Re: [Tagging] Request for new tag "natural=upland" (as way) or enabling "way" for "place" tags

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 09 giu 2016, alle ore 18:41, Greg Troxel  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> Perhaps there should be some more explicit tagging to denote
> uncertainty.  But drawing a polygon around the buildings that are part
> of the settlement, and including areas that if a new building were built
> there, it would be considered part of the settlement seems sensible.
> This is logically well-defined, even if it's hard to answer in detail.


+1, I don't know why the OP thinks that a polygon is not suitable for locality 
and hamlet, I believe it definitely is, and if the wiki says the opposite it 
should be corrected 



> 
> I can see an argument that a point is wrong, but really a point is a
> different representation, showing not really the centroid but the
> logical center of the settlement.


+1


> 
> A line would be a polygon with no width but significant length, which
> omits covering houses and has some new notion of near.   So it's sort of
> a blend of an area and the center, and that seems to raise more issues
> and complexity than it helps.


+1, to me a line makes no sense for representing an area (which any kind of 
settlement clearly is)


cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Request for new tag "natural=upland" (as way) or enabling "way" for "place" tags

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 09 giu 2016, alle ore 18:50, Christoph Hormann 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> If you can verifiably map a settlement as a linear way you can also map 
> it as an area.  Usually neither is the case so most populated places 
> are mapped as nodes.



I think that most settlements could be mapped as areas, there's often a border 
where many people would agree that inside is the settlement and outside is not



>  In case of a settlement consisting exclusively of 
> buildings densely located along a road at both sides tagging that 
> stretch of road as place=hamlet or similar might be a good compact way 
> to map it but i have not yet seen a case like this in reality.


I would prefer an area for this case as well, only disadvantages with a line, 
besides maybe you can draw a line a bit faster than a polygon, but it would 
still not convey any notion of spatial extension, while a polygon can do 
exactly this.

cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] R: Request for new tag "natural=upland" (as way) orenabling "way" for "place" tags

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 09 giu 2016, alle ore 23:43, Amacri  ha scritto:
> 
> A polygon provides additional specifications than a line and implies
> knowledge of surface information that an historical map could not document
> itself and that a mapper shall not arbitrarily add.


this boils down to the question whether it is better to completely omit the 
extension or to do a best effort approximation, which can still be refined 
later if necessary. I'd clearly prefer the latter. I don't think "arbitrarily" 
is a good description of the work a mapper will do in order to draw the outline.


cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Extending kneipp_water_cure

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 09 giu 2016, alle ore 21:53, JIDB  
> ha scritto:
> 
> 
> Kneipp facilities (de) are popular in german speaking countries. But 
> currently it is only possible to tag single foot basins (using 
> amenity=kneipp_water_cure).
> 


did you consider changing the namespace to healthcare rather than amenity?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:healthcare


cheers 
Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] R: Request for new tag "natural=upland" (as way) orenabling "way" for "place" tags

[Christoph Hormann]

On Thursday 09 June 2016, Amacri wrote:
> > On a general note - when things are mapped as nodes this is
> > frequently done with the implicit notion that this is a location
> > with a certain tolerance margin.  You might think of mapping
> > something with a linear way as a method to specify an anisotropic
> > tolerance, well localized in one direction but poorly in another. 
> > However that is not what you actually do when you map it as a way -
> > on the contrary you much more specifically localize it.
>
> I would ask you to elaborate your concept that I might not understand
> well.

If you in the simplest case map something either as a node or as a two 
node way extending a distance on either side of the node in the other 
case the way does not indicate a higher tolerance in localization in 
direction of the way.  Instead it indicates a larger extent of the 
feature in that direction and generally a lower tolerance in 
localization since you specify two coordinate pairs instead of just 
one.

In other words: when you map something as a way this always says 
something about the shape of the thing you map, it does not represent 
the shape of the probability distribution for the location of an 
otherwise shapeless feature.

> As you mention, documenting the feature by highlighting anisotropic
> tolerance of its extension, as per analysis of historical maps (e.g.,
> official maps from one side but being the only source for data from
> the other side,

A historic map that is old enough so you may legally use it without 
permission of the creator is usually not an appropriate source for 
geometry data and labels in maps are never a suitable source of 
geometry data - after all label placement is subject to a lot of 
influences completely unrelated to the geographic reality.  So this 
line of argumentation does not really convince.

As i said before - you best think about what you know about the thing 
you want to map in terms of verifiable, observable facts.  Based on 
this you can best decide how to represent such a feature in the 
database.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Request for new tag "natural=upland" (as way) or enabling "way" for "place" tags

[Greg Troxel]

Martin Koppenhoefer  writes:

(This is just a longer note about non-admin-boundary settlements and why
they are particularly tricky in a lot of New England, sort of separate
From the node/line/way discussion.)

>> Il giorno 09 giu 2016, alle ore 18:50, Christoph Hormann 
>>  ha scritto:
>> 
>> If you can verifiably map a settlement as a linear way you can also map 
>> it as an area.  Usually neither is the case so most populated places 
>> are mapped as nodes.
>
> I think that most settlements could be mapped as areas, there's often
> a border where many people would agree that inside is the settlement
> and outside is not

In rural areas, I think that's true.  But around me (mostly built up
because of proximity to Boston), it isn't true and the borders are very
hard to know.  Even the people that live there will find it hard and
disagree and tell you that the question doesn't quite make sense.

As a concrete example, consider the "hamlet" of South Acton:

  https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/158813473

This is not an administative boundary (which would be "Acton",
admin_level=8), but a name for a populated place.

This place name is longstanding, probably dating to before the American
Revolution.  It appears on USGS topo maps.  It has a railway station of
the same name.  It is known to to the locals.  I believe that the
railway went there (~1846) and has a stop because the village was
important.

To those who think of South Acton as the historical village, it's clear
that the buildings on either side of the railroad bridge are in the
village.  But as you go away from the center, it's very hard to draw a
line.  (There's a further complication that the intersection of 27/111,
traditionally "Kelly's Corner", is often called South Acton, as it is
more significant commerce-wise today.)

There are many other examples, where what used to be a village with very
little on the road to the next village is now a place where there are a
clump of older houses among a sea of houses covering the whole town.

Still, it's entirely reasonable to try to draw a polygon, as long as its
done by the locals over beer.  And also to have a node, which is far
easier to place uncontroversially, as there is usually an obvious
cluster of houses much older than the rest, and useful even if there is
a polygon.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Request for new tag "natural=upland" (as way) or enabling "way" for "place" tags

[me]

On 10/06/16 at 10:46am, Greg Troxel wrote:
> 
> Martin Koppenhoefer  writes:
> 
> (This is just a longer note about non-admin-boundary settlements and why
> they are particularly tricky in a lot of New England, sort of separate
> From the node/line/way discussion.)
> 
> >> Il giorno 09 giu 2016, alle ore 18:50, Christoph Hormann 
> >>  ha scritto:
> >> 
> >> If you can verifiably map a settlement as a linear way you can also map 
> >> it as an area.  Usually neither is the case so most populated places 
> >> are mapped as nodes.
> >
> > I think that most settlements could be mapped as areas, there's often
> > a border where many people would agree that inside is the settlement
> > and outside is not
> 
> In rural areas, I think that's true.  But around me (mostly built up
> because of proximity to Boston), it isn't true and the borders are very
> hard to know.  Even the people that live there will find it hard and
> disagree and tell you that the question doesn't quite make sense.
> 
> As a concrete example, consider the "hamlet" of South Acton:
> 
>   https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/158813473
> 
> This is not an administative boundary (which would be "Acton",
> admin_level=8), but a name for a populated place.
> 
> This place name is longstanding, probably dating to before the American
> Revolution.  It appears on USGS topo maps.  It has a railway station of
> the same name.  It is known to to the locals.  I believe that the
> railway went there (~1846) and has a stop because the village was
> important.
> 
> To those who think of South Acton as the historical village, it's clear
> that the buildings on either side of the railroad bridge are in the
> village.  But as you go away from the center, it's very hard to draw a
> line.  (There's a further complication that the intersection of 27/111,
> traditionally "Kelly's Corner", is often called South Acton, as it is
> more significant commerce-wise today.)
> 
> There are many other examples, where what used to be a village with very
> little on the road to the next village is now a place where there are a
> clump of older houses among a sea of houses covering the whole town.
> 
> Still, it's entirely reasonable to try to draw a polygon, as long as its
> done by the locals over beer.  And also to have a node, which is far
> easier to place uncontroversially, as there is usually an obvious
> cluster of houses much older than the rest, and useful even if there is
> a polygon.

Agree - for me the big problem with placenames as just nodes is that it
then assumes that all areas are circular when doing reverse geocoding to
get the name of an area. But where I live this simply isn't the case -
For example Edinburgh Old Town looks like this:

http://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/search.php?q=edinburgh+old+town&polygon=1&viewbox=

So for the various services that do the reverse lookups to work properly
we ended up dividing the city up into suburbs, all as areas. As has been
said, I agree this is really hard, and has involved discussions over
beer. But it does mean that at that level the classifications are much
better than with just nodes. 

At that point, I discovered that some renderers like the cycle map layer
with render names for nodes and ways so we end up with duplicates :(

I did submit a pull request:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/427

But it all got very complicated, but these changes never went very far,
see
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/546

Cheers
Chris


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Extending kneipp_water_cure

[JIDB]

Even if Kneipp facilities are used to improve the health (it's the 
original use), nowadays there are also used for personal enjoyment. So I 
think that amenity is a appropriate namespace.


Actually there is a similar question on the discussion page of the 
current tag (see 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:amenity%3Dkneipp_water_cure) 
but about why not use a leisure tag.  Do it's definitively not only for 
the health.


Am 10.06.2016 um 14:00 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org:

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 12:59:54 +0200
From: Martin Koppenhoefer 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Extending
kneipp_water_cure
Message-ID: <82368187-6afb-44a6-855a-910808392...@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"



sent from a phone


Il giorno 09 giu 2016, alle ore 21:53, JIDB  ha 
scritto:


Kneipp facilities (de) are popular in german speaking countries. But currently 
it is only possible to tag single foot basins (using amenity=kneipp_water_cure).



did you consider changing the namespace to healthcare rather than amenity?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:healthcare


cheers
Martin
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20160610/d3966c3d/attachment-0001.html>

--




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Turn Lane Tagging?

[Mike N]

I'm seeing a number of turn lane tagging fixes referencing 
http://osmlab.github.io/to-fix/#/admin/invalidturnlanes and making fixes 
such as


before:
   lanes=4
   oneway=yes
turn:lanes =left|through|through;right

after:
   lanes=4
   oneway=yes
   left|||

 The wiki at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn:lanes doesn't 
seem to match.   Is this new, and where is it documented?


 Thanks,

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Turn Lane Tagging?

[Rubén López Mendoza]

Hey Mikel,
can you send  the exact place where did you find the change?

We are working fixing the invalid turn lanes.

Thanks,
Ruben

2016-06-10 16:00 GMT-05:00 Mike N :

>
> I'm seeing a number of turn lane tagging fixes referencing
> http://osmlab.github.io/to-fix/#/admin/invalidturnlanes and making fixes
> such as
>
> before:
>lanes=4
>oneway=yes
> turn:lanes =left|through|through;right
>
> after:
>lanes=4
>oneway=yes
>left|||
>
>  The wiki at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn:lanes doesn't
> seem to match.   Is this new, and where is it documented?
>
>  Thanks,
>
> ___
> 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] Turn Lane Tagging?

[Mike N]

This is on the way http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316565385

On 6/10/2016 5:18 PM, Rubén López Mendoza wrote:

Hey Mikel,
can you send  the exact place where did you find the change?

We are working fixing the invalid turn lanes.

Thanks,
Ruben

2016-06-10 16:00 GMT-05:00 Mike N mailto:nice...@att.net>>:


I'm seeing a number of turn lane tagging fixes referencing
http://osmlab.github.io/to-fix/#/admin/invalidturnlanes and making
fixes such as

before:
   lanes=4
   oneway=yes
turn:lanes =left|through|through;right

after:
   lanes=4
   oneway=yes
   left|||

 The wiki at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn:lanes
doesn't seem to match.   Is this new, and where is it documented?

 Thanks,




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Turn Lane Tagging?

[James Mast]

I honestly think Mapbox needs to stop immediately editing ways that they think 
are invalid.  I've seen several ways that I've work hard on, know are valid, 
and are being damaged by edits.  The 'NONE' tag in turn lanes is COMPLETELY 
VALID

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/rickmastfan67/diary/38833

[http://www.openstreetmap.org/assets/osm_logo_256-835a859acf0d378e1d14e88b15e7b4b95211ccd41a2c061b1629cfbbb8deb697.png]

OpenStreetMap | rickmastfan67's diary | Gotta love people who don't look at the 
satillte imagery and ajacent ways and think that turn lanes need to be fixed. 
:/
www.openstreetmap.org
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use 
under an open license.


Here's just a few examples where the 'none' tag is COMPLETELY VALID to describe 
brand new lanes starting.  However, the Mapbox editors are ripping it out and 
turning the lane info into something completely invalid.

[http://www.openstreetmap.org/assets/osm_logo_256-835a859acf0d378e1d14e88b15e7b4b95211ccd41a2c061b1629cfbbb8deb697.png]

OpenStreetMap | Changeset: 
39935935
www.openstreetmap.org
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use 
under an open license.


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39934184 & 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39935935 & 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39937801

[http://www.openstreetmap.org/assets/osm_logo_256-835a859acf0d378e1d14e88b15e7b4b95211ccd41a2c061b1629cfbbb8deb697.png]

OpenStreetMap | Changeset: 
39937801
www.openstreetmap.org
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use 
under an open license.



Those are just 3 examples of ways I edited that have been damaged by not paying 
attention to adjacent ways.

[http://www.openstreetmap.org/assets/osm_logo_256-835a859acf0d378e1d14e88b15e7b4b95211ccd41a2c061b1629cfbbb8deb697.png]

OpenStreetMap | Changeset: 
39934184
www.openstreetmap.org
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use 
under an open license.




From: Mike N 
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 6:32:49 PM
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Turn Lane Tagging?


This is on the way http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316565385

On 6/10/2016 5:18 PM, Rubén López Mendoza wrote:
> Hey Mikel,
> can you send  the exact place where did you find the change?
>
> We are working fixing the invalid turn lanes.
>
> Thanks,
> Ruben
>
> 2016-06-10 16:00 GMT-05:00 Mike N  >:
>
>
> I'm seeing a number of turn lane tagging fixes referencing
> http://osmlab.github.io/to-fix/#/admin/invalidturnlanes and making
> fixes such as
>
> before:
>lanes=4
>oneway=yes
> turn:lanes =left|through|through;right
>
> after:
>lanes=4
>oneway=yes
>left|||
>
>  The wiki at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn:lanes
> doesn't seem to match.   Is this new, and where is it documented?
>
>  Thanks,
>


___
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] Turn Lane Tagging?

[Rubén López Mendoza]

Hi Mike

We are working in a big effort to add turnlanes in 30 cities in USA,
https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/180, and fix the invalid turn
lanes is part of this project.


That was a mistake, it was made using the satellite image , but we know the
local knowledge is more important, we've reverted the change
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39943975, for the next we will be
more carefully on same situation.

Thanks for reporting this issue,
Ruben

2016-06-10 17:32 GMT-05:00 Mike N :

>
> This is on the way http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316565385
>
> On 6/10/2016 5:18 PM, Rubén López Mendoza wrote:
>
>> Hey Mikel,
>> can you send  the exact place where did you find the change?
>>
>> We are working fixing the invalid turn lanes.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ruben
>>
>> 2016-06-10 16:00 GMT-05:00 Mike N > >:
>>
>>
>> I'm seeing a number of turn lane tagging fixes referencing
>> http://osmlab.github.io/to-fix/#/admin/invalidturnlanes and making
>> fixes such as
>>
>> before:
>>lanes=4
>>oneway=yes
>> turn:lanes =left|through|through;right
>>
>> after:
>>lanes=4
>>oneway=yes
>>left|||
>>
>>  The wiki at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn:lanes
>> doesn't seem to match.   Is this new, and where is it documented?
>>
>>  Thanks,
>>
>>
>
> ___
> 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] Turn Lane Tagging?

[Bryan Housel]

Hey James,

(Disclaimer:  I work for Mapbox, but I am not part of the team that is doing 
the lane tagging, and can’t speak for them).

I do need to know more about your concern:   Is `none` as part of a multiple 
turn lane option documented anywhere? 

I’m asking because we are adding turn lane tagging to iD this summer [1], so I 
have been thinking a lot about turn lanes, and I have read through a lot of 
wiki pages and discussion pages, and this is the first I’ve seen anybody using 
a tag like `turn:lanes:backward=none;slight_right`.

It’s really important to me that I get this as correct as possible, because I 
can’t have iD overwriting somebody’s valid lane tagging.  I’d like to be able 
to show visually what a tag like `none;slight_right` means on the ground.

Thanks, Bryan


[1] https://www.mapbox.com/blog/osm-gsoc-id/ 





> On Jun 10, 2016, at 7:45 PM, James Mast  wrote:
> 
> I honestly think Mapbox needs to stop immediately editing ways that they 
> think are invalid.  I've seen several ways that I've work hard on, know are 
> valid, and are being damaged by edits.  The 'NONE' tag in turn lanes is 
> COMPLETELY VALID
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/rickmastfan67/diary/38833 
> 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Turn Lane Tagging?

[Tod Fitch]

I haven’t seen “none;slight_right” as a value and am not sure how that should 
look different than “slight_right” by itself. However “none” is a value listed 
in the wiki [1] and I use it a lot as I find multiple vertical bars hard to 
manually count/edit but I can see and count things like “left|none|none” easier 
than “left||” when editing in JOSM.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn#Turning_indications

-Tod


> On Jun 10, 2016, at 6:07 PM, Bryan Housel  wrote:
> 
> Hey James,
> 
> (Disclaimer:  I work for Mapbox, but I am not part of the team that is doing 
> the lane tagging, and can’t speak for them).
> 
> I do need to know more about your concern:   Is `none` as part of a multiple 
> turn lane option documented anywhere? 
> 
> I’m asking because we are adding turn lane tagging to iD this summer [1], so 
> I have been thinking a lot about turn lanes, and I have read through a lot of 
> wiki pages and discussion pages, and this is the first I’ve seen anybody 
> using a tag like `turn:lanes:backward=none;slight_right`.
> 
> It’s really important to me that I get this as correct as possible, because I 
> can’t have iD overwriting somebody’s valid lane tagging.  I’d like to be able 
> to show visually what a tag like `none;slight_right` means on the ground.
> 
> Thanks, Bryan
> 
> 
> [1] https://www.mapbox.com/blog/osm-gsoc-id/ 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jun 10, 2016, at 7:45 PM, James Mast > > wrote:
>> 
>> I honestly think Mapbox needs to stop immediately editing ways that they 
>> think are invalid.  I've seen several ways that I've work hard on, know are 
>> valid, and are being damaged by edits.  The 'NONE' tag in turn lanes is 
>> COMPLETELY VALID
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/rickmastfan67/diary/38833 
>> 
> ___
> 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] Turn Lane Tagging?

[James Mast]

I've been using the "turn:lanes:*=none;slight_right" & "slight_left;none" tags 
to indicate which side a new lane has been added on a highway when going from 1 
to 2 lanes (sometimes "slight_left;slight_right" if the original lane is 
centered between the two new lanes).  How else are people to properly identify 
which side the new lane is being added to?  Take a look at this way ( 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/419799887 ) and take a look at the Bing 
imagery and look at the 'turn:lanes:forward' tag, and you'll see how this can, 
and would be valid.  It's allowing the router to know that a new lane is being 
added when combined with the next way ( 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/419799886 ) which has the "lanes:forward=2" 
tag.  It also allows the routers to properly tell people to get in the left 
lane if just ahead, there's a left turn they need to make.



-James

[http://www.openstreetmap.org/assets/osm_logo_256-835a859acf0d378e1d14e88b15e7b4b95211ccd41a2c061b1629cfbbb8deb697.png]

OpenStreetMap | Way: ?Washington Avenue? 
(?419799886?)
www.openstreetmap.org
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use 
under an open license.




From: Tod Fitch 
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 9:45:56 PM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Turn Lane Tagging?

I haven't seen "none;slight_right" as a value and am not sure how that should 
look different than "slight_right" by itself. However "none" is a value listed 
in the wiki [1] and I use it a lot as I find multiple vertical bars hard to 
manually count/edit but I can see and count things like "left|none|none" easier 
than "left||" when editing in JOSM.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn#Turning_indications

-Tod


On Jun 10, 2016, at 6:07 PM, Bryan Housel 
mailto:br...@7thposition.com>> wrote:

Hey James,

(Disclaimer:  I work for Mapbox, but I am not part of the team that is doing 
the lane tagging, and can't speak for them).

I do need to know more about your concern:   Is `none` as part of a multiple 
turn lane option documented anywhere?

I'm asking because we are adding turn lane tagging to iD this summer [1], so I 
have been thinking a lot about turn lanes, and I have read through a lot of 
wiki pages and discussion pages, and this is the first I've seen anybody using 
a tag like `turn:lanes:backward=none;slight_right`.

It's really important to me that I get this as correct as possible, because I 
can't have iD overwriting somebody's valid lane tagging.  I'd like to be able 
to show visually what a tag like `none;slight_right` means on the ground.

Thanks, Bryan


[1] https://www.mapbox.com/blog/osm-gsoc-id/




On Jun 10, 2016, at 7:45 PM, James Mast 
mailto:rickmastfa...@hotmail.com>> wrote:

I honestly think Mapbox needs to stop immediately editing ways that they think 
are invalid.  I've seen several ways that I've work hard on, know are valid, 
and are being damaged by edits.  The 'NONE' tag in turn lanes is COMPLETELY 
VALID
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/rickmastfan67/diary/38833

___
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] Turn Lane Tagging?

[Bryan Housel]

Thanks James for the explanation, it does make sense now. I hope I wasn’t the 
only person confused to see that tag..  

I appreciate all the work that you’ve put into adding lane details OSM.  My 
goal is to make lane tagging easy for everyone.  

That said, I think you might be the only person in the world tagging turn lanes 
with `none;something`.  I checked taginfo and it seems like for value 
combinations like `left;none` there are around 5 in the world.  Yes, that count 
is off because Mapbox data team deleted some of yours and they shouldn’t have, 
and it’s great that they apologized, but still we are talking about something 
that looks kind of like an error and hasn’t been discussed anywhere that I can 
find.

For what it’s worth, I have also seen a few people suggest tagging like 
`width:lanes:start = 4|0`  `width:lanes:end = 4|4` (e.g. in meters) to describe 
the shape of that segment of road that widens into the turn lanes. Taginfo also 
suggests that this is used like 10 times in the whole world, and I also haven’t 
found it discussed anywhere.

Maybe this is a situation where the tagging list can discuss and come to 
consensus and do the whole wiki proposal voting thing?

We still have several months before the turn lane tagging will be available in 
iD, so there is plenty of time to work out these details.  In the worst case, 
we just won’t support it, and instead show a ‘?’ in the interface to indicate 
that there is some unrecognized tag in that lane and we will leave it alone.

Thanks, Bryan




> On Jun 10, 2016, at 10:16 PM, James Mast  wrote:
> 
> I've been using the "turn:lanes:*=none;slight_right" & "slight_left;none" 
> tags to indicate which side a new lane has been added on a highway when going 
> from 1 to 2 lanes (sometimes "slight_left;slight_right" if the original lane 
> is centered between the two new lanes).  How else are people to properly 
> identify which side the new lane is being added to?  Take a look at this way 
> ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/419799887 
>  ) and take a look at the Bing 
> imagery and look at the 'turn:lanes:forward' tag, and you'll see how this 
> can, and would be valid.  It's allowing the router to know that a new lane is 
> being added when combined with the next way 
> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/419799886 
>  ) which has the 
> "lanes:forward=2" tag.  It also allows the routers to properly tell people to 
> get in the left lane if just ahead, there's a left turn they need to make.
> 
> From: Tod Fitch 
> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 9:45:56 PM
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Turn Lane Tagging?
>  
> I haven’t seen “none;slight_right” as a value and am not sure how that should 
> look different than “slight_right” by itself. However “none” is a value 
> listed in the wiki [1] and I use it a lot as I find multiple vertical bars 
> hard to manually count/edit but I can see and count things like 
> “left|none|none” easier than “left||” when editing in JOSM.
> 
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn#Turning_indications 
> 
> 
> -Tod
> 
> 
>> On Jun 10, 2016, at 6:07 PM, Bryan Housel > > wrote:
>> 
>> Hey James,
>> 
>> (Disclaimer:  I work for Mapbox, but I am not part of the team that is doing 
>> the lane tagging, and can’t speak for them).
>> 
>> I do need to know more about your concern:   Is `none` as part of a multiple 
>> turn lane option documented anywhere? 
>> 
>> I’m asking because we are adding turn lane tagging to iD this summer [1], so 
>> I have been thinking a lot about turn lanes, and I have read through a lot 
>> of wiki pages and discussion pages, and this is the first I’ve seen anybody 
>> using a tag like `turn:lanes:backward=none;slight_right`.
>> 
>> It’s really important to me that I get this as correct as possible, because 
>> I can’t have iD overwriting somebody’s valid lane tagging.  I’d like to be 
>> able to show visually what a tag like `none;slight_right` means on the 
>> ground.
>> 
>> Thanks, Bryan
>> 
>> 
>> [1] https://www.mapbox.com/blog/osm-gsoc-id/ 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jun 10, 2016, at 7:45 PM, James Mast >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> I honestly think Mapbox needs to stop immediately editing ways that they 
>>> think are invalid.  I've seen several ways that I've work hard on, know are 
>>> valid, and are being damaged by edits.  The 'NONE' tag in turn lanes is 
>>> COMPLETELY VALID
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/rickmastfan67/diary/38833 
>>> 
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listi

Re: [Tagging] Turn Lane Tagging?

[Marc Gemis]

I must admit I have never seen none;slight_right in any of the lane tagging.
None is only used in cases where there are no arrows on the ground for
that particular lane. Furthermore empty is also not a valid value.
Empty is only valid in e.g. maxspeed:lanes to indicate that the lane
has the default value set by maxspeed. Since there is no default
defined for turn:lanes, one has to specify a value for each lane.

Please take a look at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Dex2000#zeitliche_Auswertungen_Overpass-turbo-abfragen
It contains several OverPass queries for the validation of turn:lanes
(the page is in german, but search for turn:lanes)
Those queries were used by the German community for their week
assignment on turn:lane mapping.

In order to express that 1 lane becomes 2 lanes, one could use the
proposal http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/transit,
unfortunately imagic is no longer active on OpenStreetMap.

regards

m ( a heavy lane mapper from Belgium).

On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Bryan Housel  wrote:
> Thanks James for the explanation, it does make sense now. I hope I wasn’t
> the only person confused to see that tag..
>
> I appreciate all the work that you’ve put into adding lane details OSM.  My
> goal is to make lane tagging easy for everyone.
>
> That said, I think you might be the only person in the world tagging turn
> lanes with `none;something`.  I checked taginfo and it seems like for value
> combinations like `left;none` there are around 5 in the world.  Yes, that
> count is off because Mapbox data team deleted some of yours and they
> shouldn’t have, and it’s great that they apologized, but still we are
> talking about something that looks kind of like an error and hasn’t been
> discussed anywhere that I can find.
>
> For what it’s worth, I have also seen a few people suggest tagging like
> `width:lanes:start = 4|0`  `width:lanes:end = 4|4` (e.g. in meters) to
> describe the shape of that segment of road that widens into the turn lanes.
> Taginfo also suggests that this is used like 10 times in the whole world,
> and I also haven’t found it discussed anywhere.
>
> Maybe this is a situation where the tagging list can discuss and come to
> consensus and do the whole wiki proposal voting thing?
>
> We still have several months before the turn lane tagging will be available
> in iD, so there is plenty of time to work out these details.  In the worst
> case, we just won’t support it, and instead show a ‘?’ in the interface to
> indicate that there is some unrecognized tag in that lane and we will leave
> it alone.
>
> Thanks, Bryan
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 10, 2016, at 10:16 PM, James Mast  wrote:
>
> I've been using the "turn:lanes:*=none;slight_right" & "slight_left;none"
> tags to indicate which side a new lane has been added on a highway when
> going from 1 to 2 lanes (sometimes "slight_left;slight_right" if the
> original lane is centered between the two new lanes).  How else are people
> to properly identify which side the new lane is being added to?  Take a look
> at this way ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/419799887 ) and take a look
> at the Bing imagery and look at the 'turn:lanes:forward' tag, and you'll see
> how this can, and would be valid.  It's allowing the router to know that a
> new lane is being added when combined with the next way
> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/419799886 ) which has the
> "lanes:forward=2" tag.  It also allows the routers to properly tell people
> to get in the left lane if just ahead, there's a left turn they need to
> make.
>
> 
> From: Tod Fitch 
> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 9:45:56 PM
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Turn Lane Tagging?
>
> I haven’t seen “none;slight_right” as a value and am not sure how that
> should look different than “slight_right” by itself. However “none” is a
> value listed in the wiki [1] and I use it a lot as I find multiple vertical
> bars hard to manually count/edit but I can see and count things like
> “left|none|none” easier than “left||” when editing in JOSM.
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn#Turning_indications
>
> -Tod
>
>
> On Jun 10, 2016, at 6:07 PM, Bryan Housel  wrote:
>
> Hey James,
>
> (Disclaimer:  I work for Mapbox, but I am not part of the team that is doing
> the lane tagging, and can’t speak for them).
>
> I do need to know more about your concern:   Is `none` as part of a multiple
> turn lane option documented anywhere?
>
> I’m asking because we are adding turn lane tagging to iD this summer [1], so
> I have been thinking a lot about turn lanes, and I have read through a lot
> of wiki pages and discussion pages, and this is the first I’ve seen anybody
> using a tag like `turn:lanes:backward=none;slight_right`.
>
> It’s really important to me that I get this as correct as possible, because
> I can’t have iD overwriting somebody’s valid lane tagging.  I’d like to be
> able to show visua