Re: [Tagging] marking shop as street vendor

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

How about "shops", or at least traders, that have nothing to do with food,
or selling a physical item?

We have a number of surf schools (learn how to ride a surfboard) that
operate out of a van & set up in the same spot every day. At days end, they
pack everything up & go home.

eg
https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.128146,153.4850378,3a,28.2y,336.12h,88.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdIpLqROTmsfmSEHOWWOB3A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

So street_vendor=yes

amenity=surf_school (which I don't believe actually exists? :-))?

Thanks

Graeme

On 26 May 2018 at 06:38, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 25. May 2018, at 19:59, Mateusz Konieczny 
> wrote:
> >
> > I attempted to improve definition, and I ended with
> >
> > "shop that is completely or almost completely dismantled outside its
> opening hours."
>
>
> the term “street” also suggests the shop is outside
>
>
> cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> 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] RFC proposed water property key 'ephemeral '

[Warin]

On 25/05/18 19:42, Christoph Hormann wrote:


On Friday 25 May 2018, Warin wrote:

Intermittent does not equal ephemeral.

So you have said repeatedly.

I know this is hard for native English speakers but you need to accept
that tags in OSM do not generally mean what the English language terms
they use mean.


The English language has a lot of words, the choice should be made for matching 
the required meaning with a word.



intermittent=yes in OSM currently means quite precisely what the OSM
wiki says it means:

"The intermittent=* key is used to indicate that a body of water does
not permanently contain water."

This includes at least a few 100k features you would define as
ephemeral.  You can't change that with a proposal.

There is a reason why such a broad and undifferentiated tag has become
popular in OSM despite there being more differentiated concepts in
existence:  Because more differentiation here is in many cases
practically non-verifiable.  No matter if mappers observe on the ground
or via images, the usual case is they see the waterbody in a dry state
but see clear indications of recent water cover or water flow hence
they can assume a non-permanent waterbody.  This is what you can
currently indicate via intermittent=yes.

But requiring mappers to guess what kind of time pattern the change from
dry to water cover follows does not work.  Offering this as an option
in case mappers have more in depth knowledge is a good idea, i said
that in the past.  But making it mandatory is bound to fail.


I am trying to tightly define ephemeral so that it cannot be confused or used 
with with intermittent nor with seasonal.
If ephemeral is taken as being equal to intermittent than there is no point in 
having the key.
If a mapper cannot determine that something is ephemeral  then don't use 
it! Simple.
Leave ephemeral for those that can determine it.
 
I do not require that all mappers use it.

That would be like having all mappers not use sport=multi but detail each sport 
using the ; as a separator.
There is no requirement to use or not use a tag. By providing the tag the data 
can have more detail when that detail is avalible.


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

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[Warin]

On 25/05/18 21:31, Peter Elderson wrote:

It's an example. But we are not alone...


Same in Sydney Australia - billed on entry and exit points .. not on how 
long you have been inside the  transport system system.

Some 'homeless' use it as a warm dry resting place, doing long round trips.


2018-05-25 12:33 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer >:


2018-05-25 12:29 GMT+02:00 Peter Elderson >:

How would that be applicable in Nederland, where PT uses one
type of chipcard for all voyages and payment is based on
distance travelled between check-in and check-out, no matter
the route or vehicle?



isn't this offtopic? Why would we care if the Dutch PT tariffing
can deal with roundtrips or not?

Cheers,
Martin

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





--
Vr gr Peter Elderson


___
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] highway=service // public road?

[marc marc]

Le 25. 05. 18 à 23:09, Greg Troxel a écrit :
> "place you can drive that is not a legal road".

how did you known the owner of a road ?
I map several highway=service + service=driveaway
sometimes I can guess where the line is between private and public 
space, but in many cases not.
and I don't see what it will bring to divide a 10m road in 2 to say that 
there are 5m on public space and 5m on private space
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=service // public road?

[Greg Troxel]

Martin Koppenhoefer  writes:

>> and track (for - due to history - public accessible rural driveways) is 
>> simply driven by reality.
>
> track is about agricultural and forestry usage, I did not know it required 
> public accessibility, does it?

In my usage (and US norms), tracks in agricultural/forestry usage, and
similar do not imply public accessibility.

I think the root of the problem, besides overloading too many concepts
into tags, is that service has two subtypes:

  things that are not public/legal roads, like driveways (and some alleys)

  public alleys, which are legal rights of way, usually with a sign
  "Public Alley 4309", but are too small to seem like a regular road.
  But legally they are like a regular road.

The fix is to add highway=alley, for things that are too small but
nevertheless fit the legal definition of a road, and then have service
be for "place you can drive that is not a legal road".

An alternative is to document that highway=service service=alley is a
legal road, and special among service.


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

Re: [Tagging] marking shop as street vendor

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 25. May 2018, at 19:59, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> I attempted to improve definition, and I ended with
> 
> "shop that is completely or almost completely dismantled outside its opening 
> hours."


the term “street” also suggests the shop is outside 


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

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 25. May 2018, at 13:43, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> 
> This seems badly named, or badly described. A vehicle that goes from A
> to B, then returns along the reverse route to A, is said in British
> English to perform a "round trip".


from what I learnt in the dictionary I agree with this, probably badly named. 
circular_route would be a better term.

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

Re: [Tagging] how to tag place where horse-drawn carriages wait for tourists?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 25. May 2018, at 19:54, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> But what about donkeys? What about electric vehicles that offer very
> similar services - trip across city.
> 
> amenity=tourism_ride
> tourism_ride=horse


are those golf carts driving on routes they decide (that are programmed) or can 
the customer decide where to go? 

Would open tourist tour busses qualify for your tag?

https://hohobassets.isango.com/productimages/product/11566/budapest_25745_1.jpg


You can find them in most cities with tourism, if I were to create a tag for 
these I would map stops and a route, maybe a ticket office if there is.

I would not want to tag every stop as amenity=tourism_ride, while it could work 
for the ticket office. 

Btw, I know the depot of the local horse carriages, should it be related to the 
places where they look for customers? ;-)


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

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[Peter Elderson]

As to the term roundtrip, I have inderstood this completely wrong, probably
because the Dutch term Rondwandeling literally translates as roundtrip. Now
that I've been set straight, I think the correct meaning should be
documented on the wiki page. The bracketed "explanation" (circular route)
should be removed.
The correct meaning is something like:
roundtrip=yes means you can return to the starting point by (almost) the
same route and transport method.

Personally I would stay away from payment, embarking/boarding, ticket types
etcetera. If I can cross the road, get another ticket and return tot the
starting point in another bus, I would still consider it roundtrip=yes.

Which in PT would be the default, I think.. So you would only tag
roundtrip=no if you can't return the same way.
I don't know enough about PT tagging to know if that's useful in that
context. If so, a use case would be nice on the wiki page.

With hiking routes, this meaning of the tag is not useful, I would say.
Current use is, sadly, opposite the actual meaning.

>From the Dutch forum I get that they think it's important to tag circular
routes as such, even when they are geographically not circular routes
(circular in the sense that you just keep following the markings and then
you end up in the same place you started.) Tagging geographically circular
hiking roads as non-circular, I can't think of a use case, but that's fine.

I agree that circular=yes|no is confusing, because a special meaning of
circular in the context of a route is meant, not literally circular in
shape. Route:circular=yes is cool with me.

The other important attribute for the Dutch is oneway or not, for hiking
and biking that means that the waymarks are onesided. That happens more
than you would think! oneway=yes in combination with the correct sorting
direction should be enough I think?

In sum, just one additional key needed, and of course correction tagging of
roundtrip=yes to route:circular=yes.

Probably have to adapt some validation and detection tools, too.




2018-05-25 15:53 GMT+02:00 Johnparis :

> I would generally agree with all your points.
>
> A slightly more formal definition (though not fully rigorous) for me would
> be: a circular route is one in which, from any boarding area, you can
> return to the same boarding area without being forced to disembark.
>
> I say boarding area rather than point because of the fairly frequent case
> where the dropoff and pickup points serve the same area (such as a train
> station) but are not necessarily identical.
>
> The example I gave in the other thread, I believe, is marketed that way
> because people are indeed supposed to leave the bus, though I would imagine
> that since most people use weekly or monthly passes, most drivers would
> probably look the other way.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8140184
>
> Thorsten's description is good, but technically pretty much any bus route
> is a roundtrip (circular) topologically. A typical route is:
>
> A -> B -> C -> (forced disembark) -> C' -> B' -> A' -> (forced disembark)
> -> A ...
>
> Typically B and B' are on opposite sides of a two-way street. That's the
> simplest example. Topologically it's the same as a circular route, because
> the bus makes a U turn at each end and continues. So it's a question of
> marketing and general public understanding, more than mathematical rigor.
> But the variations are bewildering.
>
> Personally, I track circular routes for validation purposes. As I
> understand Public Transport version 2, every route variant requires a route
> master, even if the master has only one variant. So masters with one
> variant are oddballs; most routes have at least two. A master with only one
> variant is typically either (a) a circular route (so I mark them in my
> private database), (b) a PTv1 route (thus needing an upgrade), or (c) an
> error (thus needing further investigation).
>
> I would mark the OSM example above in my data as a circular route, so I
> won't flag it as needing further work, but it would not meet my more formal
> definition of a circular route, because of the forced disembark, so I would
> not consider it as qualifying for a "roundtrip=yes" tag.
>
> If there is sentiment to change the name of the tag, I would suggest
> "route:circular=yes". (There are "only" 25000 in the OSM data, so it might
> be manageable.) I don't like "circular=yes" because it's so vague.
> (example: building=silo circular=yes ?)
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 1:23 PM, Peter Elderson 
> wrote:
>
>> Oops, I didn't think this topic would generate so much response, even
>> though I charged a bit in the first mail.
>>
>> Let me try to make some sense of it. I have seen enough use cases, I
>> think.
>>
>> a. There are two use cases which use the actual definition on the wiki: a
>> geagraphically closed route, start-point=end-point. One is about marking
>> routes as roundtrips based on JOSM validation, 

Re: [Tagging] marking shop as street vendor

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 7:58 PM, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> 25. May 2018 20:39 by craigw84+...@gmail.com:
>
> I agree but I have no good idea for a tag name.  Can you propose something?
>

mobile_amenity=* maybe.  Or mobile=yes + amenity=*.  I think I prefer the
latter,
because it uses an existing tag and allows mobile=yes/no in combination.

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

Re: [Tagging] how to tag place where horse-drawn carriages wait for tourists?

[Erkin Alp Güney]

No? Taxi is tagged amenity=taxi access=no motorcar=yes.


25-05-2018 21:29 tarihinde Johnparis yazdı:
>
> >What about electric vehicles that offer very
> similar services - trip across city.
>
> A taxi?
>
> Seriously I don't know what you mean.
>
> I have seen similar services (tuk tuks) but they're not exclusively
> for tourists. 
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 25, 2018, 19:57 Erkin Alp Güney  > wrote:
>
> highway=car_stop
> car=yes
>
>
> 25-05-2018 20:54 tarihinde Mateusz Konieczny yazdı:
> >
> > 24. May 2018 23:14 by matkoni...@tutanota.com
> 
> > >:
> >
> >     It is quite typical tourism attraction - tourist may rent
> >     carriage for a trip.
> >
> >     In many cases there are designated points
> >     where carriages wait for tourists wishing
> >     to rent them. Is there a tag to mark them?
> >
> >     I encountered some naked tourism=attraction nodes
> >     with just names and no main key and I
> >     want to fix them.
> >
> >
> > My first thought was
> >
> > amenity=horse_drawn_carriages
> >
> > But what about donkeys? What about electric vehicles that offer very
> > similar services - trip across city.
> >
> > amenity=tourism_ride
> > tourism_ride=horse
> >
> > But it would not make clear that it is place where you may
> immediately
> > enter ride (it is not a place to book it etc).
> >
> > Maybe amenity=city_ride?
> >
> > I am not happy about name of any tag that I proposed so better
> suggestions
> > are welcomed.
> >  
> >
> >
>
>


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

Re: [Tagging] marking shop as street vendor

[Mateusz Konieczny]

25. May 2018 20:39 by craigw84+...@gmail.com :

> Would be good to map them in some way. They are not really "street vendors".
>




I agree but I have no good idea for a tag name.  Can you propose something?




If there is nothing reasonable it can be left for someone else to invent a 
separate

similar tag.

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

Re: [Tagging] how to tag place where horse-drawn carriages wait for tourists?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

25. May 2018 20:29 by ok...@johnfreed.com :


>
> >What about electric vehicles that offer very
> similar services - trip across city.
> A taxi?
> Seriously I don't know what you mean.




Sorry, I thought about something more specific.

There are places with waiting cars offering guided tour for tourists. 





Example image from Kraków: 





https://d-nm.ppstatic.pl/k/r/54/a4/51a32f37a6cb0_o.jpg?1420066800 



https://www.google.com/search?q=krak%C3%B3w+meleksy=isch=X#imgrc=5PWWS_gfAheJtM
 
:




(more can be found by searching for )

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

Re: [Tagging] marking shop as street vendor

[Craig Wallace]

On 2018-05-25 19:31, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

I forgot how many different objects qualified, I now listed  some


"It includes for example food trucks that are not permanently staying 
in one place,


products sold from cart, portable table, tent, or by somebody holding 
products for sale."



at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/street_vendor%3Dyes#Rationale


There's also mobile banks or mobile libraries in some places. ie a van 
that stops in particular places, usually with a regular timetable.

Would be good to map them in some way. They are not really "street vendors".



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

Re: [Tagging] marking shop as street vendor

[Mateusz Konieczny]

25. May 2018 20:09 by pla16...@gmail.com :


> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 6:59 PM, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>>   >> I attempted to improve definition, and I ended with
>> "shop that is completely or almost completely dismantled outside its opening 
>> hours."
>>
>
> What I have used in the past, because it was suggested to me by somebody else 
> who
> had used it, was "building=trailer + shop=whatever" for two "food vans."  
> They're
> towed into place at the start of the day and towed away at night.  Or might 
> even be
> left in place overnight.  Doesn't work for something like a portable table or 
> a
> dismantleable market stall.
>




I forgot how many different objects qualified, I now listed  some




"It includes for example food trucks that are not permanently staying in one 
place, 


products sold from cart, portable table, tent, or by somebody holding products 
for sale."




at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/street_vendor%3Dyes#Rationale
 


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

Re: [Tagging] how to tag place where horse-drawn carriages wait for tourists?

[Johnparis]

>What about electric vehicles that offer very
similar services - trip across city.

A taxi?

Seriously I don't know what you mean.

I have seen similar services (tuk tuks) but they're not exclusively for
tourists.



On Fri, May 25, 2018, 19:57 Erkin Alp Güney  wrote:

> highway=car_stop
> car=yes
>
>
> 25-05-2018 20:54 tarihinde Mateusz Konieczny yazdı:
> >
> > 24. May 2018 23:14 by matkoni...@tutanota.com
> > :
> >
> > It is quite typical tourism attraction - tourist may rent
> > carriage for a trip.
> >
> > In many cases there are designated points
> > where carriages wait for tourists wishing
> > to rent them. Is there a tag to mark them?
> >
> > I encountered some naked tourism=attraction nodes
> > with just names and no main key and I
> > want to fix them.
> >
> >
> > My first thought was
> >
> > amenity=horse_drawn_carriages
> >
> > But what about donkeys? What about electric vehicles that offer very
> > similar services - trip across city.
> >
> > amenity=tourism_ride
> > tourism_ride=horse
> >
> > But it would not make clear that it is place where you may immediately
> > enter ride (it is not a place to book it etc).
> >
> > Maybe amenity=city_ride?
> >
> > I am not happy about name of any tag that I proposed so better
> suggestions
> > are welcomed.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] how to tag place where horse-drawn carriages wait for tourists?

[Johnparis]

As I read the tourism=* page, it seems that tourism=attraction is for
things (like waterfalls) that exist independent of tourism that might
interest a tourist.

Things like theme parks that exist only for tourists would get a tourism=*
tag.

So I suggest tourism=carriage_ride as the main tag.

I don't think it's an amenity as I understand the usage in OSM (things like
pharmacies that aren't per se for tourists but might be useful to one).

Best,

John




On Fri, May 25, 2018, 19:55 Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

>
> 24. May 2018 23:14 by matkoni...@tutanota.com:
>
> It is quite typical tourism attraction - tourist may rent
> carriage for a trip.
>
> In many cases there are designated points
> where carriages wait for tourists wishing
> to rent them. Is there a tag to mark them?
>
> I encountered some naked tourism=attraction nodes
> with just names and no main key and I
> want to fix them.
>
>
> My first thought was
>
> amenity=horse_drawn_carriages
>
> But what about donkeys? What about electric vehicles that offer very
> similar services - trip across city.
>
> amenity=tourism_ride
> tourism_ride=horse
>
> But it would not make clear that it is place where you may immediately
> enter ride (it is not a place to book it etc).
>
> Maybe amenity=city_ride?
>
> I am not happy about name of any tag that I proposed so better suggestions
> are welcomed.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] marking shop as street vendor

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 6:59 PM, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> I attempted to improve definition, and I ended with
>
> "shop that is completely or almost completely dismantled outside its
> opening hours."
>

What I have used in the past, because it was suggested to me by somebody
else who
had used it, was "building=trailer + shop=whatever" for two "food vans."
They're
towed into place at the start of the day and towed away at night.  Or might
even be
left in place overnight.  Doesn't work for something like a portable table
or a
dismantleable market stall.

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

Re: [Tagging] marking shop as street vendor

[Mateusz Konieczny]

I attempted to improve definition, and I ended with
"shop that is completely or almost completely dismantled outside its opening 
hours."

I also created 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/street_vendor%3Dyes 


23. May 2018 13:21 by dieterdre...@gmail.com :


> 2018-05-23 8:17 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com 
> > >:
>
>>   
>> Good question. At least for me "entire shop structure gets regularly 
>> removed", so
>>
>> permanent kiosk that is not a solid building would not be one,
>>
>> plaid/roof that gets removed would count as a street vendor.
>>   
>
>
> I know some cases that for me are clearly street vendors, but would require 
> you amend your definition (because the structure is not removed):> these are 
> "light" wooden booths, which are used to sell books during the day, but 
> aren't removed (the books are removed). Similar to some kind of fleamarket 
> (also these have sometimes "semi-permanent" light structures), e.g.: 
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=41.902814=12.468088=17=JIjxIVtTBITaTY5ZP_ilvw=photo
>  
> 
>
>
> For reference, here is an image of a vehicle based street vendor:> 
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=41.902601=12.467558=17=ZHd6LnmlJJgJJv7W6DVaXw=photo
>  
> 
>
> Cheers,> Martin
>___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] how to tag place where horse-drawn carriages wait for tourists?

[Erkin Alp Güney]

highway=car_stop
car=yes


25-05-2018 20:54 tarihinde Mateusz Konieczny yazdı:
>
> 24. May 2018 23:14 by matkoni...@tutanota.com
> :
>
> It is quite typical tourism attraction - tourist may rent
> carriage for a trip.
>
> In many cases there are designated points
> where carriages wait for tourists wishing
> to rent them. Is there a tag to mark them?
>
> I encountered some naked tourism=attraction nodes
> with just names and no main key and I
> want to fix them.
>
>
> My first thought was
>
> amenity=horse_drawn_carriages
>
> But what about donkeys? What about electric vehicles that offer very
> similar services - trip across city.
>
> amenity=tourism_ride
> tourism_ride=horse
>
> But it would not make clear that it is place where you may immediately
> enter ride (it is not a place to book it etc).
>
> Maybe amenity=city_ride?
>
> I am not happy about name of any tag that I proposed so better suggestions
> are welcomed.
>  
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] how to tag place where horse-drawn carriages wait for tourists?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

24. May 2018 23:14 by matkoni...@tutanota.com :


> It is quite typical tourism attraction - tourist may rent
> carriage for a trip.
>
> In many cases there are designated points
> where carriages wait for tourists wishing
> to rent them. Is there a tag to mark them?
>
> I encountered some naked tourism=attraction nodes
> with just names and no main key and I
> want to fix them.




My first thought was

amenity=horse_drawn_carriages

But what about donkeys? What about electric vehicles that offer very
similar services - trip across city.

amenity=tourism_ride
tourism_ride=horse

But it would not make clear that it is place where you may immediately
enter ride (it is not a place to book it etc).

Maybe amenity=city_ride?

I am not happy about name of any tag that I proposed so better suggestions
are welcomed.
 

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

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[Johnparis]

I would generally agree with all your points.

A slightly more formal definition (though not fully rigorous) for me would
be: a circular route is one in which, from any boarding area, you can
return to the same boarding area without being forced to disembark.

I say boarding area rather than point because of the fairly frequent case
where the dropoff and pickup points serve the same area (such as a train
station) but are not necessarily identical.

The example I gave in the other thread, I believe, is marketed that way
because people are indeed supposed to leave the bus, though I would imagine
that since most people use weekly or monthly passes, most drivers would
probably look the other way.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8140184

Thorsten's description is good, but technically pretty much any bus route
is a roundtrip (circular) topologically. A typical route is:

A -> B -> C -> (forced disembark) -> C' -> B' -> A' -> (forced disembark)
-> A ...

Typically B and B' are on opposite sides of a two-way street. That's the
simplest example. Topologically it's the same as a circular route, because
the bus makes a U turn at each end and continues. So it's a question of
marketing and general public understanding, more than mathematical rigor.
But the variations are bewildering.

Personally, I track circular routes for validation purposes. As I
understand Public Transport version 2, every route variant requires a route
master, even if the master has only one variant. So masters with one
variant are oddballs; most routes have at least two. A master with only one
variant is typically either (a) a circular route (so I mark them in my
private database), (b) a PTv1 route (thus needing an upgrade), or (c) an
error (thus needing further investigation).

I would mark the OSM example above in my data as a circular route, so I
won't flag it as needing further work, but it would not meet my more formal
definition of a circular route, because of the forced disembark, so I would
not consider it as qualifying for a "roundtrip=yes" tag.

If there is sentiment to change the name of the tag, I would suggest
"route:circular=yes". (There are "only" 25000 in the OSM data, so it might
be manageable.) I don't like "circular=yes" because it's so vague.
(example: building=silo circular=yes ?)




On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 1:23 PM, Peter Elderson  wrote:

> Oops, I didn't think this topic would generate so much response, even
> though I charged a bit in the first mail.
>
> Let me try to make some sense of it. I have seen enough use cases, I think.
>
> a. There are two use cases which use the actual definition on the wiki: a
> geagraphically closed route, start-point=end-point. One is about marking
> routes as roundtrips based on JOSM validation, then monitoring if the chain
> had broken so you can fix it. The other is marking an unfinished  route as
> roundtrip in order to detect it for completion. To me, this is almost the
> same use case.
>
> b. A range of use cases are opposite: a geographical roundtrip has to be
> regarded as non-roundtrip, or a geographical non-roundtrip has to be
> regarded as a roundtrip anyway.
>
> Could we agree that the wiki should cover b.?
> I think this does not exclude a.
>
> If anyone judges that a geographical roundtrip should explicitly be tagged
> as roundtrip=yes, ok.
>  do think that when one of the use cases under b. applies, then you have
> an exception to what the map says, with a reason. Then this takes
> precedence over the geographical default.
> This could be a geographical roundtrip tagged as roundtrip=no for whatever
> reason, or a geographical non-roundtrip tagged as roundtrip=yes, for
> whatever reason. It would be nice to know the reason, of course. For my
> part, "everybody/nobody here calls this a circular line" is reason enough.
>
> Could we agree on that too?
>
> If so, all that remains is add this to the wiki.
>
> --
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>
> ___
> 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] roundtrip

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Peter Elderson  wrote:

> Looked it up, of course. Definitions are not that clear-cut. Generally,
> round trip means that you return where you came from, some definitions say
> along the same route, some say mostly along the same route but not
> necessarily. I think the less strict definition covers the usage on osm,
> except for the term "ciircular", best avoid that.
>

I'm not an expert on bus routes.  But I am British, so I can tell you one
Briton's (imperfect) understanding
based on how I've seen these terms used.

A circular route encompasses an area whereas an ordinary route does not.
An ordinary route
may be A->B->C->B->A whereas a circular is A->B->C->D->A, where B and D are
not close to
each other ("close" is vaguely defined).  It's not clear because all buses
in my town are forced,
by the one-way system in the town centre, to loop around the town centre.
Technically all
the routes are circular (because of that one-way system) but I'd regard
only one of them
as such.  The rest are shaped more like ---O where the "O" is
the one-way
system.

A round trip has only one terminus (and that may only be a terminus at the
start and
end of the timetable.  A non-roundtrip route is A->B->C [alight] [embark]
A->B->C
whereas a roundtrip would be A->B->C->B->A or, in the case of a circular,
A->B->C->D->A.  In the case of a circular roundtrip you can get on at B and
off
at D even if C is the furthest point from A.  In either case you can get on
at A and get
off at A without having to alight in between.  If you are required to
alight at C
then it is a return journey, not a round trip.

In the case of tour buses or boat tours, there is not only one terminus but
that
terminus may also be the only point at which it is possible to alight or
disembark.
Such routes also tend to be circulars so that you don't see the same
scenery twice.

Whether or not the tags were intended to make those distinctions or
something else
is another matter.  Having tags that don't match common British usage is not
helpful.  OTOH, I'm not sure what mapping benefit there is in tags with
those
meanings.

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

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[Peter Elderson]

Looked it up, of course. Definitions are not that clear-cut. Generally,
round trip means that you return where you came from, some definitions say
along the same route, some say mostly along the same route but not
necessarily. I think the less strict definition covers the usage on osm,
except for the term "ciircular", best avoid that.

Still, to a Brit "round trip" would suggest two-directional, but the usage
of roundtrip on OSM implies one-directional, when talking about public
transport.

I don't think I can change that, I'm afraid, but if you want to have a
go...?

2018-05-25 13:43 GMT+02:00 Andy Mabbett :

> On 25 May 2018 at 06:48, Peter Elderson  wrote:
>
> > What is the use of the key:roundtrip?
> > Explanations just say
> >> roundtrip=yes/no(optional) Use roundtrip=no to indicate that a route
> goes from
> >> A to B. Use roundtrip=yes to indicate that the start and finish of the
> route are
> >> at the same location (circular route).
>
> This seems badly named, or badly described. A vehicle that goes from A
> to B, then returns along the reverse route to A, is said in British
> English to perform a "round trip".
>
> A vehicle that completes a (approximately) circular route to arrive
> back at its starting point is NOT called a "round trip", whether or
> not it performs that circuit just once, or multiple times.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=service // public road?

[Florian Lohoff]

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 11:54:13AM +0900, John Willis wrote:
> > On May 25, 2018, at 2:29 AM, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> > 
> > Interestingly the key:highway wiki page lists unclassified as
> > the lowest classification of a road:
> 
> That’s weird - since service=alley seems to be the lowest class, being 
> service and all - yet "alley” is a public road. 
> 
> I personally think that the idea of “alley” (urban or rural) is a great 
> concept. 

But the original wording for service made it something completely
different. Usage in parts of the world seem to contradict this (maybe)
and there might be need for "something even smaller" than unclassified.

IMHO the usage of service for some "official small public road" breaks
the concept of a special way not in the public road network, but on
private property. IMHO service=alley way a bad concept - something
like highway=alley would probably be much better.

> So I map them as such, and will continue to do so, under the idea of “alley”.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
 UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


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

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[Peter Elderson]

I've looked up the Circle Line in London. It is not circular in any way!

2018-05-25 14:00 GMT+02:00 Peter Elderson :

> I think circular is used to indicate that the vehicle in the end returns
> at the same point. I don't think the actual shape of the route matters. How
> would it be called in British Enhglish if the vehicle returns at the same
> point, only by a different route, in order to serve more boarding points?
>
> 2018-05-25 13:43 GMT+02:00 Andy Mabbett :
>
>> On 25 May 2018 at 06:48, Peter Elderson  wrote:
>>
>> > What is the use of the key:roundtrip?
>> > Explanations just say
>> >> roundtrip=yes/no(optional) Use roundtrip=no to indicate that a route
>> goes from
>> >> A to B. Use roundtrip=yes to indicate that the start and finish of the
>> route are
>> >> at the same location (circular route).
>>
>> This seems badly named, or badly described. A vehicle that goes from A
>> to B, then returns along the reverse route to A, is said in British
>> English to perform a "round trip".
>>
>> A vehicle that completes a (approximately) circular route to arrive
>> back at its starting point is NOT called a "round trip", whether or
>> not it performs that circuit just once, or multiple times.
>>
>> --
>> Andy Mabbett
>> @pigsonthewing
>> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>



-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[Peter Elderson]

I think circular is used to indicate that the vehicle in the end returns at
the same point. I don't think the actual shape of the route matters. How
would it be called in British Enhglish if the vehicle returns at the same
point, only by a different route, in order to serve more boarding points?

2018-05-25 13:43 GMT+02:00 Andy Mabbett :

> On 25 May 2018 at 06:48, Peter Elderson  wrote:
>
> > What is the use of the key:roundtrip?
> > Explanations just say
> >> roundtrip=yes/no(optional) Use roundtrip=no to indicate that a route
> goes from
> >> A to B. Use roundtrip=yes to indicate that the start and finish of the
> route are
> >> at the same location (circular route).
>
> This seems badly named, or badly described. A vehicle that goes from A
> to B, then returns along the reverse route to A, is said in British
> English to perform a "round trip".
>
> A vehicle that completes a (approximately) circular route to arrive
> back at its starting point is NOT called a "round trip", whether or
> not it performs that circuit just once, or multiple times.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[osm.tagging]

If the route as a whole is a roundtrip, then exactly that point.

 

Let’s assume the route has stops:

 

A1

B

C

D

E

A2

 

A1 and A2 may be exactly the same point or close to each other, but that 
doesn’t matter, because for a roundtrip route, I would expect the vehicle to 
visits:

 

A1

B

C

D

E

A2

A1 (if different from A2)

B

C

D

E

A2

…

 

And so on, until end of service (of the vehicle)

 

If I get on at B, and it’s a roundtrip route, I would expect to be able to 
later get off at B again.

 

From: Peter Elderson  
Sent: Friday, 25 May 2018 20:40
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

 

Exactly that point or in the vicinity? No matter the payment, ticketing and 
boarding rules?

 

2018-05-25 12:32 GMT+02:00  >:

Or to express it even more general:

 

If you start at any stop, and remain on the vehicle, you will at some later 
point get back to the stop you started on.

 

From: osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
   > 
Sent: Friday, 25 May 2018 20:23
To: 'Tag discussion, strategy and related tools'  >
Subject: Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

 

I interpret roundtrip as “you can get from a stop to another stop that’s 
*before* it in the list of stops by simply remaining in the vehicle”.

 

You can have routes where the start and stop are the same location, but this is 
not true (as the vehicle always goes on to serve another route after arriving 
at the last stop).

 

From: Peter Elderson  > 
Sent: Friday, 25 May 2018 15:48
To: Tagging list OSM  >
Subject: [Tagging] roundtrip

 

What is the use of the key:roundtrip? 

Explanations just say  


  roundtrip=yes/no

(optional) Use roundtrip=no to indicate that a route goes from A to B. Use 
roundtrip=yes to indicate that the start and finish of the route are at the 
same location (circular route).

It seems rather pointless to tag an obvious a-b route with roundtrip=no, or an 
abvious roundtrip with roundtrip=yes. 

Why would you tag an a-b route as roundtrip=yes, or a closed route as 
roundtrip=no?


 

The only use case I can imagine is when a roundtrip has one ore more access 
ways which are included in the route relation. But even then, what is the 
purpose? 

 

Allowing apps to select only "official" roundtrips? Is that a valid reason for 
tagging?

 

-- 

Peter Elderson


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





 

-- 

Vr gr Peter Elderson

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

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[Andy Mabbett]

On 25 May 2018 at 06:48, Peter Elderson  wrote:

> What is the use of the key:roundtrip?
> Explanations just say
>> roundtrip=yes/no(optional) Use roundtrip=no to indicate that a route goes 
>> from
>> A to B. Use roundtrip=yes to indicate that the start and finish of the route 
>> are
>> at the same location (circular route).

This seems badly named, or badly described. A vehicle that goes from A
to B, then returns along the reverse route to A, is said in British
English to perform a "round trip".

A vehicle that completes a (approximately) circular route to arrive
back at its starting point is NOT called a "round trip", whether or
not it performs that circuit just once, or multiple times.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[Peter Elderson]

It's an example. But we are not alone...

2018-05-25 12:33 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

> 2018-05-25 12:29 GMT+02:00 Peter Elderson :
>
>> How would that be applicable in Nederland, where PT uses one type of
>> chipcard for all voyages and payment is based on distance travelled between
>> check-in and check-out, no matter the route or vehicle?
>>
>
>
> isn't this offtopic? Why would we care if the Dutch PT tariffing can deal
> with roundtrips or not?
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] roundtrip

[Peter Elderson]

Oops, I didn't think this topic would generate so much response, even
though I charged a bit in the first mail.

Let me try to make some sense of it. I have seen enough use cases, I think.

a. There are two use cases which use the actual definition on the wiki: a
geagraphically closed route, start-point=end-point. One is about marking
routes as roundtrips based on JOSM validation, then monitoring if the chain
had broken so you can fix it. The other is marking an unfinished  route as
roundtrip in order to detect it for completion. To me, this is almost the
same use case.

b. A range of use cases are opposite: a geographical roundtrip has to be
regarded as non-roundtrip, or a geographical non-roundtrip has to be
regarded as a roundtrip anyway.

Could we agree that the wiki should cover b.?
I think this does not exclude a.

If anyone judges that a geographical roundtrip should explicitly be tagged
as roundtrip=yes, ok.
 do think that when one of the use cases under b. applies, then you have an
exception to what the map says, with a reason. Then this takes precedence
over the geographical default.
This could be a geographical roundtrip tagged as roundtrip=no for whatever
reason, or a geographical non-roundtrip tagged as roundtrip=yes, for
whatever reason. It would be nice to know the reason, of course. For my
part, "everybody/nobody here calls this a circular line" is reason enough.

Could we agree on that too?

If so, all that remains is add this to the wiki.

-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-05-25 12:59 GMT+02:00 Jo :

> But a line that does A->B, then B->A is not a roundtrip, and it would take
> 2 route relations to describe the itineraries + a route_master to describe
> the line.
>


+1, most buses go A->B and return, a rountrip is A->A

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

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[Jo]

I don't see a problem with adding tags that enable validation to be
performed, even if it means some redundancy in the data. But I may have
misinterpreted the roundtrip tag myself.

Jo

2018-05-25 11:52 GMT+02:00 Peter Elderson :

> Isn't that should-be tagging for the validator? I don't know if that's
> less frowned-upon than tagging for the renderer...
> Besides, if you derive the tag from your tagging tool, couldn't the
> validator do that directly?
>
> 2018-05-25 11:15 GMT+02:00 Jo :
>
>> I tend to use roundtrip=yes when (after fixing) a route relation gets
>> this double way icon next to the ways, instead of a single vertical line
>> (JOSM only ofc).
>>
>> If we all start using it that way, we could create a validator rule for
>> checking the relation is still 'all right'.
>>
>> Polyglot
>>
>> 2018-05-25 11:10 GMT+02:00 Johnparis :
>>
>>> Interesting.
>>>
>>> Similarly, a route that is not closed can be a roundtrip. The start and
>>> end points might be several meters apart, even on different roads, yet
>>> serve the same destination. There are a few (very few) examples I have
>>> found in the Paris area. Here's one. It's not marked roundtrip=yes but
>>> probably should be:
>>>
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8140184
>>>
>>> I agree that this tag seems to be of very limited usefulness, though I
>>> confess to having used it on occasion.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 On 25/05/18 15:48, Peter Elderson wrote:

 What is the use of the key:roundtrip?
 Explanations just say
 roundtrip =yes/no 
 (optional)
 Use roundtrip=no to indicate that a route goes from A to B. Use
 roundtrip=yes to indicate that the start and finish of the route are at the
 same location (circular route). It seems rather pointless to tag an
 obvious a-b route with roundtrip=no, or an abvious roundtrip with
 roundtrip=yes.
 Why would you tag an a-b route as roundtrip=yes, or a closed route as
 roundtrip=no?


 A route that is 'closed' can be a non round trip.
 For example the bus only does one circuit then goes on to another route
 elsewhere. This can be done to provide services to both that route and to
 other parts of the community with other routes.
 There may not be enough demand for a continuous circuit to be viable.

 ___
 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[Jo]

Paul,

Let me know when you would have time for a hangout. I'd like to have a look
at that route! Preferably with somebody who actually knows how the bus
follows it.

But a line that does A->B, then B->A is not a roundtrip, and it would take
2 route relations to describe the itineraries + a route_master to describe
the line.

Jo

2018-05-25 12:51 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen :

>
>
> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Peter Elderson 
> wrote:
>
>> In that case it is a service-thing rather than a route-thing. Is it
>> generally used like that?
>> The wiki just mentions the co-location of start/endpoint of the route.
>>
>> I'm going by what I've encountered in various towns and cities.
>
> I've seen many routes where the bus goes from A->B, passengers disembark
> at B,
> new passengers board at B and the bus then goes from B->A.  It's not a
> round trip.
> Even if you buy a return ticket or have an unlimited use ticket, you still
> have to get
> off at B.  Often there is a 5 or 10 minute (or longer) layover at B while
> the driver
> has a piss or a cup of coffee or a smoke (or all three at once, perhaps).
>
> I've also seen routes where it truly is a round trip (and most of those
> were also
> circulars).  With an unlimited ticket you could stay on the bus all day.
> I met one
> guy who did because in winter it cost him too much to heat his house, so
> there
> he was on the bus with a packed lunch, several cans of beer (illegal) and
> a happy
> grin.
>
> There is also a route I've yet to map, and am struggling to figure out how
> to
> do it.  One of the things I can handle is still pertinent: it goes from
> the bus station
> (A) like this: A->B->C->D->A->B->P->A->Z->A->B [out of service] -> A.  Z
> is
> actually a roundabout, with no official stops between it and A, merely so
> the bus
> can enter A in one direction and come back in the other.  But it's a
> hail-and-ride
> service, so theoretically it's possible to get off or on at Z.  Over the
> entire route
> it's not a round trip even though it visits some parts of the route more
> than once.
> Actually, I simplified a lot.  There are aspects of that route I can't
> figure out how
> to handle.
>
> --
> Paul
>
>
> ___
> 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] roundtrip

[Peter Elderson]

woud the roundtrip tag help you with that?

2018-05-25 12:51 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen :

>
>
> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Peter Elderson 
> wrote:
>
>> In that case it is a service-thing rather than a route-thing. Is it
>> generally used like that?
>> The wiki just mentions the co-location of start/endpoint of the route.
>>
>> I'm going by what I've encountered in various towns and cities.
>
> I've seen many routes where the bus goes from A->B, passengers disembark
> at B,
> new passengers board at B and the bus then goes from B->A.  It's not a
> round trip.
> Even if you buy a return ticket or have an unlimited use ticket, you still
> have to get
> off at B.  Often there is a 5 or 10 minute (or longer) layover at B while
> the driver
> has a piss or a cup of coffee or a smoke (or all three at once, perhaps).
>
> I've also seen routes where it truly is a round trip (and most of those
> were also
> circulars).  With an unlimited ticket you could stay on the bus all day.
> I met one
> guy who did because in winter it cost him too much to heat his house, so
> there
> he was on the bus with a packed lunch, several cans of beer (illegal) and
> a happy
> grin.
>
> There is also a route I've yet to map, and am struggling to figure out how
> to
> do it.  One of the things I can handle is still pertinent: it goes from
> the bus station
> (A) like this: A->B->C->D->A->B->P->A->Z->A->B [out of service] -> A.  Z
> is
> actually a roundabout, with no official stops between it and A, merely so
> the bus
> can enter A in one direction and come back in the other.  But it's a
> hail-and-ride
> service, so theoretically it's possible to get off or on at Z.  Over the
> entire route
> it's not a round trip even though it visits some parts of the route more
> than once.
> Actually, I simplified a lot.  There are aspects of that route I can't
> figure out how
> to handle.
>
> --
> Paul
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Peter Elderson 
wrote:

> In that case it is a service-thing rather than a route-thing. Is it
> generally used like that?
> The wiki just mentions the co-location of start/endpoint of the route.
>
> I'm going by what I've encountered in various towns and cities.

I've seen many routes where the bus goes from A->B, passengers disembark at
B,
new passengers board at B and the bus then goes from B->A.  It's not a
round trip.
Even if you buy a return ticket or have an unlimited use ticket, you still
have to get
off at B.  Often there is a 5 or 10 minute (or longer) layover at B while
the driver
has a piss or a cup of coffee or a smoke (or all three at once, perhaps).

I've also seen routes where it truly is a round trip (and most of those
were also
circulars).  With an unlimited ticket you could stay on the bus all day.  I
met one
guy who did because in winter it cost him too much to heat his house, so
there
he was on the bus with a packed lunch, several cans of beer (illegal) and a
happy
grin.

There is also a route I've yet to map, and am struggling to figure out how
to
do it.  One of the things I can handle is still pertinent: it goes from the
bus station
(A) like this: A->B->C->D->A->B->P->A->Z->A->B [out of service] -> A.  Z is
actually a roundabout, with no official stops between it and A, merely so
the bus
can enter A in one direction and come back in the other.  But it's a
hail-and-ride
service, so theoretically it's possible to get off or on at Z.  Over the
entire route
it's not a round trip even though it visits some parts of the route more
than once.
Actually, I simplified a lot.  There are aspects of that route I can't
figure out how
to handle.

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

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[Peter Elderson]

I wish you a happy trip on that bus, hope it has toilets and a tolerable
coffee machine

2018-05-25 12:37 GMT+02:00 Jo :

> Ticket pricing shouldn't have anything to do with it. Here in Belgium, you
> buy a ticket valid for a specific duration. As long as it didn't expire,
> you can still board the vehicle.
>
> OK, I'm not sure what would happen if you got onto a 'roundtrip' bus with
> a ticket valid for 1 hour and you are still on it 3 hours later... Oh those
> corner cases!
>
> Jo
>
> 2018-05-25 12:32 GMT+02:00 :
>
>> Or to express it even more general:
>>
>>
>>
>> If you start at any stop, and remain on the vehicle, you will at some
>> later point get back to the stop you started on.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au > d.au>
>> *Sent:* Friday, 25 May 2018 20:23
>> *To:* 'Tag discussion, strategy and related tools' <
>> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] roundtrip
>>
>>
>>
>> I interpret roundtrip as “you can get from a stop to another stop that’s *
>> *before** it in the list of stops by simply remaining in the vehicle”.
>>
>>
>>
>> You can have routes where the start and stop are the same location, but
>> this is not true (as the vehicle always goes on to serve another route
>> after arriving at the last stop).
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Peter Elderson 
>> *Sent:* Friday, 25 May 2018 15:48
>> *To:* Tagging list OSM 
>> *Subject:* [Tagging] roundtrip
>>
>>
>>
>> What is the use of the key:roundtrip?
>>
>> Explanations just say
>>
>> roundtrip =yes/no
>>
>> (optional) Use roundtrip=no to indicate that a route goes from A to B.
>> Use roundtrip=yes to indicate that the start and finish of the route are at
>> the same location (circular route).
>>
>> It seems rather pointless to tag an obvious a-b route with roundtrip=no,
>> or an abvious roundtrip with roundtrip=yes.
>>
>> Why would you tag an a-b route as roundtrip=yes, or a closed route as
>> roundtrip=no?
>>
>>
>>
>> The only use case I can imagine is when a roundtrip has one ore more
>> access ways which are included in the route relation. But even then, what
>> is the purpose?
>>
>>
>>
>> Allowing apps to select only "official" roundtrips? Is that a valid
>> reason for tagging?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Peter Elderson
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[Peter Elderson]

Exactly that point or in the vicinity? No matter the payment, ticketing and
boarding rules?

2018-05-25 12:32 GMT+02:00 :

> Or to express it even more general:
>
>
>
> If you start at any stop, and remain on the vehicle, you will at some
> later point get back to the stop you started on.
>
>
>
> *From:* osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au  id.au>
> *Sent:* Friday, 25 May 2018 20:23
> *To:* 'Tag discussion, strategy and related tools' <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] roundtrip
>
>
>
> I interpret roundtrip as “you can get from a stop to another stop that’s *
> *before** it in the list of stops by simply remaining in the vehicle”.
>
>
>
> You can have routes where the start and stop are the same location, but
> this is not true (as the vehicle always goes on to serve another route
> after arriving at the last stop).
>
>
>
> *From:* Peter Elderson 
> *Sent:* Friday, 25 May 2018 15:48
> *To:* Tagging list OSM 
> *Subject:* [Tagging] roundtrip
>
>
>
> What is the use of the key:roundtrip?
>
> Explanations just say
>
> roundtrip =yes/no
>
> (optional) Use roundtrip=no to indicate that a route goes from A to B. Use
> roundtrip=yes to indicate that the start and finish of the route are at the
> same location (circular route).
>
> It seems rather pointless to tag an obvious a-b route with roundtrip=no,
> or an abvious roundtrip with roundtrip=yes.
>
> Why would you tag an a-b route as roundtrip=yes, or a closed route as
> roundtrip=no?
>
>
>
> The only use case I can imagine is when a roundtrip has one ore more
> access ways which are included in the route relation. But even then, what
> is the purpose?
>
>
>
> Allowing apps to select only "official" roundtrips? Is that a valid reason
> for tagging?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Peter Elderson
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[Jo]

Ticket pricing shouldn't have anything to do with it. Here in Belgium, you
buy a ticket valid for a specific duration. As long as it didn't expire,
you can still board the vehicle.

OK, I'm not sure what would happen if you got onto a 'roundtrip' bus with a
ticket valid for 1 hour and you are still on it 3 hours later... Oh those
corner cases!

Jo

2018-05-25 12:32 GMT+02:00 :

> Or to express it even more general:
>
>
>
> If you start at any stop, and remain on the vehicle, you will at some
> later point get back to the stop you started on.
>
>
>
> *From:* osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au  id.au>
> *Sent:* Friday, 25 May 2018 20:23
> *To:* 'Tag discussion, strategy and related tools' <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] roundtrip
>
>
>
> I interpret roundtrip as “you can get from a stop to another stop that’s *
> *before** it in the list of stops by simply remaining in the vehicle”.
>
>
>
> You can have routes where the start and stop are the same location, but
> this is not true (as the vehicle always goes on to serve another route
> after arriving at the last stop).
>
>
>
> *From:* Peter Elderson 
> *Sent:* Friday, 25 May 2018 15:48
> *To:* Tagging list OSM 
> *Subject:* [Tagging] roundtrip
>
>
>
> What is the use of the key:roundtrip?
>
> Explanations just say
>
> roundtrip =yes/no
>
> (optional) Use roundtrip=no to indicate that a route goes from A to B. Use
> roundtrip=yes to indicate that the start and finish of the route are at the
> same location (circular route).
>
> It seems rather pointless to tag an obvious a-b route with roundtrip=no,
> or an abvious roundtrip with roundtrip=yes.
>
> Why would you tag an a-b route as roundtrip=yes, or a closed route as
> roundtrip=no?
>
>
>
> The only use case I can imagine is when a roundtrip has one ore more
> access ways which are included in the route relation. But even then, what
> is the purpose?
>
>
>
> Allowing apps to select only "official" roundtrips? Is that a valid reason
> for tagging?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Peter Elderson
>
> ___
> 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] roundtrip

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-05-25 12:29 GMT+02:00 Peter Elderson :

> How would that be applicable in Nederland, where PT uses one type of
> chipcard for all voyages and payment is based on distance travelled between
> check-in and check-out, no matter the route or vehicle?
>


isn't this offtopic? Why would we care if the Dutch PT tariffing can deal
with roundtrips or not?

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

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[osm.tagging]

Or to express it even more general:

 

If you start at any stop, and remain on the vehicle, you will at some later 
point get back to the stop you started on.

 

From: osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au  
Sent: Friday, 25 May 2018 20:23
To: 'Tag discussion, strategy and related tools' 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

 

I interpret roundtrip as “you can get from a stop to another stop that’s 
*before* it in the list of stops by simply remaining in the vehicle”.

 

You can have routes where the start and stop are the same location, but this is 
not true (as the vehicle always goes on to serve another route after arriving 
at the last stop).

 

From: Peter Elderson  > 
Sent: Friday, 25 May 2018 15:48
To: Tagging list OSM  >
Subject: [Tagging] roundtrip

 

What is the use of the key:roundtrip? 

Explanations just say  


  roundtrip=yes/no

(optional) Use roundtrip=no to indicate that a route goes from A to B. Use 
roundtrip=yes to indicate that the start and finish of the route are at the 
same location (circular route).

It seems rather pointless to tag an obvious a-b route with roundtrip=no, or an 
abvious roundtrip with roundtrip=yes. 

Why would you tag an a-b route as roundtrip=yes, or a closed route as 
roundtrip=no?


 

The only use case I can imagine is when a roundtrip has one ore more access 
ways which are included in the route relation. But even then, what is the 
purpose? 

 

Allowing apps to select only "official" roundtrips? Is that a valid reason for 
tagging?

 

-- 

Peter Elderson

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

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[Peter Elderson]

So it would depend on the payment requirements and ticket usage... then, if
a return ticket is available it would count as a roundtrip, even though you
pay extra for the return trip?

How would that be applicable in Nederland, where PT uses one type of
chipcard for all voyages and payment is based on distance travelled between
check-in and check-out, no matter the route or vehicle?

2018-05-25 12:10 GMT+02:00 Ralph Aytoun :

> Thoughts on the subject
>
>
>
> For a route to be a round trip on public transport it would be required
> that only one ticket purchase would be necessary to take you full circle,
> and this would include a tourist bus that allows you to get off and back on
> again along the route until you get back to the original start point.
>
>
>
> A river cruise would fall into this same category even though it will go
> up one side of the river and back down the other to the original start
> jetty and requires a single round trip ticket. If there is a disembark
> point along the route and a new ticket is required to return then this is
> not a round trip and could use the roundtrip=no tag as a warning for users
> planning their trip
>
>
>
> This means that a bus that has a route that takes it to a destination and
> then you need to buy a return ticket to get back along the same or similar
> route to the original start point cannot be a roundtrip.
>
>
>
> Falling into this train of thought would it apply to a tourist train that
> takes you along a dedicated route to a destination, allows you to get off
> and look around then get on the same train and head back to the original
> destination, all included in the single ticket purchase. Being careful here
> because they may have a separate cheaper ticket if you are only going to
> the destination, in which case would the tourist trip be  a return ticket
> (or a roundtrip ticket?)
>
>
>
> So a roundtrip would not necessarily indicate a circular route but could
> also be used to indicate that there is a single roundtrip ticket such as a
> park-and-ride bus or river cruise that returns you to your original
> destination in one journey.
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail  for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *Peter Elderson 
> *Sent: *Friday, May 25, 2018 10:38 AM
> *To: *Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> 
> *Subject: *Re: [Tagging] roundtrip
>
>
>
> Thanks for the example.
>
> Looks to me the bus will have to drive through the tunnel for its next
> round. This route just needs to be completed! Now it's a oneway route. The
> route_master only contains one relation in one direction.
>
>
>
> 2018-05-25 11:10 GMT+02:00 Johnparis :
>
> Interesting.
>
>
>
> Similarly, a route that is not closed can be a roundtrip. The start and
> end points might be several meters apart, even on different roads, yet
> serve the same destination. There are a few (very few) examples I have
> found in the Paris area. Here's one. It's not marked roundtrip=yes but
> probably should be:
>
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8140184
>
>
>
> I agree that this tag seems to be of very limited usefulness, though I
> confess to having used it on occasion.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 25/05/18 15:48, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
> What is the use of the key:roundtrip?
>
> Explanations just say
>
> roundtrip =yes/no
>
> (optional) Use roundtrip=no to indicate that a route goes from A to B. Use
> roundtrip=yes to indicate that the start and finish of the route are at the
> same location (circular route).
>
> It seems rather pointless to tag an obvious a-b route with roundtrip=no,
> or an abvious roundtrip with roundtrip=yes.
>
> Why would you tag an a-b route as roundtrip=yes, or a closed route as
> roundtrip=no?
>
>
> A route that is 'closed' can be a non round trip.
> For example the bus only does one circuit then goes on to another route
> elsewhere. This can be done to provide services to both that route and to
> other parts of the community with other routes.
> There may not be enough demand for a continuous circuit to be viable.
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[osm.tagging]

I interpret roundtrip as “you can get from a stop to another stop that’s 
*before* it in the list of stops by simply remaining in the vehicle”.

 

You can have routes where the start and stop are the same location, but this is 
not true (as the vehicle always goes on to serve another route after arriving 
at the last stop).

 

From: Peter Elderson  
Sent: Friday, 25 May 2018 15:48
To: Tagging list OSM 
Subject: [Tagging] roundtrip

 

What is the use of the key:roundtrip? 

Explanations just say  


  roundtrip=yes/no

(optional) Use roundtrip=no to indicate that a route goes from A to B. Use 
roundtrip=yes to indicate that the start and finish of the route are at the 
same location (circular route).

It seems rather pointless to tag an obvious a-b route with roundtrip=no, or an 
abvious roundtrip with roundtrip=yes. 

Why would you tag an a-b route as roundtrip=yes, or a closed route as 
roundtrip=no?


 

The only use case I can imagine is when a roundtrip has one ore more access 
ways which are included in the route relation. But even then, what is the 
purpose? 

 

Allowing apps to select only "official" roundtrips? Is that a valid reason for 
tagging?

 

-- 

Peter Elderson

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

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[Peter Elderson]

In that case it is a service-thing rather than a route-thing. Is it
generally used like that?
The wiki just mentions the co-location of start/endpoint of the route.

The suggested use as a validator-tag requires the use exactlly as the wiki
says, while other suggested uses mark cases where the tag differs from the
location-based definition.

I see a consistency problem here... which explains why the actual use of
this tag is also inconsistent.


2018-05-25 11:58 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen :

> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 6:48 AM, Peter Elderson 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> The only use case I can imagine is when a roundtrip has one ore more
>> access ways which are included in the route relation. But even then, what
>> is the purpose?
>>
>
> I would say that roundtrip=yes on route A->B->A means that you can remain
> on the bus at B and roundtrip=no means
> that you are (officially) required to disembark.  I mention "officially"
> because some drivers may permit some passengers
> to remain on the bus.  If you are required to disembark at B, even if you
> do not have to buy another ticket when you
> get back on board, it's roundtrip=no.  It's not a matter of duration of
> the stop at B, it's whether or not you can start at
> A and return to A without leaving the bus.
>
> --
> Paul
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-05-25 11:10 GMT+02:00 Johnparis :

>
> Similarly, a route that is not closed can be a roundtrip. The start and
> end points might be several meters apart, even on different roads, yet
> serve the same destination.
>


+1
in OSM you can also expect incomplete data, someone starts mapping
something and then leaves it for someone else to complete it. Someone might
map just a part of a roundtrip route. She could already tag on the relation
that the route is a roundtrip without this being already recognizable from
the route geometry on the map.

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

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[Ralph Aytoun]

Thoughts on the subject

For a route to be a round trip on public transport it would be required that 
only one ticket purchase would be necessary to take you full circle, and this 
would include a tourist bus that allows you to get off and back on again along 
the route until you get back to the original start point. 

A river cruise would fall into this same category even though it will go up one 
side of the river and back down the other to the original start jetty and 
requires a single round trip ticket. If there is a disembark point along the 
route and a new ticket is required to return then this is not a round trip and 
could use the roundtrip=no tag as a warning for users planning their trip

This means that a bus that has a route that takes it to a destination and then 
you need to buy a return ticket to get back along the same or similar route to 
the original start point cannot be a roundtrip.

Falling into this train of thought would it apply to a tourist train that takes 
you along a dedicated route to a destination, allows you to get off and look 
around then get on the same train and head back to the original destination, 
all included in the single ticket purchase. Being careful here because they may 
have a separate cheaper ticket if you are only going to the destination, in 
which case would the tourist trip be  a return ticket (or a roundtrip ticket?)

So a roundtrip would not necessarily indicate a circular route but could also 
be used to indicate that there is a single roundtrip ticket such as a 
park-and-ride bus or river cruise that returns you to your original destination 
in one journey.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Peter Elderson
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 10:38 AM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

Thanks for the example.
Looks to me the bus will have to drive through the tunnel for its next round. 
This route just needs to be completed! Now it's a oneway route. The 
route_master only contains one relation in one direction.  

2018-05-25 11:10 GMT+02:00 Johnparis :
Interesting. 

Similarly, a route that is not closed can be a roundtrip. The start and end 
points might be several meters apart, even on different roads, yet serve the 
same destination. There are a few (very few) examples I have found in the Paris 
area. Here's one. It's not marked roundtrip=yes but probably should be:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8140184

I agree that this tag seems to be of very limited usefulness, though I confess 
to having used it on occasion.


On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 25/05/18 15:48, Peter Elderson wrote:
What is the use of the key:roundtrip?  
Explanations just say  
roundtrip=yes/no
(optional) Use roundtrip=no to indicate that a route goes from A to B. Use 
roundtrip=yes to indicate that the start and finish of the route are at the 
same location (circular route).
It seems rather pointless to tag an obvious a-b route with roundtrip=no, or an 
abvious roundtrip with roundtrip=yes. 
Why would you tag an a-b route as roundtrip=yes, or a closed route as 
roundtrip=no?


A route that is 'closed' can be a non round trip. 
For example the bus only does one circuit then goes on to another route 
elsewhere. This can be done to provide services to both that route and to other 
parts of the community with other routes. 
There may not be enough demand for a continuous circuit to be viable. 

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


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




-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC proposed water property key 'ephemeral '

[Nick Bolten]

> The tag provides mapper a way of tagging rivers and streams that is
presently not available.

> That will vary .. year to year and decade to decade ... to much change?

> This too will vary.

I think something might be getting lost in translation, since those
questions were rhetorical. I'm describing my understanding of the proposal
as it exists on the wiki, hoping it matches the intent.

> Intermittent does not equal ephemeral.

I now understand that after reading a few reviews, but the wiki proposal
does not make that very clear. From the wiki articles, an ephemeral body of
water "is only present for short duration", and intermittent "is used to
indicate that a body of water does not permanently contain water". From
those definitions alone, I'd assume that a river could have both
`intermittent=yes` and `ephemeral=yes` and be perfectly valid. However, my
new and improved understanding of hydrology definitions would say these are
separate and incompatible categories of rivers/streams. Page 6 of this EPA
document [1] has definitions that make these things clearer, maybe a
similar approach could be taken with the wiki.

> At present in OSM the tag to indicate an  intermittent flow that only
occurs in winter is intermittent=winter

> The proposal for ephemeral flow in autumn would be
ephemeral=autumn

> Combining these would give
> intermittent=winter
> ephemeral=autumn

> I would think that is easy enough to understand and matches the present
tagging scheme in use.

This is actually undocumented, and taginfo has no examples of seasons being
used as values for the `intermittent` key. With that said, I was also
suggesting that seasons might more appropriately be values for keys
describing "frequency/type of flow" like `intermittent` or `ephemeral`,
rather than having a separate `seasonal` tag, due to the ambiguity of
having more than one flow mode over the duration of a year. Something like
`intermittent:seasonal=` might also work. Maybe I'm missing a
proposal for seasonal values for `intermittent`?

The idea I'm proposing is that there may be a 'catch-all' key that
describes the 'type' of thing that `ephemeral` or `intermittent` are, and
to set `intermittent`, `ephemeral`, or otherwise (`perennial`?) values when
appropriate. What about `flow=ephemeral` or `flow=intermittent`? Then, if
you need to set more specifics, you could use `flow:ephemeral=winter`. This
also provides a convenient hint for what is being described: the flow type
of the stream.

> The intermittent tag already exists .. do you want to change it?

I think we're both considering changes to the `intermittent` tag as
potential options.

> And what if the stream has a seasonal flow in say winter and an ephemeral
flow possible in spring?
> For this proposal this would be tagged
> seasonal=winter
> ephemeral=spring

This is super confusing. Namely, the `seasonal` tag's documentation
indicates whether the feature is present, but in this case it seems to be
indicating that there is a 'full' flow. In other words, I would've assumed
you should tag it as `seasonal=winter;spring` and `ephemeral=spring`. This
becomes extra confusing when combined with the `intermittent` tag, for
which the wiki entry acknowledges there exist different interpretations for
the same tag combinations.

> The same can be said for roads. how stale is that data .. etc.

I'm just trying to get a better handle on the use case. How rapidly does
this tag become stale? Would data consumers use the tag? Would they instead
want a time series of observations, and if so, how frequently? It feels
like a tag that is science-ie, but I don't know whether, for example,
scientists would use it.

1.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-03/documents/ephemeral_streams_report_final_508-kepner.pdf

Best,

Nick


On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 2:16 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 25/05/18 15:00, Nick Bolten wrote:
>
> If I understand this proposal right, the goal of this tag is to provide
> more specific information for the general likelihood of whether a water
> feature (only rivers?) exists: when it comes and goes every days.
>
> The tag provides mapper a way of tagging rivers and streams that is
> presently not available.
>
>
> This sounds like there are two pieces of information that are desirable to
> map:
> - What is the frequency of flow/presence?
>
> That will vary .. year to year and decade to decade ... to much change?
>
> - Does this frequency vary over seasons?
>
> This too will vary.
>
>
> These seem like questions that deserve separate tags, for flexibility, and
> could benefit from a 'subtag' approach. Let's say you want to describe a
> river that always has current in the spring and summer, is intermittent in
> the fall, and has no flow in the winter. This could look like:
>
> intermittent=yes;ephemeral;no
> intermittent:ephemeral=autumn
> intermittent:yes=winter
> intermittent:no=spring;summer
>
>
> Intermittent does not equal ephemeral.
>
> At present in OSM 

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 6:48 AM, Peter Elderson  wrote:

>
> The only use case I can imagine is when a roundtrip has one ore more
> access ways which are included in the route relation. But even then, what
> is the purpose?
>

I would say that roundtrip=yes on route A->B->A means that you can remain
on the bus at B and roundtrip=no means
that you are (officially) required to disembark.  I mention "officially"
because some drivers may permit some passengers
to remain on the bus.  If you are required to disembark at B, even if you
do not have to buy another ticket when you
get back on board, it's roundtrip=no.  It's not a matter of duration of the
stop at B, it's whether or not you can start at
A and return to A without leaving the bus.

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

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[Peter Elderson]

Isn't that should-be tagging for the validator? I don't know if that's less
frowned-upon than tagging for the renderer...
Besides, if you derive the tag from your tagging tool, couldn't the
validator do that directly?

2018-05-25 11:15 GMT+02:00 Jo :

> I tend to use roundtrip=yes when (after fixing) a route relation gets this
> double way icon next to the ways, instead of a single vertical line (JOSM
> only ofc).
>
> If we all start using it that way, we could create a validator rule for
> checking the relation is still 'all right'.
>
> Polyglot
>
> 2018-05-25 11:10 GMT+02:00 Johnparis :
>
>> Interesting.
>>
>> Similarly, a route that is not closed can be a roundtrip. The start and
>> end points might be several meters apart, even on different roads, yet
>> serve the same destination. There are a few (very few) examples I have
>> found in the Paris area. Here's one. It's not marked roundtrip=yes but
>> probably should be:
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8140184
>>
>> I agree that this tag seems to be of very limited usefulness, though I
>> confess to having used it on occasion.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/05/18 15:48, Peter Elderson wrote:
>>>
>>> What is the use of the key:roundtrip?
>>> Explanations just say
>>> roundtrip =yes/no 
>>> (optional)
>>> Use roundtrip=no to indicate that a route goes from A to B. Use
>>> roundtrip=yes to indicate that the start and finish of the route are at the
>>> same location (circular route). It seems rather pointless to tag an
>>> obvious a-b route with roundtrip=no, or an abvious roundtrip with
>>> roundtrip=yes.
>>> Why would you tag an a-b route as roundtrip=yes, or a closed route as
>>> roundtrip=no?
>>>
>>>
>>> A route that is 'closed' can be a non round trip.
>>> For example the bus only does one circuit then goes on to another route
>>> elsewhere. This can be done to provide services to both that route and to
>>> other parts of the community with other routes.
>>> There may not be enough demand for a continuous circuit to be viable.
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC proposed water property key 'ephemeral '

[Christoph Hormann]

On Friday 25 May 2018, Warin wrote:
>
> Intermittent does not equal ephemeral.

So you have said repeatedly.

I know this is hard for native English speakers but you need to accept 
that tags in OSM do not generally mean what the English language terms 
they use mean.

intermittent=yes in OSM currently means quite precisely what the OSM 
wiki says it means:

"The intermittent=* key is used to indicate that a body of water does 
not permanently contain water."

This includes at least a few 100k features you would define as 
ephemeral.  You can't change that with a proposal.

There is a reason why such a broad and undifferentiated tag has become 
popular in OSM despite there being more differentiated concepts in 
existence:  Because more differentiation here is in many cases 
practically non-verifiable.  No matter if mappers observe on the ground 
or via images, the usual case is they see the waterbody in a dry state 
but see clear indications of recent water cover or water flow hence 
they can assume a non-permanent waterbody.  This is what you can 
currently indicate via intermittent=yes.

But requiring mappers to guess what kind of time pattern the change from 
dry to water cover follows does not work.  Offering this as an option 
in case mappers have more in depth knowledge is a good idea, i said 
that in the past.  But making it mandatory is bound to fail.

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

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

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[Peter Elderson]

Thanks for the example.
Looks to me the bus will have to drive through the tunnel for its next
round. This route just needs to be completed! Now it's a oneway route. The
route_master only contains one relation in one direction.

2018-05-25 11:10 GMT+02:00 Johnparis :

> Interesting.
>
> Similarly, a route that is not closed can be a roundtrip. The start and
> end points might be several meters apart, even on different roads, yet
> serve the same destination. There are a few (very few) examples I have
> found in the Paris area. Here's one. It's not marked roundtrip=yes but
> probably should be:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8140184
>
> I agree that this tag seems to be of very limited usefulness, though I
> confess to having used it on occasion.
>
>
> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 25/05/18 15:48, Peter Elderson wrote:
>>
>> What is the use of the key:roundtrip?
>> Explanations just say
>> roundtrip =yes/no 
>> (optional)
>> Use roundtrip=no to indicate that a route goes from A to B. Use
>> roundtrip=yes to indicate that the start and finish of the route are at the
>> same location (circular route). It seems rather pointless to tag an
>> obvious a-b route with roundtrip=no, or an abvious roundtrip with
>> roundtrip=yes.
>> Why would you tag an a-b route as roundtrip=yes, or a closed route as
>> roundtrip=no?
>>
>>
>> A route that is 'closed' can be a non round trip.
>> For example the bus only does one circuit then goes on to another route
>> elsewhere. This can be done to provide services to both that route and to
>> other parts of the community with other routes.
>> There may not be enough demand for a continuous circuit to be viable.
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

[Jo]

I tend to use roundtrip=yes when (after fixing) a route relation gets this
double way icon next to the ways, instead of a single vertical line (JOSM
only ofc).

If we all start using it that way, we could create a validator rule for
checking the relation is still 'all right'.

Polyglot

2018-05-25 11:10 GMT+02:00 Johnparis :

> Interesting.
>
> Similarly, a route that is not closed can be a roundtrip. The start and
> end points might be several meters apart, even on different roads, yet
> serve the same destination. There are a few (very few) examples I have
> found in the Paris area. Here's one. It's not marked roundtrip=yes but
> probably should be:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8140184
>
> I agree that this tag seems to be of very limited usefulness, though I
> confess to having used it on occasion.
>
>
> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 25/05/18 15:48, Peter Elderson wrote:
>>
>> What is the use of the key:roundtrip?
>> Explanations just say
>> roundtrip =yes/no 
>> (optional)
>> Use roundtrip=no to indicate that a route goes from A to B. Use
>> roundtrip=yes to indicate that the start and finish of the route are at the
>> same location (circular route). It seems rather pointless to tag an
>> obvious a-b route with roundtrip=no, or an abvious roundtrip with
>> roundtrip=yes.
>> Why would you tag an a-b route as roundtrip=yes, or a closed route as
>> roundtrip=no?
>>
>>
>> A route that is 'closed' can be a non round trip.
>> For example the bus only does one circuit then goes on to another route
>> elsewhere. This can be done to provide services to both that route and to
>> other parts of the community with other routes.
>> There may not be enough demand for a continuous circuit to be viable.
>>
>> ___
>> 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] RFC proposed water property key 'ephemeral '

[Warin]

On 25/05/18 15:00, Nick Bolten wrote:
If I understand this proposal right, the goal of this tag is to 
provide more specific information for the general likelihood of 
whether a water feature (only rivers?) exists: when it comes and goes 
every days.
The tag provides mapper a way of tagging rivers and streams that is 
presently not available.


This sounds like there are two pieces of information that are 
desirable to map:

- What is the frequency of flow/presence?

That will vary .. year to year and decade to decade ... to much change?

- Does this frequency vary over seasons?

This too will vary.


These seem like questions that deserve separate tags, for flexibility, 
and could benefit from a 'subtag' approach. Let's say you want to 
describe a river that always has current in the spring and summer, is 
intermittent in the fall, and has no flow in the winter. This could 
look like:


intermittent=yes;ephemeral;no
intermittent:ephemeral=autumn
intermittent:yes=winter
intermittent:no=spring;summer


Intermittent does not equal ephemeral.

At present in OSM the tag to indicate an  intermittent flow that only 
occurs in winter is

intermittent=winter

The proposal for ephemeral flow in autumn would be
ephemeral=autumn

Combining these would give
intermittent=winter
ephemeral=autumn

I would think that is easy enough to understand and matches the present 
tagging scheme in use.






The first tag declares the frequency, but doesn't specify when each 
tag applies. The other 3 describe how this frequency varies over 
seasons. The presence of more than one value for `intermittent` would 
be a hint for incremental mapping/QA: there should be one 
`intermittent:=` for every value in `intermittent`. 
Tagging a single water feature as always `ephemeral` would also be 
simple and get combined with the seasonal tag: 
`intermittent=ephemeral` `seasonal=`.

The intermittent tag already exists .. do you want to change it?

And what if the stream has a seasonal flow in say winter and an 
ephemeral flow possible in spring?

For this proposal this would be tagged
seasonal=winter
ephemeral=spring



I also have a follow-up about the use cases for this data. For 
example, for the cases I can imagine off the top of my head 
(scientific, humanitarian), it's valuable to know how stale the data 
is, how the person collecting it determined the value (memory, general 
impression as a local?), and ideally have a yearly report of flow (in 
some form or another), and so a wikidata key or external db may serve 
your use case better. Unfortunately, this raises a lot of hard 
questions about linking OSM and time series data that I don't think 
are solved, but it the discussion could be valuable in itself.


The same can be said for roads. how stale is that data .. etc.

The present tagging has no entry for ephemeral. None.
If you want more data .. such as flow rates .. then put it forward. It 
would need to include perennial flows, as well as seasonal, etc.

I don't think anyone wants that data in OSM ... yet.



Nick

On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 3:35 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


Hi,

Following from the discussion on "Seasonal, intermittent, and
ephemeral
water tags" I have created this proposal.


Hopefully the definition is tight enough that it excludes
intermittent,
seasonal and any other thing that is not ephemeral.

I have also included a guide on determination so that mappers can see
how to determine if something is ephemeral.


So here it is ...

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ephemeral


Is it clear? Do you understand it?


Would you use it? If so where?


Any thing else?





___
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] roundtrip

[Johnparis]

Interesting.

Similarly, a route that is not closed can be a roundtrip. The start and end
points might be several meters apart, even on different roads, yet serve
the same destination. There are a few (very few) examples I have found in
the Paris area. Here's one. It's not marked roundtrip=yes but probably
should be:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8140184

I agree that this tag seems to be of very limited usefulness, though I
confess to having used it on occasion.


On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 25/05/18 15:48, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
> What is the use of the key:roundtrip?
> Explanations just say
> roundtrip =yes/no 
> (optional)
> Use roundtrip=no to indicate that a route goes from A to B. Use
> roundtrip=yes to indicate that the start and finish of the route are at the
> same location (circular route). It seems rather pointless to tag an
> obvious a-b route with roundtrip=no, or an abvious roundtrip with
> roundtrip=yes.
> Why would you tag an a-b route as roundtrip=yes, or a closed route as
> roundtrip=no?
>
>
> A route that is 'closed' can be a non round trip.
> For example the bus only does one circuit then goes on to another route
> elsewhere. This can be done to provide services to both that route and to
> other parts of the community with other routes.
> There may not be enough demand for a continuous circuit to be viable.
>
> ___
> 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] roundtrip

[Warin]

On 25/05/18 15:48, Peter Elderson wrote:

What is the use of the key:roundtrip?
Explanations just say
roundtrip =yes/no 
(optional) Use roundtrip=no to indicate that a route goes from A to B. 
Use roundtrip=yes to indicate that the start and finish of the route 
are at the same location (circular route).


It seems rather pointless to tag an obvious a-b route with 
roundtrip=no, or an abvious roundtrip with roundtrip=yes.
Why would you tag an a-b route as roundtrip=yes, or a closed route as 
roundtrip=no?


A route that is 'closed' can be a non round trip.
For example the bus only does one circuit then goes on to another route 
elsewhere. This can be done to provide services to both that route and 
to other parts of the community with other routes.

There may not be enough demand for a continuous circuit to be viable.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging