Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OSM is a right mess
The oneway=yes, oneway=no conundrum.. put yourself in the position where you are looking at a road ahead of you. It is only wide enough for one vehicle but has passing bays along it's length. It is not wide enough to be a conventional twoway road so can it be tagged twoway? That would give the impression that cars can progress along it in opposite directions at the same timethat would be incorrect. But neither direction has the right of way and it is up to driver discretion and politeness as to who will reverse back to the passing bay. So oneway=no but twoway is not necessary yes. As is the case of a narrow bridge where traffic from one side has to give way to traffic from the other side because the bridge is only wide enough for one vehicle so is it a single lane twoway or single lane oneway=no. You cannot indicate that cars can go in both directions at the same time so it is a oneway in both directions. So oneway=no would indicate that adequately I know.. it sounded confusing when I was trying to write it so if it sounds weird it probably is... but it does exist. Just how to tag it without using oneway=no On 4 June 2015 at 16:08, pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote: On 3 June 2015 at 07:00, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 2015-06-03 02:04, pmailkeey . wrote: iD shows oneway=unknown if it's not set. If it's unknown, iD should not show oneway at all. I agree. In OSM if oneway=no then it's not oneway and the oneway tag should not appear at all. Here I don't agree. The only time oneway should appear is in the case of oneway=yes - and the '=yes' is superfluous. Some roads are implied oneway. E.g. junction=roundabout and highway=motorway both imply that the road is one-way only. If for some reason the object in case is not oneway, a oneway=no tag is very much needed. I agree that in every case where oneway=yes is not implied, oneway=no is superfluous (in a network design way), but that does not make oneway=no superfluous. There is also the occurence of oneway=-1 in case someone reverses the direction of a way. What should be done when the only possibility for oneway is either set or unset and the direction gets reversed? Should reversing be disallowed? Should you get a warning oneway street can not be reversed? Maarten Are the world of random renderers going to look for junction=roundabout and make the same oneway assumption ? Would it not be better for 'junction=roundabout' to cause a mechanical edit by adding the oneway tag - so that rather than saying =no, the tag could simply be removed ? What reason is there for reversing the way - as presumably all direction-dependent tags have + / - options ? Leads to the question as to why make oneway an exception to this rule - it seems most logical to have oneway as the direction as indicated rather than against. Them's my thoughts ! -- Mike. @millomweb https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property pets* TCs https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail ___ 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] OSM is a right mess (was: Craigslist OpenStreetMap Rendering Issue)
[Errr road is where you cannot determine the classification. highway=road is where you cannot determine anything other than it is some link between features. [ From satellite imagery I can infer the surface and number of lanes most of the time. [ I can usually infer the classification from the start, finish, connecting road classifications and some cultural knowledge. Then you have not been trying to find routes between villages in Africa or Nepal during a HOT Activation where the unsurfaced feature you are seeing could be anything from a path to a track to a tertiary road about the width of a single lane or less and then again it could also be a dry watercourse. The rescue and humanitarian teams on the ground need maps as soon as humanly possible and putting highway=road for all unknown classifications is something that is easy for all volunteer mappers to understand and can be recalled from that area and verified later. But at least there is something tentative on the map for aid teams to attempt to get to the next small village if it is at all possible. And no...it is not possible to count the lanes on a sand track in the middle of the bush... but that may well be the tertiary link in that area and becomes an impassable muddy quagmire in the rainy season with small deviations off into the bush where vehicles have tried to find a temporary route around the mud trap. On 4 June 2015 at 00:04, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 3/06/2015 11:16 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 03.06.2015 um 13:48 schrieb Richard ricoz@gmail.com: Better ideas? there's highway=road in use for situations where you trace from aerial imagery and have no clue about the situation on the ground (name, oneway, maxspeed etc) Errr road is where you cannot determine the classification. From satellite imagery I can infer the surface and number of lanes most of the time. I can usually infer the classification from the start, finish, connecting road classifications and some cultural knowledge. ___ 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] Big amenity=fountain
I am a bit puzzled by the use of amenity here.
According to wiki it is Covering an assortment of community
facilities... that
are of obvious use to locals and/or tourists such as toilets, banks,
schools.
I find the use of amenity for things like a bar or biergarten or sauna to
be outside this description.
I also do not understand the use of amenity for a tourist or ornamental
feature such as a fountain?
Please, if we are going to discuss how to tag a feature then let us first
put it in it's correct category.
Surely it is just a place-of-interest and would be under tourism=fountain
for those fountains that are of interest to the visitor (and would
therefore not be confused with a drinking fountain which would be an
amenity=drinking_water) and man_made=fountain for others of less note (as I
am unaware of a general place_of_interest tag).
On 31 May 2015 at 00:50, Daniel Koć daniel@koć.pl wrote:
W dniu 31.05.2015 1:33, Warin napisał(a):
Big?
Height over, say, 5 metres? Use the height= tag.
Width/length over, say, 10 metres? Use the appropriate tag.
{There is no diameter tag? Could be usefull for pipelines and
fountains and silos and etc..}
I mean big like the whole area:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/705#issuecomment-80713898
Is tagging each nozzle here as amenity=fountain proper? I guess not,
because the name belongs to the whole area (fountain object), not to
individual nozzles.
--
The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags
down [A. Cohen]
___
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] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
And with this argument for a hierarchical approach we are back to the start point of umbrella tags that cover all possibilities which is landuse=educational as a polygon encompassing the whole area and the whole range of educational facilities. using landuse=school excludes universities, colleges, etc and you would then need other tags landuse=university and landuse=college, which then makes the landuse tagging specific instead of general. If we look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landuse the first sentence is correct Mainly used for describe the *primary use* of land by humans. so the hierarchical approach should then be something like landuse=agriculture... agriculture would then be sub categorised with farmland (worked land for crops), orchard (trees planted for their fruits), vineyard, pasture, etc. landuse=residential (could be divided into urban and rural which have totally different infrastructures) landuse=commercial landuse=industrial landuse=educational landuse=civic landuse=transport instead of the myriad of specifics that we now have like landuse=peat_cutting and landuse=salt_pondthese are all sub categories of the primary use of the land. I know this has diverted from the main topic here but I wanted to point out the overall usage to highlight how my suggestion fits into the overall picture. On 28 May 2015 at 08:52, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-05-28 8:28 GMT+02:00 johnw jo...@mac.com: How about: Forest=natural ? isn’t that natural=wood? or forest=man_made ? [=plantation or somesuch term for a human-planted forest]. A forest is a man-altered area, so i believe “forest” already implies man-used. But it is not man_made (as a building is), as the forest is not a non-building structure. I believe the (not so uncommon amongst OSM mappers) reading of natural as tag for everything related to nature and man_made for all kind of stuff made by mankind is not really helpful. The way these are integrated into the tagging scheme is slightly different, they both cover only a subset of the aforementioned, namely natural covers natural geographic features like beaches, swamps, bays, peaks, mountain passes, single trees, springs, brush, heath, boulders, ... with a few (more recent) exceptions like mud and sand (which actually overlap with other like beach and wetland and which are landcovers / materials / surfaces rather than features), while man_made covers technical structures and facilities (like factories, chimneys, flagpoles, lighthouses, silos, ...). Btw.: a forest can or cannot be a man altered area, typically it now is in many parts of the world and once wasn't. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Airport power and USB stations
The idea is to get this rendered on the map. My opt is for amenity=power_socket which is what people will be looking for. It will be impossible to have a different symbol to indicate every different type of outlet in the world. Then the next thing they will need to know is the type of socket so type=* (example ... plug_UK ; plug_EU ; USB123 ; USB_C) And it can continue on from there. The tag 'amenity' automatically indicates it is for public use and so should not be used to tag every private domestic plug in a home. On 24 May 2015 at 17:24, Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de wrote: Bit long winded... how about vehicle_charging .. for motor vehicles bicycle_charging .. for bicycles And then you have this http://www.bike-energy.com/ and that tagging isn't as nice anymore. __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ 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] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
My apologies for that inaccuracy Richard On 18 May 2015 at 10:43, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: AYTOUN RALPH wrote: OSM is only now starting to realise that not all the specialist detail can be depicted on one map and we are starting to see specialist areas creating their own detailed layer of OSM such as the Cycle Map Where only now starting to realise and starting to see means 2007. http://blog.gravitystorm.co.uk/2007/07/31/openstreetmap-cycle-map/ Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Removal-of-amenity-from-OSM-tagging-tp5844603p5844990.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
I believe that the discussion regarding amenity v landuse should consider that where amenity designates the actual use of the area as in amenity=school, landuse designates the general use of the land... in the case of the school it should be landuse=education, the same as you get landuse=residential, landuse=farmland, landuse=commercial. In normal cartography there would be different maps designed to depict a specific theme, we called them Thematic Maps. A map depicting landuse would concentrate on the general use of that land pocket, at larger scales the landuse would be more specific as to the categories of landuse used. With OpenStreetMap everything is bunged together on a single map and that really confuses a lot of people into believing that you can separate out the tagging into something that fits. You cannot without restricting the use of the map. Some people using the map will be interested in the landuse, others may be more interested in the amenities. They are two separate and independent themes. We do not at this stage have the zoom levels organised to show certain thematics at each level nor do we have them separated into separate layers that can be switched on or off depending on what you want on the map. To get rid of one discriminates against those who have a requirement for that type of information. OSM is only now starting to realise that not all the specialist detail can be depicted on one map and we are starting to see specialist areas creating their own detailed layer of OSM such as the Cycle Map, Transport Map and separate maps such as OpenSeaMap. Once this idea has spread to other specifics then the tagging can be designed specifically for the requirements of those layers and the argument for landuse v amenity will be redundant So what the OSM community needs is to reconcile their own specific ideas with the requirements of others and reach a way of depicting their own preferences without compromising the preferences of others. Not by getting rid of a whole level of tags just because you do not understand them in context with what your interests are. Here is hoping we can all reach an amicable agreement and concentrate on the mapping. Regards to all Ralph On 16 May 2015 at 14:29, pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote: On 16 May 2015 at 04:27, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote: On May 15, 2015, at 8:02 PM, pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote: area IS landuse - it has to be (landuse=ocean ) so we get landuse=building even. Uhhh. *What?* This is a clear about-face on the landuse tag then. Everywhere is clearly not a landuse. Most of the earth is not altered nor designated nor segregated for a specific use. I can define an “area” of the world. But if there are no purposeful alterations for a task, designations of purpose, nor manmade buildings and amenities contained within…. then it is not a landuse. There is no landuse=glacier for a reason. Most of the ocean is “unused” by people. - they have not changed it to have a specific purpose, nor altered the water to do a specific job - and it’s pretty hard to have a landuse on an ocean (maybe oceanuse=fish_farm?) That would be a great oceanuse tag- there are plenty of floating, manmade, use-specific, designated-to-be fish farms around the world. They take up what… .01% of the ocean? the rest of the ocean has no man-altered, segregated, designated use (besides political ones) - but those are not “on the ground” in reality (like a fish farm or a oyster farm). I have no idea where you get the notion that area=landuse. land… *used* for a task. being a woods or a mountain or a lake is not the “job” or “designated purpose” of the area. It just is. hence the natural= tag. However, the land around a school building, usually fenced in, *containing the facility and amenities that belong to the facility and designated as such* (pitch, walkways, parking, etc) is clearly part of the school - but not a school building. The grounds and the building together make that “school. That *land*…. designated to be *use*d by people… as a school… And which currently is *altered from it’s natural state* … to be a school ground… and has an *area easily defined*… as a school… should be “*landuse* =school” The drinking fountain, toilets, parking, gym, and other location level amenities are amenities of the school - and should continue to be tagged as amenities IMO - or should we have a tny little 30x30cm squares marked as landuse=drinking water? Landuse=shoe_rack? Landuse=fire_extingusher? It’s just as asinine as landuse=glacier. Which leads us to this statement: So that raises the question as to whether 'landuse' adds any info value in tags to the object being mapped. 'Building' clearly does. ?? when you map out only the buildings, you get a bunch of lego bricks spilled across the map.
Re: [Tagging] model airplane airfield
If it has a formal airfield then the name would indicate what it is, such as the 'Avondale Model Flying Club' but this tag needs a bit more investigation and discussion as there are over 800 clubs affiliated to the British Model Flying Association, some are indoors, some are outdoor airfields for model and large model aircraft. At a glance I would say there are more than a hundred of these outdoor airfields dotted around England. I agree with the tag leisure but would suggest leisure=model_airfield and leisure=largemodel_airfield for the area (a lot of the leisure tags are for 'a place' or 'designated area'). As there are tags and rendering for runways, etc. for normal airports these can be used here as well to tag the take-off strips etc. On 7 April 2015 at 16:04, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-04-07 16:52 GMT+02:00 Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us: Check out sport=model_aerodrome. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dmodel_aerodrome this looks like a bad tag, because aerodrome is a place and not a kind of sport/activity. Wouldn't this value fit better into leisure (aside pitch, track etc.)? For sport (if this can be considered a sport) I'd expect to see a value like model_aviation Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How does an end user use camp site data ?
David Bannon, a great approach to rendering information on the OpenStreetMap which should be adopted for deciding all symbols... HOW DOES AN END USER USE THE DATA. If the overall area rendering for a campsite remains the same and a node symbol within the campsite is rendered in the colour depicting the type of campsite and or it's amenities (private, public, communal ablutions, swimming pool, etc) then it would solve many problems. The information could be tagged on the reception desk node with additional tags for available amenities and the link to a website. As Bryce mentioned, he would do a web search so getting the correct name for the campsite would also be paramount to helping in that. On 28 March 2015 at 02:37, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: Folks, we have been discussing this camp_site= issue for a long time. And I don't think we are making any progress. How about we apply a design approach ? Agree on how the average end user would use the data ? In my opinion, a camper is likely look on a map hoping to see a camp site near where he/she is heading. They will have an idea of the type of sites they like. Some people won't camp without a toilet, others must have a swimming pool. Another person will only go somewhere they are unlikely to meet other people. When they identify the type they like, they may decide that is all they need to know or they may investigate a short list further. Now, lets imagine an OSM map that shows camp site icons, maybe five or six different colours depending on a simple set of characteristics. The user knows they camp at only green and blue ones. Easy so far. If they are after more info, the map may give them a name or locality to google for. Or maybe its a specialised camping map that will pop up a flag with more OSM date when the icon is clicked. That more data is made up with info from the associated tags including, perhaps, the description= key. Please identify what is wrong with this story ? In localities where special ad hoc data is important, it needs to be in the description tag. General data that may influence a search, should be tagged. We cannot expect to show all important data right there on the freshly rendered map. David ___ 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] Loomio evaluation
Well, I guess I am also out of this. Needs me to log in to make a comment but appears I have done something wrong because it just does not work for me. I do not have a Google account and my Virgin email is unacceptable. So I cannot comment. Question:... Can you include pictures or diagrams as visual arguments to support your reasoning? Cheers Ralph On 20 March 2015 at 22:38, Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com wrote: Dear all, In an attempt to find a better tool for our proposal discussions, Loomio has been mentioned. At the very first glance it looks like a feasible alternative to the mailing list and the forum. Let's take a look together: https://www.loomio.org/g/tknueHrw/osm-tagging And let me know if you want to check the coordinator role. Cheers, Kotya ___ 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] Loomio evaluation
Thanks Kotya, Being able to include pictures, etc, is at least is a great positive. I still need to sort out what has happened to stop me from signing up for the group. If this is going to be a common problem then it may discourage some from getting involved. Or we need to give more accurate signing up or log in instructions for future. Not everyone worldwide has a Google account and gmail. Will get back to you when I have some idea what went wrong. On 23 March 2015 at 18:15, Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com wrote: I was *too* quick. Here is an example: https://www.loomio.org/d/1E3YAaz0/test-images ___ 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] Loomio evaluation
The next question is The results of the graph are based on the response of the person when they post their comment. This affects the result of the pie chart because it starts to clock up how people feel before all the comments for and against have been posted. Those later arguments could affect the earlier decisions and change people's minds. Can they retract their earlier position and change or reverse their input to the pie graph? On 20 March 2015 at 22:38, Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com wrote: Dear all, In an attempt to find a better tool for our proposal discussions, Loomio has been mentioned. At the very first glance it looks like a feasible alternative to the mailing list and the forum. Let's take a look together: https://www.loomio.org/g/tknueHrw/osm-tagging And let me know if you want to check the coordinator role. Cheers, Kotya ___ 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] Mapping private home toilets
I believe there is room for tagging both the amenity and the private toilet where this is deemed a positive study point. The amenity=toilet is an existing tag for public access amenity and is rendered on the map. As toilets do not sit out in the open (except in some continental places where it is just a modesty wall) but are rather housed in a structure of some kind then I see no reason why we could not add a non-rendering tag toilet=yes to a building for private toilets either in a residence or outhouse. That way anyone who wishes to do a study can search for the tag toilet. Hope this comment helps the discussion On 3 March 2015 at 15:11, Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com wrote: To be clear: I contacted DERMAM http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/DERMAM but I am not expecting reply, account is inactive since 6 months. http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/DERMAM 2015-03-03 16:09 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com: I would remove such objects where I am surveying. In that case I contacted author of tag with information that amenity=toilets is defined as public toilet. 2015-03-03 16:00 GMT+01:00 John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com: However, since someone apparently HAS been mapping private toilets, we need to either decide to remove them, or decide how they should be tagged to distinguish them from toilets available to the general public. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. On March 3, 2015 12:34:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com wrote: Excluding private toilet seems a sane step for a general purpose map. Completely private toilets (especially home toilets) may not be mapped with amenity=toilet, what solves rendering problems. Public toilets with restricted access should be mapped with appropriate access tag. 2015-03-03 2:58 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:44 PM, John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote: On Mar 3, 2015, at 7:45 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: 2) new key ... private=* ? +1 If OSM wants to be used in emergency uses or be flexible for odd data sets, mapping private toilets (or propane ovens, house-top solar panels, or places where x is useful 1) Tagging your neighbor's toilet/oven/Ferrari could easily be seen as coveting those items. I don't recommend it. YMMV. 2) A private= tag only works for certain tag types. However a namespace could work. disused: is one such namespace. For reference a sample use of disused: is: disused:amenty=toilet , disused:note=Burned down 2014, scheduled for a rebuild August 2015. So you could entertain private:amenity=toilet. 3) We already have access=private, a well established tag. The question is which private things should be excluded from rendered maps (e.g. toilets), and which ones should show (e.g. buildings). Excluding private toilet seems a sane step for a general purpose map. Else you get this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3066715547#map=18/-16.03918/34.72667 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] building=yes on nodes?
In a discussion with Ivan Gayton of MSF on this subject and his view on the humanitarian angle isthey prefer the area to be shown rather than the node. They use the area in estimating the number of occupants (for which they have worked out an average table for the areas they require). So wherever possible and where the imagery allows, they would prefer the roof area to be mapped ... round or squared. Also for navigation purposes it is easier to identify an L-shaped or rectangular building from it's orientation than a node with no shape or orientation. So I would say that using a node for buildings should only be a last resort and not a norm please. On 20 February 2015 at 20:33, Lukas Sommer sommer...@gmail.com wrote: Okay. I’ll adapt the few remaining building=* value wiki pages that do not allow nodes … 2015-02-17 0:32 GMT, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com: On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:30 AM, Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com wrote: All building=* on nodes is fine. As others have pointed out, it is often necessary in HOT aerial mapping when we have low-resolution imagery to work from. Agree. As for the Wiki editing, I too hope it doesn't lead to a storm. -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com -- Lukas Sommer ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - traffic_signals (Lukas Schaus)
My feelingsis this not something for a separate study by someone rather than a feature on OSM? Keeping this kind of information updated will be an impossibilitymany cities are becoming computerised and the signals adjusted according to the traffic conditions along that road. At best the timings could be either static or variable. On 10 February 2015 at 11:00, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-02-10 11:29 GMT+01:00 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk: This does seem very complicated, I cannot see much take up by mappers on the ground. Traffic signal timing varies by time of day, day of week, and traffic density. Many traffic signals can be remotely controlled to clear problems. It is really not a simple case of green is x seconds, but will vary throughout the day. I'm sure mappers are not going to update this very much, but it could be automated. An app could have a camera and could scan periods of lights, put them in a database, analyze times of days, and after enough data put it in osm. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reception Desk
I have to admit I admire the problem but do not have an answer. What I would like to suggest that dropping the desk part and just using reception could make it more conducive to the various applications being discussed. It could then be added as a subcategory to the area/building such as reception=desk...reception=area...reception=kiosk.. and would accommodate the problem of more than one type of reception within a complex such as an hotel (reception=tourism...reception=hotel). Or at an airport complex where multiple receptions exist such as hotel, car hire,etc. Using this would then also not clash with the amenity tag. Hope I am not adding more confusion to the problem. Ralph (RAytoun) On 8 February 2015 at 10:33, Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de wrote: As this tag is always going to be used within another entity I think we should rather look towards something like indoor tagging or other subtags. In addition using amenity for reception desk would for example prevent you from placing it on the node of the amenity and use one node for both. Not to defend the amenity key, but I wonder if there is a need to tag the reception if the whole object (including the reception) deserves just a single node. Well, you could have an amenity inside a very large bulding where you have multiple entrances. Then you could use the amenity node to indicate that it's actually placed at a certain spot, because the reception is there. In addition it makes it clear to which amenity the reception desk belongs, as a different amenity in the same building could have the reception desk at the other side of the bulding. __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ 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] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?
Now your question is a lot clearer. The highway=motorway already implies that there is two or more lanes plus an emergency hard shoulder, but this does not apply to other highways. The only other tag is the highway=escape which is something completely different. I am not aware of any other tag that may fit your requirement. It would depend on how prevalent this feature is as to whether it is something to consider and whether it will lead to people adding it to motorways as well. On 2 February 2015 at 14:46, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: 2015-02-02 15:41 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org: Typical restrictions in the US would be emergency stopping only Yes - and what tag would that be for emergency stopping only? I think that is my main question. Do we have one for 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
Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?
Unfortunately things are changing regarding the Hard Shoulder on UK motorways. During times of congestion the Hard Shoulder is opened up to alleviate some of the problem by allow traffic to use it to get to the next off ramp and leave the motorway. So access=no would only apply some of the time (and certainly would not be accessed by pedestrians or motorcycles at any time time). I assume that Martin is referring to non-motorway roads but does not say which countries may have these. I would suggest that access restrictions may differ from one country to another and the rules that apply to the road in question would be the guideline to the restrictions for that road, and may also be different for another road in a different part of that country. So access=no may not apply to all roads where regular access is allowed. On 2 February 2015 at 14:07, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: Assuming you are talking about the hard shoulder AKA emergency lane on motorways, in NL and GB it would quite simply be access=no. The only exceptions are if you break down, if you are an emergency service, or if you are instructed to by the police (or similar authority). On 2015-02-02 14:17, Martin Vonwald wrote: Hi! If shoulder lanes are mapped (for whatever reason!), what access restrictions should we apply? A simple vehicle=no doesn't seem right to me. In some countries those lanes may be accessed regularly, e.g. by pedestrians or motorcycles, so foot=yes + motorcycle=yes is obvious, but what would be the access restrictions for all other vehicles? Best regards, Martin ___ Tagging mailing listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://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] JOSM 7995 (January 2015) released
I have just started up JOSM and, while it did upload 7995 and ask me to update my plug-ins the last entry on the start page is still ... 2014-12-29 (7906) On 1 February 2015 at 15:45, Michał Brzozowski www.ha...@gmail.com wrote: Oddly enough, there is no info on the JOSM start page. I thought this info gets updated automatically. I did clear the cache, btw. Michał On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: Spreading the word. Thanks to the devs. -- Forwarded message -- From: Dirk Stöcker openstreet...@dstoecker.de Date: 2015-02-01 13:40 GMT+01:00 Subject: [josm-dev] JOSM 7995 (January 2015) released To: josm-...@openstreetmap.org Hello, the new JOSM tested version for last month is out. Feel free to spread the word :-) Ciao ___ 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
