Re: [Tagging] RFC - Feature Proposal - area of steps for pedestrians.

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 15. May 2019, at 07:06, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> The 'Spanish steps' in Rome look rather complex too.


if you acknowledge that komplex steps can be split into different parts, there 
will remain very few exceptions that really might pose problems.

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

[Tagging] Voting results - tag:police

[Jan S]

Hi everyone,

The police=* proposal has been unanimously approved by 30 votes. Thanks for 
your massive support!

I hope that I'll have the time to change the wiki over the next days.

All the best,
Jan___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Feature Proposal - area of steps for pedestrians.

[Warin]

On 07/05/19 07:12, Tobias Knerr wrote:

On 06.05.19 15:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

Am Mo., 6. Mai 2019 um 14:06 Uhr schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer
 If you can get the second one working I don’t understand why the
 first one is different (presuming it is split). For the second one
 to work there must also be polygonal ramps (basically the same as
 steps, just without the steps) at the border.I just added them:
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/688139506
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/688139507

Looks like I misinterpreted the shape based on the original photograph.
Seeing it from the top makes it clear that it's pretty much the same
problem as the Cologne example and is not going to work either, sorry.



I am still 'playing' with this ... it is not easy!

The 'Spanish steps' in Rome look rather complex too.


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

Re: [Tagging] Apps of delivery

[santamariense]

> I didn't understand what you mean. Exemple :
> amenity=restaurant
> name=foo
> delivery:operator=deliveroo;foo
> mean that 2 operators are available for this restaurant : deliveroo
> and the restaurant itself.

Ohh sorry, well... I misunderstood you. I thought that you've meant:
"foo" in "deliveroo;foo" is how one would find "foo" in "deliveroo"
site/app.

> of course another restaurant elsewhere may also have foo as name
> but it's not the same objet in osm, no clash between both.
> you don't confuse phone numbers either, so why would you confuse
> the delivery operators?

Anyway there's no guarantee that the final user will find the correct
"foo" on operator's site/app only by its name. It's like to use the
tag contact:social_media=facebook;twitter.

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

Re: [Tagging] Apps of delivery

[Sebastian Dicke]

To use "restaurant's name" is maybe not a good idea. It would easier to
parse a standard value for it. This would also help to avoid possible
problems if the name of the location is typed manually instead of copy
and paste it.


Sebastian


Am 13.05.19 um 23:45 schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick:


On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 02:07, Jmapb mailto:jm...@gmx.com>> wrote:

One weakness of both of these schemes is that there's no obvious
way to indicate that the restaurant also does deliveries itself --
which many of them do, and prefer to do, since they don't have to
give a cut to a dot-com middle man.

Maybe =self-delivered / own_delivery / "restaurant's name" ?

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

Re: [Tagging] Apps of delivery

[marc marc]

Le 14.05.19 à 23:17, santamariense a écrit :
>> or use the name of the poi in the delivery:operator value :
>> delivery:operator=deliveroo;
>> so you 'll never have a clash between the "fake" value and
>> the name of a company
> 
> Possibly there'll be more than 1 POI within the same name on the same 
> operator.

I didn't understand what you mean. Exemple :
amenity=restaurant
name=foo
delivery:operator=deliveroo;foo
mean that 2 operators are available for this restaurant : deliveroo
and the restaurant itself.

of course another restaurant elsewhere may also have foo as name
but it's not the same objet in osm, no clash between both.
you don't confuse phone numbers either, so why would you confuse
the delivery operators?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 18:38, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> NB: This crossing is not mapped correctly in OSM as there is no common
> node betweet crossing footway and crossed road.
>

Correct!

But when I mapped it, those errors weren't coming up - there's lot's that
I've got back & "join" :-(

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 17:23, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 14/05/19 17:14, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:
>
> Haven’t checked if it shows up as an error, but technically, the grass on
> each side is the “sidewalk”, and it is simply a shortcoming of the current
> tagging schemes that it’s not possible to properly tag it as pedestrian
> routable area.
>
>
> Why not?
> highway=footway/path surface=grass
> Or for sidewalk sidewalk:both:surface=grass
>

Yes, I suppose we could, but then pretty well every residential street will
have a footpath / sidewalk each side.

Isn't that then going to hide the "real" (concrete etc) footpaths that
people want / need to use?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Apps of delivery

[santamariense]

> or use the name of the poi in the delivery:operator value :
> delivery:operator=deliveroo;
> so you 'll never have a clash between the "fake" value and
> the name of a company

Possibly there'll be more than 1 POI within the same name on the same operator.

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

Re: [Tagging] Marking temporary traffic organisation change

[Marc Gemis]

There is the abandoned proposal for temporary:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/temporary

regards

m.

On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 5:02 PM Mateusz Konieczny
 wrote:
>
> Sometimes traffic organization changes for some time - road becomes 
> temporarily oneway,
> or oneway road becomes accessible in both direction.
>
> Obviously short term traffic organisation changes (for hours/days) are 
> generally not
> worth mapping, though one may use oneway:conditional / access:conditional for 
> that.
>
> But sometimes change is applied for months or longer, as it is related to 
> closure of road.
>
> For example road around
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.04484=19.94562#map=19/50.04484/19.94562
> are closed for reconstruction, what is covered by highway=construction.
>
> But there are also other changes
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25029841#map=19/50.04537/19.94788
> become oneway=no.
>
> How one may mark that such change is temporary?
>
> It would be useful for at least two reasons:
> - it would easier to catch roads for retagging after road recontruction 
> completes
> - it would be possible to skip such roads in some QA checks - for example 
> that road has
> cycleway=opposie_lane, oneway:bicycle=no with oneway=no what would usually 
> indicate
> some mistake - but here it is a result of temporary change so validators 
> should not complain
>
> Is there some existing tag for that? If not - what would be a good name for 
> that?
> temporary_traffic_organisation=yes is awful
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked

[Volker Schmidt]

On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 05:10,  wrote:
>
> I must admit that I only map crossings when they are between formed
> footpaths eg
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/553154851, not where there is only a
> grass footpath.
>
NB: This crossing is not mapped correctly in OSM as there is no common node
betweet crossing footway and crossed road.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 14. May 2019, at 09:16,  
>  wrote:
> 
> People do generally walk on this “grass” sidewalk.


they could, but if they would, it would not remain grass ;-)

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked

[Warin]

On 14/05/19 17:14, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:


Haven’t checked if it shows up as an error, but technically, the grass 
on each side is the “sidewalk”, and it is simply a shortcoming of the 
current tagging schemes that it’s not possible to properly tag it as 
pedestrian routable area.




Why not?
highway=footway/path surface=grass
Or for sidewalk sidewalk:both:surface=grass
   ???

These lowered kerbs represents points with easy access from sidewalk 
to street for wheelchair users or people pushing prams, and I think 
it’s worthwhile to map them.


*From:*Graeme Fitzpatrick 
*Sent:* Tuesday, 14 May 2019 10:24
*To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 


*Subject:* Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked


On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 05:10, > wrote:


I must admit that I only map crossings when they are between formed 
footpaths eg


https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.070784,153.4361817,3a,75y,133.97h,57.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saeYx4cpvnikG8KXcdh0pGw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 
 



https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/553154851, not where there is only a 
grass footpath.


I do generally map crossings as long as they have lowered kerbs,
like here:


https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/558999688670609448/577570543851536401/unknown.png

That one, I would have terminated the crossing at the marked road, 
rather than taking it to the other side


or even:


https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/558999688670609448/577571624585527296/unknown.png

& that I wouldn't have marked at all. Does it show up in OSMose / OSM 
Inspector etc as an error because it's not "attached" to anything?


Thanks

Graeme



https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6465544169





___
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] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked

[osm.tagging]

People do generally walk on this “grass” sidewalk.

 

From: Martin Koppenhoefer  
Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2019 16:04
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked

 

 

sent from a phone


On 14. May 2019, at 02:24, Graeme Fitzpatrick mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com> > wrote:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/558999688670609448/577570543851536401/unknown.png

 

That one, I would have terminated the crossing at the marked road, rather than 
taking it to the other side

 

 

the lowered kerb clearly indicates a crossing though - unlike the grass surface 
on the „footpath“ which seems to indicate that nobody is actually walking there 
;-)

 

Cheers, Martin 

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked

[osm.tagging]

Haven’t checked if it shows up as an error, but technically, the grass on each 
side is the “sidewalk”, and it is simply a shortcoming of the current tagging 
schemes that it’s not possible to properly tag it as pedestrian routable area.

 

These lowered kerbs represents points with easy access from sidewalk to street 
for wheelchair users or people pushing prams, and I think it’s worthwhile to 
map them.

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2019 10:24
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked

 




 

On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 05:10, mailto:osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > wrote:

 

I must admit that I only map crossings when they are between formed footpaths eg

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.070784,153.4361817,3a,75y,133.97h,57.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saeYx4cpvnikG8KXcdh0pGw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
 

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/553154851, not where there is only a grass 
footpath.

 

I do generally map crossings as long as they have lowered kerbs, like here:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/558999688670609448/577570543851536401/unknown.png

 

That one, I would have terminated the crossing at the marked road, rather than 
taking it to the other side

 

or even:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/558999688670609448/577571624585527296/unknown.png

 

& that I wouldn't have marked at all. Does it show up in OSMose / OSM Inspector 
etc as an error because it's not "attached" to anything?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 



https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6465544169





___
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] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

On 14. May 2019, at 02:24, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:

>> https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/558999688670609448/577570543851536401/unknown.png
> 
> That one, I would have terminated the crossing at the marked road, rather 
> than taking it to the other side


the lowered kerb clearly indicates a crossing though - unlike the grass surface 
on the „footpath“ which seems to indicate that nobody is actually walking there 
;-)

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