Re: [Tagging] RFC Update - Hazard Proposal - rock/land fall/slide

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

I poked into the existing usages of hazard=landslide, and they seem to
mostly be on hiking trails or at best track roads, rather than regular
roads.  I don't think anyone would quibble with tagging a landslide hazard
on this [1] for example.

[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Landslide_area.JPG

On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 8:26 PM Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 01:05, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 1:09 PM Paul Allen  wrote:
>>
>>> That's not to say we don't have landslides in the UK, but it appears
>>> we don't construct roads in places where they are anticipated to
>>> happen.
>>>
>>
>> The idea of "we don't build where the rocks might fall in the road"
>> doesn't work all that well when every mountain pass poses the same risk.
>>
>
> We have quite a lot of falling/fallen rocks hazards.  We seem happy to
> build
> roads there.  Not so many roads by landslide hazards.  Apart from a few
> by colliery spoil tips, but there was no anticipated landslide hazard with
> those.
>
> --
> 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] RFC Update - Hazard Proposal - rock/land fall/slide

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 01:05, Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 1:09 PM Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>> That's not to say we don't have landslides in the UK, but it appears
>> we don't construct roads in places where they are anticipated to
>> happen.
>>
>
> The idea of "we don't build where the rocks might fall in the road"
> doesn't work all that well when every mountain pass poses the same risk.
>

We have quite a lot of falling/fallen rocks hazards.  We seem happy to build
roads there.  Not so many roads by landslide hazards.  Apart from a few
by colliery spoil tips, but there was no anticipated landslide hazard with
those.

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC Update - Hazard Proposal - rock/land fall/slide

[Kevin Kenny]

On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 12:54 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> I am not exactly happy about "rock slide" as it seems weird to use it where
> danger is primarily about individual rocks dropping, not about full scale
> rock slide.
>
> Personally I would prefer "failing rocks" for warning used by a standard
> road
> sign.
>
> (difference is minor, but if we have luxury of selecting any value...)
>
> Disclaimer: I am from a relatively flat country, maybe this sign warns
> about
> full scale rock slides elsewhere?
>

You are a flatlander, aren't you?

Around here, before the international iconography was adopted, the signs
always said, 'fallEN rocks'.  There's precious little a driver can do about
fallING rocks, but incidents of being under them are vanishingly rare.
Instead, the real hazard is fallEN rock blocking the roadway. (Even now,
the MUTCD W8-14 sign prefers the sign with the English words
http://www.trafficsign.us/150/warn/w8-14.png, although some states,
particularly near the Canadian border, favor the pictorial one
https://www.usa-traffic-signs.com/v/vspfiles/photos/cust_W8-14-2.gif that
suggests, incorrectly, that fallING rocks are the chief hazard.)

Around here, also, the stone is sedimentary, often consisting of layers of
soft shale or dolomitic limestone interspersed with much harder sandstone.
The shale erodes away from underneath in a valley or highway gut, until the
sandstone on top of it can no longer support the weight of the overhang and
collapses,  It has little enough structural integrity that you don't
generally get single rocks falling, you get a pile of talus and debris.
Sometimes it's a five minute job with a skid-steer to push the stuff away.
Sometimes it's a couple of weeks with many vehicles to clear away a huge
mass of material and rebuild the shattered pavement underneath.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 1:09 PM Paul Allen  wrote:

> That's not to say we don't have landslides in the UK, but it appears
> we don't construct roads in places where they are anticipated to
> happen.
>

The idea of "we don't build where the rocks might fall in the road" doesn't
work all that well when every mountain pass poses the same risk.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC Update - Hazard Proposal - rock/land fall/slide

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Not all land slides are rock slides. Some are mostly silt or loamy soil, so
are often “mudslides”, e.g. in the Northwest Pacific coast of Canada and
the US:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Oso_mudslide

So I would prefer “landslide” as a more general term.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 2:19 PM Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 12:54 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> I am not exactly happy about "rock slide" as it seems weird to use it
>> where
>> danger is primarily about individual rocks dropping, not about full scale
>> rock slide.
>>
>> Personally I would prefer "failing rocks" for warning used by a standard
>> road
>> sign.
>>
>> (difference is minor, but if we have luxury of selecting any value...)
>>
>
> Since we do have that luxury, and there is a valid reason for preferring
> terminology as actually signed, then we can adopt "hazard=falling_rocks"
> (53 usages) and deprecate "hazard=rockfall" (182 usages).  These are small
> enough numbers that there shouldn't be any harm in choosing the smaller one.
>
> Can we treat landslide and rock_slide as the same thing?  If so,
> "hazard=rock_slide" has 394 usages and "hazard=landslide" has 35 usages.
> In that case, I would propose to adopt the more popular "rock_slide" and
> deprecate "landslide" as duplicate.
>
> Would this address the concerns?
>
> ___
> 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] Inclined elevators

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 08:33, Guillaume Chauvat  wrote:

> Yes, but this is a node, not a way. Inclined elevators require a way and
> those are not displayed properly.
>

Sorry, didn't get what you were getting at!

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC Update - Hazard Proposal - rock/land fall/slide

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

You can also get rather philosophical about it as well :-)

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cW9iNszeKWU/WDuxft3rVBI/G70/HHEd7-W84k0tG_gakCs78RXXfoBfREfigCLcB/s1600/falling-rocks-dj-homewrecker.jpg

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Inclined elevators

[Guillaume Chauvat]

Yes, but this is a node, not a way. Inclined elevators require a way and those 
are not displayed properly.

On 3 December 2020 23:05:14 CET, Graeme Fitzpatrick  
wrote:
>On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 23:19, Guillaume Chauvat 
>wrote:
>
>> I used a way tagged with highway=elevator as the wiki recommends, but
>this
>> does not seem supported by any tool (the default editor, the map on
>> openstreetmap.org, or osmand).
>>
>
>Highway=elevator renders on the main map eg
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7803033418, & this also shows on
>OSMand+?
>
>Thanks
>
>Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC Update - Hazard Proposal - rock/land fall/slide

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 12:54 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> I am not exactly happy about "rock slide" as it seems weird to use it where
> danger is primarily about individual rocks dropping, not about full scale
> rock slide.
>
> Personally I would prefer "failing rocks" for warning used by a standard
> road
> sign.
>
> (difference is minor, but if we have luxury of selecting any value...)
>

Since we do have that luxury, and there is a valid reason for preferring
terminology as actually signed, then we can adopt "hazard=falling_rocks"
(53 usages) and deprecate "hazard=rockfall" (182 usages).  These are small
enough numbers that there shouldn't be any harm in choosing the smaller one.

Can we treat landslide and rock_slide as the same thing?  If so,
"hazard=rock_slide" has 394 usages and "hazard=landslide" has 35 usages.
In that case, I would propose to adopt the more popular "rock_slide" and
deprecate "landslide" as duplicate.

Would this address the concerns?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Inclined elevators

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 23:19, Guillaume Chauvat  wrote:

> I used a way tagged with highway=elevator as the wiki recommends, but this
> does not seem supported by any tool (the default editor, the map on
> openstreetmap.org, or osmand).
>

Highway=elevator renders on the main map eg
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7803033418, & this also shows on OSMand+?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards (frost heave?)

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

I'd think that frost heaves (which are seasonal and conditions-based)
versus permanent bumps are different.  If there aren't objections, I'd
propose both a hazard=bump (which has a few trace uses) and a new value
hazard=frost_heave to cover frost heaves specifically.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 2:37 PM Adam Franco  wrote:

> *hazard=frost_heave, hazard=bump?*
>
> One of the common road hazards I encounter and would like to tag are large
> frost heaves that occur at consistent locations every year. A few roads in
> my region like VT-17 and NY-8 have poor roadbeds and get damaged by frost
> heaves the first winter after repaving. These roads often have several
> hundred yards of nice smooth and fresh pavement, then 2"-8" frost heaves
> with cracks that reappear in the same places year after year.
>
> Some examples:
>
>- VT-17: section A
>, section B
> (with "BUMP"
>sign), section C
>
>- NY-8: section A
>
> ,
>section B
>
> 
>
> This has been previously mentioned in an OSMUS Slack thread
>  in regard
> to smoothness=*, but tagging particularly bad (and often permanent)
> heaves may be preferable as other sections of the roadway may be smooth and
> freshly paved.
>
> Signage on these tends to be inconsistent, often using phrasing like
> "BUMP", "CAUTION: FROST HEAVE", "FROST HEAVE AHEAD", or other similar
> phrases. In some locations the signs are permanently mounted, while other
> locations get folding signage. As these are point features with varying
> placement of signage, I would suggest mapping them as nodes on a roadway at
> the heave position with something like hazard=frost_heave. Alternatively,
> hazard=bump may be applicable to other situations worldwide for dangerous
> bumps caused by something other than freeze/thaw cycles.
>
> Best,
> Adam
>
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 8:27 AM Brian M. Sperlongano 
> wrote:
>
>> Comment is requested on the proposal "hazard", which describes hazardous
>> or dangerous features.  This tagging was first proposed in 2007, and I have
>> adopted the proposal with permission from the original author.  Thanks to
>> the various folks that assisted in the development of this proposal prior
>> to this RFC.
>>
>> The key "hazard" has achieved over 28,000 usages, and it is proposed to
>> formalize usage of the most popular values of this key while deprecating
>> less-popular synonyms.  In addition, this proposes to deprecate
>> protect_class=16 in favor of the hazard key.
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard
>> ___
>> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards (frost heave?)

[Adam Franco]

*hazard=frost_heave, hazard=bump?*

One of the common road hazards I encounter and would like to tag are large
frost heaves that occur at consistent locations every year. A few roads in
my region like VT-17 and NY-8 have poor roadbeds and get damaged by frost
heaves the first winter after repaving. These roads often have several
hundred yards of nice smooth and fresh pavement, then 2"-8" frost heaves
with cracks that reappear in the same places year after year.

Some examples:

   - VT-17: section A
   , section B
    (with "BUMP"
   sign), section C
   
   - NY-8: section A
   
,
   section B
   


This has been previously mentioned in an OSMUS Slack thread
 in regard to
smoothness=*, but tagging particularly bad (and often permanent) heaves may
be preferable as other sections of the roadway may be smooth and freshly
paved.

Signage on these tends to be inconsistent, often using phrasing like
"BUMP", "CAUTION: FROST HEAVE", "FROST HEAVE AHEAD", or other similar
phrases. In some locations the signs are permanently mounted, while other
locations get folding signage. As these are point features with varying
placement of signage, I would suggest mapping them as nodes on a roadway at
the heave position with something like hazard=frost_heave. Alternatively,
hazard=bump may be applicable to other situations worldwide for dangerous
bumps caused by something other than freeze/thaw cycles.

Best,
Adam

On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 8:27 AM Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

> Comment is requested on the proposal "hazard", which describes hazardous
> or dangerous features.  This tagging was first proposed in 2007, and I have
> adopted the proposal with permission from the original author.  Thanks to
> the various folks that assisted in the development of this proposal prior
> to this RFC.
>
> The key "hazard" has achieved over 28,000 usages, and it is proposed to
> formalize usage of the most popular values of this key while deprecating
> less-popular synonyms.  In addition, this proposes to deprecate
> protect_class=16 in favor of the hazard key.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard
> ___
> 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] RFC Update - Hazard Proposal - rock/land fall/slide

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 18:16, Philip Barnes  wrote:

> On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 18:06 +, Paul Allen wrote:
>
>
> That's not to say we don't have landslides in the UK, but it appears
> we don't construct roads in places where they are anticipated to
> happen.
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A625_road#Mam_Tor_road
>

How could I forget Mam Tor?  I did cover myself by saying
"anticipated" but that was insufficient cover.  I should have said
"anticipated by morons."

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC Update - Hazard Proposal - rock/land fall/slide

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Dec 3, 2020, 19:14 by p...@trigpoint.me.uk:

> On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 18:06 +, Paul Allen wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 17:54, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <>> 
>> tagging@openstreetmap.org>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I am not exactly happy about "rock slide" as it seems weird to use it where
>>> danger is primarily about individual rocks dropping, not about full scale 
>>> rock slide.
>>>
>>
>> In the UK we do not appear to have any signage warning of landslides.  The
>> one sign we have is described as warning of "falling or fallen rocks."  A
>> landslide is very different to falling rocks.
>>
>> That's not to say we don't have landslides in the UK, but it appears
>> we don't construct roads in places where they are anticipated to
>> happen.
>>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A625_road#Mam_Tor_road
>
>

See ongoing "Rest and Be Thankful" mountain pass landslide.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/95243064
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2450961
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC Update - Hazard Proposal - rock/land fall/slide

[Philip Barnes]

On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 18:06 +, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 17:54, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
>  wrote:
> > 
> > I am not exactly happy about "rock slide" as it seems weird to use
> > it where
> > danger is primarily about individual rocks dropping, not about full
> > scale rock slide.
> > 
> 
> In the UK we do not appear to have any signage warning of
> landslides.  The
> one sign we have is described as warning of "falling or fallen
> rocks."  A
> landslide is very different to falling rocks.
> 
> That's not to say we don't have landslides in the UK, but it appears
> we don't construct roads in places where they are anticipated to
> happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A625_road#Mam_Tor_road

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC Update - Hazard Proposal - rock/land fall/slide

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 17:54, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> I am not exactly happy about "rock slide" as it seems weird to use it where
> danger is primarily about individual rocks dropping, not about full scale
> rock slide.
>

In the UK we do not appear to have any signage warning of landslides.  The
one sign we have is described as warning of "falling or fallen rocks."  A
landslide is very different to falling rocks.

That's not to say we don't have landslides in the UK, but it appears
we don't construct roads in places where they are anticipated to
happen.

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC Update - Hazard Proposal - rock/land fall/slide

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

I am not exactly happy about "rock slide" as it seems weird to use it where
danger is primarily about individual rocks dropping, not about full scale rock 
slide.

Personally I would prefer "failing rocks" for warning used by a standard road
sign.

(difference is minor, but if we have luxury of selecting any value...)

Disclaimer: I am from a relatively flat country, maybe this sign warns about
full scale rock slides elsewhere?



As far as I know such dangers are common in Asia, especially mountainous parts
such as Nepal. I wonder how this is signed (and is signed at all).

See for example second image on 
https://blogs.agu.org/landslideblog/2020/10/26/landslides-and-roads-recent-examples/
or https://blogs.agu.org/landslideblog/2020/10/20/hanyuan-county-1/
or other materials from that blog.


Dec 3, 2020, 18:14 by zelonew...@gmail.com:

> Hello,
>
> I've made a number of updates to the "hazard" proposal [1] based on the input 
> received.  Thanks to those that offered comment and feedback so far during 
> this RFC.
>
> I request community help on resolving feedback on the proposed tag 
> hazard=rock_slide and deprecation of three values of hazard: rockfall, 
> falling_rocks, and landslide.  The feedback was that rock falls, rockslides 
> and landslides are different and should not be conflated in a single value.  
> Indeed, geologically they are different; a "fall" implies material falling 
> from a cliff while a "slide" implies material sliding down a slope.  
> Additionally "rock" versus "land" describes a different type of material that 
> might fall or slide.
>
> However, in standard road signage, there is a single pictogram for all of 
> these forms of falling/sliding material that almost universally depicts a 
> steep slope with pieces of falling debris.  See the referenced wikipedia 
> articles [2][3] in the row labelled "falling rocks or debris" for examples in 
> many countries.
>
> In some cases, this pictogram is also combined with text that further 
> specificies "landslide" [4] or signs might say in words only "rock slide 
> area" or "slide area".  The "falling rocks or debris" sign is also commonly 
> used by itself to generally indicate this category of hazard.  In these cases 
> (the falling rocks/debris pictogram sign used by itself), my thinking was 
> that a mapper should have a single tag that they can apply, without having to 
> specifically determine the exact geological character of the rock/land 
> fall/slide hazard.  Thus, I've proposed to adopt the most common variant 
> "rock_slide" to cover all of these cases, which a mapper could use anytime 
> they map a sign with that pictogram, and deprecate the others, in order to 
> create consistent tagging.
>
> I request community feedback on this specific question of how to tag this 
> type of hazard for cases of:
> (a) When the mapper observes the "falling rocks or debris" sign but is unsure 
> of whether it is specifically a rock/land slide/fall
> (b) When the mapper observes the sign, and knows the specific geological type
> (c) When the mapper observes a sign with specific text that states "falling 
> rocks", "rock fall", or "landslide"
>
> Do these distinctions need to be tagged differently, and if so, are there 
> suggestions on how that tagging might be constructed?
>
> [1] > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard
> [2] > 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_MUTCD-influenced_traffic_signs
> [3] > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_European_road_signs
> [4] > 
> https://www.pdsigns.ie/product/safety-construction-hazard-warning-risk-of-landslide-on-cliff-edge-sign/>
>   (note: commercial site)
>

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

[Tagging] RFC Update - Hazard Proposal - rock/land fall/slide

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

Hello,

I've made a number of updates to the "hazard" proposal [1] based on the
input received.  Thanks to those that offered comment and feedback so far
during this RFC.

I request community help on resolving feedback on the proposed tag
hazard=rock_slide and deprecation of three values of hazard: rockfall,
falling_rocks, and landslide.  The feedback was that rock falls, rockslides
and landslides are different and should not be conflated in a single
value.  Indeed, geologically they are different; a "fall" implies material
falling from a cliff while a "slide" implies material sliding down a
slope.  Additionally "rock" versus "land" describes a different type of
material that might fall or slide.

However, in standard road signage, there is a single pictogram for all of
these forms of falling/sliding material that almost universally depicts a
steep slope with pieces of falling debris.  See the referenced wikipedia
articles [2][3] in the row labelled "falling rocks or debris" for examples
in many countries.

In some cases, this pictogram is also combined with text that further
specificies "landslide" [4] or signs might say in words only "rock slide
area" or "slide area".  The "falling rocks or debris" sign is also commonly
used by itself to generally indicate this category of hazard.  In these
cases (the falling rocks/debris pictogram sign used by itself), my thinking
was that a mapper should have a single tag that they can apply, without
having to specifically determine the exact geological character of the
rock/land fall/slide hazard.  Thus, I've proposed to adopt the most common
variant "rock_slide" to cover all of these cases, which a mapper could use
anytime they map a sign with that pictogram, and deprecate the others, in
order to create consistent tagging.

I request community feedback on this specific question of how to tag this
type of hazard for cases of:
(a) When the mapper observes the "falling rocks or debris" sign but is
unsure of whether it is specifically a rock/land slide/fall
(b) When the mapper observes the sign, and knows the specific geological
type
(c) When the mapper observes a sign with specific text that states "falling
rocks", "rock fall", or "landslide"

Do these distinctions need to be tagged differently, and if so, are there
suggestions on how that tagging might be constructed?

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_MUTCD-influenced_traffic_signs
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_European_road_signs
[4]
https://www.pdsigns.ie/product/safety-construction-hazard-warning-risk-of-landslide-on-cliff-edge-sign/
(note: commercial site)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Inclined elevators

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 3. Dec 2020, at 16:53, 德泉 談 via Tagging  wrote:
> 
> I think the description in OSM wiki looks fine. Not supported by osm-carto 
> and other tools needs to be reported by somebody, worth doing that.


+1, I would also think the wiki is fine, after all, a way seems the most 
sensible representation for these.

Try to raise awareness by the tools. 3200 instances is also a number which 
could be seen as worthy to include, pretty established for such a relatively 
rare feature.
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=elevator

Cheers Martin 

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

Re: [Tagging] Inclined elevators

[德泉 談 via Tagging]

I'd taken both inclined elevator and funicular railway. I think it could seen 
as two different kind of things.

Inclined elevators travel with short distance in most of the time, their 
structure is quite different that it shouldn't be bracket with the other.

I think the description in OSM wiki looks fine. Not supported by osm-carto and 
other tools needs to be reported by somebody, worth doing that.

- Tan


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

Re: [Tagging] Inclined elevators

[Guillaume Chauvat]

It is supported by the wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Delevator#How_to_Map_as_a_Way

There is an issue here, closed in 2016, "at least until a discussion on the 
tagging list suggests otherwise."
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1953

IMHO this is really an elevator and not a funicular, but I'd be happy to 
convert it to a funicular if it turns out to be the accepted usage.


Guillaume


On 03/12/2020 16:01, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> Is it both something that makes sense, accepted by community
> and supported by Wiki?
> 
> In such case, have you checked whatever this feature was already requested
> for mentioned software?
> 
> It is both rare(?) and tricky to implement in rendering, but editors have 
> greater freedom to handle
> this.
> 
> And it may be possible to support it at least partially, for example for 
> routing (in OsmAnd).
> 
> 
> Dec 3, 2020, 14:17 by guilla...@chauvat.eu:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> My apologies if this has already been discussed several times or if it's 
> not the place to ask.
> 
> I was mapping a public inclined elevator in a dedicated building (it only 
> contains the elevator and three parallel escalators). This is really a 
> standard elevator running parallel to the escalators, not a funicular. Those 
> elevators are very common here in Sweden, although most often inside metro 
> stations.
> 
> What is the best way of mapping it? I used a way tagged with 
> highway=elevator as the wiki recommends, but this does not seem supported by 
> any tool (the default editor, the map on openstreetmap.org, or osmand).
> 
> Regards,
> Guillaume
> -- 
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 


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

Re: [Tagging] Inclined elevators

[Guillaume Chauvat]

The one I am talking about is really an elevator. It's the one on the left in 
the picture here: 
http://nyttiflempan.sh.se/flemingsberg/2015-04-21/S%C3%B6dert%C3%B6rns-rulltrappa-en-huvudv%C3%A4rk-f%C3%B6r-kommunen-12389.html

Guillaume

On 3 December 2020 15:58:03 CET, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
 wrote:
>This one looks to me like a small funicular railway.
>
>But OSM Wiki includes "the ascending and descending vehicles
>counterbalancing each other"
>as one of important characteristic.
>
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway=funicular?uselang=en
>
>
>Dec 3, 2020, 14:53 by winfi...@gmail.com:
>
>> I couldn't resist looking them up.
>>
>> This is a very long one and there is even an operator in it: >
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh0NxK6sslM
>>
>> Most are the length of the escalators they are adjacent to.
>>
>> Polyglot
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 2:19 PM Guillaume Chauvat <>
>guilla...@chauvat.eu> > wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> My apologies if this has already been discussed several times or if
>it's not the place to ask.
>>>
>>> I was mapping a public inclined elevator in a dedicated building (it
>only contains the elevator and three parallel escalators). This is
>really a standard elevator running parallel to the escalators, not a
>funicular. Those elevators are very common here in Sweden, although
>most often inside metro stations.
>>>
>>> What is the best way of mapping it? I used a way tagged with
>highway=elevator as the wiki recommends, but this does not seem
>supported by any tool (the default editor, the map on >>
>openstreetmap.org >> , or osmand).
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Guillaume
>>> -- 
>>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my
>brevity.___
>>>  Tagging mailing list
>>>  >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>>  >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Inclined elevators

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Is it both something that makes sense, accepted by community 
and supported by Wiki?

In such case, have you checked whatever this feature was already requested
for mentioned software?

It is both rare(?) and tricky to implement in rendering, but editors have 
greater freedom to handle
this.

And it may be possible to support it at least partially, for example for 
routing (in OsmAnd).


Dec 3, 2020, 14:17 by guilla...@chauvat.eu:

> Hi,
>
> My apologies if this has already been discussed several times or if it's not 
> the place to ask.
>
> I was mapping a public inclined elevator in a dedicated building (it only 
> contains the elevator and three parallel escalators). This is really a 
> standard elevator running parallel to the escalators, not a funicular. Those 
> elevators are very common here in Sweden, although most often inside metro 
> stations.
>
> What is the best way of mapping it? I used a way tagged with highway=elevator 
> as the wiki recommends, but this does not seem supported by any tool (the 
> default editor, the map on openstreetmap.org, or osmand).
>
> Regards,
> Guillaume
> -- 
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Inclined elevators

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

This one looks to me like a small funicular railway.

But OSM Wiki includes "the ascending and descending vehicles counterbalancing 
each other"
as one of important characteristic.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway=funicular?uselang=en


Dec 3, 2020, 14:53 by winfi...@gmail.com:

> I couldn't resist looking them up.
>
> This is a very long one and there is even an operator in it: > 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh0NxK6sslM
>
> Most are the length of the escalators they are adjacent to.
>
> Polyglot
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 2:19 PM Guillaume Chauvat <> guilla...@chauvat.eu> > 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> My apologies if this has already been discussed several times or if it's not 
>> the place to ask.
>>
>> I was mapping a public inclined elevator in a dedicated building (it only 
>> contains the elevator and three parallel escalators). This is really a 
>> standard elevator running parallel to the escalators, not a funicular. Those 
>> elevators are very common here in Sweden, although most often inside metro 
>> stations.
>>
>> What is the best way of mapping it? I used a way tagged with 
>> highway=elevator as the wiki recommends, but this does not seem supported by 
>> any tool (the default editor, the map on >> openstreetmap.org 
>> >> , or osmand).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Guillaume
>> -- 
>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my 
>> brevity.___
>>  Tagging mailing list
>>  >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>  >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>

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

Re: [Tagging] Inclined elevators

[Jo]

I couldn't resist looking them up.

This is a very long one and there is even an operator in it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh0NxK6sslM

Most are the length of the escalators they are adjacent to.

Polyglot

On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 2:19 PM Guillaume Chauvat 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> My apologies if this has already been discussed several times or if it's
> not the place to ask.
>
> I was mapping a public inclined elevator in a dedicated building (it only
> contains the elevator and three parallel escalators). This is really a
> standard elevator running parallel to the escalators, not a funicular.
> Those elevators are very common here in Sweden, although most often inside
> metro stations.
>
> What is the best way of mapping it? I used a way tagged with
> highway=elevator as the wiki recommends, but this does not seem supported
> by any tool (the default editor, the map on openstreetmap.org, or osmand).
>
> Regards,
> Guillaume
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my
> brevity.___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 134, Issue 130 animal tracks ?

[Andy Townsend]

On 03/12/2020 10:47, ael via Tagging wrote:

On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 11:08:55PM +, Paul Allen wrote:

Which then goes back to the discussions we were having a while back about

tagging the "dangerousness" of tracks.

hazard=extreme   surely?


Actually,

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/hazard#values

suggests the type (rather than the severity) of the hazard is what's 
most used there.  To be fair though, hazard tagging in OSM is a bit hit 
and miss - I did try and render commonly-used values and couldn't see 
any real consensus (Giant Hogweed was about the only one I could use).


Best Regards,

Andy



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

[Tagging] Inclined elevators

[Guillaume Chauvat]

Hi,

My apologies if this has already been discussed several times or if it's not 
the place to ask.

I was mapping a public inclined elevator in a dedicated building (it only 
contains the elevator and three parallel escalators). This is really a standard 
elevator running parallel to the escalators, not a funicular. Those elevators 
are very common here in Sweden, although most often inside metro stations.

What is the best way of mapping it? I used a way tagged with highway=elevator 
as the wiki recommends, but this does not seem supported by any tool (the 
default editor, the map on openstreetmap.org, or osmand).

Regards,
Guillaume
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 134, Issue 130 animal tracks ?

[ael via Tagging]

On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 11:08:55PM +, Paul Allen wrote:
> Which then goes back to the discussions we were having a while back about
> > tagging the "dangerousness" of tracks.

hazard=extreme   surely?

ael


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

Re: [Tagging] RFC: vaccination / COVID-19 vaccination centres

[Mark Herringer]

I agree that the venue for a vaccination is not always in a clinic or
hospital. This is particularly true in rural Africa where access to health
services is poor.
Having the ability to indicate the presence of an
amenity=vaccination_centre seems to make the most sense.
When the facility closes the tag should be updated by the Logistics cluster.


ᐧ

On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 23:39, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> The proposed new tag, vaccination= are available>, seems like a reasonable idea.
>
> However, it might be necessary to discuss a main feature tag to use in the
> case when these are not administered by a clinic or doctor's office or
> hospital.
>
> There does not seem to be a widely used, suitable tag under healthcare=*
> or amenity=* for a place that specializes in administering immunizations
> only.
>
> healthcare:speciality=vaccination is not a primary feature tag, but a
> secondary tag which needs to be added to something under the key amenity=*
> or healthcare=*.
>
> Perhaps amenity=vaccination_centre would work?
>
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 9:30 AM Tom Pfeifer 
> wrote:
> >
> > Following the discussion on how to tag COVID-19 vaccination centres
> previously on this list,
> > I have created a proposal for the vaccination key:
> >
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/vaccination
> >
> > tom
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Kind regards
Mark Herringer
www.healthsites.io
https://medium.com/healthsites-io
@sharehealthdata 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging