Re: [Tagging] How to describe footpath border?

[Andrew Harvey]

I presume you would also be able to use most of the existing barrier values
from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:barrier?

How do you think it should would it work if you have multiple, say a nature
strip (the section of grass or small trees between the sidewalk and road)
AND some other barrier like a guard rail and/or a curb?

On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 12:23, Taskar Center  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> This is a corollary discussion to the one raised earlier this week about
> unprotected pedestrian lanes.
> Even in protected pedestrian paths and sidewalks, it is useful to know
> what kind of borders the path has.
>
> Is it buffered by grass streetside?
> Is there a wall on one side?
> Is there a kerb/curb streetside?
>
> The discussion about pedestrian lanes focused both on access (who has
> right of way) and paint vs. keen barrier; i.e., specifically about whether
> the pedestrian path was/was not merely marked by paint markers. I believe
> we should suggest a tag that more generally would allow description of what
> protection/border demarcates the lane.
>
> Assuming pedestrian paths as entities
> (highway = footway
> footway = sidewalk/footpath, etc)
>
> is there current support for describing the path borders by a tag like:
> footway:border:streetside = kerb/paint/grass/brick/wall/vegetation
>
> Regards,
> Anat
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging extremely large flood control features.

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I see what you mean. Perhaps the key can help show this:

man_made=* for a built environment designed to hold flood waters

natural=* for a semi-natural or natural area that occasionally floods
(like some basins the the Australian outback, which form lakes only
once every 10 or 100 years?)

The value should have something that suggests that it will be flooded.
I would think of "flood_mitigation" as something like a levee or dyke
which prevents flooding, rather than an area that is supposed to be
flooded.

So... maybe man_made=flood_basin and natural=flood_basin?

Or something like flood_zone, flood_area, etc?

- Joseph

On 10/25/19, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25/10/19 00:20, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>> I think describing these as "flood prone" in some way is a good idea.
>
> I think it would be better to use "flood_mitigation" as that implies
> deliberate design rather than natural event.
>
>
>
>>
>> I imagine you've already mapped the individual features: the levees
>> (man_made=dyke), the individual basins and so on. I wouldn't want to
>> map the whole area as water + intermittent=yes because the water is
>> only rarely present.
>>
>> Perhaps we need a new tag to map a whole area as flood prone? I've
>> seen that on French and Australian topo maps there is a specific
>> rendering for areas that are "subject to inundation".
>
> These areas are inundated by their nature, where are the features to be
> mapped are designed to be flooded to mitigate any flooding elsewhere. I
> think rendering should reflect that.
>
>>
>> -Joseph
>>
>> On 10/24/19, John Willis via Tagging  wrote:
>>> I am aware of the underground basins that are dedicated to the task, but
>>> I
>>> am wondering how to map above-ground basins that are used as regular land
>>> 360+ days of the year - something you don't have to deal with when
>>> mapping
>>> the underground tanks
>
> There appear to be 2 things to be mapped.
>
> Existing features that have this "flood_mitigation" use - this should be a
> sub tag on those features.
>
> Areas, that may have several features, that are used for "flood_mitigation"
> and so need a primary key/value to stand alone.
>
>
>>>
>>> ~
>>>
>>>
>>> The rest is not important, but read on if you Want.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yea, Thats in Tokyo on the Arakawa/Edo rivers, the the Tokyo metro area.
>>> The
>>> start of the Edo river is a lock-controlled flow from the Tone - as the
>>> larger Tone goes off to the Pacific 70 Km north of Tokyo (it doesn't
>>> discharge into Tokyo Bay).
>>>
>>> As I understand it, those tanks manage the water going into the system in
>>> Tokyo itself, absorbing the flow from the smaller channels/rivers in
>>> Tokyo
>>> (Tokyo is big and flat) and buffering it before it gets discharged into
>>> the
>>> rivers, absorbing what would normally be trapped behind the River levees.
>>> The Tokyo tank system couldn't handle the river flow directly (it's
>>> immense)
>>> - The rivers channeling water down through the region just use extra-wide
>>> and tall 8-10m levees to provide ~ 10-15x normal flow volume to the sea.
>>> (The river goes from 1-2m deep to 8-9m deep, and doubles in width)
>>>
>>> Small towns in my area (pictured) were flooded not by a levee breach, but
>>> by
>>> water trapped outside the levee that couldn't get into the river through
>>> the
>>> normal gates.
>>>
>>> The Tokyo system prevents that from happening - though I wonder if it
>>> could
>>> absorb even a quarter of what the Usuichi trapped. The Usuichi is
>>> gigantic.
>>>
>>>
>>> Javbw
>>>
 On Oct 24, 2019, at 9:08 PM, Paul Allen  wrote:

 
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 10:56, John Willis via Tagging
>  wrote:
>
> Inside, there are three “retarding basins”  (numbered 1, 2 & 3), with
> #1
> having with a large traditional reservoir, parks, golf course, and
> sports
> grounds inside.
 There is more to the system than that.  There are also underground
 holding
 tanks and
 tunnels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfJOW2PtrGk

 --
 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
>

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging extremely large flood control features.

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I think that should be basin=detention or perhaps basin=infiltration?
A retention basin is filled with water most of the time.

basin=infiltration — An infiltration basin catches storm water and
allows it to seep into an aquifer.
basin=detention — A detention basin catches storm water and allows it
to drain slowly into natural waterways.
basin=retention — A retention basin catches storm water and retains
it, forming an artificial pond.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse=basin


- Joseph

On 10/25/19, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> In a *much* smaller way, we've got a similar area just near us, where an
> area has been built to be filled with flood water after very heavy rain. I
> think it's probably only filled 3-4 times in ~15 years since it was put in.
>
> Some photo's, wet & dry!
>
> https://ibb.co/SdVF7kt
> https://ibb.co/4N3mWzQ
>
> https://ibb.co/S0Rzqtr
> https://ibb.co/bF4Pf2g
>
> There is actually a 1m flood depth sign that should be visible in the
> middle of that last shot, so it's about 1.2 - 1.5m deep out there.
>
> It's here:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/538666044#map=18/-28.07363/153.42448
>
> I mapped it as:
>
> natural=water
> water=basin
> basin=retention
> intermittent=yes
> description=After heavy rain only
>
> which seems to cover it all nicely?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>

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

[Tagging] Proposal: Access Aisle

[Michael Patrick]

> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Access Aisle
>
> >  Sorry Clifford, but these are simply footways for pedestrians and can
> be
> mapped as such.  I don't see anything that makes it necessary for a
> new tag
>

They aren't simple, if you've ever had to incorporate all the various
design features required ( International, Federal, State, County, and
Municipal rules ), also, they usually have regulatory and legal aspects
attached to them that make them different - for instance, electric v.
vehicles are allowed, use restrictions, etc.

+1 for Clifford
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] How to describe footpath border?

[Taskar Center]

Hi,

This is a corollary discussion to the one raised earlier this week about 
unprotected pedestrian lanes. 
Even in protected pedestrian paths and sidewalks, it is useful to know what 
kind of borders the path has.

Is it buffered by grass streetside?
Is there a wall on one side?
Is there a kerb/curb streetside?

The discussion about pedestrian lanes focused both on access (who has right of 
way) and paint vs. keen barrier; i.e., specifically about whether the 
pedestrian path was/was not merely marked by paint markers. I believe we should 
suggest a tag that more generally would allow description of what 
protection/border demarcates the lane. 

Assuming pedestrian paths as entities 
(highway = footway
footway = sidewalk/footpath, etc)

is there current support for describing the path borders by a tag like:
footway:border:streetside = kerb/paint/grass/brick/wall/vegetation

Regards,
Anat




Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Access Aisle

[Taskar Center]

Thank you, @Clifford. 
This could be very helpful for navigation of transit hubs and park and rides. 

Unfortunately, knowing where these pathways are *not* is even more helpful 
because many times, when these paths are missing, people have to go into the 
parking aisle (or traffic) to reach the nearest ramped access-point to connect 
to protected sidewalks. While OSM doesn’t support missing pathways, at least 
clearly demarcating where they are is helpful. 

I also agree with @Sebastian who suggested the width can be informative (but 
unfortunately not always within reach for mappers). Many times the accessible 
paths are actually not wide enough for all wheelchair ramps and lifts.

Thanks,
Anat




Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 5:47 PM Sebastian Dicke via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
> an additional tag would not be bad. But the tagging as footways is
> sufficient, imho. To help users you should prefer to tag the (estimated)
> width.
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> 
> Sebastian
> 
> 
> Am 25.10.19 um 01:03 schrieb Warin:
> > On 25/10/19 06:12, Clifford Snow wrote:
> >> I'd like to propose a tagging scheme to tag parking lot access aisle.
> >> Access aisles are marked areas often used between handicap parking
> >> spaces but also used to indicate pedestrian access between parking
> >> spaces.
> >>
> >> The proposal can be found on the wiki [1]
> >>
> >> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access_aisle
> >>
> > Sorry Clifford, but these are simply footways for pedestrians and can
> > be mapped as such. they should connect to other footways.
> > I don't see anything that makes it necessary for a new tag other than
> > convince of the mapper to imply a wider width and proximity to parking.
> > The width can be tagged and the proximity to parking would be obvious
> > if the parking is mapped.
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Proposal: Access Aisle

[Sebastian Dicke via Tagging]

Hi,


an additional tag would not be bad. But the tagging as footways is
sufficient, imho. To help users you should prefer to tag the (estimated)
width.


Regards


Sebastian


Am 25.10.19 um 01:03 schrieb Warin:

On 25/10/19 06:12, Clifford Snow wrote:

I'd like to propose a tagging scheme to tag parking lot access aisle.
Access aisles are marked areas often used between handicap parking
spaces but also used to indicate pedestrian access between parking
spaces.

The proposal can be found on the wiki [1]

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


Sorry Clifford, but these are simply footways for pedestrians and can
be mapped as such. they should connect to other footways.
I don't see anything that makes it necessary for a new tag other than
convince of the mapper to imply a wider width and proximity to parking.
The width can be tagged and the proximity to parking would be obvious
if the parking is mapped.

___
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] Proposal: Access Aisle

[Leif Rasmussen]

@Warin this could be said of sidewalks too - "they're just footways".  Why
is this any different?  I personally think that my adding this new tag,
which can easily be ignored by data consumers, we would add a new tool for
consumers who want to, for example, study how accessable parking lots are.
Also, even if this isn't all that useful, at least we'll have a clear way
to map them to avoid inconsistencies in data.
Leif Rasmussen

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019, 7:04 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 25/10/19 06:12, Clifford Snow wrote:
> > I'd like to propose a tagging scheme to tag parking lot access aisle.
> > Access aisles are marked areas often used between handicap parking
> > spaces but also used to indicate pedestrian access between parking
> > spaces.
> >
> > The proposal can be found on the wiki [1]
> >
> > [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access_aisle
> >
> Sorry Clifford, but these are simply footways for pedestrians and can be
> mapped as such. they should connect to other footways.
> I don't see anything that makes it necessary for a new tag other than
> convince of the mapper to imply a wider width and proximity to parking.
> The width can be tagged and the proximity to parking would be obvious if
> the parking is mapped.
>
> ___
> 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] Proposal: Access Aisle

[Warin]

On 25/10/19 06:12, Clifford Snow wrote:
I'd like to propose a tagging scheme to tag parking lot access aisle. 
Access aisles are marked areas often used between handicap parking 
spaces but also used to indicate pedestrian access between parking 
spaces.


The proposal can be found on the wiki [1]

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

Sorry Clifford, but these are simply footways for pedestrians and can be 
mapped as such. they should connect to other footways.
I don't see anything that makes it necessary for a new tag other than 
convince of the mapper to imply a wider width and proximity to parking.
The width can be tagged and the proximity to parking would be obvious if 
the parking is mapped.


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

[Tagging] bus:guided access modifier

[Neil Matthews]

If sections of a busway are not accessible to a normal "bus", but only
to a specially capable guided bus -- would it be acceptable to use
"bus:guided" as an access modifier?

Cheers,
Neil


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

Re: [Tagging] tagging extremely large flood control features.

[Warin]

On 25/10/19 00:20, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

I think describing these as "flood prone" in some way is a good idea.


I think it would be better to use "flood_mitigation" as that implies deliberate 
design rather than natural event.





I imagine you've already mapped the individual features: the levees
(man_made=dyke), the individual basins and so on. I wouldn't want to
map the whole area as water + intermittent=yes because the water is
only rarely present.

Perhaps we need a new tag to map a whole area as flood prone? I've
seen that on French and Australian topo maps there is a specific
rendering for areas that are "subject to inundation".


These areas are inundated by their nature, where are the features to be mapped 
are designed to be flooded to mitigate any flooding elsewhere. I think 
rendering should reflect that.



-Joseph

On 10/24/19, John Willis via Tagging  wrote:

I am aware of the underground basins that are dedicated to the task, but I
am wondering how to map above-ground basins that are used as regular land
360+ days of the year - something you don't have to deal with when mapping
the underground tanks


There appear to be 2 things to be mapped.

Existing features that have this "flood_mitigation" use - this should be a sub 
tag on those features.

Areas, that may have several features, that are used for "flood_mitigation" and 
so need a primary key/value to stand alone.




~


The rest is not important, but read on if you Want.


Yea, Thats in Tokyo on the Arakawa/Edo rivers, the the Tokyo metro area. The
start of the Edo river is a lock-controlled flow from the Tone - as the
larger Tone goes off to the Pacific 70 Km north of Tokyo (it doesn't
discharge into Tokyo Bay).

As I understand it, those tanks manage the water going into the system in
Tokyo itself, absorbing the flow from the smaller channels/rivers in Tokyo
(Tokyo is big and flat) and buffering it before it gets discharged into the
rivers, absorbing what would normally be trapped behind the River levees.
The Tokyo tank system couldn't handle the river flow directly (it's immense)
- The rivers channeling water down through the region just use extra-wide
and tall 8-10m levees to provide ~ 10-15x normal flow volume to the sea.
(The river goes from 1-2m deep to 8-9m deep, and doubles in width)

Small towns in my area (pictured) were flooded not by a levee breach, but by
water trapped outside the levee that couldn't get into the river through the
normal gates.

The Tokyo system prevents that from happening - though I wonder if it could
absorb even a quarter of what the Usuichi trapped. The Usuichi is gigantic.


Javbw


On Oct 24, 2019, at 9:08 PM, Paul Allen  wrote:



On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 10:56, John Willis via Tagging
 wrote:

Inside, there are three “retarding basins”  (numbered 1, 2 & 3), with #1
having with a large traditional reservoir, parks, golf course, and sports
grounds inside.

There is more to the system than that.  There are also underground holding
tanks and
tunnels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfJOW2PtrGk

--
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] Deprecating mini_roundabout

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 7:55 AM Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 13:30, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 7:20 AM Paul Allen  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Necessary, but not sufficient.  It doesn't just have to be physically
>>> treaversable, it has
>>> to be legally traversable.
>>>
>>
>> Eeeh, I think that's a bit of a grey area, like stopping on yellow lights.
>>
>
> Yes, but there are rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty (at
> least in the UK):
> "All vehicles MUST pass round the central markings except large vehicles
> which are
> physically incapable of doing so."   UK mini roundabouts are signed as
> such, so while
> there may be doubt and uncertainty about how large the vehicle is and the
> necessity
> of going straight across, there's no doubt whether it is a mini roundabout
> or not.
>
> Does the example roundabout have signage defining the central island as
> legally traversable?
> Does the unbroken white line around it indicate vehicles may not cross
> it?  What do the
> traffic regulations say about roundabouts in general?  Is this a real
> roundabout built on the
> cheap and the island happens to be physically traversable but not legally
> so or do the
> regulations say "If you can physically drive across a roundabout then you
> may do so if
> your vehicle is too large to go around"?
>
> That particular example is tough to decide just from imagery.  It's a
> fairly tight circle.  But
> those split lanes make me shudder when I think of vehicles going straight
> across.  I'd
> hate to map it as a mini roundabout if legally it isn't and then some
> router happily tells
> a driver to drive straight across; or to map it as a roundabout when
> legally it isn't and
> the router tells the driver to do a 360.  There might be legal
> consequences if OSM
> adopts a cavalier attitude to these things.  Traffic regulations are even
> more important than
> physical appearances.
>

I hate to be a stick in the mud, but whether or not it's legally
traversable doesn't seem to have much bearing on whether or not it's
physically traversable.  It's kinda like mapping a flush median in this
case, it's not a seperate way so just a node indicating that there's a mini
roundabout would be appropriate similar to how we don't map divided single
carriageways with a flush median as two seperate ways.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging extremely large flood control features.

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

In a *much* smaller way, we've got a similar area just near us, where an
area has been built to be filled with flood water after very heavy rain. I
think it's probably only filled 3-4 times in ~15 years since it was put in.

Some photo's, wet & dry!

https://ibb.co/SdVF7kt
https://ibb.co/4N3mWzQ

https://ibb.co/S0Rzqtr
https://ibb.co/bF4Pf2g

There is actually a 1m flood depth sign that should be visible in the
middle of that last shot, so it's about 1.2 - 1.5m deep out there.

It's here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/538666044#map=18/-28.07363/153.42448

I mapped it as:

natural=water
water=basin
basin=retention
intermittent=yes
description=After heavy rain only

which seems to cover it all nicely?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

[Mateusz Konieczny]

24 Oct 2019, 08:21 by frede...@remote.org:

> Hi,
>
> On 23.10.19 14:54, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
>> I think the best suggestion in this case would be to update the
>> documentation, particularly in translated pages, clarifying that the tag is
>> intended for the formal mini-roundabout design as found in the UK, Ireland,
>> France etc., and not for any flat roundabout.
>>
>
> The wiki is a bit conflicting here.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmini_roundabout says
>
> If there is only a single vehicle, or two vehicles traveling in opposite
> directions, it is common – but not necessary legal in all countries – to
> drive straight across the middle rather than going around.
>
> Whereas the German translation only said that you "can" go over the
> centre, not that you usually would. I adapted the German translation to
> more closely follow the English text.
>
And I edited English page moving it from introduction and weakening claims a bit
as this specific case is not too important and differs between countries.

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

[Tagging] Proposal: Access Aisle

[Clifford Snow]

I'd like to propose a tagging scheme to tag parking lot access aisle.
Access aisles are marked areas often used between handicap parking spaces
but also used to indicate pedestrian access between parking spaces.

The proposal can be found on the wiki [1]

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

Best,
Clifford

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

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

[Peter Elderson]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction%3Droundabout says

> The tag junction =
> roundabout is *used only on road intersections where traffic on
> the roundabout  has right of way*
> .
> That is, the roundabout itself should be free from all intersection
> controls including traffic signals, stop signs or stop markings, give-way
> (or yield) signs or give-way markings. However there exists exceptions in
> some roundabouts in some cases where there's a special service way passing
> through the island, reserved to buses/tramways/emergency vehicles (which
> will have priority to the normal traffic, and for which there may be
> traffic signs requiring vehicles on the ring to give the way; in normal
> times these giveways and traffic signals are off).
> Where traffic does not have right of way, this is a rotary
>  (also called traffic
> circle). The tag junction
> =circular
>  should be
> used on rotaries


In the Netherlands, all roundabouts are tagged junction=roundabout, even
though without any controls traffic on the roundabout would legally have to
give way to traffic coming from the right, entering the roundabout.

I'm not vary confident that mappers would want to change the mapping just
because the traffic code has changed somewhere in the past. Nobody here
knows the word rotary for a roundabout. In practice, all roundabouts have
traffic controls. Small ones just have shark's teeth, that's a legal
priority control.
I move to make this this restriction less strict: if there is traffic
control by static signs or markings, it's also a junction=roundabout. This
is visibly verifiable by any mapper, and would retain the requirement of
priority for traffic on the roundabout over traffic entering the
roundabout.

Fr 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

[Tagging] railway=level_crossing vs tracks embedded into the road

[Vɑdɪm]

It's quite often that people mark every crossing between railway=* and
highway=* with the railway=level_crossing tag
(https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Nls), sometimes even if both belong to the same
carriageway.

While this situation is rather relevant to tramways, but it also applies
other types of railways even the "heavy rails"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_running. For example:
https://youtu.be/9iG0xOAgWMI?t=212.

On the other hand as per the Geneva Convention on Road Traffic
(https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/conventn/Conv_road_traffic_EN.pdf):

> (i) “Level-crossing” means any level intersection between a road and a
> railway or tramway track with its own track formation;

So, if a railway=* track is *embedded* into a road then it's crossing of
another road is not a "level crossing". As a matter of fact it's quite
common that such a crossing have no special marking or signage about it.

I think that the Geneva Convention gives an  important clarification which
could help solving some confusion about the matter in question.



--
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] Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

[Valor Naram via Tagging]

Hello all,

since the vote takes currently place, I want to use the time to comment
on some reasons given by mappers who opposed my proposal. Normally I
won't do that but my personal feel says that it's necessary here. I'm
going to use e-mail style quoting for quoting.

> Without evidence that phone/contact:phone is intrinsically different
> from other contact tags, discussing it on its own makes tagging less
> orthogonal, which is bad both for mappers and users.

In future we might have the discussion of deprecating the whole
`contact` schema because that wouldn't interfere with the orthogonal
approach which we by the way do not always follow. But if you think
that creating wikipages for each tag in the `contact` schema when
deprecating the whole `contact` schema would make tagging less
orthogonal, I can please you. For this cases we can simply create a
wikipage e.g. `contact` that lists all the tags which can be used to
gather contacting data. But it wouldn't be necessary because each
wikipage belongs to a category and a category can be used to get an
overview of all the pages and therefore tags belonging to that
category. We can also create a new category `contact` but in my opinion
it wouldn't be necessary to do that.

>  I think that what the contact scheme offers is much more adaptable,
> more orthogonal, and easier to understand than what would be approved
by
> this proposal.

In understanding there shouldn't be any difference between using the
`contact` schema or just the single `phone`. And more mappers are using
the `phone` tag than `contact:phone` and other mappers use presets and
do not care on tags at all.

> I'm not convinced it is terrible to have both contact:phone and
phone.
> I'm not convinced that they are used entirely interchangeably and
that
> there are no subtle nuances.  Even if I were convinced we had to
> standardize on one, I'm not convinced that phone is preferable (or
that
> contact:phone is preferable). Better arguments would be required to
> convince me both that we have to deprecate one of them and that
> contact:phone is the one we should deprecate.

To the first statement: Apparently you aren't a developer who wants to
use/uses data from the OpenStreetMap project. We need to check, if
`phone` and `contact:phone` are equal or not. That takes time. Time we
could have spend on other (useful) things, if the OSM community had not
done this. And if we detect that they are equal like in this case, we
will need to develop a replacement function which we hate because
normally you wouldn't do such crazy things like having two tags for the
same purpose.

To the second statement: But there are to 99,99% the same. Just the
name is different. But I have a question: Did you find the "subtle
nuances" you're assuming? Because I do not but now you have the chance
to point me in the right direction, maybe I and others have overseen
something? Please let us know!

> violates single subject rule, phone number formatting etc. needs to
be
> discussed separately (not to mention that there is in general no need
to
> "deprecate" tags in OSM)

What is the "single subject rule" you are talking about? Is there any
resource mentioning that rule? Would really here that. But anyway I do
not propose a new way of phone number formatting. But do you mean with
`etc`? Why discussing seperately, they belonging to the specification?!
Did we specify the syntax of `opening_hours` before actually specifying
the key `opening_hours`? There is sometimes the need to deprecate tags
in OSM e.g. when most people do not aggree with the specification or
special cases like the deprecated key `diaper`. But again: I do not
propose anything new. All I wrote or copied from other resources are
already there in our wiki and used among mapping communities.

> contact:* seems a useful way to group methods for data consumers

Data consumers normally do not get to know the tags because that is to
technical. The mainstream user wants it simple and tags aren't very
user friendly. I think you're referring to data users who interpret the
tags and therefore decide how data will be represented to the customers
(e.g. maps.me users).

> . The contact scheme is a useful namespace for collecting methods
> through which a user might contact a business or other entity.
"Phone"
> is too general, and could be mistaken as a carrier for telephone-
related
>  information other than the phone number itself.

People who work with OSM data or creating/modifying it are likely to
take a look on the wikipage before using so they use tags the right
way.

> There are too much different things for a single proposal. Changes
to
> the phone tagging schema and deprecation of the contact:phone
tagging
> schema should be separated. I love the contact tagging schema. I
thinks
> that there is no problem if both schemata coexist.

To the first statement: I do not make changes to the specifications of
the `phone` key. I just do a re-wording.

To your last statement: 

[Tagging] Indoor routes: highway=corridor or highway=footway+indoor=yes ?

[Jeremiah Rose]

It seems like there are two competing de facto standards for marking indoor 
routes; many people are familiar with highway=corridor but 
highway=footway+indoor=yes is actually more widely used. According to taginfo, 
highway=corridor is used on 14,183 ways, while highway=footway+indoor=yes is 
used on 34,645 elements. In tagging new indoor routes, which of these is better 
to use? 

Jeremiah

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging extremely large flood control features.

[John Willis via Tagging]

> On Oct 24, 2019, at 10:22 PM, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> rendering for areas that are "subject to inundation".

That is a good idea. 

I think if you have a large area(unrelated to tides) that sometimes floods 
during extreme weather, mapping it as an area would be a good idea. 

I wonder if that would also be useful for these dedicated and planned Control 
basins, which are 100% contained by levees and managed by spillways, as the 
frequency of the flooding is rare, but the extent is pre-determined. they 
purposefully don't allow houses or (private) structures to be built in them - 
only grass fields & and farmland. 

Javbw. 

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging extremely large flood control features.

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I think describing these as "flood prone" in some way is a good idea.

I imagine you've already mapped the individual features: the levees
(man_made=dyke), the individual basins and so on. I wouldn't want to
map the whole area as water + intermittent=yes because the water is
only rarely present.

Perhaps we need a new tag to map a whole area as flood prone? I've
seen that on French and Australian topo maps there is a specific
rendering for areas that are "subject to inundation".

-Joseph

On 10/24/19, John Willis via Tagging  wrote:
> I am aware of the underground basins that are dedicated to the task, but I
> am wondering how to map above-ground basins that are used as regular land
> 360+ days of the year - something you don't have to deal with when mapping
> the underground tanks.
>
> ~
>
>
> The rest is not important, but read on if you Want.
>
>
> Yea, Thats in Tokyo on the Arakawa/Edo rivers, the the Tokyo metro area. The
> start of the Edo river is a lock-controlled flow from the Tone - as the
> larger Tone goes off to the Pacific 70 Km north of Tokyo (it doesn't
> discharge into Tokyo Bay).
>
> As I understand it, those tanks manage the water going into the system in
> Tokyo itself, absorbing the flow from the smaller channels/rivers in Tokyo
> (Tokyo is big and flat) and buffering it before it gets discharged into the
> rivers, absorbing what would normally be trapped behind the River levees.
> The Tokyo tank system couldn't handle the river flow directly (it's immense)
> - The rivers channeling water down through the region just use extra-wide
> and tall 8-10m levees to provide ~ 10-15x normal flow volume to the sea.
> (The river goes from 1-2m deep to 8-9m deep, and doubles in width)
>
> Small towns in my area (pictured) were flooded not by a levee breach, but by
> water trapped outside the levee that couldn't get into the river through the
> normal gates.
>
> The Tokyo system prevents that from happening - though I wonder if it could
> absorb even a quarter of what the Usuichi trapped. The Usuichi is gigantic.
>
>
> Javbw
>
>> On Oct 24, 2019, at 9:08 PM, Paul Allen  wrote:
>>
>> 
>>> On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 10:56, John Willis via Tagging
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> Inside, there are three “retarding basins”  (numbered 1, 2 & 3), with #1
>>> having with a large traditional reservoir, parks, golf course, and sports
>>> grounds inside.
>>
>> There is more to the system than that.  There are also underground holding
>> tanks and
>> tunnels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfJOW2PtrGk
>>
>> --
>> Paul
>>
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 13:30, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 7:20 AM Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>>
>> Necessary, but not sufficient.  It doesn't just have to be physically
>> treaversable, it has
>> to be legally traversable.
>>
>
> Eeeh, I think that's a bit of a grey area, like stopping on yellow lights.
>

Yes, but there are rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty (at least
in the UK):
"All vehicles MUST pass round the central markings except large vehicles
which are
physically incapable of doing so."   UK mini roundabouts are signed as
such, so while
there may be doubt and uncertainty about how large the vehicle is and the
necessity
of going straight across, there's no doubt whether it is a mini roundabout
or not.

Does the example roundabout have signage defining the central island as
legally traversable?
Does the unbroken white line around it indicate vehicles may not cross it?
What do the
traffic regulations say about roundabouts in general?  Is this a real
roundabout built on the
cheap and the island happens to be physically traversable but not legally
so or do the
regulations say "If you can physically drive across a roundabout then you
may do so if
your vehicle is too large to go around"?

That particular example is tough to decide just from imagery.  It's a
fairly tight circle.  But
those split lanes make me shudder when I think of vehicles going straight
across.  I'd
hate to map it as a mini roundabout if legally it isn't and then some
router happily tells
a driver to drive straight across; or to map it as a roundabout when
legally it isn't and
the router tells the driver to do a 360.  There might be legal consequences
if OSM
adopts a cavalier attitude to these things.  Traffic regulations are even
more important than
physical appearances.

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging extremely large flood control features.

[John Willis via Tagging]

I am aware of the underground basins that are dedicated to the task, but I am 
wondering how to map above-ground basins that are used as regular land 360+ 
days of the year - something you don't have to deal with when mapping the 
underground tanks.  

~


The rest is not important, but read on if you Want. 


Yea, Thats in Tokyo on the Arakawa/Edo rivers, the the Tokyo metro area. The 
start of the Edo river is a lock-controlled flow from the Tone - as the larger 
Tone goes off to the Pacific 70 Km north of Tokyo (it doesn't discharge into 
Tokyo Bay). 

As I understand it, those tanks manage the water going into the system in Tokyo 
itself, absorbing the flow from the smaller channels/rivers in Tokyo (Tokyo is 
big and flat) and buffering it before it gets discharged into the rivers, 
absorbing what would normally be trapped behind the River levees. The Tokyo 
tank system couldn't handle the river flow directly (it's immense) - The rivers 
channeling water down through the region just use extra-wide and tall 8-10m 
levees to provide ~ 10-15x normal flow volume to the sea. (The river goes from 
1-2m deep to 8-9m deep, and doubles in width) 

Small towns in my area (pictured) were flooded not by a levee breach, but by 
water trapped outside the levee that couldn't get into the river through the 
normal gates.  

The Tokyo system prevents that from happening - though I wonder if it could 
absorb even a quarter of what the Usuichi trapped. The Usuichi is gigantic. 

Javbw

> On Oct 24, 2019, at 9:08 PM, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 10:56, John Willis via Tagging 
>>  wrote:
>> 
> 
>> Inside, there are three “retarding basins”  (numbered 1, 2 & 3), with #1 
>> having with a large traditional reservoir, parks, golf course, and sports 
>> grounds inside.  
> 
> There is more to the system than that.  There are also underground holding 
> tanks and
> tunnels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfJOW2PtrGk
> 
> -- 
> Paul
> 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 7:20 AM Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> Necessary, but not sufficient.  It doesn't just have to be physically
> treaversable, it has
> to be legally traversable.
>

Eeeh, I think that's a bit of a grey area, like stopping on yellow lights.
Can you be written up for traversing a mini-roundabout island or running a
yellow light?  At least most places I've encountered, pretty clearly yes.
Is it likely?  Only if the cop thinks you picked the more dangerous option.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 02:55, Paul Johnson  wrote:

OK, I'm looking at it in these images now:
>
>
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo=wnh2yPXi1HakCH5-dILZHw=51.81508205831051=8.849023785442114=17
>
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo=QPacIZqNSt0x4CasddMBKg=51.81481744674556=8.849143013905326=17
>
> From the ground, this is pretty unambiguously a mini roundabout to my
> eyes, albeit a somewhat large one.
>

Ah.  Looking at it via iD caused me to misinterpret small images.  You're
right, the
central island is clear of obstructions and physically traversable.  Is it
legally so?
Does that white line painted around it have legal significance?


> The important part is that the median is not physical.
>

Necessary, but not sufficient.  It doesn't just have to be physically
treaversable, it has
to be legally traversable.

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging extremely large flood control features.

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 10:56, John Willis via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

Inside, there are three “retarding basins”  (numbered 1, 2 & 3), with #1
> having with a large traditional reservoir, parks, golf course, and sports
> grounds inside.
>

There is more to the system than that.  There are also underground holding
tanks and
tunnels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfJOW2PtrGk

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

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

[Tony OSM]

I think deprecating mini_roundabout is incorrect.

Near where I live in Chorley England a 3 way junction was converted to a 
mini-roundabout to equalise the flow of traffic. The space available 
made a build roundabout impractical, and traffic lights would have been 
overkill. It works. It is different on the ground that a built 
roundabout (tin of poured paint versus brick and kerbing). The map is 
appropriately different - mini-roundabout has its own symbol whereas a 
roundabout is sized to reflect its actual size.


Understanding of mini_roundabouts (how to build complex junctions) and 
their distinctiveness may be helped by viewing


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Roundabout_(Swindon)

and its OSM representation

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.56273/-1.76929=N

The nearby Drakes roundabout is a large roundabout identified only by 
its shape


Regards

TonyS999


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

[Tagging] tagging extremely large flood control features.

[John Willis via Tagging]

With the recent typhoon in Japan, I was able to see the giant river flood 
control systems used for the first time (since I moved here in 2011). they are 
the size of cities, covering many sq KM. 

There are some photos here, showing a cycling trip I took downriver to see how 
it works.
 https://imgur.com/gallery/9uYHFmt 

a few show the Watarase Usuichi.  https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/482421468 
 

Inside, there are three “retarding basins”  (numbered 1, 2 & 3), with #1 having 
with a large traditional reservoir, parks, golf course, and sports grounds 
inside.  

As the rivers get higher, they flow into the basins via ~6m spillways upriver. 
eventually basins and the rivers fill up,
and the three flood control basins & the rivers merge together to form one 
giant lake (controlled and planned), controlled by 10M levees around the entire 
complex. Exit gates let the water back out into the river in a controlled rate 
to prevent flooding. But during the recent giant typhoon, it filled the system 
and flowed out of the emergency overflow spillway (~8M), seen in the background 
of this picture (the white line) https://i.imgur.com/z1QfYAW.jpg 
 

The entire system worked as planned. 

These features are almost 100% man-made (levees, gates, spillways), that create 
large artificial lakes for very short periods  very infrequently. 

The building seen in the “lake” here https://i.imgur.com/CDU5KfE.jpg 
 is this building. It is designed to be ~1m 
above the flood waters, as it is in the picture. 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/537590387#map=16/36.2037/139.6850 


This complex is rarely used, perhaps once or twice every 5 years, and otherwise 
the area is many many square KM of golf courses, parks, sports fields, nature 
preserves and farmland used by people every day. 

mapping the area as an “intermittant reservoir” seems wrong, as they are merely 
for extreme typhoon floodwater management, and the rest of the time is is 
useful area for people to use. They are not “flood prone” (as I understand it), 
as they are *designed* to flood, and flooded in a controlled manner.

While mapping further downriver, I found a “smaller" flood control area. a 
giant spillway 200m across lets the river into this huge area (mostly rice 
fields), and control gates at the bottom of the area slowly let it back out. 

This area is confined on all sides with ~10M levees (and a few natural hills). 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/738164911#map=14/35.9038/139.9991 


(I quickly drew this way, but I will delete it). 

How should I go about tagging these kinds of huge areas - an area that is a 
controlled flood reservoir, used only during extreme weather? 


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

Re: [Tagging] swimming=* access tag

[rob]

Hi Martin,I would agree that water transportation is a very poor description of 
it, however that seems to be the least inappropriate place to put it in the 
hierarchical list on the wiki page for access=*. The list also includes 
canoe=*, which isn't really transportation for  e.g. a recreational canoeist in 
a lake or the docks.I certainly wouldn't describe it as transportation on a 
wiki page for the swimming=* tag, should it progress to a successful 
proposal.-- Robert Skedgell (rskedgell)
 Original message From: Martin Koppenhoefer 
 Date: 24/10/2019  09:23  (GMT+00:00) To: "Tag 
discussion, strategy and related tools"  Subject: 
Re: [Tagging] swimming=* access tag Am Mi., 23. Okt. 2019 um 12:03 Uhr schrieb 
Robert Skedgell :I wonder whether it would be worth adding 
a swimming=* access tag to the
wiki and the list under "Water-based transportation" section of the page
for access=* (alongside boat=*/canoe=*)? I am not opposed to the term 
"swimming", or using it as an access value (there are ~400 uses of it, and 
although "natural" is the second most used value, it isn't significant in 
absolute numbers),but putting it under "water based transportation" seems odd. 
Is swimming a kind of "transportation"?Cheers,Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] swimming=* access tag

[Andrew Harvey]

On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 19:25, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> Am Mi., 23. Okt. 2019 um 12:03 Uhr schrieb Robert Skedgell <
> r...@hubris.org.uk>:
>
>> I wonder whether it would be worth adding a swimming=* access tag to the
>> wiki and the list under "Water-based transportation" section of the page
>> for access=* (alongside boat=*/canoe=*)?
>>
>
>
> I am not opposed to the term "swimming", or using it as an access value
> (there are ~400 uses of it, and although "natural" is the second most used
> value, it isn't significant in absolute numbers),
> but putting it under "water based transportation" seems odd. Is swimming a
> kind of "transportation"?
>

Yes that's where I would expect it. It's a mode applicable to water or
waterways, just like a powered vessel, non-powered vessel, you could have
no vessel at all (ie. swimming).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] swimming=* access tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mi., 23. Okt. 2019 um 12:03 Uhr schrieb Robert Skedgell <
r...@hubris.org.uk>:

> I wonder whether it would be worth adding a swimming=* access tag to the
> wiki and the list under "Water-based transportation" section of the page
> for access=* (alongside boat=*/canoe=*)?
>


I am not opposed to the term "swimming", or using it as an access value
(there are ~400 uses of it, and although "natural" is the second most used
value, it isn't significant in absolute numbers),
but putting it under "water based transportation" seems odd. Is swimming a
kind of "transportation"?

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

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 24. Oct 2019, at 08:24, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> 
> 
> Which if taken at face value would make any roundabout, however big and
> however many roads join there, a "mini roundabout" if the centre is
> traversable.


+1, this is how I see it making sense, without having to change anything, it 
may only be confusing verbally if the roundabout is quite big and has a 
traversable centre nonetheless.


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

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 23.10.19 14:54, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> I think the best suggestion in this case would be to update the
> documentation, particularly in translated pages, clarifying that the tag is
> intended for the formal mini-roundabout design as found in the UK, Ireland,
> France etc., and not for any flat roundabout.

The wiki is a bit conflicting here.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmini_roundabout says

If there is only a single vehicle, or two vehicles traveling in opposite
directions, it is common – but not necessary legal in all countries – to
drive straight across the middle rather than going around.

Whereas the German translation only said that you "can" go over the
centre, not that you usually would. I adapted the German translation to
more closely follow the English text.

Further down, the same page says

A roundabout is a one-way street with right-of-way and a non-traversable
centre island.

Which if taken at face value would make any roundabout, however big and
however many roads join there, a "mini roundabout" if the centre is
traversable.

The roundabout in the Mapillary images that Paul Johnson posted seems to
be one with a traversable centre. At the same time, I would not expect
my satnav to ask me to "turn left" here, but rather to take the nth exit
at the roundabout...

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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