Re: [Tagging] key educational

[Jmapb via Tagging]

On 8/16/2019 10:56 PM, Warin wrote:

I think the key:educational maybe better used later for schools,
colleges, cram schools etc.


The (dormant) proposal for these was
education=school|university|tutor|cram_school etc.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Education_Reform_Alternative

I do feel that having "educational" as a key would inevitably lead to
confusion, if these education=* tags ever become accepted and used
(which I personally hope they do.)

J


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

[Tagging] key educational

[Warin]

On 17/08/19 11:58, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
It is better to document the meaning of a property tag at its own wiki 
page, so tools like Taginfo can make use of the description, but a tag 
used only a handful of times does not need to be added to major 
feature pages without discussion.


I’ve made a page for key:educational now, so it will  be documented, 
since it’s been added to 17 routes in the past 14 months.


Best to give a link to the page. Too new to find it yet.

I think the key:educational maybe better used later for schools, 
colleges, cram schools etc.



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

I think the above wiki page gives some better information on values 
rather than 'yes'.


e.g. 
route:educational=nature/plants/geology/geography/sight/astronomy/wildlife/language/cultural 
might be better values..


Personally I'd use the description key as that already exists and is 
adaptable to any route.






On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 9:52 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


On 17/08/19 03:55, s8evq wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 20:37:56 +0900, Joseph Eisenberg
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>>
wrote:
>
>> The key "educational" has only been used 25 times, mainly
>> "educational=yes", and does not have a wiki page, so it would
be best
>> to remove it from the route pages.
>>
> That's OK for me. Anybody who's againt removing it from the the
tagging scheme?

It is obviously something mappers want to indicate. If it has no
documentation then it will get used in lots of different ways ..
not all of them that useful.
As this is the only documentation for it I think OSM would loose
information from its removal.

route:educational=yes could be a better tag?
I prefer trying to make good tags that people can use, even of the
use is low, as good tags are better than poor tags.




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

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

[Joseph Eisenberg]

It is better to document the meaning of a property tag at its own wiki
page, so tools like Taginfo can make use of the description, but a tag used
only a handful of times does not need to be added to major feature pages
without discussion.

I’ve made a page for key:educational now, so it will  be documented, since
it’s been added to 17 routes in the past 14 months.

Joseph

On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 9:52 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 17/08/19 03:55, s8evq wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 20:37:56 +0900, Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The key "educational" has only been used 25 times, mainly
> >> "educational=yes", and does not have a wiki page, so it would be best
> >> to remove it from the route pages.
> >>
> > That's OK for me. Anybody who's againt removing it from the the tagging
> scheme?
>
> It is obviously something mappers want to indicate. If it has no
> documentation then it will get used in lots of different ways .. not all of
> them that useful.
> As this is the only documentation for it I think OSM would loose
> information from its removal.
>
> route:educational=yes could be a better tag?
> I prefer trying to make good tags that people can use, even of the use is
> low, as good tags are better than poor tags.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

[Warin]

My limited experience;

Gaps on the gpx route tend to be straight lines, ok when they are 
contiguous but where they back track it gets confusing.


Some initial thoughts on what I would do, and have done on some routes 
of interest to me ...


On 16/08/19 21:31, Peter Elderson wrote:
Looked at de E2 relation in Yorkshire. It would require a lot of work 
to make it work for data users beside rendering, and to fit it into 
the E2 superroute as a whole.
a. Nodes in the relation - not unheard of, but then with a role like 
start. Should be removed.

Agreed. I don't think nodes belong on a route?

b. 10 gaps. Needs investigating the cause; some just reflect wrong order.

Re ordering is fairly easy.
c. There are a bunch of sorted chains of ways. Maybe just a sorting 
problem, maybe more. Simple sort doesn't work because of the nodes and 
nested relations.

Remove the nodes.
d. Contains ways and other route relations. The other routes appear to 
belong to another main variant running far to the west through 
Yorkshire. These should be separately checked, sorted, oriented and 
repaired, and then moved to a separate relation, in the right order 
(north to south).


If the relations are 'alternatives' .. or even if they are not .. move 
them all to the end of the members and sort the way you have into some 
order.

Then look at the gaps and see if any of the relations 'fit'.


The eastern and western variants separate in Scotland, then run 
separately through England. The east route is the one that connects to 
the european E2 which follows the GR5 to Nice.


The E2 has occasional signs all along the route, but the regular 
waymarking is that of the constituting trails. I think that is enough 
to say it's waymarked.


Anybody knows who is mapping routes in England, knows his relation 
stuff, and wants to fix this?


Not in England, and not that interested in looking at it in detail.
Deleting nodes is easy, even putting them into a relation and then 
placing that relation at the end so it does not interfere with sorting 
is easy.. if someone objects to the nodes being deleted.
Sorting and order the ways too is easy. Dealing with 'alternatives' 
needs some knowledge of the route, I don't have that.




Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op vr 16 aug. 2019 om 12:09 schreef Peter Elderson 
mailto:pelder...@gmail.com>>:


Op vr 16 aug. 2019 om 10:59 schreef Andy Townsend
mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com>>:

On 16/08/2019 08:50, Peter Elderson wrote:
> Josm of course. Is there another relation editor that can
handle large nested route relations spanning up to say 4000 Km?

P2 can, at least.  Other people seem to suggest that iD does a
reasonable job now too.


Sorry to disagree. P2 and ID are aware of relations and can do a
few basic things like adding/removing a way and shifting a way up
and down, in one relation at a time. If you maintain a lot of long
distance routes, that is painfully inadequate. Even more so if you
try to do it in a way that prepares the relations for data users,
currently meaning linear and gapless gpx-es for use in navigation
software, elevation profiles, and trip planners. You need
validation, gap detection, multiple relation windows with shifting
between windows, sorting, jump to first/last member, direction
reverse, download all members even those not in the bbox, ...


The more interesting question, though, is "why do you want
walking route
relations to be sorted".  The point that's already been made
about
routes that use the same way twice is a valid one, but almost
never
applies to walking route relations.  What are you trying to do
with e.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1976184 (the part of
E2* that
runs through Yorkshire) if it's not sorted?

If it's not sorted: display only. If I want to walk it, I want to
use OsmAnd navigation and or Garmin navigation. OsmAnd and Garmin
currently cannot use the relation directly, so I have to use a
gpx, and they recalculate the route for navigation. The gpx needs
to be continous, sorted and gapless, or it won't work. Overpass
and Waymarkedtrails can export to a routable gpx, if the relation
is one sorted and continous chain of ways.
So before exporting, I use JOSM relation editor, load the entire
thing, solve all gaps en remove duplications, move alternatives
one or more separate relations, then export the main route as gpx.

I also notify the operator of the website
https://www.longdistancepaths.eu/en/
so he can use the export for his trip planner. If he could depend
on routes to be flawless in OSM he could connect directly to it
for automatic periodical refresh.

If the route is on that planner, I would probably use that first
to plan the trip and route according to train and bus stations,
hotels & B's, and places on 

Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

[Warin]

On 17/08/19 07:54, Paul Allen wrote:
On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 22:33, Martin Koppenhoefer 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:



The way I see it, we’re mapping the world, as it is. Not just
places where the general public may have an interest in navigating
to it. If you were to make an analysis about the functional
structure of a city you would want to know about the offices, even
if they are not open to anyone besides their clients and business
partners.


And parcel deliverers.  And others.  Just because most people don't 
need or want to know

about them, that doesn't mean nobody wants to know.

That said, in the few cases like that where a company doesn't 
specifically make its location
public knowledge, if I find out it's there I check if it wants its 
location mapped.  If it doesn't,.

I map only the building name/number.


If it can be seen from the street then it is a navigational aid and 
should be mapped, even if the general public cannot go there.

OSM maps military establishments where the general public cannot go.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

[Warin]

On 17/08/19 03:55, s8evq wrote:

On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 20:37:56 +0900, Joseph Eisenberg 
 wrote:


The key "educational" has only been used 25 times, mainly
"educational=yes", and does not have a wiki page, so it would be best
to remove it from the route pages.


That's OK for me. Anybody who's againt removing it from the the tagging scheme?


It is obviously something mappers want to indicate. If it has no documentation 
then it will get used in lots of different ways .. not all of them that useful.
As this is the only documentation for it I think OSM would loose information 
from its removal.

route:educational=yes could be a better tag?
I prefer trying to make good tags that people can use, even of the use is low, 
as good tags are better than poor tags.


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

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

[Jmapb via Tagging]

On 8/16/2019 4:59 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:

a long route may go through several colour changes but will be signed
with its own marker at principal junctions. (Where I map, there are
only a handful of long-distance routes affected by this: the Long
Path, the Highlands Trail, the Finger Lakes Trail, and the North
Country Trail. Other long trails exist and are blazed consistently:
for example, the Northville-Placid Trail and Shawangunk Ridge Trail
are blue for their entire length, and the Appalachian Trail carries
its distinctive rectangular white blazes.)


For the Long Path, certainly I feel the master route and sub-routes
should be tagged aqua (or 80FECE) even though huge portions of the trail
are blazed differently, mainly through the Catskill Park. (The SRT, to
my memory, also has a bit of variation, especially in Minnewaska.)

The European long-distance trails (E1-E12) I've been on are even moreso:
Mainly composed of existing trails and using the existing local blazes,
only mentioned by name at principal junctions -- and even there may or
may not be indicated in their official colour. Though they did seem to
have an official colour sometimes, occasionally. I can't find any master
reference, but I think I remember E10 and E11 being blue, and E8 being
red. Checking out the route relations (wow these are some big
relations!) it looks like they eschew the colour tag and prefer "symbol"
and "osmc:symbol".

(Note that the map at
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Map_of_the_European_Long_Distance_Paths.png
shows a distinct color for each trail but I don't think these colors
have any basis on the ground.)

J


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

Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 22:33, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> The way I see it, we’re mapping the world, as it is. Not just places where
> the general public may have an interest in navigating to it. If you were to
> make an analysis about the functional structure of a city you would want to
> know about the offices, even if they are not open to anyone besides their
> clients and business partners.
>

And parcel deliverers.  And others.  Just because most people don't need or
want to know
about them, that doesn't mean nobody wants to know.

That said, in the few cases like that where a company doesn't specifically
make its location
public knowledge, if I find out it's there I check if it wants its location
mapped.  If it doesn't,.
I map only the building name/number.

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

Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 16. Aug 2019, at 15:13, ael  wrote:
> 
> I could never see the point in tagging offices which are of no intrinsic
> interest except perhaps to office equipment suppliers.


The way I see it, we’re mapping the world, as it is. Not just places where the 
general public may have an interest in navigating to it. If you were to make an 
analysis about the functional structure of a city you would want to know about 
the offices, even if they are not open to anyone besides their clients and 
business partners.

I completely agree not to map places with the office tag that aren’t offices.

Cheers Martin 


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

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 4:20 PM Jmapb via Tagging
 wrote:
>   - Speaking of "yellow", the table specifies that colour should be a
> hex triplet, but wiki page for the colour key indicates that named HTML
> colours are also acceptable values. And I know many trails are tagged
> this way. So probably the new scheme should allow these too?

Since most trail markers are in bright primary colours, I like using the names.

Some maintenance organizations specify the marker colours with
numbered paint chips from the major paint manufacturers:
https://www.nynjtc.org/sites/default/files/documents/Recommended%20colors_0.pdf
is an example. I've used #rrggbb to approximate the colours for the
Long Path and Highlands Trail, and have otherwise just used the names
'white', 'blue', 'green', 'orange', 'red', 'yellow', 'pink' and
'black'. (The black was an inadvertent omission from the manual, and
is used only as a foreground colour atop another colour, usually
white.)

osmc:symbol is definitely needed to describe the ones from this
manual, that club has an elaborate symbology. Other clubs just use a
splash of the coloured paint on a tree or rock.

Farther north, the only reassurance markers on foot trails are 'red
dot', 'yellow dot', 'blue dot', 'white dot' and 'orange dot'. There is
little confusion, because trails with the same colour seldom meet. Red
is used for through trails running chiefly E/W, blue for through
trails running N/S; yellow is for loops and spurs; white is for
connectors and where a second colour is needed because of an
intersection with yellow; orange markers are for snowmobile, ATV and
MTB routes and are usually also signed and/or numbered. Major
snowmobile routes have reference numbers and highway shields that look
like 
http://hike.chipmoeser.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/psx_20160823_151117.jpg.
I'm not a snowmobilist or MTB or ATV rider, so I map these only in a
fragmentary fashion and only as I happen to encounter them.

In areas where the directional system is in use, a long route may go
through several colour changes but will be signed with its own marker
at principal junctions. (Where I map, there are only a handful of
long-distance routes affected by this: the Long Path, the Highlands
Trail, the Finger Lakes Trail, and the North Country Trail. Other long
trails exist and are blazed consistently: for example, the
Northville-Placid Trail and Shawangunk Ridge Trail are blue for their
entire length, and the Appalachian Trail carries its distinctive
rectangular white blazes.)
-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

[Peter Elderson]

I would like to see this software in operation! Could you give me the links
of some applications that can reorder and use route relations with multiple
gaps, duplicate ways, branches, loose loops, uncut roundabouts, pedestrian
areas, nodes and nested relations? It's not about just unsorted, it's about
all the things that makes sorting impossible.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op vr 16 aug. 2019 om 21:05 schreef Richard Fairhurst :

> Peter Elderson wrote:
> > I think it's fair to say there is almost no software that does
> > anything with route relations except rendering and exporting
> > as a gpx.
>
> That's not true. Most bike routers based on OSM are aware of route
> relations
> and use them to influence routing.
>
> > Software needs a sorted or easily sortable relation. Currently,
> > no software can handle sorting when the routes get broken.
>
> That's not true either. I have software right here that reorders unsorted
> relations, as well as skeletonising dual carriageways into single lines,
> jumping over roundabouts and coping with other such issues. I know of two
> other sites operating similar software and I'm sure there are more.
>
> There are certainly issues with consuming route relations but sorting is
> not, in my pretty extensive experience, one of them.
>
> Peter, perhaps you could clarify what your experience is in consuming OSM
> data? Have you written code to do so? Do you run a website that uses OSM?
>
> Richard
> cycle.travel
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html
>
> ___
> 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] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

[Andy Townsend]

On 16/08/2019 20:00, Paul Allen wrote:
On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 19:43, s8evq > wrote:



[1] [make it more clear that the walking route has to be signed in
order to map it. As it is stated now, you could read it that a
named hiking route is sufficient to be mapped]


Does it have to be signposted as a walking route?


I've tended to use that as a criterion for inclusion, though there are 
some exceptions already in OSM (Wainright's Coast to Coast is in, for 
example)


Of course, signposted doesn't always mean "signposted very well" :)

Best Regards,

Andy

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

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

[Richard Fairhurst]

Peter Elderson wrote:
> I think it's fair to say there is almost no software that does 
> anything with route relations except rendering and exporting 
> as a gpx.

That's not true. Most bike routers based on OSM are aware of route relations
and use them to influence routing.

> Software needs a sorted or easily sortable relation. Currently, 
> no software can handle sorting when the routes get broken. 

That's not true either. I have software right here that reorders unsorted
relations, as well as skeletonising dual carriageways into single lines,
jumping over roundabouts and coping with other such issues. I know of two
other sites operating similar software and I'm sure there are more.

There are certainly issues with consuming route relations but sorting is
not, in my pretty extensive experience, one of them.

Peter, perhaps you could clarify what your experience is in consuming OSM
data? Have you written code to do so? Do you run a website that uses OSM?

Richard
cycle.travel




--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

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

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 19:43, s8evq  wrote:

>
> [1] [make it more clear that the walking route has to be signed in order
> to map it. As it is stated now, you could read it that a named hiking route
> is sufficient to be mapped]
>

Does it have to be signposted as a walking route?  I know of several
organized by
a nearby walking group that have put together walks from an assemblage of
public
footpaths or bridleways (signed as public footpaths or bridleways) linked
by short
segments of road.  They have an on-line presence which describes some of
those
walks.  They also occasionally arrange for the members to meet up to walk
along one of those routes.

Obviously, the route has to be described somewhere, but does it really need
to be
marked as such before we can map it?  I suspect some of the "official"
walking
routes publicised by county councils around here are not explicitly marked
as
such.

[4] [ I would like to add this sentence: "If possible, sort the ways in a
> logical order"]
>

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I'm not sure "logical" clarifies
anything.  The
explanation at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Order_matters
manages without it.

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

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

[s8evq]

The table with the tagging scheme for the hiking/foot routes is getting there: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_scheme_hiking_walking Just a few 
more small things that need to be decided on. 

In the mean time, I have copy and pasted the sentences that surrounded the 
tagging scheme on the four different pages (Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot 
and Walking routes) and try to merge them. It was easier than I thought, as the 
text was actually already 95% the same. The proposed version of the text is 
added underneath here. I have almost not changed anything to the current text. 
But I have already added three of my own remarks, between brackets [*] More 
feedback is welcome.

--- start of proposed text ---
Foot and hiking routes are named or numbered or otherwise signed walking 
routes. [1] A route is a customary or regular line of travel, often 
pre-determined and publicised. It consist of paths taken repeatedly by various 
people. A foot route is generally a shorter, easier route, a hiking route is 
generally longer and/or more strenuous. [2]

To tag a walking/hiking route you create a relation with the appropriate tags 
and add all elements (points and ways) [3] of the hiking route to this 
relation. [4]

[1] [make it more clear that the walking route has to be signed in order to map 
it. As it is stated now, you could read it that a named hiking route is 
sufficient to be mapped]
[2] [Is is necesary to make the distinction here, as it's better explained in 
the table?]
[3] [what "points" are to be added? I would say none, only add ways, remove the 
word "points"] 
[4] [ I would like to add this sentence: "If possible, sort the ways in a 
logical order"] 

--- end of proposed text ---


On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 10:50:16 +0200 (CEST), "s8evq"  wrote:

> Hello everyone,
> 
> On the discussion page of the wiki entry Hiking 
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Hiking#Synchronize_wiki_page_Hiking.2C_Walking_Routes.2C_route.3Dhiking_and_route.3Dfoot_on_tagging_scheme.)
>  I have started a topic, but with little response so far. That's why I come 
> here, before proceeding.
> 
> 
> Currently, there are four tagging scheme tables describing how walking (or 
> hiking) routes should be tagged.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dhiking
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dfoot
> 
> Would it not be easier and more clear if we just keep one, and add a link to 
> it in the others?
> 
> Last month, I already started harmonizing these four tagging scheme tables. I 
> changed the order, added some missing tags, adjusted the explanation etc... 
> In my view, I only had to do minor edits. For those interested, here are my 
> edits:
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Hiking=revision=1878387=1873054
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Walking_Routes=revision=1881156=1879580
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dhiking=revision=1878383=1853636
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dfoot=revision=1878384=1853797
> 
> So these four tagging scheme tables are now almost 100% the same.
> 
> 
> My idea was to keep the tagging scheme table on one of the wiki pages, and 
> put a link to it on the three other pages. I would like to have broader 
> support before going further.
> 
> 
> Of course, we can discuss about the content of the tagging scheme. But that's 
> irrelevant to my question about the organization of the wiki page.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 1:40 PM s8evq  wrote:
> Just to be clear: are you still talking about hiking/walking routes? Or 
> public transport? Because, as far as I know, there is no clear explanation in 
> the wiki why forward/backward should be used in hiking routes.

I had one locally where the blazes were visible only on one direction.
(It was in OSM as a oneway route for a while, but I changed it when
they got around to painting them in the other direction.)

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

Re: [Tagging] Route sorting

[Johnparis]

Thanks Paul ...

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 2:13 PM Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 11:56, Johnparis  wrote:
>
>> Hoping this is on topic or close ...
>>
>
> Drifting away.  But you can fix that by saying you will vote against
> certain proposals for
> route tagging because iD doesn't handle route relations properly. :)
>
>>
>> 1) People have mentioned that iD can now edit relations. How? I've
>> searched for tutorials or documentation,
>>
>
> Basic stuff is in iD's help. Click on the question mark at the bottom of
> the set of buttons on the
> right.  Look at the sections list at the right of the pop-up help pane and
> click on Relations.
>
>

Tried that. Nothing at all about editing relations per se, just adding or
deleting elements.

and simply tried to drag elements up or down when opening the relation in
>> iD's edit mode ... nothing.
>>
>
> Works for me.  Clicked on a road I knew was part of a bus route.
> Scrollled down in the
> "Edit feature" pane on the left to get to "All relations."  Clicked on the
> appropriate relation
> to open it up.  Scrolled down to the list of elements in the route.
> Clicked on the title of
> one of those elements (it was "Tertiary Road  Priory Street") and dragged
> it down (or up,
> as the case may be).
>

Aha! I needed to download all the elements (some had said "not downloaded",
so I clicked on the download icon). Then it works. Excellent.


> (I'm also glad to hear that it no longer ignores the order of relation
>> members, sometimes breaking the relation's sorting, which is what got me
>> started with JOSM in the first place.)
>>
>
> Ditto.  But I prefer iD for routes now it doesn't break them.  A touch
> swings and roundabouts,
> but if the route sorting isn't badly broken, I use iD.  The only reason I
> haven't deleted
> JOSM is that there's a plugin that lets me split forests/woods so I can
> give each chunk a
> different name.  Many of the larger woods around here have been mapped by
> others long ago
> but not named.  With the UK's OS OpenData StreetView now available as
> background imagery
> I can give names to woods and chunks of woods.
>
> 2) Pet peeve for JOSM. People have mentioned that it sorts correctly (most
>> of the time anyhow) for junction=roundabout. But it fails with
>> junction=circular, which is the exact equivalent of junction=roundabout but
>> without the restriction that traffic in the circle has the right of way.
>> Seems it would be simple to fix?
>>
>
> Raise a ticket with JOSM: https://josm.openstreetmap.de/newticket
> Actually, it would be a good
> idea to check existing tickets first, in case somebody has already raised
> the issue:
> https://josm.openstreetmap.de/report
>

Will do.

Thanks again.


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

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

[s8evq]

On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 20:37:56 +0900, Joseph Eisenberg 
 wrote:

> The key "educational" has only been used 25 times, mainly
> "educational=yes", and does not have a wiki page, so it would be best
> to remove it from the route pages.
> 

That's OK for me. Anybody who's againt removing it from the the tagging scheme?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

[s8evq]

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 09:54:01 +0200, Jo  wrote:
> > By doing that, you're basically saying that alternatives can't have
> forward/backward roles. To me that doesn't make sense. We are using those
> forward/backward roles to indicate that there are 2 branches for each
> direction of travel along the route. This could easily happen along an
> alternative part of the route as well.
> 

Just to be clear: are you still talking about hiking/walking routes? Or public 
transport? Because, as far as I know, there is no clear explanation in the wiki 
why forward/backward should be used in hiking routes.

(except perhaps when there is a highway that is one way for foot? which is 
extremely rare)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 12:52, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> IMHO what may be needed is “workshop” rather than business.
>

Artists will probably be upset by "workshop" and will insist they have
studios (which is
where we came in).  Whilst it might be sensible to have something (whatever
we call it)
it is going to end up replacing the bulk of craft=*.  Which may not be a
bad thing.
Having craft=sculptor seems to imply we're mapping a person.  Using
office=lawyer
is fine because it's an office where a lawyer (or lawyers) work.  But
craft=sculptor
would, if interpreted pedantically, be a place which manufactures sculptors
from
raw materials.

But then we have craft=brewery rather than craft=brewer, so we've been
rather
inconsistent.  Also, workshop=brewer is rather ugly.

At this point we remember how hard it is to change anything that's
widespread, and
quietly forget about the whole issue.

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

Re: [Tagging] Route sorting

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 11:56, Johnparis  wrote:

> Hoping this is on topic or close ...
>

Drifting away.  But you can fix that by saying you will vote against
certain proposals for
route tagging because iD doesn't handle route relations properly. :)

>
> 1) People have mentioned that iD can now edit relations. How? I've
> searched for tutorials or documentation,
>

Basic stuff is in iD's help. Click on the question mark at the bottom of
the set of buttons on the
right.  Look at the sections list at the right of the pop-up help pane and
click on Relations.


> and simply tried to drag elements up or down when opening the relation in
> iD's edit mode ... nothing.
>

Works for me.  Clicked on a road I knew was part of a bus route.  Scrollled
down in the
"Edit feature" pane on the left to get to "All relations."  Clicked on the
appropriate relation
to open it up.  Scrolled down to the list of elements in the route.
Clicked on the title of
one of those elements (it was "Tertiary Road  Priory Street") and dragged
it down (or up,
as the case may be).

(I'm also glad to hear that it no longer ignores the order of relation
> members, sometimes breaking the relation's sorting, which is what got me
> started with JOSM in the first place.)
>

Ditto.  But I prefer iD for routes now it doesn't break them.  A touch
swings and roundabouts,
but if the route sorting isn't badly broken, I use iD.  The only reason I
haven't deleted
JOSM is that there's a plugin that lets me split forests/woods so I can
give each chunk a
different name.  Many of the larger woods around here have been mapped by
others long ago
but not named.  With the UK's OS OpenData StreetView now available as
background imagery
I can give names to woods and chunks of woods.

2) Pet peeve for JOSM. People have mentioned that it sorts correctly (most
> of the time anyhow) for junction=roundabout. But it fails with
> junction=circular, which is the exact equivalent of junction=roundabout but
> without the restriction that traffic in the circle has the right of way.
> Seems it would be simple to fix?
>

Raise a ticket with JOSM: https://josm.openstreetmap.de/newticket
Actually, it would be a good
idea to check existing tickets first, in case somebody has already raised
the issue:
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/report

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

Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 16. Aug 2019, at 09:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> I've been intending to work on a proposal but haven't had a chance - 
> worthwhile?


IMHO what may be needed is “workshop” rather than business. We are already 
tagging many kinds of businesses with the tags amenity, shop and office. 
Business would be mostly overlapping with these established tags.

Cheers Martin 



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

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

[Peter Elderson]

Op vr 16 aug. 2019 om 10:59 schreef Andy Townsend :

> On 16/08/2019 08:50, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > Josm of course. Is there another relation editor that can handle large
> nested route relations spanning up to say 4000 Km?
>
> P2 can, at least.  Other people seem to suggest that iD does a
> reasonable job now too.
>

Sorry to disagree. P2 and ID are aware of relations and can do a few basic
things like adding/removing a way and shifting a way up and down, in one
relation at a time. If you maintain a lot of long distance routes, that is
painfully inadequate. Even more so if you try to do it in a way that
prepares the relations for data users, currently meaning linear and gapless
gpx-es for use in navigation software, elevation profiles, and trip
planners. You need validation, gap detection, multiple relation windows
with shifting between windows, sorting, jump to first/last member,
direction reverse, download all members even those not in the bbox, ...


>
> The more interesting question, though, is "why do you want walking route
> relations to be sorted".  The point that's already been made about
> routes that use the same way twice is a valid one, but almost never
> applies to walking route relations.  What are you trying to do with e.g.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1976184 (the part of E2* that
> runs through Yorkshire) if it's not sorted?
>
> If it's not sorted: display only. If I want to walk it, I want to use
OsmAnd navigation and or Garmin navigation. OsmAnd and Garmin currently
cannot use the relation directly, so I have to use a gpx, and they
recalculate the route for navigation. The gpx needs to be continous, sorted
and gapless, or it won't work. Overpass and Waymarkedtrails can export to a
routable gpx, if the relation is one sorted and continous chain of ways.
So before exporting, I use JOSM relation editor, load the entire thing,
solve all gaps en remove duplications, move alternatives one or more
separate relations, then export the main route as gpx.

I also notify the operator of the website
https://www.longdistancepaths.eu/en/
so he can use the export for his trip planner. If he could depend on routes
to be flawless in OSM he could connect directly to it for automatic
periodical refresh.

If the route is on that planner, I would probably use that first to plan
the trip and route according to train and bus stations, hotels & B's, and
places on the way, then export the trip gpx from that planner.

I will actually have a look at the E2 Yorkshire thing after lunch. I can
repair technical problems. If I need local survey I can probably not fix it
completely. Have to look at the history as well, don't want to offend
mappers over there with foreign ideas.

Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
> * There are actually many other things wrong with that relation. It's
> not signed, so in a since here it "does not exist" but at the very least
> it should be tagged as such.  Also it's actually defined here in terms
> of the Wolds Way (which is signed), not in terms of individual paths.  I
> also doubt that the LDWA is in any sense an "operator".
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

[Andy Townsend]

On 16/08/2019 08:50, Peter Elderson wrote:

Josm of course. Is there another relation editor that can handle large nested 
route relations spanning up to say 4000 Km?


P2 can, at least.  Other people seem to suggest that iD does a 
reasonable job now too.


The more interesting question, though, is "why do you want walking route 
relations to be sorted".  The point that's already been made about 
routes that use the same way twice is a valid one, but almost never 
applies to walking route relations.  What are you trying to do with e.g. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1976184 (the part of E2* that 
runs through Yorkshire) if it's not sorted?


Best Regards,

Andy

* There are actually many other things wrong with that relation. It's 
not signed, so in a since here it "does not exist" but at the very least 
it should be tagged as such.  Also it's actually defined here in terms 
of the Wolds Way (which is signed), not in terms of individual paths.  I 
also doubt that the LDWA is in any sense an "operator".




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

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

[Peter Elderson]

Both! If I enter a new route or alter it after survey, I often have to edit
ways. Cutting a way into sections, mostly. After a painful process of
making other people very unhappy, I finally know how to handle/repair all
the broken relations that causes, before uploading.

At the same time I notice that others do edits without repairing damage to
relations (not only routes, also turn restrictions). Most of these mappers
are not aware of the "damage", and if they are, they can't repair it. I
know many hiking people who start to make simple edits to the map on their
trips, but stop because of the trouble it causes.

Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op vr 16 aug. 2019 om 09:56 schreef Jo :

> Peter, I think Martin's question comes from a misunderstanding. You
> probably meant the route relations were broken by someone editing before
> you. Martin seems to have understood that you have to check all those route
> relations, after you edited them yourself.
>
> Jo
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 9:52 AM Peter Elderson 
> wrote:
>
>> Josm of course. Is there another relation editor that can handle large
>> nested route relations spanning up to say 4000 Km? In josm, before the edit
>> I open all the relations that may be affected, check if they are correct as
>> far as that section is concerned,  then perform the edit, then apply the
>> change to each relation and check again if all is well. When I am not in a
>> hurry and the affected relations have other gaps, I repair those as well.
>>
>> Mvg Peter Elderson
>>
>> > Op 16 aug. 2019 om 02:11 heeft Martin Koppenhoefer <
>> dieterdre...@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > sent from a phone
>> >
>> >> On 16. Aug 2019, at 00:20, Peter Elderson  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Not seldom I have to check and repair 10-15 route relations after one
>> edit (most often a split of a way to allow a route to attach there) on the
>> map.
>> >
>> >
>> > which editing software do you use?
>> >
>> >
>> > 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] [OSM-talk] Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

[Christoph Hormann]

The problem about proposal pages is that they can be infinitely 
theoretical, non-verifiable or outright insane.  So telling a mapper 
who is thinking about inventing a new tag to search the proposals if 
there is one that already covers what they want to do is not 
practicable.  Because even if there is a proposal that deals with the 
same kind of situation the mapper is confronted with that does not mean 
the proposal contains a practicable idea of how to tag this.

The advisable approach to making tag documentation on the wiki better 
usable is IMO not to further blur the line between documentation of the 
de facto meaning of tags by humans and all the other uses of the wiki 
(like proposals, automatically assembled data etc.) but more strictly 
separating them.  If you (theoretically - it would probably be a lot of 
work to do this practically) take all tagging documentation from the 
wiki no matter where it is and remove everything that is not strictly 
documenting the de facto meaning of tags in the OSM database the result 
would be a pretty compact body of documentation.

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Route sorting

[Peter Elderson]

Op vr 16 aug. 2019 om 01:58 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com>:

> The wiki is not consistent, as the definition says the tag
> junction=roundabout is describing
>
> “A road junction where the traffic goes around a non-traversable island
> and has right of way. “
>
> Hm. In Nederland, right of way on roundabouts only applies if there are
the appropriate traffic signs. Otherwise traffic from the right has right
of way. No automatic right of way on roundabouts.  Odd, but true.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

[Jo]

Peter, I think Martin's question comes from a misunderstanding. You
probably meant the route relations were broken by someone editing before
you. Martin seems to have understood that you have to check all those route
relations, after you edited them yourself.

Jo

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 9:52 AM Peter Elderson  wrote:

> Josm of course. Is there another relation editor that can handle large
> nested route relations spanning up to say 4000 Km? In josm, before the edit
> I open all the relations that may be affected, check if they are correct as
> far as that section is concerned,  then perform the edit, then apply the
> change to each relation and check again if all is well. When I am not in a
> hurry and the affected relations have other gaps, I repair those as well.
>
> Mvg Peter Elderson
>
> > Op 16 aug. 2019 om 02:11 heeft Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
> >
> >
> >
> > sent from a phone
> >
> >> On 16. Aug 2019, at 00:20, Peter Elderson  wrote:
> >>
> >> Not seldom I have to check and repair 10-15 route relations after one
> edit (most often a split of a way to allow a route to attach there) on the
> map.
> >
> >
> > which editing software do you use?
> >
> >
> > 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] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

[Jo]

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 1:57 PM Sarah Hoffmann  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> (making this a new topic)
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 11:56:30AM +0200, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > I strongly prefer to have one relation for the main route, and separate
> relations for alternatives. Put those together in a relation with roles for
> the member relations, not for individual ways. So the lowest level always
> contains only ways, the higher level contains only relations.
>
> Using subrelations is not consistent with the current use of
> forward/backward roles.
> I'd consider alternatives, excursions and access routes to be equivalent
> to those.
>
> By doing that, you're basically saying that alternatives can't have
forward/backward roles. To me that doesn't make sense. We are using those
forward/backward roles to indicate that there are 2 branches for each
direction of travel along the route. This could easily happen along an
alternative part of the route as well.

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

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

[Peter Elderson]

Josm of course. Is there another relation editor that can handle large nested 
route relations spanning up to say 4000 Km? In josm, before the edit I open all 
the relations that may be affected, check if they are correct as far as that 
section is concerned,  then perform the edit, then apply the change to each 
relation and check again if all is well. When I am not in a hurry and the 
affected relations have other gaps, I repair those as well.

Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 16 aug. 2019 om 02:11 heeft Martin Koppenhoefer  
> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
>> On 16. Aug 2019, at 00:20, Peter Elderson  wrote:
>> 
>> Not seldom I have to check and repair 10-15 route relations after one edit 
>> (most often a split of a way to allow a route to attach there) on the map.
> 
> 
> which editing software do you use?
> 
> 
> 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] Route sorting

[Jo]

As far as I'm concerned junction=roundabout means that that OSM way is part
of a roundabout. That's how it behaves.

JOSM is perfectly capable of handling split or unsplit roundabouts, except
for ad hoc rendering of the routes. With unsplit roundabouts, they all have
'bulges'. Hence my preference to split them everywhere, but I already
noticed other mappers are less than happy with that. Far less.

Polyglot

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 1:58 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 15. Aug 2019, at 23:25, marc marc  wrote:
>
> why would you not do it for roundabouts?
>
>
> when we split a building in several parts, we keep one building=*
> and use several building:part
>
> for roundabouts, the tag is the same. for the whole roundabouts and for
> part of it.
> So spliting one roundabout into many produce many junction=roundabouts,
> despite it's only one roundabouts.
>
>
>
> it depends on our interpretation of the tags.
>
> The wiki is not consistent, as the definition says the tag
> junction=roundabout is describing
>
> “A road junction where the traffic goes around a non-traversable island
> and has right of way. “
>
>
> Later on, in “how to map”, it is assumed that roundabouts can consist of
> several ways: “
>
>- Tag the OSM way(s) of the roundabout with junction
>=roundabout.”
>
>
> There are some parallels to the bridge key page, where the definition
> currently reads:
>
> A bridge is an artificial construction that spans features such as roads,
> railways, waterways or valleys and carries a road, railway or other
> feature.
>
>
> This doesn’t mean that every way with bridge=yes is defining its own
> bridge (indeed the definition should rather be updated to something like:
> “a property to say something is on a bridge”). We’ll happily split a
> highway with bridge=yes for every property of the road that changes
> somewhere on the bridge, and we won’t interpret this as adding bridges to
> the map.
>
> Similarly we could write that junction=roundabout is a property to say a
> way is part of a roundabout (although this would be ugly, because the tag
> naming suggests to be about a feature rather than a property).
>
> We could also keep the definition and create route relations for the
> roundabouts (only the relation gets the junction tag), or invent a new
> property roundabout=yes for parts of roundabouts.
>
>
> 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] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

We discussed this a few month ago with the possibility of introducing a new
tag of business= to show such things as (house) painters, plumbers "shed" &
so on for work premises that aren't "craft", which suggests handmade /
handicraft.

I've been intending to work on a proposal but haven't had a chance -
worthwhile?

Thanks

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