Re: [Tagging] Hiking route abandoned
There is a proposed feature with this purpose: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Obstacle Regards! 2013/10/3, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: In the case of a trail the landowner is actively trying to erase, I'll often draw the trail into osm, tag it discouragingly, and put barrier nodes at each end. Across a wide variety of map rendering, this has a chance of communicating the intent of non-use. The downside of omitting, removing, or disusing the trail is that someone might physically see what's left and simply assume it's an unmapped route. --- In rock climbing routes, the entire route is graded according to the hardest move. Perhaps in the case of unmaintained (but legally open) trails, one could tag (and thus render) the trail condition based on the least passable section. The utility of the route reduces to the ability to get over the (landslide, muddy part, weeds, washed out bridge). -- *KONFRARE ALBERT* La Konfraria de la Vila del Pingüí de La Palma de Cervelló www.konfraria.org • @La_Konfraria http://twitter.com/La_Konfraria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Hiking route abandoned
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, but this isn't really, what makes the difference. Most of the typical agricultural ways aren't maintained besides that the farmer uses the way with his vehicles. Not every way turns into a dangerous way if the way isn't maintained. So I would prefer to describe the effect to the way. Eg. not visible, no signposts any more, destroyed by an avalanche... Henning -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSTSHDAAoJEPFgsWC7jOeT0qMH/2/J1szjs1BoT/pJUjQB0p3V fR9krO7PECrxb1Srp4vdMN7R3SfPi2ub1ykETxDK0+Vi7jqwPR87goRhOEQFB2M9 VbVtD5kC0+lwjAKFGPBXpdfv8DQXoqBRT+lHBPBO0sZsZCMJo/pEW0zFDflBU50D tsfwBg2tSZ2dwNu9bXfraVACvxhqYyTbV9jK6x2Hc2G+I90H3t1n0xS8e7I2WCNq 2thQ3yBi4gFrbwZdmTBT6ra/z2OHh9hD5TLZNyya0RrpPLyDXiC6GSvuVt5ktoaW HkGv2zk2K+KZb2EQASWZkAnne7hutXiOsNmhfkIGnfKdZ8sSi70E8iYZeN6V3EQ= =H/zH -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Hiking route abandoned
Bryce Nesbitt wrote: The problem with disused: is the object disappears from the map. Leaving aside the which map? question, lots of things don't get rendered; it makes sense for a disused restaurant to NOT be rendered as a restaurant, since whatever it is, it's not currently somewhere where you can have a meal. Your alternative is to leave it on the map as it does in fact exist. Then use access= to clarify the status. It might have degraded from access=public down to access=no or access=permissive depending. In the example of a hiking route, that's a bad idea since it the access tag implies something entirely different to is / is not signed - in this case am I legally allowed to go there?. The things that I end up marking as disused are things like pubs, restaurants and churches, and in some cases disused:amenity might make sense (it was an X, is now boarded up, but might become an X again in the future) whereas in others some kind of note or former_X tag might make sense (as an indicator to mappers as much as anything else - e.g. the building here was an X, but has been converted to a private house and is likely to stay that way). Basically, leave it to local mappers to choose - any attempt at enforcing a top-down system will miss the nuances of what's happening locally. Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Hiking route abandoned
Wouldn't the more generic disused=yes apply to this case? Rendering apps should support lifecycle tags and render them accordingly (though often then don't and none would support this anyway). I'd keep the route relation while the route is still open and somewhat popular among hikers. On Oct 1, 2013 2:57 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/10/1 SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk If something does exist, you might want to draw other mappers to its abandoned status somehow. Here's a route near me that's still partially signed but not supported by the council (the organisation that created it) on safety grounds that's why I suggested the abandoned-prefixing (on talk-it) because he pointed out that many hiking guides will still have records for this route and my guess is that you'll also find one or the other trailblaze for a certain period of time, so it seemed like a compromise. Not that it particularly matters one way or the other. +1 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] Hiking route abandoned
Fernando Trebien wrote: Wouldn't the more generic disused=yes apply to this case? Rendering apps should support lifecycle tags and render them accordingly (though often then don't ... I think that you've answered your own question already :) ... and none would support this anyway). If you mean don't render hiking routes than that's obviously wrong; if you mean don't render _disused_ hiking routes then that's probably a feature, but any that do render hiking routes that don't also look for disused=yes (or whatever) will miss it. Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Hiking route abandoned
2013/10/2 SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk If you mean don't render hiking routes than that's obviously wrong; if you mean don't render _disused_ hiking routes then that's probably a feature, but any that do render hiking routes that don't also look for disused=yes (or whatever) will miss it. +1 disused=yes and abandoned=yes should not be used, it is much better to prefix disused:* and abandoned:* in front of the key to avoid misinterpretations. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Hiking route abandoned
I'm sorry but maybe some misspellings changed the message. So let me clarify. Renderers often don't support life cycle tags, but that doesn't matter because we don't tag for the renderer/applications, right? If you just add a disused tag, the route likely will still be rendered in current map styles made for hikers. That may or may not be a good thing. I think it's good if the route is still open to the public, otherwise no. Didn't mean to say hiking routes should not be rendered, sorry for the confusion. I think they should. On Oct 2, 2013 7:36 AM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: Fernando Trebien wrote: Wouldn't the more generic disused=yes apply to this case? Rendering apps should support lifecycle tags and render them accordingly (though often then don't ... I think that you've answered your own question already :) ... and none would support this anyway). If you mean don't render hiking routes than that's obviously wrong; if you mean don't render _disused_ hiking routes then that's probably a feature, but any that do render hiking routes that don't also look for disused=yes (or whatever) will miss it. Cheers, Andy __**_ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagginghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Hiking route abandoned
Of course we tag for the renderer (a.k.a. data consumer), that's the only reason OSM exists. What we DON'T do, is deliberately tag *incorrectly* to persuade the renderer to produce a desired result. Renderers need to be able to make certain distinctions - if not based on an explicit tag, then by derivation based on other tags. Colin On 2013-10-02 18:20, Fernando Trebien wrote: I'm sorry but maybe some misspellings changed the message. So let me clarify. Renderers often don't support life cycle tags, but that doesn't matter because we don't tag for the renderer/applications, right? If you just add a disused tag, the route likely will still be rendered in current map styles made for hikers. That may or may not be a good thing. I think it's good if the route is still open to the public, otherwise no. Didn't mean to say hiking routes should not be rendered, sorry for the confusion. I think they should. On Oct 2, 2013 7:36 AM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: Fernando Trebien wrote: Wouldn't the more generic disused=yes apply to this case? Rendering apps should support lifecycle tags and render them accordingly (though often then don't ... I think that you've answered your own question already :) ... and none would support this anyway). If you mean don't render hiking routes than that's obviously wrong; if you mean don't render _disused_ hiking routes then that's probably a feature, but any that do render hiking routes that don't also look for disused=yes (or whatever) will miss it. Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [1] ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [1] Links: -- [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Hiking route abandoned
2013/10/2 Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com Renderers often don't support life cycle tags, but that doesn't matter because we don't tag for the renderer/applications, right? This is nothing particular about renderers or routers, it is generally a flawed approach to add tags like the so-called life cycle tags to change the meaning of other tags (e.g. instead of a restaurant you'd express that there once was a restaurant or similar). Opposed to this, the prefixing makes it quite safe to asume that these objects won't be misinterpreted. I think there is a misconception about what is expressed with the don't tag for the X paradigm. The idea behind this is: do not use a tag that is actually rendered (or used in a routing engine) for something different than what the tag was intended for (just to make it appear, or to achieve in certain conditions the same behaviour even if the tag meaning is different). This doesn't imply we have to structure our data in a way that makes the evaluation particularily difficult or easy to get it wrong. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Hiking route abandoned
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/10/2 Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com Renderers often don't support life cycle tags, but that doesn't matter because we don't tag for the renderer/applications, right? This is nothing particular about renderers or routers, it is generally a flawed approach to add tags like the so-called life cycle tags to change the meaning of other tags (e.g. instead of a restaurant you'd express that there once was a restaurant or similar). Opposed to this, the prefixing makes it quite safe to asume that these objects won't be misinterpreted. I think there is a misconception about what is expressed with the don't tag for the X paradigm. The idea behind this is: do not use a tag that is actually rendered (or used in a routing engine) for something different than what the tag was intended for (just to make it appear, or to achieve in certain conditions the same behaviour even if the tag meaning is different). This doesn't imply we have to structure our data in a way that makes the evaluation particularily difficult or easy to get it wrong. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging I think it makes sense to tag a no-longer-maintained hiking trail in a manner that will still be rendered, but will be rendered in a manner that distinguishes it from an actively-maintained trail. Some portions of a trail may remain visible for centuries, such as a well-built stone retaining wall. Other portions may become impassable within months, due to landslides or fast-growing vegetation. Having both maintained and non-maintained trails marked will reduce the odds of someone accidentally getting onto a non-maintained trail at a junction point, a mistake that can be life-threatening in severe weather. -- 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. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Hiking route abandoned
2013/10/2 John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com I think it makes sense to tag a no-longer-maintained hiking trail in a manner that will still be rendered, but will be rendered in a manner that distinguishes it from an actively-maintained trail. what is rendered or not in a given map is the decision of the style sheet maintainer, from the data point we should make it clear what kind of object it is, so that the data consumer can decide whether he wants this kind of object in his style or not. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Hiking route abandoned
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/10/2 John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com I think it makes sense to tag a no-longer-maintained hiking trail in a manner that will still be rendered, but will be rendered in a manner that distinguishes it from an actively-maintained trail. what is rendered or not in a given map is the decision of the style sheet maintainer, from the data point we should make it clear what kind of object it is, so that the data consumer can decide whether he wants this kind of object in his style or not. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging My point was that the tagging needs to indicate maintained vs. non-maintained, and preferably also any known problems that would make an unmaintained trail impassable, tagged at the location of the problem, such as a section blocked by a landslide or a heavy growth of briars. -- 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. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Hiking route abandoned
In the case of a trail the landowner is actively trying to erase, I'll often draw the trail into osm, tag it discouragingly, and put barrier nodes at each end. Across a wide variety of map rendering, this has a chance of communicating the intent of non-use. The downside of omitting, removing, or disusing the trail is that someone might physically see what's left and simply assume it's an unmapped route. --- In rock climbing routes, the entire route is graded according to the hardest move. Perhaps in the case of unmaintained (but legally open) trails, one could tag (and thus render) the trail condition based on the least passable section. The utility of the route reduces to the ability to get over the (landslide, muddy part, weeds, washed out bridge). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Hiking route abandoned
bredy wrote: None have other suggestion? And about the use of abandoned? Personally, if it doesn't exist any more (i.e. isn't signposted on the ground) I'd delete it. If something does exist, you might want to draw other mappers to its abandoned status somehow. Here's a route near me that's still partially signed but not supported by the council (the organisation that created it) on safety grounds: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1702422 Not that it particularly matters one way or the other. Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Hiking route abandoned
On 10/1/13 10:56 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: The problem with disused: is the object disappears from the map. Your alternative is to leave it on the map as it does in fact exist. Then use access= to clarify the status. It might have degraded from access=public down to access=no or access=permissive depending. perhaps all that's really needed in addition to access= is maintained=yes/no which would probably be more accurate than disused. richard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Hiking route abandoned
I have one hiking route with relation that was abandoned by the operator. Now do I have to cancell the relation or for the moment is better to tag abandoned:ref= and abandoned:operator= in the relation? Thanks -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Hiking-route-abandoned-tp5779272.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Hiking route abandoned
On 2013-09-28 14:09, bredy wrote : I have one hiking route with relation that was abandoned by the operator. Now do I have to cancell the relation or for the moment is better to tag abandoned:ref= and abandoned:operator= in the relation? Thanks It probably depends on its popularity, on the number of persons using it yet. Usually on hiking sites, participants can vote their appreciation. Va bene, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
