Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[OSM]

Am 15.10.2020 um 22:18 schrieb Emvee via Tagging:

This recent wiki change by Emvee
 is in my view not
helpful, or even misleading, as it does discourage a wide-spread
tagging practice (if we like this or not is a different question, but
it's established tagging, and the wiki is supposed to describe the
establsihed methods of tagging)


The change describes what a router does with bicycle=no on a node, see 
https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265


Already discussed elsewhere but having routers ignore bicycle=no in
combination with highway=crossing means that it is more or less
useless as routers are they main data consumers while at the same time
crossing data is far from being complete.

My take is that it is not a wide-spread tagging practice and it does
not add new information as weather it is a pedestrian issue can be
deduced from the connecting ways.



We still have the valid mapping practice, that sideways are mapped with
tags at the highway= with no seperately mapped ways.
Therefor we still have highway=crossing nodes _without_ a crossing way.
Some of these still have no bicycle crossing allowed.

How can/should a mapper map this 'new' information now?


--
Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
http://www.avg.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Kevin Kenny]

On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 3:46 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> On 13. Oct 2020, at 23:42, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>
> I changed the crossing to the way we do it in many parts of Europe, i.e. a
> crossing node *and* a crossing way.
>
>
>
> I thought the standard was highway=crossing on the nodes where they cross
> the road and highway=footway with footway=crossing on the way segment
> between the kerbs (if sidewalks are mapped) or between the crossing nodes
> (if several carriageways are present).
>

For the specific way that Volker was discussing,  the situation was a
stand-alone shared-use foot/cycleway crossing a tertiary highway. Single
carriageway, but with a way segment added to the cycleway to carry the
signed  `bicycle=dismount` restriction. No kerbs anywhere.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Objects generating audible cues

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 21:35, bkil  wrote:

> Surely you could always refine tagging according to your needs (like
> with dog:species=Rottweiler).


No, I wasn't talking about the species, but about the "level" of sound
heard. A blind person can't tell if that's a Rottweiler, German Shepherd,
Pit Bull or anything else, just that it has a deep WOOF, while the other
dog has a sharp, shrill yap, yap, yap.

So you'd need to somehow account for level / depth of sound.

So my question is still of a mapping ethics nature: would we be doing
> any harm if we mapped whether a given private home has visible or
> audible guard animals? (Sirens and other security measures aren't that
> interesting from an ear-mapping perspective)
>

No, personally, I don't think we should map that a private home has any
type of security, be it electronic or animal. Mapping to say there's a dog
here would be OK though.

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Emvee via Tagging]

Imagine I would add hgv=no or motorcycle=no tags to pedestrian
crossings

Is there a case where hgv use sidewalk together with pedestrians and
cross road using crossing shared with a pedestrians?

Is there a case of sidewalk where hgv are allowed but on crossing with
road oneis supposed to walk carrying your
vehicle?

Is there some existing usage of hgv=noon crossings?


Valid questions, but the exact same questions apply for a pedestrian way
crossing a secondary. On that pedestrian way cyclists are not allowed so
what is the use of adding bicycle=no to the crossing node?


, IMHO this would be as correct as adding bicycle=no, because
neither of them can cross at the pedestrian crossing, but overall
it could be seen as very bad tagging because of the ambiguity (for
the road users).


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

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Emvee via Tagging]

Also, what "to mean bicyle=no in node context" is exactly supposed to
mean?
(I am guess based on your earlier claim, but I am not sure whatever I
guessed correctly)


In node context means that the router only looks at the data belong to
the node to decide what costs to add.

See also the end of
https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/blob/master/misc/profiles2/trekking.brf
under the comment:

---context:node # following code refers to node tags


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

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Emvee via Tagging]

This recent wiki change by Emvee
 is in my view not
helpful, or even misleading, as it does discourage a wide-spread
tagging practice (if we like this or not is a different question, but
it's established tagging, and the wiki is supposed to describe the
establsihed methods of tagging)


The change describes what a router does with bicycle=no on a node, see
https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265

Already discussed elsewhere but having routers ignore bicycle=no in
combination with highway=crossing means that it is more or less useless
as routers are they main data consumers while at the same time crossing
data is far from being complete.

My take is that it is not a wide-spread tagging practice and it does not
add new information as weather it is a pedestrian issue can be deduced
from the connecting ways.

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Proposal of electricity=* and electricity:origin

[Lukas Richert]

(Fixed subject line for RFC)

Hello all,

after the comments on the confusing nature of the word 'source' in my 
original proposal of 'electricity:source', I have now changed the name 
to 'electricity:origin' as suggested on the discussion page. 
Furthermore, I would like to revive and extend the proposal of the key 
'electricity' as this previously conflicted with parts of the 
electricity:source proposal and was not consistent.


Both proposal pages:

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/electricity

[2] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/electricity:source


The idea now is to allow for the tagging of buildings or amenities 
that have electricity. The rationale is described in more detail at 
[1]. Tags such as access, fee, schedule and origin can then narrow 
down the availability to the public and the question of financial or 
direct origin of the electricity.


This is distinct from the drafted tag power_supply as it is used to 
describe the type of sockets used at a specific outlet. The values for 
that tag are still currently under discussion.


I would also not tag this as a subset of power=* as this maps the 
facilities and features that relate to the generation and distribution 
of electrical power and should not be used to map the consumers of 
electricity.


I am eager to hear the feedback to the revised proposals!

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

Re: [Tagging] Crossing tagged on both way and node (was: What does bicycle=no on a node means?)

[Volker Schmidt]

I don't know what the routers need, to be honest.
I have adopted the approach happily because of the frequent two-stage
approach. First the main road is mapped with foot/bicycle crossings as
nodes , and at a later stage someone else may add the foot/cycleway
details  - I did not occur to me that there may be an advantage in removing
at that stage the already existing crossing node.
I would also naively assume, that a car-only router does not need to
inspect any of the foot/cycleways in the map, and can use the
highway=crossing nodes as an indication to add small delays inthe routing.
Anyone in the router business listening in on this conversation?

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 17:39, Jmapb via Tagging 
wrote:

> On 10/13/2020 6:30 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 17:41 Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>
> I changed the crossing to the way we do it in many parts of Europe, i.e. a
>> crossing node *and* a crossing way. This was described as an option on
>> the highway=crossing wiki page until it was changed on 07:52, 3 October
>> 2020by user Emvee  by
>> addng the diagram and its description.
>> If you don't like it, please change it back - I used it in place of a
>> longish explanation.
>>
>
> Both of those are better, thanks! The routers that I use for testing seem
> to be aware of crossings without crossing nodes, so I too often forget to
> tag them.
>
> I've always been surprised to see a footway=crossing/cycleway=crossing way
> with the intersection node tagged as highway=crossing. There's only a
> single physical crossing, so this seems contra to the
> one-feature-one-element rule.
>
> A highway=crossing node makes sense in an area without mapped
> footways/cycleways. But if the crossing ways are mapped, routing software
> will need to examine the intersection node and scan the properties of all
> highways intersecting there. It seems to make tagging the node itself
> redundant.
>
> Are there really routers that require the node be tagged as well?
>
> 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

[Tagging] Crossing tagged on both way and node (was: What does bicycle=no on a node means?)

[Jmapb via Tagging]

On 10/13/2020 6:30 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:

On Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 17:41 Volker Schmidt mailto:vosc...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I changed the crossing to the way we do it in many parts of
Europe, i.e. a crossing node _and_ a crossing way. This was
described as an option on the highway=crossing wiki page until it
was changed on 07:52, 3 October 2020by user Emvee
 by addng the
diagram and its description.
If you don't like it, please change it back - I used it in place
of a longish explanation.


Both of those are better, thanks! The routers that I use for testing
seem to be aware of crossings without crossing nodes, so I too often
forget to tag them.


I've always been surprised to see a footway=crossing/cycleway=crossing
way with the intersection node tagged as highway=crossing. There's only
a single physical crossing, so this seems contra to the
one-feature-one-element rule.

A highway=crossing node makes sense in an area without mapped
footways/cycleways. But if the crossing ways are mapped, routing
software will need to examine the intersection node and scan the
properties of all highways intersecting there. It seems to make tagging
the node itself redundant.

Are there really routers that require the node be tagged as well?

Jason

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

Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

[Dave F via Tagging]

On 15/10/2020 11:01, OSM wrote:



Am 10.10.2020 um 00:35 schrieb Dave F via Tagging:


I edited a copy of the diagram (A-simple-station.svg) of a station 
layout, primarily to remove any references to PTv2 tags, a completely 
independent, duplicating tagging schema, irrelevant to anything to do 
with the railway=station tag.


That is the main problem I think:
You think, that railway=* and PTv2 tags are duplicating tagging schemas.


They are. One of the creators on the Transit forum stated the intention 
was for PTy2 to supersede railway=* tags.




But:
railway=* are _railway_ related tags - they are for infrastructure.


Which wiki pages claim that?

PTv2 tags are _public_transport_ tags - they are for the public 
transport use cases.


Tell that to the contributors who are adding PTv2 to tourist stations (I 
think it might be to do with another cock-up in iD editor)




And yes - these both are truly different.


Which negates any desire to change the meaning of railway=station from 
"places where customers can access railway services or where goods are 
loaded and unloaded."


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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Oct 15, 2020, 14:58 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com:

>
>
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 23:44, Volker Schmidt <> vosc...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>
>> May I remind my dear mapper friends, that tags are just that: tags. From the 
>> database point of view these are just couples of arbitrarily chosen, 
>> character strings. OSM uses a convention to make it easier to memorize these 
>> strings by using GB-English terms for them, but, I repeat that is just a 
>> convention to help our human brain facilities. If you were to replace the 
>> string "man_made" at every occurrence in the database and in all programs 
>> that use the database with "3rgnJI)oò-" this would make no difference to OSM 
>> (provided you use different strings for different keys/values), but it would 
>> make a huge differnce to the work of inserting/correcting/consulting data by 
>> human beings.
>> In addition, replacing one string with another string in all occurrences in 
>> OSM, apart from creating completely unnecessary new versiones of the 
>> objects, is trivial. Changing all products that make use of these data will 
>> be an enormous amount of work. 
>> And all this effort achieve what?
>>
>
> Exactly. The human readable version of tags is done through things like 
> editor presets and partly via the wiki infoboxes, where they can be localised 
> into different languages and regions. The actual tag names bear zero weight
>
I would not go so far, large part of edits is interacting with raw tag values 
and "zero weight" is a 
significant overstatement

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

[Tagging] Proposal of electricity=* and electricity:origin

[Lukas Richert]

Hello all,

after the comments on the confusing nature of the word 'source' in my 
original proposal of 'electricity:source', I have now changed the name 
to 'electricity:origin' as suggested on the discussion page. 
Furthermore, I would like to revive and extend the proposal of the key 
'electricity' as this previously conflicted with parts of the 
electricity:source proposal and was not consistent.


Both proposal pages:

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/electricity

[2] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/electricity:source


The idea now is to allow for the tagging of buildings or amenities that 
have electricity. The rationale is described in more detail at [1]. Tags 
such as access, fee, schedule and origin can then narrow down the 
availability to the public and the question of financial or direct 
origin of the electricity.


This is distinct from the drafted tag power_supply as it is used to 
describe the type of sockets used at a specific outlet. The values for 
that tag are still currently under discussion.


I would also not tag this as a subset of power=* as this maps the 
facilities and features that relate to the generation and distribution 
of electrical power and should not be used to map the consumers of 
electricity.


I am eager to hear the feedback to the revised proposals!

Best regards,

Lukas




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

Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

[Dave F via Tagging]

Please send all messages to the public forum Martin.


It was a post in reply to the topic.

Unlike a few train spotters in Germany I'm not scared to have all 
discussions be public & a matter for record.


Please don't dictate over events on which you have no authority.

DaveF.

On 15/10/2020 10:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

from where are you citing here? A private email?

Can we please discuss publicly here, and keep private discussion private?


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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[Andrew Harvey]

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 23:44, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> May I remind my dear mapper friends, that tags are just that: tags. From
> the database point of view these are just couples of arbitrarily chosen,
> character strings. OSM uses a convention to make it easier to memorize
> these strings by using GB-English terms for them, but, I repeat that is
> just a convention to help our human brain facilities. If you were to
> replace the string "man_made" at every occurrence in the database and in
> all programs that use the database with "3rgnJI)oò-" this would make no
> difference to OSM (provided you use different strings for different
> keys/values), but it would make a huge differnce to the work of
> inserting/correcting/consulting data by human beings.
> In addition, replacing one string with another string in all occurrences
> in OSM, apart from creating completely unnecessary new versiones of the
> objects, is trivial. Changing all products that make use of these data will
> be an enormous amount of work.
> And all this effort achieve what?
>

Exactly. The human readable version of tags is done through things like
editor presets and partly via the wiki infoboxes, where they can be
localised into different languages and regions. The actual tag names bear
zero weight and it's impossible to have them accurate across regions. My
favourite one is track vs trail, where for me track is narrow that you can
only walk and tail is wide that you can drive on, but for other parts of
the world it's the opposite, track you can drive on and trail only walk.
That doesn't mean we'll change up highway=track as it's the description on
the wiki that matters not the name of the tag key and value.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[Volker Schmidt]

May I remind my dear mapper friends, that tags are just that: tags. From
the database point of view these are just couples of arbitrarily chosen,
character strings. OSM uses a convention to make it easier to memorize
these strings by using GB-English terms for them, but, I repeat that is
just a convention to help our human brain facilities. If you were to
replace the string "man_made" at every occurrence in the database and in
all programs that use the database with "3rgnJI)oò-" this would make no
difference to OSM (provided you use different strings for different
keys/values), but it would make a huge differnce to the work of
inserting/correcting/consulting data by human beings.
In addition, replacing one string with another string in all occurrences in
OSM, apart from creating completely unnecessary new versiones of the
objects, is trivial. Changing all products that make use of these data will
be an enormous amount of work.
And all this effort achieve what?

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 14:22, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 09:38, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I fear in „human“ there is still a man, even in every woman there‘s a
>> man, as in female there is a male. Overall it looks as if English is not
>> suitable for gender neutral language,
>
> everything refers back to men. I propose to use German as the language for
>> tags.
>>
>
> Hahahaha.  That would resolve "man made."  By replacing "made."
>
>
>> It might look like an impossible endeavor at first glance to retag those
>> millions or billions of objects, but if you dig deeper you will find that
>> many tags are already more German than English, so ultimately it wouldn’t
>> be as much change as it may sound initially.
>>
>
>  It only needs a little re-tagging.  Simple.
>
> --
> 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] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

15 paź 2020, 09:42 od dieterdre...@gmail.com:

> Imagine I would add hgv=no or motorcycle=no tags to pedestrian crossings
>
Is there a case where hgv use sidewalk 
together with pedestrians and cross road 
using crossing shared with a pedestrians?

Is there a case of sidewalk where hgv are
allowed but on crossing with road one
is supposed to walk carrying your
vehicle?

Is there some existing usage of hgv=no
on crossings?
(All happen sometimes with cyclists)
>
> , IMHO this would be as correct as adding bicycle=no, because neither of them 
> can cross at the pedestrian crossing, but overall it could be seen as very 
> bad tagging because of the ambiguity (for the road users).___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 09:38, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> I fear in „human“ there is still a man, even in every woman there‘s a man,
> as in female there is a male. Overall it looks as if English is not
> suitable for gender neutral language,

everything refers back to men. I propose to use German as the language for
> tags.
>

Hahahaha.  That would resolve "man made."  By replacing "made."


> It might look like an impossible endeavor at first glance to retag those
> millions or billions of objects, but if you dig deeper you will find that
> many tags are already more German than English, so ultimately it wouldn’t
> be as much change as it may sound initially.
>

 It only needs a little re-tagging.  Simple.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Objects generating audible cues

[bkil]

Surely you could always refine tagging according to your needs (like
with dog:species=Rottweiler). Although, I think the exact species of
canines could change much more often due to replacement and/or moving.
You probably also need to be an expert on the topic to tell apart
hundreds of purebred types and their voices, and then handle all the
impure ones as well.

You could also consider mapping their count, because that is pretty
easy to tell (1-3).

Anyway, I probably wouldn't overload the audible*=* scheme with
this. It seems like many are interested in this. Marking it may
involve hazard=dog, surveillance:type=guarddog, guard:type=dog or
guard_dog=yes.
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/hazard=dog#overview
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/surveillance%3Atype=guarddog
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/guard%3Atype=dog
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/guard_dog#values

Funny:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/guard_dog%3Anoisy#values
What about guard_dog=invisible?

So my question is still of a mapping ethics nature: would we be doing
any harm if we mapped whether a given private home has visible or
audible guard animals? (Sirens and other security measures aren't that
interesting from an ear-mapping perspective)



On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 12:32 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick
 wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 01:10, bkil  wrote:
>>
>> "hearing a dog" could be one of them.
>
>
> But aren't you then going to need to differentiate the sounds?
>
> # 18 has a Chihuahua (yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap) while # 23 has a 
> Rottweiler (WOOF)
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> ___
> 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] railway=station areas

[OSM]

Am 10.10.2020 um 00:35 schrieb Dave F via Tagging:


I edited a copy of the diagram (A-simple-station.svg) of a station 
layout, primarily to remove any references to PTv2 tags, a completely 
independent, duplicating tagging schema, irrelevant to anything to do 
with the railway=station tag.


That is the main problem I think:
You think, that railway=* and PTv2 tags are duplicating tagging schemas.

But:
railway=* are _railway_ related tags - they are for infrastructure.
PTv2 tags are _public_transport_ tags - they are for the public 
transport use cases.


And yes - these both are truly different.

--
Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
http://www.avg.com


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Rideshare Access

[nathan case]

Clare: this is a good discussion to have.

It seems as though the emergence of rideshare services is still being addressed 
at various legal levels but, at least in the UK, rideshare vehicles are not 
classed taxis and so are not ordinarily entitled to use bus/taxi lanes. If 
situations exist where rideshares are specifically allowed (or not), and that 
access is distinct from taxi or a regular motor_vehicle, then a key should 
exist to denote that. I note that the proposal has been updated to reflect such 
cases.

> Joseph Eisenberg: But you will also need to add a definition of a "rideshare 
> vehicle", since this will need to be translated for places where Lyft and 
> Uber do not operate, and where English is not used (e.g. Indonesia). 
> Unfortunately I don't see a good online source for a definition.

Perhaps such definitions are dependent upon local/national legislation. In your 
follow on examples, do those services enjoy the same access rights as PSVs? If 
yes, then perhaps they should simply be covered by that tag? If they do not, do 
they have any additional or fewer access rights than simply 
motor_vehicle/cycle? If not, then perhaps they should simply be covered by 
those respective tags?

So a definition could be something along the lines of: “A private hire vehicle, 
often booked through an online service or a mobile application, that does not 
enjoy the same legal standing as a taxi service. Exact definition may depend on 
local law but usually denotes services such as Uber and Lyft.”

A taxi that also takes bookings/collects fares via an app is still a taxi, in 
my opinion.

Regards,

Nathan


From: Joseph Eisenberg 
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 12:32 AM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Rideshare Access

Clare,

The "proposal" section currently fails to include the actual proposal: that is, 
what new key and tags are you proposing to use?

It looks like the proposal is: "approve the use of the new key "rideshare=" 
with values "yes" and "no" to specify legal access for rideshare vehicles."
But you will also need to add a definition of a "rideshare vehicle", since this 
will need to be translated for places where Lyft and Uber do not operate, and 
where English is not used (e.g. Indonesia). Unfortunately I don't see a good 
online source for a definition.

Is a Gojek motorcycle a rideshare vehicle? See 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gojek
What about pedicabs (tricycles) which are hailed with a smartphone app?
Or should only passenger cars be included?
What about taxis which also get fares via an app?

- Joseph Eisenberg

On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 1:44 PM Clare Corthell via Tagging 
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:

Hi Tagging List,


Here is the RFC for the proposal for rideshare vehicle access:


Proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Rideshare_Access

Discussion: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proposed_features/Rideshare_Access


This proposes the addition of rideshare as a use-based access mode for 
land-based transportation. This would enable mapping restriction or permission 
of rideshare vehicles to nodes and ways. As mentioned in the proposal example 
cases,
 this typically arises in dense traffic patterns such as airport pickup zones.


This proposal originated from the experience of the Lyft mapping team seeking 
to improve the accuracy of routes we build from an OSM-based map. Because our 
rideshare operations are North America based, we bring a perspective that 
centers the policy for right-of-way in this context. We would especially 
appreciate feedback on the applicability of this tagging to other parts of the 
world.


Looking forward to your commentary and feedback.


Clare

--
Clare Corthell
Product Manager, Lyft Mapping
How Lyft Creates Hyper-Accurate Maps from Open-Source Maps and Real-Time 
Data
[Image removed by sender.]

___
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] railway=station areas

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 14. Oct 2020, at 15:44, Dave F via Tagging  
> wrote:
> 
> Please send messages to forum, John.


from where are you citing here? A private email? 

Can we please discuss publicly here, and keep private discussion private?

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[Robert Delmenico]

Good point Martin. Someone else has suggested artificial as another
alternative. I'm open to all feedback at this stage and happy if anyone
wants to add onto the proposal the pros and cons of that's allowed.

Rob

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020, 7:38 pm Martin Koppenhoefer, 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 15. Oct 2020, at 02:57, Robert Delmenico  wrote:
> >
> > I also understand that generally speaking the use of man_made is
> commonly accepted as a gender neutral term, but in reality it has been
> adapted that way due to past practices of gender bias.
>
>
> I fear in „human“ there is still a man, even in every woman there‘s a man,
> as in female there is a male. Overall it looks as if English is not
> suitable for gender neutral language, everything refers back to men. I
> propose to use German as the language for tags.
> It might look like an impossible endeavor at first glance to retag those
> millions or billions of objects, but if you dig deeper you will find that
> many tags are already more German than English, so ultimately it wouldn’t
> be as much change as it may sound initially.
>
> Cheers Martin
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 15. Oct 2020, at 02:57, Robert Delmenico  wrote:
> 
> I also understand that generally speaking the use of man_made is commonly 
> accepted as a gender neutral term, but in reality it has been adapted that 
> way due to past practices of gender bias.


I fear in „human“ there is still a man, even in every woman there‘s a man, as 
in female there is a male. Overall it looks as if English is not suitable for 
gender neutral language, everything refers back to men. I propose to use German 
as the language for tags.
It might look like an impossible endeavor at first glance to retag those 
millions or billions of objects, but if you dig deeper you will find that many 
tags are already more German than English, so ultimately it wouldn’t be as much 
change as it may sound initially.

Cheers Martin 


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

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 13. Oct 2020, at 23:42, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> I changed the crossing to the way we do it in many parts of Europe, i.e. a 
> crossing node and a crossing way.


I thought the standard was highway=crossing on the nodes where they cross the 
road and highway=footway with footway=crossing on the way segment between the 
kerbs (if sidewalks are mapped) or between the crossing nodes (if several 
carriageways are present).

The crossing=* tags in this scheme go on the nodes, and after some wiki 
fiddling a long time ago, possibly also on the ways.

The idea to use crossing=* as a on ways stems from user ULamm 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Acrossing=revision=1077856=1068935

And became successively popular:
https://taghistory.raifer.tech/#way/highway/crossing/crossing/


The reason for the edit is “see discussion”, but frankly, looking at the 
discussion, it is all but convincing that this edit was justified: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Key:crossing=1093129#Node_or_line

Generally, I would propose to only tag crossing =* on the crossing node, but 
refrain from access like tags on this node (no bicycle or foot tags). The 
access should be derived from the crossing ways.
This still fails to add crossing specifics for situations where the crossing 
ways are not mapped, so alternatively we could state that we only add positive 
access tags to crossings. Imagine I would add hgv=no or motorcycle=no tags to 
pedestrian crossings, IMHO this would be as correct as adding bicycle=no, 
because neither of them can cross at the pedestrian crossing, but overall it 
could be seen as very bad tagging because of the ambiguity (for the road users).

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