Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

[Peter Elderson]

I think the proposal is not ready for use or for voting, but there does not
seem to be much progress.


The basics are clear enough I think.

Though I myself would have made things even simpler (e.g. not bother with
functions like approach or excursion, but simply use alternative and branch
as roles), I am toying with the idea to move forward and start adding the
roles:

alternative, approach and excursion for wellknown hiking routes in
Nederland, next time I do a regular consistency check on the lot. No
role=main, It’s up to me to ensure that one main route is present when alle
the special roles are filtered out.

I would not use forward and backward roles as these conflict with how they
are used in cycling routes. I prefer all recreational routes to use the
same (or at least compatible) tagging scheme. Same with all the other
suggested refinements and niceties involving access, direction, starting
points, POI’s and what have you: I see too many complications.

I would use the roles on relation type members, not on way members. This
way the maintenance burden is low. Most hiking routes in Nederland have
been sectioned and alternatives/branches already are separate relations.

This basic role tagging would not conflict with current usage, and it would
not affect current non-role renderings. It would be useful for rendering
alternatives and branches differently e.g. dashed or dotted.

Worst case, nobody follows and I wil lose a few hours of work. Best case,
some renderers might think “hey, that’s neat!” and start using the roles.
Middle case, renderers test it and give useful feedback for a better
proposal. If this proposal would lead to different roles, I could simply
alter the roles in the course of regular route maintenance.

Peter Elderson


Op vr 28 feb. 2020 om 18:07 schreef Peter Elderson :

> +1 for stating more clearly What to map and What NOT to map.
>
> The first goal of the proposal, I think, is to separate the main (linear
> or circular) route from the extras, for display and some data use (e.g.
> export, length calculation and elevation profile).
> Then render the extras as dashed route lines or something, but exclude
> those from calculations and main export.
>
> Best, Peter Elderson
>
>
> Op vr 28 feb. 2020 om 12:29 schreef Andrew Harvey <
> andrew.harv...@gmail.com>:
>
>> I agree with Peter, it'll probably be better to start with the basics,
>> get that approved so at least there is some improvement, then move forward
>> with the more complicated parts of the proposal.
>>
>> In terms of the role names proposed I noticed that it is a very similar
>> to a schema I came up with for creating hiking routes from OSM data,
>> https://gitlab.com/beyondtracks/beyondtracks-walks#ways. I have
>> role=primary (main), sidetrack (excursion), altroute (alternate),
>> transit_connection (approach) and find this covers most of what you need to
>> represent.
>>
>> Though I think the proposal needs more emphasis that these should only be
>> mapped if these alternate routes,excursions or approaches are verifiable on
>> the ground through signage, otherwise it's subjective based on opinion. It
>> already says "Only add secondary trails to the relation that are really
>> part of the trail route, not made up or other trail routes." but I think it
>> needs to be clearer.
>>
>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 21:07, s8evq  wrote:
>>
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>> What is the status of this proposal? Should we go forward and start
>>> voting?
>>> Lots of people have added valuable information and insight. It would be
>>> a pity if this proposal yet again stays in "Draft" status for forever.
>>>
>>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 10:15:31 +, Michael Behrens <
>>> mfbehren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hiking_trail_relation_roles
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > There is no unique way to tag roles in hiking route relations although
>>> they
>>> > carry a high potential for the rendering of hiking trails. This
>>> proposal
>>> > was requsted by Sarah Hoffmann on the FOSSGIS conference. A only
>>> officially
>>> > marked trails should be added to the relations!
>>> >
>>> > Role nameExplaination
>>> > *None* or main The main "normal" roletype for the main section of the
>>> > hiking trails.
>>> > forward Section of the hiking trail that can only be hiked into the
>>> > direction of the way.
>>> > backward Section of the hiking trail that can only be hiked against the
>>> > direction of the way.
>>> > alternative or alternate Tags the members of an alternative path to
>>> *main*
>>> >  path.
>>> > excursion Can be used on parts of the trail that leads to a viewpoint,
>>> peak
>>> > or other. The path has to be hiked back again or else it will be a
>>> > *alternative*.
>>> > approach A path that is leading from a town, train station / bus
>>> station or
>>> > parking to main hiking trail or the other way around.
>>> > shortcut A trail that shortens the main trail.
>>> >
>>> > Please write 

Re: [Tagging] How to map an OpenStreetMap map?

[Warin]

On 1/3/20 8:50 am, Andrew Harvey wrote:
But those uses are mostly the source the mapper used to find out about 
the tag they are adding, which is different to the source of the map.


source:map=survey means I got the map=* key from a survey.

So if you use map:source=openstreetmap then source:map:source=survey 
says I found it as being a map using openstreetmap data from a ground 
survey.



Arr .. yep, convoluted but yes.



On Sun, 1 Mar 2020 at 08:42, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


On 1/3/20 8:31 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone


On 29. Feb 2020, at 22:25, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
 wrote:


`map_source=openstreetmap` is a good tag?

Yes, though I think that posting
the same thread to tagging and talk ml
is a poor idea.



I think source_map=* or source:map=* would be better as that can
also be used for other specific 'sources'.



I would prefer map:source, the tag is information=map so it seems
more consistent to further describe the map with map:*=* tags



Yet the source key is still relevant.


See

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

For

source:name  ~ 120,000 uses

source:ref ~182,000 uses

source:addr  ~7,880,000 uses



It would be nice to have some consistency with the use of the
source key?

___
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] How to map an OpenStreetMap map?

[Andrew Harvey]

But those uses are mostly the source the mapper used to find out about the
tag they are adding, which is different to the source of the map.

source:map=survey means I got the map=* key from a survey.

So if you use map:source=openstreetmap then source:map:source=survey says I
found it as being a map using openstreetmap data from a ground survey.

On Sun, 1 Mar 2020 at 08:42, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1/3/20 8:31 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 29. Feb 2020, at 22:25, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
> <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> `map_source=openstreetmap` is a good tag?
>
> Yes, though I think that posting
> the same thread to tagging and talk ml
> is a poor idea.
>
>
> I think source_map=* or source:map=* would be better as that can also be
> used for other specific 'sources'.
>
>
> I would prefer map:source, the tag is information=map so it seems more
> consistent to further describe the map with map:*=* tags
>
>
> Yet the source key is still relevant.
>
>
> See
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source
>
> For
>
> source:name  ~ 120,000 uses
>
> source:ref ~182,000 uses
>
> source:addr  ~7,880,000 uses
>
>
>
> It would be nice to have some consistency with the use of the source key?
> ___
> 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 map an OpenStreetMap map?

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 at 16:41, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/3/20 8:31 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> On 29. Feb 2020, at 22:25, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think source_map=* or source:map=* would be better as that can also be 
>>> used for other specific 'sources'.
>
>> I would prefer map:source, the tag is information=map so it seems more 
>> consistent to further describe the map with map:*=* tags
>
> Yet the source key is still relevant.
> ...
> source:name  ~ 120,000 uses
> source:ref ~182,000 uses
> source:addr  ~7,880,000 uses

In my understanding, source:name refers to the source of the *value*
being entered in OSM, not the source of the name itself. That is, for
name="Wood Road" and source:name=survey, I went there and saw that the
name is posted as Wood Road. We wouldn't add source:name="there is a
wood nearby". Same for source:ref, source:addr.

By the same scheme, source:map=* would specify the source of the value
of the map tag is OSM, but that isn't what we're looking to specify -
we're looking to specify a property of the object itself (the source
of the information of the map object being entered into OSM database).
The object is a map, thus potential tags include for example
map:size=*, map:braille=*, map:coverage=*, map:resolution=*, or in
this case map:source=*.

Compare etymology:name=* vs name:etymology=*.

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] How to map an OpenStreetMap map?

[Warin]

On 1/3/20 8:31 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone


On 29. Feb 2020, at 22:25, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:


`map_source=openstreetmap` is a good tag?

Yes, though I think that posting
the same thread to tagging and talk ml
is a poor idea.



I think source_map=* or source:map=* would be better as that can also 
be used for other specific 'sources'.




I would prefer map:source, the tag is information=map so it seems more 
consistent to further describe the map with map:*=* tags



Yet the source key is still relevant.


See

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

For

source:name  ~ 120,000 uses

source:ref ~182,000 uses

source:addr  ~7,880,000 uses



It would be nice to have some consistency with the use of the source key?

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

Re: [Tagging] How to map an OpenStreetMap map?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 29. Feb 2020, at 22:25, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> `map_source=openstreetmap` is a good tag?
>> Yes, though I think that posting
>> the same thread to tagging and talk ml
>> is a poor idea.
> 
> I think source_map=* or source:map=* would be better as that can also be used 
> for other specific 'sources'.
> 

I would prefer map:source, the tag is information=map so it seems more 
consistent to further describe the map with map:*=* tags

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

Re: [Tagging] How to map an OpenStreetMap map?

[Warin]

On 29/2/20 11:30 pm, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:




29 Feb 2020, 11:58 by r...@technomancy.org:

 Do yous think `map_source=openstreetmap` is a good tag?

Yes, though I think that posting
the same thread to tagging and talk ml
is a poor idea.



I think source_map=* or source:map=* would be better as that can also be 
used for other specific 'sources'.



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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping pumps

[François Lacombe]

Thank you all for answers

Let's go for man_made=pump

There are indeed many sorts of pumps and they would require a bunch of tags
to be described.
We'll see that point in a formal proposal

All the best

François

Le sam. 29 févr. 2020 à 13:36, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> a écrit :

>
>
>
> 28 Feb 2020, 23:51 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com:
>
> Hi all,
>
> One simple question : according to you, what is the most suitable key to
> use to map pumps?
> A device intended to raise pressure level of any fluid.
>
> Depends on a pump.
>
> Some are not mappable (pump in small
> private aquarium, thousands of pumps
> in a factory/refinery).
>
> Some are part of mapped objects
> (pumpjacks).
>
> And there are many remaining -
> though mapping pumps pumping
> - sewage
> - water as part of water supply
> - water as part of irrigation
> - water as part of power storage
> - oil in petrol stations
> - oil in pipelines
> - ? in pipelines
> - ? in ?
>
> Are unlikely to be benefiting from
> tagging as a single tag.
> ___
> 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] Mapping pumps

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

28 Feb 2020, 23:51 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com:

> Hi all,
>
> One simple question : according to you, what is the most suitable key to use 
> to map pumps?
> A device intended to raise pressure level of any fluid.
>
Depends on a pump.

Some are not mappable (pump in small
private aquarium, thousands of pumps
in a factory/refinery).

Some are part of mapped objects
(pumpjacks).

And there are many remaining -
though mapping pumps pumping
- sewage
- water as part of water supply
- water as part of irrigation
- water as part of power storage
- oil in petrol stations
- oil in pipelines
- ? in pipelines
- ? in ?

Are unlikely to be benefiting from
tagging as a single tag.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to map an OpenStreetMap map?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

29 Feb 2020, 11:58 by r...@technomancy.org:

>  Do yous think `map_source=openstreetmap` is a good tag?
>
Yes, though I think that posting
the same thread to tagging and talk ml
is a poor idea.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] How to map an OpenStreetMap map?

[Rory McCann]

In OSM, large map boards can be mapped as 
`tourist=information,information=map`. OSM is 
pretty good quality, so now some of these maps are based on OSM data.

Is there anyway to record this in OSM?

IMO, you don't need a reason to map something, but one benefit is to help 
people promote OSM. If someone thinks you have a weird hobby with this map 
thing, and you bring them to big map showing our map, then that's pretty cool. 

The `map_type` and `map_size` tags are used on these sort of maps. Do yous 
think `map_source=openstreetmap` is a good tag?
The long standing OSM convention of semicolons can be used if there's more than 
one source. 
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Public refrigerators

[Markus Peloso]

I find amenity=give_box is different from amenity=food_sharing as a 
shop=general is different from shop=supermarket.

In Switzerland if I go into a supermarket I found products of daily hygiene but 
the main thing is about shopping for food.

The main thing by a give box is about sharing items. In the description I 
explicit excluded amenity=give_box + food=only because if you go to e give box 
you expect some items like clothes, small appliances, dishes, toys.

--

Does a free pantry have some social aspect? Like given food to underprivileged 
or homless people 
social_facility:for=underprivileged,
 
social_facility:for=homeless,
 …

Based on the description on this website http://www.littlefreepantry.org/ I 
think the main thing is about sharing food and it is some kind of social 
service.

Markus

Von: Jmapb
Gesendet: Samstag, 29. Februar 2020 06:34
An: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Public refrigerators

On 2/26/2020 4:32 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> On 26. Feb 2020, at 08:56, Markus Peloso  wrote:
>>
>> The amenity=give_box tag is specific for sharing and reusing none food 
>> items. Please do not use it for food sharing
>
> +1, although these are somehow similar features from a certain point of view, 
> they are also significantly different features from another point of view. I 
> am in favor of keeping a distinction on the main tag level.

The give_box proposal specifically said that food sharing was *not* to
be included in the give_box schema.

I voted for that, but since then, with the proposal stalled, I ran into
what I'd called a give box for "packaged food & personal care items."
It's labeled "free pantry" but it's not just for food.
https://i.imgur.com/UzhuIBo.jpg (Non-refrigerated, obviously. There were
actually cans of food in here but not visible in this shot.)

Also hiker boxes -- which were explicitly part of the give_box proposal
-- often have food as well as clothing, gear, books, maps, and fuel. So
maybe the prohibition of food in give_box isn't ideal.

Regardless, though, I don't think a public refrigerator should be a
subtag of give_box -- it's too distinct. I think
amenity=public_refrigerator makes sense. Using amenity=social_facility
plus a subtag would also be fine I guess.

Jason


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

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