Re: [Tagging] nhd tags - documentation page review

[Warin]

Try
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/3382975

~ 10 years ago.

On 15/6/20 7:52 am, Jo wrote:
If you enabled expert mode, you can download from Overpass directly 
into JOSM.


Polyglot

On Sun, Jun 14, 2020, 23:29 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:





Jun 14, 2020, 22:55 by vosc...@gmail.com :

Is it not possible to get people who were involved in the
original import to check these.things?

Good idea, any idea how to identify accounts that added this tags
into OSM?

Standard way to to this failed - loading all objects tagged with
this in Overpass Turbo
would fail - 600 MB of data would crash browser.

Next idea is to hunt for various download areas across USA, but I
hope for a better method.

without knowing what information these codes carry ore once
carried,

That is why I created pages documenting what kind of info is
stored in imported tags
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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



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

Re: [Tagging] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Warin]

On 14/6/20 10:59 pm, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote:

Martin Koppenhoefer:

==
Warin, can you give an example for something historic that is not
there any more in reality and should be removed from OpenStreetMap?
Through all the years I have never encountered anything like this
mapped in OpenStreetMap.



Repeating my previous post - just so it can be seen that I replied.

Way: former Buninyong line (802945258)



Way: Buninyong Line (802945251)



Way: Ballarat - Buninyong line (168429101)





Note I put these in OHM ~2 years ago.


==

I have deleted some powerlines tagged
as removed.


Typically because they have been removed and replaced with
underground lines, which are correctly mapped.

I might take a year before traces of the poles are completely gone as
farmes plow over the spots and put new crops there.

But lines in the air will be removed without a trace.

And of course highways are changed all the time.
When a 4-way intersection is replaced with a roundabout we de not keep
the four pieces of the road inside the roundabout tagged as razed. We
have the history for that.

___
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] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Warin]

On 15/6/20 1:09 am, Volker Schmidt wrote:
Regarding power lines: it is helpful mapping razed power lines as 
razed and not removing them completely, because in many cases some of 
the satellite pictures still show the towers, or at least the concrete 
foundations. This way you avd resurrection.



Where it no longer exits on satellite imagery?


I think that can be removed with out fear of someone restoring it from 
imagery available to OSM editors.




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

Re: [Tagging] Charging stations

[Warin]

On 15/6/20 1:37 am, patata wrote:

Currently socket:type1 and socket:type2 are not clarifying if the
station has a cable or we must bring our own.
Since the connector is not necessarily a socket,


Agreed.


it is being discussed
on our telegram group https://t.me/openchargemap to change all sockets
into connector. Only add socket or cable where it needs to be
differentiated.

Examples :
connector:type1:socket
connector:type2:cable
connector:ccs
connector:chademo


Where a cable exists (is present) then why not tag :

cable=yes/no/ length (in metres)  ???

Cables would be wired in to prevent theft?

On one one OSM entry there should be one connector with any required cable tag 
(and voltage/amperage etc)?

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

Re: [Tagging] nhd tags - documentation page review

[Kevin Kenny]

On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 4:21 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
 wrote:
> I created
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:nhd:fcode
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:nhd:ftype
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:nhd:reach_code
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:nhd:com_id
> about tags added in imports.

I agree with you  about fcode and ftype. My only caveat is that I'd
have to find my old notes; I seem to recall a couple of cases where
there were distinct fcode/ftype for some water feature or other, that
OSM tagging failed to distinguish. (The solution to that is to extend
the tagging and *make* these keys superfluous!)

Reach_code is useful.  It is a _stable_ identifier - the schema
specifies that reach code will not ordinarily change (unlike many
numeric primary keys in databases!). It not only identifies a
particular waterway, but also gives its primary drainage path; the
reachcode of a third-order stream will have that of the second-order
stream as a prefix, and the reachcode of the second-order stream will
be that of the first-order river.

(There are exceptions where, owing to the fixed length of the fields,
an enormous river needs to be divided into two or more parts, but the
principle is there, at least.)

Com_id is somewhat peculiar and I've hardly seen it as a foreign key
in databases other than NHD. I don't much care about it.

So, of the four, reach_code is the only one that I'll raise a stink
about. With that said, extraneous data in OSM are Mostly Harmless.
Deleting unneccessary (as opposed to incorrect) data is never
something that I'd demand.  (It would be good to request that any
further import from NHD - which would have to be done with careful
conflation - refrain from including the FCode and FType.)

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Tagging] nhd tags - documentation page review

[Jo]

If you enabled expert mode, you can download from Overpass directly into
JOSM.

Polyglot

On Sun, Jun 14, 2020, 23:29 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> Jun 14, 2020, 22:55 by vosc...@gmail.com:
>
> Is it not possible to get people who were involved in the original import
> to check these.things?
>
> Good idea, any idea how to identify accounts that added this tags into OSM?
>
> Standard way to to this failed - loading all objects tagged with this in
> Overpass Turbo
> would fail - 600 MB of data would crash browser.
>
> Next idea is to hunt for various download areas across USA, but I hope for
> a better method.
>
> without knowing what information these codes carry ore once carried,
>
> That is why I created pages documenting what kind of info is stored in
> imported tags
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] nhd tags - documentation page review

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Jun 14, 2020, 22:55 by vosc...@gmail.com:

> Is it not possible to get people who were involved in the original import to 
> check these.things?
>
Good idea, any idea how to identify accounts that added this tags into OSM?

Standard way to to this failed - loading all objects tagged with this in 
Overpass Turbo
would fail - 600 MB of data would crash browser.

Next idea is to hunt for various download areas across USA, but I hope for a 
better method.

> without knowing what information these codes carry ore once carried,
>
That is why I created pages documenting what kind of info is stored in imported 
tags
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] nhd tags - documentation page review

[Volker Schmidt]

Is it not possible to get people who were involved in the original import
to check these.things?
I would be wary to remove such things remotely and without knowing what
information these codes carry ore once carried,

I had a look at our imported waterways in Italy (which have mainly two
problems: imprecise geometry, and age, but the imported codes make sense,
and help checking flow directions (which seems to be similar to the reach
parameter in the US imports)


On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 22:21, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> I created
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:nhd:fcode
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:nhd:ftype
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:nhd:reach_code
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:nhd:com_id
> about tags added in imports.
>
> Review is welcomed, especially the first two where I described tags
> with over 250 000 uses as pointless and unwanted.
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] nhd tags - documentation page review

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

I created 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:nhd:fcode
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:nhd:ftype
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:nhd:reach_code
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:nhd:com_id 
about tags added in imports. 

Review is welcomed, especially the first two where I described tags 
with over 250 000 uses as pointless and unwanted.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bicycle_parking=? for stands where handlebar is used to hold bicycle in position

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Jun 14, 2020, 20:51 by lukas.toggenbur...@fhgr.ch:

> Do we need additional steps to make this value "official"?
>
You can go through a https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process
but it is unlikely to add anything.

You can try asking for support in editors (JOSM presets etc), but not sure how 
necessary
it is. Is it popular and significantly undertagged in some regions or is it 
rare and exotic type?

>  I would like to propose it as an additional option in StreetComplete ( > 
> https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete>  ) but don't want to do it 
> prematurely.
>
It appears to be extremely rare (based on number of tags so far), so it is 
likely that
answer will be "for rare situations the can't say option that will leave a 
freeform note is available"

See also https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/issues/1202
https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/issues/1038 that are related.

See also initial discussion in 
https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/pull/923

Note: I am not a maintainer of StreetComplete - but I would encourage looking
through what I linked before creating a new issue
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail (Garry Keenor)

[Garry Keenor]

Just to let you all know that I have changed the proposal to incorporate
the feedback to leave electrified=rail in place for 3rd rail.

best regards,

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail (Michael Reichert)

[Garry Keenor]

I think it is fairly unlikely that any more 4th rail will be built, and
certainly not converted. It is a system which makes it difficult to detect
earth faults, as well as making the design of junctions more complex. Not
impossible though.

best regards,

Garry


On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 12:22, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 at 17:50, Garry Keenor  wrote:
>
>> Paul - thanks for the response. I struggle with the idea that someone
>> would know that a route is electrified with a ground level contact system,
>> but not how many rails there are. The possible sources are a) local
>> knowledge,
>>
>
> Or local-ish knowledge.  On-line newspaper article saying the line has
> been electrified (I'm local to me, and I know how to use the internet; the
> newspaper is local to the line).
>
> b) wikipedia
>>
>
> Never trust wikiepedia. :)
>
> and c) aerial imagery.
>>
>
> Sometimes aerial imagery is crappy.  Good enough to see that there are
> no gantries for carrying an overhead line but not good enough to count
> rails. Unlikely, particularly on a long line, but possible.
>
>
>> All of these will, 9 times out of 10, define the system. Also, there are
>> only 2 networks that I can identify worldwide that are 4th rail, and I've
>> tagged them both already. :-)
>>
>
> So when 8 more networks are converted to 4th rail, there's a risk that one
> of
> them (using your figures) can't be pinned down. :)
>
> I assume that more networks will be converted over time, or new ones will
> be built as 4th rail.  Or will they?
>
> --
> 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] bicycle_parking=? for stands where handlebar is used to hold bicycle in position

[Toggenburger Lukas]

Thank you Hidde!

I've added a german translation of your text at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:DE:Bicycle_parking

I did a small crosscheck: At 
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/L0mLQtnwvDlEfB0tHlzeAQ I've found a picture of 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/697927260 that was tagged with 
bicycle_parking=handlebar_holder about a year ago. That seems to add up.

Do we need additional steps to make this value "official"? I would like to 
propose it as an additional option in StreetComplete ( 
https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete ) but don't want to do it 
prematurely.




Von: Hidde Wieringa 
Gesendet: Sonntag, 14. Juni 2020 17:01
An: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] bicycle_parking=? for stands where handlebar is used to 
hold bicycle in position

The table with value in the bicycle_parking wiki has been updated with this new 
value handlebar_holder.

The photo has been uploaded to WikiMedia Commons (CC0).

Kind regards,
Hidde Wieringa


On 13-06-2020 23:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
Can you take your own photo of such bicycle parking and upload it to Wikimedia 
Commons ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page )?

Given that it is a clearly distinct bicycle parking type it would be nice to 
add it to the list on Wiki.

Jun 13, 2020, 21:56 by hi...@hiddewieringa.nl:

Hello,

The wiki for bicycle_parking suggests that additional values may be used. When 
I look in the TagInfo for the key 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/bicycle_parking, then I find 
bicycle_parking=handlebar_holder which seems to fit your description/photo.

See some example locations here: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/V2l

For completeness, these methods of parking your bicycle also exist in The 
Netherlands.

Kind regards,
Hidde Wieringa


On 13-06-2020 21:47, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
It probably needs a new value, maybe one
not yet documented on that page.

Looks like equivalent of bicycle_parking=ground_slots
(0 security, but designated place to leave bicycle)
but is something different.


Jun 13, 2020, 20:52 by 
lukas.toggenbur...@fhgr.ch:
Hi all

The kind of bicycle stand you can see in the attached picture is present every 
then and when in Switzerland and possibly in other parts of the world as well.

How would you tag this? None of the values described at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle_parking seem to fit well.

Best regards

Lukas



___
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] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Jun 14, 2020, 18:46 by elga...@agol.dk:

> On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 15:20:56 +0100
> Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
> >That is where the was: lifecycle prefix and notes are useful: to
> >prevent armchair mappers resurrecting something from imagery on the
> >internet.
>
> Yes. And I would not delete, e.g., power lines that are visible
> on aerials.
> Also because I would not be sure that were really removed and not just
> unused.
>
In case that I map from aerial I would not delete no longer existing but 
visible on aerial
because I would be aware about that.

In case that I map from survey I can see whatever power line exists
and I will retag it (for temporary period, until aerials update) wth lifecycle
prefix. In this case there is no chance to be confused between "removed"
and "just unused".

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

Re: [Tagging] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Niels Elgaard Larsen]

On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 13:12:49 -0400
Kevin Kenny  wrote:


>What do you mean by 'just unused?'


Waiting to be demolished.

>If I'm in the field, looking at the alleged powerline, and finding
>nothing, why would I not simply make them go away (with a lifecycle
>prefix to protect against someone else tracing from obsolete aerials)?

Yes of course. But I usually do not do that. They seldom follow roads
here and farmers do like that you walk through their crops to check for
missing power lines.

And the power lines and poles/towers are easy to spot on the aerials. 

> I see no poles, no wires, no markers warning people not to dig. If
>there's still a cutline visible, I might tag `man_made=cutline`.
>Otherwise, the power company might own the right-of-way, but we
>ordinarily don't map that sort of cadastre.
>


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

Re: [Tagging] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Kevin Kenny]

On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 12:47 PM Niels Elgaard Larsen  wrote:
> Yes. And I would not delete, e.g., power lines that are visible
> on aerials.
> Also because I would not be sure that were really removed and not just
> unused.

I'd add a lifecycle prefix to make sure that someone else looking at
the aerials doesn't put them back.

What do you mean by 'just unused?'

If I'm in the field, looking at the alleged powerline, and finding
nothing, why would I not simply make them go away (with a lifecycle
prefix to protect against someone else tracing from obsolete aerials)?
 I see no poles, no wires, no markers warning people not to dig. If
there's still a cutline visible, I might tag `man_made=cutline`.
Otherwise, the power company might own the right-of-way, but we
ordinarily don't map that sort of cadastre.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Tagging] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Niels Elgaard Larsen]

On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 15:20:56 +0100
Paul Allen  wrote:


>
>That is where the was: lifecycle prefix and notes are useful: to
>prevent armchair mappers resurrecting something from imagery on the
>internet.

Yes. And I would not delete, e.g., power lines that are visible
on aerials.
Also because I would not be sure that were really removed and not just
unused.


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

Re: [Tagging] bicycle_parking=? for stands where handlebar is used to hold bicycle in position

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Thank you!

Jun 14, 2020, 17:01 by hi...@hiddewieringa.nl:

>
> The table with value in the bicycle_parking wiki has been updated  with 
> this new value handlebar_holder. 
>
>
> The photo has been uploaded to WikiMedia Commons (CC0).
>
>
> Kind regards,
>  Hidde Wieringa
>
>
>
> On 13-06-2020 23:22, Mateusz Konieczny  via Tagging wrote:
>
>> Can you take your own photo of such bicycle parking andupload it to 
>> Wikimedia Commons ( >> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page>>  )?
>>
>> Given that it is a clearly distinct bicycle parking type itwould be 
>> nice to add it to the list on Wiki.
>>
>> Jun 13, 2020, 21:56 by >> hi...@hiddewieringa.nl>> :
>>
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>>
>>> The wiki for bicycle_parking suggests that additional values  may 
>>> be used. When I look in the TagInfo for the key >>> 
>>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/bicycle_parking>>> ,  then I 
>>> find bicycle_parking=handlebar_holder which seems to  fit your 
>>> description/photo.
>>>
>>>
>>> See some example locations here: >>> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/V2l
>>>
>>>
>>> For completeness, these methods of parking your bicycle also  exist 
>>> in The Netherlands.
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>  Hidde Wieringa
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13-06-2020 21:47, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging  wrote:
>>>
 It probably needs a new value, maybe one
 not yet documented on that page.

 Looks like equivalent of bicycle_parking=ground_slots
 (0 security, but designated place to leave bicycle) 
 but is something different.


 Jun 13, 2020, 20:52 by  lukas.toggenbur...@fhgr.ch :

> Hi all
>
> The kind of bicycle stand you can see in the attached  
> picture is present every then and when in Switzerland and  
> possibly in other parts of the world as well.
>
> How would you tag this? None of the values described at > 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle_parking>  seem to fit 
> well.
>
> Best regards
>
> Lukas
>


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

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

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

[Tagging] Charging stations

[patata]

Currently socket:type1 and socket:type2 are not clarifying if the
station has a cable or we must bring our own.
Since the connector is not necessarily a socket, it is being discussed
on our telegram group https://t.me/openchargemap to change all sockets
into connector. Only add socket or cable where it needs to be
differentiated.

Examples :
connector:type1:socket
connector:type2:cable
connector:ccs
connector:chademo


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

Re: [Tagging] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Volker Schmidt]

Regarding power lines: it is helpful mapping razed power lines as razed and
not removing them completely, because in many cases some of the satellite
pictures still show the towers, or at least the concrete foundations. This
way you avd resurrection.
The same argument applies to other objects as well. Just on ecìxample which
thought me to be careful
Some years back, I had noticed a missing motorway access road and toll
station from different satellite photos. I had used the same motorway exit
about a year earlier. Another user complained, pointing out that that
section had been closed, and he had removed all traces from OSM. Had he
left them as disused or abandoned, I wouldn't have fallen into that trap.
And in effect large parts of the roadways and nearly all related buildings
are still there, but unused or with changed use.


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 16:22, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 14:59, Niels Elgaard Larsen 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Some stores are tagges as vacant or disused.
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3405891059
>>
>> Which makes some sense if there still is a physical separate store.
>> And it could be useful, e.g. for someone wanting to lease it.
>> But this one should not have the name.
>> And it is not really a shop. I think it should somehow be tagged as
>> retail space for lease.
>> Because maybe it will be leased by a dentist or an accountant.
>>
>
> That is where the was: lifecycle prefix and notes are useful: to prevent
> armchair mappers resurrecting something from imagery on the internet.
> I've encountered several images on Wikimedia and Geograph of buildings
> that no longer serve the purpose shown in the image.  But images aren't
> always dated (or not dated correctly) so it may not be possible to
> determine if the edit showing the object to be Fred's Shop pre-
> or post-dates the image showing it to be a cafe.
>
> --
> 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] bicycle_parking=? for stands where handlebar is used to hold bicycle in position

[Hidde Wieringa]

The table with value in the bicycle_parking wiki has been updated with 
this new value handlebar_holder.


The photo has been uploaded to WikiMedia Commons (CC0).

Kind regards,/
Hidde Wieringa/

/
/

On 13-06-2020 23:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
Can you take your own photo of such bicycle parking and upload it to 
Wikimedia Commons ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page )?


Given that it is a clearly distinct bicycle parking type it would be 
nice to add it to the list on Wiki.


Jun 13, 2020, 21:56 by hi...@hiddewieringa.nl:

Hello,

The wiki for bicycle_parking suggests that additional values may
be used. When I look in the TagInfo for the key
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/bicycle_parking, then I
find bicycle_parking=handlebar_holder which seems to fit your
description/photo.

See some example locations here: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/V2l

For completeness, these methods of parking your bicycle also exist
in The Netherlands.

Kind regards,/
Hidde Wieringa/


On 13-06-2020 21:47, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:

It probably needs a new value, maybe one
not yet documented on that page.

Looks like equivalent of bicycle_parking=ground_slots
(0 security, but designated place to leave bicycle)
but is something different.


Jun 13, 2020, 20:52 by lukas.toggenbur...@fhgr.ch
:

Hi all

The kind of bicycle stand you can see in the attached picture
is present every then and when in Switzerland and possibly in
other parts of the world as well.

How would you tag this? None of the values described at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle_parking seem
to fit well.

Best regards

Lukas



___
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] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 14:59, Niels Elgaard Larsen  wrote:

>
> Some stores are tagges as vacant or disused.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3405891059
>
> Which makes some sense if there still is a physical separate store.
> And it could be useful, e.g. for someone wanting to lease it.
> But this one should not have the name.
> And it is not really a shop. I think it should somehow be tagged as
> retail space for lease.
> Because maybe it will be leased by a dentist or an accountant.
>

That is where the was: lifecycle prefix and notes are useful: to prevent
armchair mappers resurrecting something from imagery on the internet.
I've encountered several images on Wikimedia and Geograph of buildings
that no longer serve the purpose shown in the image.  But images aren't
always dated (or not dated correctly) so it may not be possible to
determine if the edit showing the object to be Fred's Shop pre-
or post-dates the image showing it to be a cafe.

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

[Tagging] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Niels Elgaard Larsen]

Martin Koppenhoefer:

==
there aren't only written/drawn sources by the way. Oral tradition can
also be relevant. Your grandpa told your dad and your dad told you, why
not?
==

That is what the history is for.

Also it does not scale to more than one change.

The road where I live have been changed many times. Part of it just got
replaced with a cycleway. 

Certainly there are oral tradition and tales about shops and
restaurants. Even without a grandpa. I know places that have had 5+
different shops and restaurants. But do we really want to keep many
objects representing different restaurants at the same place, when we
already have 

Some stores are tagges as vacant or disused.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3405891059

Which makes some sense if there still is a physical separate store.
And it could be useful, e.g. for someone wanting to lease it.
But this one should not have the name.
And it is not really a shop. I think it should somehow be tagged as
retail space for lease. 
Because maybe it will be leased by a dentist or an accountant.



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

Re: [Tagging] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Niels Elgaard Larsen]

On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 14:09:10 +0100
Paul Allen  wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 14:02, Niels Elgaard Larsen 
>wrote:
>
>>
>> I have deleted some powerlines tagged
>> as removed.
>>  
>
>Are they still visible in any of the aerial imagery available to
>mappers? If
>so, deleting those power lines tagged as removed may lead to their
>resurrection.


No. 
At least not in any of major aerials.


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

Re: [Tagging] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 14:02, Niels Elgaard Larsen  wrote:

>
> I have deleted some powerlines tagged
> as removed.
>

Are they still visible in any of the aerial imagery available to mappers?
If
so, deleting those power lines tagged as removed may lead to their
resurrection.

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

[Tagging] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Niels Elgaard Larsen]

Martin Koppenhoefer:

==
Warin, can you give an example for something historic that is not
there any more in reality and should be removed from OpenStreetMap?
Through all the years I have never encountered anything like this
mapped in OpenStreetMap.
==

I have deleted some powerlines tagged
as removed.


Typically because they have been removed and replaced with
underground lines, which are correctly mapped.

I might take a year before traces of the poles are completely gone as
farmes plow over the spots and put new crops there.

But lines in the air will be removed without a trace.

And of course highways are changed all the time.
When a 4-way intersection is replaced with a roundabout we de not keep
the four pieces of the road inside the roundabout tagged as razed. We
have the history for that.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail (Michael Reichert)

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 at 17:50, Garry Keenor  wrote:

> Paul - thanks for the response. I struggle with the idea that someone
> would know that a route is electrified with a ground level contact system,
> but not how many rails there are. The possible sources are a) local
> knowledge,
>

Or local-ish knowledge.  On-line newspaper article saying the line has
been electrified (I'm local to me, and I know how to use the internet; the
newspaper is local to the line).

b) wikipedia
>

Never trust wikiepedia. :)

and c) aerial imagery.
>

Sometimes aerial imagery is crappy.  Good enough to see that there are
no gantries for carrying an overhead line but not good enough to count
rails. Unlikely, particularly on a long line, but possible.


> All of these will, 9 times out of 10, define the system. Also, there are
> only 2 networks that I can identify worldwide that are 4th rail, and I've
> tagged them both already. :-)
>

So when 8 more networks are converted to 4th rail, there's a risk that one
of
them (using your figures) can't be pinned down. :)

I assume that more networks will be converted over time, or new ones will
be built as 4th rail.  Or will they?

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