[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (DEPRECATED building=funeral hall)

[wolle68]

Dear list,

Please comment on the following proposal:

Tagging: building=funeral_hall
Definition: DEPRECATED, use building=yes combined with 
amenity=funeral_hall instead


(This is an offshoot from my recent proposal for amenity=funeral_hall, 
due to comments made there.)


Proposal page: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/DEPRECATED_building%3Dfuneral_hall
Discussion page: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/DEPRECATED_building%3Dfuneral_hall


Thanks!

Vollis

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

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

[Tod Fitch]

> On Sep 17, 2020, at 9:30 AM, Matthew Woehlke  wrote:
> 
> On 17/09/2020 10.07, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
>> On 9/17/20 08:15, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>>> It's also atrocious because it can *only* be verified by survey. As
>>> much as we prefer surveys, the reality is that a lot of mapping
>>> happens just from aerials, where crossings (both marked and, in some
>>> cases, unmarked) can be seen, but signals cannot.
>> I have mapped many traffic signals (and, for that matter, stop and yield
>> signs) based on shadows visible on the satellite photos. If you look
>> carefully enough (Bing and Mapbox Satellite at least), they are there.
>> (Local knowledge helps too in some cases.)
> 
> *Traffic* lights I can buy. I am more suspicious of the claim that you can 
> tell whether they have pedestrian crossing signals or not, or that you can 
> reliably identify other signage based solely on outline. *Maybe* if you get 
> lucky and have a very clear shadow at the right angle, but if you try to tell 
> me you can identify https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7695704414 (n.b. a 
> yield sign) from a shadow in aerial imagery, I am going to be deeply 
> suspicious ;-).
> 

Not from the signs or shadows of the signs, but in my area the pavement 
markings can often tell you if it is a stop or yield. Some times it is easy 
(“STOP” or “YIELD” painted on the pavement). But it seems that newer road work 
uses a different style limit line for a stop versus yield.

Back to the original topic: I am not really sure what, if any, the US version 
of a “zebra" crossing is versus a “marked” crossing. So I usually just tag as 
“marked” as that seems to be the more generic item.

The crossing you linked to *might* be an example of a US “zebra” crossing. Can 
anyone verify that for me. Also, there are no tags on the intersection node 
itself. Should there be? I have assumed that there should so that vehicle based 
navigation would have the information needed to advise the driver of particular 
type of crossing ahead.

Cheers!



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

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 06:58, Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> Maybe "zebra crossing" should be a region-specific editor
> preset and generates a tag(s) indicating priority of the pedestrian
> and under what circumstances: "crossing, indicated by surface
> markings, pedestrian has priority after stepping onto the
> crossing" with "surface markings are straight zebra."  Something
> like that.
>

Maybe crossing=marked + marked=???
where ??? is the "type" of crossing - UK_zebra (as well as all their other
birds & animals!), US_zebra, EU_zebra & so on, so if you know exactly what
it is you can specify, but if you can only see a crossing marked there, you
can just call it a marked crossing?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 19:29, Peter Elderson  wrote:

> In Nederland, the zebra is a very clear and specific type of crossing with
> legal rules including yield to pedestrians walking on or even toward the
> zebra.
>

I think we may end up having to make a distinction between the pattern
of the markings and what those markings signify.

In the UK the pedestrian has priority when they step on the crossing.
In most of Europe pedestrians have priority when they one the curb
about to step onto the crossing.  There may be other countries where
a crossing has zebra markings but pedestrians do not have
priority.

In the US zebra markings are the most common way of marking
crosswalks but other markings are also used.  If I read things
right, all US states give pedestrians priority when they
enter a crosswalk, however marked.  The US also has several
variants of the zebra.  Some states give pedestrians priority
if they enter unmarked crosswalks.

Maybe "zebra crossing" should be a region-specific editor
preset and generates a tag(s) indicating priority of the pedestrian
and under what circumstances: "crossing, indicated by surface
markings, pedestrian has priority after stepping onto the
crossing" with "surface markings are straight zebra."  Something
like that.

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

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 17. Sept. 2020 um 18:32 Uhr schrieb Matthew Woehlke <
mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com>:

>
> *Traffic* lights I can buy. I am more suspicious of the claim that you
> can tell whether they have pedestrian crossing signals or not,



usually pedestrian crossings are marked, and depending on the imagery
resolution and width of the markings you might be able to see it. In my
area these are marked with zebra markings, and you can try to see whether
there are also stop lines for cars (i.e. traffic signals).



> or that
> you can reliably identify other signage based solely on outline.



I have seen some stop signs with additional "stop" road markings that were
clearly visible from above.
Stop-signs and give way signs use different road markings around here. The
real question in my context is: does it still apply, or has the situation
changed since these pictures were taken.

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

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 17. Sept. 2020 um 02:45 Uhr schrieb Taskar Center :

> 1) How is this shared space controlled? ...
>
> 2) How is the space demarcated? A crossing may be demarcated by a number
> of different ground markers, 
>
> 3) How can a pedestrian call up the signal ...
>
> 4) who is sharing the way (also a bicycle crossing, animal crossing, etc)?
>
> 5) How is the space connected to the rest of the transportation layer?
>
...

>
> I think crossing=marked/unmarked was a really good step in the direction
> of getting resolution and refinement on at least one of these questions
> above.
>



really? Which of these questions do you see answered?

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

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 17/09/2020 15.50, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:

On 9/17/20 11:30, Matthew Woehlke wrote:

*Maybe* if you get lucky and have a very clear shadow at the right
angle, but if you try to tell me you can identify
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7695704414 (n.b. a yield sign)
from a shadow in aerial imagery, I am going to be deeply suspicious
;-).


Are you sure you didn't mean node 42164543 or something west of it? That
one, I'd need to survey or see street-level imagery to be confident
enough to map it. The shadow, if present, is overlaid by another in the
area. Nodes 6393986190 and 6393985684 do have the "shark's teeth" line
used with yield signs (which I did add just now).


Ah, I think I see what happened... iD really wants me to tag the node as 
something, and I was just seeing "yield" at the top of its suggestion 
list. I think I didn't notice because every other node I as looking at 
just showed up as a "point", apparently because they belonged to more 
than one way.


Also, I was trying to figure out why an apparently unnecessary node was 
there, which probably helped mislead me into thinking it was tagged. I'm 
pretty sure I'd intended to split between crossing and just sidewalk 
there, as discussed earlier in this thread (also why I was looking at 
that particular spot in the first place) and botched it. (Fixed, now.)


--
Matthew

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (funeral hall=*)

[wolle68]

Dear list,

Please comment on the following proposal:

A building or room for funeral ceremonies ancillary to a funeral 
directors shop or a crematorium (subtag)


(This is an offshoot from my previous proposal, due to comments made 
there.)


Proposal page: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/funeral_hall%3D*
Discussion page: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/funeral_hall%3D*


Thanks!

Vollis


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

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 9/17/20 11:30, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> On 17/09/2020 10.07, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
>> On 9/17/20 08:15, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>>> It's also atrocious because it can *only* be verified by survey. 
>>> As much as we prefer surveys, the reality is that a lot of 
>>> mapping happens just from aerials, where crossings (both marked 
>>> and, in some cases, unmarked) can be seen, but signals cannot.
>> 
>> I have mapped many traffic signals (and, for that matter, stop and 
>> yield signs) based on shadows visible on the satellite photos. If 
>> you look carefully enough (Bing and Mapbox Satellite at least), 
>> they are there. (Local knowledge helps too in some cases.)
> 
> *Traffic* lights I can buy. I am more suspicious of the claim that 
> you can tell whether they have pedestrian crossing signals or not,
> or that you can reliably identify other signage based solely on 
> outline.

In Texas (possibly elsewhere in the US) a crossing is legally considered
signal controlled even if there is only a three-colored traffic light
and  there is not a specific orange hand/white man  pedestrian signal.
Yes, it may differ elsewhere.

> *Maybe* if you get lucky and have a very clear shadow at the right 
> angle, but if you try to tell me you can identify 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7695704414 (n.b. a yield sign) 
> from a shadow in aerial imagery, I am going to be deeply suspicious 
> ;-).

Are you sure you didn't mean node 42164543 or something west of it? That
one, I'd need to survey or see street-level imagery to be confident
enough to map it. The shadow, if present, is overlaid by another in the
area. Nodes 6393986190 and 6393985684 do have the "shark's teeth" line
used with yield signs (which I did add just now).

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

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

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

[Peter Elderson]

In Nederland, the zebra is a very clear and specific type of crossing with
legal rules including yield to pedestrians walking on or even toward the
zebra.

I think this will continue to be the case even after Europe leaves the
British Union.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op do 17 sep. 2020 om 20:12 schreef Matthew Woehlke <
mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com>:

> On 17/09/2020 13.44, Tod Fitch wrote:
> >> On Sep 17, 2020, at 9:30 AM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> >> On 17/09/2020 10.07, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
> >>> On 9/17/20 08:15, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>  It's also atrocious because it can *only* be verified by survey. As
>  much as we prefer surveys, the reality is that a lot of mapping
>  happens just from aerials, where crossings (both marked and, in some
>  cases, unmarked) can be seen, but signals cannot.
> >>> I have mapped many traffic signals (and, for that matter, stop and
> yield
> >>> signs) based on shadows visible on the satellite photos. If you look
> >>> carefully enough (Bing and Mapbox Satellite at least), they are there.
> >>> (Local knowledge helps too in some cases.)
> >>
> >> *Traffic* lights I can buy. I am more suspicious of the claim that
> >> you can tell whether they have pedestrian crossing signals or not,
> >> or that you can reliably identify other signage based solely on
> >> outline. *Maybe* if you get lucky and have a very clear shadow at
> >> the right angle, but if you try to tell me you can identify
> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7695704414 (n.b. a yield sign)
> >> from a shadow in aerial imagery, I am going to be deeply suspicious
> >> ;-).
> >
> > Not from the signs or shadows of the signs, but in my area the
> > pavement markings can often tell you if it is a stop or yield. Some
> > times it is easy (“STOP” or “YIELD” painted on the pavement). But it
> > seems that newer road work uses a different style limit line for a
> > stop versus yield.
>
> Ah, that's fair; I was under the impression we were talking about
> *signs*. Possibly because most of the yields I see are to yield to other
> *vehicles*, not pedestrians. (I *have* seen "yield to pedestrians", now
> that I think about it, but not sure I've ever seen *lane markings* where
> it's clear that what you are supposed to yield for is pedestrians. Other
> than crosswalks, anyway. Which... makes me wonder if
> "crossing=uncontrolled" is even correct; even more reason to not use
> that! My understanding was "uncontrolled" meant by traffic signals, but
> now I'm not so sure.)
>
> I've tagged some yields based on lane markings myself, e.g.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7714853074.
>
> > Back to the original topic: I am not really sure what, if any, the
> > US version of a “zebra" crossing is versus a “marked” crossing. So I
> > usually just tag as “marked” as that seems to be the more generic
> > item.
>
> Likewise. Even the wiki notes that this is unclear "outside the UK" (as
> I previously observed).
>
> > The crossing you linked to *might* be an example of a US “zebra”
> > crossing. Can anyone verify that for me. Also, there are no tags on
> > the intersection node itself. Should there be? I have assumed that
> > there should so that vehicle based navigation would have the
> > information needed to advise the driver of particular type of
> > crossing ahead.
>
> As I understand it, yes, and I've tagged that in other places (e.g. the
> above example). I actually have no idea why that node is marked as a
> yield; I don't think there's actually a yield there, but I'm hesitant to
> just delete it (even though apparently I'm the one that added it).
> Unfortunately I can't go survey it right now. (Have to try to remember
> to do that when/if I ever make it back to that Cracker Barrel :-).)
>
> --
> Matthew
>
> ___
> 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] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 17/09/2020 13.44, Tod Fitch wrote:

On Sep 17, 2020, at 9:30 AM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
On 17/09/2020 10.07, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:

On 9/17/20 08:15, Matthew Woehlke wrote:

It's also atrocious because it can *only* be verified by survey. As
much as we prefer surveys, the reality is that a lot of mapping
happens just from aerials, where crossings (both marked and, in some
cases, unmarked) can be seen, but signals cannot.

I have mapped many traffic signals (and, for that matter, stop and yield
signs) based on shadows visible on the satellite photos. If you look
carefully enough (Bing and Mapbox Satellite at least), they are there.
(Local knowledge helps too in some cases.)


*Traffic* lights I can buy. I am more suspicious of the claim that 
you can tell whether they have pedestrian crossing signals or not, 
or that you can reliably identify other signage based solely on 
outline. *Maybe* if you get lucky and have a very clear shadow at 
the right angle, but if you try to tell me you can identify 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7695704414 (n.b. a yield sign) 
from a shadow in aerial imagery, I am going to be deeply suspicious

;-).


Not from the signs or shadows of the signs, but in my area the 
pavement markings can often tell you if it is a stop or yield. Some 
times it is easy (“STOP” or “YIELD” painted on the pavement). But it

seems that newer road work uses a different style limit line for a
stop versus yield.


Ah, that's fair; I was under the impression we were talking about 
*signs*. Possibly because most of the yields I see are to yield to other 
*vehicles*, not pedestrians. (I *have* seen "yield to pedestrians", now 
that I think about it, but not sure I've ever seen *lane markings* where 
it's clear that what you are supposed to yield for is pedestrians. Other 
than crosswalks, anyway. Which... makes me wonder if 
"crossing=uncontrolled" is even correct; even more reason to not use 
that! My understanding was "uncontrolled" meant by traffic signals, but 
now I'm not so sure.)


I've tagged some yields based on lane markings myself, e.g. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7714853074.



Back to the original topic: I am not really sure what, if any, the
US version of a “zebra" crossing is versus a “marked” crossing. So I
usually just tag as “marked” as that seems to be the more generic
item.


Likewise. Even the wiki notes that this is unclear "outside the UK" (as 
I previously observed).



The crossing you linked to *might* be an example of a US “zebra”
crossing. Can anyone verify that for me. Also, there are no tags on
the intersection node itself. Should there be? I have assumed that
there should so that vehicle based navigation would have the
information needed to advise the driver of particular type of
crossing ahead.


As I understand it, yes, and I've tagged that in other places (e.g. the 
above example). I actually have no idea why that node is marked as a 
yield; I don't think there's actually a yield there, but I'm hesitant to 
just delete it (even though apparently I'm the one that added it). 
Unfortunately I can't go survey it right now. (Have to try to remember 
to do that when/if I ever make it back to that Cracker Barrel :-).)


--
Matthew

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

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 17/09/2020 10.07, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:

On 9/17/20 08:15, Matthew Woehlke wrote:

It's also atrocious because it can *only* be verified by survey. As
much as we prefer surveys, the reality is that a lot of mapping
happens just from aerials, where crossings (both marked and, in some
cases, unmarked) can be seen, but signals cannot.


I have mapped many traffic signals (and, for that matter, stop and yield
signs) based on shadows visible on the satellite photos. If you look
carefully enough (Bing and Mapbox Satellite at least), they are there.
(Local knowledge helps too in some cases.)


*Traffic* lights I can buy. I am more suspicious of the claim that you 
can tell whether they have pedestrian crossing signals or not, or that 
you can reliably identify other signage based solely on outline. *Maybe* 
if you get lucky and have a very clear shadow at the right angle, but if 
you try to tell me you can identify 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7695704414 (n.b. a yield sign) from a 
shadow in aerial imagery, I am going to be deeply suspicious ;-).


--
Matthew

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

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 15:09, Shawn K. Quinn  wrote:

>
> I agree that the current presets available in JOSM are a bit of a botch,
> particularly "uncontrolled" for crossings technically controlled by a
> sign. "Marked" may be better but we still have the issue of changing a
> lot of previously tagged crossings. I think "island" is already covered
> by traffic_calming=island, no?
>

No.   https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing:island

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

Re: [Tagging] Addition of highway=emergency_bay and priority_road=yes to Map Features?

[Volker Schmidt]

On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 10:00, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> emergency bays are quite common in Italy

Italy:
622 ways
2020 nodes
(not limited to motorways without emergency lanes - vedi esempio
)


> and Germany when there isn’t an emergency lane.
>


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

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

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

[Clifford Snow]

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 7:08 AM Shawn K. Quinn  wrote:

>
> I agree that the current presets available in JOSM are a bit of a botch,
> particularly "uncontrolled" for crossings technically controlled by a
> sign. "Marked" may be better but we still have the issue of changing a
> lot of previously tagged crossings. I think "island" is already covered
> by traffic_calming=island, no?
>

Where I lived in Seattle, we have these traffic calming islands. They are
basically just a physical small island in the center of an intersection
usually planted with small scrubs. From aerial imagery they might look like
a roundabout, but technically they are not. The purpose is to slow traffic.
Often there isn't even a place for a pedestrian. They play hell with trucks
trying to make deliveries.

I agree that JOSM's presets are insufficient. I've made my own for mapping
pedestrian crossings.

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

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 9/17/20 08:15, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> It's also atrocious because it can *only* be verified by survey. As
> much as we prefer surveys, the reality is that a lot of mapping
> happens just from aerials, where crossings (both marked and, in some
> cases, unmarked) can be seen, but signals cannot.

I have mapped many traffic signals (and, for that matter, stop and yield
signs) based on shadows visible on the satellite photos. If you look
carefully enough (Bing and Mapbox Satellite at least), they are there.
(Local knowledge helps too in some cases.)

> As someone who's generated a fair number of "uncontrolled" crossings
> because that was the only "blessed" tag, I would much prefer
> separating the presence or absence of features that can be verified
> in an aerial (marked, unmarked, striped, island, ...) from whether or
> not signals are present.

I agree that the current presets available in JOSM are a bit of a botch,
particularly "uncontrolled" for crossings technically controlled by a
sign. "Marked" may be better but we still have the issue of changing a
lot of previously tagged crossings. I think "island" is already covered
by traffic_calming=island, no?

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

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

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 16/09/2020 20.40, Taskar Center wrote:

crossing has been a very poor tag because it seems to be the kitchen
sink for all the questions pertaining to crossings... Many of the
attributes that get values in "crossing" are potentially overlapping
and not mutually exclusive, causing a lot of confusion and poorly
tagged crossings. Nevertheless, specifying crossings is very
important because it's a highly contested street region.

The crossing tag has held many values that may overlap, and we should
once and for all split out all these different tags so we can be
mapping what we mean and mean what we map. Questions we should be
answering when mapping a crossing: 1) How is this shared space
controlled? A crossing is a high risk environment where traversal is
shared between cars and pedestrians (they are of unequal footing). So
the type of 'control' and 'right of way' in that space is important
to specify. 'uncontrolled' is a very bad tag in this direction
because it has an actual legal, non-intuitive meaning and many
mappers mistakenly think a crossing that has no traffic signal is
uncontrolled- so that's a really bad tag. crossing_control= ?


It's also atrocious because it can *only* be verified by survey. As much 
as we prefer surveys, the reality is that a lot of mapping happens just 
from aerials, where crossings (both marked and, in some cases, unmarked) 
can be seen, but signals cannot. As someone who's generated a fair 
number of "uncontrolled" crossings because that was the only "blessed" 
tag, I would much prefer separating the presence or absence of features 
that can be verified in an aerial (marked, unmarked, striped, island, 
...) from whether or not signals are present.



3) How can a pedestrian call up the signal and how can they sense
whose right of way is currently allowed? Is there a call button? Does
it chirp, speak out,  vibrate?


Id' be careful with this one; I've read that those buttons are often 
placebos. I suppose if we're just mapping whether a button is present or 
not, that's okay, but just because there *is* a button doesn't 
necessarily mean it has to be pressed.


--
Matthew

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

Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

[Kevin Broderick]

+1.

Explicit tagging indicates a level of confidence not generally associated
with implicit tagging. While there's certainly an 'ad nauseum' level of
doing so (e.g. adding surface=paved, motor_vehicle=yes to highway=motorway
in the U.S. would be kinda silly, IMO), there are plenty of cases where a
primary tag generally implies something about the tagged object but doesn't
guarantee it. I'd point to the recent discussion of access= on driveways as
an example; while most driveways allow for certain types of access by
default, it's far from guaranteed—there may be a no-trespassing sign or a
locked gate, and explicitly indicating the lack of such in the access
tagging is helpful. (Adding the implied value without survey or other
definitive knowledge is not, as then you express a higher degree of
confidence than actually exists in the data).

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 6:34 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 5:20 PM François Lacombe <
> fl.infosrese...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is that completely wrong or mappers could eventually add implied tags if
>> they want to?
>> The proposal currently states they are optional and it won't raise an
>> error if mappers add them beside mandatory tags.
>>
>
> No, it's not wrong to add implied tags explicitly.  It's actually
> encouraged in some cases where the implicit tag is not consumable by
> automated system (such as the "none" default for turn:lanes tends to be
> ambiguous between "you can't turn from this lane" and "you can't use this
> lane" and "there's an implicit but unspecified implication that isn't
> painted on the ground"), or access defaults (such as in the US where
> bicycle=* and foot=* varies a lot on highway=motorway)
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Kevin Broderick
k...@kevinbroderick.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 16/09/2020 18.32, Paul Johnson wrote:

No, it's not wrong to add implied tags explicitly.  It's actually
encouraged in some cases where the implicit tag is not consumable by
automated system (such as the "none" default for turn:lanes tends to be
ambiguous between "you can't turn from this lane" and "you can't use this
lane" and "there's an implicit but unspecified implication that isn't
painted on the ground")


Pedantic: wouldn't "you can't turn from this lane" be correctly 
specified as turn:lanes=through? As I understand turn:lanes, "none" 
would be "you can't use this lane". (Also pedantically speaking, a blank 
value would mean there are no specific markings. I think the only 
ambiguity here is that it's unclear if the tag is simply missing — in 
which case the truth on the ground could be *anything* — or if there are 
no markings. Sort of like how a missing oneway could mean oneway=no, or 
could mean oneway but not tagged.)


(Incidentally, I tend to add oneway=no whenever possible... or at least 
I did in iD, which made it easy. I can't recall now how well I've been 
keeping that up with JOSM.)


--
Matthew

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

Re: [Tagging] Addition of highway=emergency_bay and priority_road=yes to Map Features?

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 16/09/2020 17.07, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 18:00, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

emergency bays are quite common in Italy and Germany when there isn’t an
emergency lane.


Quite common on major highways out here as well.


I'm not sure if I'd call them "common", but they occur in the US also. 
(I would guess they're more common on freeways with longer distances 
between exits; I seem to mainly notice them on long trips, and not so 
much around cities.)


--
Matthew

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

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 17. Sept. 2020 um 02:37 Uhr schrieb Taskar Center :

> This is yet another example why "sticking" the sidewalks onto the highway
> (as a tag) rather than mapping them as separate ways is appearing to be
> less and less practical.
>


why should these be mutually exclusive alternatives ("rather than")? The
sidewalk tags on the road are a property of the road that tell if there is
a sidewalk, and on which side. This does not prevent you from mapping the
sidewalk explicitly as highway=footway and footway=sidewalk.

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

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

[Alan Mackie]

On Thu, 17 Sep 2020, 01:37 Taskar Center,  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> This is yet another example why "sticking" the sidewalks onto the highway
> (as a tag) rather than mapping them as separate ways is appearing to be
> less and less practical. Please see our sidewalk schema proposal
> 
> from several years ago.
>
This is all well and good for roads without tree cover in areas where the
imagery is good. At other times a tag on the road is the best option if you
don't want to just make up geometry.

>
> I think @Mark brings up really relevant width distinctions, and I believe
> that once we agree that sidewalks require their own geometry, we should
> have a similar discussion about the interpretation of width in the
> sidewalks context.
>
> I look at this issue from the perspective of routing. Routers are
> interested in functional width (which would be Mark's 'driven path'
> option). Even with the consideration of transiency of both of the last two
> of Mark's definitions, 'maintained' and 'driven path' width, this is a much
> better approximation for additional considerations than routing- it can be
> an indicator of traffic stress, it can provide information for the 'slow
> streets' movement, it can also provide a means of reconciling improper
> imports that labeled all roads as 'primary' when they should not.
>
> My last comment has to do with the separation of sidewalks from streets-
> in that in many locales the responsibility of street maintenance falls on a
> different entity than sidewalk maintenance (for example, in Seattle, the
> sidewalk is the responsibility of the homeowner, rather than the
> municipality who IS responsible for the street infrastructure). So it is
> actually advantageous to have these mapped as separate entities so we can
> keep track of infrastructure maintenance.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Anat
>
>
>
> Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 1:23 AM Supaplex  wrote:
>
>> I expect the "width" of a way to be the actual width of the object it
>> represents.
>>
>> It depends on how we define "highway" in the OSM sense. You could also
>> assume that sidewalks etc. are "sticking" on the highway merely for
>> pragmatic reasons. Depending on the point of view, sidewalks and highways
>> represent different entities. (There is no law definition here, I only find
>> a German court decision that deals with street widths and thus means the
>> distance between the curbs, with carriageway and parked vehicles, so as
>> definition 2 above.)
>>
>> But I agree that it would be better to always specify which width is
>> meant exactly when mapping widths on streets (especially to use
>> "width:carriageway" for the rating of traffic suitability). Nevertheless, a
>> default, which meaning of "width" is meant without a prefix/suffix, would
>> still be helpful. Fun Fact: On the wiki highway page - in contrast to what
>> is discussed here - it says since 2012 that "width" means the width of the
>> carriageway (but it does not look like this paragraph has ever been
>> discussed):
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highways#Surface.2C_width_and_lighting
>>
>> Alex
>> ___
>> 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