date:20190214

> shouldn’t we be tagging *all of these* as man_made=incinerators

Yes, I agree this would be helpful. I imagine that most incinerators are
built primarily to dispose of trash. The electrical generation is a
side-benefit but probably doesn’t pencil out financially alone.
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 11:57 AM John Willis via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> On Feb 13, 2019, at 4:25 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
> man_made=incinerator
>
>
>
> Thanks everyone for all the feedback. I will tag them as a
> man_made=incinerator.
>
> Then, shouldn’t we be tagging *all of these* as man_made=incinerators?
> (power and non-power generating alike?)
>
> There shouldn’t be any key/value incompatibility.
>
> for a modern incinerator complex which handles both burnable and
> unburnable waste:
>
> man_made=incinerator
> power=generator
> generator:source=waste
> amenity=waste_transfer_station
> (in fact, the only conflict I see is that amenity=recycling &
> amenity=waste_transfer_station can’t be on the same landuse, which is an
> often shared job here in Japan, but that is for another day).
>
> I feel this should be the main tag for all incinerators. if they produce
> power via a form of waste disposal, then the additional power generation
> tags should be added.
>
> There are obviously power plants (and other industrial processes) that are
> purpose-built to use unrecyclable waste as a fuel (tire-burning smelters,
> etc), but all of these incinerators around me are primarily for getting rid
> of the garbage generated by a city.
>
> I feel we should clarify the tagging scheme to tag *all* these
> incinerators as man_made=incinerator and add the power generation when
> necessary.
>
>
> Javbw
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Medicine Disposal

I’d use waste=medication, but I’m an American. Perhaps “medicine” is
appropriate British English?
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 11:19 AM Clifford Snow 
wrote:

> Yes, a typo on my part.
>
> Sent from my Android phone.
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019, 5:23 PM Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> sent from a phone
>> > On 15. Feb 2019, at 01:49, Clifford Snow 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I've thought about using the tag amenity=waste + waste=medicine
>> >
>> > Any better suggestions?
>>
>>
>> did you maybe mean to write amenity=“waste_disposal”? Waste is usually
>> not seen as an amenity ;-)
>>
>> 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
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging a public waste incinerator complex

2019-02-14 Thread John Willis via Tagging

> On Feb 13, 2019, at 4:25 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  > wrote:
> 
> man_made=incinerator

Thanks everyone for all the feedback. I will tag them as a 
man_made=incinerator. 

Then, shouldn’t we be tagging *all of these* as man_made=incinerators? (power 
and non-power generating alike?) 

There shouldn’t be any key/value incompatibility.

for a modern incinerator complex which handles both burnable and unburnable 
waste:

man_made=incinerator
power=generator
generator:source=waste
amenity=waste_transfer_station
(in fact, the only conflict I see is that amenity=recycling & 
amenity=waste_transfer_station can’t be on the same landuse, which is an often 
shared job here in Japan, but that is for another day). 

I feel this should be the main tag for all incinerators. if they produce power 
via a form of waste disposal, then the additional power generation tags should 
be added. 

There are obviously power plants (and other industrial processes) that are 
purpose-built to use unrecyclable waste as a fuel (tire-burning smelters, etc), 
but all of these incinerators around me are primarily for getting rid of the 
garbage generated by a city.

I feel we should clarify the tagging scheme to tag *all* these incinerators as 
man_made=incinerator and add the power generation when necessary. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Medicine Disposal

2019-02-14 Thread Clifford Snow

Yes, a typo on my part.

Sent from my Android phone.

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019, 5:23 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
>
>
>
> sent from a phone
> > On 15. Feb 2019, at 01:49, Clifford Snow 
> wrote:
> >
> > I've thought about using the tag amenity=waste + waste=medicine
> >
> > Any better suggestions?
>
>
> did you maybe mean to write amenity=“waste_disposal”? Waste is usually not
> seen as an amenity ;-)
>
> 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] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

2019-02-14 Thread Greg Troxel

Joseph Eisenberg  writes:

>> The question asked is "Is this street accessible for pedestrians here?".
>> It doesn't ask for the user's opinion on how safe it is.
>>
>
> I believe this is the wrong question. It should be “Are pedestrians legally
> prohibited from walking along this road?”

Agreed.  The tag is about legal access and therefore a question intended
to set the tag must be phrased that way, clearly enough that app users
who *do not understand the tagging rules* will answer correctly.

FWIW, around me pedestrians may walk on almost any road except
Interstate Highways, and perhaps a few other roads that feel like that
(which would then be tagged individually as foot=no, bicycle=no,
horse=no, and perhaps the not really existing farm_equipment=no).  Not
long ago I saw a bicyclist on the side of a road that is clearly trunk:
2 lanes each way, divided, traffic lights every 1.5 miles or so, posted
45 mph with typical speeds 65 mph.   Very unsuual, but not prohibited.
And Paul has a good point that riding on that road on the right side of
the breakdown lane is arguably safer than on a lower-class road that's
far narrower.  A bicycle example, but applies equally to pedestrians.

I can see that there might be a frustration about OSM not having tags
that represent "would a prudent person think it's scary to walk here",
but the usual OSM response is to look for an existing tag and if not
define one.

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

Re: [Tagging] Medicine Disposal





sent from a phone
> On 15. Feb 2019, at 01:49, Clifford Snow  wrote:
> 
> I've thought about using the tag amenity=waste + waste=medicine
> 
> Any better suggestions?


did you maybe mean to write amenity=“waste_disposal”? Waste is usually not seen 
as an amenity ;-)

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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

sent from a phone

> On 15. Feb 2019, at 01:24, Tobias Zwick  wrote:
> 
> Is this now about the word "legal" or about the negation of the question? 
> What difference does the latter make?

it is making things much clearer because it follows common legal settings 
(access is allowed unless it is legally forbidden, hence you ask whether it is 
forbidden, so people understand what you are after).

accessible can mean a lot of things, and you seem to have chosen this on 
purpose, as you question that access tags are about legal access only.

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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

2019-02-14 Thread Kevin Kenny

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 7:26 PM Tobias Zwick  wrote:
>
> Is this now about the word "legal" or about the negation of the question? 
> What difference does the latter make? Also, doesn't "probited" imply 
> "legally" in common understanding?
>
> And of course, foot=no is tagged if a road is not accessible by foot.

Many posters in this thread confused 'accessible safely' with
'accessible lawfully', hence the talking at cross purposes. The former
may be a judgment call; the latter is ordinarily reasonably
straightforward to resolve.

This comes partly from the fact that 'accessible' in the US appears
mostly in phrases such as 'accessible to the disabled', which connotes
affirmative provision for the group in question.

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

[Tagging] Medicine Disposal

2019-02-14 Thread Clifford Snow

How should sites that offer drop box disposal for unneeded medicine be
tagged? Typical locations would include pharmacys, clinics, hospitals, and
law enforcement buildings.

I've thought about using the tag amenity=waste + waste=medicine

Any better suggestions?

Thanks in advance,
Clifford

-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Is this now about the word "legal" or about the negation of the question? What 
difference does the latter make? Also, doesn't "probited" imply "legally" in 
common understanding?

And of course, foot=no is tagged if a road is not accessible by foot.

On February 15, 2019 12:52:16 AM GMT+01:00, Joseph Eisenberg 
 wrote:
>> The question asked is "Is this street accessible for pedestrians
>here?".
>> It doesn't ask for the user's opinion on how safe it is.
>>
>
>I believe this is the wrong question. It should be “Are pedestrians
>legally
>prohibited from walking along this road?”
>
>If so, use foot=no
>
>Foot=yes should only be used for motorways and motorway_link roads,
>bridleways and cycleways.
>
>(and perhaps busways, railways? Though I can’t think of any that would
>allow pedestrian travel)
>
>If the road is tagged expressway=yes then foot=yes might also be
>needed.
>All other classifications of road should be presumed to permit
>pedestrian
>travel.
>
>
>>

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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

2019-02-14 Thread Sergio Manzi

+1!

On 2019-02-15 00:52, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> I believe this is the wrong question. It should be “Are pedestrians legally 
> prohibited from walking along this road?”
>
> If so, use foot=no



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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

> The question asked is "Is this street accessible for pedestrians here?".
> It doesn't ask for the user's opinion on how safe it is.
>

I believe this is the wrong question. It should be “Are pedestrians legally
prohibited from walking along this road?”

If so, use foot=no

Foot=yes should only be used for motorways and motorway_link roads,
bridleways and cycleways.

(and perhaps busways, railways? Though I can’t think of any that would
allow pedestrian travel)

If the road is tagged expressway=yes then foot=yes might also be needed.
All other classifications of road should be presumed to permit pedestrian
travel.


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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

sent from a phone

> On 14. Feb 2019, at 19:51, Tobias Zwick  wrote:
> 
> The reason for it being (not) accessible is secondary,

if the reason is not of legal nature, it is subjective and may be felt 
differently by different people, that’s why we don’t do it.

The Hamburg example of the connection road in an area which is separated for 
pedestrians by a barrier, might eventually be implicitly forbidden (because 
pedestrians must cross at intersections if there are, and must not climb over 
guard rails), although one might argue that someone carrying a big box or 
pushing a wheelbarrow would still have to use the road (unless the sidewalks 
are sufficiently spacious so she doesn’t create problems).

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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

sent from a phone

> On 14. Feb 2019, at 19:51, Tobias Zwick  wrote:
> 
> I am sure the police would find something
> else to charge you with when you take a walk on for example this busy
> intersection https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/188015324 , like,
> hindrance of traffic. Note that the road authority also did not bother
> to put any signs there [*]
> (Google Streetview:
> https://www.google.de/maps/@53.5483485,10.0055799,3a,73y,176.82h,81.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBSZx5A6MNVRKd0qN6MIanQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
> )
> 
> Incidentally, that section is also tagged with foot=no.

actually according to German law you _must_ walk on the road even if there is a 
pavement/sidewalk when carrying or pushing big loads which would interfere with 
other pedestrians on the pavement.

Don’t just think about big cities, think about the rural areas outside of 
settlements. There are hardly ever sidewalks and if authorities forbid roaf 
access to pedestrians you would have problems walking from one place to another.

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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential



sent from a phone

> On 14. Feb 2019, at 19:51, Tobias Zwick  wrote:
> 
> I doubt access restrictions are used that way in reality.


you can do this, but in general they are used like this, and in the cases where 
they aren’t, we should strive to improve the tagging, rather than redefine the 
meaning of the tags because of them.


> 
> The absence of keys like the mentioned key walkable(, cycleable,
> motorcarable, hgvable etc.) is a clear sign for that,


these tags are from time to time proposed and then rejected because of 
verifiability issues 


> because there are
> enough situations where the situation on the ground is clear for a
> surveyor but there is no official sign.


like for example?


> There are many different road traffic legislations around the world and
> (as I read many of them) I can tell you that there is a lot of variance
> in how precisely and how close to reality they are written. And also,
> how much the road authority feels the need to sign more or less obvious
> road situations.


well possible, there is the vienna convention on traffic which is signed by 74 
countries so ~120 did not, including the US and China



> In some legislations, there is no notion of motorways and motorroads,
> but roads like this may nevertheless exist.


would we want to adjust our standards to these exceptions? Can you give some 
concrete example? I would rather expect people walking on these fake 
„motorways“ if there aren’t alternatives, then avoiding them although they 
could.

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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

> Agreed. I don't see much of a difference between residential and higher
> class roads. I would even argue that around here a sidewalk=no + foot=no
> is even less likely on higher class roads than on residentials.

How so? I have the impression, we (all) have different kinds of road in
mind, when arguing whether or not an explicit foot=yes/no is reasonable
or not.
I have these kind of road (sections) in mind that I already mentioned:
underpasses, tunnels, bridges, but also (large) intersections,
roundabouts, links between roads and any other occurances where in OSM,
multiple ways are drawn even though in reality, it is just one road.
So, what kind of roads do you have in mind?

Tobias

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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

The question asked is "Is this street accessible for pedestrians here?".
It doesn't ask for the user's opinion on how safe it is.

Also:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-February/042874.html

On 14/02/2019 22:10, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> I am sorry, this is not the correct approach. We have here plenty of
> streets in other categories (unclassified|teritery|secondary|primary)
> without sidewalk  where it is perfectly legal for pedestrians to use the
> road. This does not say whether it's safe to walk on them. If people now
> start putting foot=no because they want to prevent people from walking
> on the these roads because it's unsafe, then we create a nice mess. You
> should map the deviation from the default (foot=no), not confirm a
> default (foot=yes).

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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential


Am 14.02.2019 um 22:10 schrieb Volker Schmidt:
I am sorry, this is not the correct approach. We have here plenty of 
streets in other categories (unclassified|teritery|secondary|primary) 
without sidewalk where it is perfectly legal for pedestrians to use 
the road. This does not say whether it's safe to walk on them. If 
people now start putting foot=no because they want to prevent people 
from walking on the these roads because it's unsafe, then we create a 
nice mess. You should map the deviation from the default (foot=no), 
not confirm a default (foot=yes).


Agreed. I don't see much of a difference between residential and higher 
class roads. I would even argue that around here a sidewalk=no + foot=no 
is even less likely on higher class roads than on residentials.



On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 21:50, Tobias Zwick > wrote:


No, I didn't. I explained the quest here:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-February/042860.html

In a nutshell: foot=yes/no is only asked if sidewalk=no is tagged.


ok. I somehow mixed that up.


Tobias

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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Legally and practically, all roads are open to pedestrians unless there is
a specific prohibition. Walking is considered a basic right, and
practically it is difficult to stop people from walking anywhere.

Motorways are the only exception in most countries.

In rural parts of the USA even motorways are often legally accessible to
bicycles and in foot; eg Interstate 8 east of San Diego, and both
interstate freeways in Oregon (except in the city of Portland and in
Medford) allow people on bicycles and on foot
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:43 PM Tobias Zwick  wrote:

> With this information given, the question is, whether
>
>   highway=residential + sidewalk=no
>
> implies a
>
>   foot=yes
>
> . And with implies, I mean, that it is considered *duplicate
> information* if this is tagged. Note that This is different to an
> unspecified information which can with relative certainty be assumed (by
> data consumers) to be X. ( See also
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/StreetComplete/FAQ#Why_does_StreetComplete_often_tag_the_absence_of_features.3F
> )
>
> I am unsure about this myself, it's certainly not mentioned in the wiki,
> but that doesn't have to mean anything.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Tobias
>
> On 14/02/2019 14:25, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> > Yes, there is a new quest in v10, which tags foot=yes/no. It is no
> > problem to make changes on it, but let me first provide some information
> > on it first, so we have a common basis to discuss:
> >
> > For any street that has been tagged as having no sidewalk, the
> > StreetComplete asks the surveyor:
> >
> > "Is this street accessible for pedestrians here?
> >
> > This street was tagged as having no sidewalk on either side. So, the
> > street is only accessible on foot if people may walk on the street
> > itself or there is enough space to walk beside it."
> >
> > When the surveyor answers "yes", foot=yes is tagged.
> >
> > The rationale behind collecting this information is, that if a street is
> > explicitly surveyed as having no sidewalk, it is no longer implicated
> > that naturally the street is accessible on foot (foot=yes). Roads
> > explicitly signed as motorroads are not the only roads that are not
> > accessible on foot.
> >
> > And this is an important information for pedestrian routers and maybe a
> > useful information for car routers (because they might want to prefer
> > routes without the sidewalk=no + foot=yes combination).
> >
> > Tobias
> >
> > On 14/02/2019 10:26, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >> i am seeing a growing number of changesets setting foot=yes
> >> on all kinds of roads e.g. residential
> >>
> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/403719315
> >>
> >> Commit message is:
> >>
> >> "Add whether roads are accessible for pedestrians"
> >>
> >> All residentials are accessible to pedestrians so i a bit puzzled
> >> what this challenge is good for. It just adds redundant tags to
> >> all roads.
> >>
> >> Flo
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >>
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 63

2019-02-14 Thread Warin


On 15/02/19 00:36, Ulrich Lamm wrote:
Am 14.02.2019 um 12:51 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org 
:



 If you can justify it within your own tortured logic about
copyright, you can even use the
OSM database as a foundation for your efforts.


Openstreetmap is present, almost everywhere.
On some kinds of contents, Openstreetmap is full of of gaps and mistakes.
One has the choice to accept that like a fate, or to try to improve 
Openstreetmap.


Improvement in detail is filling gaps and correcting mistakes.
Improvement in principle is pleading for rules that do not prevent 
scientific standard

and supporting a development of OSM's social structures towards democracy.


OSM is constrained by making the output data really and truly free for 
all users.


What you are trying to do will restrict the output data of OSM.

Is that an 'improvement'?

--

Deal with the principle issue. Errors/mistakes/accuracy and added data 
are side issues.


-
If someone does not want to see the messages of one or more contributors 
they are free to do so.  Just as they are free not to read a thread.


Ulrich  contributions break the social norms by using the digest as the 
subject title thus breaking any possibility to organise the threads into 
a sequence.

This is unsocial to all.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

2019-02-14 Thread Volker Schmidt

I am sorry, this is not the correct approach. We have here plenty of
streets in other categories (unclassified|teritery|secondary|primary)
without sidewalk  where it is perfectly legal for pedestrians to use the
road. This does not say whether it's safe to walk on them. If people now
start putting foot=no because they want to prevent people from walking on
the these roads because it's unsafe, then we create a nice mess. You should
map the deviation from the default (foot=no), not confirm a default
(foot=yes).

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 21:50, Tobias Zwick  wrote:

> No, I didn't. I explained the quest here:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-February/042860.html
>
> In a nutshell: foot=yes/no is only asked if sidewalk=no is tagged.
>
> As per request on this mailing list, I now changed it so that regardless
> of whether sidewalk=no is tagged, it is never asked for service roads,
> living streets, pedestrian and residential roads. Here is the code:
>
>
> https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/blob/master/app/src/main/java/de/westnordost/streetcomplete/quests/foot/AddAccessibleForPedestrians.kt#L12-L18
>
> Tobias
>
> On 14/02/2019 21:14, Tobias Wrede wrote:
> > Am 14.02.2019 um 20:50 schrieb Tobias Zwick:
> >> Alright, I will change it so that the question whether a road is
> >> accessible for pedestrians is never asked for residential roads (and
> >> living streets, service roads, pedestrians roads) for v10.1
> >>
> > I think you lost me. Didn't you explain in the beginning that this quest
> > was asked for residentials only anyway? What will remain then?
> >
> > You could modify so that the question is asked only for bridges, tunnels
> > or where bicycle=no exists and where there is no sidewalk.
> >
> > Tobias
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

No, I didn't. I explained the quest here:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-February/042860.html

In a nutshell: foot=yes/no is only asked if sidewalk=no is tagged.

As per request on this mailing list, I now changed it so that regardless
of whether sidewalk=no is tagged, it is never asked for service roads,
living streets, pedestrian and residential roads. Here is the code:

https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/blob/master/app/src/main/java/de/westnordost/streetcomplete/quests/foot/AddAccessibleForPedestrians.kt#L12-L18

Tobias

On 14/02/2019 21:14, Tobias Wrede wrote:
> Am 14.02.2019 um 20:50 schrieb Tobias Zwick:
>> Alright, I will change it so that the question whether a road is
>> accessible for pedestrians is never asked for residential roads (and
>> living streets, service roads, pedestrians roads) for v10.1
>>
> I think you lost me. Didn't you explain in the beginning that this quest
> was asked for residentials only anyway? What will remain then?
> 
> You could modify so that the question is asked only for bridges, tunnels
> or where bicycle=no exists and where there is no sidewalk.
> 
> Tobias
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential


Am 14.02.2019 um 21:28 schrieb Kevin Kenny:

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 3:13 PM Tobias Wrede  wrote:

Still, they are the very minority of situations where a residential (or
any other road) has no sidewalk.

Local cultural assumptions are in play here!

In my (suburban) township, few residential roads have sidewalks, so
the ones without sidewalks are hardly in the minority. People walk on
the ones without sidewalks all the time - about half my daily walk to
and from work is on sidewalk-less roads (and the other half is on a
shared cycleway).


I probably was a bit unclear. I meant to say that for situations where a 
residential has not sidewalk the cases with foot=no are in the minority 
and foot=yes are the majority.



But I think we're in "violent agreement" that the default of foot=yes
for highway=residential is sensible, and that tagging something that's
the default already is nearly worthless.


Yes, agreed.

Tobias


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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

2019-02-14 Thread Kevin Kenny

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 3:13 PM Tobias Wrede  wrote:
> Still, they are the very minority of situations where a residential (or
> any other road) has no sidewalk.

Local cultural assumptions are in play here!

In my (suburban) township, few residential roads have sidewalks, so
the ones without sidewalks are hardly in the minority. People walk on
the ones without sidewalks all the time - about half my daily walk to
and from work is on sidewalk-less roads (and the other half is on a
shared cycleway).

But I think we're in "violent agreement" that the default of foot=yes
for highway=residential is sensible, and that tagging something that's
the default already is nearly worthless.

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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

2019-02-14 Thread Paul Johnson

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019, 11:17 JS  The legal situation is already represented by the default OSM setting,
> considering all highways as "foot=yes" except some like motorways or those
> explicitly marked as "foot=no".
>

This seems like a good time to remind folks that in North America, there is
no sane default for bicycle or foot on motorways, half the states allow
both.  Ive seen bicycle lanes on the freeway in BC and Texas.  The other
half have a myriad of rules about when and where, some have a total ban.
And then there's Oklahoma and Arkansas where it depends on whether or not
it's part of a bike route or hiking route, what the minimum speed limit is,
and whether or not it's a toll road... and then there's Oregon and
Washington, where not allowing either is limited enough that bike maps can
spell out the prohibitions in a short paragraph and bicycling on the
freeway is substantially safer than using a surface street with bicycle
lanes.

I make a habit out of explicitly tagging foot and bicycle access on
motorways I'm familiar with.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential


Am 14.02.2019 um 20:50 schrieb Tobias Zwick:

Alright, I will change it so that the question whether a road is
accessible for pedestrians is never asked for residential roads (and
living streets, service roads, pedestrians roads) for v10.1

I think you lost me. Didn't you explain in the beginning that this quest 
was asked for residentials only anyway? What will remain then?


You could modify so that the question is asked only for bridges, tunnels 
or where bicycle=no exists and where there is no sidewalk.


Tobias


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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Am 14.02.2019 um 19:51 schrieb Tobias Zwick:

This is, by the way, a bit of a different topic now, because the thread
was originally about tagging foot=yes on residential, not whether
foot=yes/no is limited to a *legal* access restriction. Anyway:

I doubt access restrictions are used that way in reality.

In my experience they are mostly. Granted, the legal interpretation
might be stretched a bit sometimes.

Same with Germany/UK. Some posters mentioned, that on any road without a
sidewalk and without an explicit access restriction for pedestrians,
pedestrians are allowed. Okay, that is new to me, but if this is true,
then this is also a case where the law (massively) diverges from the
actual reality on the ground. I am sure the police would find something
else to charge you with when you take a walk on for example this busy
intersection https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/188015324 , like,
hindrance of traffic. Note that the road authority also did not bother
to put any signs there [*]
(Google Streetview:
https://www.google.de/maps/@53.5483485,10.0055799,3a,73y,176.82h,81.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBSZx5A6MNVRKd0qN6MIanQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
)

Incidentally, that section is also tagged with foot=no.

Well, IANAL but I guess this whole intersection gordian knot could be
interpreted as being one street and pedestrians are still rquired by
German law to use the circumferencing footways and not the several
carriageways.

I have no statistics up my sleeve, but I firmly believe that this is no
exception, because, common sense.

I'm with you here regarding the tunnels. Around here I have seen "no
pedestrians" signs at tunnel entrances, there are non around your
example street. So while legally it might be ok to walk there I would
also tend to foot=no them.

[*] And exactly these situations were the ones I had in mind when
designing the discussed quest for StreetComplete, by the way.

Still, they are the very minority of situations where a residential (or
any other road) has no sidewalk. In my view the negative impact of the
many, many foot=yes set by the quest outweighs the benefit of finding
the few exceptions to the rule. As suggested somewhere else maybe you
should try to limit the quest to bridges, tunnels or where there is
already a bicycle=no.

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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Alright, I will change it so that the question whether a road is
accessible for pedestrians is never asked for residential roads (and
living streets, service roads, pedestrians roads) for v10.1

Tobias

On 14/02/2019 10:26, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> i am seeing a growing number of changesets setting foot=yes
> on all kinds of roads e.g. residential
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/403719315
> 
> Commit message is:
> 
> "Add whether roads are accessible for pedestrians"
> 
> All residentials are accessible to pedestrians so i a bit puzzled
> what this challenge is good for. It just adds redundant tags to
> all roads.
> 
> Flo
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

2019-02-14 Thread Mark Wagner

In the United States, the rules aren't quite as permissive (for
example, authorities are allowed to forbid foot traffic), but in
practice, I'm not aware of a single case where a residential street
actually prohibits foot traffic.  (I'm aware of one near me that's
*tagged* as such, but I think it's a double tagging error: it's not a
residential street, and the user who tagged it misinterpreted a "don't
cross" sign at the intersection as "foot traffic prohibited".)

If you want to make this useful in the US, limit it to the situations
where foot traffic is likely to be prohibited: things like bridges,
tunnels, cuttings, and embankments.

-- 
Mark

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 16:05:56 +0100
Rory McCann  wrote:

> I can't find any issue on Github for this feature.
> 
> But in Ireland (& I think UK), all public roads except motorways, are 
> foot=yes. Legally you can walk on the road, even if there is not 
> footpath ("sidewalk"). I think this adds bloat and quests which will 
> annoy mappers.
> 
> On 14/02/2019 10:26, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > i am seeing a growing number of changesets setting foot=yes
> > on all kinds of roads e.g. residential
> > 
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/403719315
> > 
> > Commit message is:
> > 
> > "Add whether roads are accessible for pedestrians"
> > 
> > All residentials are accessible to pedestrians so i a bit puzzled
> > what this challenge is good for. It just adds redundant tags to
> > all roads.
> > 
> > Flo  
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

2019-02-14 Thread Jarek Piórkowski

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 13:51, Tobias Zwick  wrote:
> I doubt access restrictions are used that way in reality.
> The absence of keys like the mentioned key walkable(, cycleable,
> motorcarable, hgvable etc.) is a clear sign for that, because there are
> enough situations where the situation on the ground is clear for a
> surveyor but there is no official sign.

Personally, I have used foot=no to tag ways that are clearly not
walkable without confirming the exact legal position, and don't really
have a problem with that.

But that feels different from tagging foot=yes. Access tags are always
a general rule - for example a privileged vehicle would be able to
enter a highway with access=no, and workers on foot might be able to
work on a motorway or within an intersection. foot=yes to me means
that I expect to be able to pass on foot, unless the path is closed
for repairs or blocked off by police or whatever - but I have that
expectation anyway on any highway=residential that is not tagged with
foot=no.

> I am sure the police would find something
> else to charge you with when you take a walk on for example this busy
> intersection https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/188015324 , like,
> hindrance of traffic. Note that the road authority also did not bother
> to put any signs there [*]
> ...
> Let's be pragmatic: We don't tag things just because and also do not
> live in clouds. So, why do we tag access restrictions at all? -
> To be of use for routing and other use cases where it is relevant
> whether something is accessible or not, simple as that.

The example that started off the thread is highway=residential. The
Deichtorplatz example you gave is highway=secondary, and the bits of
highway=residential in the junction would not affect pedestrian
routing on their own because they only connect to highway=secondary. I
would expect majority of bridges, underpasses, intersections, and
other such foot=no highways to be higher-class than residential.
Which highway classes does the StreetComplete query ask about?
And does it make sense to ask about highway=residential -- and I mean
highway=residential as it is tagged, not as it is defined by laws or
lack thereof?

Second. To me, the question is not whether there exists a
highway=residential + sidewalk=no with foot=no, but rather do enough
of them exist to warrant asking this about every one of them, and
tagging foot=yes on every other one? Especially considering that
foot=yes is taken to be the default anyway.

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

I agree that it would make sense to not ask whether a road has a
sidewalk outside of built-up areas because in most cases, it will have
no sidewalks.

Regrettably, whether a road is in a built-up area or outside is not an
information that is recorded in OSM.

Tobias

On 14/02/2019 18:23, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
>> On 14. Feb 2019, at 16:05, Rory McCann  wrote:
>>
>> But in Ireland (& I think UK), all public roads except motorways, are 
>> foot=yes. Legally you can walk on the road, even if there is not footpath 
>> ("sidewalk"). I think this adds bloat and quests which will annoy mappers.
> 
> 
> Germany and Italy as well (motorroads and motorways excluded).
> Sooner or later we might add sidewalk=no tags to many roads in the 
> countryside (maybe, so long I wasn’t actually doing it). There may be a 
> fundamental conflict of the StreetComplete project (which encourages to 
> verify everything) and our usually sloppy way of assuming defaults. Problem 
> is with lots of “boring” tags on every object, we’ll loose focus/overview and 
> it might reduce data quality rather than augmenting it. I acknowledge some 
> compromise is already offered by asking only for roads without sidewalks, but 
> it is still too many, if it were only in built-up areas it would be probably 
> acceptable (for Italy or Germany).
> 
> 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] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

This is, by the way, a bit of a different topic now, because the thread
was originally about tagging foot=yes on residential, not whether
foot=yes/no is limited to a *legal* access restriction. Anyway:

I doubt access restrictions are used that way in reality.

The absence of keys like the mentioned key walkable(, cycleable,
motorcarable, hgvable etc.) is a clear sign for that, because there are
enough situations where the situation on the ground is clear for a
surveyor but there is no official sign.
Otherwise, the access restriction information would be hardly useful.

There are many different road traffic legislations around the world and
(as I read many of them) I can tell you that there is a lot of variance
in how precisely and how close to reality they are written. And also,
how much the road authority feels the need to sign more or less obvious
road situations.

In some legislations, there is no notion of motorways and motorroads,
but roads like this may nevertheless exist. Does that mean that no roads
may be tagged like this in OSM? No. Does it mean that foot=yes is
implicitly assumed on them? Well, no, because even if that would be the
official legal situation, that would be silly, and I am sure no
policeman with common-sense would listen to this kind of bean counting.

Same with Germany/UK. Some posters mentioned, that on any road without a
sidewalk and without an explicit access restriction for pedestrians,
pedestrians are allowed. Okay, that is new to me, but if this is true,
then this is also a case where the law (massively) diverges from the
actual reality on the ground. I am sure the police would find something
else to charge you with when you take a walk on for example this busy
intersection https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/188015324 , like,
hindrance of traffic. Note that the road authority also did not bother
to put any signs there [*]
(Google Streetview:
https://www.google.de/maps/@53.5483485,10.0055799,3a,73y,176.82h,81.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBSZx5A6MNVRKd0qN6MIanQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
)

Incidentally, that section is also tagged with foot=no.

I have no statistics up my sleeve, but I firmly believe that this is no
exception, because, common sense.

Let's be pragmatic: We don't tag things just because and also do not
live in clouds. So, why do we tag access restrictions at all? -
To be of use for routing and other use cases where it is relevant
whether something is accessible or not, simple as that.
The reason for it being (not) accessible is secondary, because this
information is mostly used for verifiability, but not for the routing
itself. It is the source of the information, like maxspeed:source=sign.

So, to come back to StreetComplete, the app could of course ask the user
instead: "Is this street *legally* accessible for pedestrians here?".
But, I hope I made clear that this is beside the point and asking more
generally is both more concise and meaningful. A surveyor that is
on-site is in the best position judge the situation according to common
sense if no sign is present and if he cannot (i.e. the answer would be
"prrooobably yes, it's not forbidden at least, but perhaps a bit
dangerous"), then he can still leave a note in which he explains the
situation and attaches some photos to it.

Tobias

[*] And exactly these situations were the ones I had in mind when
designing the discussed quest for StreetComplete, by the way.

On 14/02/2019 18:16, JS wrote:
> 
> 
>> The rationale behind collecting this information is, that if a street
>> is
>> explicitly surveyed as having no sidewalk, it is no longer implicated
>> that naturally the street is accessible on foot (foot=yes). Roads
>> explicitly signed as motorroads are not the only roads that are not
>> accessible on foot.
>>
>> And this is an important information for pedestrian routers and maybe a
>> useful information for car routers (because they might want to prefer
>> routes without the sidewalk=no + foot=yes 
> 
> First, thanks for all the effort put into "StreetComplete". I really like the 
> app and frequently use it.
> 
> Concerning the new task, I think the rationale to explicitly map highways 
> that are actually accessible to pedestrians is laudable. But the approach 
> chosen here may be inaccurate as it mixes the legal and the physical 
> realities. The legal situation is already represented by the default OSM 
> setting, considering all highways as "foot=yes" except some like motorways or 
> those explicitly marked as "foot=no".
> 
> Although walking on a street may be allowed, it may however be unpleasant or 
> even unsafe to really do so. But this physical reality should, IMHO, be 
> reflected in a separate (afaik still non-existant) tag, like "walkable=1-3" 
> or so. This could then be taken into account by routers when calculating 
> alternative routes between to points. But that certainly goes beyond this 
> thread.
> 
> I would, in consequence, support the deactivation of the task in its current 
> form.
> 
>

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

sent from a phone

> On 14. Feb 2019, at 16:05, Rory McCann  wrote:
> 
> But in Ireland (& I think UK), all public roads except motorways, are 
> foot=yes. Legally you can walk on the road, even if there is not footpath 
> ("sidewalk"). I think this adds bloat and quests which will annoy mappers.

Germany and Italy as well (motorroads and motorways excluded).
Sooner or later we might add sidewalk=no tags to many roads in the countryside 
(maybe, so long I wasn’t actually doing it). There may be a fundamental 
conflict of the StreetComplete project (which encourages to verify everything) 
and our usually sloppy way of assuming defaults. Problem is with lots of 
“boring” tags on every object, we’ll loose focus/overview and it might reduce 
data quality rather than augmenting it. I acknowledge some compromise is 
already offered by asking only for roads without sidewalks, but it is still too 
many, if it were only in built-up areas it would be probably acceptable (for 
Italy or Germany).

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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

2019-02-14 Thread JS



>The rationale behind collecting this information is, that if a street
>is
>explicitly surveyed as having no sidewalk, it is no longer implicated
>that naturally the street is accessible on foot (foot=yes). Roads
>explicitly signed as motorroads are not the only roads that are not
>accessible on foot.
>
>And this is an important information for pedestrian routers and maybe a
>useful information for car routers (because they might want to prefer
>routes without the sidewalk=no + foot=yes 

First, thanks for all the effort put into "StreetComplete". I really like the 
app and frequently use it.

Concerning the new task, I think the rationale to explicitly map highways that 
are actually accessible to pedestrians is laudable. But the approach chosen 
here may be inaccurate as it mixes the legal and the physical realities. The 
legal situation is already represented by the default OSM setting, considering 
all highways as "foot=yes" except some like motorways or those explicitly 
marked as "foot=no".

Although walking on a street may be allowed, it may however be unpleasant or 
even unsafe to really do so. But this physical reality should, IMHO, be 
reflected in a separate (afaik still non-existant) tag, like "walkable=1-3" or 
so. This could then be taken into account by routers when calculating 
alternative routes between to points. But that certainly goes beyond this 
thread.

I would, in consequence, support the deactivation of the task in its current 
form.

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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

apart from underpasses, bridges also intersections and similar
constructs. They need not be trunk/motorroad.

For example many road segments at Deichtorplatz and inner lanes of
Willi-Brandt-Straße in Hamburg:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/53.54762/10.00345

On 14/02/2019 17:03, Philip Barnes wrote:
> 
> 
> On 14 February 2019 15:05:56 GMT, Rory McCann  wrote:
>> I can't find any issue on Github for this feature.
>>
>> But in Ireland (& I think UK), all public roads except motorways, are 
>> foot=yes. Legally you can walk on the road, even if there is not 
>> footpath ("sidewalk"). I think this adds bloat and quests which will 
>> annoy mappers.
> 
> You are correct Rory, in the UK you can normally walk (or cycle) on all non 
> motorways. There are a few exceptions but these will be trunk, never ever 
> residential, and will be associated with underpasses or bridges. 
> 
> Would anyone live somewhere you are legally not allowed to walk to your 
> house? 
> 
> Phil (trigpoint) 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> On 14/02/2019 10:26, Florian Lohoff wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> i am seeing a growing number of changesets setting foot=yes
>>> on all kinds of roads e.g. residential
>>>
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/403719315
>>>
>>> Commit message is:
>>>
>>> "Add whether roads are accessible for pedestrians"
>>>
>>> All residentials are accessible to pedestrians so i a bit puzzled
>>> what this challenge is good for. It just adds redundant tags to
>>> all roads.
>>>
>>> Flo
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

2019-02-14 Thread Florian Lohoff

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 04:00:24PM +0100, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> Wrong thread?
> 
> Anyway, the quest in StreetComplete only asks for foot=yes/no if the
> road is tagged with sidewalk=no.

Sidewalk is a physical issue - foot=* is a legal issue. 

It is perfectly normal for streets in Germany to have no sidewalk
(Probably around 80% of road distances dont have sidewalks)

Still 99% of roads (Except motorway) are legal to be walked.

And we have that as defaults - motorway/trunk -> foot=no - others
are by default foot=yes

A sidewalk=no does not change any of these assumptions.

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] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

2019-02-14 Thread Philip Barnes



On 14 February 2019 15:05:56 GMT, Rory McCann  wrote:
>I can't find any issue on Github for this feature.
>
>But in Ireland (& I think UK), all public roads except motorways, are 
>foot=yes. Legally you can walk on the road, even if there is not 
>footpath ("sidewalk"). I think this adds bloat and quests which will 
>annoy mappers.

You are correct Rory, in the UK you can normally walk (or cycle) on all non 
motorways. There are a few exceptions but these will be trunk, never ever 
residential, and will be associated with underpasses or bridges. 

Would anyone live somewhere you are legally not allowed to walk to your house? 

Phil (trigpoint) 




>
>On 14/02/2019 10:26, Florian Lohoff wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> i am seeing a growing number of changesets setting foot=yes
>> on all kinds of roads e.g. residential
>> 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/403719315
>> 
>> Commit message is:
>> 
>> "Add whether roads are accessible for pedestrians"
>> 
>> All residentials are accessible to pedestrians so i a bit puzzled
>> what this challenge is good for. It just adds redundant tags to
>> all roads.
>> 
>> Flo
>
>
>___
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

2019-02-14 Thread Rory McCann


I can't find any issue on Github for this feature.

But in Ireland (& I think UK), all public roads except motorways, are 
foot=yes. Legally you can walk on the road, even if there is not 
footpath ("sidewalk"). I think this adds bloat and quests which will 
annoy mappers.


On 14/02/2019 10:26, Florian Lohoff wrote:


Hi,
i am seeing a growing number of changesets setting foot=yes
on all kinds of roads e.g. residential

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/403719315

Commit message is:

"Add whether roads are accessible for pedestrians"

All residentials are accessible to pedestrians so i a bit puzzled
what this challenge is good for. It just adds redundant tags to
all roads.

Flo



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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Wrong thread?

Anyway, the quest in StreetComplete only asks for foot=yes/no if the
road is tagged with sidewalk=no.

On 14/02/2019 15:44, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> ... and just to make this even trickier:
> The access tag is (in most cases) about legal access, and not about
> is-it-a-good-idea-to-route-a-pedestrian-along-this-road access.
> That has to be underlined. In my part of the world most roads, even with
> a lot of traffic and without sidewalk are legally open to pedestrians,
> but if they take the road their chance of survival is low.
> Add to the mix that, in my part of the world, almost all roads have no
> sidewalk tag nor separate parallel footways, even if these are present.
> I don't think it's a good idea to add foot=yes to underline what is
> already the default. It would make more sense to tag foot=use_sidepath
> for those cases where there is a sidewalk _and_ pedestrians a legally
> required to use it, and use, obviously, foot=no for those cases where
> there it is against the law to walk on the street (for roads where the
> default is foot=yes)
> 
> 
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 14:49, Tobias Zwick  > wrote:
> 
> I don't take dismissive and generalizing statements on a project I have
> been putting 3+ years of lifeblood into, invest much of my free time in
> and offer as open source for the betterment of OSM, lightly.
> 
> If you have a concrete constructive suggestion to make, do it,
> otherwise, save your breath.
> 
> Tobias
> 
> On 14/02/2019 11:45, Wiklund Johan wrote:
> > I think that apps adding redundant tags to cover for a tiny number
> of special cases is going to cause more problems than it solves
> (i.e. users misinterpreting the question and adding "private" access
> to all kinds of roads). StreetBloat instead of StreetComplete :)
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com
> ]
> > Sent: torsdag 14. februar 2019 10.36
> > To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>>
> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential
> >
> >
> >
> > sent from a phone
> >
> >> On 14. Feb 2019, at 10:26, Florian Lohoff  > wrote:
> >>
> >> All residentials are accessible to pedestrians so i a bit puzzled
> what
> >> this challenge is good for. It just adds redundant tags to all roads.
> >
> >
> > I agree the default is accessibility for everyone on non-motorroad
> roads. There might be residential roads with private access (in the
> occasions I met where access was private I was tending towards
> service, although with general public access I would have called
> them residentials).
> >
> > 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
> >
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

2019-02-14 Thread Volker Schmidt

... and just to make this even trickier:
The access tag is (in most cases) about legal access, and not about
is-it-a-good-idea-to-route-a-pedestrian-along-this-road access.
That has to be underlined. In my part of the world most roads, even with a
lot of traffic and without sidewalk are legally open to pedestrians, but if
they take the road their chance of survival is low.
Add to the mix that, in my part of the world, almost all roads have no
sidewalk tag nor separate parallel footways, even if these are present.
I don't think it's a good idea to add foot=yes to underline what is already
the default. It would make more sense to tag foot=use_sidepath for those
cases where there is a sidewalk *and* pedestrians a legally required to use
it, and use, obviously, foot=no for those cases where there it is against
the law to walk on the street (for roads where the default is foot=yes)

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 14:49, Tobias Zwick  wrote:

> I don't take dismissive and generalizing statements on a project I have
> been putting 3+ years of lifeblood into, invest much of my free time in
> and offer as open source for the betterment of OSM, lightly.
>
> If you have a concrete constructive suggestion to make, do it,
> otherwise, save your breath.
>
> Tobias
>
> On 14/02/2019 11:45, Wiklund Johan wrote:
> > I think that apps adding redundant tags to cover for a tiny number of
> special cases is going to cause more problems than it solves (i.e. users
> misinterpreting the question and adding "private" access to all kinds of
> roads). StreetBloat instead of StreetComplete :)
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: torsdag 14. februar 2019 10.36
> > To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential
> >
> >
> >
> > sent from a phone
> >
> >> On 14. Feb 2019, at 10:26, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> >>
> >> All residentials are accessible to pedestrians so i a bit puzzled what
> >> this challenge is good for. It just adds redundant tags to all roads.
> >
> >
> > I agree the default is accessibility for everyone on non-motorroad
> roads. There might be residential roads with private access (in the
> occasions I met where access was private I was tending towards service,
> although with general public access I would have called them residentials).
> >
> > 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
> >
>
>
> ___
> 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] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

2019-02-14 Thread Jarek Piórkowski

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 08:42, Tobias Zwick  wrote:
> What do you think?

Hello,

In my experience in Canada I would indeed expect all (or basically
all) highway=residential to be (legally) accessible to pedestrians,
the question would be more about comfort or safety. I don't know if
tagging foot=yes is right tag to indicate "would you walk on this
road", though I'm struggling to come up with a better alternative at
the moment.

Are there any locations where a sizeable proportion of
highway=residential is not actually legally accessible to pedestrians?
Certainly there'll be exceptions, but around here it's signed
explicitly and done for reasons like heavy machinery operating along
the road or only connecting to a motorway.

How about only setting foot=no when the user specifies that this bit
of highway=residential + sidewalk=no is _not_ accessible to
pedestrians, and leaving the positive answer blank untagged? Though I
guess that doesn't work for removing the way from StreetComplete's
questions.

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

I don't take dismissive and generalizing statements on a project I have
been putting 3+ years of lifeblood into, invest much of my free time in
and offer as open source for the betterment of OSM, lightly.

If you have a concrete constructive suggestion to make, do it,
otherwise, save your breath.

Tobias

On 14/02/2019 11:45, Wiklund Johan wrote:
> I think that apps adding redundant tags to cover for a tiny number of special 
> cases is going to cause more problems than it solves (i.e. users 
> misinterpreting the question and adding "private" access to all kinds of 
> roads). StreetBloat instead of StreetComplete :)
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: torsdag 14. februar 2019 10.36
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential
> 
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
>> On 14. Feb 2019, at 10:26, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
>>
>> All residentials are accessible to pedestrians so i a bit puzzled what 
>> this challenge is good for. It just adds redundant tags to all roads.
> 
> 
> I agree the default is accessibility for everyone on non-motorroad roads. 
> There might be residential roads with private access (in the occasions I met 
> where access was private I was tending towards service, although with general 
> public access I would have called them residentials).
> 
> 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
> 


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 52 Co-ordinate sets vs. background informations = ODbL vs. CC

2019-02-14 Thread Sergio Manzi

On a mailing list, in a community, I can't imagine anything more rude and 
divisive than *publicly* telling someone that he can go away if he don't like 
things the way you (/and others, even the majority indeed/) like it, and that 
you are considering to block him/her *just for the opinions she/she express* 
(/mind you, not for the way he/she express it.../).


On 2019-02-14 14:02, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 12:34, Sergio Manzi mailto:s...@smz.it>> 
> wrote:
>
> I strongly dissent with the tone of your mail.
>
> That is your right.  Even if you are strongly dissenting about somebody 
> expressing strong
> dissent, it is your right.
>
> Everybody, not only you and the most vocifeferous ones, have the right to 
> express their opinion.
>
>
> Indeed.  I strongly support everyone's right to express their opinion.  As 
> far as I am concerned,
> you can say whatever you want.  But you cannot force me, or anyone else, to 
> listen.  Interacting
> with others in a way that stops them listening to you is not an effective way 
> of getting your point
> across.  YMMV.
>
> You can dissent, but the tone of your mail is definitely rude and 
> divisive.
>
> Rude???  I refrained from giving my opinion of the guy (which is something 
> most people
> would consider to be extremely negative) and merely told him what options were
> available to him since he is dissatisfied with the current situation.  The 
> OSM community
> has given a great deal of thought to copyright issues to arrive at their 
> position and I don't
> see much chance of them moving to his position, a position they explicitly 
> state is (in
> their opinion) not tenable.
>
> His only feasible options are to live with what we have, stop mapping, set up 
> a competing project,
> or continue to rant incomprehensibly here.  Should he continue to rant here 
> then he's likely to
> end up in killfiles.  Telling him that isn't rude, it's advising him that he 
> is not doing himself any
> favours with his current behaviour.
>
> Think twice.
>
> I thought three times before I posted.  You would certainly have thought the 
> second version of my
> post to be extremely rude.  And you would have had a conniption fit over the 
> first version.  What I
> actually posted refrained from rebuking him and instead offered a stark, 
> unadorned explanation
> of the options open to him.
>
> -- 
> Paul
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

With this information given, the question is, whether

  highway=residential + sidewalk=no

implies a

  foot=yes

. And with implies, I mean, that it is considered *duplicate
information* if this is tagged. Note that This is different to an
unspecified information which can with relative certainty be assumed (by
data consumers) to be X. ( See also
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/StreetComplete/FAQ#Why_does_StreetComplete_often_tag_the_absence_of_features.3F)

I am unsure about this myself, it's certainly not mentioned in the wiki,
but that doesn't have to mean anything.

What do you think?

Tobias

On 14/02/2019 14:25, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> Yes, there is a new quest in v10, which tags foot=yes/no. It is no
> problem to make changes on it, but let me first provide some information
> on it first, so we have a common basis to discuss:
> 
> For any street that has been tagged as having no sidewalk, the
> StreetComplete asks the surveyor:
> 
> "Is this street accessible for pedestrians here?
> 
> This street was tagged as having no sidewalk on either side. So, the
> street is only accessible on foot if people may walk on the street
> itself or there is enough space to walk beside it."
> 
> When the surveyor answers "yes", foot=yes is tagged.
> 
> The rationale behind collecting this information is, that if a street is
> explicitly surveyed as having no sidewalk, it is no longer implicated
> that naturally the street is accessible on foot (foot=yes). Roads
> explicitly signed as motorroads are not the only roads that are not
> accessible on foot.
> 
> And this is an important information for pedestrian routers and maybe a
> useful information for car routers (because they might want to prefer
> routes without the sidewalk=no + foot=yes combination).
> 
> Tobias
> 
> On 14/02/2019 10:26, Florian Lohoff wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> i am seeing a growing number of changesets setting foot=yes
>> on all kinds of roads e.g. residential
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/403719315
>>
>> Commit message is:
>>
>> "Add whether roads are accessible for pedestrians"
>>
>> All residentials are accessible to pedestrians so i a bit puzzled
>> what this challenge is good for. It just adds redundant tags to
>> all roads.
>>
>> Flo
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 63

2019-02-14 Thread Ulrich Lamm

Am 14.02.2019 um 12:51 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org:

>  If you can justify it within your own tortured logic about
> copyright, you can even use the
> OSM database as a foundation for your efforts.

Openstreetmap is present, almost everywhere.
On some kinds of contents, Openstreetmap is full of of gaps and mistakes.
One has the choice to accept that like a fate, or to try to improve 
Openstreetmap.

Improvement in detail is filling gaps and correcting mistakes.
Improvement in principle is pleading for rules that do not prevent scientific 
standard
and supporting a development of OSM's social structures towards democracy.

If some people forbid entries of scientific state of the art, unless they are 
allowed to sell them, this prevents OSM from becoming reliable.
It is not acceptable, if errors persist, because the sell better than the truth.

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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Yes, there is a new quest in v10, which tags foot=yes/no. It is no
problem to make changes on it, but let me first provide some information
on it first, so we have a common basis to discuss:

For any street that has been tagged as having no sidewalk, the
StreetComplete asks the surveyor:

"Is this street accessible for pedestrians here?

This street was tagged as having no sidewalk on either side. So, the
street is only accessible on foot if people may walk on the street
itself or there is enough space to walk beside it."

When the surveyor answers "yes", foot=yes is tagged.

The rationale behind collecting this information is, that if a street is
explicitly surveyed as having no sidewalk, it is no longer implicated
that naturally the street is accessible on foot (foot=yes). Roads
explicitly signed as motorroads are not the only roads that are not
accessible on foot.

And this is an important information for pedestrian routers and maybe a
useful information for car routers (because they might want to prefer
routes without the sidewalk=no + foot=yes combination).

Tobias

On 14/02/2019 10:26, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> i am seeing a growing number of changesets setting foot=yes
> on all kinds of roads e.g. residential
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/403719315
> 
> Commit message is:
> 
> "Add whether roads are accessible for pedestrians"
> 
> All residentials are accessible to pedestrians so i a bit puzzled
> what this challenge is good for. It just adds redundant tags to
> all roads.
> 
> Flo
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 52 Co-ordinate sets vs. background informations = ODbL vs. CC

2019-02-14 Thread Paul Allen

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 12:34, Sergio Manzi  wrote:

> I strongly dissent with the tone of your mail.
>
That is your right.  Even if you are strongly dissenting about somebody
expressing strong
dissent, it is your right.

> Everybody, not only you and the most vocifeferous ones, have the right to
> express their opinion.
>

Indeed.  I strongly support everyone's right to express their opinion.  As
far as I am concerned,
you can say whatever you want.  But you cannot force me, or anyone else, to
listen.  Interacting
with others in a way that stops them listening to you is not an effective
way of getting your point
across.  YMMV.

> You can dissent, but the tone of your mail is definitely rude and divisive.
>
Rude???  I refrained from giving my opinion of the guy (which is something
most people
would consider to be extremely negative) and merely told him what options
were
available to him since he is dissatisfied with the current situation.  The
OSM community
has given a great deal of thought to copyright issues to arrive at their
position and I don't
see much chance of them moving to his position, a position they explicitly
state is (in
their opinion) not tenable.

His only feasible options are to live with what we have, stop mapping, set
up a competing project,
or continue to rant incomprehensibly here.  Should he continue to rant here
then he's likely to
end up in killfiles.  Telling him that isn't rude, it's advising him that
he is not doing himself any
favours with his current behaviour.

> Think twice.
>
I thought three times before I posted.  You would certainly have thought
the second version of my
post to be extremely rude.  And you would have had a conniption fit over
the first version.  What I
actually posted refrained from rebuking him and instead offered a stark,
unadorned explanation
of the options open to him.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 52 Co-ordinate sets vs. background informations = ODbL vs. CC

2019-02-14 Thread Sergio Manzi

I strongly dissent with the tone of your mail.

Everybody, not only you and the most vocifeferous ones, have the right to 
express their opinion.

You can dissent, but the tone of your mail is definitely rude and divisive.

Think twice.

Regards,

Sergio


On 2019-02-14 12:45, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 09:13, Ulrich Lamm  > wrote:
>
> Am 12.02.2019 um 05:59 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org 
> :
>
> Rules according to the interests of commercial exploiters make our 
> mapping an unpaid labour for some landlords. 
> That is the opposite of freedom.
>
>
> You have the freedom not to map.  Nobody is forcing you to participate in a 
> project that you
> fundamentally disagree with.
>
> You have the freedom to set up your own alternative to OSM with your own 
> rules about permissible
> imports.  If you can justify it within your own tortured logic about 
> copyright, you can even use the
> OSM database as a foundation for your efforts.
>
> The rest of us have the freedom to set mail filters so your messages go 
> straight to the bit
> bucket, unread.  I don't know about others, but that option looks 
> increasingly tempting to me.
>
> -- 
> Paul
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

Re: [Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs

2019-02-14 Thread <0174

Hi,

Frederik Ramm wrote:




*I'd say we stick to stuff that is explicitly signposted on the machine -
if the machine says what the limit is or what the network is or what
currencies it has, then map that, but don't map data gathered by
interacting with the machine. *

one use case:

I was recently in Nepal and the ATMs there have very low withdrawal limit
(c. 10,000 to 25,000 NPR, that is about 200 €) and always a fee.
Withdrawing larger sums of money i.e. for several weeks of trekking can get
quite expensive if one chooses an ATM with low limit.
There are many ATMs in cities and towns, but since the limit is not written
on the ATM, the only was to find the good ones is to use them (and to risk
losing your card).

That's one reason why I would suggest to not dismiss tagging with info
taken from interacting with the ATM. I suppose sometimes the max. amount
can differ based on the card issuer, but I believe we should reflect such
cases in the tagging scheme. Sometimes there is no other way and this
information could help a lot.

<0174


čt 14. 2. 2019 v 12:52 odesílatel Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> napsal:

> Here in Indonesia the ATMs are universally limited to dispensing no more
> than 25 bills, and they only offer one type. So you can get 2,500,000 in
> one withdrawal if they dispense 100,000 Rupiah bills, or 125 if they
> dispense 50k bills.
>
> The size of bill dispensed is often shown on a sticker (at least for newer
> ATMs)
>
> (100,000 rupiah converts to about $7 US)
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 5:08 PM seirra blake 
> wrote:
>
>> some providers already make it publicly available knowledge. for example
>> in the UK link ATM has an app, and you can use it to find nearby ATMs. most
>> of the things it tells you are pretty standard, but some things that may
>> need new tags are pin management services, audio assistance and £5 notes
>> (because otherwise you're limited to denominations of 10). I was thinking
>> with these tags included, link ATM may feel encouraged to import their data
>> and maintain it on OSM allowing them to save costs on their end and have a
>> more detailed map. when I tried proposing minimum denominations before on
>> here though it got shot down very fast.
>> On 2/14/19 7:17 AM, Colin Smale wrote:
>>
>> Tagging min and max withdrawals on the ATM is asking for confusion. The
>> normal limits are set by the card issuer, and I can see many people
>> mistakenly putting their personal card limits into these tags on the ATM.
>>
>> More relevant here would be the denomination mix. ATMs have a fixed
>> number of canisters (maybe 2/3/4), each of which can hold a single type of
>> note. Which denominations are loaded depends on historical usage patterns.
>> Stocking low denomination notes might be good for user convenience, but bad
>> for the possibility of running out of money in a busy location. Knowing the
>> normal mix for a particular ATM, in particular the smallest denomination,
>> is useful for knowing which amounts can be dispensed, and which not.
>>
>>
>> So instead of min_withdrawal on the ATM, I would suggest min_denomination.
>>
>> In the case of multi-currency ATMs there will need to be a
>> currency-specific variant, like min_denomination:EUR=20
>>
>> Problem is, it will probably require data from multiple transactions from
>> small to large to work out the mix and we need to keep mappers merging the
>> data from their experience, and not overwriting the valid data from a
>> previous ATM user, while recognising that the denomination mix can change,
>> even according to the days of the week (weekends might be different to
>> weekdays in city centres).
>>
>> On 2019-02-14 07:29, OSMDoudou wrote:
>>
>> The minimum can also differ.
>>
>> Some banks allow their young customers to withdraw small amounts, like 5
>> EUR, whereas adults and even young customers with cards from other banks
>> will not be allowed to withdraw less than 20 EUR.
>>
>> So, it may create confusion between mappers because what you see as
>> options on the ATM may depend on your card and your affiliation with the
>> bank.
>>
>> This impairs verifiability on the ground of the information.
>> On 2/14/19, 03:45 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> <61sundow...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The maximum may also be limited by the card provider. Need some careful
>>> words on the proposal to say it is the limit of the ATM provider.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14/02/19 13:31, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>>>
>>> Withdrawals are not the only type of ATM transaction.
>>>
>>>
>>> So use
>>> withdraw_min=*
>>> withdraw_max=
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ** ??? *The currency is set by some other tag that I forget now. That
>>> needs to be mentioned in the proposal.
>>> As a user .. I have no idea what the limits are. I suspect I may know
>>> the lower limit, but not the upper.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps max_withdrawal would be clearer?
>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:57 AM Nathan Wyand <
>>> propaga...@nathanwyand.com> wrote:
>>>
 Hello

Re: [Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs

Here in Indonesia the ATMs are universally limited to dispensing no more
than 25 bills, and they only offer one type. So you can get 2,500,000 in
one withdrawal if they dispense 100,000 Rupiah bills, or 125 if they
dispense 50k bills.

The size of bill dispensed is often shown on a sticker (at least for newer
ATMs)

(100,000 rupiah converts to about $7 US)
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 5:08 PM seirra blake 
wrote:

> some providers already make it publicly available knowledge. for example
> in the UK link ATM has an app, and you can use it to find nearby ATMs. most
> of the things it tells you are pretty standard, but some things that may
> need new tags are pin management services, audio assistance and £5 notes
> (because otherwise you're limited to denominations of 10). I was thinking
> with these tags included, link ATM may feel encouraged to import their data
> and maintain it on OSM allowing them to save costs on their end and have a
> more detailed map. when I tried proposing minimum denominations before on
> here though it got shot down very fast.
> On 2/14/19 7:17 AM, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> Tagging min and max withdrawals on the ATM is asking for confusion. The
> normal limits are set by the card issuer, and I can see many people
> mistakenly putting their personal card limits into these tags on the ATM.
>
> More relevant here would be the denomination mix. ATMs have a fixed number
> of canisters (maybe 2/3/4), each of which can hold a single type of note.
> Which denominations are loaded depends on historical usage patterns.
> Stocking low denomination notes might be good for user convenience, but bad
> for the possibility of running out of money in a busy location. Knowing the
> normal mix for a particular ATM, in particular the smallest denomination,
> is useful for knowing which amounts can be dispensed, and which not.
>
>
> So instead of min_withdrawal on the ATM, I would suggest min_denomination.
>
> In the case of multi-currency ATMs there will need to be a
> currency-specific variant, like min_denomination:EUR=20
>
> Problem is, it will probably require data from multiple transactions from
> small to large to work out the mix and we need to keep mappers merging the
> data from their experience, and not overwriting the valid data from a
> previous ATM user, while recognising that the denomination mix can change,
> even according to the days of the week (weekends might be different to
> weekdays in city centres).
>
> On 2019-02-14 07:29, OSMDoudou wrote:
>
> The minimum can also differ.
>
> Some banks allow their young customers to withdraw small amounts, like 5
> EUR, whereas adults and even young customers with cards from other banks
> will not be allowed to withdraw less than 20 EUR.
>
> So, it may create confusion between mappers because what you see as
> options on the ATM may depend on your card and your affiliation with the
> bank.
>
> This impairs verifiability on the ground of the information.
> On 2/14/19, 03:45 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> <61sundow...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> The maximum may also be limited by the card provider. Need some careful
>> words on the proposal to say it is the limit of the ATM provider.
>>
>>
>> On 14/02/19 13:31, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>>
>> Withdrawals are not the only type of ATM transaction.
>>
>>
>> So use
>> withdraw_min=*
>> withdraw_max=
>>
>>
>>
>> ** ??? *The currency is set by some other tag that I forget now. That
>> needs to be mentioned in the proposal.
>> As a user .. I have no idea what the limits are. I suspect I may know the
>> lower limit, but not the upper.
>>
>>
>>
>> Perhaps max_withdrawal would be clearer?
>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:57 AM Nathan Wyand 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello mappers,
>>>
>>> I frequently use OSM to find ATM's near me, but many of these machines
>>> place limits on how much can be withdrawn in 1 transaction. This can make
>>> it inconvenient and expensive to withdraw money, requiring several
>>> transactions. Another issue is that many machines only carry $20 notes,
>>> which forces people to withdraw more or less than they actually desire. I
>>> am considering two tags for use alongside 'amenity=atm':
>>>
>>> *min_transaction* (the minimum amount of cash that can be withdrawn in
>>> one transaction...typically the smallest denomination of notes in the
>>> machine)
>>> *max _transaction* (the maximum amount of cash that can be withdrawn in
>>> one transaction)
>>>
>>> This is my first time proposing a tag, and I would love to hear your
>>> input and and advice. Thank you!
>>>
>>> -Nathan
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing 
>> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>> ___ Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 52 Co-ordinate sets vs. background informations = ODbL vs. CC

2019-02-14 Thread Paul Allen

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 09:13, Ulrich Lamm  wrote:

> Am 12.02.2019 um 05:59 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org:
>
> Rules according to the interests of commercial exploiters make our mapping
> an unpaid labour for some landlords.
> That is the opposite of freedom.
>

You have the freedom not to map.  Nobody is forcing you to participate in a
project that you
fundamentally disagree with.

You have the freedom to set up your own alternative to OSM with your own
rules about permissible
imports.  If you can justify it within your own tortured logic about
copyright, you can even use the
OSM database as a foundation for your efforts.

The rest of us have the freedom to set mail filters so your messages go
straight to the bit
bucket, unread.  I don't know about others, but that option looks
increasingly tempting to me.

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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

2019-02-14 Thread Wiklund Johan

I think that apps adding redundant tags to cover for a tiny number of special 
cases is going to cause more problems than it solves (i.e. users 
misinterpreting the question and adding "private" access to all kinds of 
roads). StreetBloat instead of StreetComplete :)

-Original Message-
From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] 
Sent: torsdag 14. februar 2019 10.36
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

sent from a phone

> On 14. Feb 2019, at 10:26, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> 
> All residentials are accessible to pedestrians so i a bit puzzled what 
> this challenge is good for. It just adds redundant tags to all roads.

I agree the default is accessibility for everyone on non-motorroad roads. There 
might be residential roads with private access (in the occasions I met where 
access was private I was tending towards service, although with general public 
access I would have called them residentials).

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] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential