[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Mapping disputed boundaries

[Johnparis]

As promised, I have opened the Mapping Disputed Boundaries proposal for
voting. Voting will be open until Feb. 10.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mapping_disputed_boundaries#Voting

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

Re: [Tagging] crossing=cycleway as a node

[Marc Gemis]

Someone proposed highway=bicycle_crossing [1]. The rationale is to be
able to express crossings that can only be used by cyclist.

m.



[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bicycle_crossing

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

Re: [Tagging] weight limit in short tons

[Warin]

I have edited the units page to include the long ton.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features/Units  


And edited the weight page to exclude the unit from the definition.
And also mention the tonne (BE!).

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweight

It makes a few barleycorns of difference.

(Barleycorns were used as a unit of weight ... and length just to confuse).

I too recall the hundredweight from my youth, but I don't recall the 
relationships.

--

For those interested in old units, from wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_obsolete_units_of_measurement#Mass_or_weight

On 27/01/19 12:45, Paul Allen wrote:


On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 at 00:49, Sergio Manzi mailto:s...@smz.it>> 
wrote:

   
 
   
   

 


... but now I have a doubt... I don't find any referenece... have
   I been pranked? :-/

I thought perhaps you had, because I couldn't turn up anything on a google 
search.
Which is why I said I hadn't heard of it.   But I was puzzled when you 
responded that
the imperial hundredweight was "112 lb 8 stones" so I checked.  And found
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredweight.  So you were right about the 
cental.
Except in British English we used hundredweight in my youth because we had never
heard of "centum weight" or "quintal."  And, to be honest, even hundredweight
wasn't much used outside of people involved in bulk transportation of heavy
goods, so it was pretty much ounces, pounds, stones and tons for ordinary
people.
There are many more units of weight.  I dimly remember a very old Science 
Fiction
story in which aliens failed to invade the Earth because they were confused by 
all
the different units of weight involved.  I can't remember the name of the story 
or the
author, but I can remember that one of the bizarre units was the catty.
This way madness lies.  Some of these bizarre units of weight are still in use 
in
various parts of the world.  The link above has an image of a weight restriction
sign on Alderney (not part of the UK but a Crown Dependency) of 30cwt.  Which
is imperial cwt (or centum weight) not US cental.  I'm seriously starting to 
think
the wiki page adopted the most sensible strategy of saying that weights should
be in metric units.
Except for one problem.  The various tons and hundredweights are not units of
weight but of mass, so weight restrictions are given in mass units not weight
  units.  We should be specifying weight restrictions in Newtons, dynes
poundals and slugs.
OK.  Let's deprecate weight restrictions.  Change the wiki to say weight 
restrictions
are not permitted. :)
--
Paul



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

Re: [Tagging] weight limit in short tons

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 at 00:49, Sergio Manzi  wrote:

> ... but now I have a doubt... I don't find any referenece... have I been
> pranked? :-/
>
I thought perhaps you had, because I couldn't turn up anything on a google
search.
Which is why I said I hadn't heard of it.   But I was puzzled when you
responded that
the imperial hundredweight was "112 lb 8 stones" so I checked.  And found
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredweight.  So you were right about the
cental.
Except in British English we used hundredweight in my youth because we had
never
heard of "centum weight" or "quintal."  And, to be honest, even
hundredweight
wasn't much used outside of people involved in bulk transportation of heavy
goods, so it was pretty much ounces, pounds, stones and tons for ordinary
people.

There are many more units of weight.  I dimly remember a very old Science
Fiction
story in which aliens failed to invade the Earth because they were confused
by all
the different units of weight involved.  I can't remember the name of the
story or the
author, but I can remember that one of the bizarre units was the catty.

This way madness lies.  Some of these bizarre units of weight are still in
use in
various parts of the world.  The link above has an image of a weight
restriction
sign on Alderney (not part of the UK but a Crown Dependency) of 30cwt.
Which
is imperial cwt (or centum weight) not US cental.  I'm seriously starting
to think
the wiki page adopted the most sensible strategy of saying that weights
should
be in metric units.

Except for one problem.  The various tons and hundredweights are not units
of
weight but of mass, so weight restrictions are given in mass units not
weight
units.  We should be specifying weight restrictions in Newtons, dynes
poundals and slugs.

OK.  Let's deprecate weight restrictions.  Change the wiki to say weight
restrictions
are not permitted. :)

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

Re: [Tagging] weight limit in short tons

[Sergio Manzi]

... but now I have a doubt... I don't find any referenece... have I been 
pranked? :-/


On 2019-01-27 01:45, Sergio Manzi wrote:
> On 2019-01-27 01:32, Paul Allen wrote:
>> I have no idea what a "cental ton" is.  Should I drink more covfefe?
>>
> Aahahhahahh! :-) Nice, and I had quite a similar reaction when I first heard 
> about it (by an English gentleman): /"cental" /from the Latin "centum" (one 
> hundred), because the US short ton is 4 hundredweight of 100 lb, while the 
> long ton is 112 lb 8 stones).
>
> Sergio
>
>


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] weight limit in short tons

[Sergio Manzi]

On 2019-01-27 01:32, Paul Allen wrote:
> I have no idea what a "cental ton" is.  Should I drink more covfefe?
>
Aahahhahahh! :-) Nice, and I had quite a similar reaction when I first heard 
about it (by an English gentleman): /"cental" /from the Latin "centum" (one 
hundred), because the US short ton is 4 hundredweight of 100 lb, while the long 
ton is 112 lb 8 stones).

Sergio




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] weight limit in short tons

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 at 00:09, Sergio Manzi  wrote:

> I've also always known them as "short ton" and "long ton" and I agree
> whith your choice, but...
>
> actually "short ton" and "long ton" are the terms used in the U.S., while
> AFAIK Brits distinguish between "imperial ton" and "cental ton", so maybe
> we have a problem...
>
Yeah, in the UK we're more likely to use "imperial ton" if we need to make
it clear we're talking
about our ton and not the Merkin one.  But (theoretically) the UK doesn't
use imperial tons any
more because they were excluded from terms used for trade in 1985.  The UK
went metric
(apart from road signs in miles and beverages in pints).

I have no idea what a "cental ton" is.  Should I drink more covfefe?

It might not be a problem if we can get editor presets to offer
UK/US/metric tons as options
and do the work behind the scenes.  Or perhaps we now understand why the
wiki said
metric units only. :)

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

Re: [Tagging] weight limit in short tons

[Sergio Manzi]

On 2019-01-27 00:42, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 at 23:28, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> > wrote:
>
> The only problem is the 'ton'.
>
> I n the USA 2,000 pounds
> In the UK 2,240 pounds.
>
> Resolving this? units 'ton us' and 'ton uk' ???
>
>
> Why not use the terms that they are well known by when it is necessary to 
> distinguish
> between them?  The US ton is known as the "short ton" (which the original 
> poster
> mentioned) and the UK ton is known as the "long ton."  The metric ton is the 
> "tonne."
>
> Yes, there are other tons around, like the longweight and shortweight tons, 
> but they
> are archaic (as the long and short tons should be).
>
> -- 
> Paul
>

I've also always known them as "short ton" and "long ton" and I agree whith 
your choice, but...

actually "short ton" and "long ton" are the terms used in the U.S., while AFAIK 
Brits distinguish between "imperial ton" and "cental ton", so maybe we have a 
problem...

Sergio



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] weight limit in short tons

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 at 23:28, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The only problem is the 'ton'.
>
> I n the USA 2,000 pounds
> In the UK 2,240 pounds.
>
> Resolving this? units 'ton us' and 'ton uk' ???
>

Why not use the terms that they are well known by when it is necessary to
distinguish
between them?  The US ton is known as the "short ton" (which the original
poster
mentioned) and the UK ton is known as the "long ton."  The metric ton is
the "tonne."

Yes, there are other tons around, like the longweight and shortweight tons,
but they
are archaic (as the long and short tons should be).

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

Re: [Tagging] weight limit in short tons

[Warin]

The only problem is the 'ton'.

I n the USA 2,000 pounds
In the UK 2,240 pounds.


Resolving this? units 'ton us' and 'ton uk' ???

Fortunately most of the rest of the work has gone metric.

On 27/01/19 09:54, Warin wrote:

On 26/01/19 19:55, Tobias Zwick wrote:

Hey there, as I was illustrating the
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweight
article with some example signs and notes about pitfalls, I noticed that
the wiki says here that the weight *must always* be defined in metric 
units.


It is incorrect. The reference to

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features/Units

does not state a requirement, that pages only states a default unit.

I think going back to 2014 it even then only states default units .. 
no requirement.






So, I also added a row in the examples table about the short tons to
metric tons conversion.

But now, I am wondering, if the claim "As per Map Features:Units, as of
September 2014 only metric units of weight (metric tonnes or kilograms)
are supported for this tag." is not a mistake.

Because...
1. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features/Units mentions "st"
(short tons) as a unit
2. there is also "mph" for speed limits
3. it seems that this rule would unnecessarily complicate the mapping in
the United States

Does anyone know anything about (a decision) that the weight may only be
specified in metric? Or was there a misinformed wiki-fiddler at work?


Possibly someone taking 'default unit' as a required unit?

In any case it needs correction.





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

Re: [Tagging] weight limit in short tons

[Warin]

On 26/01/19 19:55, Tobias Zwick wrote:

Hey there, as I was illustrating the
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweight
article with some example signs and notes about pitfalls, I noticed that
the wiki says here that the weight *must always* be defined in metric units.


It is incorrect. The reference to

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features/Units

does not state a requirement, that pages only states a default unit.

I think going back to 2014 it even then only states default units .. no 
requirement.





So, I also added a row in the examples table about the short tons to
metric tons conversion.

But now, I am wondering, if the claim "As per Map Features:Units, as of
September 2014 only metric units of weight (metric tonnes or kilograms)
are supported for this tag." is not a mistake.

Because...
1. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features/Units mentions "st"
(short tons) as a unit
2. there is also "mph" for speed limits
3. it seems that this rule would unnecessarily complicate the mapping in
the United States

Does anyone know anything about (a decision) that the weight may only be
specified in metric? Or was there a misinformed wiki-fiddler at work?


Possibly someone taking 'default unit' as a required unit?

In any case it needs correction.


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

Re: [Tagging] crossing=cycleway as a node

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 26. Jan 2019, at 15:17, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> The fact that the road is crossed by is crossed by a cycleway is already 
> defined by the "highway" tags' values of the two crossing highways.


+1, I would go with highway=crossing and crossing=type of crossing, on the 
crossing node and highway=cycleway cycleway=crossing on the crossing part of 
the cycleway (way)

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

Re: [Tagging] crossing=cycleway as a node

[Hubert87]

Hi yopaseopor,

I think that
    highway=crossing
    crossing=uncontrolled
is also the excepted way of tagging for cycleways crossings.
You could add
    bicycle=yes
to that (crossing) Node to mark that this is bicycle crossing (,too).

Hubert87

Am 26.01.2019 um 15:17 schrieb Volker Schmidt:



On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 at 12:05, yo paseopor > wrote:


Hi!

Now I'm tagging with the more detail I can some cycleways in
Catalonia. I do al the ways, and I cut and mark all the crossings.
I do this with the formula
highway=cycleway
cycleway=crossing
as a way (like I do other times with
highway=footway
footway=crossing
for mark all the pedestrian crossing. But I have a dilemma. When I
want to tag the exact point in the cycleway crossing with the road
I would use highway=crossing
crossing=uncontrolled
...but it is not so detailed enough so I think about a
crossing=cycleway

The fact that the road is crossed by is crossed by a cycleway is 
already defined by the "highway" tags' values of the two crossing 
highways.
The values of the "crossing" tag describe properties of the crossing 
itself, not of the crossing ways.


highway=crossing
crossing=cycleway
would be a good formula.
What do you think?

I think it is not in line with existing 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] crossing=cycleway as a node

[Markus]

Hi!

I don't think cycleway=crossing is a good idea because crossing=* key
specifies whether a crossing has traffic signals, is only marked
(uncontrolled) or unmarked. However, bicycle crossing can also have
traffic lights or be only marked (and likely there are also unmarked
bicycle crossings). With crossing=cycleway you won't be able to
specify any of these crossing types.

Besides, highway=crossing is currently either used for pedestrian-only
crossings or for crossings for pedestrians and cyclists or riders.

Therefore a new highway=bicycle_crossing tag for bicycle-only
crossings might be best.

(By the way, a tiger crossing is an unsignalised crossing for cyclists
*and pedestrians*.)

Regards

Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] crossing=cycleway as a node

[Volker Schmidt]

On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 at 12:05, yo paseopor  wrote:

> Hi!
>
> Now I'm tagging with the more detail I can some cycleways in Catalonia. I
> do al the ways, and I cut and mark all the crossings. I do this with the
> formula
> highway=cycleway
> cycleway=crossing
> as a way (like I do other times with
> highway=footway
> footway=crossing
> for mark all the pedestrian crossing. But I have a dilemma. When I want to
> tag the exact point in the cycleway crossing with the road I would use
> highway=crossing
> crossing=uncontrolled
> ...but it is not so detailed enough so I think about a
> crossing=cycleway
>
The fact that the road is crossed by is crossed by a cycleway is already
defined by the "highway" tags' values of the two crossing highways.
The values of the "crossing" tag describe properties of the crossing
itself, not of the crossing ways.

highway=crossing
> crossing=cycleway
> would be a good formula.
> What do you think?
>

I think it is not in line with existing tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] crossing=cycleway as a node

[yo paseopor]

Hi!

Now I'm tagging with the more detail I can some cycleways in Catalonia. I
do al the ways, and I cut and mark all the crossings. I do this with the
formula
highway=cycleway
cycleway=crossing
as a way (like I do other times with
highway=footway
footway=crossing
for mark all the pedestrian crossing. But I have a dilemma. When I want to
tag the exact point in the cycleway crossing with the road I would use
highway=crossing
crossing=uncontrolled
...but it is not so detailed enough so I think about a
crossing=cycleway
to mark this exact point...but crossing=cycleway does not exist. And if I
use the formula
highway=cycleway
cycleway=crossing
as a node is repetitive (517 cases says taginfo) .
Also I think about using
crossing_ref=tiger
(1542 cases says taginfo) but as I'm not in Great Britain and I think
animals crossing references are not useful in global tagging and should be
changed by the physical characteristics I think
highway=crossing
crossing=cycleway
would be a good formula.
What do you think?
yopaseopor
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] weight limit in short tons

[Tobias Zwick]

Hey there, as I was illustrating the
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweight
article with some example signs and notes about pitfalls, I noticed that
the wiki says here that the weight *must always* be defined in metric units.

So, I also added a row in the examples table about the short tons to
metric tons conversion.

But now, I am wondering, if the claim "As per Map Features:Units, as of
September 2014 only metric units of weight (metric tonnes or kilograms)
are supported for this tag." is not a mistake.

Because...
1. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features/Units mentions "st"
(short tons) as a unit
2. there is also "mph" for speed limits
3. it seems that this rule would unnecessarily complicate the mapping in
the United States

Does anyone know anything about (a decision) that the weight may only be
specified in metric? Or was there a misinformed wiki-fiddler at work?

Cheers
Tobias

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