and may skip the data entry due to time limits, laziness and added complexity. Some decades ago I looked at road classifications .. for 'off road' vehicles, I was after erosion problems at the time ... I think there may be some classification system for smoothness .. certainly there was for the load bearing of a terrain. Some US military publication had some tech data in it .. amonst some 40 odd publications I skimmed through at the time. Might try to look that up? Depends on how easy it is to find it in the library catalogue ... it is better than google .. but they have a different system of course. Photos help ... but I'd like some word guidance too. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Felix Hartman - Openmtbmap.org VeloMap.org Floragasse 9/11 1040 Wien Austria - Österreich ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*
2015-03-13 11:09 GMT+01:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com: I'm for verbal description rather than a number - easier to understand. If I come across a road marked 'smoothness=medium' and later come across a road with worse smoothness I can see which way to go with the verbal value, if the value was a simple number I'd nave no idea..and may skip the data entry due to time limits, laziness and added complexity. Problem with verbal descriptions is, that you don't know how much worse it is, e.g. grade1 vs. grade3 tells you there must also be a grade2, while bad vs. medium doesn't give you any such information. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
There is no mention of one very common type of camp_site, the campground inside a National Park. It is a definitely a designated site but it is also noncommercial, in the sense that it is not run for profit as a business would be. On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: I have completely reworked the proposal with all feedback received. Can you please give any additional comments before I move to the voting stage? Jan http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site%3D* Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 24/02/2015 4:41 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: A strongly related discussion: tagging the difference between an official trail, and shortcut / use trail / squatter trail. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Link to this discussion? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Regional stylesheets for osm-carto (Was: rendering of local power lines)
2015-03-13 4:09 GMT+01:00 David dban...@internode.on.net: I would support the idea of a regional style iff it turns out to be practicable. One, isolated example. One of the reasons i was given for the inability to render unsealed roads was that the preferred style, dashed infill, was already used for tunnels. I second the observation that the distinction of sealed / unsealed roads is very important (ignoring the surface tag also leads to a lot of mistagging (highway=track)), but I don't consider this a regional issue, it is important everywhere. What would be nice to regionalize are public transport icons, e.g. for subways / metro / light rail. These typically play an important role for identication with a place, and also serve for recognition. Some examples: http://mic-ro.com/metro/metrologos.html cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
I have completely reworked the proposal with all feedback received. Can you please give any additional comments before I move to the voting stage? Jan http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site%3D* Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 24/02/2015 4:41 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: A strongly related discussion: tagging the difference between an official trail, and shortcut / use trail / squatter trail. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Link to this discussion? ___ 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 established, unofficial and wild campings
I think it would be good to mark these, with a suitable description; prohibited, no, or closed perhaps? If it's still a landmark that people will recognize as a campsite, it can be useful for navigation, and it may help to implement the prohibition, in that people turning up there will have some kind of indication that it is not to be used for the purpose that, on the ground, it looks like it's meant for. __John On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:45 AM, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: What to do with places where one cannot camp? Sure camp_site=prohibited or camp_site=no [for an icon: a tent with a slash through it :-) ] or even camp_site=disused -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ 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 established, unofficial and wild campings
Informal campgrounds exist in areas where you are allowed to camp anywhere except... (like in Sweden) or where no rules exist informal campgrounds shall only be mapped if there is an important reason ... Nearby presence of public facilities, Their security, Their sheer beauty, Remote sites which means potentially everywhere... imagine a similar proposal for pissing on trees tagged as informal toilets ? Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
