[Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways Was: Re: "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

2020-09-18 Thread Alan Mackie 
On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 21:35, Tobias Knerr  wrote:

> On 17.09.20 02:35, Taskar Center wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Your sidewalk proposal unfortunately doesn't really address the crucial
> shortcoming of separately mapped sidewalks: The lack of a reliable
> mechanism for figuring out which section of road a given sidewalk way
> belongs to.
>
> I agree that we should be able to give sidewalks their own geometry, but
> we _also_ need the relationship between sidewalk and road. So far, all
> the proposals attempting to support the former end up sacrificing the
> latter.
>
Was this meant to be one of the purposes of associated street relations?

>
> There have been some promising discussions recently around the
> sidepath_of idea, but that's still just brainstorming. Until a practical
> solution is found and actually used in the database, sidewalk mapping
> will remain a choice between two options that are broken in different ways.
>
I hadn't heard this one. Do you have a link to the discussion? I would
personally prefer sidewalk_of or walkway_of if we were to go this route
though. Sidepath sounds like something that's branching to me.

Both associated street and sidepath_of still have the issue of when you're
allowed to jump from one to the other, kerbs can be stepped over by most,
railing less so (they're often to keep pedestrians out of blindspots). It
must be difficult to tell if a sidewalk is separated specifically because
the transition from one to the other is more thoroughly blocked and not
simply as an added level of detail  with no more than the normal impediment
to foot traffic.  The only thing I've seen discussed that might work for
this was in a talk about way and street areas.

>
> As for the main issue of the thread: I would welcome a clear definition
> for the meaning of width. In my own mapping and when writing the
> relevant code in OSM2World, I have counted sidewalks etc. as part of the
> road's width if they are mapped as tags on the main way. But I would of
> course change that if there finally was a documented and widely
> agreed-upon recommendation. I don't care so much which one it is - but
> we need one.
>
> ___
> 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] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

2020-09-18 Thread Tobias Knerr 
On 17.09.20 02:35, Taskar Center wrote:
> 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.

Your sidewalk proposal unfortunately doesn't really address the crucial
shortcoming of separately mapped sidewalks: The lack of a reliable
mechanism for figuring out which section of road a given sidewalk way
belongs to.

I agree that we should be able to give sidewalks their own geometry, but
we _also_ need the relationship between sidewalk and road. So far, all
the proposals attempting to support the former end up sacrificing the
latter.

There have been some promising discussions recently around the
sidepath_of idea, but that's still just brainstorming. Until a practical
solution is found and actually used in the database, sidewalk mapping
will remain a choice between two options that are broken in different ways.

As for the main issue of the thread: I would welcome a clear definition
for the meaning of width. In my own mapping and when writing the
relevant code in OSM2World, I have counted sidewalks etc. as part of the
road's width if they are mapped as tags on the main way. But I would of
course change that if there finally was a documented and widely
agreed-upon recommendation. I don't care so much which one it is - but
we need one.

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

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

2020-09-18 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 



Sep 18, 2020, 16:25 by mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com:

> On 18/09/2020 02.46, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>
>> building=church is building constructed as a church that now can
>> be a place of worship, warehouse, unused or something else but
>> retained building structure typical to a church
>>
>> amenity=place_of_worship is a place where regular worship is conducted
>> - it may be in a church, in open area, in former fish market, in building 
>> constructed
>> as a warehouse
>>
>
> Question: is 
> https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7408471,-73.7805254,132a,35y,69.19h,53.87t/data=!3m1!1e3
>  a building=church? AFAIK it was constructed as a "church" (as a place of 
> worship, anyway), but if you took down the signage and started to use it for 
> another purpose, there would be no evidence that it ever used to be a place 
> of worship; the construction *style* is absolutely *not* what is typically 
> associated with a "church".
>
I would defer to decisions/interpretations of a local community, but if 
something like that appeared in
Poland I would tag it as building=supermarket (it matches exactly supermarket 
building, at least
from outside).

NOTE: I am unfamiliar with this specific type of architectural monstrosity, 
maybe
it should be handled differently.

maybe some term can capture this well


> Compare with > 
> https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6822058,-73.840315,35a,35y,225.94h,69.88t/data=!3m1!1e3>
>  , which still looks almost entirely generic from above, but at least has 
> *some* features of a "traditional church".
>
Here building=church makes *some* sort of sense

>> Not sure whatever there are building where their structure makes them
>> recognizable as funeral halls, but in case where such building exist
>> correct tagging is building=funeral_hall (potentially also 
>> amenity=funerall_hall)
>>
>
> Possibly something like 
> https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4139398,-84.0322268,53a,35y,89.44h,48.46t/data=!3m1!1e3
>  ...?
>
>

Maybe, GSV is too far away to allow remote tag theorethizing.

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

[Tagging] Chapels-of-rest

2020-09-18 Thread wolle68 

Hello,

The ripple effect of my proposal for amenity=funeral_hall continues.

Now, it appears that we might need a tag for chapels-of-rest, if we want 
to avoid confusion.


Alas, "chapel" will be opposed by some for being religiously connotated. 
"Funeral home" or "funeral parlor" will end up being used for funeral 
directors shops.


So, before I make another proposal, I would like to determine the term 
that has the least bad chance of being acceptable for as many people as 
possible.


If you are inspired, please go here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:amenity%3Dfuneral_hall#Fun.C3.A9rariums.2C_Aufbahrungshallen_etc.

Thanks!

Vollis

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

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

2020-09-18 Thread Matthew Woehlke 

On 18/09/2020 02.46, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:

building=church is building constructed as a church that now can
be a place of worship, warehouse, unused or something else but
retained building structure typical to a church

amenity=place_of_worship is a place where regular worship is conducted
- it may be in a church, in open area, in former fish market, in building 
constructed
as a warehouse


Question: is 
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7408471,-73.7805254,132a,35y,69.19h,53.87t/data=!3m1!1e3 
a building=church? AFAIK it was constructed as a "church" (as a place of 
worship, anyway), but if you took down the signage and started to use it 
for another purpose, there would be no evidence that it ever used to be 
a place of worship; the construction *style* is absolutely *not* what is 
typically associated with a "church".


Compare with 
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6822058,-73.840315,35a,35y,225.94h,69.88t/data=!3m1!1e3, 
which still looks almost entirely generic from above, but at least has 
*some* features of a "traditional church".



Not sure whatever there are building where their structure makes them
recognizable as funeral halls, but in case where such building exist
correct tagging is building=funeral_hall (potentially also 
amenity=funerall_hall)


Possibly something like 
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4139398,-84.0322268,53a,35y,89.44h,48.46t/data=!3m1!1e3 
...?


--
Matthew

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

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

2020-09-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 
Am Fr., 18. Sept. 2020 um 09:41 Uhr schrieb Peter Elderson <
pelder...@gmail.com>:

> Changing to crossing=marked then specifying that it's a zebra just makes
> it more work, and harder to interpret.
>


+1, if you don't know the implications of crossing=zebra, then you don't
know them either for crossing=marked, marked=zebra. The latter is just a
more complicated way of telling the same, and it mostly leads to less
information because the marked=zebra (or whatever similar tag to tell the
markings are zebra marking) is often missing.

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

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

2020-09-18 Thread Peter Elderson 
>
> 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?
>

Isn't it obvious from the location what the country is?

Crossings can have all sorts of markings. Most markings just indicate that
it's a crossing, i.e. a preferred location for pedestrians to cross the
road. Those markings result in the *=crossing tag.

UK has a rich wildlife of crossings, but afaik all have controls except the
zebra, so you can tag the control if you think it's worthwhile.

Priority is regarded as a mappable attribute. It seems that, in many
countries, zebra striping is used to grant priority to pedestrians. If
mappers do not think crossing=zebra combined with the location is clear
enough about the priority, then I suggest to add a tag for priority.

In Nederland, zebra also implies drivers are not allowed to park on or
within a certain distance from the crossing. If that's deemed important and
should not just be implied by the zebra tag, it should be tagged on the
section of the road itself.

In Nederland, pedestrians are not allowed to cross the road near the zebra
within a certain distance (50 m or so).
This is important for pedestrian routing. I think this is handled already
by the presence of the way for pedestrians.  I may be wrong, but I believe
routing over a way is preferred to crossing wildly over a road.

In short, I think crossing=zebra says what you see, the implications can be
read from the country the location is in,  and if that's not sure enough
tag the implications separately and precisely.

Changing to crossing=marked then specifying that it's a zebra just makes it
more work, and harder to interpret.


Vr gr Peter Elderson___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

2020-09-18 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=funeral+hall=h_=images=images=images
makes clear that at least some funeral halls are distinguishable from
building=house

This proposal reports that some members of German OSM community think 
differently,
I am not sure why it is enough to make proposal to encourage to change
all building=funeral_hall to building=yes

"It is therefore proposed to instead use the combination:
building=yes
amenity=funeral_hall"

Even if building is not recognizable specifically as funerall hall
and some more generic tag would be fitting (building=hall? building=civic?
building=public?) it does not mean that
1) nonspecific building=yes is best
2) there is currently funeral_hall there, so amenity=funeral_hall
should not always be added

Sep 18, 2020, 08:46 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

> building tags and amenity/shop/... tags are for different purposes
>
> building=church is building constructed as a church that now can
> be a place of worship, warehouse, unused or something else but
> retained building structure typical to a church
>
> amenity=place_of_worship is a place where regular worship is conducted
> - it may be in a church, in open area, in former fish market, in building 
> constructed
> as a warehouse
>
> Not sure whatever there are building where their structure makes them
> recognizable as funeral halls, but in case where such building exist
> correct tagging is building=funeral_hall (potentially also 
> amenity=funerall_hall)
>
> Sep 17, 2020, 23:50 by woll...@posteo.de:
>
>> 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
>>
>
>

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

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

2020-09-18 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
building tags and amenity/shop/... tags are for different purposes

building=church is building constructed as a church that now can
be a place of worship, warehouse, unused or something else but
retained building structure typical to a church

amenity=place_of_worship is a place where regular worship is conducted
- it may be in a church, in open area, in former fish market, in building 
constructed
as a warehouse

Not sure whatever there are building where their structure makes them
recognizable as funeral halls, but in case where such building exist
correct tagging is building=funeral_hall (potentially also 
amenity=funerall_hall)

Sep 17, 2020, 23:50 by woll...@posteo.de:

> 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
>

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