Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] New MapRoulette Challenge - Add Surface to Highways

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 9:45 AM Marc_marc  wrote:

> Le 03.02.23 à 15:32, Brian M. Sperlongano a écrit :
> > Let's make sure we're talking about the same thing
>
> what's the issue with tag if TomTom doesn't reply ?
> I suppose it's more for talk than tagging


If it's prompting people to do worthless bulk edits, I would consider that
a problem.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] key covered=* applied to storage tanks

[Marc_marc]

Le 02.02.23 à 17:44, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :



sent from a phone


On 2 Feb 2023, at 16:04, Marc_marc  wrote:

I thought there were only open-top tanks



there are but they are called basin or reservoir


did you mean that man_made=storage_tank open=top (or whatever the exact 
tag) is a tagging mistake and should be tagged as man_made=reservoir ?
if so, the 1st issue is a style one : this hidde the object on the major 
style and that prevend some ppl to use it (it should not, but it is)

or man_made=basin and/or natural=water + water=basin ?

(and man_made=reservoir_covered -> man_made=storage_tank ?)


we also have landuse=reservoir

it's a tag for the bin :
it's a landuse, so it should be the whole area dedicated to this 
function (the reservoir, the grassy area that sometimes surrounds it, 
the possible technical building, etc. until the fence that sometimes 
surrounds it)
on the main style everything is rendered in blue confusing a reservoir 
with the water body it contains (the reservoir closest to me today has a 
larger surface than the water body, as the reservoir at least includes 
the structure (concrete or earth) that holds the water)




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

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] New MapRoulette Challenge - Add Surface to Highways

[Marc_marc]

Le 03.02.23 à 15:32, Brian M. Sperlongano a écrit :

Let's make sure we're talking about the same thing


what's the issue with tag if TomTom doesn't reply ?
I suppose it's more for talk than tagging



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

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] New MapRoulette Challenge - Add Surface to Highways

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 4:23 AM Walker Kosmidou-Bradley <
walker.t.brad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>  I understand that having tagging like this does not benefit you, but does
> it hurt you? If it doesn’t hurt you and it may help somebody else is there
> a problem?
>

Hi,

Let's make sure we're talking about the same thing.  9 days ago, TomTom
made an out of the blue announcement on the US community forum that they
were posing a MR challenge to tag surface on highway=motorway highways with
missing surface tags in California.  Not any other highway class, not
residential, not tracks or paths, not unclassified, or primary or trunk.
**motorway**.  The tag highway=motorway is a paved, controlled-access road
**by definition** and **anywhere in the world that it appears**[1]. That's
very different from other classes of road which may be paved or unpaved in
different places based on regional conditions or tagging.

Since asking people to run around and tag surface=paved on all motorways is
silly, I asked what I thought was a very reasonable question -- does TomTom
care about whether motorways are paved or unpaved? (this would be silly) or
does TomTom care about whether motorways are concrete or asphalt? (probably
not very important but at least would not be an implied default). If they
cared about *the type of paved*, then the MR challenge should also include
existing surface=paved -- but that's not what they're asking for, they're
asking to tag surface attributes where they're missing.

When pressed on this point, and asked what they were trying to accomplish,
instead of giving a proper answer, the response[3] was a non-answer of:

"I don't sense a consensus yet on the approach of using Paved versus a
specific surface value. Would you prefer that I make the challenge Not
Discoverable until there's time to conclude the discussion?"

I am asking for TomTom to be straight with us and answer why they're so
gung ho about missing surface tagging on motorways. Despite the negative
reaction in the US, it seems that they're intent on spamming this nonsense
challenge worldwide, and they *refuse to answer why they're asking the
community to focus on this*.

Now of course, anyone can just ignore these challenges (and so far that's
what's happened), but Casper's discussion from The Netherlands should give
us pause. I would not be in favor of adding `surface=paved` on all motorway
segments because this is an implied default. If TomTom is interested in the
difference between concrete and asphalt motorways (or any other value that
might exist in the world), then please say so.  It would also be a common
courtesy to tell us a little bit about what you're doing so that we can
understand why we should care. I'm rather offended that after TomTom
received pushback on their initial attempt at this in the US, they just
took the exact same request elsewhere.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway
[2]
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/maproulette-challenge-add-surface-to-highways-in-california/8200/4?u=zelonewolf
[3]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2023-January/021952.html
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] New MapRoulette Challenge - Add Surface to Highways

[Casper Kersten]

TomTom has created the same challenge for the Netherlands:
https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/37471

Just days before that challenge was created, I had a discussion on Discord
with some other Dutch mappers. I thought it would be easy to tag all
remaining highway=motorway without a surface tag in NL with
surface=asphalt, since 81% already had this tag and there were no other
surface tags present (except a handful on highway=motorway_link). I was
quickly proven wrong as one mapper then found a bridge with a concrete
surface and tagged it accordingly. It may be the only highway=motorway
section in NL, but it demonstrates that my assumption that everything was
asphalt was wrong and there is some merit in tagging the surface
explicitly.

I don't see what's wrong with these MR challenges by TomTom. Of course you
can totally ignore them if all you care about is paved / unpaved, but if
you want to know more specifics, then explicitly tagged surfaces on
motorways still have some value.

Op vr 3 feb. 2023 om 13:17 schreef Walker Kosmidou-Bradley <
walker.t.brad...@gmail.com>:

> Thanks Andy,
>
> We do use country default values and other customizations. I didn’t really
> want to unpack the entire methodology. The point is the more attribution we
> have, the easier and faster it is to conduct replicable analysis around the
> world. It helps from a coding perspective, even if the attribution might
> not make that much sense for any single country.
>
> It just seems strange that people would complain about others adding
> specificity of attributes. If the data is not wrong, and as it not
> impacting you who cares? If you don’t want to do those tasks in
> MapRoulette, don’t. We all contribute to and interact with OSM data in
> different ways. If someone wants to go mark every species of tree, awesome.
> If others mark the smoothness of roads, awesome. That’s how the community
> works. Something might not make sense to me, but I’m sure it makes sense to
> the person making the task.
>
> Best,
>
> Walker KB
>
> > On Feb 3, 2023, at 11:27, Andy Townsend  wrote:
> >
> > On 2/3/23 09:16, Walker Kosmidou-Bradley wrote:
> >
> >> I use routing to measure accessibility to schools and health clinics
> here in west Africa. I have to make sure that my models also work in South
> Asia. Having the surface tag attributed makes processing infinitely easier
> because I don’t have to adjust my default values based on country.
> >
> > (veering off from TomTom's MapRoulette challenge somewhat, but)
> >
> > Unfortunately, you will have to adjust your default values based on
> country.  There are enough differences even between mapping approaches in
> nearby western European countries that a router will produce nonsensical
> results if it makes assumptions valid only in place A in place B as well.
> >
> > Also, even if someone filled in all the values for an "obvious" tag
> (perhaps in response to a MapRoulette challenge such as this one), there's
> no guarantee that new motorways would have the same tag added in the
> future, or that the tag would remain as more detail is added.
> >
> > That said - sometimes values that are "obvious" in one place aren't
> "obvious" in another, so it's definitely worth having the discussion about
> that if it's relevant (which as numerous people have said previously, it
> isn't for this challenge in the US.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] [Talk-us] New MapRoulette Challenge - Add Surface to Highways

[Walker Kosmidou-Bradley]

Thanks Andy, 

We do use country default values and other customizations. I didn’t really want 
to unpack the entire methodology. The point is the more attribution we have, 
the easier and faster it is to conduct replicable analysis around the world. It 
helps from a coding perspective, even if the attribution might not make that 
much sense for any single country.

It just seems strange that people would complain about others adding 
specificity of attributes. If the data is not wrong, and as it not impacting 
you who cares? If you don’t want to do those tasks in MapRoulette, don’t. We 
all contribute to and interact with OSM data in different ways. If someone 
wants to go mark every species of tree, awesome. If others mark the smoothness 
of roads, awesome. That’s how the community works. Something might not make 
sense to me, but I’m sure it makes sense to the person making the task.

Best,

Walker KB

> On Feb 3, 2023, at 11:27, Andy Townsend  wrote:
> 
> On 2/3/23 09:16, Walker Kosmidou-Bradley wrote:
> 
>> I use routing to measure accessibility to schools and health clinics here in 
>> west Africa. I have to make sure that my models also work in South Asia. 
>> Having the surface tag attributed makes processing infinitely easier because 
>> I don’t have to adjust my default values based on country.
> 
> (veering off from TomTom's MapRoulette challenge somewhat, but)
> 
> Unfortunately, you will have to adjust your default values based on country.  
> There are enough differences even between mapping approaches in nearby 
> western European countries that a router will produce nonsensical results if 
> it makes assumptions valid only in place A in place B as well.
> 
> Also, even if someone filled in all the values for an "obvious" tag (perhaps 
> in response to a MapRoulette challenge such as this one), there's no 
> guarantee that new motorways would have the same tag added in the future, or 
> that the tag would remain as more detail is added.
> 
> That said - sometimes values that are "obvious" in one place aren't "obvious" 
> in another, so it's definitely worth having the discussion about that if it's 
> relevant (which as numerous people have said previously, it isn't for this 
> challenge in the US.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] [Talk-us] New MapRoulette Challenge - Add Surface to Highways

[Andy Townsend]

On 2/3/23 09:16, Walker Kosmidou-Bradley wrote:

I use routing to measure accessibility to schools and health clinics 
here in west Africa. I have to make sure that my models also work in 
South Asia. Having the surface tag attributed makes processing 
infinitely easier because I don’t have to adjust my default values 
based on country.


(veering off from TomTom's MapRoulette challenge somewhat, but)

Unfortunately, you will have to adjust your default values based on 
country.  There are enough differences even between mapping approaches 
in nearby western European countries that a router will produce 
nonsensical results if it makes assumptions valid only in place A in 
place B as well.


Also, even if someone filled in all the values for an "obvious" tag 
(perhaps in response to a MapRoulette challenge such as this one), 
there's no guarantee that new motorways would have the same tag added in 
the future, or that the tag would remain as more detail is added.


That said - sometimes values that are "obvious" in one place aren't 
"obvious" in another, so it's definitely worth having the discussion 
about that if it's relevant (which as numerous people have said 
previously, it isn't for this challenge in the US.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Tagging] key covered=* applied to storage tanks

[Warin]

On 13/1/23 03:02, António Madeira wrote:

The main issue is not closed water tanks. That can be a default in OSM.
The issue here is how to inform that a storage_tank is open.
Mind you that there is an infinitude of storage tanks types, but for 
firefighting, those are almost exclusively made in concrete and are 
open for the reasons I stated before.



They may be concrete where you are, where I am they are usually 
corrugated steel. Plastic ones also exist but they are smaller and in a 
fire they melt to the water line. Large concrete tanks exist here too, 
but they too are covered.




In my opinion, the cover=* key is the most adequate in these 
situations, because there's no way to define what the roof/coverage of 
these storage tanks would be if they had one.
Stating that a an emergency storage tank is covered=no informs that it 
can be accessible from above.
If, for example, we state that it has a roof=no, you're defining a 
specific kind of covering, when it has none and you have no way to 
know if that would be a roof, a tarp, a shed, etc.



All the tanks on the OSM wijki page for man_made=storage_tank are 
covered ..


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dstorage_tank




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

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] New MapRoulette Challenge - Add Surface to Highways

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Users in Algeria were asked to map motorway surface in tunnels, based
on aerial imagery.

It become marked as surface=ground, see 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/490378286/history

adding surface to motorways is of so dubious utility that for example
StreetComplete is not asking to specify such surface if missing.

Overall effort/effect ratio is really bad here and effect may be more negative
than positive.

I agree that mapping surface on more minor roads is useful and in fact I am 
right now coding a better support for that in StreetComplete (surface overlay).

But mapping surface of motorways seems to not be a good use of time,
and asking others to do this is quite surprising.

H, maybe I should implement 
"motorways are assumed to be concrete/asphalt" in StreetComplete surface 
overlay.

Feb 3, 2023, 10:23 by walker.t.brad...@gmail.com:

> I use routing to measure accessibility to schools and health clinics here in 
> west Africa. I have to make sure that my models also work in South Asia. 
> Having the surface tag attributed makes processing infinitely easier because 
> I don’t have to adjust my default values based on country.  Across Africa, 
> and south Asia, many secondary, primary, trunk roads are not paved. Knowing 
> which ones are and which ones aren’t is important to me.
>
>  I understand that having tagging like this does not benefit you, but does it 
> hurt you? If it doesn’t hurt you and it may help somebody else is there a 
> problem?
>
> Even outside the routing world, surface tags can be used to estimate the 
> amount of noise coming from a roadway. for example, Concrete is way louder 
> than asphalt. Such data could be used to estimate the noise pollution levels.
>
> This is very analogous to some of the attributes that one can find on 
> schools. Does the school have running water? Does the school have bathrooms? 
> None of these apply in California, but all of them apply elsewhere in the 
> world.
>
>
>
>
>> On Feb 3, 2023, at 03:25, Brian M. Sperlongano  wrote:
>>
>> 
>> I see that despite this discussion, TomTom is proceeding with its quixotic 
>> quest to get mappers to tag surface tags on motorway, just now in other 
>> countries:
>>
>> https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/37540
>>
>> Would you care to inform the community what it is that you're trying to 
>> accomplish here?
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 12:49 PM David Salmon <>> david.sal...@tomtom.com>> 
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for the discussions and pointers. I’ve disabled the challenge for 
>>> now and will re-evaluate with the team.
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>> Much appreciated,
>>>
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From:>>>  Brian M. Sperlongano <>>> zelonew...@gmail.com>>> > 
>>>  >>> Sent:>>>  Friday, January 27, 2023 4:04 PM
>>>  >>> To:>>>  David Salmon <>>> david.sal...@tomtom.com>>> >
>>>  >>> Cc:>>>  Matthew Whilden <>>> matthew.whil...@gmail.com>>> >; Eric H. 
>>> Christensen <>>> e...@aehe.us>>> >; Joseph Eisenberg <>>> 
>>> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>>> >; talk-us <>>> talk...@openstreetmap.org>>> >
>>>  >>> Subject:>>>  Re: [Talk-us] New MapRoulette Challenge - Add Surface to 
>>> Highways
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You don't often get email from >>> zelonew...@gmail.com>>> . >>>  Learn why 
>>> this is important 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If all you care about is paved vs unpaved distinctions for routing, you can 
>>> safely delete the challenge, because all highway=motorway in California are 
>>> paved.
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023, 3:12 PM David Salmon <>>> david.sal...@tomtom.com>>> 
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>

 Hi All,


  


 Thank you for the questions. I checked with a couple of colleagues and 
 Surface is used in some applications if users want to avoid Unpaved roads 
 during a route.


  


 I don’t sense a consensus yet on the approach of using Paved versus a 
 specific surface value. Would you prefer that I make the challenge Not 
 Discoverable until there’s time to conclude the discussion?


  


 Alternately, if there’s a topic of higher priority or interest that you’d 
 like to see created as an editing challenge or existing challenge where 
 TomTom could support, I’m open to suggestions.


  




 All the best,
  David




  




 From:  Matthew Whilden < matthew.whil...@gmail.com > 
   Sent:  Wednesday, January 25, 2023 2:01 PM
   To:  Eric H. Christensen < e...@aehe.us >
   Cc:  Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com >; 
 David Salmon < david.sal...@tomtom.com >;  
 talk...@openstreetmap.org
   Subject:  Re: [Talk-us] New MapRoulette Challenge - Add Surface 
 to Highways

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] New MapRoulette Challenge - Add Surface to Highways

[Walker Kosmidou-Bradley]

I use routing to measure accessibility to schools and health clinics here in west Africa. I have to make sure that my models also work in South Asia. Having the surface tag attributed makes processing infinitely easier because I don’t have to adjust my default values based on country.  Across Africa, and south Asia, many secondary, primary, trunk roads are not paved. Knowing which ones are and which ones aren’t is important to me. I understand that having tagging like this does not benefit you, but does it hurt you? If it doesn’t hurt you and it may help somebody else is there a problem?Even outside the routing world, surface tags can be used to estimate the amount of noise coming from a roadway. for example, Concrete is way louder than asphalt. Such data could be used to estimate the noise pollution levels.This is very analogous to some of the attributes that one can find on schools. Does the school have running water? Does the school have bathrooms? None of these apply in California, but all of them apply elsewhere in the world.On Feb 3, 2023, at 03:25, Brian M. Sperlongano  wrote:I see that despite this discussion, TomTom is proceeding with its quixotic quest to get mappers to tag surface tags on motorway, just now in other countries:https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/37540Would you care to inform the community what it is that you're trying to accomplish here?On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 12:49 PM David Salmon  wrote:







Hi All,
 
Thank you for the discussions and pointers. I’ve disabled the challenge for now and will re-evaluate with the team.
 
Much appreciated,
David
 


From: Brian M. Sperlongano  
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2023 4:04 PM
To: David Salmon 
Cc: Matthew Whilden ; Eric H. Christensen ; Joseph Eisenberg ; talk-us 
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] New MapRoulette Challenge - Add Surface to Highways


 







You don't often get email from
zelonew...@gmail.com. 
Learn why this is important









If all you care about is paved vs unpaved distinctions for routing, you can safely delete the challenge, because all highway=motorway in California are paved.

 


On Fri, Jan 27, 2023, 3:12 PM David Salmon  wrote:




Hi All,
 
Thank you for the questions. I checked with a couple of colleagues and Surface is used in some applications if users want to avoid Unpaved roads during a route.
 
I don’t sense a consensus yet on the approach of using Paved versus a specific surface value. Would you prefer that I make the challenge Not Discoverable until there’s time to conclude
 the discussion?
 
Alternately, if there’s a topic of higher priority or interest that you’d like to see created as an editing challenge or existing challenge where TomTom could support, I’m open
 to suggestions.
 
All the best,
David
 


From: Matthew Whilden 

Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 2:01 PM
To: Eric H. Christensen 
Cc: Joseph Eisenberg ; David Salmon ;
talk...@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] New MapRoulette Challenge - Add Surface to Highways


 







You don't often get email from
matthew.whil...@gmail.com.
Learn why this is important









If you want to use the data for non-routing questions I'm sure specificity can help. Like, imagine I want to estimate road maintenance costs by latitude or something of that shape.


 


Matt


 


On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 10:28 AM Eric H. Christensen via Talk-us  wrote:


--- Original Message ---
On Wednesday, January 25th, 2023 at 11:35, Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:


> Why do we need surface=asphalt vs surface=concrete for highway=motorway?
> 
> Does this make a significant difference for any users?
> 
> I can certainly see the value of adding unpaved surface values for other classes of roads, but all motorways in the USA (and likely worldwide) will be paved

I can see that being an assumption but unless you verify that to be true you can't just summarily add that kind of data to the set. 


Does it make a difference?  I'm not sure.  There are definitely friction coefficient differences between the two surfaces and I'd be willing to bet that one would be more efficient to travel across than the other.  Perhaps routing engines could use this information
 to provide an even better, more efficient route.  Of course, that is just an idea.

R,
Eric 

___
Talk-us mailing list
talk...@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us





___
Talk-us mailing list
talk...@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us







___Tagging mailing 

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] New MapRoulette Challenge - Add Surface to Highways

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

I see that despite this discussion, TomTom is proceeding with its quixotic
quest to get mappers to tag surface tags on motorway, just now in other
countries:

https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/37540

Would you care to inform the community what it is that you're trying to
accomplish here?

On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 12:49 PM David Salmon 
wrote:

> Hi All,
>
>
>
> Thank you for the discussions and pointers. I’ve disabled the challenge
> for now and will re-evaluate with the team.
>
>
>
> Much appreciated,
>
> David
>
>
>
> *From:* Brian M. Sperlongano 
> *Sent:* Friday, January 27, 2023 4:04 PM
> *To:* David Salmon 
> *Cc:* Matthew Whilden ; Eric H. Christensen <
> e...@aehe.us>; Joseph Eisenberg ; talk-us <
> talk...@openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-us] New MapRoulette Challenge - Add Surface to
> Highways
>
>
>
> You don't often get email from zelonew...@gmail.com. Learn why this is
> important 
>
> If all you care about is paved vs unpaved distinctions for routing, you
> can safely delete the challenge, because all highway=motorway in California
> are paved.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023, 3:12 PM David Salmon 
> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> Thank you for the questions. I checked with a couple of colleagues and
> Surface is used in some applications if users want to avoid Unpaved roads
> during a route.
>
>
>
> I don’t sense a consensus yet on the approach of using Paved versus a
> specific surface value. Would you prefer that I make the challenge Not
> Discoverable until there’s time to conclude the discussion?
>
>
>
> Alternately, if there’s a topic of higher priority or interest that you’d
> like to see created as an editing challenge or existing challenge where
> TomTom could support, I’m open to suggestions.
>
>
>
> All the best,
> David
>
>
>
> *From:* Matthew Whilden 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 25, 2023 2:01 PM
> *To:* Eric H. Christensen 
> *Cc:* Joseph Eisenberg ; David Salmon <
> david.sal...@tomtom.com>; talk...@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-us] New MapRoulette Challenge - Add Surface to
> Highways
>
>
>
> You don't often get email from matthew.whil...@gmail.com. Learn why this
> is important 
>
> If you want to use the data for non-routing questions I'm sure specificity
> can help. Like, imagine I want to estimate road maintenance costs by
> latitude or something of that shape.
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 10:28 AM Eric H. Christensen via Talk-us <
> talk...@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
> On Wednesday, January 25th, 2023 at 11:35, Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Why do we need surface=asphalt vs surface=concrete for highway=motorway?
> >
> > Does this make a significant difference for any users?
> >
> > I can certainly see the value of adding unpaved surface values for other
> classes of roads, but all motorways in the USA (and likely worldwide) will
> be paved
>
> I can see that being an assumption but unless you verify that to be true
> you can't just summarily add that kind of data to the set.
>
> Does it make a difference?  I'm not sure.  There are definitely friction
> coefficient differences between the two surfaces and I'd be willing to bet
> that one would be more efficient to travel across than the other.  Perhaps
> routing engines could use this information to provide an even better, more
> efficient route.  Of course, that is just an idea.
>
> R,
> Eric
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> talk...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> 
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> talk...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> 
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Proposed_features: emergency=air_rescue_service

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Same for this one, if there are no further comments, I'll move it to voting
in a couple of days.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/emergency%3Dair_rescue_service

Thanks

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

[Tagging] Proposed_features: emergency=water_rescue

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Getting back to this after a busy few weeks, if there are no further
comments, I'll move it to voting in a couple of days.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/emergency%3Dwater_rescue


Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] key covered=* applied to storage tanks

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 2 Feb 2023, at 16:04, Marc_marc  wrote:
> 
> I thought there were only open-top tanks


there are but they are called basin or reservoir, we also have 
landuse=reservoir as its own tag (although that’s landuse tagging, not 
countable features, effectively the tag is usually used on individual features)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

[Philip Barnes]

On 2 February 2023 11:06:04 GMT, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Again sport=soccer implies a rectangular playing field with goals at either 
>end - that is physical infrastructure. Without the playing field and goals 
>there cannot be a game of soccer...
>
Jumpers for goalposts?

To be mappable there needs to be some infrastructure but there certainly can be 
a game of soccer without goalposts. Did you never make a pile of coats or 
jumpers as makeshift goalposts? In some places even grass is not a pre-reqiesit.

Even where there is a marked pitch goals are often removed when there isn't an 
official game going on.

Outside of actual grounds pitch markings are seasonal, soccer is a winter game. 
On recreation grounds and school fields markings for soccer or rugby will only 
be there part of the year, to maybe be replaced by running track markings or be 
used as a cricket pitch during the summer. 

Phil (trigpoint)



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

Re: [Tagging] key covered=* applied to storage tanks

[Marc_marc]

Le 02.02.23 à 15:09, António Madeira a écrit :
My problem with storage_tank=open is that it still has ambiguity. Open 
where? On the top, on the side? Which side? This is very important in 
the case of storage tanks destined to firefighters.


I thought there were only open-top tanks, but if not
storage_tank=open + open=top (or another better key to come)
should give the information

for access via tap : tap=yes/north/south/ or tag the tap
with a dedicated object



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

Re: [Tagging] key covered=* applied to storage tanks

[Illia Marchenko]

António Madeira :

> IlMy problem with storage_tank=open is that it still has ambiguity. Open
> where? On the top, on the side? Which side? This is very important in the
> case of storage tanks destined to firefighters.
> My question is: how to convey the critical information that a storage_tank
> (or whatever element we consider) is open on the top?
>

I think that water tank opened on the top may not hold liquid because of
the gravity.

Regards,
Illia.

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Daniel Bégin]

The same in Canada…

Sent from Mail for Windows

From: stevea
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 03:15
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

On Jan 29, 2023, at 5:31 AM, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 12:12:06AM +, Philip Barnes wrote:
>>
>> When I first encountered Canadian four way stops in 1980, I did think these 
>> should be mini-roundabouts.
>
> Thats the main point. In Germany we have a solution of "last resort"
> which is called "Rechts vor links" - So when there is no other
> rules of priority its "Right before left".
>
> Other jurisdications dont have this so there is a problem with producing
> junctions with "equal priority". The UK solution is the "mini
> roundabout".

I don't usually jump on a post simply to disagree with it (it makes me sound 
"simply contrarian" and "argument provoking," which I am not), but I must do so 
here and now.  I am not an attorney.  In my state of California in the USA, at 
four-way stop-signs, we have a right-of-way law (California Vehicle Code §21800 
et al) which states essentially the same thing as what Florian calls Germany's 
"last resort:"  it says

"When two vehicles enter an intersection from different highways at the same 
time, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right-of-way to the 
vehicle on his or her immediate right."

So, please don't say "other jurisdictions don't have this," as obviously, some 
do.  Thank you.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftagging=05%7C01%7C%7C2b4a8f360e684ebaee8608db04f5ac79%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638109225452063317%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=S%2B2G54g3JkpbrgEx6tjmmYf1ki%2Fevkfdb%2F1GmJNfrwU%3D=0

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

Re: [Tagging] key covered=* applied to storage tanks

[António Madeira]

I agree with you, Marc, when you say the use of covered=* is kind of a 
distortion of the tag.

That's why I opened this discussion, because I also had that doubt.

Às 14:02 de 12/01/2023, Marc_marc escreveu:

roof=* is indeed maybe too specific.
but closed or not tank and tank covered by another object
are 2 different things and therefore require 2 keys :
a tank can be closed or open and be under another object or not,
let's not distort the covered key by saying that unlike objects,
when used on tank, it does not describe anymore the presence
of another object that covers the first. 



My problem with storage_tank=open is that it still has ambiguity. Open 
where? On the top, on the side? Which side? This is very important in 
the case of storage tanks destined to firefighters.
My question is: how to convey the critical information that a 
storage_tank (or whatever element we consider) is open on the top?


Às 18:35 de 12/01/2023, Graeme Fitzpatrick escreveu:




On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 02:44, Illia Marchenko 
 wrote:



Maybe /storage_tank=open /or similar.


I think this one may be the simplest solution.

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

[Illia Marchenko]

чт, 2 февр. 2023 г., 14:51 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

>
>
>
> Feb 2, 2023, 12:09 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:
>
> Again sport=soccer implies a rectangular playing field with goals at
> either end - that is physical infrastructure. Without the playing field and
> goals there cannot be a game of soccer...
>
> The sport ping pong implies physical infrastructure of a table with a net,
> tennis implies a rectangular court with a net ... many sports imply a
> physical infrastructure...
>
> note that sport=* can be validly combined with for example shop=sports
>

Or even *club=sports. *
 Regards,
Illia.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Feb 2, 2023, 12:09 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

>
> Again sport=soccer implies a rectangular playing field with goals  at 
> either end - that is physical infrastructure. Without the  playing field 
> and goals there cannot be a game of soccer... 
>
>
> The sport ping pong implies physical infrastructure of a table  with a 
> net, tennis implies a rectangular court with a net ... many  sports imply 
> a physical infrastructure... 
>
>
note that sport=* can be validly combined with for example shop=sports
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Philip Barnes]

On 2 February 2023 09:34:08 GMT, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>I do have a typical traversable roundabout close by. hgv=no is not correct,
>there are commercial activities around that need hgv access. The roads are
>adequate for that
>
>The angle between incoming roads is not a suitabla measure, as the
>traversable roundabout has a circular "belly", providing additional space
>for turning longer vehicles. The diameter of this circular turning space in
>this specific location is 12m. The maximum length for articulated trucks is
>generally 16m in Italy.
>
>The probable reason why I see relatively frequent problems there, is that
>the junction is represented on big-G maps as a normal roundabout (they do
>not have a specific way to represent traversable roundabouts) and the size
>of this roundabout is a bit large on their map. This junction is on a route
>to reach a company that repairs agricultaral machinery, that arrives on
>long flat-bed articulated trucks.
>
>Coming back to my original question: could we agree that:
>
>1) highway=mini_roundabout outside the UK is used to describe traversable
>roundabouts, provided the traffic rules are the same as on untraversable
>roundabouts
Most of my non GB driving experience is in France. Mini-roundabouts there use 
the same blue sign as the UK.

Phil (trigpoint) 
>2) diameter= x m can be used to describe the available turning area
>diameter, if it is roughly circular.
>3) we will look into defining an alternative way to describe the
>traversable roundabout area in a way similar to bridge or road geometry
>(and let us discuss that approach in a new thread)
>
>Volker
>
>
>
>On Thu, 2 Feb 2023, 09:58 Mark Reidel,  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2023-02-02 at 04:31 +0100, Matija Nalis wrote:
>> > If the actual issue is that HGV cannot pass some road, why not simply
>> > mark it as `hgv=no`? Besides being simple, it has the additional
>> > advantage that routers will actually already use it and direct HGVs
>> > somewhere where they can actually pass.
>>
>> Adding an access-tag like maxlength isn't the correct way to tackle
>> this, because:
>> a) there is no *legal* restriction that disallows a vehicle of a
>> certain length
>> b) it's not only about the length, but mostly about the turning radius
>> of trucks, which is not necessarily related to their length, especially
>> when they have more than 1 trailer.
>>
>> But overall, I don't see how this is of special importance for a mini
>> roundabout with a traversable surface, it being very much identical to
>> a regular crossing when you are allowed to go over the inner circle.
>> Shouldn't the angle between the two roads the vehicle wants to pass be
>> the limiting factor in that case?
>>
>> --
>> Mark aka Nadjita
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

[Warin]

On 31/1/23 23:34, Illia Marchenko wrote:

Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

What do you mean by 'a sport'?

The sport soccer, for example, could be taken as referring to the
physical infrastructure - goads at either end, a rectangular playing
field. Similar can be said of many OSM 'sports'. So I don't see
that as
being a good argument.


For example, /sport=soccer/ does not imply a specific physical 
infrastructure - this tag can be used with fields (/leisure=pitch/) 
and stadiums (/leisure=stadium/). Many tags under the key /sport=*/ 
follow this logic. /sport=cricket_nets/ is a notable exception.


Regards,
Illia.




A recreation ground can have cricket nets so that can be tagged 
landuse=recreation_ground, sport=cricket_nets;soccer;cricket etc..


Again sport=soccer implies a rectangular playing field with goals at 
either end - that is physical infrastructure. Without the playing field 
and goals there cannot be a game of soccer...


The sport ping pong implies physical infrastructure of a table with a 
net, tennis implies a rectangular court with a net ... many sports imply 
a physical infrastructure...
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Peter Neale via Tagging]

Well, the Highway Code says (Rule 188), "Avoid making U-turns at 
mini-roundabouts. Beware of others doing this."
I assume that "avoid" is not quite as strong as "prohibited", especially as 
drivers are then warned to "Beware of others doing thís".
Also, I know of at least one bus route near me that terminates at an (actually 
fairly large) mini-roundabout, where the busses all do a U-Turn. 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1166864821). 
However, I think that the diameter of the centre of a mini-roundabout is 
irrelevant and even the outer diameter is unlikely to be of use to any map 
user, unless thay are planning to do a U-Turn (which they are supposed to 
"avoid" doing.
Regards,Peter(PeterPan99)

On Thursday, 2 February 2023 at 09:04:05 GMT, Philip Barnes 
 wrote:  
 
 A mini roundabout often doesn't usually have a diameter. Most are jus normal 
junctions which have been made mini-roundabouts to set a priority.

So in terms of large vehicles it is the same problem as any other junctions, 
whether they can turn left or right. 

In the UK, U turns are prohibited at mini-roundabouts, which I would have 
thought would be the main usecase for a diameter.

Phil (trigpoint)

On 2 February 2023 03:31:39 GMT, Matija Nalis 
 wrote:
If the actual issue is that HGV cannot pass some road, why not simply mark it 
as 
`hgv=no`? Besides being simple, it has the additional advantage that routers
will actually already use it and direct HGVs somewhere where they can actually 
pass.

Or if some lenghts of HGVs can pass, but others not, then maxlength=* 
or maxlength:hgv=* or some of the other alternatives from 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxlength ?

On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 21:25:32 +0100, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

 I see that I was not precise with my question: I am after a way to tag the
 overall diameter of the round surface composed of the mini-roundabout road
 surface plus the traversable central part. This is an important measure for
 trucks. I happen to live near one of these with an outer diameter of 12 m,
 and that attracts regularly articulated lorries like the cheese attracts
 flies. This triggered the question.

 Il giorno mer 25 gen 2023 alle ore 19:10 Peter Neale via Tagging <
 tagging@openstreetmap.org> ha scritto:


 According to the Wiki (with which I happen to agree), a mini-roundabout is
 defined as:

 "...a special type of roundabout in which the middle can be traversed
  by vehicles, and is
 typically used where there is only limited space available. Road traffic
 flows in one direction around a point in the middle and the traffic in the
 roundabout has right-of-way. The middle of a mini-roundabout is usually
 only a painted circle, but there might also be a low, fully traversable
 (mountable) dome or island."

 As it is traversable, does it really have a diameter? Or, if there is a
 painted circle (are traversable domed area) on the ground, perhaps that has
 a diameter, but does it matter to any prospective map user?

 Regards,
 Peter

 Peter Neale
 t: 01908 309666
 m: 07968 341930


 On Wednesday, 25 January 2023 at 17:53:55 GMT, Volker Schmidt <
 vosc...@gmail.com> wrote:


 Is there an established way to tag the diameter of a mini-roundabout?

 We have the tag diameter, but I could not find it applied to
 mini-roundabouts. 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] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Volker Schmidt]

Yes, Phil, I overlooked your last point (and I have UK driving license).
In Italy there are no separate rules or road signs for traversable
roundabouts, hence no interdiction of U-turns. That needs addressing.
Country-specific defaults?

"My" traversable roundabout is in fact often used for U-turns, but only by
shorter vehicles. The articulated trucks I observe, are turning left, not
U-turning, on a four-way layout.



On Thu, 2 Feb 2023, 10:04 Philip Barnes,  wrote:

> A mini roundabout often doesn't usually have a diameter. Most are jus
> normal junctions which have been made mini-roundabouts to set a priority.
>
> So in terms of large vehicles it is the same problem as any other
> junctions, whether they can turn left or right.
>
> In the UK, U turns are prohibited at mini-roundabouts, which I would have
> thought would be the main usecase for a diameter.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
> On 2 February 2023 03:31:39 GMT, Matija Nalis <
> mnalis-openstreetmapl...@voyager.hr> wrote:
>>
>> If the actual issue is that HGV cannot pass some road, why not simply mark 
>> it as
>> `hgv=no`? Besides being simple, it has the additional advantage that routers
>> will actually already use it and direct HGVs somewhere where they can 
>> actually
>> pass.
>>
>> Or if some lenghts of HGVs can pass, but others not, then maxlength=*
>> or maxlength:hgv=* or some of the other alternatives from
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxlength ?
>>
>> On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 21:25:32 +0100, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>>
>>>  I see that I was not precise with my question: I am after a way to tag the
>>>  overall diameter of the round surface composed of the mini-roundabout road
>>>  surface plus the traversable central part. This is an important measure for
>>>  trucks. I happen to live near one of these with an outer diameter of 12 m,
>>>  and that attracts regularly articulated lorries like the cheese attracts
>>>  flies. This triggered the question.
>>>
>>>  Il giorno mer 25 gen 2023 alle ore 19:10 Peter Neale via Tagging <
>>>  tagging@openstreetmap.org> ha scritto:
>>>
>>>  According to the Wiki (with which I happen to agree), a mini-roundabout is
  defined as:

  "...a special type of roundabout in which the middle can be traversed
   by vehicles, and is
  typically used where there is only limited space available. Road traffic
  flows in one direction around a point in the middle and the traffic in the
  roundabout has right-of-way. The middle of a mini-roundabout is usually
  only a painted circle, but there might also be a low, fully traversable
  (mountable) dome or island."

  As it is traversable, does it really have a diameter?  Or, if there is a
  painted circle (are traversable domed area) on the ground, perhaps that 
 has
  a diameter, but does it matter to any prospective map user?

  Regards,
  Peter

  Peter Neale
  t: 01908 309666
  m: 07968 341930


  On Wednesday, 25 January 2023 at 17:53:55 GMT, Volker Schmidt <
  vosc...@gmail.com> wrote:


  Is there an established way to tag the diameter of a mini-roundabout?

  We have the tag diameter, but I could not find it applied to
  mini-roundabouts.
 --
  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] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Colin Smale]

On 2 February 2023 09:59:01 CET, Philip Barnes  wrote:
>A mini roundabout often doesn't usually have a diameter. Most are jus normal 
>junctions which have been made mini-roundabouts to set a priority.

You mean they don't have a diameter because they are not even close to being 
circular?

In any case they will have an inner diameter being the size of the big white 
dot, which vehicles that are able to avoid, MUST avoid.

>
>So in terms of large vehicles it is the same problem as any other junctions, 
>whether they can turn left or right. 
>
>In the UK, U turns are prohibited at mini-roundabouts, which I would have 
>thought would be the main usecase for a diameter.
>

The Highway Code only uses the word "avoid" which means to me that they are not 
prohibited, just discouraged

>Phil (trigpoint)
>
>On 2 February 2023 03:31:39 GMT, Matija Nalis 
> wrote:
>>If the actual issue is that HGV cannot pass some road, why not simply mark it 
>>as 
>>`hgv=no`? Besides being simple, it has the additional advantage that routers
>>will actually already use it and direct HGVs somewhere where they can 
>>actually 
>>pass.
>>
>>Or if some lenghts of HGVs can pass, but others not, then maxlength=* 
>>or maxlength:hgv=* or some of the other alternatives from 
>>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxlength ?
>>
>>On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 21:25:32 +0100, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>>> I see that I was not precise with my question: I am after a way to tag the
>>> overall diameter of the round surface composed of the mini-roundabout road
>>> surface plus the traversable central part. This is an important measure for
>>> trucks. I happen to live near one of these with an outer diameter of 12 m,
>>> and that attracts regularly articulated lorries like the cheese attracts
>>> flies. This triggered the question.
>>>
>>> Il giorno mer 25 gen 2023 alle ore 19:10 Peter Neale via Tagging <
>>> tagging@openstreetmap.org> ha scritto:
>>>
 According to the Wiki (with which I happen to agree), a mini-roundabout is
 defined as:
>>> >
 "...a special type of roundabout in which the middle can be traversed
  by vehicles, and is
 typically used where there is only limited space available. Road traffic
 flows in one direction around a point in the middle and the traffic in the
 roundabout has right-of-way. The middle of a mini-roundabout is usually
 only a painted circle, but there might also be a low, fully traversable
 (mountable) dome or island."
>>> >
 As it is traversable, does it really have a diameter?  Or, if there is a
 painted circle (are traversable domed area) on the ground, perhaps that has
 a diameter, but does it matter to any prospective map user?
>>> >
 Regards,
 Peter
>>> >
 Peter Neale
 t: 01908 309666
 m: 07968 341930
>>> >
>>> >
 On Wednesday, 25 January 2023 at 17:53:55 GMT, Volker Schmidt <
 vosc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
 Is there an established way to tag the diameter of a mini-roundabout?
>>> >
 We have the tag diameter, but I could not find it applied to
 mini-roundabouts.
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>> >
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.
>>
>>
>>___
>>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 the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Volker Schmidt]

I do have a typical traversable roundabout close by. hgv=no is not correct,
there are commercial activities around that need hgv access. The roads are
adequate for that

The angle between incoming roads is not a suitabla measure, as the
traversable roundabout has a circular "belly", providing additional space
for turning longer vehicles. The diameter of this circular turning space in
this specific location is 12m. The maximum length for articulated trucks is
generally 16m in Italy.

The probable reason why I see relatively frequent problems there, is that
the junction is represented on big-G maps as a normal roundabout (they do
not have a specific way to represent traversable roundabouts) and the size
of this roundabout is a bit large on their map. This junction is on a route
to reach a company that repairs agricultaral machinery, that arrives on
long flat-bed articulated trucks.

Coming back to my original question: could we agree that:

1) highway=mini_roundabout outside the UK is used to describe traversable
roundabouts, provided the traffic rules are the same as on untraversable
roundabouts
2) diameter= x m can be used to describe the available turning area
diameter, if it is roughly circular.
3) we will look into defining an alternative way to describe the
traversable roundabout area in a way similar to bridge or road geometry
(and let us discuss that approach in a new thread)

Volker



On Thu, 2 Feb 2023, 09:58 Mark Reidel,  wrote:

> On Thu, 2023-02-02 at 04:31 +0100, Matija Nalis wrote:
> > If the actual issue is that HGV cannot pass some road, why not simply
> > mark it as `hgv=no`? Besides being simple, it has the additional
> > advantage that routers will actually already use it and direct HGVs
> > somewhere where they can actually pass.
>
> Adding an access-tag like maxlength isn't the correct way to tackle
> this, because:
> a) there is no *legal* restriction that disallows a vehicle of a
> certain length
> b) it's not only about the length, but mostly about the turning radius
> of trucks, which is not necessarily related to their length, especially
> when they have more than 1 trailer.
>
> But overall, I don't see how this is of special importance for a mini
> roundabout with a traversable surface, it being very much identical to
> a regular crossing when you are allowed to go over the inner circle.
> Shouldn't the angle between the two roads the vehicle wants to pass be
> the limiting factor in that case?
>
> --
> Mark aka Nadjita
>
> ___
> 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 the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Philip Barnes]

A mini roundabout often doesn't usually have a diameter. Most are jus normal 
junctions which have been made mini-roundabouts to set a priority.

So in terms of large vehicles it is the same problem as any other junctions, 
whether they can turn left or right. 

In the UK, U turns are prohibited at mini-roundabouts, which I would have 
thought would be the main usecase for a diameter.

Phil (trigpoint)

On 2 February 2023 03:31:39 GMT, Matija Nalis 
 wrote:
>If the actual issue is that HGV cannot pass some road, why not simply mark it 
>as 
>`hgv=no`? Besides being simple, it has the additional advantage that routers
>will actually already use it and direct HGVs somewhere where they can actually 
>pass.
>
>Or if some lenghts of HGVs can pass, but others not, then maxlength=* 
>or maxlength:hgv=* or some of the other alternatives from 
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxlength ?
>
>On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 21:25:32 +0100, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>> I see that I was not precise with my question: I am after a way to tag the
>> overall diameter of the round surface composed of the mini-roundabout road
>> surface plus the traversable central part. This is an important measure for
>> trucks. I happen to live near one of these with an outer diameter of 12 m,
>> and that attracts regularly articulated lorries like the cheese attracts
>> flies. This triggered the question.
>>
>> Il giorno mer 25 gen 2023 alle ore 19:10 Peter Neale via Tagging <
>> tagging@openstreetmap.org> ha scritto:
>>
>>> According to the Wiki (with which I happen to agree), a mini-roundabout is
>>> defined as:
>> >
>>> "...a special type of roundabout in which the middle can be traversed
>>>  by vehicles, and is
>>> typically used where there is only limited space available. Road traffic
>>> flows in one direction around a point in the middle and the traffic in the
>>> roundabout has right-of-way. The middle of a mini-roundabout is usually
>>> only a painted circle, but there might also be a low, fully traversable
>>> (mountable) dome or island."
>> >
>>> As it is traversable, does it really have a diameter?  Or, if there is a
>>> painted circle (are traversable domed area) on the ground, perhaps that has
>>> a diameter, but does it matter to any prospective map user?
>> >
>>> Regards,
>>> Peter
>> >
>>> Peter Neale
>>> t: 01908 309666
>>> m: 07968 341930
>> >
>> >
>>> On Wednesday, 25 January 2023 at 17:53:55 GMT, Volker Schmidt <
>>> vosc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>>> Is there an established way to tag the diameter of a mini-roundabout?
>> >
>>> We have the tag diameter, but I could not find it applied to
>>> mini-roundabouts.
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> >
>
>
>-- 
>Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.
>
>
>___
>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 the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Mark Reidel]

On Thu, 2023-02-02 at 04:31 +0100, Matija Nalis wrote:
> If the actual issue is that HGV cannot pass some road, why not simply
> mark it as `hgv=no`? Besides being simple, it has the additional
> advantage that routers will actually already use it and direct HGVs
> somewhere where they can actually pass.

Adding an access-tag like maxlength isn't the correct way to tackle
this, because:
a) there is no *legal* restriction that disallows a vehicle of a
certain length
b) it's not only about the length, but mostly about the turning radius
of trucks, which is not necessarily related to their length, especially
when they have more than 1 trailer.

But overall, I don't see how this is of special importance for a mini
roundabout with a traversable surface, it being very much identical to
a regular crossing when you are allowed to go over the inner circle.
Shouldn't the angle between the two roads the vehicle wants to pass be
the limiting factor in that case?

-- 
Mark aka Nadjita

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Colin Smale]

And, I would add, exceptional transports of up to maybe 100 tons or more may 
get one time permissions to use the road, possibly involving removing street 
furniture to enable the manoeuvre. Changing the physical dimensions of the 
carriageway is a bit more difficult though.

On 2 February 2023 09:39:51 CET, Martin Koppenhoefer  
wrote:
>
>
>sent from a phone
>
>> On 2 Feb 2023, at 04:34, Matija Nalis  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> If the actual issue is that HGV cannot pass some road, why not simply mark 
>> it as 
>> `hgv=no`?
>
>
>because hgv=no means forbidden to hgv (vehicles which may weight more than 
>2.8t).
>
>There are a lot of different sizes for hgv, weight is not the limiting factor 
>in general for curves
>___
>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 the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 2 Feb 2023, at 04:34, Matija Nalis  
> wrote:
> 
> If the actual issue is that HGV cannot pass some road, why not simply mark it 
> as 
> `hgv=no`?


because hgv=no means forbidden to hgv (vehicles which may weight more than 
2.8t).

There are a lot of different sizes for hgv, weight is not the limiting factor 
in general for curves
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[stevea]

On Jan 29, 2023, at 5:31 AM, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 12:12:06AM +, Philip Barnes wrote:
>> 
>> When I first encountered Canadian four way stops in 1980, I did think these 
>> should be mini-roundabouts. 
> 
> Thats the main point. In Germany we have a solution of "last resort"
> which is called "Rechts vor links" - So when there is no other 
> rules of priority its "Right before left".
> 
> Other jurisdications dont have this so there is a problem with producing
> junctions with "equal priority". The UK solution is the "mini
> roundabout".

I don't usually jump on a post simply to disagree with it (it makes me sound 
"simply contrarian" and "argument provoking," which I am not), but I must do so 
here and now.  I am not an attorney.  In my state of California in the USA, at 
four-way stop-signs, we have a right-of-way law (California Vehicle Code §21800 
et al) which states essentially the same thing as what Florian calls Germany's 
"last resort:"  it says

"When two vehicles enter an intersection from different highways at the same 
time, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right-of-way to the 
vehicle on his or her immediate right."

So, please don't say "other jurisdictions don't have this," as obviously, some 
do.  Thank you.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Matija Nalis]

If the actual issue is that HGV cannot pass some road, why not simply mark it 
as 
`hgv=no`? Besides being simple, it has the additional advantage that routers
will actually already use it and direct HGVs somewhere where they can actually 
pass.

Or if some lenghts of HGVs can pass, but others not, then maxlength=* 
or maxlength:hgv=* or some of the other alternatives from 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxlength ?

On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 21:25:32 +0100, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> I see that I was not precise with my question: I am after a way to tag the
> overall diameter of the round surface composed of the mini-roundabout road
> surface plus the traversable central part. This is an important measure for
> trucks. I happen to live near one of these with an outer diameter of 12 m,
> and that attracts regularly articulated lorries like the cheese attracts
> flies. This triggered the question.
>
> Il giorno mer 25 gen 2023 alle ore 19:10 Peter Neale via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> ha scritto:
>
>> According to the Wiki (with which I happen to agree), a mini-roundabout is
>> defined as:
> >
>> "...a special type of roundabout in which the middle can be traversed
>>  by vehicles, and is
>> typically used where there is only limited space available. Road traffic
>> flows in one direction around a point in the middle and the traffic in the
>> roundabout has right-of-way. The middle of a mini-roundabout is usually
>> only a painted circle, but there might also be a low, fully traversable
>> (mountable) dome or island."
> >
>> As it is traversable, does it really have a diameter?  Or, if there is a
>> painted circle (are traversable domed area) on the ground, perhaps that has
>> a diameter, but does it matter to any prospective map user?
> >
>> Regards,
>> Peter
> >
>> Peter Neale
>> t: 01908 309666
>> m: 07968 341930
> >
> >
>> On Wednesday, 25 January 2023 at 17:53:55 GMT, Volker Schmidt <
>> vosc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
>> Is there an established way to tag the diameter of a mini-roundabout?
> >
>> We have the tag diameter, but I could not find it applied to
>> mini-roundabouts.
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >


-- 
Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.


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

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Replace `*:signed` suffix key with `signed:*` prefix key

[Andy Townsend]

On 01/02/2023 16:08, Marc_marc wrote:

you can obviously just set unsigned=A;B


I've got to admit, I didn't see that one coming!

"unsigned=yes" is way ahead of all other "unsigned=" uses (see 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/unsigned#values ). However, 24 
people have used "unsigned=name", so it's not entirely unknown.  No 
"unsigned=A;B" combinations have more that a single usage, though.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Replace `*:signed` suffix key with `signed:*` prefix key

[Marc_marc]

Hello,


Le 01.02.23 à 16:47, Zeke Farwell a écrit :





this is the caricature of the confusion between key and value :
if a key has only one value then it is the value of another more 
relevant key
in this case the key *:signed=* has only one useful value, that of 
*:signed=no (e.g. name:signed=no) to allow collection tools not

to ask for name=* if there is nothing on the ground
unsigned=name also does this, in a much more consistent way
and if you have A:signed=no A:signed=no, you can obviously
just set unsigned=A;B

Regards,
Marc



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

[Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Replace `*:signed` suffix key with `signed:*` prefix key

[Zeke Farwell]

Cross postig from the forum:
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rfc-feature-proposal-replace-signed-suffix-key-with-signed-prefix-key/8459

Westnordost wrote:

> Hey there.
>
> I’ve created a proposal to replace *:signed suffix key with signed:*
> prefix key 7
> 
>
> *:signed is used to indicate whether the tag it refers to is signed or
> not and is helpful for on-site verifiability of the referenced information.
>
> It has mainly been pushed by StreetComplete for various keys and thus seen
> a massive increase in usage during the last years.
>
> However, it is conceptionally problematic that it is a suffix key and not
> a prefix key. Please read the proposal for more information.
>
> What’s your take? Do you have any more/better examples where the suffix
> key could be problematic? Or do you think it’s not worth it and it’ll be
> fine without the change?
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] leisure=practice_pitch a bad idea because too overspecific for a main tag ?

[Timeo Gut]

There is already very well established tagging for basketball pitches 
with one basket.


Current usage:
8273 sport=basketball + hoops=1
vs.
6 sport=basketball + leisure=practice_pitch


On 2023-01-31 01:34, Illia Marchenko wrote:

Marc_marc :

Hello,

Le 30.01.23 à 16:24, Illia Marchenko a écrit :
> leisure=practice_pitch is not suitable for full game.

I had not seen that this tag was documented and in the history
we already see the 2 opinions:
when you see an XYZ sports field, do you have to be an expert
in that sport with a measuring device in your pocket to know
if the field is suitable for a match or only for training ?
the news shows from time to time a sports field suddenly becoming
a "training pitch" because the legislation has changed. but if
you ask 1000 contributors who haven't heard the news, i doubt that
any contributor would choose another secondary tag than leisure=pitch
the dimension aspect should be given either by its dimennsions in
osm,
or in a secondary tag and not carried by the main tag.
the documentation of the tag before the last modification on the
subject
showed well that the current situation is to use leisure=pitch
also for
the training grounds


See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Practice_pitch

leisure=practice_pitch is intended for pitches that are physically 
unsuitable for normal game - for example, small basketball pitch with 
one basket.


Regards,
Illia.


___
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] leisure=practice_pitch a bad idea because too overspecific for a main tag ?

[Andy Townsend]

On 31/01/2023 22:05, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:



But iD, at least, when tagging basketball "pitches" asks for the 
number of hoops, with 1 as an option.


Does that info then go anywhere downstream?


Apparently:

https://master.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/way/4305950698

hoops    1
leisure  
pitch 
sport  
basketball 



Best Regards,

Andy

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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=practice_pitch a bad idea because too overspecific for a main tag ?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 at 20:23, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> but you typically cannot see details like a basketball court with just one
> basket.
>

But iD, at least, when tagging basketball "pitches" asks for the number of
hoops, with 1 as an option.

Does that info then go anywhere downstream?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=practice_pitch a bad idea because too overspecific for a main tag ?

[Marc_marc]

Le 30.01.23 à 18:34, Illia Marchenko a écrit :
unsuitable for normal game - for example, small basketball  
pitch with one basket.


It is a very good counter example:
as a child we regularly played on a pitch with one basket,
we played... we were not practising

ditto for the nearby hocket pitch: I know that it is a field
and that hocket is played there, at least for fun.
Is it a pro team that trains with a goal or is it a "normal game" pitch?
I have no idea and I don't see how this should influence the choice
of the main tag

let's move that to a subtag 
pitch=normal_game/child_size/unofficial_characteristic/... or whatever




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

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

[Illia Marchenko]

Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> What do you mean by 'a sport'?
>
> The sport soccer, for example, could be taken as referring to the
> physical infrastructure - goads at either end, a rectangular playing
> field. Similar can be said of many OSM 'sports'. So I don't see that as
> being a good argument.
>

For example, *sport=soccer* does not imply a specific physical
infrastructure - this tag can be used with fields (*leisure=pitch*) and
stadiums (*leisure=stadium*). Many tags under the key *sport=** follow this
logic. *sport=cricket_nets* is a notable exception.

Regards,
Illia.

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

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 31. Jan. 2023 um 11:16 Uhr schrieb Philip Barnes <
p...@trigpoint.me.uk>:

> I am with Dave on this one.
>
> The tag is clear, concise and intuitive.
>
> It says exactly what a map user would expect to find
>
> Changing to practice_pitch with sport=cricket loses the descriptive nature
> of the current tag. It just becomes where cricket is practiced instead of
> where there are nets in the real world.
>


practice_pitch is not necessarily the better alternative, it could also be
leisure=cricket_nets.
If "cricket nets" is a sport rather than an infrastructure, it can also
remain under the "sport" tag...
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] leisure=practice_pitch a bad idea because too overspecific for a main tag ?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 31. Jan. 2023 um 10:19 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> Soccer pitches have defined dimensions.. but there are smaller soccer
> pitches for children to play soccer on, I'd not call those practice
> pitches.
>


we can very easily see the pitch size from the data, but you typically
cannot see details like a basketball court with just one basket.
btw., soccer pitch dimensions are only loosely defined, they can range from
4050m2 to 10800m2
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

[Philip Barnes]

I am with Dave on this one.

The tag is clear, concise and intuitive.

It says exactly what a map user would expect to find 

Changing to practice_pitch with sport=cricket loses the descriptive nature of 
the current tag. It just becomes where cricket is practiced instead of where 
there are nets in the real world.

When a colleague says they are going 'to nets' after work, it is clearly 
understood.

Phil (trigpoint)

On 30 January 2023 13:54:01 GMT, Illia Marchenko  
wrote:
>Hello everyone,
>I suggest deprecating sport=cricket_nets on the wiki and recommend
>leisure=practice_pitch & sport=cricket as a replacement, since sport=*
>generally refers to a sport, not a physical infrastructure.
>Regards,
>Illia.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] leisure=practice_pitch a bad idea because too overspecific for a main tag ?

[Tom Pfeifer]

It is current habit in OSM to tag everything that can be played a sports game 
on as "pitch".
Ripping part of those objects out of the name space and tag them differently 
breaks backward
compatibility for data users.

For such reasons we have subtagging schemes. So you tag the area with
leisure=pitch
as usual, and add a subtag with a more detailed description, such as
pitch={training|fullsize|children_only|or_whatever_you_like}.

That keeps the existing scheme compatible and adds more detail.

tom

On 31.01.2023 10:15, Warin wrote:
> 
> On 31/1/23 04:34, Illia Marchenko wrote:
>> Marc_marc :
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Le 30.01.23 à 16:24, Illia Marchenko a écrit :
>> > leisure=practice_pitch is not suitable for full game.

>> leisure=practice_pitch is intended for pitches that are physically 
>> unsuitable for normal game -
>> for example, small basketball pitch with one basket. 
>>
> 
> Soccer pitches have defined dimensions.. but there are smaller soccer pitches 
> for children to play
> soccer on, I'd not call those practice pitches. So just by looking at the 
> vacant pitch I'd not be
> able to tell if some sport pitches are 'practice' or not.

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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=practice_pitch a bad idea because too overspecific for a main tag ?

[Warin]

On 31/1/23 04:34, Illia Marchenko wrote:

Marc_marc :

Hello,

Le 30.01.23 à 16:24, Illia Marchenko a écrit :
> leisure=practice_pitch is not suitable for full game.

I had not seen that this tag was documented and in the history
we already see the 2 opinions:
when you see an XYZ sports field, do you have to be an expert
in that sport with a measuring device in your pocket to know
if the field is suitable for a match or only for training ?
the news shows from time to time a sports field suddenly becoming
a "training pitch" because the legislation has changed. but if
you ask 1000 contributors who haven't heard the news, i doubt that
any contributor would choose another secondary tag than leisure=pitch
the dimension aspect should be given either by its dimennsions in
osm,
or in a secondary tag and not carried by the main tag.
the documentation of the tag before the last modification on the
subject
showed well that the current situation is to use leisure=pitch
also for
the training grounds


See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Practice_pitch

leisure=practice_pitch is intended for pitches that are physically 
unsuitable for normal game - for example, small basketball pitch with 
one basket.




Soccer pitches have defined dimensions.. but there are smaller soccer 
pitches for children to play soccer on, I'd not call those practice 
pitches. So just by looking at the vacant pitch I'd not be able to tell 
if some sport pitches are 'practice' or not.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

[Warin]

On 31/1/23 00:54, Illia Marchenko wrote:

Hello everyone,
I suggest deprecating sport=cricket_nets on the wiki and recommend 
leisure=practice_pitch & sport=cricket as a replacement, since sport=* 
generally refers to a sport, not a physical infrastructure.

Regards,
Illia.




What do you mean by 'a sport'?

The sport soccer, for example, could be taken as referring to the 
physical infrastructure - goads at either end, a rectangular playing 
field. Similar can be said of many OSM 'sports'. So I don't see that as 
being a good argument.


There are quite a few things tagged 'sport' in OSM that I don't think of 
as 'sports'. Some descriptions exclude completion only being for 
'practice'.



It may be better to consider leisure=training, 
activity=cricket,/basketball/tennis/fitness/* This would clear the 
'sport' problem. Note that training also occurs for things like fire 
fighting, I'd not consider that a leisure activity.



taginfo search .. arrr

The key 'training' exists .. and with the value 'sport' .. amongst 
others ... It requires a physical key such as amenity=training, 
amenity=trade_school.. maybe worth thinking about?



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

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 30 Jan 2023, at 14:58, Illia Marchenko  wrote:
> 
> Hello everyone,
> I suggest deprecating sport=cricket_nets on the wiki and recommend 
> leisure=practice_pitch & sport=cricket as a replacement, since sport=* 
> generally refers to a sport, not a physical infrastructure.


agreed. “sport” is about a sport and “leisure” for the description of the 
physical feature related to sport (or other features)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Namensanzeige bei der Sucheingabe / Names presented in the search function

[Dominik George via Tagging]

Hallo Ulrich,

On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 10:22:26PM +0100, Ulrich Lamm wrote:
> Es ist eine Unverschämtheit, bei Sucheingaben die Namen nur noch in der 
> Landessprache des Suchenden anzuzeigen und dem/der Suchenden damit die heute 
> gültigen Namen vorzuenthalten.

Es ist eine Unverschämtheit, nicht mal die Augen aufzumachen und
dann auf die Mailingliste zu kotzen, ohne jegelichen Versuch von Anstand.

> Diese Art der Anzeige ist der Versuch, die OSM-Nutzer einzusperren und ihnen 
> die Vorteile des internationalen Projektes vorzuenthalten.

Diese Feststellung ist schlichtweg gelogen. OpenStreetMap.org zeigt
alle in der Datenbank bekannten Namen in allen Sprachen an.

> It is impertinent to present OSM-users searching for some place abroad only 
> the names in the language of the country, they ask from, and not to show the 
> searcher the valid/official names of the country on which he/she wants to get 
> informations.

It is impertinent to not even take a proper look, but then shout on a mailing 
list
without the slightest respect.

> This manipulation is the attempt to retain people mentally in the country 
> where they live,
> instead of allowing them to enjoy the advantages of the international project.

This statement is a plain lie. OpenStreetMap.org shows
all names known in the database in all languages.


Please refrain from using this mailing list, or any other OSM
communication channel, or even any other communication channel at all,
before adjusting your behaviour.


-nik


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Namensanzeige bei der Sucheingabe / Names presented in the search function

[Ulrich Lamm]

Es ist eine Unverschämtheit, bei Sucheingaben die Namen nur noch in der 
Landessprache des Suchenden anzuzeigen und dem/der Suchenden damit die heute 
gültigen Namen vorzuenthalten.
Diese Art der Anzeige ist der Versuch, die OSM-Nutzer einzusperren und ihnen 
die Vorteile des internationalen Projektes vorzuenthalten.

It is impertinent to present OSM-users searching for some place abroad only the 
names in the language of the country, they ask from, and not to show the 
searcher the valid/official names of the country on which he/she wants to get 
informations.
This manipulation is the attempt to retain people mentally in the country where 
they live,
instead of allowing them to enjoy the advantages of the international project.

Ulrich Lamm
Fesenfeld 121
D 28203 Bremen
0049 421 701968
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] leisure=practice_pitch a bad idea because too overspecific for a main tag ?

[Illia Marchenko]

Marc_marc :

> Hello,
>
> Le 30.01.23 à 16:24, Illia Marchenko a écrit :
> > leisure=practice_pitch is not suitable for full game.
>
> I had not seen that this tag was documented and in the history
> we already see the 2 opinions:
> when you see an XYZ sports field, do you have to be an expert
> in that sport with a measuring device in your pocket to know
> if the field is suitable for a match or only for training ?
> the news shows from time to time a sports field suddenly becoming
> a "training pitch" because the legislation has changed. but if
> you ask 1000 contributors who haven't heard the news, i doubt that
> any contributor would choose another secondary tag than leisure=pitch
> the dimension aspect should be given either by its dimennsions in osm,
> or in a secondary tag and not carried by the main tag.
> the documentation of the tag before the last modification on the subject
> showed well that the current situation is to use leisure=pitch also for
> the training grounds
>

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Practice_pitch

leisure=practice_pitch is intended for pitches that are physically
unsuitable for normal game - for example, small basketball pitch with one
basket.

Regards,
Illia.

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

[Tagging] leisure=practice_pitch a bad idea because too overspecific for a main tag ?

[Marc_marc]

Hello,

Le 30.01.23 à 16:24, Illia Marchenko a écrit :

leisure=practice_pitch is not suitable for full game.


I had not seen that this tag was documented and in the history
we already see the 2 opinions:
when you see an XYZ sports field, do you have to be an expert
in that sport with a measuring device in your pocket to know
if the field is suitable for a match or only for training ?
the news shows from time to time a sports field suddenly becoming
a "training pitch" because the legislation has changed. but if
you ask 1000 contributors who haven't heard the news, i doubt that
any contributor would choose another secondary tag than leisure=pitch
the dimension aspect should be given either by its dimennsions in osm, 
or in a secondary tag and not carried by the main tag.
the documentation of the tag before the last modification on the subject 
showed well that the current situation is to use leisure=pitch also for 
the training grounds


Regards,
Marc



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

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

[Dave F via Tagging]

I don't

sport=cricket_nets is fine. it's clear. it's specific. It doesn't 
interfere with any other tags.
The argument that it's not, technically, a sport & therefore inaccurate 
is... meh.


DaveF

On 30/01/2023 13:54, Illia Marchenko wrote:

Hello everyone,
I suggest deprecating sport=cricket_nets on the wiki and recommend 
leisure=practice_pitch & sport=cricket as a replacement, since sport=* 
generally refers to a sport, not a physical infrastructure.

Regards,
Illia.



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

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

[Illia Marchenko]

пн, 30 янв. 2023 г., 18:23 Marc_marc :

> Le 30.01.23 à 14:54, Illia Marchenko a écrit :
> > recommend leisure=practice_pitch
>
> what's the diff with a leisure=pitch ?
>

leisure=practice_pitch is not suitable for full game.
Regards,
Illia.

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

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

[Marc_marc]

Le 30.01.23 à 14:54, Illia Marchenko a écrit :

recommend leisure=practice_pitch


what's the diff with a leisure=pitch ?



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

[Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

[Illia Marchenko]

Hello everyone,
I suggest deprecating sport=cricket_nets on the wiki and recommend
leisure=practice_pitch & sport=cricket as a replacement, since sport=*
generally refers to a sport, not a physical infrastructure.
Regards,
Illia.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

The old Australian version of what I think is the same thing were nicknamed
Silent Cops.

Article about them:
https://www.shannons.com.au/club/forum/general/who-remembers-silent-cops/

Thanks

Graeme


On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 at 07:04, Colin Smale  wrote:

> The "Priority to the right" rule doesn't cover everything. Imagine a
> junction with two cars coming simultaneously from side roads on opposite
> sides of another road at right angles. Both want to leave the junction on
> the orthogonal road, in the same direction. One is making a right turn, and
> the other is making a left turn. Who goes first? The tiebreaker rule is
> what (I believe) Florian is calling "right before left," in the Netherlands
> it's called "shortest turn first". The car that is making the right turn
> goes before the car turning left.
>
> The "priority to the right" rule is normally only encountered in
> residential areas and very rural areas, where the roads are deemed to be of
> equal significance. Where a road with substantial through traffic is
> involved the priority situation is usually made clear by signs (give
> way/stop, sometimes plus yellow diamond on through road) and road markings.
>
> > On 29/01/2023 19:26 CET Philip Barnes  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 2023-01-29 at 14:31 +0100, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 12:12:06AM +, Philip Barnes wrote:
> > > >
> > > > When I first encountered Canadian four way stops in 1980, I did
> > > > think these should be mini-roundabouts.
> > >
> > > Thats the main point. In Germany we have a solution of "last resort"
> > > which is called "Rechts vor links" - So when there is no other
> > > rules of priority its "Right before left".
> >
> > That is a rule I believe exists in most of continental Europe. I
> > certainly learned of it as ‘Priorité à droite’ in French lessons at
> > school.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Other jurisdications dont have this so there is a problem with
> > > producing
> > > junctions with "equal priority". The UK solution is the "mini
> > > roundabout".
> > >
> > > So a mini roundabout is really "mini" or "tiny" - Not necessarily
> > > round.
> > A roundabout isn't necessarily round either :)
> >
> > It about going around, the name comes from the fairground roundabout
> > (carousel in American English) or a children's roundabout in
> > playground.
> >
> > A mini-roundabout in the UK, and in France which is the country which
> > comes second in terms of my driving experience are signed with a blue
> > sign with white arrows. Different to a normal roundabout. They are
> > always traversable but doing so is often made uncomfortable for small
> > vehicles by either building them up with concrete so they can be the
> > height of a speed bump or with the use of setts.
> >
> > Others are just white paint at what was once a give way and nobody goes
> > around the paint. They just make priority equal.
> > https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=381114187015295
> >
> >
> > I did spot this one today,
> > https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=509797140032524 which is
> > traversable by a truck, but you wouldn't want to in a car.
> >
> >
> > > The problem here starts with the imagery in the Wiki which IMHO dont
> > > show mini roundabouts, but random roundabouts with traversable
> > > center.
> > Am not sure what you mean, all of the photos that say mini-roundabout,
> > I would interpret as such. The one that looks different is
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/5/5e/Kreisverkehr.jpg but it
> > has the mini-roundabout sign so I would treat it a a mini-roundabout. A
> > large vehicle turning would have to cross the island. In reality most
> > drivers would go straight over it.
> > >
> > > And main distinction people read in the wiki is "traversable center"
> > > so
> > > everything with a traversable center gets tagged by mappers as mini
> > > roundabout.
> > >
> > I don't think I have ever come across a roundabout with a traversable
> > centre, why would it even exist?
> >
> > > So we have a problem with the wiki documentation.
> > It looks fine to me, although mini-roundabouts were common in the UK by
> > the time I was learning to drive in the late 70s.
> >
> > Phil (trigpoint)
> >
> > ___
> > 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] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Colin Smale]

The "Priority to the right" rule doesn't cover everything. Imagine a junction 
with two cars coming simultaneously from side roads on opposite sides of 
another road at right angles. Both want to leave the junction on the orthogonal 
road, in the same direction. One is making a right turn, and the other is 
making a left turn. Who goes first? The tiebreaker rule is what (I believe) 
Florian is calling "right before left," in the Netherlands it's called 
"shortest turn first". The car that is making the right turn goes before the 
car turning left.

The "priority to the right" rule is normally only encountered in residential 
areas and very rural areas, where the roads are deemed to be of equal 
significance. Where a road with substantial through traffic is involved the 
priority situation is usually made clear by signs (give way/stop, sometimes 
plus yellow diamond on through road) and road markings.

> On 29/01/2023 19:26 CET Philip Barnes  wrote:
> 
>  
> On Sun, 2023-01-29 at 14:31 +0100, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 12:12:06AM +, Philip Barnes wrote:
> > > 
> > > When I first encountered Canadian four way stops in 1980, I did
> > > think these should be mini-roundabouts. 
> > 
> > Thats the main point. In Germany we have a solution of "last resort"
> > which is called "Rechts vor links" - So when there is no other 
> > rules of priority its "Right before left".
> 
> That is a rule I believe exists in most of continental Europe. I
> certainly learned of it as ‘Priorité à droite’ in French lessons at
> school.
> 
> 
> > 
> > Other jurisdications dont have this so there is a problem with
> > producing
> > junctions with "equal priority". The UK solution is the "mini
> > roundabout".
> > 
> > So a mini roundabout is really "mini" or "tiny" - Not necessarily
> > round.
> A roundabout isn't necessarily round either :)
> 
> It about going around, the name comes from the fairground roundabout
> (carousel in American English) or a children's roundabout in
> playground.
> 
> A mini-roundabout in the UK, and in France which is the country which
> comes second in terms of my driving experience are signed with a blue
> sign with white arrows. Different to a normal roundabout. They are
> always traversable but doing so is often made uncomfortable for small
> vehicles by either building them up with concrete so they can be the
> height of a speed bump or with the use of setts.
> 
> Others are just white paint at what was once a give way and nobody goes
> around the paint. They just make priority equal.
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=381114187015295
> 
> 
> I did spot this one today,
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=509797140032524 which is
> traversable by a truck, but you wouldn't want to in a car.
> 
> 
> > The problem here starts with the imagery in the Wiki which IMHO dont
> > show mini roundabouts, but random roundabouts with traversable
> > center.
> Am not sure what you mean, all of the photos that say mini-roundabout,
> I would interpret as such. The one that looks different is
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/5/5e/Kreisverkehr.jpg but it
> has the mini-roundabout sign so I would treat it a a mini-roundabout. A
> large vehicle turning would have to cross the island. In reality most
> drivers would go straight over it.
> > 
> > And main distinction people read in the wiki is "traversable center"
> > so
> > everything with a traversable center gets tagged by mappers as mini
> > roundabout.
> > 
> I don't think I have ever come across a roundabout with a traversable
> centre, why would it even exist?
> 
> > So we have a problem with the wiki documentation. 
> It looks fine to me, although mini-roundabouts were common in the UK by
> the time I was learning to drive in the late 70s.
> 
> Phil (trigpoint)
> 
> ___
> 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 of places where whipper chargers / cream blower capsules can be recycled

[Jez Nicholson]

Personally, I would call it a 'nitrous oxide canister' and not by it's use.
E.g.
https://www.nlwa.gov.uk/reducereuserecycle/recycle/whatcanwerecycle/laughing-gas-canisters

On Sun, 29 Jan 2023, 15:09 Lukas Toggenburger via Tagging, <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Dear list
>
> I am looking for a tag to mark places where whipper chargers / cream
> blower capsules can be recycled, i.e. a tag `recycling:X=yes`, according to
> the existing https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Drecycling
> scheme.
>
> I am referring to these things:
>
> - https://kisag.ch/en/chargers
> - https://www.migros.ch/en/product/70393570
>
> that are used in bottles/dispensers like this one:
>
> - https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kisag#/media/Datei:Kisag_whipper.jpg
>
> I think they are primarily used in Switzerland and might not be known
> abroad.
>
> I am not a native English speaker, therefore I am looking for a good
> translation / tag name. Names that I have encountered are:
>
> - whipper chargers: https://kisag.ch/en/chargers
> - whipper capsules / chargers: https://kisag.ch/en/chargers (on the
> product images)
> - whipped cream chargers:
> https://www.coop.ch/en/household-pet/household-kitchen/kitchen-utensils/kitchen-aids/kisag-whipped-cream-chargers-10-per-pack/p/3402839
> - cream blower capsules: https://www.migros.ch/en/product/70393570
> - cream chargers / cream gas bottles / cream cartridges:
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=recycling%3Acream
>
> I would probably go with the existing `recycling:cream_chargers=yes` that
> seems to be the most used tag with whopping 7(!) usages.
>
> Does anybody object to that? It wouldn't be too late to use something else.
>
> 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] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Philip Barnes]

On Sun, 2023-01-29 at 14:31 +0100, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 12:12:06AM +, Philip Barnes wrote:
> > 
> > When I first encountered Canadian four way stops in 1980, I did
> > think these should be mini-roundabouts. 
> 
> Thats the main point. In Germany we have a solution of "last resort"
> which is called "Rechts vor links" - So when there is no other 
> rules of priority its "Right before left".

That is a rule I believe exists in most of continental Europe. I
certainly learned of it as ‘Priorité à droite’ in French lessons at
school.


> 
> Other jurisdications dont have this so there is a problem with
> producing
> junctions with "equal priority". The UK solution is the "mini
> roundabout".
> 
> So a mini roundabout is really "mini" or "tiny" - Not necessarily
> round.
A roundabout isn't necessarily round either :)

It about going around, the name comes from the fairground roundabout
(carousel in American English) or a children's roundabout in
playground.

A mini-roundabout in the UK, and in France which is the country which
comes second in terms of my driving experience are signed with a blue
sign with white arrows. Different to a normal roundabout. They are
always traversable but doing so is often made uncomfortable for small
vehicles by either building them up with concrete so they can be the
height of a speed bump or with the use of setts.

Others are just white paint at what was once a give way and nobody goes
around the paint. They just make priority equal.
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=381114187015295


I did spot this one today,
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=509797140032524 which is
traversable by a truck, but you wouldn't want to in a car.


> The problem here starts with the imagery in the Wiki which IMHO dont
> show mini roundabouts, but random roundabouts with traversable
> center.
Am not sure what you mean, all of the photos that say mini-roundabout,
I would interpret as such. The one that looks different is
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/5/5e/Kreisverkehr.jpg but it
has the mini-roundabout sign so I would treat it a a mini-roundabout. A
large vehicle turning would have to cross the island. In reality most
drivers would go straight over it.
> 
> And main distinction people read in the wiki is "traversable center"
> so
> everything with a traversable center gets tagged by mappers as mini
> roundabout.
> 
I don't think I have ever come across a roundabout with a traversable
centre, why would it even exist?

> So we have a problem with the wiki documentation. 
It looks fine to me, although mini-roundabouts were common in the UK by
the time I was learning to drive in the late 70s.

Phil (trigpoint)

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

[Tagging] Tagging of places where whipper chargers / cream blower capsules can be recycled

[Lukas Toggenburger via Tagging]

Dear list

I am looking for a tag to mark places where whipper chargers / cream blower 
capsules can be recycled, i.e. a tag `recycling:X=yes`, according to the 
existing https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Drecycling scheme.

I am referring to these things:

- https://kisag.ch/en/chargers
- https://www.migros.ch/en/product/70393570

that are used in bottles/dispensers like this one:

- https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kisag#/media/Datei:Kisag_whipper.jpg

I think they are primarily used in Switzerland and might not be known abroad.

I am not a native English speaker, therefore I am looking for a good 
translation / tag name. Names that I have encountered are:

- whipper chargers: https://kisag.ch/en/chargers
- whipper capsules / chargers: https://kisag.ch/en/chargers (on the product 
images)
- whipped cream chargers: 
https://www.coop.ch/en/household-pet/household-kitchen/kitchen-utensils/kitchen-aids/kisag-whipped-cream-chargers-10-per-pack/p/3402839
- cream blower capsules: https://www.migros.ch/en/product/70393570
- cream chargers / cream gas bottles / cream cartridges: 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=recycling%3Acream

I would probably go with the existing `recycling:cream_chargers=yes` that seems 
to be the most used tag with whopping 7(!) usages.

Does anybody object to that? It wouldn't be too late to use something else.

Best regards

Lukas

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Florian Lohoff]

On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 12:12:06AM +, Philip Barnes wrote:
> 
> When I first encountered Canadian four way stops in 1980, I did think these 
> should be mini-roundabouts. 

Thats the main point. In Germany we have a solution of "last resort"
which is called "Rechts vor links" - So when there is no other 
rules of priority its "Right before left".

Other jurisdications dont have this so there is a problem with producing
junctions with "equal priority". The UK solution is the "mini
roundabout".

So a mini roundabout is really "mini" or "tiny" - Not necessarily round.

The problem here starts with the imagery in the Wiki which IMHO dont
show mini roundabouts, but random roundabouts with traversable center.

And main distinction people read in the wiki is "traversable center" so
everything with a traversable center gets tagged by mappers as mini
roundabout.


So we have a problem with the wiki documentation. 


Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
  Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Colin Smale]

I was trying to offer a universal model that would accommodate both "true" 
roundabouts and mini-roundabouts.
 
In the UK you are expected to make an effort to drive around the "dustbin lid" 
(painted circle) in the middle of the mini-roundabout, but that only makes 
sense for smaller vehicles. Larger things just drive straight over it of course.
 
I disagree that a truck driver is really not supposed to use what you call the 
Truck Apron. It is simply unavoidable for anything longer than a car. Better to 
use the inner ring than to go over the outer kerb trying to avoid it. That's 
what it's there for. In law it depends on whether you consider it part of the 
"rijbaan" or not, and opinions are divided on this. There are however many 
reasons for pushing traffic towards the outside of the circle, including 
regulating the speed, minimising overtaking and improving sight lines.
 
Modelling "turbo-roundabouts" (a real Dutch speciality) is a whole different 
can of worms.
 
By the way, for (very) large vehicles there is a technique called Swept Path 
Analysis, which can be used to calculate whether it will "fit" and be able to 
take a junction. It needs the geometry of the junction, but of course it also 
needs to know a lot more about the vehicle itself which is way beyond OSM.
 
By the way, I live in NL and my son is a traffic policeman...
 
 

> On 29/01/2023 00:17 CET Peter Elderson  wrote:
>  
>  
> Op za 28 jan. 2023 om 23:38 schreef Colin Smale  mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>:
> 
> > A form of roundabout common in the Netherlands has an inner ring which is 
> > often distinctly coloured and slightly raised, thus making it clear that 
> > traffic is intended to avoid it and use the outer ring, while keeping it 
> > perfectly usable by most vehicles.
> > Example: 
> > https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotonde_(verkeer)#/media/Bestand:N746-Noordergraafsingel-Harbrinkhoek.jpg
> > 
> > 
>  
> The raised part is the truck apron. Traffic, including trucks, is not 
> dsupposed to use the truck apron. The kerb and the raised part warn the 
> trucker who forgets that.
> The roundabout shown there is a true roundabout. Mini-roundabouts do not 
> exist in Nederland, but we do have fake roundabouts (dot or circle in the 
> middle, possibly raised, no kerb, no roundabout rules. 
> Come to mention it, true roundabouts by themselves do not have special 
> priority rules in Nederland, just the oneway rule indicated by the roundabout 
> traffic signs. However, .priority is almost always indicated by at least 
> shark's teeth. If it isn't, traffic from the right has priority, same as on 
> regular junctions. (We're driving on the right).
> 
> As for diameters, I think the (minimal) turning circle or maximal rigid 
> vehicle length is what traffic needs. I am not sure that it can be calculated 
> from the diameters of inner centre circle, outer centre circle and 
> circumference of the entire traffic area.
>  
> 
> > 
> > > On 28/01/2023 22:12 CET Philip Barnes  > > mailto:p...@trigpoint.me.uk> wrote:
> > >  
> > >  
> > > Diameter implies there is something circular. The paint is often round, 
> > > not always, but most are just former T junctions or cross-roads where 
> > > there is nothing to measure the diameter of .
> > > 
> > > Phil (trigpoint)
> > > 
> > > On 25 January 2023 17:50:54 GMT, Volker Schmidt  > > mailto:vosc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Is there an established way to tag the diameter of a mini-roundabout?
> > > >  
> > > > We have the tag diameter, but I could not find it applied to 
> > > > mini-roundabouts.
> > > > 
> > > ___
> > > Tagging mailing list
> > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> > > 
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto: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] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Philip Barnes]

On 28 January 2023 23:47:38 GMT, Peter Elderson  wrote:
>The mini-roundabout just adds priority on the MR to the general keep left 
>rule, that is my understanding. 

They are to give equal priority to all roads at a junction, usually where 
traffic flow would block traffic from side roads.

They are usually only used where there is not enough space for a roundabout.

When I first encountered Canadian four way stops in 1980, I did think these 
should be mini-roundabouts. 

Phil (trigpoint)
>
>Peter Elderson
>
>> Op 29 jan. 2023 om 00:37 heeft Florian Lohoff  het volgende 
>> geschreven:
>> 
>> On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 09:12:11PM +, Philip Barnes wrote:
>>> Diameter implies there is something circular. The paint is often
>>> round, not always, but most are just former T junctions or cross-roads
>>> where there is nothing to measure the diameter of .
>> 
>> Thats exactly the point. The mini_roundabout is a UK speciality and most
>> likely should not have appeared anywhere else.
>> 
>> 
>> A mini_roundabout _must_ have a traversable center, a traversable center
>> does _not_ make a mini_roundabout.
>> 
>> 
>> Thats the major misconception a lot of people have.
>> 
>> Flo
>> -- 
>> Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
>>  Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
>> ___
>> 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] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Peter Elderson]

The mini-roundabout just adds priority on the MR to the general keep left rule, 
that is my understanding. 

Peter Elderson

> Op 29 jan. 2023 om 00:37 heeft Florian Lohoff  het volgende 
> geschreven:
> 
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 09:12:11PM +, Philip Barnes wrote:
>> Diameter implies there is something circular. The paint is often
>> round, not always, but most are just former T junctions or cross-roads
>> where there is nothing to measure the diameter of .
> 
> Thats exactly the point. The mini_roundabout is a UK speciality and most
> likely should not have appeared anywhere else.
> 
> 
> A mini_roundabout _must_ have a traversable center, a traversable center
> does _not_ make a mini_roundabout.
> 
> 
> Thats the major misconception a lot of people have.
> 
> Flo
> -- 
> Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
>  Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
> ___
> 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 the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Philip Barnes]

On 28 January 2023 23:17:59 GMT, Peter Elderson  wrote:
>Op za 28 jan. 2023 om 23:38 schreef Colin Smale :
>
>> A form of roundabout common in the Netherlands has an inner ring which is
>> often distinctly coloured and slightly raised, thus making it clear that
>> traffic is intended to avoid it and use the outer ring, while keeping it
>> perfectly usable by most vehicles.
>> Example:
>> https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotonde_(verkeer)#/media/Bestand:N746-Noordergraafsingel-Harbrinkhoek.jpg
>>
>>
>
>The raised part is the truck apron. Traffic, including trucks, is not
>dsupposed to use the truck apron. The kerb and the raised part warn the
>trucker who forgets that.
>The roundabout shown there is a true roundabout. Mini-roundabouts do not
>exist in Nederland, but we do have fake roundabouts (dot or circle in the
>middle, possibly raised, no kerb, no roundabout rules.
>Come to mention it, true roundabouts by themselves do not have special
>priority rules in Nederland, just the oneway rule indicated by the
>roundabout traffic signs. However, .priority is almost always indicated by
>at least shark's teeth. If it isn't, traffic from the right has priority,
>same as on regular junctions. (We're driving on the right).
>
>As for diameters, I think the (minimal) turning circle or maximal rigid
>vehicle length is what traffic needs. I am not sure that it can be
>calculated from the diameters of inner centre circle, outer centre circle
>and circumference of the entire traffic area.

Would that not only be relevant if trying to do a U turn (which is illegal at 
mini-roundabout).

Phil (trigpoint)
>
>On 28/01/2023 22:12 CET Philip Barnes  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Diameter implies there is something circular. The paint is often round,
>> not always, but most are just former T junctions or cross-roads where there
>> is nothing to measure the diameter of .
>>
>> Phil (trigpoint)
>>
>> On 25 January 2023 17:50:54 GMT, Volker Schmidt 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Is there an established way to tag the diameter of a mini-roundabout?
>>
>> We have the tag diameter, but I could not find it applied to
>> mini-roundabouts.
>>
>> ___
>> 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] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Florian Lohoff]

On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 09:12:11PM +, Philip Barnes wrote:
> Diameter implies there is something circular. The paint is often
> round, not always, but most are just former T junctions or cross-roads
> where there is nothing to measure the diameter of .

Thats exactly the point. The mini_roundabout is a UK speciality and most
likely should not have appeared anywhere else.


A mini_roundabout _must_ have a traversable center, a traversable center
does _not_ make a mini_roundabout.


Thats the major misconception a lot of people have.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
  Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Peter Elderson]

Op za 28 jan. 2023 om 23:38 schreef Colin Smale :

> A form of roundabout common in the Netherlands has an inner ring which is
> often distinctly coloured and slightly raised, thus making it clear that
> traffic is intended to avoid it and use the outer ring, while keeping it
> perfectly usable by most vehicles.
> Example:
> https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotonde_(verkeer)#/media/Bestand:N746-Noordergraafsingel-Harbrinkhoek.jpg
>
>

The raised part is the truck apron. Traffic, including trucks, is not
dsupposed to use the truck apron. The kerb and the raised part warn the
trucker who forgets that.
The roundabout shown there is a true roundabout. Mini-roundabouts do not
exist in Nederland, but we do have fake roundabouts (dot or circle in the
middle, possibly raised, no kerb, no roundabout rules.
Come to mention it, true roundabouts by themselves do not have special
priority rules in Nederland, just the oneway rule indicated by the
roundabout traffic signs. However, .priority is almost always indicated by
at least shark's teeth. If it isn't, traffic from the right has priority,
same as on regular junctions. (We're driving on the right).

As for diameters, I think the (minimal) turning circle or maximal rigid
vehicle length is what traffic needs. I am not sure that it can be
calculated from the diameters of inner centre circle, outer centre circle
and circumference of the entire traffic area.

On 28/01/2023 22:12 CET Philip Barnes  wrote:
>
>
> Diameter implies there is something circular. The paint is often round,
> not always, but most are just former T junctions or cross-roads where there
> is nothing to measure the diameter of .
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
> On 25 January 2023 17:50:54 GMT, Volker Schmidt 
> wrote:
>
> Is there an established way to tag the diameter of a mini-roundabout?
>
> We have the tag diameter, but I could not find it applied to
> mini-roundabouts.
>
> ___
> 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] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Colin Smale]

Generalising for all roundabouts, I propose a model in which there are three 
diameters:
 
D1) outer diameter, where the outer kerb is
D2) "guide" inner diameter, the outer diameter of the inner ring intended to 
"discourage" traffic
D3) inner diameter, where the inner kerb or wall is (not traversable)
 
A mini-roundabout with no central obstruction will have D3=0 but may have D2>0 
(possibly 1m-3m)
A normal UK roundabout will not use D2
A form of roundabout common in the Netherlands has an inner ring which is often 
distinctly coloured and slightly raised, thus making it clear that traffic is 
intended to avoid it and use the outer ring, while keeping it perfectly usable 
by most vehicles.
Example: 
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotonde_(verkeer)#/media/Bestand:N746-Noordergraafsingel-Harbrinkhoek.jpg
 
These numbers can be used for simple navigation instructions as has been 
mentioned. But they could also be useful for route planning for oversize 
transports: can they make it around/across, given the available road width and 
the geometry of the turn they want to take?
 
Generalising further could replace circles and their diameters with concentric 
polygons to allow for odd-shaped roundabouts, but that might be a bridge too 
far at the moment?
 

> On 28/01/2023 22:12 CET Philip Barnes  wrote:
>  
>  
> Diameter implies there is something circular. The paint is often round, not 
> always, but most are just former T junctions or cross-roads where there is 
> nothing to measure the diameter of .
> 
> Phil (trigpoint)
> 
> On 25 January 2023 17:50:54 GMT, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> > Is there an established way to tag the diameter of a mini-roundabout?
> >  
> > We have the tag diameter, but I could not find it applied to 
> > mini-roundabouts.
> > 
> ___
> 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 the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Philip Barnes]

On 27 January 2023 21:29:49 GMT, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 09:25:32PM +0100, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>> I see that I was not precise with my question: I am after a way to tag the
>> overall diameter of the round surface composed of the mini-roundabout road
>> surface plus the traversable central part. This is an important measure for
>> trucks. I happen to live near one of these with an outer diameter of 12 m,
>> and that attracts regularly articulated lorries like the cheese attracts
>> flies. This triggered the question.
>
>There has been a pretty lenghty discussion in the German forum just a
>couple days back which i started. 
>
>I started a discussion about mini_roundabouts here too a couple years
>back.
>
>I still find the concept of tagging a "mini roundabout" _broken by
>design_.
>
>The main difference we have in usage is - A mini roundabout will never
>cause any announcements like "3rd exit" it will be "turn left". This
>will be pretty confusing for anything larger that a small residential
>street. 
I do find the lack of acknowledgement of mini-roundabouts by routers a strange 
omission. 

They just need to say Turn left/turn right/go straight on at the 
mini-roundabout the same as a human passenger does if they are giving 
directions. In terms of on-screen directions just use the normal turn arrows 
with a blue mini roundabout sign in the middle.


>
>And i think the misconception is still what a mini roundabout is. 
>A mini roundabout is not a mini roundabout because its center is
>traverseable. Its a matter of fixing a priority problem in busy
>junctions. 
I'm not sure I understand why there is any confusion. They are traversable.

>
>So in case you have 12m diameter and a traversable center i would not
>say thats a mini_roundabout.
Not sure about diameter, that implies something is round. The paint usually is, 
but the area around it very rarely is.


>
>And while at it - We should introduce a tag "traversable=yes" or
>something on the junction=roundabout way.

Why? Mini-roundabout is the standard name everyone knows, it's not just an OSM 
tag. If I told my girlfriend to turn right at the traversable roundabout she 
would be very confused.

Drawing a roundabout way in the space would usually be challenging, many you 
wouldn't attempt to go around.

Phil (trigpoint)

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Philip Barnes]

Diameter implies there is something circular. The paint is often round, not 
always, but most are just former T junctions or cross-roads where there is 
nothing to measure the diameter of .

Phil (trigpoint)

On 25 January 2023 17:50:54 GMT, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>Is there an established way to tag the diameter of a mini-roundabout?
>
>We have the tag diameter, but I could not find it applied to
>mini-roundabouts.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

I think the point was that the units are explicitly tagged in meters,
whereas in other cases (like ele), the unit assumed to be meters and you
can just put a number by itself.

On Sat, Jan 28, 2023, 3:14 PM stevea  wrote:

> Using mm (millimeters) as a unit for this makes no sense.  Meters are much
> better in my opinion.  I understand water tubes and pipe threads might be
> well-stated in mm (for "household" and "everyday" use, not hydrology
> engineers and sewerage architects), but water tubes and pipe threads are
> not roads and roundabouts.
>
> We can decide upon meters here (if we don't).  We can.
>
> > On Jan 28, 2023, at 12:44 AM, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> > The mm is because it's intended do describe water tubes and pipe
> threads, and not roads. That is why I have doubts using it for the
> mini-roundabout.
>
> ___
> 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 the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[stevea]

Using mm (millimeters) as a unit for this makes no sense.  Meters are much 
better in my opinion.  I understand water tubes and pipe threads might be 
well-stated in mm (for "household" and "everyday" use, not hydrology engineers 
and sewerage architects), but water tubes and pipe threads are not roads and 
roundabouts.

We can decide upon meters here (if we don't).  We can.

> On Jan 28, 2023, at 12:44 AM, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> The mm is because it's intended do describe water tubes and pipe threads, and 
> not roads. That is why I have doubts using it for the mini-roundabout.

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Mark Reidel]

On Sat, 2023-01-28 at 09:44 +0100, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> The mm is because it's intended do describe water tubes and pipe threads,
> and not roads. That is why I have doubts using it for the mini-roundabout.

The Wiki-page for diameter explicitly mentions the use for turning_circle
and turning_loop, so I would not hesitate to apply the same logic to (mini)
roundabouts.

- Mark aka Nadjita


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

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Volker Schmidt]

The mm is because it's intended do describe water tubes and pipe threads,
and not roads. That is why I have doubts using it for the mini-roundabout.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2023, 09:20 Mark Reidel,  wrote:

> On Sat, 2023-01-28 at 00:53 +0100, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> > What I am after is tagging the dimension of mini-roundabouts. This seems
> > to be useful information for longer vehicles. The specific
> mini-roundabout
> > that triggered the question is this one, and it has a diameter of about
> > 12m, and, yes, it is a mini-roundabout.
>
> I would tag the diameter the same as a highway=turning_loop, meaning:
>
> diameter=12 m
> inner_diameter=XX m
>
> where inner_diameter is the size of the traversable area in the middle. If
> there is none to tag, then solely diameter=12 m.
>
> For whatever reason, diameter is mm by default, so be careful ;)
>
> - Mark aka Nadjita
>
> ___
> 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 the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Mark Reidel]

On Sat, 2023-01-28 at 00:53 +0100, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> What I am after is tagging the dimension of mini-roundabouts. This seems
> to be useful information for longer vehicles. The specific mini-roundabout
> that triggered the question is this one, and it has a diameter of about
> 12m, and, yes, it is a mini-roundabout.

I would tag the diameter the same as a highway=turning_loop, meaning:

diameter=12 m
inner_diameter=XX m

where inner_diameter is the size of the traversable area in the middle. If
there is none to tag, then solely diameter=12 m.

For whatever reason, diameter is mm by default, so be careful ;)

- Mark aka Nadjita

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Volker Schmidt]

Florian,
I saw that discussion on the German list. I don't understand it.
I am familiar with the difference between a roundabout and a
mini-roundabout. The difference is essentially the traversability of the
centre, and the size. In the UK, where the OSM tagging was born, they have
different road signs. Here in Italy they do not have different signs, and
the only difference is the traversability.
The rules are the same for both.

So the traversability being the difference between the two, it is useless
to discuss the traversability of junction=roundabout. If the center is
traversable it is, in OSM,  not a junction=roundabout, but a
highway=mini_roundabout. This is an old established tagging, and I do not
see any need to change that.
What I am after is tagging the dimension of mini-roundabouts. This seems to
be useful information for longer vehicles. The specific mini-roundabout
that triggered the question is this one
, and it has a
diameter of about 12m, and, yes, it is a mini-roundabout.
Volker


Il giorno ven 27 gen 2023 alle ore 22:35 Florian Lohoff  ha
scritto:

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 09:25:32PM +0100, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> > I see that I was not precise with my question: I am after a way to tag
> the
> > overall diameter of the round surface composed of the mini-roundabout
> road
> > surface plus the traversable central part. This is an important measure
> for
> > trucks. I happen to live near one of these with an outer diameter of 12
> m,
> > and that attracts regularly articulated lorries like the cheese attracts
> > flies. This triggered the question.
>
> There has been a pretty lenghty discussion in the German forum just a
> couple days back which i started.
>
> I started a discussion about mini_roundabouts here too a couple years
> back.
>
> I still find the concept of tagging a "mini roundabout" _broken by
> design_.
>
> The main difference we have in usage is - A mini roundabout will never
> cause any announcements like "3rd exit" it will be "turn left". This
> will be pretty confusing for anything larger that a small residential
> street.
>
> And i think the misconception is still what a mini roundabout is.
> A mini roundabout is not a mini roundabout because its center is
> traverseable. Its a matter of fixing a priority problem in busy
> junctions.
>
> So in case you have 12m diameter and a traversable center i would not
> say thats a mini_roundabout.
>
> And while at it - We should introduce a tag "traversable=yes" or
> something on the junction=roundabout way.
>
> Flo
> --
> Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
>   Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
> ___
> 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 the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Florian Lohoff]

Hi,

On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 09:25:32PM +0100, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> I see that I was not precise with my question: I am after a way to tag the
> overall diameter of the round surface composed of the mini-roundabout road
> surface plus the traversable central part. This is an important measure for
> trucks. I happen to live near one of these with an outer diameter of 12 m,
> and that attracts regularly articulated lorries like the cheese attracts
> flies. This triggered the question.

There has been a pretty lenghty discussion in the German forum just a
couple days back which i started. 

I started a discussion about mini_roundabouts here too a couple years
back.

I still find the concept of tagging a "mini roundabout" _broken by
design_.

The main difference we have in usage is - A mini roundabout will never
cause any announcements like "3rd exit" it will be "turn left". This
will be pretty confusing for anything larger that a small residential
street. 

And i think the misconception is still what a mini roundabout is. 
A mini roundabout is not a mini roundabout because its center is
traverseable. Its a matter of fixing a priority problem in busy
junctions. 

So in case you have 12m diameter and a traversable center i would not
say thats a mini_roundabout.

And while at it - We should introduce a tag "traversable=yes" or
something on the junction=roundabout way.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
  Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] craft vs office for service enterprises/establishments.

[Daniel Bégin]

Thanks Nathan and ael, that makes me moving forward 

Sent from Mail for Windows

From: ael via Tagging
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2023 06:27
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Cc: ael
Subject: Re: [Tagging] craft vs office for service enterprises/establishments.

On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 10:50:57PM +, Daniel Bégin wrote:
> I see your point. I may be mired with language issues (English is not my 
> native language) but either I create a “business” tag and document it or I 
> use office?

Well, I would be in favour of that. In this sort of context, I think
'company' and 'business' mean much the same, although in the UK, at
least, 'company' has a legal meaning, so 'business' is perhaps slightly
more general.

By the way, when I said that "office" was American dialect, slightly
frivolously, I meant its usage rather than the word itself.

ael


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftagging=05%7C01%7C%7Ce64cdff96129468f907908db00597608%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638104156456674319%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=ou%2B50N0V4mVO0sFuOGsl3A7OZG9rBDJrDXATOcMDI38%3D=0

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

Re: [Tagging] craft vs office for service enterprises/establishments.

[ael via Tagging]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 10:50:57PM +, Daniel Bégin wrote:
> I see your point. I may be mired with language issues (English is not my 
> native language) but either I create a “business” tag and document it or I 
> use office?

Well, I would be in favour of that. In this sort of context, I think
'company' and 'business' mean much the same, although in the UK, at
least, 'company' has a legal meaning, so 'business' is perhaps slightly
more general.

By the way, when I said that "office" was American dialect, slightly
frivolously, I meant its usage rather than the word itself.

ael


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Building Hydrant Inlet

[Kyle Hensel]

Hi, there have been some changes to this proposal since the last time it was 
mentioned on this mailing list.

Any further feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks

From: Kyle Hensel
Sent: Friday, 30 December 2022 17:48
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Building Hydrant Inlet

Hi All. Following a recent discussion on the tagging mailing list, I have 
created a proposal for Building Hydrant Inlets.

https://wiki.osm.org/Proposal_features/Building_inlet


You can discuss this proposal on its Wiki Talk page or here.

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

Re: [Tagging] craft vs office for service enterprises/establishments.

[Nathan Case]

For me:

office=electrician

should be used for mapping the location of larger electricians company, 
e.g., as Daniel says, where they employ office staff and, likely, more 
than one electrician works at the company. The primary function of the 
tag is that this location acts as an office with primarily 
administrative tasks, rather than electrical tasks, being carried out there.


craft=electrician

should be used for either: the registered address of an electrician 
(usually their residential address but maybe a shared office space or 
workshop) who is not part of a larger company (in the UK we'd call that 
"self-employed").


Cheers.


On 26/01/2023 21:06, Daniel Bégin wrote:


I recently asked for a clarification and did not get any answer. So 
here is my question again (with some context):


Using the workplace of an electrician as an example, it was made clear 
that I should use craft=electrician instead of office=electrician. But 
what if this electrician sees its business get bigger (in a North 
American context)?


The electrician eventually hires secretaries, accountants, many other 
electricians and create a company (if not already incorporated). 
Should that workplace being tagged as office=company and 
company=electrician? Or if only the final output of the company should 
be taken into account (whatever its size) and then still be tagged 
craft=electrician?


Thank you for your patience :-)

Sent from Mail  for 
Windows



*From:* Daniel Bégin 
*Sent:* Thursday, January 26, 2023 12:00:44 PM
*To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 

*Subject:* Re: [Tagging] craft vs office for service 
enterprises/establishments.

+1

Get Outlook for Android 



*From:* Graeme Fitzpatrick 
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 25, 2023 5:00:59 PM
*To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 

*Subject:* Re: [Tagging] craft vs office for service 
enterprises/establishments.




On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 at 02:51, Daniel Bégin  wrote:

and office=psychologist because they provide services.


I would usually use healthcare=psychotherapist for them.

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] craft vs office for service enterprises/establishments.

[Daniel Bégin]

I see your point. I may be mired with language issues (English is not my native 
language) but either I create a “business” tag and document it or I use office?

Sent from Mail for Windows


From: ael via Tagging 
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2023 4:41:09 PM
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org 
Cc: ael 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] craft vs office for service enterprises/establishments.

On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 09:06:14PM +, Daniel Bégin wrote:
> Using the workplace of an electrician as an example, it was made clear that I 
> should use craft=electrician instead of office=electrician. But what if this 
> electrician sees its business get bigger (in a North American context)?
>
> The electrician eventually hires secretaries, accountants, many other 
> electricians and

...

Well I have always thought office=?? was pretty weird and was USA
dialect for what I would tag as business=electrician or
business=electrical_services. But the tag 'business' is undocumented and
unsupported, although I have used it ocasionally over several years.

I think that office=... only makes sense where the main function of the
premises is to act as ... an office :-)

ael


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftagging=05%7C01%7C%7C6f7092f17d994bcc730c08daffe6931f%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638103663044721397%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=8iUBpNiQ1mXG5T6hkEA0MHi0pppUfHwBVI6ZSEmjr2U%3D=0
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] craft vs office for service enterprises/establishments.

[ael via Tagging]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 09:06:14PM +, Daniel Bégin wrote:
> Using the workplace of an electrician as an example, it was made clear that I 
> should use craft=electrician instead of office=electrician. But what if this 
> electrician sees its business get bigger (in a North American context)?
> 
> The electrician eventually hires secretaries, accountants, many other 
> electricians and 

...

Well I have always thought office=?? was pretty weird and was USA
dialect for what I would tag as business=electrician or
business=electrical_services. But the tag 'business' is undocumented and
unsupported, although I have used it ocasionally over several years.

I think that office=... only makes sense where the main function of the
premises is to act as ... an office :-)

ael


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

Re: [Tagging] craft vs office for service enterprises/establishments.

[Colin Smale]

Psychologists and psychotherapists are different things...

On 25 January 2023 23:00:59 CET, Graeme Fitzpatrick  
wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 at 02:51, Daniel Bégin  wrote:
>
>> and office=psychologist because they provide services.
>>
>
>I would usually use healthcare=psychotherapist for them.
>
>Thanks
>
>Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] craft vs office for service enterprises/establishments.

[Daniel Bégin]

I recently asked for a clarification and did not get any answer. So here is my 
question again (with some context):
Using the workplace of an electrician as an example, it was made clear that I 
should use craft=electrician instead of office=electrician. But what if this 
electrician sees its business get bigger (in a North American context)?

The electrician eventually hires secretaries, accountants, many other 
electricians and create a company (if not already incorporated). Should that 
workplace being tagged as office=company and company=electrician? Or if only 
the final output of the company should be taken into account (whatever its 
size) and then still be tagged craft=electrician?

Thank you for your patience :-)


Sent from Mail for Windows


From: Daniel Bégin 
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2023 12:00:44 PM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] craft vs office for service enterprises/establishments.

+1

Get Outlook for 
Android

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 5:00:59 PM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] craft vs office for service enterprises/establishments.




On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 at 02:51, Daniel Bégin 
mailto:jfd...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
and office=psychologist because they provide services.

I would usually use healthcare=psychotherapist for them.

Thanks

Graeme

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

Re: [Tagging] craft vs office for service enterprises/establishments.

[Daniel Bégin]

+1

Get Outlook for Android

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 5:00:59 PM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] craft vs office for service enterprises/establishments.




On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 at 02:51, Daniel Bégin 
mailto:jfd...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
and office=psychologist because they provide services.

I would usually use healthcare=psychotherapist for them.

Thanks

Graeme

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

Re: [Tagging] craft vs office for service enterprises/establishments.

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 at 02:51, Daniel Bégin  wrote:

> and office=psychologist because they provide services.
>

I would usually use healthcare=psychotherapist for them.

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] craft vs office for service enterprises/establishments.

[Daniel Bégin]

Marc_marc wrote: “I would have rather described the [office] key as being the 
place of cerebral or administrative tasks, as opposed to craft which is the 
place of manual tasks”.

So basically, you consider that craft refers to any manual activity, from 
dressmakers to electricians, which could make sense. Using the same definition, 
using office=psychologist would also make sense, right?

Going back to the electrician as an example. The workplace of a person who 
comes to your house to change a plug or make an electrical installation in a 
building is tagged craft=electrician. I’m fine with it.
What if this electrician does a very good job and get popular? The electrician 
eventually hires many other electricians, secretaries, accountants, and create 
a company. Does that workplace be then tagged as office=company and 
company=electrician since mostly administrative tasks are now held in the 
workplace? Or if only the final output of the company is taken into account and 
then still be tagged craft=electrician?

Just trying to figure out a way to make sense ...
and I find it helpful so far :-)


Sent from Mail for Windows

From: Marc_marc
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 12:08
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] craft vs office for service enterprises/establishments.

Le 25.01.23 à 17:48, Daniel Bégin a écrit :
> office=* refers to places mainly providing services
> and frequently selling them.

I would have rather described the key as being the place of cerebral or
administrative tasks, as opposed to craf which is the place of manual
tasks: technically it is not impossible that a craftsman has an office
in one place and a workshop in another (and even a shop in a third place)

> I would also use office=* for electricians because they provide services

it depends on the meaning of electrician:
if it is the person who comes to your house to change a plug or make
an electrical installation in a building, it is clearly a manual work
and not a service.
if it is the person working for a company producing electricity,
it is industrial with offices (but where there is no electrician)




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftagging=05%7C01%7C%7C3c11372dd9ce42ddda0308dafef6c961%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638102633159183941%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=Z3AKz4xyu%2F8IuV7taXndYVQamWIjpUwlU3GxpZFStRI%3D=0

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Volker Schmidt]

I see that I was not precise with my question: I am after a way to tag the
overall diameter of the round surface composed of the mini-roundabout road
surface plus the traversable central part. This is an important measure for
trucks. I happen to live near one of these with an outer diameter of 12 m,
and that attracts regularly articulated lorries like the cheese attracts
flies. This triggered the question.

Il giorno mer 25 gen 2023 alle ore 19:10 Peter Neale via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> ha scritto:

> According to the Wiki (with which I happen to agree), a mini-roundabout is
> defined as:
>
> "...a special type of roundabout in which the middle can be traversed
>  by vehicles, and is
> typically used where there is only limited space available. Road traffic
> flows in one direction around a point in the middle and the traffic in the
> roundabout has right-of-way. The middle of a mini-roundabout is usually
> only a painted circle, but there might also be a low, fully traversable
> (mountable) dome or island."
>
> As it is traversable, does it really have a diameter?  Or, if there is a
> painted circle (are traversable domed area) on the ground, perhaps that has
> a diameter, but does it matter to any prospective map user?
>
> Regards,
> Peter
>
> Peter Neale
> t: 01908 309666
> m: 07968 341930
>
>
> On Wednesday, 25 January 2023 at 17:53:55 GMT, Volker Schmidt <
> vosc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Is there an established way to tag the diameter of a mini-roundabout?
>
> We have the tag diameter, but I could not find it applied to
> mini-roundabouts.
> ___
> 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] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Peter Neale via Tagging]

According to the Wiki (with which I happen to agree), a mini-roundabout is 
defined as:
"...a special type of roundabout in which the middle can be traversed by 
vehicles, and is typically used where there is only limited space available. 
Road traffic flows in one direction around a point in the middle and the 
traffic in the roundabout has right-of-way. The middle of a mini-roundabout is 
usually only a painted circle, but there might also be a low, fully traversable 
(mountable) dome or island."

As it is traversable, does it really have a diameter?  Or, if there is a 
painted circle (are traversable domed area) on the ground, perhaps that has a 
diameter, but does it matter to any prospective map user?
Regards,Peter
 Peter Neale 
t: 01908 309666 
m: 07968 341930
 

On Wednesday, 25 January 2023 at 17:53:55 GMT, Volker Schmidt 
 wrote:  
 
 Is there an established way to tag the diameter of a mini-roundabout?
We have the tag diameter, but I could not find it applied to mini-roundabouts.
___
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] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Volker Schmidt]

Is there an established way to tag the diameter of a mini-roundabout?

We have the tag diameter, but I could not find it applied to
mini-roundabouts.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] craft vs office for service enterprises/establishments.

[Marc_marc]

Le 25.01.23 à 17:48, Daniel Bégin a écrit :
office=* refers to places mainly providing services  
and frequently selling them.


I would have rather described the key as being the place of cerebral or 
administrative tasks, as opposed to craf which is the place of manual 
tasks: technically it is not impossible that a craftsman has an office 
in one place and a workshop in another (and even a shop in a third place)



I would also use office=* for electricians because they provide services


it depends on the meaning of electrician:
if it is the person who comes to your house to change a plug or make
an electrical installation in a building, it is clearly a manual work 
and not a service.

if it is the person working for a company producing electricity,
it is industrial with offices (but where there is no electrician)




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

[Tagging] craft vs office for service enterprises/establishments.

[Daniel Bégin]

I want to tag multiple service enterprises and establishments but I am 
struggling to find which key I should use between craft=* and office=*.

craft=* refers to workshops producing or transforming goods, usually in small 
quantities, on demand and to order.
office=* refers to places mainly providing services and frequently selling them.

For example, using above definitions, I would use craft=dressmaker because they 
produce goods, and office=psychologist because they provide services.

My problem is that I would also use office=* for electricians because they 
provide services but they have historically been tagged as craft, as suggest 
the second part of craft’s definition “and for the workplaces of tradespersons 
such as electricians and gardeners".

Smart tips available on which tag to use for hundreds of different types of 
service-related businesses?
Thanks in advance 

Sent from Mail for Windows

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Approved - Announce proposals on the community forum

[Cartographer10 via Tagging]

Hello everybody,

With 53 votes and 90% approve, the proposal  "Announce proposals on the 
community forum" has been approved.

Thank you for everybody who voted and participated in the discussion. I will 
update the proposal process wiki today.

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

Re: [Tagging] barrows and tumuli

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 19 Jan 2023, at 10:25, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> 
> The one I mentioned is a bit unique. It's not fake or a folly, it is an 
> active place for burials.



it may not be “fake” in the sense of pretending to be something different, but 
it mimics neolithic construction principles although it isn’t from the 
neolithic era. (I agree “fake” may not be the correct term, hard to tell from 2 
pictures but I guess the architects sent out some hints that this is a modern 
structure, trying to avoid creating the impression that it is actually ancient).
Still this (exception) is more a prove that these are almost always 
(pre)historic than a hint that we must use a different key.

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

Re: [Tagging] barrows and tumuli

[Philip Barnes]

The one I mentioned is a bit unique. It's not fake or a folly, it is an active 
place for burials. 

The internal construction is clear on the current bing imagery.

Phil 


On 19 January 2023 09:04:14 GMT, Martin Koppenhoefer  
wrote:
>Am Mi., 18. Jan. 2023 um 19:43 Uhr schrieb Philip Barnes <
>p...@trigpoint.me.uk>:
>
>> I am using local knowledge here,
>> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soulton_Long_Barrow
>>
>> It has been featured on Country File so known outside The Shire.
>>
>
>
>architectural style: "neoneolithic", ok, a fake neolithic structure, this
>is something that occurs occasionally, e.g. fake "castles", fake caves,
>fake buildings, fake trees, etc.
>I do not believe we should generally use a different key just because there
>is a handful of other objects in the world that do not fit.
>
>Cheers,
>Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] barrows and tumuli

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mi., 18. Jan. 2023 um 19:43 Uhr schrieb Philip Barnes <
p...@trigpoint.me.uk>:

> I am using local knowledge here,
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soulton_Long_Barrow
>
> It has been featured on Country File so known outside The Shire.
>


architectural style: "neoneolithic", ok, a fake neolithic structure, this
is something that occurs occasionally, e.g. fake "castles", fake caves,
fake buildings, fake trees, etc.
I do not believe we should generally use a different key just because there
is a handful of other objects in the world that do not fit.

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

Re: [Tagging] caravans en-de inconsistency

[Niels Elgaard Larsen]

Andy Townsend:


https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1qjp

1087 examples worldwide combined with "highway" tag where it can be assumed to be an 
access tag


Some also have a motorhome tag.

And some, I am skeptical about.

E.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/981233122

First, the place is Wohnmobilstellplatz, i.e. motorhome place.
And then there is a road that allows camping trailers but not motorhomes.

Second, motor_vehicle=no, caravan=yes
must mean that you can push and pull you camping trailer by hand, but are not allowed 
to pull it with your motorcar. This is probably not what the tagger meant to express.
Maybe you could use a conditional to say that you can only drive there if are pulling 
a camping trailer.



confusingly there is also "caravans", which isn't supposed to be an access tag, 
but:

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1qjq



Yes, it probably never means that you are allowed to stop you caravan on the road to 
sleep in it. So why do we need the caravans tag? There are of course camp areas where 
you are allowed to drive an RV, but not park it for the night, but that should be 
clear from the context (whether the caravan tag is on a highway or tourism object).


437 examples worldwide combined with "highway" tag where it can be assumed to be an 
access tag




--
Niels Elgaard Larsen


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

Re: [Tagging] caravans en-de inconsistency

[Niels Elgaard Larsen]

On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 09:15:51 +1000
Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:

>When I created https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dcaravan,
>I defined them as:
>
>"recreational vehicles such as towed caravans (a.k.a travel trailers,
>pop-tops, camper trailers, tent trailers, 5th wheelers etc); powered,
>self-propelled motorhomes (camper vans, expedition vehicles, truck
>trailers / slide-ons etc); & similar types of vehicle.
>
>For ease, on this page they are all referred to as caravans", together
>with example photos of them all.
>
>Maybe that should be copied across to
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:caravan?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:caravan has another definion of
caravans than https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:caravans 

Is it really necessary to two different tags for this?
What would it mean if an object was tagged with
tourism=campsite,caravans=yes,caravan=no?


If we change the meaning in Key:caravan then how will we tag that e.g,
motor homes is allowed on a highway, but camping trailers are not?


There are thousands of campsite and caravan_sites tagged with
caravans=no. If you drive in a motorhome, you would like to know if
that means that you cannot stay there.

>Thanks
>
>Graeme
>
>
>On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 at 09:09, Niels Elgaard Larsen 
>wrote:
>
>> In the wiki EN:Key:caravans can mean either a camping trailer
>> or a motorhome.
>>
>> But in German, DE:Key:caravans only means a camping trailer (de:
>> wohnwagen)
>>
>> The result is that there are 222 objects tagged with:
>>
>>   tourism=caravan_site
>>   caravans=no
>>
>>
>> Some even with:
>>
>>   tourism=caravan_site
>>   capacity:caravans=48
>>   caravans=no
>>
>> Some of them in other countries than Germany.
>> I find this very confusing.
>>
>> Wikipedia agrees with the Germans on the caravans key.
>> And on the wiki for Key:access, "caravan" is listen under
>> Non-motorized vehicles.
>> But then "tourism=caravan_site" makes little sense for motorhome
>> sites (de: stellplatz). "motorhome_site" or "rv_site" would have
>> been better.
>>
>> I guess it would work to tag motorhome stopovers, that does not
>> accomodate trailers with:
>>
>>   tourism=caravan_site
>>   caravans=no
>>   motorhome=yes
>>
>> Can we at least agree on whether caravans include motor_homes and
>> make the English and German wiki agree on that?
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>


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