Re: [Tagging] Fixing import

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 3/1/19 21:31, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Paul Johnson  writes:
> 
>> Honestly wouldn't be a bad idea for highway=road to be the default type for
>> bulk imports, especially after the TIGER fiasco.
> 
> Another view would be that if an import seems like it should be
> highway=road, then it isn't good enough data to import.

+1

Cleaning up miles and miles of highway=road is something I'd find very
tedious and would discourage me from contributing to OSM if I wound up
having to do it a lot just to get a decent quality of data. I'm already
a bit burned out from my attempts to clean up the massive number of
duplicated nodes from a botched import in 2012 that I just now found.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

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

Re: [Tagging] Fixing import

[Greg Troxel]

Paul Johnson  writes:

> Honestly wouldn't be a bad idea for highway=road to be the default type for
> bulk imports, especially after the TIGER fiasco.

Another view would be that if an import seems like it should be
highway=road, then it isn't good enough data to import.

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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Greg Troxel]

Mateusz Konieczny  writes:

> Mar 1, 2019, 8:48 PM by ba...@ursamundi.org:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 13:57 Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com 
>> > > wrote:
>>
>>> Feb 27, 2019, 7:31 PM by >> ba...@ursamundi.org 
>>> >> :
>>>
 motor_vehicle=no would exclude most emergency vehicles.

>>> No, it would not. motor_vehicle=no is a legal limitation.
>>>
>>
>> And most emergency vehicles are motor vehicles.
>>
> And emergency vehicle are exempt from traffic laws.

More or less true.   But the question is when OSM data is used for
emergency vehicle routin, what should be done?   Some things are still a
very bad idea, and some are ok but irregular.   The real point is to
compute a metric for traveling a route, so that the best  actual route
in an emergency is the lowest-weight route in the metric.

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=police

[Greg Troxel]

Sergio Manzi  writes:

> The typical roles of the Coast Guard (/or whatever is called in
> different countries/) is maritime borders control and maritime law
> enforcement.

This is why it's hard.   Border control is sort of military and law
enforcement is mostly police.

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=police

[Greg Troxel]

Graeme Fitzpatrick  writes:

>> The Border Patrol and other immigration people I would
>> sort into police.  They arrest people, rather than treating them as
>> prisoners of war (Geneva convention again).
>
> So would a Border Patrol / Customs office be tagged as a Police station?

That's a hard call.  First, Border Patrol feels more like police, and
Customs, not military, and not really police, similar to how the
Inspector of Weights and Measures that checks the meters on the gas
pumps isn't police.

> I certainly expect some other countries to be harder.

Agreed.

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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Sergio Manzi]

BTW, here in Venice patients are almost always transported by emergency 
personnel on "a chair with handles" (/a chair-stretcher... I don't know if 
there is an English name for that.../).

The reason is that normal stretchers would not pass through most buildings 
narrow and steep stairs.

Should I tag every street wide enough for a chair to pass with "emergency=yes"?

Sergio




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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Sergio Manzi]

On 2019-03-02 01:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 1. Mar 2019, at 13:45, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
>>
>> I would tag max weight, I would not tag emergency=no.
>
> +1, it will not exclude all kinds of emergency services anyway, only those in 
> vehicles that are too heavy, for example there could be police on bicycles 
> who could cycle on the bridge like pedestrians can walk on it.
>
>
> Cheers, Martin


I really-really-really like to know of a place where emergency vehicles are 
*legally *not allowed to go...

And if there isn't such a place, why do we need "emergency=no"?

And if we don't have such a need, why do we need "emergency=yes"?

Because a given road is *accessible *to a emergency vehicles?

Accessible to which vehicles? A small police car or an humongous fire truck?


Sergio




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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Sergio Manzi]

On 2019-03-02 01:35, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 00:22, Sergio Manzi mailto:s...@smz.it>> 
> wrote:
>
> On 2019-03-02 00:59, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>> Being picky, but (at least out here) they're not exempt, they're just 
>> allowed to break them :-) eg in an emergency, an ambulance can go through a 
>> red light, but if they cause an accident by doing so, the driver will be 
>> charged (& they have been)
>
> Sorry, but I'm inclined to categorize the above as BS, or "fake news", if 
> you prefer, until you provide evidence (in which case I'll apologize and eat 
> my words).
>
> http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/blue-light-use/ scroll down to, or search for, 
> section headed
> "Exemptions from Road Signs."  Applies in UK, may be subject to change by 
> future legislation.
> Essentially if they cause an accident by jumping a red light they're in the 
> shit.  Because they're
> allowed to go through a red light only if it is necessary AND it is safe to 
> do so.  If they end up
> causing an accident, it obviously wasn't safe to do so.
>
> -- 
> Paul
>

Of course. And the operative word here is "*exemption*". The truth is that a 
driver *could  *be in deep troubles for "reckless driving" while having caused 
the accident (/because there was actually no emergnecy, because he was 
intoxicated, because ther was an 18 wheeler in the mdst of the crossing at that 
time and he ignored it, etc./), but not for having jumped the light "/per se/".

What your street code says about the behaviour drivers at a crossing (with 
lights) must have when there is an incoming emergency vehicle?

Sergio



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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 00:22, Sergio Manzi  wrote:

> On 2019-03-02 00:59, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> Being picky, but (at least out here) they're not exempt, they're just
> allowed to break them :-) eg in an emergency, an ambulance can go through a
> red light, but if they cause an accident by doing so, the driver will be
> charged (& they have been)
>
> Sorry, but I'm inclined to categorize the above as BS, or "fake news", if
> you prefer, until you provide evidence (in which case I'll apologize and
> eat my words).
>
http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/blue-light-use/ scroll down to, or search for,
section headed
"Exemptions from Road Signs."  Applies in UK, may be subject to change by
future legislation.
Essentially if they cause an accident by jumping a red light they're in the
shit.  Because they're
allowed to go through a red light only if it is necessary AND it is safe to
do so.  If they end up
causing an accident, it obviously wasn't safe to do so.

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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 1. Mar 2019, at 13:45, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> I would tag max weight, I would not tag emergency=no.


+1, it will not exclude all kinds of emergency services anyway, only those in 
vehicles that are too heavy, for example there could be police on bicycles who 
could cycle on the bridge like pedestrians can walk on it.


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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Sergio Manzi]

On 2019-03-02 00:59, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> Being picky, but (at least out here) they're not exempt, they're just allowed 
> to break them :-) eg in an emergency, an ambulance can go through a red 
> light, but if they cause an accident by doing so, the driver will be charged 
> (& they have been)

Sorry, but I'm inclined to categorize the above as BS, or "fake news", if you 
prefer, until you provide evidence (in which case I'll apologize and eat my 
words).

In every street code I know of, emergency and law enforcement vehicles with 
alarm and light turned on HAVE PRECEDENCE on the traffic, regardless the status 
of traffic lights, with all the legal implications that derive from that.

Sure, an ambulance driver who has caused an accident will be investigated, but 
NOT for having burned a red traffic light (/they'll asses if he/she was DUI and 
stuff like that.../)

Sergio



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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 07:02, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> And emergency vehicle are exempt from traffic laws.
>
>
Being picky, but (at least out here) they're not exempt, they're just
allowed to break them :-) eg in an emergency, an ambulance can go through a
red light, but if they cause an accident by doing so, the driver will be
charged (& they have been)

Adding emergency=yes is useful only where it adds information to mapper or
> data consumers.
>

So when would you use it? In the past, I've marked access=no +
emergency=yes on thing like paths leading down onto the beach, as life
guards , ambulances & police are allowed to drive onto the beach; & also on
driveways leading into the back of fire & ambulance stations, which they
use to bring their vehicles back into the garage, but that now seems a
little bit pointless?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=police

[Sergio Manzi]

On 2019-03-02 00:09, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> However, In Australia (& I know there are other countries the same) the Coast 
> Guard is a strictly civilian, volunteer marine rescue group only, with no 
> military, or police, connections at all (apart from working together with 
> Water Police on searches / rescues etc).


I think you're talking about something different from the "true", de facto, 
Australian "Coast Guard", which is "Maritime Border Command": 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_Border_Command_(Australia)

Maybe you're referring  to community S&R organizations like "Marine Rescue 
NSW", "Australian Volunteer Coast Guard" or "Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol".

The typical roles of the Coast Guard (/or whatever is called in different 
countries/) is maritime borders control and maritime law enforcement.

Sergio



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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Fernando Trebien]

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 6:02 PM Mateusz Konieczny
 wrote:
> Adding emergency=yes is useful only where it adds information to mapper or 
> data consumers.
> I am not going to start spamming it everywhere.

You can set a country-wide default [1]. Otherwise, you only need to
add emergency=yes when any of its parent access tags have a
restrictive value, explicitly added or implicit from highway=*.
Probably the most common scenario would be on highway=pedestrian, and
rarely on highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway/path.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions

-- 
Fernando Trebien

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

Re: [Tagging] New Tag "Departures" voting results.

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 18:02, Leif Rasmussen <354...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems like the best way forward now is for a proposal allowing 
> OpenStreetMap data to be tightly integrated with outside sources (such as 
> GTFS) to be created by someone.

+1. To avoid lots of changes, perhaps only set the GTFS link on a
meta-relation where possible, like
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/18812

>  This would avoid the issues of maintainability in OpenStreetMap.

There is still the concern about GTFS URL changing, which happens
sometimes, but perhaps not as often as schedules in a large city.

> Also, if anyone is interested, I can create a new proposal for adding 
> departures times to ferry routes only, and not to bus / train routes.  This 
> would be easier to maintain, and as far as I am aware, no GTFS exists for 
> ferries.

Just one note - it is possible to have ferry schedules in GTFS. I am
familiar with several cases of these: Berlin city transit ferries;
some ferries in Netherlands in their giant OVapi GTFS file; some
ferries in a Finland; main harbour ferry in Vancouver. You can also
produce your own GTFS for any ferry operation you like (the challenge
is getting people to use it).

It is more a matter of ferries, particularly longer routes, usually
not being operated by public transit bodies that might be more likely
to produce a GTFS feed.

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=police

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 21:44, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> I wonder what we call "police" in OSM.
>
> The wiki does not offer a lot of guidance (France aside): "A police
> station is a building where police officers and other staff work and are
> dispatched from, and where suspects and evidence are collected and
> processed."
>

Which seems to relate to the "Emergency" clean-up
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Emergency_Cleanup. I know I
mentioned it once before, but maybe we should start a discussion on it &
try to get things moving?

On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 03:55, Greg Troxel  wrote:

>
> > What about coast guards?
>
> In the US, I view the Coast Guard as a cross between a rescue service
> and a military service.
>

However, In Australia (& I know there are other countries the same) the
Coast Guard is a strictly civilian, volunteer marine rescue group only,
with no military, or police, connections at all (apart from working
together with Water Police on searches / rescues etc).


> > Typically there will be many kind of "police", according to what you
> count
> > in, and this might eventually differ between countries.
>
> Totally agreed.
>

Quite definitely


> I think each country needs to sort the various entities into military vs
> police, along some notion of "defending the country from outsiders" vs
> "domestic law enforcement" and clues about adminstration and reporting.
> That consensus should be documented on each country's wiki page.
>

Agreed, but on that subject, it would be good if something could be set
that detects where you are logging in from, so if you're international eg
in the USA & are making changes in Australia, a warning box comes up to ask
"Have you checked the Australian Tagging Guidelines?" or words to that
effect, which would (may) help stop well-intentioned people making changes
that aren't actually correct eg changing Coast Guard from rescue group to
military or vice versa.

In the US, prison guards are "corrections officers" and not police, as I
> understand it.


Correct, but I don't think you'd ever tag a Corrections Service office,
because that will only be found in an actual jail, which is already tagged
that way.


> The Border Patrol and other immigration people I would
> sort into police.  They arrest people, rather than treating them as
> prisoners of war (Geneva convention again).
>

So would a Border Patrol / Customs office be tagged as a Police station?

I certainly expect some other countries to be harder.
>

Yep!

Thanks

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

[Tagging] New Tag "Departures" voting results.

[Leif Rasmussen]

Hi everyone,
The proposal for the tag "departures" has finished, and has a final vote of
* 12 "Approve"
* 22 "Reject"
* 3 Comments without vote
* 1 "Degree of incredulity" at the proposal
. . . meaning that the proposal was rejected.

Overall, the main idea voters expressed was that connecting with GTFS and
others would be advantageous over adding the data to OpenStreetMap in the
form of tags, as it would allow data consumers to just download the data
from the original source, making storing the timetables directly in
OpenStreetMap unnecessary.  People living in regions without public GTFS
feeds expressed concerns about cases where OpenStreetMap would be the only
public source of timetable data, however.
Many people agreed on the contrary that the data would still make sense on
ferry routes, which are more essential to car navigation, and usually have
simpler schedules.

It seems like the best way forward now is for a proposal allowing
OpenStreetMap data to be tightly integrated with outside sources (such as
GTFS) to be created by someone.  This would avoid the issues of
maintainability in OpenStreetMap.

Also, if anyone is interested, I can create a new proposal for adding
departures times to ferry routes only, and not to bus / train routes.  This
would be easier to maintain, and as far as I am aware, no GTFS exists for
ferries.

Thank you to everyone who participated in the voting and discussion of this
proposal!
Leif Rasmussen
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Telecom exchange wiki page German translation

[François Lacombe]

Hi all

Would it be possible to get the wiki telecom=exchange page translated into
German please?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:telecom%3Dexchange

telecom=exchange aims to provide a more reliable terminology to map
buildings where telecom landlines are connected to service providers.
It can help to complete original man_made=MDF features.

Thanks in advance

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

Re: [Tagging] Fixing import

[Peter Elderson]

Can't do that - would destroy too many corrections since.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op vr 1 mrt. 2019 om 11:00 schreef Mateusz Konieczny <
matkoni...@tutanota.com>:

>
> Maybe highway=unclassified added in this import should be retagged to
> highway=road
> (the actual "no known classification" tag).
>
> Would be painful short term but would improve data.
>
> Feb 28, 2019, 1:56 PM by pelder...@gmail.com:
>
> Agreed. In Nederland, I think most mappers will agree.
>
> It's just that a gazillion roads and streets have been tagged as
> unclassified based on an import assumption that unclassified means no known
> classification. Seems like a candidate for automated correction but...
> another gazillion roads actually are of class unclassified.
>
> Meaning that correction is a herculic task and a huge incentive is needed.
> Since there is little impact on rendering and routing, no crowds are lining
> up to take this on.
>
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Mar 1, 2019, 8:48 PM by ba...@ursamundi.org:

> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 13:57 Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>> Feb 27, 2019, 7:31 PM by >> ba...@ursamundi.org 
>> >> :
>>
>>> motor_vehicle=no would exclude most emergency vehicles.
>>>
>> No, it would not. motor_vehicle=no is a legal limitation.
>>
>
> And most emergency vehicles are motor vehicles.
>
And emergency vehicle are exempt from traffic laws.

>> And if anything, presence of legal motor_vehicle=no may hint
>> that motor vehicles would be able to pass it, so it was made illegal
>>
>
> Not necessarily, no. 
>
I know. That is why I use "may hint" not "means", "imply" or something strong.

>> To exclude emergency vehicles one should tag physical, not legal
>> barriers.
>>
>
> To include motorized emergency vehicles where access=no or motor_vehicle=no, 
> you need to add emergency=yes. 
>
Explicit tagging that emergency vehicles are exempt from traffic laws seems 
pointless to me.

Adding emergency=yes is useful only where it adds information to mapper or data 
consumers.
I am not going to start spamming it everywhere.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 15:25, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>> To exclude emergency vehicles one should tag physical, not legal
>> barriers.
>
> To include motorized emergency vehicles where access=no or motor_vehicle=no, 
> you need to add emergency=yes.

Because if we don't, the fire truck stops, the firefighters grab their
bikes, and pedal on to the fire in city centre?

Shall we also tag oneway:emergency=no on motorways to indicate that
the motorway might be shut down and the emergency responders might use
the other carriageway to access site of a major crash?

Or how about maxspeed:emergency=none?

In some jurisdictions, emergency vehicles responding to an emergency
are not subject to legal limitations.

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 13:57 Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> Feb 27, 2019, 7:31 PM by ba...@ursamundi.org:
>
> motor_vehicle=no would exclude most emergency vehicles.
>
> No, it would not. motor_vehicle=no is a legal limitation.
>

And most emergency vehicles are motor vehicles.

And if anything, presence of legal motor_vehicle=no may hint
> that motor vehicles would be able to pass it, so it was made illegal
>

Not necessarily, no.

So I would consider motor_vehicle=no as making it more, not less
> likely that road is passable.
>

Bad assumption to make.

To exclude emergency vehicles one should tag physical, not legal
> barriers.
>

To include motorized emergency vehicles where access=no or
motor_vehicle=no, you need to add emergency=yes.

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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 13:17 Fernando Trebien 
wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 3:53 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 12:41 Jarek Piórkowski 
> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 13:32, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 11:25 Fernando Trebien <
> fernando.treb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> I never thought that emergency access would determine highway
> >> >> classification. It seems like a secondary use of the way, not its
> main
> >> >> use/purpose.
> >> >
> >> > motor_vehicle=no would exclude most emergency vehicles.
> >>
> >> I thought we were saying access tags like motor_vehicle are legal
> >> access, not physical access. I do not expect emergency vehicles to be
> >> excluded by legal access tags.
> >
> > access=no by itself is absolute.  I would expect most roads in the DMZ
> between the Koreas (that aren't too overgrown and weathered away from a
> half century of being disused) would be an extreme example.  You're not
> getting even fire or paramedic vehicles down it, period, it's not happening.
>
> Actually access=* gets overridden by any other more specific access
> tag in the access hierarchy [1]. So access=no+foot=permissive means no
> access to everyone except pedestrians, which are explicitly
> authorized.
>

Correct, that's also what I hoped to be expressing as well, but I may not
have been particularly clear.

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

Re: [Tagging] Fixing import

[Paul Johnson]

Honestly wouldn't be a bad idea for highway=road to be the default type for
bulk imports, especially after the TIGER fiasco.

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, 03:59 Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

>
> Maybe highway=unclassified added in this import should be retagged to
> highway=road
> (the actual "no known classification" tag).
>
> Would be painful short term but would improve data.
>
> Feb 28, 2019, 1:56 PM by pelder...@gmail.com:
>
> Agreed. In Nederland, I think most mappers will agree.
>
> It's just that a gazillion roads and streets have been tagged as
> unclassified based on an import assumption that unclassified means no known
> classification. Seems like a candidate for automated correction but...
> another gazillion roads actually are of class unclassified.
>
> Meaning that correction is a herculic task and a huge incentive is needed.
> Since there is little impact on rendering and routing, no crowds are lining
> up to take this on.
>
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] amenity=police

[Greg Troxel]

Martin Koppenhoefer  writes:

> I wonder what we call "police" in OSM.
>
> The wiki does not offer a lot of guidance (France aside): "A police station
> is a building where police officers and other staff work and are dispatched
> from, and where suspects and evidence are collected and processed."
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dpolice
>
> Is this limited to civil police forces, or does it include military forces?
> The French seem to include the Gendarmerie (military force under the
> jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Interior), and similarly we include the
> Carabinieri in Italy (adding also landuse=military).

I think the issue is that the line between police and military is
basically fuzzy.

In the US, we have a rule that says the military cannot be used for
domestic law enforcement.  This is at least mostly true, but then there
are edge cases where the National Guard (military) is mobilized during
emergencies.  Of course it's overwhelmingly likely that the rule isn't
100% followed; I once met two guys with green unlabeled jumpsuits and a
very fancy helicopter with an unreadable tail number at a rural airport
-- they said they were "testing" it, and I'm skeptical.  But most people
who see a few soliders walking or on the Metro view them much like
somebody else with a job going about their business, not like police.

> What about coast guards?

In the US, I view the Coast Guard as a cross between a rescue service
and a military service.  While they have a counter-drug mission, that
only seems to come up with regard to vessels entering US waters from
outside, as opposed to people staying in the US.  And, the Coast Guard,
although part of the Department of Homeland Security rather than
Defense, is widely viewed as more military than police.  They have the
same retirement rules as the Army, and USCG people are in TriCare health
insurance, set up for Army/Navy/Air Force.

> Typically there will be many kind of "police", according to what you count
> in, and this might eventually differ between countries.

Totally agreed.

Another big deal between military vs police is rules of engagement in
terms of use of force.  And, adherence to the Geneva convention, which
prohibts hollowpoint ammunition.  Basically in the US all police have
expanding ammunition, while the military uses fully jacketed.

I think each country needs to sort the various entities into military vs
police, along some notion of "defending the country from outsiders" vs
"domestic law enforcement" and clues about adminstration and reporting.
That consensus should be documented on each country's wiki page.

> E.g. in Italy there are (list is probably not complete):
> polizia postale, forestale, carabinieri, guardia costiera, polizia locale,
> provinciale, municipale, di stato, guardia di finanza, carabinieri,
> penitenziaria, ...
>
> For example it may be a question (and it might also differ, depending on
> the competences and duties they have in the country, whom they are
> subordinate, etc.) whether we count customs service as police, or prison
> officers, coast guards, maybe "intelligence services" in some occasions,
> foresters, etc.

Agreed that this is messy.

In the US, prison guards are "corrections officers" and not police, as I
understand it.  The Border Patrol and other immigration people I would
sort into police.  They arrest people, rather than treating them as
prisoners of war (Geneva convention again).

Broadly, local police are under a chain of command that goes to the
local government, state police to the governor, and federal police to a
cabinet official other than Secretary of Defense (or USCG/DHS).

But here, there's a pretty wide gulf in what happens and uniforms, if
you leave out some of the things that are intentionally invisible, and
perhaps the Border Patrol.  So I'd expect the "is this particular group
police or military" to be almost entirely uncontroversial here.  I
certainly expect some other countries to be harder.


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

Re: [Tagging] Mistagging footways as highway=pedestrian

[Fernando Trebien]

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 11:20 AM Mateusz Konieczny
 wrote:
> Feb 28, 2019, 6:48 PM by fernando.treb...@gmail.com:
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 1:29 PM Janko Mihelić  wrote:
>
> čet, 28. velj 2019. u 14:15 Martin Koppenhoefer  
> napisao je:
>
> I agree, but we have a practical problem with people that think that this:
> https://images.mapillary.com/QQXg40ewDRF6hsi0jNGhzA/thumb-2048.jpg
>
> cannot be tagged the same as this:
> https://images.mapillary.com/53iC9URhRKV_gYsxbF4ZYw/thumb-2048.jpg
>
> People look at the first photo as a little street, not as a footway. It also 
> probably has a name xx street.
> Both are really footways, but the resemblance ends there. I think adding 
> footway=alley to the first one would make sense to people, and maybe then 
> they will stop with wrong tagging.
>
>
> So, if width alone is used as criterion to distinguish between
> highway=footway and highway=pedestrian
>
> That is certainly not sole (or even the most important part).

So we agree.

> For reducto ad absurdum: what about way that changes width and is
> going below and above limit? Split it and alternate pedestrian and
> footway?

I was going to mention that. Borrowing from a recent discussion here,
is something I'd expect this situation to happen often in Venice,
leading to problems if pedestrian ways are downgraded to footway based
solely on width. While it is certain that all narrow paths there
should be downgraded from highway=pedestrian to highway=footway, it is
not so certain that the wider ones should always remain pedestrian.
Whether they should requires analyzing context and function case by
case.

-- 
Fernando Trebien

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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Mar 1, 2019, 3:23 PM by ja...@piorkowski.ca:

> On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 09:10, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access 
>> >>  and >> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:emergency 
>> 
>> were just modifed
>>
>> Review of
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:emergency&type=revision&diff=1812453&oldid=1606896
>>  
>> 
>>
>
> Should "so for example road with {{tag|highway|service}} +
> {{tag|access|private}} may be inaccessible to emergency vehicles if
> there are no mapped physical obstacles." have read "may be
> accessible"? Looks like your second edit might have missed changing
> one negation?
>
> If I understand what you meant correctly, I would write:
>
> "so for example road with {{tag|highway|service}} +
> {{tag|access|private}} may be in fact be accessible to emergency
> vehicles if there are no mapped physical obstacles"
>
Yes, one negation too much. Fixed in 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:emergency&diff=1812514&oldid=1812453
 


Thanks.

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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 09:10, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access and 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:emergency
> were just modifed
>
> Review of
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Aemergency&type=revision&diff=1812453&oldid=1606896

Should "so for example road with {{tag|highway|service}} +
{{tag|access|private}} may be inaccessible to emergency vehicles if
there are no mapped physical obstacles." have read "may be
accessible"? Looks like your second edit might have missed changing
one negation?

If I understand what you meant correctly, I would write:

"so for example road with {{tag|highway|service}} +
{{tag|access|private}} may be in fact be accessible to emergency
vehicles if there are no mapped physical obstacles"

> and
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Aaccess&type=revision&diff=1812498&oldid=1784472
> is welcomed.

+1 on this

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

Re: [Tagging] Mistagging footways as highway=pedestrian

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Feb 28, 2019, 6:48 PM by fernando.treb...@gmail.com:

> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 1:29 PM Janko Mihelić <> jan...@gmail.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>>
>> čet, 28. velj 2019. u 14:15 Martin Koppenhoefer <>> dieterdre...@gmail.com 
>> >> > napisao je:
>>
>> I agree, but we have a practical problem with people that think that this:
>> https://images.mapillary.com/QQXg40ewDRF6hsi0jNGhzA/thumb-2048.jpg 
>> 
>>
>> cannot be tagged the same as this:
>> https://images.mapillary.com/53iC9URhRKV_gYsxbF4ZYw/thumb-2048.jpg 
>> 
>>
>> People look at the first photo as a little street, not as a footway. It also 
>> probably has a name xx street.
>> Both are really footways, but the resemblance ends there. I think adding 
>> footway=alley to the first one would make sense to people, and maybe then 
>> they will stop with wrong tagging.
>>
>
> So, if width alone is used as criterion to distinguish between
> highway=footway and highway=pedestrian
>
That is certainly not sole (or even the most important part).

For reducto ad absurdum: what about way that changes width and is 
going below and above limit? Split it and alternate pedestrian and 
footway?

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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Mar 1, 2019, 1:03 PM by fernando.treb...@gmail.com:

> That's not
> written anywhere in the main articles on the topic [1][2]. If that's
> the general interpretation, then emergency=* should not be nested
> under acccess=*.
>
> [1] > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access 
> 
> [2] > 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions 
> 
>
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access 
 and 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:emergency 

were just modifed

Review of
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Aemergency&type=revision&diff=1812453&oldid=1606896
 

and
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Aaccess&type=revision&diff=1812498&oldid=1784472
 

is welcomed.

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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Mar 1, 2019, 1:37 PM by pla16...@gmail.com:

> On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 12:14, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>>
>> Can you give an example of place where emergency vehicles are
>> legally forbidden from entering?
>>
>
> Can I point you to an actual, real-world, example?  No.  Can I give you a 
> scenario?  Yes.  A bridge
> wide enough for motor vehicles but a very low weight restriction that 
> effectively limits it to foot
> traffic.  Of course, we'd cover that with a weight restriction but, in this 
> case, emergency vehicles
> are prohibited. 
>
It would consider it as a physical, not legal limitation.

I would tag max weight, I would not tag emergency=no.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 12:14, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

>
> Can you give an example of place where emergency vehicles are
> legally forbidden from entering?
>

Can I point you to an actual, real-world, example?  No.  Can I give you a
scenario?  Yes.  A bridge
wide enough for motor vehicles but a very low weight restriction that
effectively limits it to foot
traffic.  Of course, we'd cover that with a weight restriction but, in this
case, emergency vehicles
are prohibited.  Which might not stop them, if the emergency was bad enough
(but might
result in a secondary emergency if the bridge collapses).

Not all jurisdictions explicitly use the term "exigent circumstances" but
almost all of them
recognise the concept.  The term is generally used with regard to
warrantless entry of property
but applies more generally.  It may be necessary to commit a minor legal
offence in order to
prevent harm or damage (but you may later have to justify your actions in a
court,  even if you're
part of the emergency services).  However, that doesn't mean that emergency
vehicles can
simply ignore all traffic laws all the time.

Tagging that emergency vehicles are denied access but other classes of
vehicles are allowed
access doesn't match reality.  Ways where vehicular traffic is physically
possible but legally
prohibited could be tagged as allowing emergency access but that seems a
little pointless,
adds needless access tagging, and requires the mapper to make a judgement
call that
is really a decision that the emergency services would have to make for
themselves and
which might vary with circumstance.

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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Feb 28, 2019, 1:24 PM by fernando.treb...@gmail.com:

> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 4:58 PM Mateusz Konieczny
> <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > > wrote:
>
>>
>> Feb 27, 2019, 7:31 PM by >> ba...@ursamundi.org 
>> >> :
>>
>> motor_vehicle=no would exclude most emergency vehicles.
>>
>> No, it would not. motor_vehicle=no is a legal limitation.
>>
>
> Currently, it actually would because emergency=* is nested under
> motor_vehicle=* in the access tags hierarchy. [1] So to express that
> motor vehicles (cars, trucks, etc.) are forbidden but emergency
> vehicles are not, both motor_vehicle=no + emergency=yes are required.
> The same would happen if access=no was used instead of
> motor_vehicle=no.
>
Just because something is written on Wiki page it does not mean that 
it is 100% gluten free revealed truth.

Can you give an example of place where emergency vehicles are
legally forbidden from entering?

> I agree that typically emergency vehicles are allowed essentially
> everywhere due to the nature of their emergency work, so maybe the
> hierarchy should be changed by moving emergency=* to be a sibling, not
> a child of motor_vehicle=*, or perhaps even a sibling of vehicle=*
> since emergency work in certain areas might be provided using human or
> animal-powered modes of transport.
>
I will try to amend wiki, though maybe in a different way.

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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Fernando Trebien]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 9:56 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
> Am Do., 28. Feb. 2019 um 13:26 Uhr schrieb Fernando Trebien 
> :
>> Currently, it actually would because emergency=* is nested under
>> motor_vehicle=* in the access tags hierarchy. [1] So to express that
>> motor vehicles (cars, trucks, etc.) are forbidden but emergency
>> vehicles are not, both motor_vehicle=no + emergency=yes are required.
>
> it depends on the specific implementation. Yes, there is an "emergency" key, 
> but it is not clear how people will interpret the absence of such tag. If you 
> assume that emergency vehicles in emergency service are not bound by legal 
> restrictions in general (not too far fetched IMHO), it implies emergency is 
> always "yes" unless tagged otherwise.

So access=no without emergency=yes may imply emergency=yes? That's not
written anywhere in the main articles on the topic [1][2]. If that's
the general interpretation, then emergency=* should not be nested
under acccess=*.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions

-- 
Fernando Trebien

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

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Feb 28, 2019, 1:54 PM by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

> Am Do., 28. Feb. 2019 um 13:26 Uhr schrieb Fernando Trebien <> 
> fernando.treb...@gmail.com > >:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 4:58 PM Mateusz Konieczny
>>  <>> matkoni...@tutanota.com >> > wrote:
>>  >> Feb 27, 2019, 7:31 PM by >> ba...@ursamundi.org 
>> >> :
>>  >> motor_vehicle=no would exclude most emergency vehicles.
>>  > No, it would not. motor_vehicle=no is a legal limitation.
>>  
>>  Currently, it actually would because emergency=* is nested under
>>  motor_vehicle=* in the access tags hierarchy. [1] So to express that
>>  motor vehicles (cars, trucks, etc.) are forbidden but emergency
>>  vehicles are not, both motor_vehicle=no + emergency=yes are required.
>>
>
>
> it depends on the specific implementation. Yes, there is an "emergency" key, 
> but it is not clear how people will interpret the absence of such tag. If you 
> assume that emergency vehicles in emergency service are not bound by legal 
> restrictions in general (not too far fetched IMHO), it implies emergency is 
> always "yes" unless tagged otherwise.
>
I would treat emergency=yes as indicator that this route is free from pchysical 
obstacles.

And many of them are explicitly signed and should be rather 
emergency=designated.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Comments on documenting winter speed limits tagging

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Feb 28, 2019, 11:16 AM by jyri-petteri.palopo...@iki.fi:

> – maxspeed defining the normal (summer) maxspeed, to ensure that there's
> a decent value that all software understands.
> – maxspeed:seasonal:winter for winter maxspeed, and :forward/:backward
> appended as necessary
>
> a) does this sound sensible or should we make some changes and
> b) does this need to go through the proposal process or could it be
> documented as a de facto approved tag?
>
It certainly can be documented as used tag 2k+ uses is certainly enough for 
that.

But I would note that


> – maxspeed:seasonal:winter (2864 uses)
> – maxspeed:conditional=80 @ (winter) (570 uses)
> – maxspeed:winter (167 uses)
>
maxspeed:conditional looks like the best one. It is a generic tag, and it would 
be harder to miss
by someone processing data than maxspeed:seasonal:winter (though it would need 
special
support from someone processing data).


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

Re: [Tagging] Fixing import

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Maybe highway=unclassified added in this import should be retagged to 
highway=road
(the actual "no known classification" tag).

Would be painful short term but would improve data.

Feb 28, 2019, 1:56 PM by pelder...@gmail.com:

> Agreed. In Nederland, I think most mappers will agree. 
>
> It's just that a gazillion roads and streets have been tagged as unclassified 
> based on an import assumption that unclassified means no known 
> classification. Seems like a candidate for automated correction but... 
> another gazillion roads actually are of class unclassified. 
>
> Meaning that correction is a herculic task and a huge incentive is needed. 
> Since there is little impact on rendering and routing, no crowds are lining 
> up to take this on.
>
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>

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