Re: [Tagging] How to Tag Steps in a Bridleway

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am So., 28. Apr. 2024 um 16:40 Uhr schrieb Andy Townsend :

> Assuming we're talking about something that's signed as a "Public
> Bridleway" in England and Wales*, then at the most basic level there are
> two tags to consider:
>
>- highway=steps
>- designation=public_bridleway
>
> The first of those says that there are some steps.  There's no other way
> of doing that; there are steps, so highway=steps it is.
>


actually there would be an alternative, although it is not used so often:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Abarrier%3Dstep
I agree highway=steps is probably the most supported way to tag it.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to Tag Steps in a Bridleway

[Jo]

I was wondering about that myself. They seem to be 'long' steps. So a horse
wouldn't have too much trouble with them. Also parallel with it on the
other side of the small river there is a cycleway with no steps. That one
is on Mapillary.

Jo

Op ma 29 apr 2024 om 00:15 schreef Graeme Fitzpatrick :

> Completely aside from mapping them in OSM, but how do horses handle the
> steps in the bridleway?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to Tag Steps in a Bridleway

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 29. Apr. 2024 um 09:47 Uhr schrieb Jo :

> I was wondering about that myself. They seem to be 'long' steps. So a
> horse wouldn't have too much trouble with them.
>



there is this property which might be applying:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:flat_steps
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to Tag Steps in a Bridleway

[Peter Neale via Tagging]

Hi,  
They are, indeed, quite "long".  I do not own a horse, nor have I seen one use 
this section of bridleway, however, I guess that, with each step having only a 
modest "rise" and a long "run", horses should have little difficulty walking up 
or down them, just as we do. 
key:flat_step *might* be appropriate (and useful to consumers looking to take a 
child's buggy along the way).  I will give that some thought.
Regards,Peter
 Peter Neale 
t: 01908 309666 
m: 07968 341930
 

On Monday, 29 April 2024 at 09:09:05 BST, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 wrote:  
 
 

Am Mo., 29. Apr. 2024 um 09:47 Uhr schrieb Jo :

I was wondering about that myself. They seem to be 'long' steps. So a horse 
wouldn't have too much trouble with them. 




there is this property which might be applying: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:flat_steps___
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] How to Tag Steps in a Bridleway

[Peter Neale via Tagging]

Hi,
It is my understanding, from the Wiki at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle, that "bicycles=yes" means that 
bicycles are permitted, but says nothing about the ease of riding one there. 
It is "bicycles=yes" and not "bicycles=designated" because, for a bridleway   
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbridleway"Cyclists also have 
a right, unless the local authority makes orders to the contrary ...The 
local authority is not obliged to ensure suitability for bicycles, unlike for 
foot or horse users."#
BTW you can still carry (or push) a bicycle, even where the way is tagged 
"bicycle=no".  (from the wiki again) "bicycle / no / Where bicycles are not 
permitted, ensure this is indicated. Note that carrying or pushing bicycles may 
be still accepted".
So, thanks for asking, but I remain happy with "highway=steps"; "bicycle=yes"
Regards,Peter
 Peter Neale 
t: 01908 309666 
m: 07968 341930
 

On Monday, 29 April 2024 at 07:35:48 BST, Jens Glad Balchen via Tagging 
 wrote:  
 
Generally speaking, how do we reconcile these two?
 
 bicycle=yes highway=steps
 
 What is a data consumer supposed to infer from this as opposed to just 
highway=steps? As long as foot=designated, aren't cyclists always allowed to 
get off the bike and push/carry it? And wouldn't they have to when there are 
steps?
  
 Jens
 
 On 28/04/2024 21:35, Peter Neale via Tagging wrote:
  
 
  Hi DaveF, 
  Acting on advice, I have already split the Bridleway and re-tagged 2 sections 
as: 
bicycle=yes designation=public_bridleway foot=designated highway=steps 
horse=designated incline=down  (or up) lit=no surface=paved
   
  The steps can be seen on aerial imagery (a bit fuzzy on Bing, but 
particularly clear in the aerial imagery whose name shall not be mentioned in 
OSM), plus I remember running through there a few  months ago, so I know that 
the steps are there.   I intend to visit again soon and add more detail (number 
of steps, etc.) 
  Between these is a section of the orignal way, which is now 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1277843368 
  I hope this helps and that you agree with the tagging.
 
 Regards, Peter 
  (PeterPan99)   
  
  On Sunday, 28 April 2024 at 17:35:58 BST, Dave F via Tagging 
 wrote:  
  
 Could you provide the link to the OSM way please?
 DaveF
 
  On 28/04/2024 15:19, Peter Neale via Tagging wrote:
  
  Advice, please. 
  A local Public Bridleway has a few (3, 4 or 5 from Aerial imagery) steps 
going down before it passes under a road bridge, and a similar number up again 
on the other side. 
  How can I best tag this?  According to the wiki, "highway=steps" seems to be 
*an alternative to*, not *a qualification of * "highway=bridleway". I don't 
want to mislead consumers by breaking the bridleway, but I don't want cycling 
consumers to be unaware of the fact that there are a few steps to descend / 
ascend, which may require a dismount. 
  
  
Regards, Peter 
  (PeterPan99)   
  ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 
  
   ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 
  ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 
 ___
Tagging 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] How to Tag Steps in a Bridleway

[Warin]

Horses are good at handling various obstacles.

If you can find a local 'horse trial' go along and look. Yes it is a 
competition... But I don't map them as they are usually on private 
property.




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

Re: [Tagging] How to Tag Steps in a Bridleway

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Thanks, all!

Graeme


On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 at 18:06, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> Am Mo., 29. Apr. 2024 um 09:47 Uhr schrieb Jo :
>
>> I was wondering about that myself. They seem to be 'long' steps. So a
>> horse wouldn't have too much trouble with them.
>>
>
>
>
> there is this property which might be applying:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:flat_steps
> ___
> 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] How to Tag Steps in a Bridleway

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

1) at least some people may be interested in places where cycling across
steps is legal (not fan of MTBing etc but at least some people like it?
not really sure here about whether it is actually something that people
look for )

2) people may be interested in places where cyclists nominally have
right of the way but actual infrastructure is not suitable for cycling

3) yes, routers need to look also on other tags and process various
obstacles (see also surface=sand and so

And in general meaning is clear: these are steps were cyclist are
allowed to cycle.

Note it does not mean that cycling is feasible or a good idea there.

Apr 29, 2024, 08:36 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

> Generally speaking, how do we reconcile these two?
>  
>  bicycle=yes
> highway=steps
>  
>  What is a data consumer supposed to infer from this as opposedto 
> just highway=steps? As long as foot=designated, aren'tcyclists always 
> allowed to get off the bike and push/carry it?And wouldn't they have 
> to when there are steps?
>
> Jens
>  
>  On 28/04/2024 21:35, Peter Neale via Tagging wrote:
>
>> Hi DaveF,
>>
>> Acting on advice, I havealready split the Bridleway and 
>> re-tagged 2 sections as:
>>
>> bicycle=yes
>> designation=public_bridleway
>> foot=designated
>> highway=steps
>> horse=designated
>> incline=down  (or up)
>> lit=no
>> surface=paved
>>
>> The steps can be seen onaerial imagery (a bit fuzzy on Bing, but 
>> particularly clearin the aerial imagery whose name shall not be 
>> mentioned inOSM), plus I remember running through there a few  
>> monthsago, so I know that the steps are there.   I intend to 
>> visitagain soon and add more detail (number of steps, etc.)
>>
>> Between these is a sectionof the orignal way, which is now >> 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1277843368
>>
>> I hope this helps and thatyou agree with the tagging.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Peter
>>
>> (PeterPan99)
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, 28 April 2024 at 17:35:58 BST, Dave F viaTagging >> 
>>  >>  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Could you provide the link to the OSM way please?
>>  DaveF
>>
>> On28/04/2024 15:19, Peter Neale via Tagging wrote:
>>
>>> Advice, please.
>>>
>>> A local Public Bridleway has a few(3, 4 or 5 from 
>>> Aerial imagery) steps going downbefore it passes 
>>> under a road bridge, and asimilar number up again 
>>> on the other side.
>>>
>>> How can I best tag this?  Accordingto the wiki, 
>>> "highway=steps" seems to be *analternative to*, not 
>>> *a qualification of *"highway=bridleway". I don't 
>>> want to misleadconsumers by breaking the bridleway, 
>>> but I don'twant cycling consumers to be unaware of 
>>> the factthat there are a few steps to descend / 
>>> ascend,which may require a dismount.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> (PeterPan99)
>>>
>>> ___Tagging mailing list>>> 
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org>>> 
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>
>> ___
>>  Tagging mailing list
>>  >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>  >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>> ___Tagging mailing list>> 
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>

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

Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Apr 28, 2024, 22:50 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com:

> 3. If they are hamlets, shouldn't the main routes connecting them be
> mapped as highway=tertiary, based on the definitions in the wiki? [1]
> [1] > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10078630
>
why you think that place=hamlet are automatically entitled to
highway=tertiary?

Why you link this relation as related? This road serves mines, not
only research stations/hamlets.

And is not a wiki definition.

(have I missed intended link? or are there multiple [1] anchors?)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to Tag Steps in a Bridleway

[Andy Townsend]

On 28/04/2024 23:09, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

... how do horses handle the steps in the bridleway?


better than cyclists :)

Lots of historic bridleways in hilly areas in England are quite steep, 
and often steps have been added for foot access to stop hikers sliding 
down the slope. Sometimes there's a sloped part alongside; sometimes 
there isn't. I've added "horse_scale" in some cases locally (see 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1KQS ) although that may not really be 
relevant here (MK is famous for concrete cows rather than horses of any 
type).


Best Regards,

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

Re: [Tagging] How to Tag Steps in a Bridleway

[Jens Glad Balchen via Tagging]

1) true, but wouldn't that by default be all steps unless otherwise 
noted? I guess in this case it's assumed that the steps inherit their 
implicit access from bridleway, so that might be different from the 
general case...?
2) a noble cause, but again I would think that excluding bicycle=no from 
such a list of places would be more beneficial than including bicycle=yes

3) of course

At any rate, the worst outcome of this is redundant information in OSM, 
which isn't so bad all things considered :)


Jens

On 29.04.2024 12:49, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:

1) at least some people may be interested in places where cycling across
steps is legal (not fan of MTBing etc but at least some people like it?
not really sure here about whether it is actually something that people
look for )

2) people may be interested in places where cyclists nominally have
right of the way but actual infrastructure is not suitable for cycling

3) yes, routers need to look also on other tags and process various
obstacles (see also surface=sand and so

And in general meaning is clear: these are steps were cyclist are
allowed to cycle.

Note it does not mean that cycling is feasible or a good idea there.

Apr 29, 2024, 08:36 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

Generally speaking, how do we reconcile these two?

bicycle=yes
highway=steps

What is a data consumer supposed to infer from this as opposed to
just highway=steps? As long as foot=designated, aren't cyclists
always allowed to get off the bike and push/carry it? And wouldn't
they have to when there are steps?

Jens

On 28/04/2024 21:35, Peter Neale via Tagging wrote:

Hi DaveF,

Acting on advice, I have already split the Bridleway and
re-tagged 2 sections as:

bicycle=yes
designation=public_bridleway
foot=designated
highway=steps
horse=designated
incline=down  (or up)
lit=no
surface=paved

The steps can be seen on aerial imagery (a bit fuzzy on Bing, but
particularly clear in the aerial imagery whose name shall not be
mentioned in OSM), plus I remember running through there a few 
months ago, so I know that the steps are there.  I intend to
visit again soon and add more detail (number of steps, etc.)

Between these is a section of the orignal way, which is now
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1277843368

I hope this helps and that you agree with the tagging.

Regards,
Peter

(PeterPan99)


On Sunday, 28 April 2024 at 17:35:58 BST, Dave F via Tagging
  wrote:


Could you provide the link to the OSM way please?
DaveF

On 28/04/2024 15:19, Peter Neale via Tagging wrote:

Advice, please.

A local Public Bridleway has a few (3, 4 or 5 from Aerial
imagery) steps going down before it passes under a road bridge,
and a similar number up again on the other side.

How can I best tag this? According to the wiki, "highway=steps"
seems to be *an alternative to*, not *a qualification of *
"highway=bridleway". I don't want to mislead consumers by
breaking the bridleway, but I don't want cycling consumers to be
unaware of the fact that there are a few steps to descend /
ascend, which may require a dismount.



Regards,
Peter

(PeterPan99)

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



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

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




___
Tagging 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] Highway classification in Antarctica

[Fernando Trebien]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 at 08:02, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
 wrote:
> Apr 28, 2024, 22:50 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com:
>
> 3. If they are hamlets, shouldn't the main routes connecting them be
> mapped as highway=tertiary, based on the definitions in the wiki? [1]
> [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10078630
>
> why you think that place=hamlet are automatically entitled to
> highway=tertiary?

The wiki emphasizes the highway classification should consider the
relative importance of roads within regional contexts even for the
lowest highway classes:

"Outside urban areas, tertiary roads are those with low to moderate
traffic which link smaller settlements such as villages or hamlets."
"For quieter linking roads, consider using highway=unclassified
instead"
(quietER, relative, not quiet, absolute)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtertiary

"The distinction between unclassified and tertiary often causes
confusion: in general, always consider the road's relative importance
in the region's road network and tag appropriately."
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified

The wiki also lists highway classes by importance, from top to bottom
within a country, leading to the spread of highway classes according
to local conditions. So, in Antarctica, a neutral mapper (not
projecting country-specific customs or personal preferences) following
this guidance would tend to raise highway classification.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway#Highway

I agree with you that it would be a stretch to interpret this as
assigning highway=trunk to the only way between the only two houses on
an isolated island. But there are many intermediate cases in the world
between this extreme and the other extreme (a large, populated island
country with many villages and connecting roads) and no clear guidance
on when to start increasing highway classification.

And finally, the many examples I found near the Arctic seem to
constitute a tacit precedent for such regional relativizations that
represent mappers' preferences and practices in regions similar to the
Antarctic region. If we are truly concerned about coherence, then this
should be taken into account. The reasons why these mappers chose this
mapping style are probably linked to the practical uses of the map
(typically rendering and routing). If the map isn't good enough for
the users, they won't use it.

> (have I missed intended link? or are there multiple [1] anchors?)

My mistake. The first link numbered "[1]" was supposed to be a link to
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtertiary which I
forgot to include.

> Why you link this relation as related? This road serves mines, not
> only research stations/hamlets.

My mistake in numbering the links was really confusing, sorry about
that. I wanted to highlight that, although the activity is different,
the physical characteristics, length and regional relevance of the
road are similar to those of the South Pole Traverse.

-- 
Fernando Trebien

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

Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Apr 28, 2024, 02:56 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com:

> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 at 14:46, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
>  wrote:
>
>> If very big island has no roads at all except single small road between
>> two houses it does not mean it is highway=trunk road.
>>
>
> I agree, but note that the wiki in principle allows this distorted
> interpretation twice:
>
> "a road of highest importance, forming the main road network there,
> should be highway=trunk" [1]
> "highway=trunk: The most important roads in a country's system that
> aren't motorways." [2]
>
If there is region without road network (Antarctica, my balcony, Sealand,
Mars, bottom of Atlantic Ocean etc - even if some road vehicles have 
some typical passaged) then it is not applicable as there is no road network 
there.

At least that was intended meaning (I checked with person who added this
text, which was me - see 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:highway&diff=1211371&oldid=1184333
 )

Do you have a good idea how to make it more clear that such malformed
meaning was not intended?

(second note also may benefit from fix as the most important in 
Vatican is not highway=trunk - though again, maybe it can be avoided
via "Vatican has no road network system").
But confusion is not applicable to Antarctica as it is not a country, as
far as I know.

> There is also some confusion in the wiki regarding highway=tertiary. It says:
>
> "highway=tertiary: The next most important roads in a country's
> system. (Often link smaller towns and villages)" [2]
>
> And:
>
> "Outside urban areas, tertiary roads are those with low to moderate
> traffic which link smaller settlements such as villages or hamlets."
> [3]
>
> So what is it that highway=tertiary links? Hamlets, villages, smaller
> towns? Any of those?
>
I guess it kind of depends on area? I would not expect thorough consistency
across world and what is described as "hamlet" is probably not so consistent.
Though making it more consistent would be nice (if anyone would start a 
separate thread it would be nice)

> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway#Assumptions
> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway#Highway
> [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtertiary
>
> --
> Fernando Trebien
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

[Fernando Trebien]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 at 20:14, Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana
 wrote:
> Firstly, the unclassified value is used also to linking with hamlets 
> according Key:highway.

As I mentioned earlier, this is a contradiction in the wiki that
should be addressed. The text of Tag:highway=tertiary does not match
that of Key:highway regarding what types of settlements tertiary roads
link.

> Due the settlements of Fildes Peninsula are in the lowet limit of 
> hamlet/village (supposing these are the correct values), then is easily to 
> discard tertiary value.

This seems like an argument supporting adopting absolute population
thresholds for classifying place=* and then using them to decide
highway=*. Many local communities have gone the opposite way by
adopting lower population thresholds for the various types of place=*.
This is common practice in less populated countries and in sparse
areas of large countries and in less populous small countries.

> Next, the wiki suggest to choose unclassified than tertiary for quieter 
> linking roads. Until the moment, most people agree the all roads of Fildes 
> Peninsula are quieter

"Quieter" is a comparison. What should they be compared to? Roads are
not classified primarily by absolute traffic volume, rather (and more
commonly) by importance and function in the road/street system.

> Tertiary inside urban context that cited by you, refers explicitly to bigger 
> settlements. This does not meaning you need to linking all relevant POIs with 
> a tertiary, but they can be found typically in streets with tertiary or 
> higher classification. Further, in Villa Las Estrellas de most of POIs are 
> only accessible by footways.

The roads from the airport to Great Wall Station and to Artigas Base
are clearly not footways. Are you maybe referring to the small street
that goes through the Antarctic Treaty Monument and Frei's
headquarters? There are motor vehicles there. [1]

> Fildes Peninsula have only near 100 inhabitants.

The combined occupancy of all stations and settlements in the
Peninsula (Villa Las Estrellas, Professor Julio Escudero Base,
Bellingshausen Station, Great Wall Station, Artigas Base and Julio
Ripamonti Base) varies from 123 in the winter to 323 in the summer.
[2]

> Your approach are too relativistic.

The OSM wiki is relativistic. I think we're debating how relativistic
it should be in the context of Antarctica but also to similar
situations in the world. I'm basing my arguments on many real-world
examples that show mappers' preferences and tacit consensus in similar
situations. If these are preferred in the Arctic but not in the
Antarctic region, I think the result is incoherent.

[1] https://maps.app.goo.gl/uvRXAWaJD7ocHiBUA
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_stations_in_Antarctica

-- 
Fernando Trebien

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

Re: [Tagging] How to Tag Steps in a Bridleway

[Mike Thompson]

On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 4:58 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> 1) at least some people may be interested in places where cycling across
> steps is legal (not fan of MTBing etc but at least some people like it?
> not really sure here about whether it is actually something that people
> look for )
>
It is quite common to have steps on mountain bike trails and in
mountain bike skill parks.  They are actually not too difficult to ride
down, however riding up can be a bit more challenging.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to Tag Steps in a Bridleway

[Jass Kurn]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 at 10:03, Peter Neale via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> It is "bicycles=yes" and not "bicycles=designated" because, for a
> bridleway   https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbridleway
> "Cyclists also have a right, unless the local authority makes orders to
> the contrary ...The local authority is not obliged to ensure
> suitability for bicycles, unlike for foot or horse users."#
>


Disagree with that, I always map a Public Bridleway as bicycle=designated.
Cyclists have a statutory right to use these ways, which should be meaning
behind the designated. The fact there is no requirement to maintain a
Public Bridleway to a standard acceptable to all cyclists, does not impact
on the right to use the way. It's a secondary matter that does not fall
under "access". Or looking at this in another way. The fact a Public
Footpath does not have to meet standards that would allow ALL pedestrians
to use them, but does not mean a public footpath should be tagged foot=yes

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

Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 29. Apr. 2024 um 16:06 Uhr schrieb Fernando Trebien <
fernando.treb...@gmail.com>:

> > why you think that place=hamlet are automatically entitled to
> > highway=tertiary?
>
> The wiki emphasizes the highway classification should consider the
> relative importance of roads within regional contexts even for the
> lowest highway classes:
>
> "Outside urban areas, tertiary roads are those with low to moderate
> traffic which link smaller settlements such as villages or hamlets."
>


Yes, but villages and hamlets are just examples, as are settlements. IMHO
there are no settlements required for a road to be tagged highway. If you
strictly read this paragraph from the wiki, if a road doesn't link a
settlement, it could not be tagged even tertiary. A main road can just as
well lead to a train station or an airport / airfield, or to a mining area,
or to a seaport or military base, no settlement required. The settlements
are mentioned in the wiki, because this is what we usually expect, but
there absence could be justified in some exceptional cases (like the
aforementioned).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 29. Apr. 2024 um 16:25 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> (second note also may benefit from fix as the most important in
> Vatican is not highway=trunk - though again, maybe it can be avoided
> via "Vatican has no road network system").
>


the Vatican has a road network system, but it is not publicly accessible.
The idea that we should start from the most important roads (trunk) should
not refer to a "country" but to a "region", i.e. the question is not which
are the most important roads in the Vatican but which are these in Central
Italy (and FWIW, in Italy we adopted the German idea, to use "trunk" for
roads that are built to motorway like standards without being motorways, so
that the major roads are tagged as primary if they present level crossings).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to Tag Steps in a Bridleway

[Jo]

That doesn't seem very helpful for cycling users of the map or its routers.
If there is a blue round sign with a bicycle on it, I'd call that
designated, or a blue rectangular one. Or the pavement is in a pinkish
colour (here in Belgium). If I find a sandy track in the forest, where it's
obvious horses are galloping there on a regular basis, I know to stay away
from them. One because it's very tiresome to advance on them, but more
importantly it's dangerous for cyclist, horseback rider AND horse when a
collision happens at galloping speeds.

Jo

On Mon, Apr 29, 2024, 17:28 Jass Kurn  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 at 10:03, Peter Neale via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> It is "bicycles=yes" and not "bicycles=designated" because, for a
>> bridleway   https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbridleway
>> "Cyclists also have a right, unless the local authority makes orders to
>> the contrary ...The local authority is not obliged to ensure
>> suitability for bicycles, unlike for foot or horse users."#
>>
>
>
> Disagree with that, I always map a Public Bridleway as bicycle=designated.
> Cyclists have a statutory right to use these ways, which should be meaning
> behind the designated. The fact there is no requirement to maintain a
> Public Bridleway to a standard acceptable to all cyclists, does not impact
> on the right to use the way. It's a secondary matter that does not fall
> under "access". Or looking at this in another way. The fact a Public
> Footpath does not have to meet standards that would allow ALL pedestrians
> to use them, but does not mean a public footpath should be tagged foot=yes
>
> Jass
> ___
> 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] Difference between "yes" and "designated" in access tags (was: Re: How to Tag Steps in a Bridleway)

[Andy Townsend]

On 29/04/2024 16:22, Jass Kurn wrote:


On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 at 10:03, Peter Neale via Tagging 
 wrote:


It is "bicycles=yes" and not "bicycles=designated" because, for a
bridleway https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbridleway
"Cyclists also have a right, unless the local authority makes
orders to the contrary ...The local authority is not obliged
to ensure suitability for bicycles, unlike for foot or horse users."#


Disagree with that, I always map a Public Bridleway as 
bicycle=designated. Cyclists have a statutory right to use these ways, 
which should be meaning behind the designated. The fact there is no 
requirement to maintain a Public Bridleway to a standard acceptable to 
all cyclists, does not impact on the right to use the way. It's a 
secondary matter that does not fall under "access". Or looking at this 
in another way. The fact a Public Footpath does not have to meet 
standards that would allow ALL pedestrians to use them, but does not 
mean a public footpath should be tagged foot=yes



In terms of access rights*, I've always thought that (in England and 
Wales**) "yes" and "designated" mean both "a legal right to access", as 
opposed to "permissive" that means "you can go there, but that right can 
be removed by the landowner whenever they wish".  What would you say the 
difference between "yes" and "designated" are?


Best Regards,

Andy

* ignoring the use of "designated" on "highway=path" etc. where it is 
used to say that a path is really a footway or a cycleway.


** and also ignoring countries such as e.g. Scotland, Sweden, Finland et 
al where you have a legal right of access on foot across most areas, 
with some caveats.


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

Re: [Tagging] Difference between "yes" and "designated" in access tags (was: Re: How to Tag Steps in a Bridleway)

[stevea]

In my mind "designated" means "for this infrastructure / mode-of-travel pair, 
DO use this."  Like legislatively or because a sign says so and quotes a local 
ordinance or traffic code statute.  "We built this, use it."  (Say, for your 
own safety and/or comfort).

With "yes" you certainly can use this infrastructure for that particular 
mode-of-travel.  Though, nothing more than that.

I hope this helps.

> On Apr 29, 2024, at 3:54 PM, Andy Townsend  wrote:
> 
> On 29/04/2024 16:22, Jass Kurn wrote:
>> 
>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 at 10:03, Peter Neale via Tagging 
>>  wrote:
>> It is "bicycles=yes" and not "bicycles=designated" because, for a bridleway  
>>  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbridleway
>> "Cyclists also have a right, unless the local authority makes orders to the 
>> contrary ...The local authority is not obliged to ensure suitability for 
>> bicycles, unlike for foot or horse users."#
>> 
>> Disagree with that, I always map a Public Bridleway as bicycle=designated. 
>> Cyclists have a statutory right to use these ways, which should be meaning 
>> behind the designated. The fact there is no requirement to maintain a Public 
>> Bridleway to a standard acceptable to all cyclists, does not impact on the 
>> right to use the way. It's a secondary matter that does not fall under 
>> "access". Or looking at this in another way. The fact a Public Footpath does 
>> not have to meet standards that would allow ALL pedestrians to use them, but 
>> does not mean a public footpath should be tagged foot=yes
> 
> In terms of access rights*, I've always thought that (in England and Wales**) 
> "yes" and "designated" mean both "a legal right to access", as opposed to 
> "permissive" that means "you can go there, but that right can be removed by 
> the landowner whenever they wish".  What would you say the difference between 
> "yes" and "designated" are?
> Best Regards,
> Andy
> * ignoring the use of "designated" on "highway=path" etc. where it is used to 
> say that a path is really a footway or a cycleway.
> ** and also ignoring countries such as e.g. Scotland, Sweden, Finland et al 
> where you have a legal right of access on foot across most areas, with some 
> caveats.


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

Re: [Tagging] Difference between "yes" and "designated" in access tags (was: Re: How to Tag Steps in a Bridleway)

[stevea]

And

"should" or "must" (use this infrastructure with this mode-of-travel) 
more-or-less = "designated."

Finally,

"can" more-or-less = "yes."

That's a lot of quotes, but I think you get the drift.

> On Apr 29, 2024, at 4:02 PM, stevea  wrote:
> 
> In my mind "designated" means "for this infrastructure / mode-of-travel pair, 
> DO use this."  Like legislatively or because a sign says so and quotes a 
> local ordinance or traffic code statute.  "We built this, use it."  (Say, for 
> your own safety and/or comfort).
> 
> With "yes" you certainly can use this infrastructure for that particular 
> mode-of-travel.  Though, nothing more than that.
> 
> I hope this helps.


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

Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

[Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana]

It has no sense to inflating classifications of every island in the word for 
being the most important road in respective island.

If a neighbor garage is more quieter than the mine is not a justification to 
elevate road classification of one of them to compensate this difference.

The highway=* tag is no made to use all classifications in a region delimited 
by you.

You need take account the function supplied by the road, the differences in the 
highway value are related to the function of the road.
In the case of Fildes Peninsula the higher function are roads to serving 
research stations, this corresponds with unclassified at most. Even could be 
service in some cases. More than unclassified it seems unjustifiable.
The highway tag is no made to reflects microscopic differences between roads in 
a small area.


De: Fernando Trebien 
Enviado: lunes, 29 de abril de 2024 10:01
Para: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 at 08:02, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
 wrote:
> Apr 28, 2024, 22:50 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com:
>
> 3. If they are hamlets, shouldn't the main routes connecting them be
> mapped as highway=tertiary, based on the definitions in the wiki? [1]
> [1] 
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.openstreetmap.org%2Frelation%2F10078630&data=05%7C02%7C%7C9317d3cd05904e63ede108dc6855df9d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638499965233506792%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=oAvTgzxcuiJTXgh6%2Bi6AjSBqGlbPtTxCPIMO3cqQuGE%3D&reserved=0
>
> why you think that place=hamlet are automatically entitled to
> highway=tertiary?

The wiki emphasizes the highway classification should consider the
relative importance of roads within regional contexts even for the
lowest highway classes:

"Outside urban areas, tertiary roads are those with low to moderate
traffic which link smaller settlements such as villages or hamlets."
"For quieter linking roads, consider using highway=unclassified
instead"
(quietER, relative, not quiet, absolute)
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.openstreetmap.org%2Fwiki%2FTag%3Ahighway%253Dtertiary&data=05%7C02%7C%7C9317d3cd05904e63ede108dc6855df9d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638499965233519111%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pBbMh%2BdZ9ecX5pudgBvOHWhXUN%2BPIJhwS4iUTT6o3vc%3D&reserved=0

"The distinction between unclassified and tertiary often causes
confusion: in general, always consider the road's relative importance
in the region's road network and tag appropriately."
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.openstreetmap.org%2Fwiki%2FTag%3Ahighway%253Dunclassified&data=05%7C02%7C%7C9317d3cd05904e63ede108dc6855df9d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638499965233526494%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9yuc4PYI%2F8waFFoQ4RMTggPcSQC5TFhJcuDEXCJlb3I%3D&reserved=0

The wiki also lists highway classes by importance, from top to bottom
within a country, leading to the spread of highway classes according
to local conditions. So, in Antarctica, a neutral mapper (not
projecting country-specific customs or personal preferences) following
this guidance would tend to raise highway classification.
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.openstreetmap.org%2Fwiki%2FKey%3Ahighway%23Highway&data=05%7C02%7C%7C9317d3cd05904e63ede108dc6855df9d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638499965233533587%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=uv4yzBEc63kjdbWJGauRDtW1hYKXsCgUVr0VKuSjPbs%3D&reserved=0

I agree with you that it would be a stretch to interpret this as
assigning highway=trunk to the only way between the only two houses on
an isolated island. But there are many intermediate cases in the world
between this extreme and the other extreme (a large, populated island
country with many villages and connecting roads) and no clear guidance
on when to start increasing highway classification.

And finally, the many examples I found near the Arctic seem to
constitute a tacit precedent for such regional relativizations that
represent mappers' preferences and practices in regions similar to the
Antarctic region. If we are truly concerned about coherence, then this
should be taken into account. The reasons why these mappers chose this
mapping style are probably linked to the practical uses of the map
(typically

Re: [Tagging] Difference between "yes" and "designated" in access tags (was: Re: How to Tag Steps in a Bridleway)

[Andrew Harvey]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 at 09:04, stevea  wrote:

> In my mind "designated" means "for this infrastructure / mode-of-travel
> pair, DO use this."  Like legislatively or because a sign says so and
> quotes a local ordinance or traffic code statute.  "We built this, use
> it."  (Say, for your own safety and/or comfort).
>
> With "yes" you certainly can use this infrastructure for that particular
> mode-of-travel.  Though, nothing more than that.
>

I usually go along with was it designed, built, intended or signposted for
use by this mode? If so then it's designated. For example a road was
designed, built and intended for use by cars, motor_vehicle=designated but
if there's no sidewalk you can legally and physically walk on the road so
foot=yes. However some roads like a living street / shared zone, are
signposted for pedestrians to use, so we'd tag foot=designated.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Difference between "yes" and "designated" in access tags

[Andrew Welch via Tagging]

On 30/04/2024 9:59 am, Andrew Harvey wrote:


On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 at 09:04, stevea  wrote:

In my mind "designated" means "for this infrastructure / 
mode-of-travel pair, DO use this."  Like legislatively or because a 
sign says so and quotes a local ordinance or traffic code statute.  
"We built this, use it."  (Say, for your own safety and/or comfort).


With "yes" you certainly can use this infrastructure for that 
particular mode-of-travel.  Though, nothing more than that.


I usually go along with was it designed, built, intended or signposted 
for use by this mode? If so then it's designated. For example a road 
was designed, built and intended for use by cars, 
motor_vehicle=designated but if there's no sidewalk you can legally and 
physically walk on the road so foot=yes. However some roads like a 
living street / shared zone, are signposted for pedestrians to use, so 
we'd tag foot=designated.


Everything I've seen pretty much goes with: signposted or marked in some 
way to indicate usage = designated.


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

Re: [Tagging] Difference between "yes" and "designated" in access tags (was: Re: How to Tag Steps in a Bridleway)

[Natfoot]

But if a trail, road, or cycle tract does not have route markers for use
then no route=*  even if designated.
-natfoot

On Mon, Apr 29, 2024, 17:33 Andrew Harvey  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 at 09:04, stevea  wrote:
>
>> In my mind "designated" means "for this infrastructure / mode-of-travel
>> pair, DO use this."  Like legislatively or because a sign says so and
>> quotes a local ordinance or traffic code statute.  "We built this, use
>> it."  (Say, for your own safety and/or comfort).
>>
>> With "yes" you certainly can use this infrastructure for that particular
>> mode-of-travel.  Though, nothing more than that.
>>
>
> I usually go along with was it designed, built, intended or signposted for
> use by this mode? If so then it's designated. For example a road was
> designed, built and intended for use by cars, motor_vehicle=designated but
> if there's no sidewalk you can legally and physically walk on the road so
> foot=yes. However some roads like a living street / shared zone, are
> signposted for pedestrians to use, so we'd tag foot=designated.
> ___
> 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] Difference between "yes" and "designated" in access tags (was: Re: How to Tag Steps in a Bridleway)

[stevea]

On Apr 29, 2024, at 6:15 PM, Natfoot  wrote:
> But if a trail, road, or cycle tract does not have route markers for use then 
> no route=*  even if designated. 
> -natfoot

I'm nodding my head so far at what I see here.  I appreciate Natfoot's reminder 
about routes:  we're not exactly talking about routes here and now, though 
there is some overlap that happens in people's minds with routes and 
infrastructure, sometimes naming, so it's good to say these things out loud 
once in a while so people understand we've had a lot of conversations about 
these topics.  It's good to bubble it all back up and out again as we come to 
agreement.  (Like here and now).

I agree "signposted" either implies or means (legally) "designated for that 
mode-of-travel," in the colloquial usage of the word "designated" which my 
dictionary matches here with "officially assigned a specified status."

I do a fair bit of bicycle routing:  bicycle=yes is not needed on 
highway=cycleway, but could disambiguate whether bicycle traffic is allowed on 
a parallel roadway, while bicycle=yes is not the same as bicycle=designated:  
regardless of how you think you might route through here as a cyclist, the 
bicycle=designated, for example, highway=cycleway means "signs, paint, law 
indicate cyclists should or must use this infrastructure."  The bicycle=yes tag 
means it is allowed, nothing more than that.

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

Re: [Tagging] Difference between "yes" and "designated" in access tags (was: Re: How to Tag Steps in a Bridleway)

[stevea]

This is USA-specific in the example I now offer, though notable nonetheless in 
this context:  there are routes, such as United States Bicycle Routes, which 
after they are Approved (by AASHTO), are, in a legal sense, "designated."  
However, some states have an aggressive signage program (MUTCD M1-8) to "route 
mark" these (with signs) and other states only "lightly sign" these 
"designated" routes.  Nonetheless, there ARE route=* (*=bicycle in this case) 
relations, as the routes ARE designated, yet for a particular segment of the 
route, it may be a great many kilometers or miles before a sign is seen.

And I think Nate means "cycle track" (not tract), though "track" can be a value 
for the highway=* key if a "trail, road or track" is what is being denoted, 
then again so can any of path, road, service, unclassified (etc.) be used for 
values of highway=*.

We might as well say what we mean, mean what we say and get it all out there!


On Apr 29, 2024, at 6:15 PM, Natfoot  wrote:
> But if a trail, road, or cycle tract does not have route markers for use then 
> no route=*  even if designated.

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

Re: [Tagging] Difference between "yes" and "designated" in access tags (was: Re: How to Tag Steps in a Bridleway)

[stevea]

Oops, M1-9, not M1-8.

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

Re: [Tagging] Difference between "yes" and "designated" in access tags

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

30 Apr 2024, 02:39 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

> On 30/04/2024 9:59 am, Andrew Harvey wrote
> Everything I've seen pretty much goes with: signposted or marked in some way 
> to indicate usage = designated.
>
At least in Poland we distinguish between 
signage with legal implications and route
markers.

In fact, some bicycle trails are signed where
cycling is illegal 

Also there are places with "pedestrians allowed" vs "pedestrian street".___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Difference between "yes" and "designated" in access tags

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 at 16:36, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> At least in Poland we distinguish between
> signage with legal implications and route
> markers.
>
> In fact, some bicycle trails are signed where
> cycling is illegal
>

So does that then make it legal?

Thanks

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