Re: [Tagging] Trolltags

2015-09-04 Thread Paul Johnson 
This is why you ride with full fenders with mudflaps and use a chaincase.

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:40 PM, John Eldredge  wrote:

> Not to mention the amount of horse dung you are willing to have your bike
> wheels fling up onto you.
>
> --
> 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." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
>
>
>
>
> On September 1, 2015 4:59:34 AM p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
>
> On Tue Sep 1 10:49:56 2015 GMT+0100, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I unsure about highway=bridleway+bicycle=designated but given that it
>>> appears 2 129 times worldwide it is likely that is also may be
>>> considered as mistake.
>>>
>>> Makes sense to me, bicycles can legally use a bridleway in
>> England/Wales. Practicality will depend upon surface, type of bike and
>> recent weather.
>>
>> Phil (trigpoint)
>> --
>> Sent from my Jolla
>> ___
>> 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] Trolltags

2015-09-04 Thread phil 
On Fri Sep 4 18:40:55 2015 GMT+0100, John Eldredge wrote:
> Not to mention the amount of horse dung you are willing to have your bike 
> wheels fling up onto you.

Many bridleways see very little horse traffic so its not often a problem. Mud 
however, lots of that.

Phil (trigpoint)
> 
> -- 
> 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." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
> 
> 
> 
> On September 1, 2015 4:59:34 AM p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
> 
> > On Tue Sep 1 10:49:56 2015 GMT+0100, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> >>
> >> I unsure about highway=bridleway+bicycle=designated but given that it
> >> appears 2 129 times worldwide it is likely that is also may be
> >> considered as mistake.
> >>
> > Makes sense to me, bicycles can legally use a bridleway in England/Wales. 
> > Practicality will depend upon surface, type of bike and recent weather.
> >
> > Phil (trigpoint)
> > --
> > Sent from my Jolla
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

-- 
Sent from my Jolla
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trolltags

2015-09-04 Thread John Eldredge 
Not to mention the amount of horse dung you are willing to have your bike 
wheels fling up onto you.


--
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." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.




On September 1, 2015 4:59:34 AM p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:


On Tue Sep 1 10:49:56 2015 GMT+0100, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:


I unsure about highway=bridleway+bicycle=designated but given that it
appears 2 129 times worldwide it is likely that is also may be
considered as mistake.

Makes sense to me, bicycles can legally use a bridleway in England/Wales. 
Practicality will depend upon surface, type of bike and recent weather.


Phil (trigpoint)
--
Sent from my Jolla
___
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] Trolltags

2015-09-04 Thread John Eldredge 
From my experience with road bikes, a certain amount of mud will get flung 
upwards by the wheels at an angle, missing the mudflaps but not the rider.  
The same would likely be true of horse droppings.


--
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." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.




On September 4, 2015 2:48:23 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:


This is why you ride with full fenders with mudflaps and use a chaincase.

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:40 PM, John Eldredge  wrote:


Not to mention the amount of horse dung you are willing to have your bike
wheels fling up onto you.

--
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." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.




On September 1, 2015 4:59:34 AM p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:

On Tue Sep 1 10:49:56 2015 GMT+0100, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:




I unsure about highway=bridleway+bicycle=designated but given that it
appears 2 129 times worldwide it is likely that is also may be
considered as mistake.

Makes sense to me, bicycles can legally use a bridleway in

England/Wales. Practicality will depend upon surface, type of bike and
recent weather.

Phil (trigpoint)
--
Sent from my Jolla
___
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] Trolltags

2015-09-03 Thread Richard 
On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 11:49:56AM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

> highway=footway+bicycle=designated is incorrect tagging (and JOSM
> validator keeps number of wrong tagging relatively low).
> 
> I unsure about highway=bridleway+bicycle=designated but given that it
> appears 2 129 times worldwide it is likely that is also may be
> considered as mistake.

could be interpreted as someone beeing lazy at writing highway=path+
bicycle=designated+horse=designated. And I don't think there are many
real world objects like this.

Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] Trolltags

2015-09-01 Thread johnw 



> On Sep 1, 2015, at 6:59 PM, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
> 
> On Tue Sep 1 10:49:56 2015 GMT+0100, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>> 
>> I unsure about highway=bridleway+bicycle=designated but given that it
>> appears 2 129 times worldwide it is likely that is also may be
>> considered as mistake.
>> 
> Makes sense to me, bicycles can legally use a bridleway in England/Wales. 
> Practicality will depend upon surface, type of bike and recent weather. 

I can see this happening in real life where a bridleway provides 
easier/quicker/safer access to bypass a route that is not safe or convenient 
for bikes, so they just make up rule that “bikes have to use this route”. The 
route being an existing bridleway. 


These issues also come up in countries with contradicting and odd bicycle laws. 
Until recently, bicycles were legally pedestrians in Japan, which made 
professional road cyclists kind of like odd car-people. I have been honked off 
the road by crazy lady (even after the law change). But with the increasing use 
of cars, there are more and more bicycle-person and car-bicycle accidents 
because of horrible sidewalks covered with poles on narrow roads - so they 
recently reclassified bicycles as cars, trying to put them on the roads 
(without any bicycle lanes whatsoever outside of Tokyo, of course) -  which is 
at odds with the many many old ladies and kids lazily riding bicycles on 
sidewalks. It’s like there are two grades of cyclists - but one grade of law. 
But most sidewalks continue to be bicycle=yes.

However, sometimes they force the road bicycles onto the sidewalk because the 
intersection is just too complicated and dangerous. 

I can only find an example of one that is no longer used, but I have seen many 
of these around. https://goo.gl/maps/6fVAZ  I 
imagine many of them are still in use and “the law” in many places. 

This means that, in Japan, there are designated cycleways, a ton of sidewalks 
(footways) have bicycle=yes, and in some short sections, the sidewalk has 
bicycle=designated. It is not a cycleway, but it is a sidewalk 
(foot=designated, bicycle=yes) that for a short section also has 
bicycle=designated to properly reflect the real world.  
this flexibility in the tagging is what makes it possible to reflect the real 
world - it does not turn the sidewalk into a cycleway for 20 meters where it 
crosses an intersection, nor a section of bridleway that someone decided to 
legally route bicycles on to avoid some kind of traffic problem after the fact. 
Nor is it an ambiguous path. 

Javbw


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

Re: [Tagging] Trolltags

2015-09-01 Thread Mateusz Konieczny 
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 10:32:37 +1000
Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > For example somebody wants to produce map of cycleways. Simply
> > processing highway=cycleway and highway=path with bicycle=designated
> > should be enough.
> 
> highway-=path with bicycle=yes

This is merely allowed cycling, not a cycleway.

> highway=footpath with bicycle=yes or designated
> 
> highway=bridalpath with bicycle=yes or designated

highway=footpath is used exactly 13 times worldwide.

highway=bridalpath is used 0 times worldwide.

In case that it was supposed to be about footway, bridleway.

highway=footway+bicycle=designated is incorrect tagging (and JOSM
validator keeps number of wrong tagging relatively low).

I unsure about highway=bridleway+bicycle=designated but given that it
appears 2 129 times worldwide it is likely that is also may be
considered as mistake.

> highway=* with cyclelane*=lane

Bicycle lane is not a cycleway (at least for me).

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

Re: [Tagging] Trolltags

2015-09-01 Thread phil 
On Tue Sep 1 10:49:56 2015 GMT+0100, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> 
> I unsure about highway=bridleway+bicycle=designated but given that it
> appears 2 129 times worldwide it is likely that is also may be
> considered as mistake.
> 
Makes sense to me, bicycles can legally use a bridleway in England/Wales. 
Practicality will depend upon surface, type of bike and recent weather. 

Phil (trigpoint)
-- 
Sent from my Jolla
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trolltags

2015-09-01 Thread Mateusz Konieczny 
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 14:11:46 +0200
Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> On 08/31/2015 01:41 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > It is not OK to use one tag (for example amenity=hotel) and add
> > second tag that negates or massively change its meaning (for
> > example adding involuntary=yes to amenity=hotel instead of using
> > amenity=prison). Additional tags should clarify meaning of main
> > tags rather than negate it.
> 
> Agree with most of what you say, just the name "trolltag" implies that
> someone was doing this in order to disrupt when often no negative
> intention is involved.

It was not intended this way. I thought about disruption caused by
tagging scheme. Probably some better name would be better, but I have
no good ideas.

> > In many cases (like this two cases above) correct mapping is no
> > mapping whatsoever.
> 
> Yes, with one exception - if a building has been demolished but is
> still visible on the aerial imagery most commonly used in the area
> (usually this will be Bing), then - at least until we have a "meta
> database" that contains information important for the mapping process
> - it may make sense to leave *something* there (perhaps a way tagged
> only with "note=the building you see on bing was demolished") in
> order to ensure that the building isn't re-created again and again by
> armchair mappers.

This case is mentioned ("or maybe temporarily converting it into
note="there was building here now it is demolished").

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

Re: [Tagging] Trolltags

2015-09-01 Thread Mateusz Konieczny 
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:08:34 +0100
"Dave F."  wrote:

> Your suggestion of decreasing the road class is "trolltaging" Please 
> don't do that. Lane closures or access restrictions etc, does not
> change a road's classification.

Long-term closure/access restriction is a valid reason to change
classification. Lets say that section of primary road is closed making
it unusable for transit traffic and is now used only by local
residents. This is not temporary change but something for months. It
may change classification from highway=primary into highway=residential.

Access restriction and lane closure may result in change of road
classification.

> Please refrain from inventing words such as 'trolltag'. it doesn't
> help in discussions especially when there are people of different
> nations speaking numerous languages. It just causes confusion &
> doesn't make the inventor of the word look clever or important.
> Please use a word such as 'incorrect' instead.

I am looking for a better name - but for example [highway=footway;
proposed=yes] may not be incorrect. It is not changing that such
tagging should not be used as it makes OSM data less usable.

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

Re: [Tagging] Trolltags

2015-09-01 Thread Mateusz Konieczny 
On Tue, 01 Sep 2015 12:24:48 +0100
"Dave F."  wrote:

> On 01/09/2015 10:59, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:08:34 +0100
> > "Dave F."  wrote:
> >
> >> Your suggestion of decreasing the road class is "trolltaging"
> >> Please don't do that. Lane closures or access restrictions etc,
> >> does not change a road's classification.
> > Long-term closure/access restriction is a valid reason to change
> > classification. Lets say that section of primary road is closed
> > making it unusable for transit traffic and is now used only by local
> > residents. This is not temporary change but something for months. It
> > may change classification from highway=primary into
> > highway=residential.
> >
> > Access restriction and lane closure may result in change of road
> > classification.
> >
> 
> No. The classification, usually set by a highway authority, remains
> the same. The temporary signs erected to indicate travel disruption
> never change the roads number/reference, They just say something like
> "The A36 will have lanes closures." & then indicate speed
> restrictions & possible alternative routes.

"classification, usually set by a highway authority, remains the same"
- I am speaking about value of highway tag in OSM, not the official
  classification (in many places these may be the same or strongly
  related - but it is not a strict rule).

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

Re: [Tagging] Trolltags

2015-09-01 Thread Paul Johnson 
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 4:59 AM, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> I am looking for a better name - but for example [highway=footway;
> proposed=yes] may not be incorrect. It is not changing that such
> tagging should not be used as it makes OSM data less usable.
>

How about highway=proposed, proposed=footway?  This would be orthogonal to
present usage of highway=construction, construction=footway.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trolltags

2015-09-01 Thread Mateusz Konieczny 
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 06:42:02 -0500
Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 4:59 AM, Mateusz Konieczny
>  wrote:
> 
> > I am looking for a better name - but for example [highway=footway;
> > proposed=yes] may not be incorrect. It is not changing that such
> > tagging should not be used as it makes OSM data less usable.
> >
> 
> How about highway=proposed, proposed=footway?  This would be
> orthogonal to present usage of highway=construction,
> construction=footway.

Yes, that is what I mentioned in my text as a proper solution.

Obviously, only footways "that are about to be built, but where any
construction work hasn't yet been started" should be mapped in this
way.

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

Re: [Tagging] Trolltags

2015-09-01 Thread Mateusz Konieczny 
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 07:02:38 -0500
Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 6:52 AM, Mateusz Konieczny
>  wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 01 Sep 2015 12:24:48 +0100
> > "Dave F."  wrote:
> >
> > > On 01/09/2015 10:59, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:08:34 +0100
> > > > "Dave F."  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Your suggestion of decreasing the road class is "trolltaging"
> > > >> Please don't do that. Lane closures or access restrictions etc,
> > > >> does not change a road's classification.
> > > > Long-term closure/access restriction is a valid reason to change
> > > > classification. Lets say that section of primary road is closed
> > > > making it unusable for transit traffic and is now used only by
> > > > local residents. This is not temporary change but something for
> > > > months. It may change classification from highway=primary into
> > > > highway=residential.
> > > >
> > > > Access restriction and lane closure may result in change of road
> > > > classification.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No. The classification, usually set by a highway authority,
> > > remains the same. The temporary signs erected to indicate travel
> > > disruption never change the roads number/reference, They just say
> > > something like "The A36 will have lanes closures." & then
> > > indicate speed restrictions & possible alternative routes.
> >
> > "classification, usually set by a highway authority, remains the
> > same"
> > - I am speaking about value of highway tag in OSM, not the official
> >   classification (in many places these may be the same or strongly
> >   related - but it is not a strict rule).
> 
> 
> Unless a road is about to be permanently removed (thus making it
> temporary in nature), I'm generally disinclined to change the
> classification for a workzone.  I am inclined to tag access or
> barriers as appropriate, as I've done in Norman, Oklahoma on 24th
> Street between State Highway 9 and Lindsey Street.

"I'm generally disinclined" - I agree. It is really rare to encounter
so major construction project that it would be justified.

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

Re: [Tagging] Trolltags

2015-09-01 Thread Dave F. 

On 01/09/2015 12:52, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:


- I am speaking about value of highway tag in OSM, not the official
   classification (in many places these may be the same or strongly
   related - but it is not a strict rule).


Road reference classification tags relate to official road 
classifications. Clues include colour of signs & the reference numbers 
written on said signs.


If the signs say it the M11, it's the M11 no matter how many lanes are 
closed or what type of traffic can travel along it.


Dave F.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Tagging] Trolltags

2015-09-01 Thread Paul Johnson 
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 6:52 AM, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Sep 2015 12:24:48 +0100
> "Dave F."  wrote:
>
> > On 01/09/2015 10:59, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > > On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:08:34 +0100
> > > "Dave F."  wrote:
> > >
> > >> Your suggestion of decreasing the road class is "trolltaging"
> > >> Please don't do that. Lane closures or access restrictions etc,
> > >> does not change a road's classification.
> > > Long-term closure/access restriction is a valid reason to change
> > > classification. Lets say that section of primary road is closed
> > > making it unusable for transit traffic and is now used only by local
> > > residents. This is not temporary change but something for months. It
> > > may change classification from highway=primary into
> > > highway=residential.
> > >
> > > Access restriction and lane closure may result in change of road
> > > classification.
> > >
> >
> > No. The classification, usually set by a highway authority, remains
> > the same. The temporary signs erected to indicate travel disruption
> > never change the roads number/reference, They just say something like
> > "The A36 will have lanes closures." & then indicate speed
> > restrictions & possible alternative routes.
>
> "classification, usually set by a highway authority, remains the same"
> - I am speaking about value of highway tag in OSM, not the official
>   classification (in many places these may be the same or strongly
>   related - but it is not a strict rule).


Unless a road is about to be permanently removed (thus making it temporary
in nature), I'm generally disinclined to change the classification for a
workzone.  I am inclined to tag access or barriers as appropriate, as I've
done in Norman, Oklahoma on 24th Street between State Highway 9 and Lindsey
Street.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trolltags

2015-09-01 Thread Dave F. 

On 01/09/2015 10:59, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:08:34 +0100
"Dave F."  wrote:


Your suggestion of decreasing the road class is "trolltaging" Please
don't do that. Lane closures or access restrictions etc, does not
change a road's classification.

Long-term closure/access restriction is a valid reason to change
classification. Lets say that section of primary road is closed making
it unusable for transit traffic and is now used only by local
residents. This is not temporary change but something for months. It
may change classification from highway=primary into highway=residential.

Access restriction and lane closure may result in change of road
classification.



No. The classification, usually set by a highway authority, remains the 
same. The temporary signs erected to indicate travel disruption never 
change the roads number/reference, They just say something like "The A36 
will have lanes closures." & then indicate speed restrictions & possible 
alternative routes.


Dave F.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Tagging] Trolltags

2015-08-31 Thread Warin 

On 31/08/2015 9:41 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 01:29:45 +0100
"Dave F."  wrote:


What's a 'trolltag'?

It is not OK to use one tag (for example amenity=hotel) and add second
tag that negates or massively change its meaning (for example adding
involuntary=yes to amenity=hotel instead of using amenity=prison).
Additional tags should clarify meaning of main tags rather than negate
it.

In general, any tag tag must be processed to avoid producing false or
invalid data is a trolltag.

For example somebody wants to produce map of cycleways. Simply
processing highway=cycleway and highway=path with bicycle=designated
should be enough.


highway-=path with bicycle=yes

highway=footpath with bicycle=yes or designated

highway=bridalpath with bicycle=yes or designated

... and

highway=* with cyclelane*=lane

and probably others!

Might be simpler to look for

highway=* with   bicycle=yes or designated, OR cyclelane*=lane !



  Data consumer in that situation should not be
expected to check for "proposed=yes", "demolished=yes",
"construction=yes", "completely_fictional=yes" or "end_date=1990".

Obviously, one may want to look for more detail - for example to show
proper map of cycleways one would want to check also access, surface,
oneway and other tags. But again - segment of cycleway destroyed in
landslide should be removed from map rather than tagged as
[highway=cycleway, surface=giant_gaping_hole, smoothness=impassable].
If the landside is going to be removed? I would leave it there .. mark 
is as "underconstruction" or use HOT tagging methods.



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

Re: [Tagging] Trolltags

2015-08-31 Thread Mateusz Konieczny 
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 01:29:45 +0100
"Dave F."  wrote:

> What's a 'trolltag'?

It is not OK to use one tag (for example amenity=hotel) and add second
tag that negates or massively change its meaning (for example adding
involuntary=yes to amenity=hotel instead of using amenity=prison).
Additional tags should clarify meaning of main tags rather than negate
it.

In general, any tag tag must be processed to avoid producing false or
invalid data is a trolltag.

For example somebody wants to produce map of cycleways. Simply
processing highway=cycleway and highway=path with bicycle=designated
should be enough. Data consumer in that situation should not be
expected to check for "proposed=yes", "demolished=yes",
"construction=yes", "completely_fictional=yes" or "end_date=1990".

Obviously, one may want to look for more detail - for example to show
proper map of cycleways one would want to check also access, surface,
oneway and other tags. But again - segment of cycleway destroyed in
landslide should be removed from map rather than tagged as
[highway=cycleway, surface=giant_gaping_hole, smoothness=impassable].

Adding tags like proposed=yes is a really poor idea. In case of data
consumers not supporting them it will lead to invalid and highly
misleading data. And data consumers supporting completely broken
tagging schemes (like [highway=tertiary; construction=yes] instead of
supporting just [highway=construction, construction=tertiary])
encourages usage of this tagging method. The danger is that with more
and more data tagged using trolltags other data consumers will either
be forced to add support for trolltags or stop using OSM data.

And possibilities for trolltag are endless. Lets say that somebody
wants to display existing shops and support all tagging schemes. Good
luck with filtering out proposed=yes, abandoned=yes, vacant=yes,
demolished=yes, construction=yes, empty=yes, ruins=yes, parsing
start_date and end_date etc etc.

Some real examples:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/36478401 - there was a building. Then
it was demolished. But somebody, instead of deleting it from OSM (or
maybe temporarily converting it into note="there was building here now
it is demolished") decided to add demolished=yes.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1918067 - railway=route tagged on
highways and footways. To detect that this is not a railway route but
original research about line that was closed over 80 years ago one
would need to process "note=abandoned railway" or
"railway:end_date=1931"

In many cases (like this two cases above) correct mapping is no mapping
whatsoever. What existed in past and is not existing now should not be
mapped in OSM (see http://www.openstreetmap.org/welcome - "What it
doesn't include is opinionated data like ratings, historical or
hypothetical features, and data from copyrighted sources.").

In other cases objects should not be deleted but retagged. For example
in really rare cases mapping proposed roads makes sense. Maybe some
proposal for constructing footways are also verifiable. But in that
case use [highway=proposed, proposed=footway] rather than
[highway=footway; proposed=yes]. At least normal data users will not be
mislead into displaying proposals as reality. (and yes, somebody did it
- see http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/53821342 ).

It is OK to map objects under construction. But [highway=footway;
construction=yes] is the best method to irritate data consumers (real -
see
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/281018186#map=19/51.50653/-0.01904).
Use [highway=construction; construction=footway] instead.

And good luck with interpreting [construction=yes; railway=tram_stop;
start_date=2012]. Is it construction that was supposed to end in 2012?
Is it construction that was supposed to start in 2012? And almost
everybody will process it as an existing tram stop. It would be better
to avoid mapping
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1049342953#map=19/53.47988/-2.15500
until it was really constructed (or use something like
[construction=tram_stop, end_date=2012])

Note that some tags may be OK or trolltag depending on how it is used.
For example abandoned=yes. It is perfectly OK to add it to building -
after all, abandoned building is still building. But using it on
shop=supermarket to indicate that shop is no longer operating and it is
impossible to buy anything there (in other words - it is no longer a
shop) is not OK and should be tagged in proper way (typically - by
deleting shop=supermarket).

Disclaimer - trolltags are frequently not processed and ignored. As
result it is typical that [highway=motorway, construction=yes] is no
longer under construction and may be used. This type of issues as
usually requires survey on the ground to be properly fixed.

And you may use this overpass query to detect more in your region -
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/bcS (it includes tags that nearly always are
trolltags - but certainly some false positives will appear. For example

Re: [Tagging] Trolltags

2015-08-31 Thread Dave F. 
Thank you for clarifying. I wanted to be sure of your meaning before 
replying:


Your suggestion of decreasing the road class is "trolltaging" Please 
don't do that. Lane closures or access restrictions etc, does not change 
a road's classification.


Please refrain from inventing words such as 'trolltag'. it doesn't help 
in discussions especially when there are people of different nations 
speaking numerous languages. It just causes confusion & doesn't make the 
inventor of the word look clever or important. Please use a word such as 
'incorrect' instead.


Dave F.

On 31/08/2015 12:41, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 01:29:45 +0100
"Dave F."  wrote:


What's a 'trolltag'?

It is not OK to use one tag (for example amenity=hotel) and add second
tag that negates or massively change its meaning (for example adding
involuntary=yes to amenity=hotel instead of using amenity=prison).
Additional tags should clarify meaning of main tags rather than negate
it.

In general, any tag tag must be processed to avoid producing false or
invalid data is a trolltag.

For example somebody wants to produce map of cycleways. Simply
processing highway=cycleway and highway=path with bicycle=designated
should be enough. Data consumer in that situation should not be
expected to check for "proposed=yes", "demolished=yes",
"construction=yes", "completely_fictional=yes" or "end_date=1990".

Obviously, one may want to look for more detail - for example to show
proper map of cycleways one would want to check also access, surface,
oneway and other tags. But again - segment of cycleway destroyed in
landslide should be removed from map rather than tagged as
[highway=cycleway, surface=giant_gaping_hole, smoothness=impassable].

Adding tags like proposed=yes is a really poor idea. In case of data
consumers not supporting them it will lead to invalid and highly
misleading data. And data consumers supporting completely broken
tagging schemes (like [highway=tertiary; construction=yes] instead of
supporting just [highway=construction, construction=tertiary])
encourages usage of this tagging method. The danger is that with more
and more data tagged using trolltags other data consumers will either
be forced to add support for trolltags or stop using OSM data.

And possibilities for trolltag are endless. Lets say that somebody
wants to display existing shops and support all tagging schemes. Good
luck with filtering out proposed=yes, abandoned=yes, vacant=yes,
demolished=yes, construction=yes, empty=yes, ruins=yes, parsing
start_date and end_date etc etc.

Some real examples:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/36478401 - there was a building. Then
it was demolished. But somebody, instead of deleting it from OSM (or
maybe temporarily converting it into note="there was building here now
it is demolished") decided to add demolished=yes.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1918067 - railway=route tagged on
highways and footways. To detect that this is not a railway route but
original research about line that was closed over 80 years ago one
would need to process "note=abandoned railway" or
"railway:end_date=1931"

In many cases (like this two cases above) correct mapping is no mapping
whatsoever. What existed in past and is not existing now should not be
mapped in OSM (see http://www.openstreetmap.org/welcome - "What it
doesn't include is opinionated data like ratings, historical or
hypothetical features, and data from copyrighted sources.").

In other cases objects should not be deleted but retagged. For example
in really rare cases mapping proposed roads makes sense. Maybe some
proposal for constructing footways are also verifiable. But in that
case use [highway=proposed, proposed=footway] rather than
[highway=footway; proposed=yes]. At least normal data users will not be
mislead into displaying proposals as reality. (and yes, somebody did it
- see http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/53821342 ).

It is OK to map objects under construction. But [highway=footway;
construction=yes] is the best method to irritate data consumers (real -
see
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/281018186#map=19/51.50653/-0.01904).
Use [highway=construction; construction=footway] instead.

And good luck with interpreting [construction=yes; railway=tram_stop;
start_date=2012]. Is it construction that was supposed to end in 2012?
Is it construction that was supposed to start in 2012? And almost
everybody will process it as an existing tram stop. It would be better
to avoid mapping
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1049342953#map=19/53.47988/-2.15500
until it was really constructed (or use something like
[construction=tram_stop, end_date=2012])

Note that some tags may be OK or trolltag depending on how it is used.
For example abandoned=yes. It is perfectly OK to add it to building -
after all, abandoned building is still building. But using it on
shop=supermarket to indicate that shop is no longer operating and it is
impossible to buy

Re: [Tagging] Trolltags

2015-08-31 Thread moltonel 3x Combo 
On 31/08/2015, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> Good
> luck with filtering out proposed=yes, abandoned=yes, vacant=yes,
> demolished=yes, construction=yes, empty=yes, ruins=yes, parsing
> start_date and end_date etc etc.

Case in point: have a look at
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/master/openstreetmap-carto.style
which lists the keys that the "default" rendering can use. The only
one available from that list is construction=*. Changing anything in
that file has been on hold for a long time, as it comes with a high
deployment cost.

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

Re: [Tagging] Trolltags

2015-08-31 Thread Frederik Ramm 
Hi,

On 08/31/2015 01:41 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> It is not OK to use one tag (for example amenity=hotel) and add second
> tag that negates or massively change its meaning (for example adding
> involuntary=yes to amenity=hotel instead of using amenity=prison).
> Additional tags should clarify meaning of main tags rather than negate
> it.

Agree with most of what you say, just the name "trolltag" implies that
someone was doing this in order to disrupt when often no negative
intention is involved.

> In many cases (like this two cases above) correct mapping is no mapping
> whatsoever.

Yes, with one exception - if a building has been demolished but is still
visible on the aerial imagery most commonly used in the area (usually
this will be Bing), then - at least until we have a "meta database" that
contains information important for the mapping process - it may make
sense to leave *something* there (perhaps a way tagged only with
"note=the building you see on bing was demolished") in order to ensure
that the building isn't re-created again and again by armchair mappers.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [Tagging] Trolltags

2015-08-31 Thread Christian Pietzsch 
That's why I would prefer a generalized life cycle tagging scheme in the
form of a prefix. (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix)
For example "disused:highway=cycleway".
It would eliminate the need for data consumers to filter for more tags than
you need. If you just look for cycleways that are in use, you only have to
search for highway=cycleway (or highway=path + bicycle=designated).

I had the problem with buildings. If you use building=proposed + proposed=*
than it gets rendered on the map because everything that's building=* gets
rendered. The life cycle prefix (sometimes suffix) is used quite often if
it isn't a highway or railway.

Cheers
Hedaja

2015-08-31 13:41 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 01:29:45 +0100
> "Dave F."  wrote:
>
> > What's a 'trolltag'?
>
> It is not OK to use one tag (for example amenity=hotel) and add second
> tag that negates or massively change its meaning (for example adding
> involuntary=yes to amenity=hotel instead of using amenity=prison).
> Additional tags should clarify meaning of main tags rather than negate
> it.
>
> In general, any tag tag must be processed to avoid producing false or
> invalid data is a trolltag.
>
> For example somebody wants to produce map of cycleways. Simply
> processing highway=cycleway and highway=path with bicycle=designated
> should be enough. Data consumer in that situation should not be
> expected to check for "proposed=yes", "demolished=yes",
> "construction=yes", "completely_fictional=yes" or "end_date=1990".
>
> Obviously, one may want to look for more detail - for example to show
> proper map of cycleways one would want to check also access, surface,
> oneway and other tags. But again - segment of cycleway destroyed in
> landslide should be removed from map rather than tagged as
> [highway=cycleway, surface=giant_gaping_hole, smoothness=impassable].
>
> Adding tags like proposed=yes is a really poor idea. In case of data
> consumers not supporting them it will lead to invalid and highly
> misleading data. And data consumers supporting completely broken
> tagging schemes (like [highway=tertiary; construction=yes] instead of
> supporting just [highway=construction, construction=tertiary])
> encourages usage of this tagging method. The danger is that with more
> and more data tagged using trolltags other data consumers will either
> be forced to add support for trolltags or stop using OSM data.
>
> And possibilities for trolltag are endless. Lets say that somebody
> wants to display existing shops and support all tagging schemes. Good
> luck with filtering out proposed=yes, abandoned=yes, vacant=yes,
> demolished=yes, construction=yes, empty=yes, ruins=yes, parsing
> start_date and end_date etc etc.
>
> Some real examples:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/36478401 - there was a building. Then
> it was demolished. But somebody, instead of deleting it from OSM (or
> maybe temporarily converting it into note="there was building here now
> it is demolished") decided to add demolished=yes.
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1918067 - railway=route tagged on
> highways and footways. To detect that this is not a railway route but
> original research about line that was closed over 80 years ago one
> would need to process "note=abandoned railway" or
> "railway:end_date=1931"
>
> In many cases (like this two cases above) correct mapping is no mapping
> whatsoever. What existed in past and is not existing now should not be
> mapped in OSM (see http://www.openstreetmap.org/welcome - "What it
> doesn't include is opinionated data like ratings, historical or
> hypothetical features, and data from copyrighted sources.").
>
> In other cases objects should not be deleted but retagged. For example
> in really rare cases mapping proposed roads makes sense. Maybe some
> proposal for constructing footways are also verifiable. But in that
> case use [highway=proposed, proposed=footway] rather than
> [highway=footway; proposed=yes]. At least normal data users will not be
> mislead into displaying proposals as reality. (and yes, somebody did it
> - see http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/53821342 ).
>
> It is OK to map objects under construction. But [highway=footway;
> construction=yes] is the best method to irritate data consumers (real -
> see
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/281018186#map=19/51.50653/-0.01904).
> Use [highway=construction; construction=footway] instead.
>
> And good luck with interpreting [construction=yes; railway=tram_stop;
> start_date=2012]. Is it construction that was supposed to end in 2012?
> Is it construction that was supposed to start in 2012? And almost
> everybody will process it as an existing tram stop. It would be better
> to avoid mapping
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1049342953#map=19/53.47988/-2.15500
> until it was really constructed (or use something like
> [construction=tram_stop, end_date=2012])
>
> Note that some tags may