Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

[Jack Armstrong]

From: Clifford Snow Jack - can you live with Martin's point?  
Actually, I'm very flexible with just about anything. My only goal in bringing this up was to clean up the wiki page so that mappers have clear guidance. The way the wiki was written seemed confusing. After I brought up the subject I learned about the sidewalk proposal from 2011 and it seemed the proposal and the wiki were clearly at odds. I don't feel strongly either way about it. Again, I'd just like to see the proposal, the wiki and the OSM community agree on something that mappers can use as a common guideline. I'm easy.Cheers :)

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

Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

[Jack Armstrong]

From: Clifford Snow If we were to follow your logic, then every level crossing at the intersection of railways and highways should not be tagged as a level_crossing because of the rule "one feature, one OSM element." 
Well, again, my personal preferences are not germane to this thread. I'm not shy about expressing my opinions, it's just I'm not trying to politic for a certain style of mapping in this case. In this matter, whichever method of mapping that is decided upon by the OSM community is fine with me. I'm simply concerned with the wiki page meshing with the approved sidewalk proposal. I'm not in favor of the approved proposal from 2011 nor am I against it. I'm simply keen to have the wiki and the proposal mesh correctly. My personal preferences are not relevant to a decision made back in 2011. I am not proposing any changes other than having the wiki and the 2011 proposal mesh accurately.Cheers :)

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

Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

[Jack Armstrong]

From: Clifford Snow To help me understand, below are three schemes for crossings. Which one(s) best describe your suggested way of mapping.1. Tagging both the crossing and a node on the highway. https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/YEFoYcTgR2gtW3j2. With no crossing ways, just a node on the highway to mark the type of crossing https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/4ad5wLzMNcE3sNo3. With just crossing ways and no node at the intersection of the crossing and highway. https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/tHF62pH5txPEX55Well, since you asked, as to my own personal preference, #1 is not my preference. Crossing tags are placed on the way and on a node for a single pedestrian crosswalk. I feel this violates OSM's "one feature, one OSM element" rule.#2 seems acceptable, but it's not my personal preference. (Again, I started this thread not in order to express my preferences, simply to have the wiki compliant with approved OSM canon)#3 has no connecting node between the two ways represented by the red dot? This would not be correct. There should be a connecting node.This is an example of how I prefer to map pedestrian crossings (this is common throughout downtown Denver):https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=21/39.72565/-104.98501Here are two methods I mapped as a demonstration of mapping that I feel is correct, as well. Mapped here are two different methods that seem reasonable, tagging either the connecting node or tagging the way; but not tagging both the node and the way. Tagging both the node and the way would seem to violate the  "one feature, one OSM element" rule.https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=21/39.71293/-104.98038CheersJack Armstrong(chachafish)

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

Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

[Jack Armstrong]

> From: Clifford Snow> Before changing the wiki, I'd like a clearer understanding of your proposed change. As I read this the node is placed on the highway to tell cars that some type of crossing is located at this node. The crossing way tells the pedestrian that there is some type of crossing.  With thousands of crossings already mapped, your proposed change could break routers. Well, I don’t really want to change anything. I’d just like the wiki to be consistent with OSM canon. I would have the wiki reflect the approved "Sidewalk as a separate way" 2011 proposal. Essentially, the wiki’s “How to Map” section would have added clarity; To be added to the wiki (from the approved proposal):When a highway=crossing node is present on the main road, a way connecting the sidewalks on the two sides of the road should be mapped. This way should be tagged as follows:highway=footwayfootway=crossingTo be deleted from the wiki:footway=crossing and cycleway=crossing are sometimes used on ways which lead from a sidewalk to the crossing node (the node which has this highway=crossing tag). This is not the preferred way of tagging.On a personal note, I don’t want to map one element twice (once on the way and once on the node - for a single crossing), but the approved proposal contradicts my personal method of mapping. I feel that the tagged node tells both vehicles and pedestrians this is a crossing, but the wiki should be consistent with what is approved by the OSM community.

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

Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

[Jack Armstrong]

Thank you, Andrew,According to the "Sidewalk as a separate way" proposal, which was approved in 2011, When a highway=crossing node is present on the main road, a way connecting the sidewalks on the two sides of the road should be mapped. Not to override the well-established meaning of highway=crossing, this way should be tagged as follows:highway=footwayfootway=crossingHowever, the OSM wiki “tag:highway=crossing” directly contradicts this; To map a pedestrian crossing, place a node within the way representing the road, and set this highway=crossing tag on the node…footway=crossing and cycleway=crossing are sometimes used on ways which lead from a sidewalk to the crossing node (the node which has this highway=crossing tag). This is not the preferred way of tagging.Is this a simple case of information not being transferred from the approved proposal to the wiki?I have no preference on how a pedestrian crossing is mapped, but I am keen for the wiki to reflect accurate information. If we are following the approved proposal "Sidewalk as a separate way”, does anyone have objection to the wiki being changed to reflect this?Cheers-Original Message-----
From: Jack Armstrong 
Sent: Jun 9, 2020 8:03 PM
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

Apologies if this has already been discussed. I searched the tagging list, but couldn’t find it. 

Users have been adding pedestrian crossing tags on ways in addition to the street connecting nodes. In effect, a single pedestrian crossing is tagged twice. To me, this would seem contrary not only to the OSM wiki page, “Tag:highway=crossing”, but also contrary to, “One feature, one OSM element”.

Example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=86290585#map=20/39.63167/-104.89726

I’ve been told by a user, anecdotally, there’s a Slack group that decided this is correct. To my knowledge Slack groups do not supersede the OSM wiki. I assume mapping a crossing twice is incorrect?

OSM wiki: tag:highway=crossing
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcrossing- Jack Armstrongwww.theaveragenomad.com

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

[Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

[Jack Armstrong]

Apologies if this has already been discussed. I searched the tagging list, but couldn’t find it. 

Users have been adding pedestrian crossing tags on ways in addition to the street connecting nodes. In effect, a single pedestrian crossing is tagged twice. To me, this would seem contrary not only to the OSM wiki page, “Tag:highway=crossing”, but also contrary to, “One feature, one OSM element”.

Example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=86290585#map=20/39.63167/-104.89726

I’ve been told by a user, anecdotally, there’s a Slack group that decided this is correct. To my knowledge Slack groups do not supersede the OSM wiki. I assume mapping a crossing twice is incorrect?

OSM wiki: tag:highway=crossing
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcrossing- Jack Armstrong

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Jack Armstrong]

  

  
  
On 8/6/20 10:57 pm, Volker Schmidt
  wrote:



The point is they are no longer 'in our environment' .. they are
  gone, no longer here, vanished. 
  

At times this discussion reminds me of a heated argument over whether a thing was a dead parrot or not ;)https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2hwqnp

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Jack Armstrong]

>From: Jarek Piórkowski >>Do you also object when the geometry of the railway and the road is a>straight line? Do you think we should keep>https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/676191068 ?>This rail company apparently went out of business 72 years ago? Mapillary images don't seem to show any trace of rail.This should be removed from OSM

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Jack Armstrong]

From: Volker Schmidt  I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway tracks have been replaced by roads with the same geometry. To the contrary this is one of the more fortunate cases where the original route has been conserved, and it is easy to travel along a historical railroad.
The wiki page seems reasonable to me.The last sentences, "Overall, mapping such features is acceptable where some remains like embankments, remains of bridges etc remain. Where it was replaced by new buildings and roads the mapping of such features becomes out of scope for OpenStreetMap."The wiki permits the mapping of reality, on-the-ground, as it is in the world today. OSM should reflect what exists today, not decades ago. If there is something that remains of a previous railroad, then it can be mapped in some way. If there is nothing remaining of what used to be a railroad, it should be out-of-scope.A historian will see the world as it used to exist.An OSM user should see the world as it is today.- Jack Armstrongchachafish

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Jack Armstrong]

>From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>>If I am not certain of something I'll ask the author/flowing editors but where I know something is wrong I'll change it without consultation.Agreed. There is no need to consult with other users if something is clearly incorrect and needs to be changed. If a four-way intersection is changed into a traffic circle, I will change it. I won't ask ask previous editors about something that only existed in the past. I will update the map to reflect the current situation. There's no need to keep the old intersection and the new roundabout on the map in the same place.If old, industrial buildings have been torn down completely and new apartment buildings have been built on the site, if there is absolutely nothing left of the old buildings, I will remove the non-existent buildings from OSM and replace them with the new construction. It's not necessary to consult with other users if I'm certain my edits are correct.If a tree has been removed to make way for a parking lot, I will remove the tree and replace it with a parking lot. There is no need to consult with anyone nor is there any need to keep the old tree in the middle of a new parking lot. The tree no longer exists.- Jack Armstrong(chachafish)

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

Re: [Tagging] Highway mistagging ... again

[Jack Armstrong]

Yes, thank you for clarifying that chachafish did not make the changes ;)-chachafish-Original Message-
From: Mike Thompson 
Sent: May 29, 2020 4:33 PM
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Highway mistagging ... again

Clifford,Thanks.  chachafish wasn't the one that made the change, the actual change set is https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/48657332MikeOn Fri, May 29, 2020 at 4:21 PM Clifford Snow  wrote:The user, chachafish, with more edits than anyone else I've seen, 162,466, is still adding features. chachafish has a history of commenting on changesets so I would expect you'll get a reply. On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 3:11 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:I know we just had a similar discussion, but I am discovering more and more cases where mappers have changed every dirt road they can find to "highway=track".  For example, it looks like all of the dirt roads in the area of this way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17051445 have been changed to "highway=track", when at least most of them should be "highway=residential."  What can be done to better communicate that OSM has a functional highway classification system (I did leave a change set comment, but I doubt it will do any good)?Mike
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-- @osm_washingtonwww.snowandsnow.usOpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

www.theaveragenomad.com

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

Re: [Tagging] line=* tag on railway lines

[Jack Armstrong]

I'd love to see this changed on the wiki. Keeping name=* as unwanted mistagging is a very good idea.-Original Message-
From: Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
Sent: May 29, 2020 12:37 PM
To: "Tag discussion,
 strategy and related tools" 
Cc: Mateusz Konieczny 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] line=* tag on railway lines


  

  
  
May 29, 2020, 19:56 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com:HiLe ven. 29 mai 2020 à 00:03, Jack Armstrong <jacknst...@sprynet.com> a écrit :I think naming the same thing two times is not a best practice? IndeedI'd use name=* on rails only if rails actually have a name.According to this discussion, may I remove the line=* railway chapter on wiki?https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lineIs it actually used in this way? If used then it should be kept and documented ascommon and unwanted mistagging  



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

Re: [Tagging] line=* tag on railway lines

[Jack Armstrong]

Yes, exactly. 

In Denver, Colorado there are numerous train lines that use the same rails. It 
seems like a lot of work to name all the member railway tracks, 
name=C-Line;E-Line;W-Line.

It seems the rail itself should have no name because the name will be on the 
relations assigned to the track. 

I think naming the same thing two times is not a best practice?



-Original Message-
>From: Kevin Kenny 
>Sent: May 28, 2020 2:20 PM
>To: Jack Armstrong , "Tag discussion, strategy and related 
>tools" 
>Subject: Re: [Tagging] line=* tag on railway lines
>
>On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 3:56 PM Jack Armstrong  wrote:
>> I have wondered for a long time...
>>
>> If the rail is tagged name=* but the railway also has a relation with the 
>> same name, isn't this naming something twice? it seems to me the relation is 
>> sufficient and the rail itself should not be named?
>
>There are cases where there is a whole hierarchy going on, which may
>involve superrelations and the like:
>
>Metropolitan Transportation Authority
>Metro-North Railroad
>Harlem Division
>Wassaic Branch
>
>So it may be the case that there's a part with one name while the
>whole has another.  The rail-mappers seem to prefer assigning 'line'
>and 'branch' values since that hierarchy is common in their world. But
>hierarchical names are sometimes unavoidable. Thinking of my local
>bicycle infrastructure, there's a small segment of
>(highway=residential) Island View Road that's also routing around an
>interruption in a rail-trail (the railbed was destroyed by
>construction of a freeway). It's simultaneously 'Island View Road',
>the 'Mohawk & Hudson Bike-Hike Trail (lcn)', the 'Erie Canalway (rcn)'
>and the 'Empire State Trail (also rcn)' depending on where you are in
>the hierarchy.  It's signed for all of them.
>
>-- 
>73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Tagging] line=* tag on railway lines

[Jack Armstrong]

I have wondered for a long time...If the rail is tagged name=* but the railway also has a relation with the same name, isn't this naming something twice? it seems to me the relation is sufficient and the rail itself should not be named?-Original Message-
From: Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
Sent: May 28, 2020 1:13 PM
To: "Tag discussion,
 strategy and related tools" 
Cc: Mateusz Konieczny 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] line=* tag on railway lines


  

  
  
May 28, 2020, 20:36 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com:Hi all,On the line=* wiki page, it is mentioned this key is used to give railway lines names in combination with branch=*https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lineShouldn't name=* be used instead?Yes, name tag is for name of the object.  



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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Jack Armstrong]

I agree with Mateusz Konieczny. If there is some vestige of the object remaining, then mapping it in some way seems reasonable. But, if the railway, building, highway, etc., are completely removed and there are absolutely no visible remains of what was once there, it can be removed.I don't see the need to map something that does not actually exist.- Jack Armstrongchachafish-Original Message-
From: Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
Sent: May 25, 2020 4:15 PM
To: "Tag discussion,
 strategy and related tools" 
Cc: Mateusz Konieczny 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?


  

  
  
May 25, 2020, 23:50 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com:then it dependson whether the former railway has significance in some other lessobvious way (e.g. being part of an administrative boundary)This is going too far. Glaciers left clear marks in many countries, butmapping glaciers of last glacial maximum[1] is out of scope of OSM.If sole trace of railway is that administrative boundary matches its course,then it should be deleted.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum  



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

Re: [Tagging] Adding values healthcare=dispensary and healthcare=community_care?

[Jack Armstrong]

Just a small point...cannabis sales are not only for medical use in parts of the United States. Here in Colorado for example, if you are 21-years-old and have proper identification, you can purchase cannabis as easily as you can purchase alcohol. Although, I personally never have ;)https://potguide.com/colorado/marijuana-faqs/-Original Message-
From: Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
Sent: May 19, 2020 9:58 AM
To: "Tag discussion,
 strategy and related tools" 
Cc: Mateusz Konieczny 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Adding values healthcare=dispensary and healthcare=community_care?


  

  
  
Thanks for posting here! Hopefully feedback that you receive will be useful.May 19, 2020, 17:14 by claire.hall...@hotosm.org:What are your thoughts about adding the value "dispensary" in the wiki to the healthcare key to map these places?Note that in USA "dispensary" seems to primarily refer to shop=cannabis(due to legal situation, with cannabis trade legal - at least at beginning -solely for medical use)See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensary orhttps://duckduckgo.com/?q=dispensary=canonical=webI have no idea what would be better name, but this one willresult in some confused USA mappers.Is there any possible alternative name? If not, then this would beOK, local USA meaning should not be considered as the most important.But it would be nice to avoid this confusion.Additionally, despite dispensaries, a number of rural areas are still out of reach of any regular healthcare provider. Therefore the Ministry of Public Health in the DRC also recognized and
organized 

community healthcare provided by trained volunteers from the communities (these places are called "sites de soins communautaires"). These places have a particular focus on deadly diseases affecting children, they include prevention, health promotion and curative activities. Since these don't even have a single nurse as staff, I would like to propose a separate value such as healthcare=community_care or community_care_site.Seems OK to me.PSI am not a fan of a healthcare key (result in weird mix of amenity and healthcare keys),but it is quite pointless tag fidling.amenity would be better here for consistency with amenity=hospital and so on.  

www.theaveragenomad.com

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