date:20200111



sent from a phone

> On 11. Jan 2020, at 23:05, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
>>> 13, Via Aeroporto, Orio al Serio, Italy
>>> You get some ten results most of them with the correct address.
> You replied 
>> first 11 results seemed all perfectly ok to get there :)
> 
> But you missed the point. If you looked at the addresses, non was the airport.
> They were all of shops and services inside the airport.


you didn’t ask for an airport, you asked for a specific address

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

2020-01-11 Thread Jarek Piórkowski

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 18:18, Jmapb via Tagging
 wrote:
> On 1/11/2020 11:16 AM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> > I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are
> > one-way for pedestrians would be on dedicated pedestrian ways - that
> > is, highway=footway. If that's correct, oneway=yes can be interpreted
> > as referring to pedestrians on footways (it looks like osm-carto
> > already does this?). I struggle to imagine a one-way pedestrian way
> > that is also open to bicycle riders (dismount still works in this
> > scheme). Perhaps the only other thing could be highway=path, where
> > there could be some ambiguity with bicycles. But at least we can avoid
> > the "street with sidewalk" interpretation. Does anyone have
> > counterexamples?
>
> Not sure if it's a counterexample, but here's a hw=pedestrian in a park
> in Brooklyn, New York:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/97010406
>
> - It was originally a vehicle route but was changed to pedestrian with
> painted bike and foot lanes. For motor vehicles, only emergency and
> specifically permitted delivery traffic is allowed.
> - It was *always* one-way, and the one-way signs are still there.
> Bicycles and permitted motor vehicles are required to follow the one-way
> signs.
> - Pedestrians can move in either direction, and this is explicitly
> indicated by painted marks in the pedestrian lane. (Thus there's a
> oneway:foot=no tag, and it's worth noting that OSRM respects oneway:foot
> and routes pedestrians "backwards" but GraphHopper does not.)

That's a good counterexample - thanks.

I was thinking of a somewhat similar example of Stanley Park Seawall
in Vancouver, which is also one-way for cyclists, but is mapped with
separate ways for footway and cycleway. However the Seawall has a
physical separation in form of a small curb between the two modes, so
that's defensible. From Esri imagery it looks like Prospect Park ways
are separated by mode only with paint, so having separate ways for the
modes is not as elegant or arguably correct.

So it looks like we will indeed need a new tag to specify one-way-ness
for pedestrians.

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] Rare route=* values - route=power

I opened an issue at the Taginfo repository requesting that relations
be included on the map, or the title of the map changed to
"Geographical distribution of ways and nodes with this tag" -
https://github.com/taginfo/taginfo/issues/274;

On 1/12/20, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Arr .. thanks.. found one 'near' to me.
>
> After more info from a user, if they respond, see
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78020394
>
>
> Arr On 12/1/20 1:45 am, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>> The taginfo map is misleading, because it doesn't show the location of
>> relations, and almost all route=power features are relations with
>> type=route. Try overpass-turbo instead, for example in Italy:
>> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/PF9
>>
>> On 1/11/20, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/1/20 4:19 pm, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
 Who is using route=power?

 It has no documentation except for a rather confusing Proposal page
 (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_routing_proposal/Tagging_similar_to_Transportation_routes)
 but it's used 15,000 times.
>>> Only used is very small parts of the world - as seen on taginfo map.
>>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/route=power#map
>>>
>>> For contrast there are over 500,000 power=line in the data base,
>>> and the use is world wide..
>>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/power=line#map
>>>
>>>
 Is this feature actually useful and verifiable?
>>> Not usefull.
>>>
>>> Verifiable? As in there are power lines there, yes.
>>>
>>> However I view them similar to roads .. there maybe a power line there
>>> ..
>>> but 'traffic' can be in both directions.
>>>
>>> I see no point in having a dedicated 'route' for power.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ___
>> 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] Rare route=* values - route=power

2020-01-11 Thread Warin

Arr .. thanks.. found one 'near' to me.

After more info from a user, if they respond, see

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78020394

Arr On 12/1/20 1:45 am, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

The taginfo map is misleading, because it doesn't show the location of
relations, and almost all route=power features are relations with
type=route. Try overpass-turbo instead, for example in Italy:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/PF9

On 1/11/20, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/1/20 4:19 pm, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

Who is using route=power?

It has no documentation except for a rather confusing Proposal page
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_routing_proposal/Tagging_similar_to_Transportation_routes)
but it's used 15,000 times.

Only used is very small parts of the world - as seen on taginfo map.
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/route=power#map

For contrast there are over 500,000 power=line in the data base,
and the use is world wide..
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/power=line#map

Is this feature actually useful and verifiable?

Not usefull.

Verifiable? As in there are power lines there, yes.

However I view them similar to roads .. there maybe a power line there ..
but 'traffic' can be in both directions.

I see no point in having a dedicated 'route' for power.

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

Re: [Tagging] hiking and foot route relations - is there any consistent difference?

2020-01-11 Thread brad

Great story Kevin. I hope they learned something from their
experience. +1 on the boots, things change, back in the old days
when I could still backpack it was pretty much a given that you should
have sturdy boots. Now most of the long distance hikers, like you,
have gotten wiser and are wearing lighter footwear.

This seems all too typical for OSM. Redundant tags, and over specify
things.

Brad

On 1/11/20 9:08 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:

On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 10:03 AM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:

To clarify, I don't see any problem with the existence of multiple
tags with similar meanings.

But I plan to edit the wiki page to describe how they are actually
used, mentioning that there is a wide amoun of overlap in meaning.

No problem there! In a 'folksonomy', that's going to happen, and as
someone observed, 'status quo wins.'

With subjective assessments that disparate, there are always going to
be variability and outliers in the tagging.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

2020-01-11 Thread Mateusz Konieczny




12 Jan 2020, 00:28 by ja...@piorkowski.ca:

> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 11:57, Martin Koppenhoefer
>  wrote:
>
>> Am Sa., 11. Jan. 2020 um 17:17 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski 
>> :
>>
>>> I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are
>>> one-way for pedestrians would be on dedicated pedestrian ways - that
>>> is, highway=footway. If that's correct, oneway=yes can be interpreted
>>> as referring to pedestrians on footways (it looks like osm-carto
>>> already does this?). I struggle to imagine a one-way pedestrian way
>>> that is also open to bicycle riders (dismount still works in this
>>> scheme).
>>>
>>
>> there are many highway=footway with bicycle=yes tags in Germany and other 
>> countries, where this is used to model a "cyclists can use it" (with major 
>> precaution) on footways:
>> http://www.gruene-badvilbel.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Verkehrszeichen-Fu%C3%9Fweg_Fahrrad-frei.jpg
>>
>
> Are there many that are one-way for cyclists or for pedestrians but not both?
>
Footways with oneway bicycle traffic allowed. 

Usually tagged as highway=footway + bicycle=yes + oneway=yes
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

>> oneway=yes can be interpreted  as referring to pedestrians on footways (it 
>> looks like osm-carto already does this?

The Openstreetmap-carto style shows one-way arrows on highway=footway
and highway=path because these features can also be used by bicycles
in many places.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 1/12/20, Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 11:57, Martin Koppenhoefer
>  wrote:
>> Am Sa., 11. Jan. 2020 um 17:17 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski
>> :
>>> I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are
>>> one-way for pedestrians would be on dedicated pedestrian ways - that
>>> is, highway=footway. If that's correct, oneway=yes can be interpreted
>>> as referring to pedestrians on footways (it looks like osm-carto
>>> already does this?). I struggle to imagine a one-way pedestrian way
>>> that is also open to bicycle riders (dismount still works in this
>>> scheme).
>>
>> there are many highway=footway with bicycle=yes tags in Germany and other
>> countries, where this is used to model a "cyclists can use it" (with major
>> precaution) on footways:
>> http://www.gruene-badvilbel.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Verkehrszeichen-Fu%C3%9Fweg_Fahrrad-frei.jpg
>
> Are there many that are one-way for cyclists or for pedestrians but not
> both?
>
> --Jarek
>
> ___
> 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] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

2020-01-11 Thread Jarek Piórkowski

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 11:57, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
> Am Sa., 11. Jan. 2020 um 17:17 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski 
> :
>> I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are
>> one-way for pedestrians would be on dedicated pedestrian ways - that
>> is, highway=footway. If that's correct, oneway=yes can be interpreted
>> as referring to pedestrians on footways (it looks like osm-carto
>> already does this?). I struggle to imagine a one-way pedestrian way
>> that is also open to bicycle riders (dismount still works in this
>> scheme).
>
> there are many highway=footway with bicycle=yes tags in Germany and other 
> countries, where this is used to model a "cyclists can use it" (with major 
> precaution) on footways:
> http://www.gruene-badvilbel.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Verkehrszeichen-Fu%C3%9Fweg_Fahrrad-frei.jpg

Are there many that are one-way for cyclists or for pedestrians but not both?

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

2020-01-11 Thread Jmapb via Tagging


On 1/11/2020 11:16 AM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:


I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are
one-way for pedestrians would be on dedicated pedestrian ways - that
is, highway=footway. If that's correct, oneway=yes can be interpreted
as referring to pedestrians on footways (it looks like osm-carto
already does this?). I struggle to imagine a one-way pedestrian way
that is also open to bicycle riders (dismount still works in this
scheme). Perhaps the only other thing could be highway=path, where
there could be some ambiguity with bicycles. But at least we can avoid
the "street with sidewalk" interpretation. Does anyone have
counterexamples?


Not sure if it's a counterexample, but here's a hw=pedestrian in a park
in Brooklyn, New York:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/97010406

- It was originally a vehicle route but was changed to pedestrian with
painted bike and foot lanes. For motor vehicles, only emergency and
specifically permitted delivery traffic is allowed.
- It was *always* one-way, and the one-way signs are still there.
Bicycles and permitted motor vehicles are required to follow the one-way
signs.
- Pedestrians can move in either direction, and this is explicitly
indicated by painted marks in the pedestrian lane. (Thus there's a
oneway:foot=no tag, and it's worth noting that OSRM respects oneway:foot
and routes pedestrians "backwards" but GraphHopper does not.)

Jason


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

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

>  I am not against distinguishing more types of cycling routes, I am all for 
> it, as long as it's verifyable, mappable with clear tagging, and manageable.

+1

I started using Openstreetmap because I wanted to add touring routes
and recreational bike routes in RideWithGPS and then found out that
http://ridewithgps.com uses Openstreetmap data which I could edit. And
I get to work and take kids to school and shop by bike - I haven't
owned a car for 9 years.

So I would love to have more information about what streets and roads
are best for getting from point A to B, and which ones are nice for
training rides and which ones are fun for tours.

But tags have to be verifiable: if the next mapper can't confirm that
a tag as right, the data in Openstreetmap will not be maintained
properly. Subjective tags cannot work.

I have seen this happen: before I mapped here, I used to try to
improve the bike routes in Portland Oregon for Google Maps. But since
there was no definition of a "preferred" bicycle street, and it was
hard to delete a preferred route once it was added, the bike layer was
full of disconnected segments. Some were from old city maps of bike
routes, some were based on the personal preference of the mapper, and
some were actually signed or marked on the ground, but you couldn't
tell them apart.

If there is a sign or marking that specifies that a certain route is
designed for mountain bikes or for bike racing, then sure, you can tag
that. But most bike routes do not have anything to specify that they
are more for commuting or more for recreation, and in that case we
can't tag the distinction.

Fortunately, database users (like routing applications) can look at
other Openstreetmap data, like surface=* tags on ways, and external
data like elevation models, to determine if a route is a difficult
single-track trail through the hills versus a flat paved path along a
canal, and use this to help route cyclists appropriately.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 1/12/20, Peter Elderson  wrote:
> Peter Elderson :
>
>>  Florimond Berthoux :
>>
>>> So I propose to use for bicycle route
>>> bicycle:type=trekking/road_bike/commute/mtb
>>>
>>>
>> I don't think commute is a type of bicycle? Trekking maybe, but here in
>> Nederland they call a lot of bicycles "trekking" when they are really
>> just
>> city bikes with a few extra gears and some fancy accessories.
>> We also don't have a type "road bike". We do have "Omafiets"
>> (Grandmother's bike), mainly used by schoolgirls and young women.
>> Grandmothers have e-bikes, nowadays.
>>
>> There is a lot of variation in bicycle types, lots of hybrids, too, and
>> all have electric variants nowadays. I don't think you want them all
>> tagged
>> in the routes? Just the ones having dedicated routes?
>>
>> Despite all the variations of bicycles I think very few types have
>> dedicated routes indicated as such on the road, in Nederland. Mtb would
>> be
>> the only separately indicated type, I think, and that would include
>> atb's.
>> If dedicated speed bicycle routes were signed on the roads, that would be
>> taggable I guess, but we don't have those. Yet? There is talk of bicycle
>> speedways, but so far it's just talk.
>>
>
>> The only other thing I see on the road is preferred routes in and around
>> cities. Most of the time these are not waymarked, it's just that the
>> signposts direct you to e.g. City Center over these routes, where
>> shortcuts
>> through residential areas or parks may be available but not desirable.
>> It's
>> not really a system, I think it's mainly locally decided to guide
>> cyclists
>> around the block for safety.
>>
>>
>> ___
>>> 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] POI data and Addresses on areas - Was: addresses on buildings

Martin,
I wrote

> Just to illustrate the problem, try find this address on OSM:
>> 13, Via Aeroporto, Orio al Serio, Italy
>> You get some ten results most of them with the correct address.
>>
> You replied

> first 11 results seemed all perfectly ok to get there :)
>

But you missed the point. If you looked at the addresses, non was the
airport.
They were all of shops and services inside the airport.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

Peter Elderson :

>  Florimond Berthoux :
>
>> So I propose to use for bicycle route
>> bicycle:type=trekking/road_bike/commute/mtb
>>
>>
> I don't think commute is a type of bicycle? Trekking maybe, but here in
> Nederland they call a lot of bicycles "trekking" when they are really just
> city bikes with a few extra gears and some fancy accessories.
> We also don't have a type "road bike". We do have "Omafiets"
> (Grandmother's bike), mainly used by schoolgirls and young women.
> Grandmothers have e-bikes, nowadays.
>
> There is a lot of variation in bicycle types, lots of hybrids, too, and
> all have electric variants nowadays. I don't think you want them all tagged
> in the routes? Just the ones having dedicated routes?
>
> Despite all the variations of bicycles I think very few types have
> dedicated routes indicated as such on the road, in Nederland. Mtb would be
> the only separately indicated type, I think, and that would include atb's.
> If dedicated speed bicycle routes were signed on the roads, that would be
> taggable I guess, but we don't have those. Yet? There is talk of bicycle
> speedways, but so far it's just talk.
>

> The only other thing I see on the road is preferred routes in and around
> cities. Most of the time these are not waymarked, it's just that the
> signposts direct you to e.g. City Center over these routes, where shortcuts
> through residential areas or parks may be available but not desirable. It's
> not really a system, I think it's mainly locally decided to guide cyclists
> around the block for safety.
>
>
> ___
>> 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] recreational vs functional routes

 Florimond Berthoux :

> So I propose to use for bicycle route
> bicycle:type=trekking/road_bike/commute/mtb
>
>
I don't think commute is a type of bicycle? Trekking maybe, but here in
Nederland they call a lot of bicycles "trekking" when they are really just
city bikes with a few extra gears and some fancy accessories.
We also don't have a type "road bike". We do have "Omafiets" (Grandmother's
bike), mainly used by schoolgirls and young women. Grandmothers have
e-bikes, nowadays.

There is a lot of variation in bicycle types, lots of hybrids, too, and all
have electric variants nowadays. I don't think you want them all tagged in
the routes? Just the ones having dedicated routes?

Despite all the variations of bicycles I think very few types have
dedicated routes indicated as such on the road, in Nederland. Mtb would be
the only separately indicated type, I think, and that would include atb's.
If dedicated speed bicycle routes were signed on the roads,

The only other thing I see on the road is preferred routes in and around
cities. Most of the time these are not waymarked, it's just that the
signposts direct you to e.g. City Center over these routes, where shortcuts
through residential areas or parks may be available but not desirable. It's
not really a system, I think it's mainly locally decided to guide cyclists
around the block for safety.


___
> 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] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-11 Thread marc marc

Le 11.01.20 à 21:05, Florimond Berthoux a écrit :
> What do you think ?

avoid the word "type" in a key as it as no additional meaning.
type can be everything (type of operator, difficulty, use, length, ...)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-11 Thread Florimond Berthoux

I found that this problem has a solution for relation route=piste (snow
sports) with the key piste:type=*
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:piste:type

Three of you have proposed to use like for piste relation a single new key
to precise the subtype of the a route
Joost Schouppe with: function=recreational/practical
Marc Marc with: usage=tourism/transport
Richard with: route_type=*

I proposed multi-tags like tourism/commute/road_bike/mtb=yes, though I'm
not confident with this scheme.
Tags can conflict with already defined tags (tourism), or a vehicle type
which could misinterpret as access tags (road_bike and mtb).

So I propose to use for bicycle route
bicycle:type=trekking/road_bike/commute/mtb
That can be distinguish by looking at the signposts, or board, or the kind
of people (or their bike) who use the route.
If necessary semicolon can be used to for multiple bicycle:type though I
guess that'd be rare.

For other relations I don't know, I don't map or use them much. However I
guess that road relation can have a road:type=* tag also.

What do you think ?

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

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

Ok let's look at Berlin. I see bicycle routes in and around Berlin: 
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=6162=12.597273579561199!52.5315!13.4447
Are those routes touristic or commuter routes? How can you tell? I assume these 
have been mapped because they are waymarked/signposted. Or are you saying there 
is a network of commuter routes that has not been mapped yet, but deserves to 
be mapped? If that is the case, how do you see on the road which cycling 
connections are part of the commuter network?

Btw, I am not against distinguishing more types of cycling routes, I am all for 
it, as long as it's verifyable, mappable with clear tagging, and manageable.

A city commuter route network, if clearly signposted and with decent covering, 
certainly deserves tagging and seems very useful for rendering, planning, 
routing and navigating. I tend to see it as a new type of network,  e.g 
network:type=commuter_network (tagged on the commuter routes) comparable to 
network:type=node_network.

Best,  Peter Elderson

> Op 11 jan. 2020 om 19:35 heeft Volker Schmidt  het 
> volgende geschreven:
> 
> 
> I would like to return to the initial question of this thread, and looking at 
> it from the end users point of view.
> 
> When in a car, I use my navigation device in real time to get as comfortably 
> as possible from A to B to C and so on.
> I may select to avoid motorways, and may give preference to minor roads. But 
> if I want to go along the  Route des Vins d'Alsace , my basic navigation 
> system will not help. In that case I have to follow the signs of the  Route 
> des Vins d'Alsace.
> 
> When riding my bicycle, I use a navigation web site normally off-line 
> beforehand, to get as comfortable as possible  from A to B to Ca. Thai gives 
> me typically the choice t select the bicycle type: road bike, touring bike, 
> MTB. If I want to go along recommended tourist routes I can select a site 
> that gives preference to ways that follow cycle routes (i.e. a route relation 
> in OSM-speak with type=bicycle). The routing algorithm on that site assumes 
> that by selecting a bicycle route in OSM I am on a safer route (because it 
> makes use of bicycle infrastructure where available) but also that the route 
> is more interesting from the tourist perspective.
> But there are - few - cycle routes in OSM that  are purely indicating bicycle 
> commuter routes. Examples: from the routes of the small town Pesaro's 
> Bicipolitana (OpenCycleMap, network map)  to big-city networks like Berlin, 
> Paris, London.
> Than we have traditionally many "bicycle" routes that really are MTB routes 
> (because they have been created before the type=MTB had been defined).
> I would assume that there are road-bike bicycle relations in OSM, but don't 
> know any example.
> So yes, it makes perfect sense to distinguish different bicycle route types.
> 
> 
>> On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 09:29, Peter Elderson  wrote:
>> 
>> Andy Townsend :
>>> Peter Elderson wrote:
>>> > Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven
>>> >
>>> >> I think;
>>> >> Those who bicycle know why there needs to be these classes.
>>> >> Those who don't ride a bicycle regularly see no need for these classes.
>>> > I wonder which of these groups you think I am in...
>>> >
>>> > Hint: Nederland.
>>> 
>>> Ahem.  How can I put this tactfully - the Netherlands doesn't exactly 
>>> have the widest variety of cycling terrain in the world, and has a 
>>> generally good network of separated cycleways. 
>> 
>> You would be surprised... but that wasn't the issue. THe examples show no 
>> extrapordinary  ways or routes. Characteristics of ways in a route are 
>> tagged on the way, such as surface, elevation, speed, access, oneway. 
>> Characteristics of the whole route are tagged on the relation. I would only 
>> create a route relation for a route that's actually visible, i.e. waymarked. 
>> For bicycles we have route=bicycle, for mtb we have route=mtb. Chracterizing 
>> routes as especially suited for or designated as touristic or speed cycling, 
>> if that was a common thing visible on the ground, no problem. I am sure 
>> examples can be found. I am not sure it is enough to warrant tagging. 
>> On the other hand, if someone or a group of cyclists intend to tag the 
>> visible or obvious (?)  purpose(s) of routes in a particular country in more 
>> detail, and makes a nice special interest map of it, fine! I would not 
>> expect random mappers around the globe to map it, though.
>> ___
>> 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] recreational vs functional routes

I would like to return to the initial question of this thread, and looking
at it from the end users point of view.

When in a car, I use my navigation device in real time to get as
comfortably as possible from A to B to C and so on.
I may select to avoid motorways, and may give preference to minor roads.
But if I want to go along the  Route des Vins d'Alsace , my basic
navigation system will not help. In that case I have to follow the signs of
the  Route des Vins d'Alsace.

When riding my bicycle, I use a navigation web site normally off-line
beforehand, to get as comfortable as possible  from A to B to Ca. Thai
gives me typically the choice t select the bicycle type: road bike, touring
bike, MTB. If I want to go along recommended tourist routes I can select a
site that gives preference to ways that follow cycle routes (i.e. a route
relation in OSM-speak with type=bicycle). The routing algorithm on that
site assumes that by selecting a bicycle route in OSM I am on a safer route
(because it makes use of bicycle infrastructure where available) but also
that the route is more interesting from the tourist perspective.
But there are - few - cycle routes in OSM that  are purely indicating
bicycle commuter routes. Examples: from the routes of the small town
Pesaro's Bicipolitana (OpenCycleMap
,
network map
)
to big-city networks like Berlin
,
Paris
,
London

.
Than we have traditionally many "bicycle" routes that really are MTB routes
(because they have been created before the type=MTB had been defined).
I would assume that there are road-bike bicycle relations in OSM, but don't
know any example.
So yes, it makes perfect sense to distinguish different bicycle route types.

On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 09:29, Peter Elderson  wrote:

>
> Andy Townsend :
>
>> Peter Elderson wrote:
>> > Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven
>> >
>> >> I think;
>> >> Those who bicycle know why there needs to be these classes.
>> >> Those who don't ride a bicycle regularly see no need for these classes.
>> > I wonder which of these groups you think I am in...
>> >
>> > Hint: Nederland.
>>
>> Ahem.  How can I put this tactfully - the Netherlands doesn't exactly
>> have the widest variety of cycling terrain in the world, and has a
>> generally good network of separated cycleways.
>>
>
> You would be surprised... but that wasn't the issue. THe examples show no
> extrapordinary  ways or routes. Characteristics of ways in a route are
> tagged on the way, such as surface, elevation, speed, access, oneway.
> Characteristics of the whole route are tagged on the relation. I would only
> create a route relation for a route that's actually visible, i.e.
> waymarked. For bicycles we have route=bicycle, for mtb we have route=mtb.
> Chracterizing routes as especially suited for or designated as touristic or
> speed cycling, if that was a common thing visible on the ground, no
> problem. I am sure examples can be found. I am not sure it is enough to
> warrant tagging.
> On the other hand, if someone or a group of cyclists intend to tag the
> visible or obvious (?)  purpose(s) of routes in a particular country in
> more detail, and makes a nice special interest map of it, fine! I would not
> expect random mappers around the globe to map it, though.
> ___
> 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] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

Am Sa., 11. Jan. 2020 um 17:17 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski <
ja...@piorkowski.ca>:

> I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are
> one-way for pedestrians would be on dedicated pedestrian ways - that
> is, highway=footway. If that's correct, oneway=yes can be interpreted
> as referring to pedestrians on footways (it looks like osm-carto
> already does this?). I struggle to imagine a one-way pedestrian way
> that is also open to bicycle riders (dismount still works in this
> scheme).
>


there are many highway=footway with bicycle=yes tags in Germany and other
countries, where this is used to model a "cyclists can use it" (with major
precaution) on footways:
http://www.gruene-badvilbel.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Verkehrszeichen-Fu%C3%9Fweg_Fahrrad-frei.jpg

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

Re: [Tagging] POI data and Addresses on areas - Was: addresses on buildings

Am Sa., 11. Jan. 2020 um 12:35 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt :

> Just to illustrate the problem, try find this address on OSM:
> 13, Via Aeroporto, Orio al Serio, Italy
> You get some ten results most of them with the correct address.
>
>


first 11 results seemed all perfectly ok to get there :)


> Very precise and clear.
> Every jurisdiction may have a different definition of what an address is.
> In my specific case the Italian address definition, i.e. the entrance to
> the building from the public road/footway network, or part of building with
> that address, seems to be very precise, and is the one which the
> authorities need to know when they want you (for whatever reason).
>
>

this is a "housenumber" (it:numero civico), but then people have addresses
(it:indirizzo). So somehow the people (businesses, entities, etc.) are
linked to their housenumber, and as it seemed overkill to have relations
for this linkage we usually put address tags on the features as well.
(There's some evasion attempt by adding feature data to the entrances and
gates, but it has topology issues and combines different "things" in one
object, or by keeping the feature address unknown).

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

2020-01-11 Thread Jarek Piórkowski

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 04:48, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 10:20, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
>> > On 9. Jan 2020, at 22:04, Dave F via Tagging  
>> > wrote:
>> >> oneway=yes|no needs indeed be applicable to vehicles only,
>> >
>> > That tag on footways would apply only to walkers.
>>
>> well, unless someone adds bicycle=yes in which case it would change and only 
>> apply to bicycles?
>> What about highway=pedestrian?
>>
> The problem with oneway=yes|no, if it were to apply to pedestrians as well, 
> would be on all mixed-use ways.
> This would exclude highway=pedestrian as this tag excludes all vehicles by 
> definition (careful if it's an "area pedonale" in Italy, which allows 
> bicycles by default and hence requires a bicycle=yes in OSM-speak, but that's 
> beside the point).

I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are
one-way for pedestrians would be on dedicated pedestrian ways - that
is, highway=footway. If that's correct, oneway=yes can be interpreted
as referring to pedestrians on footways (it looks like osm-carto
already does this?). I struggle to imagine a one-way pedestrian way
that is also open to bicycle riders (dismount still works in this
scheme). Perhaps the only other thing could be highway=path, where
there could be some ambiguity with bicycles. But at least we can avoid
the "street with sidewalk" interpretation. Does anyone have
counterexamples?

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] hiking and foot route relations - is there any consistent difference?

2020-01-11 Thread Kevin Kenny

On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 10:03 AM Joseph Eisenberg
 wrote:
>
> To clarify, I don't see any problem with the existence of multiple
> tags with similar meanings.
>
> But I plan to edit the wiki page to describe how they are actually
> used, mentioning that there is a wide amoun of overlap in meaning.

No problem there! In a 'folksonomy', that's going to happen, and as
someone observed, 'status quo wins.'

I can recall an encounter that my daughter had on Windham High Peak,
arguably  the easiest of the Catskill 3500 listed summits (and please
don't start arguing that Bearpen, Slide, or Hunter is easier, that's
not the point!) with a father and son who were visiting from a part of
New Jersey that's both flat and urban.

Them: "Wow, the guidebook is horrible! It said this is an easy
three-mile hike from Route 23!"
Her: "Well, yeah, (looks at phone), GPS says 3.1."
Them: "That's _easy?_"
Her: (thinking for a moment): "No scrambling, no broken rock to cross,
no streams you can't just step over, no dense brush, no deep mud, no
beaver activitty... what's the problem?"
Them: (groaning), "I don't want to see a _hard_ trail around here!
That was straight up hill all the way!"
Her: "Uhm, well, it _is_ a mountain."

With subjective assessments that disparate, there are always going to
be variability and outliers in the tagging.

The whole discussion of boots is pretty odd. I'm thoroughly a
Westerner, and I do multi-day backpacking trips in terrain like
http://image.newyorkupstate.com/home/nyup-media/width2048/img/catskills/photo/2016/05/03/20267771-standard.jpg
wearing trail-running shoes. The boots come out only when the snow
does.

The 'vigour' key is probably a bad one, because it's purely
subjective. SAC and YDS scale, among others, are also pretty bad
because almost all 'hiking' routes are at the lowest grade on them,
and because you really have to be a specialist to grade a route.

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

Re: [Tagging] hiking and foot route relations - is there any consistent difference?

To clarify, I don't see any problem with the existence of multiple
tags with similar meanings.

But I plan to edit the wiki page to describe how they are actually
used, mentioning that there is a wide amoun of overlap in meaning.

On 1/11/20, Peter Elderson  wrote:
> +1
> If don't see this as a problem.  If more clarity is needed, add tags for
> specific aspects. E.g "vigour" scale if one exists. Boot type recommendation
> scale, where 1=flipflop and 10=hoverboots.
>
> Mvg Peter Elderson
>
>> Op 11 jan. 2020 om 14:59 heeft Joseph Eisenberg
>>  het volgende geschreven:
>>
>> Back in August there was a thread titled "Merging tagging scheme on
>> wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes"
>> which led to a new template
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Tagging_scheme_for_hiking_and_foot_route_relations
>> - used on route=hiking and route=foot pages.
>>
>> However, I'm disappointed that the text ended up claiming this:
>>
>> "route=foot is used for routes which are walkable without any
>> limitations regarding fitness, equipment or weather conditions. As a
>> guideline, you could say that walking shoes (at a pinch, even
>> flip-flops) are adequate for this type of walking trail."
>>
>> This is all quite subjective. Folks here in Indonesia climb 3500 meter
>> mountain passes in flip-flops.
>>
>> "route=hiking is used for routes that rather match Wikipedia's
>> definition: "A long, vigorous walk, usually on trails, in the
>> countryside"). As a guideline, you could say that a hiking trail needs
>> hiking boots because you will encounter sharp rocks and/or heavy
>> undergrowth and/or muddy terrain and/or have to wade through shallow
>> streams."
>>
>> Again, very Western / European perspective to mention "needs hiking
>> boots".
>>
>> I asked about this on the wiki talk page, and Brian de Ford said:
>>
>> "Google walking versus hiking and you will get many results agreeing
>> that there is a distinction. No two of them entirely agree on what the
>> differences are, but there is core agreement that hiking is more
>> vigorous than walking. One insists that there must be a change in
>> elevation (just about every road and sidewalk around here involves
>> changes in elevation, so by that definition I hike to the shops).
>> Several agree that equipment required makes a difference (style of
>> footwear and need for a cane/stick). Many say that the nature of the
>> surface makes the difference. Others say it's the terrain. There's a
>> difference, but it may be hard to agree on definitions for OSM. BTW,
>> parts of the UK also have "hillwalking" (which appears to be hiking
>> where hills are involved) and rambling (essentially unmappable because
>> there is no route)."
>>
>> It sounds like there is no verifiable difference between route=foot
>> and route=hiking, so database users should not expect these tags to be
>> used in a consistent way. Each mapper has there own idea of what they
>> mean.
>>
>> - Joseph Eisenberg
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Rare route=* values - route=power

The taginfo map is misleading, because it doesn't show the location of
relations, and almost all route=power features are relations with
type=route. Try overpass-turbo instead, for example in Italy:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/PF9

On 1/11/20, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/1/20 4:19 pm, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>> Who is using route=power?
>>
>> It has no documentation except for a rather confusing Proposal page
>> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_routing_proposal/Tagging_similar_to_Transportation_routes)
>> but it's used 15,000 times.
>
> Only used is very small parts of the world - as seen on taginfo map.
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/route=power#map
>
> For contrast there are over 500,000 power=line in the data base,
> and the use is world wide..
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/power=line#map
>
>
>>
>> Is this feature actually useful and verifiable?
>
> Not usefull.
>
> Verifiable? As in there are power lines there, yes.
>
> However I view them similar to roads .. there maybe a power line there ..
> but 'traffic' can be in both directions.
>
> I see no point in having a dedicated 'route' for power.
>
>
>
>
>

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

Re: [Tagging] hiking and foot route relations - is there any consistent difference?

+1
If don't see this as a problem.  If more clarity is needed, add tags for 
specific aspects. E.g "vigour" scale if one exists. Boot type recommendation 
scale, where 1=flipflop and 10=hoverboots.

Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 11 jan. 2020 om 14:59 heeft Joseph Eisenberg  
> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> Back in August there was a thread titled "Merging tagging scheme on
> wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes"
> which led to a new template
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Tagging_scheme_for_hiking_and_foot_route_relations
> - used on route=hiking and route=foot pages.
> 
> However, I'm disappointed that the text ended up claiming this:
> 
> "route=foot is used for routes which are walkable without any
> limitations regarding fitness, equipment or weather conditions. As a
> guideline, you could say that walking shoes (at a pinch, even
> flip-flops) are adequate for this type of walking trail."
> 
> This is all quite subjective. Folks here in Indonesia climb 3500 meter
> mountain passes in flip-flops.
> 
> "route=hiking is used for routes that rather match Wikipedia's
> definition: "A long, vigorous walk, usually on trails, in the
> countryside"). As a guideline, you could say that a hiking trail needs
> hiking boots because you will encounter sharp rocks and/or heavy
> undergrowth and/or muddy terrain and/or have to wade through shallow
> streams."
> 
> Again, very Western / European perspective to mention "needs hiking boots".
> 
> I asked about this on the wiki talk page, and Brian de Ford said:
> 
> "Google walking versus hiking and you will get many results agreeing
> that there is a distinction. No two of them entirely agree on what the
> differences are, but there is core agreement that hiking is more
> vigorous than walking. One insists that there must be a change in
> elevation (just about every road and sidewalk around here involves
> changes in elevation, so by that definition I hike to the shops).
> Several agree that equipment required makes a difference (style of
> footwear and need for a cane/stick). Many say that the nature of the
> surface makes the difference. Others say it's the terrain. There's a
> difference, but it may be hard to agree on definitions for OSM. BTW,
> parts of the UK also have "hillwalking" (which appears to be hiking
> where hills are involved) and rambling (essentially unmappable because
> there is no route)."
> 
> It sounds like there is no verifiable difference between route=foot
> and route=hiking, so database users should not expect these tags to be
> used in a consistent way. Each mapper has there own idea of what they
> mean.
> 
> - Joseph Eisenberg
> 
> ___
> 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] hiking and foot route relations - is there any consistent difference?

2020-01-11 Thread Jo

If I remember well, there is also route=walking...

You are right that it doesn't make very much sense to make the distinction.
But now to get all mappers to choose for either hiking or foot will prove
to be an impossible task. As usual it will be status quo that wins, like
you saw in the result of the previous discussion about this.

Anyway, I wish you the best of luck with this, you'll obviously need it to
get anything to change.

Polyglot

On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 2:59 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> Back in August there was a thread titled "Merging tagging scheme on
> wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes"
> which led to a new template
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Tagging_scheme_for_hiking_and_foot_route_relations
> - used on route=hiking and route=foot pages.
>
> However, I'm disappointed that the text ended up claiming this:
>
> "route=foot is used for routes which are walkable without any
> limitations regarding fitness, equipment or weather conditions. As a
> guideline, you could say that walking shoes (at a pinch, even
> flip-flops) are adequate for this type of walking trail."
>
> This is all quite subjective. Folks here in Indonesia climb 3500 meter
> mountain passes in flip-flops.
>
> "route=hiking is used for routes that rather match Wikipedia's
> definition: "A long, vigorous walk, usually on trails, in the
> countryside"). As a guideline, you could say that a hiking trail needs
> hiking boots because you will encounter sharp rocks and/or heavy
> undergrowth and/or muddy terrain and/or have to wade through shallow
> streams."
>
> Again, very Western / European perspective to mention "needs hiking boots".
>
> I asked about this on the wiki talk page, and Brian de Ford said:
>
> "Google walking versus hiking and you will get many results agreeing
> that there is a distinction. No two of them entirely agree on what the
> differences are, but there is core agreement that hiking is more
> vigorous than walking. One insists that there must be a change in
> elevation (just about every road and sidewalk around here involves
> changes in elevation, so by that definition I hike to the shops).
> Several agree that equipment required makes a difference (style of
> footwear and need for a cane/stick). Many say that the nature of the
> surface makes the difference. Others say it's the terrain. There's a
> difference, but it may be hard to agree on definitions for OSM. BTW,
> parts of the UK also have "hillwalking" (which appears to be hiking
> where hills are involved) and rambling (essentially unmappable because
> there is no route)."
>
> It sounds like there is no verifiable difference between route=foot
> and route=hiking, so database users should not expect these tags to be
> used in a consistent way. Each mapper has there own idea of what they
> mean.
>
> - Joseph Eisenberg
>
> ___
> 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] hiking and foot route relations - is there any consistent difference?

Back in August there was a thread titled "Merging tagging scheme on
wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes"
which led to a new template
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Tagging_scheme_for_hiking_and_foot_route_relations
- used on route=hiking and route=foot pages.

However, I'm disappointed that the text ended up claiming this:

"route=foot is used for routes which are walkable without any
limitations regarding fitness, equipment or weather conditions. As a
guideline, you could say that walking shoes (at a pinch, even
flip-flops) are adequate for this type of walking trail."

This is all quite subjective. Folks here in Indonesia climb 3500 meter
mountain passes in flip-flops.

"route=hiking is used for routes that rather match Wikipedia's
definition: "A long, vigorous walk, usually on trails, in the
countryside"). As a guideline, you could say that a hiking trail needs
hiking boots because you will encounter sharp rocks and/or heavy
undergrowth and/or muddy terrain and/or have to wade through shallow
streams."

Again, very Western / European perspective to mention "needs hiking boots".

I asked about this on the wiki talk page, and Brian de Ford said:

"Google walking versus hiking and you will get many results agreeing
that there is a distinction. No two of them entirely agree on what the
differences are, but there is core agreement that hiking is more
vigorous than walking. One insists that there must be a change in
elevation (just about every road and sidewalk around here involves
changes in elevation, so by that definition I hike to the shops).
Several agree that equipment required makes a difference (style of
footwear and need for a cane/stick). Many say that the nature of the
surface makes the difference. Others say it's the terrain. There's a
difference, but it may be hard to agree on definitions for OSM. BTW,
parts of the UK also have "hillwalking" (which appears to be hiking
where hills are involved) and rambling (essentially unmappable because
there is no route)."

It sounds like there is no verifiable difference between route=foot
and route=hiking, so database users should not expect these tags to be
used in a consistent way. Each mapper has there own idea of what they
mean.

- Joseph Eisenberg

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

Re: [Tagging] POI data and Addresses on areas - Was: addresses on buildings

Conclusion.
SWe need a more flexible solution.
An idea.
For normal simple cases (small building, one address, placed on the map
close and unambigously near the Street of the address), put the number on
the building or on a node on the building polygon.

For more complex cases (anything from the size of an airport down the a
small single-address building closer to a street that's not in it's
address) use an address relation that ties together the different types of
addresses (nodes on the map) mentioned in Jareks post).


On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 12:42, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> Sorry, my mail program got impatient and sent off an incomplete message.
> Here is the continuation:
>
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 12:31, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>
>> Just to illustrate the problem, try find this address on OSM:
>> 13, Via Aeroporto, Orio al Serio, Italy
>> You get some ten results most of them with the correct address.
>> Then try to find "Bergamo Orio al Serio Airport" and check the address.
>> It's the one above.
>> Than try to route to the Airport, say with OSRM.
>> OSRM tries to route you somewhere in the middle of the airport area, but
>> luckily realizes that there is a fence, and stops there (by pure chance not
>> far away form the real entrance BTW
>>
>> Now coming to the analysis above.
>> Very precise and clear.
>> Every jurisdiction may have a different definition of what an address is.
>> In my specific case the Italian address definition, i.e. the entrance to
>> the building from the public road/footway network, or part of building with
>> that address, seems to be very precise, and is the one which the
>> authorities need to know when they want you (for whatever reason).
>>
>> Now let's go to Big G to find "Bergamo Orio al Serio Airport". They find
>> the same address and place the pointer in the middle of the grass near the
>> runways. Similar to OSM. They are better than OSRM when it comes to
>> routing. The Route stops in the short term car-park near the entrance and
>> shows yo how to reach on foot the passenger entrance.
>>
>> Not enough.
>> I checked the address of the aiport for their web site.
>> 
>> surprise, surprise, it's different:
>> Milan Bergamo Airport
>>
>
>
>> Via Orio al Serio 49/51
>> 24050 Grassobbio (BG) Italia
>>
> Gmaps finds this and puts the pointer to the same place on the grass in
> the airfield, put the routing goes to a different point, further away from
> the drop off parking.
> I could not test this address with OSM, because it was "not recognised".
>
> (my conclusion follows in a separate mail)
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rare route values route=inline_skates and route=running

2020-01-11 Thread marc marc

Le 11.01.20 à 06:21, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
> The tag  route=inline_skates
> Are there actually signed, verifiable inline skate routes?

yes

> Should a rare tag like this be in Map Features?

listing all the rare cases on maps feature is like turning it into
a wiki search engine or a taginfo without the typo.

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

Re: [Tagging] POI data and Addresses on areas - Was: addresses on buildings

Sorry, my mail program got impatient and sent off an incomplete message.
Here is the continuation:

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 12:31, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> Just to illustrate the problem, try find this address on OSM:
> 13, Via Aeroporto, Orio al Serio, Italy
> You get some ten results most of them with the correct address.
> Then try to find "Bergamo Orio al Serio Airport" and check the address.
> It's the one above.
> Than try to route to the Airport, say with OSRM.
> OSRM tries to route you somewhere in the middle of the airport area, but
> luckily realizes that there is a fence, and stops there (by pure chance not
> far away form the real entrance BTW
>
> Now coming to the analysis above.
> Very precise and clear.
> Every jurisdiction may have a different definition of what an address is.
> In my specific case the Italian address definition, i.e. the entrance to
> the building from the public road/footway network, or part of building with
> that address, seems to be very precise, and is the one which the
> authorities need to know when they want you (for whatever reason).
>
> Now let's go to Big G to find "Bergamo Orio al Serio Airport". They find
> the same address and place the pointer in the middle of the grass near the
> runways. Similar to OSM. They are better than OSRM when it comes to
> routing. The Route stops in the short term car-park near the entrance and
> shows yo how to reach on foot the passenger entrance.
>
> Not enough.
> I checked the address of the aiport for their web site.
> 
> surprise, surprise, it's different:
> Milan Bergamo Airport
>


> Via Orio al Serio 49/51
> 24050 Grassobbio (BG) Italia
>
Gmaps finds this and puts the pointer to the same place on the grass in the
airfield, put the routing goes to a different point, further away from the
drop off parking.
I could not test this address with OSM, because it was "not recognised".

(my conclusion follows in a separate mail)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] POI data and Addresses on areas - Was: addresses on buildings

Just to illustrate the problem, try find this address on OSM:
13, Via Aeroporto, Orio al Serio, Italy
You get some ten results most of them with the correct address.
Then try to find "Bergamo Orio al Serio Airport" and check the address.
It's the one above.
Than try to route to the Airport, say with OSRM.
OSRM tries to route you samehwere in the middle of the airport area, but
luckily realizes that there is a fence, and stops there (by pur chance not
far away form the real entrance BTW

Now coming to the analysis above.
Very precise and clear.
Every jurisdiction may have a different definition of what an address is.
In my specific case the Italian address definition, i.e. the entrance to
the building from the public road/footway network, or part of building with
that address, seems to be very precise, and is the one which the
authorities need to know when they want you (for whatever reason).

Now let's go to Big G to find "Bergamo Orio al Serio Airport". They find
the same address and place the pointer in the middle of the grass near the
runways. Similar to OSM. They are better than OSRM when it comes to
routing. The Route stops in the short term car-park near the entrance and
shows yo how to reach on foot the passenger entrance.

Not enough.
I checked the address of the aiport for their web site.

surpeise, suroprise, it's different:
Milan Bergamo AirportVia Orio al Serio 49/51
24050 Grassobbio (BG) Italia



On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 03:41, Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 18:04, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 09:34:32AM -0500, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> > > On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 04:22, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> > > > OTOH in the dense urban areas you have the problem of Address for
> road A
> > > > nearer to Road B. So you get navigated to the wrong spot on the road
> > > > network. This view is generated with the OSRM Car profile and mapping
> > > > all addr:* objects with the "nearest" function and comparing the
> highway
> > > > name and the addr:street. If both are "filled" and non equal -> fail.
> > > >
> > > >
> https://osm.zz.de/dbview/?db=addresses-owl=namemismatch#51.98848,8.49342,18z
> > >
> > > In the case of Cheruskerstraße 107g it looks like by far the easiest
> > > way to solve it is for the router to take footways into account. Or I
> > > guess we could create a new tag for "motor vehicle stop location to
> > > get to a given address" to work around router shortcomings...?
> >
> > How can a router take footways into account when your mode of transport
> > is by car? Can it take ALL footways in the routing graph? Only some?
> > Which?
>
> I guess it could be only those footways that change which motor
> vehicle road is nearest to a given destination. That is, ignore most
> sidewalks.
>
> --
>
> I was thinking about this whole thing earlier. Caution, wall of text.
>
> At the risk of being philosophical, what is an address exactly?
>
> Our wiki doesn't specify which address we're talking about:
>
> 1. Where lettermail is delivered?
> 2. Where a package or a shipment of a given size is delivered?
> 3. Where a vehicle of a given type making the delivery would stop?
> 4. Where a pizza is delivered?
> 5. Where a vehicle of a given type making the pizza delivery would stop?
> 6. Where emergency responders go?
> 7. What a government says?
>
> In the specific case of Cheruskerstraße 107g in Bielefeld given above,
> I'm guessing (with some familiarity with German urban built form, but
> not the specific area): #2, #4, #6 are a front door of the building
> tagged with the address; #1 might be away from that front door; #3 and
> #5 are probably along Cheruskerstr. about 80 m away or maybe in the
> little parking lot near the intersection with Auf den Köppen; #7 is
> unknown - if that complex is a condominium or similar structure, 107g
> might not even exist as far as land registry is concerned.
>
> In some regions, land plots are identified by addresses (that is,
> owners are registered with a cadastral authority or a land registry as
> owning a piece of land identified as 123 Main Street). Given enough
> data with a suitable licence, we could have each land plot as a way
> and tag it with the address. These land plots might have zero, one, or
> more buildings on it. In some regions, some of these buildings are
> commonly identified as having the same address, some (like garages or
> sheds) usually not. The boundaries of the building are often more
> verifiable than the boundaries of the land plot, because they are more
> reliably seen on satellite imagery.
>
> In some regions, cadastral registries do not identify plots with
> addresses but with other schemes.
>
> In another definition, an address is somewhere where the local mail
> service (or sometimes competitive mail services) delivers lettermail.
> In some regions this is usually near a building, a mailbox attached to
> the building itself, or a mail slot in the building

Re: [Tagging] Rare route values route=inline_skates and route=running

2020-01-11 Thread Simon Poole

While the number is "low" some of them are quite long
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Switzerland/InlineNetwork

Simon

Am 11.01.2020 um 06:21 schrieb Joseph Eisenberg:
> The tag  route=inline_skates was added to Map features, but it has
> only been added a few times in the past 4 years.
>
> Are there actually signed, verifiable inline skate routes?
>
> Should a rare tag like this be in Map Features?
>
> Similar questions about route=running - are there real, signed running
> routes which are separate from walking or hiking routes?
>
> - Joseph Eisenberg
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Correct use of height with kerb

I do have a related question, regarding the kerb values lowered|raised on a
node.
Assume you find yourself on a pedestrian crossing across a road that has an
adjacent sidewalk and cycleway on the same side.
The main carriageway is separated from the (foot-only) sidewalk by a kerb
and that is separated from the cycleway by another kerb. The first kerb is
typically raised (as the tag refers to a kerb between the road and the
sideway, and the latter is always higher than the road), but the second
kerb (let's assume that the cycle path is physically higher than the
footway) is it kerb=raised (a step upward from the footwalk to the
cycleway) or is it kerb=lowered (a step down from the cycleway to the
sidewalk)? I have come across a number of these in the same context that
Ale mentioned. I fear my conclusion is that  the values "lowered" and
"raised" on a node "kerb" need to be accompanied by
direction=forward|backward (like stop and give-way, for example) with
respect to the "crossing" way. I don't like my conclusion, but it seems
inevitable.
(I hope I'm wrong on this last statement)

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 06:49, Alessandro Sarretta <
alessandro.sarre...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I'm doing some work cleaning the edits we've done around Padova for the
> local plan for the elimination of architectural barriers (some references
> here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3370704).
>
> The height of kerbs, in this context defined as the nodes at the
> intersection between sidewalks and crossings, is quite an important element
> for the evaluation of accessibility of sidewalks and crossings. I think the
> agreed tagging system is:
>
> kerb=yes/lowered/raised/flush + kerb:height=
>
> as described here
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:kerb#kerb:height.3D.3Cheight.3E.3Cunit.3E
>
> Around Padova I found some inconsistencies that I'm going to correct, but
> I see similar ones around the world and I'd like to ask you if you think
> they should be corrected, when found.
>
> Here the questions:
>
>- should the tag barrier=kerb be always avoided in these cases and
>deleted when found? (
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dkerb#Possible_Tagging_Mistakes
>)
>- is the tag height=* to be always changed into kerb:height=* ?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Ale
> ___
> 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] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

The problem with oneway=yes|no, if it were to apply to pedestrians as well,
would be on all mixed-use ways.
This would exclude highway=pedestrian as this tag excludes all vehicles by
definition (careful if it's an "area pedonale" in Italy, which allows
bicycles by default and hence requires a bicycle=yes in OSM-speak, but
that's beside the point).

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 10:20, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 9. Jan 2020, at 22:04, Dave F via Tagging 
> wrote:
> >
> >> oneway=yes|no needs indeed be applicable to vehicles only,
> >
> > That tag on footways would apply only to walkers.
>
>
> well, unless someone adds bicycle=yes in which case it would change and
> only apply to bicycles?
> What about highway=pedestrian?
>
> 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] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

sent from a phone

> On 11. Jan 2020, at 08:07, Jake Edmonds via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> Is the different between recycling and reusing important for the average 
> consumer who a) wants to claim their deposit and b)  doesn’t want to put the 
> item into landfill? 

first of all it is indicating the (rough) typology of container that is 
accepted, secondly it would seem strange to tag something “recycling” when it’s 
actually much more beneficial for the environment because of reuse.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?



sent from a phone

> On 9. Jan 2020, at 22:04, Dave F via Tagging  
> wrote:
> 
>> oneway=yes|no needs indeed be applicable to vehicles only,
> 
> That tag on footways would apply only to walkers.


well, unless someone adds bicycle=yes in which case it would change and only 
apply to bicycles?
What about highway=pedestrian?

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

Re: [Tagging] Rare route values route=inline_skates and route=running