[OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
amenity=doctors was proposed, but died due to lack of love. Nevertheless, JOSM has chosen to implement it, as has t...@h (I think). * http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/GP_Surgery * amenity=doctors * tag usage: 1528 nodes or ways as of 2009-02-20 amenity=doctor has since been proposed, and is dying due to lack of love. It was apparently RFCed on 2008-09-06, but I haven't been able to find any evidence in the archives. * http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Doctor * amenity=doctor * tag usage: 265 nodes or ways as of 2009-02-20 I think this is a notable, relevant, and verifiable thing to have on Tag_features. Shall I merge the two, spit out a proper proposal and description and get it all voted on properly, or just get on with it and add it and update the osmdb accordingly with a bot? -- Andrew Chadwick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
I think: - Document it in the singular form (the other amenities are singular (except toilets, where there are facilities per gender), so it matches reality). - Send another mail to the list to give notice that you intend to update amenity=doctors to amenity=doctor via a bot in say a fortnight's time. That gives people time to update rendering rules to match the new tag if they're using it on some private map. - Open for voting if you like, but with over 1700 uses in the two forms combined I think it's safe to say that it's considered a useful tag already. Gregory > -Original Message- > From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk- > boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Chadwick (email lists) > Sent: 20 February 2009 10:04 > To: osm Talk > Subject: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging] > > amenity=doctors was proposed, but died due to lack of love. > Nevertheless, JOSM has chosen to implement it, as has t...@h (I think). > > * http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/GP_Surgery > * amenity=doctors > * tag usage: 1528 nodes or ways as of 2009-02-20 > > amenity=doctor has since been proposed, and is dying due to lack of > love. It was apparently RFCed on 2008-09-06, but I haven't been able to > find any evidence in the archives. > > * http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Doctor > * amenity=doctor > * tag usage: 265 nodes or ways as of 2009-02-20 > > I think this is a notable, relevant, and verifiable thing to have on > Tag_features. Shall I merge the two, spit out a proper proposal and > description and get it all voted on properly, or just get on with it > and > add it and update the osmdb accordingly with a bot? > > -- > Andrew Chadwick > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
If you're going to change it, JOSM should really be updated at the same time, otherwise the tag will reappear. But updating JOSM isn't enough because peoople don't necessarily update it regularly. However, JOSM can display "message of the day", so you could let people know. It would also discourage the old tag coming back if tai...@home were changed at the same time. What's the incentive not to use tone when if you use the other you get to see results? David On 20/02/2009 10:27, Gregory Williams wrote: > I think: > - Document it in the singular form (the other amenities are singular > (except toilets, where there are facilities per gender), so it matches > reality). > - Send another mail to the list to give notice that you intend to update > amenity=doctors to amenity=doctor via a bot in say a fortnight's time. > That gives people time to update rendering rules to match the new tag if > they're using it on some private map. > - Open for voting if you like, but with over 1700 uses in the two forms > combined I think it's safe to say that it's considered a useful tag > already. > > Gregory > >> -Original Message- >> From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk- >> boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Chadwick (email lists) >> Sent: 20 February 2009 10:04 >> To: osm Talk >> Subject: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging] >> >> amenity=doctors was proposed, but died due to lack of love. >> Nevertheless, JOSM has chosen to implement it, as has t...@h (I think). >> >> * http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/GP_Surgery >> * amenity=doctors >> * tag usage: 1528 nodes or ways as of 2009-02-20 >> >> amenity=doctor has since been proposed, and is dying due to lack of >> love. It was apparently RFCed on 2008-09-06, but I haven't been able > to >> find any evidence in the archives. >> >> * http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Doctor >> * amenity=doctor >> * tag usage: 265 nodes or ways as of 2009-02-20 >> >> I think this is a notable, relevant, and verifiable thing to have on >> Tag_features. Shall I merge the two, spit out a proper proposal and >> description and get it all voted on properly, or just get on with it >> and >> add it and update the osmdb accordingly with a bot? >> >> -- >> Andrew Chadwick >> >> ___ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
David wrote: > It would also discourage the old tag coming back if ti...@home > were > changed at the same time. What's the incentive not to use tone > when if > you use the other you get to see results? I just had a quick look at the z17 stylesheet. That seems to use amenity=doctors throughout *except* for the rendering of house numbers when it uses amenity=doctor. If I were amending the stylesheet I'd just be tempted to add support for either, so if you want to enforce one tag over the other I'm probably not the best one to ask to make the changes . (As an example, from when checking whether to use a landuse caption - only if no other caption exists for an area: It would be so easy just to add |doctor in the list next to |doctors You could argue deleting the s would be easier still...) Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:51:21 +, David Earl wrote: > If you're going to change it, JOSM should really be updated at the same > time, otherwise the tag will reappear. But updating JOSM isn't enough > because peoople don't necessarily update it regularly. However, JOSM can > display "message of the day", so you could let people know. On that basis alone I'd go with the convention that JOSM uses, otherwise the wrong tag will keep reappearing. So then update the db and stylesheets and wiki accordingly and send a notice to the list. Also try to get this into Potlatch and the Mapnik stylesheet (I see no reason why they can't come up at the most detailed zoom level). Regards, Tom ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
Gregory Williams wrote: > I think: > - Document it in the singular form (the other amenities are singular > (except toilets, where there are facilities per gender), so it matches > reality). As I see it, amenity=toilets are plural because there are typically multiple stalls or urinals: quite often the gents can be in a completely separate location to the ladies, even if both have the same name. Also true of doctors' offices quite a lot of the time, where you'll have more than one GP, each with his/her own nameplate and consulting room, and a shared waiting / reception area. That's the pattern for many city GP practices in .uk anyway. Could also be laziness in use of language: albeit a sort of laziness that's common to both tags. And being a lazy developer, I'll probably go with established JOSM / t...@h practice: plural. > - Send another mail to the list to give notice that you intend to update > amenity=doctors to amenity=doctor via a bot in say a fortnight's time. > That gives people time to update rendering rules to match the new tag if > they're using it on some private map. Good plan, should we go that route. I'll try to be a little careful with this too, given that a similar 'bot seems to have mangled amenity=clinic to amenity=hospital recently. Seems to have arisen purely due to the similarity of the English word "clinic" to the German word "klinik" :( > - Open for voting if you like, but with over 1700 uses in the two forms > combined I think it's safe to say that it's considered a useful tag > already. Probably. Certainly that should count towards it. -- Andrew Chadwick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
It's laziness in the language - doctors is the short hand form of "doctor's surgery/office/place". Some (me included) would write it as doctor's, though the shortened form sometimes loses the apostrophe. It has nothing to do with how many doctors there are. "I'm going to the doctor's" is talking about the place, "I'm going to the doctor" is talking about the person. As we are marking the location, not the person, doctors is arguably more accurate. Quite possibly more confusing, though, specially for those unskilled in English slang. Personally, I don't care, but it would be nice to have a recommended form. Stephen 2009/2/20 Andrew Chadwick (email lists) : > Also true of doctors' offices quite a lot of the time, where you'll have > more than one GP, each with his/her own nameplate and consulting room, > and a shared waiting / reception area. That's the pattern for many city > GP practices in .uk anyway. > > Could also be laziness in use of language: albeit a sort of laziness > that's common to both tags. And being a lazy developer, I'll probably go > with established JOSM / t...@h practice: plural. > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
2009/2/20 Andrew Chadwick (email lists) : > amenity=doctors was proposed, but died due to lack of love. > Nevertheless, JOSM has chosen to implement it, as has t...@h (I think). > > * http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/GP_Surgery > * amenity=doctors > * tag usage: 1528 nodes or ways as of 2009-02-20 > > amenity=doctor has since been proposed, and is dying due to lack of > love. It was apparently RFCed on 2008-09-06, but I haven't been able to > find any evidence in the archives. > > * http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Doctor > * amenity=doctor > * tag usage: 265 nodes or ways as of 2009-02-20 > > I think this is a notable, relevant, and verifiable thing to have on > Tag_features. Shall I merge the two, spit out a proper proposal and > description and get it all voted on properly, or just get on with it and > add it and update the osmdb accordingly with a bot? You could just /not/ run a bot on it. Seriously, these tag correcting bots can be really annoying. As long as it's documented both ways it can be trivially implemented both ways. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
Am Sonntag 22 Februar 2009 schrieb Dave Stubbs: > You could just /not/ run a bot on it. Seriously, these tag correcting > bots can be really annoying. As long as it's documented both ways it > can be trivially implemented both ways. > but why should we use two different tags for the same thing? it would be better to consolidate this... signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
Le dimanche 22 février 2009 à 14:19, Guenther Meyer a écrit : > Am Sonntag 22 Februar 2009 schrieb Dave Stubbs: > > You could just /not/ run a bot on it. Seriously, these tag correcting > > bots can be really annoying. As long as it's documented both ways it > > can be trivially implemented both ways. > > but why should we use two different tags for the same thing? > it would be better to consolidate this... I agree. I am a recent (4 months) contributor to OSM and I sometimes find it annoying to have multiple, sometimes incompatible, tagging used for the same purpose. Sometimes I just don't tag something, not knowing an acceptable way to do so. So I acually concentrate on roads which have a good consensus on the tagging (and is the main purpose of OSM). -- Renaud Michel ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
Renaud wrote: > I agree. > I am a recent (4 months) contributor to OSM and I sometimes > find it annoying > to have multiple, sometimes incompatible, tagging used for the > same > purpose. Perhaps someone should come up with a bot to get rid of all those silly highway=path tags? Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
2009/2/22 Guenther Meyer : > Am Sonntag 22 Februar 2009 schrieb Dave Stubbs: >> You could just /not/ run a bot on it. Seriously, these tag correcting >> bots can be really annoying. As long as it's documented both ways it >> can be trivially implemented both ways. >> > but why should we use two different tags for the same thing? > it would be better to consolidate this... > I don't give a monkey's about the tag, I just don't want to see a proliferation of bots of this kind. There's already of couple of unilateral bots running, arbitrarily determining which tags you're allowed to use and it's irritating. Too many more and we'll just be facing a pile of grey goo. So my question is this: given that there /are/ two tags in use, why go to all the effort to change it? Document both and be done with it. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
Le 23 févr. 09 à 11:26, Dave Stubbs a écrit : > So my question is this: given that there /are/ two tags in use, why go > to all the effort to change it? Document both and be done with it. And this is helping the data not to turn into a pile of grey goo, how ? This is exactly what's damaging the database's content value. Because it makes the data in it unusable. Next thing you know, someone in Germany will tag doctors office "hartz" and someone in France "docteur", those tags' use will spread and the data will be a mess. So unless your goal in life is to enter as much data as possible and never, ever, do something useful with it: DON'T DUPLICATE TAGS !!! Yan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
Hi, Yann Coupin wrote: > Because it makes the data in it unusable. Next thing you know, someone > in Germany will tag doctors office "hartz" Arzt, more likely. And why not? There are enough Germans struggling to understand the tags thrown at us by the English, why should they understand everything without looking it up? We tried to confuse them with "smoothness=very_horrible" but it seems that didn't work so we'll have to up the ante ;-) Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
On Monday 23 February 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Yann Coupin wrote:
> > Because it makes the data in it unusable. Next thing you know,
> > someone in Germany will tag doctors office "hartz"
>
> Arzt, more likely. And why not? There are enough Germans struggling
> to understand the tags thrown at us by the English, why should they
> understand everything without looking it up?
Because then you'd end up with words which mean something different in
multiple languages ("café" in English is not the same as "café" in
Dutch for example). Then you really don't know what it is anymore
unless of course you add a language tag to the node to say what
language you've used to describe the feature...
Greetings
Ben
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
Am Montag 23 Februar 2009 schrieb Dave Stubbs: > 2009/2/22 Guenther Meyer : > > Am Sonntag 22 Februar 2009 schrieb Dave Stubbs: > >> You could just /not/ run a bot on it. Seriously, these tag correcting > >> bots can be really annoying. As long as it's documented both ways it > >> can be trivially implemented both ways. > > > > but why should we use two different tags for the same thing? > > it would be better to consolidate this... > > I don't give a monkey's about the tag, I just don't want to see a > proliferation of bots of this kind. There's already of couple of > unilateral bots running, arbitrarily determining which tags you're > allowed to use and it's irritating. Too many more and we'll just be > facing a pile of grey goo. > > So my question is this: given that there /are/ two tags in use, why go > to all the effort to change it? Document both and be done with it. > because... 1. ... every application trying to use the data has to deal with several taggings for the same thing. that's an unnecessary waste of resources. a script running on the database can minimize this waste, and furthermore, can fix typos in tags, which are also found all over the database. 2. ... it is easier for new mappers to have one documented tag for one feature, instead of having to choose... signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
Am Montag 23 Februar 2009 schrieb Frederik Ramm: > Hi, > > Yann Coupin wrote: > > Because it makes the data in it unusable. Next thing you know, someone > > in Germany will tag doctors office "hartz" > > Arzt, more likely. And why not? There are enough Germans struggling to > understand the tags thrown at us by the English, why should they > understand everything without looking it up? > As I already mentioned several times before: the tags inside the database should always be stored in the same style (like in this example amenity=doctor, and not =arzt or = docteur)! it's the job of the frontends and applications, to do the localization. maybe a central, shared database for the translations would be a good idea... signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:46:09 +0100, Guenther Meyer wrote: > because... > > 1. ... every application trying to use the data has to deal with several > taggings for the same thing. that's an unnecessary waste of resources. > a script running on the database can minimize this waste, and furthermore, > can > fix typos in tags, which are also found all over the database. > > 2. ... it is easier for new mappers to have one documented tag for one > feature, instead of having to choose... I completely agree. There is no benefit in this case for us to have two or more tags that describe exactly the same thing *. Moreover, nobody has expressed a good argument for not running bots that correct small mistakes when there has been a general agreement that one tag is preferable over another. Just imagine the great, unusable grey goo that would result if OSM offers a database with catholic, Catholic, cahtolic, etc. because somebody thinks it's a bad idea to run a bot on it. Can we please: 1. put this silly argument to rest, 2. agree on the tag used by JOSM, 3. document it on the wiki, 4. add this case to a general "typos" bot that is run on a regular basis, 5. get back to something useful. Regards, Tom * We might want to localise tag names into the ~6000 spoken languages in the world. Maybe Latin and ancient Greek too! But we'll leave that for the future when somebody wants to write the rendering stylesheet. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
Dave Stubbs wrote: > I don't give a monkey's about the tag, I just don't want to see a > proliferation of bots of this kind. There's already of couple of > unilateral bots running, arbitrarily determining which tags you're > allowed to use and it's irritating. Too many more and we'll just be > facing a pile of grey goo. General consensus seems to be that having two tags for the same concept is worse than having a single, reasonably well-defined tag for it. I'll go with amenity=doctors despite the slightly sloppy language. It's more common, and it's implemented in two major pieces of software already. I shouldn't have referred to what I'll be doing as a "bot". Really I'd only want a one-off change, achieved through whatever means is simplest, whether that be a script or a manual edit from a XAPI query (if that's deemed safe by Those Who Know). No long-running things; I fully agree that some recent automated edits and bots have been pretty ill-conceived. -- Andrew Chadwick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
Hi I don't like highway=path very much either - but there are circumstances when I do fall back on using it. Perhaps Ed or someone can advise what a better option would be? Specifically: If I know that a non-road highway is a UK public right of way (PROW) then I tag highway=footway/bridleway/byway as appropriate (the latter for both "restricted byways" and for "byways open to all traffic"). If the way is not a PROW but is discernible on the ground and of a width to allow passage of a vehicle (regardless of whether vehicles are allowed) then I use highway=track (unless something more specific is available such as highway=residential/service/cycleway etc. - following the wiki advice so far as possible, even if it is a bit conflicting at times!) and, in any case, adding tracktype= and/or surface= where possible. I am left with some ways that are not PROWs but are of "footpath" width, walkable, of unknown legal status, with unknown access= etc. - usually informal routes between A and B that are used as a matter of custom rather than right. As a last resort I have been tagging these highway=path. I don't particularly like doing this but note that the wiki describes this tag as for "non-specific" or "shared use" paths. I would agree with Ed that highway=path is not really needed for shared use paths as these can be tagged differently and tags can be added for foot= / bicycle= etc. But it does seem like a fallback for "non-specific" paths. I would happily consider other suggestions! Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Ed Loach [mailto:e...@loach.me.uk] Sent: 22 February 2009 21:36 To: 'Renaud MICHEL'; talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging] Renaud wrote: > I agree. > I am a recent (4 months) contributor to OSM and I sometimes find it > annoying to have multiple, sometimes incompatible, tagging used for > the same purpose. Perhaps someone should come up with a bot to get rid of all those silly highway=path tags? Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
Mike wrote: > I don't like highway=path very much either - but there are > circumstances > when I do fall back on using it. Perhaps Ed or someone can > advise what a > better option would be? My comment was rather tongue in cheek, but I do personally feel that path is overused. Part of my problem with it is that everyone seems to use it slightly differently. I believe it is common in Germany to use it in preference to either highway=footway/bicycle=yes or whatever other combinations it might reflect. I've used it once or twice to reflect an obvious way through a grassy area which also has a grass surface (the difference being the obvious lengths of grass). These days I am more likely to use highway=footway/surface=grass (although that latter gets highlighted as not in Map Features by maplint which is a bit of a shame). Having said that I don't tend to tag the local (Essex, UK) public footpaths differently to any other footpaths between two places. I'm sure I will at some point, but never could get my head around the wiki page suggestions (though have it bookmarked to reread when I have a little more time). Is it highway=footway/foot=designated for the public ones? I'll have to check, but that sounds sensible. Actually, it seems not. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/UK_Countryside_mapping and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_public_rights_of_way They seem to suggest use foot=yes, which seems a bit silly if the way is already tagged as a footway as I would assume yes. Or perhaps that's why it is suggested - use an unnecessary tag to indicate "public" rather than any other sort? Perhaps that is why I don't try and separately tag public footpaths from say the paths that join cul-de-sacs on housing estates at the moment. Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
Ed I guessed it was a little t-i-c (:>) but as it raised an issue I was interested in, I took the opportunity to post! You have returned the compliment! As what might be described as a "footpath worker" (and getting very involved outside of OSM in all sorts of footpath issues), when I was a complete OSM newbie (as opposed to having 'P' plates) I read the wiki avidly and was a bit surprised to find that the recommendation for UK (should be England and Wales anyway!) public footpaths (i.e. public rights of way on foot) was highway=footway plus foot=yes. Whereas imho it should be foot=designated. But as a newbie I didn't then dare to rock the boat and have now tagged hundreds of ways with foot=yes! But your first thought seems eminently sensible - foot=designated where there is a public 'right' of way and foot=yes where a path is physically capable of being walked on foot. By the same token, imho, a public bridleway (with 'bridleway' as defined in rights of way law) should be highway=track plus foot=yes and horse=designated and (usually - this is a more complex legal issue) bicycle=yes. But the wiki recommends foot=yes plus horse=yes etc. In short, the wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_public_rights_of_way doesn't seem to know about x=designated at all. There is a little sentence on the same page that reads: "It would be ideal (to ensure your data shows up in renderers) to use the following combinations of tags." So maybe that was why =designated was not used (as I have never used it myself, I haven't checked the rendering - but then there is the old saw about not tagging for the renderers!). Yet another take on all this is found on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access ! If we were starting from scratch I would strongly recommend the use of =designated for public rights of way but, unless someone wants to set up a new bot, this would require a huge amount of re-tagging (and a bot for the change would be hard to program unless one had knowledge of the rights of way status of each and every footway etc.). In an ideal and consistent logical world (i.e. not a wiki?!) we would perhaps use =designated, =permissive and =no for legality, reserving =yes for physical characteristics enabling the specified type of use (and perhaps implying permissive). This would also help with the problem of multi-user paths that are not public rights of way, such as most cycleways forming part of the regional and national networks - foot=permissive, bicycle=permissive, motorcar=no, motorcycle=no, horse=??? - as opposed to the cycleways that are specifically for cyclists alongside major roads (sometimes split only by a painted line from a parallel footway) - foot=no, bicycle=designated, etc. Where I would really like to see the "old hands" at osm chiming in on this whole nexus of issues is to provide advice as to how to be logical and consistent - and yet avoid massive retrospective changes to tagging! Where do we go from here! Mike -Original Message- From: Ed Loach [mailto:e...@loach.me.uk] Sent: 23 February 2009 14:12 To: 'Mike Harris' Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging] Mike wrote: > I don't like highway=path very much either - but there are > circumstances when I do fall back on using it. Perhaps Ed or someone > can advise what a better option would be? My comment was rather tongue in cheek, but I do personally feel that path is overused. Part of my problem with it is that everyone seems to use it slightly differently. I believe it is common in Germany to use it in preference to either highway=footway/bicycle=yes or whatever other combinations it might reflect. I've used it once or twice to reflect an obvious way through a grassy area which also has a grass surface (the difference being the obvious lengths of grass). These days I am more likely to use highway=footway/surface=grass (although that latter gets highlighted as not in Map Features by maplint which is a bit of a shame). Having said that I don't tend to tag the local (Essex, UK) public footpaths differently to any other footpaths between two places. I'm sure I will at some point, but never could get my head around the wiki page suggestions (though have it bookmarked to reread when I have a little more time). Is it highway=footway/foot=designated for the public ones? I'll have to check, but that sounds sensible. Actually, it seems not. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/UK_Countryside_mapping and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_public_rights_of_way They seem to suggest use foot=yes, which seems a bit silly if the way is already tagged as a footway as I would assume yes. Or perhaps that's why it is suggested - use an unnecessary tag to indicate "public" rather than any other sort? Perhaps t
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Mike Harris wrote: > Ed > > I guessed it was a little t-i-c (:>) but as it raised an issue I was > interested in, I took the opportunity to post! > > You have returned the compliment! > > As what might be described as a "footpath worker" (and getting very > involved > outside of OSM in all sorts of footpath issues), when I was a complete OSM > newbie (as opposed to having 'P' plates) I read the wiki avidly and was a > bit surprised to find that the recommendation for UK (should be England and > Wales anyway!) public footpaths (i.e. public rights of way on foot) was > highway=footway plus foot=yes. Whereas imho it should be foot=designated. > But as a newbie I didn't then dare to rock the boat and have now tagged > hundreds of ways with foot=yes! But your first thought seems eminently > sensible - foot=designated where there is a public 'right' of way and > foot=yes where a path is physically capable of being walked on foot. By the > same token, imho, a public bridleway (with 'bridleway' as defined in rights > of way law) should be highway=track plus foot=yes and horse=designated and > (usually - this is a more complex legal issue) bicycle=yes. But the wiki > recommends foot=yes plus horse=yes etc. In short, the wiki > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_public_rights_of_way doesn't seem to > know about x=designated at all. > > There is a little sentence on the same page that reads: > > "It would be ideal (to ensure your data shows up in renderers) to use the > following combinations of tags." > > So maybe that was why =designated was not used (as I have never used it > myself, I haven't checked the rendering - but then there is the old saw > about not tagging for the renderers!). > > Yet another take on all this is found on > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access ! > > If we were starting from scratch I would strongly recommend the use of > =designated for public rights of way but, unless someone wants to set up a > new bot, this would require a huge amount of re-tagging (and a bot for the > change would be hard to program unless one had knowledge of the rights of > way status of each and every footway etc.). > > In an ideal and consistent logical world (i.e. not a wiki?!) we would > perhaps use =designated, =permissive and =no for legality, reserving =yes > for physical characteristics enabling the specified type of use (and > perhaps > implying permissive). This would also help with the problem of multi-user > paths that are not public rights of way, such as most cycleways forming > part > of the regional and national networks - foot=permissive, > bicycle=permissive, > motorcar=no, motorcycle=no, horse=??? - as opposed to the cycleways that > are > specifically for cyclists alongside major roads (sometimes split only by a > painted line from a parallel footway) - foot=no, bicycle=designated, etc. > > Where I would really like to see the "old hands" at osm chiming in on this > whole nexus of issues is to provide advice as to how to be logical and > consistent - and yet avoid massive retrospective changes to tagging! > > Where do we go from here! > > Mike > I believe =designated came about at the same time as highway=path, and was part of that proposal. One of the original goals of highway=path was to replace cycleway, footway, bridleway, etc. So, instead of highway=footway, you would tag it highway=path, foot=designated. It has since been moderated as an alternative to those tags when the path usage may not be obvious and also promoted for multi-use paths. Karl ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
Either my memory is playing up (entirely possible) or the Wiki, although still confusing*, is actually clearer than it used to be on this. The tag page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:foot refers to the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access page that you mentioned. which makes it clear that it's about the legal right of access rather than the physical possibility of doing so. Unfortunately, UK_public_rights_of_way doesn't refer to either of these or make it clear what the "yes" in "foot=yes; highway=footway" actually means (although "UK_Countryside_mapping" does explain "yes"). A significant minority of the footpaths that I add are actually "foot=unknown" since although it's a path that "everyone uses" there's actually nothing on the ground that says that it is a public footpath - just a hole in a hedge and a muddy track across a field. Things are further complicated by landowners diverting paths (sometimes legally, sometimes not) and new trails such as former railway lines for which "who is currently invited to use the trail" is clear, but the permanent legal status isn't. *thinking about it, read without the UK- (actually England and Wales-) specific pages, and approached from the perspective of adding what's on the ground first, and then adding what is known about access rights, it actually makes much more sense. Finally - a question. How widespread is the use of the yellow / blue / red scheme described on UK_public_rights_of_way? I've seen it southwest of London and maybe parts of Oxfordshire, but don't recall it elsewhere. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
Someoneelse (?) wrote: > which makes it clear that it's about the legal right of access > rather > than the physical possibility of doing so. Of course. It all makes sense now. Thanks. Guess I'd better check some of my bicycle=yes tags that I've added to various footways :( > Finally - a question. How widespread is the use of the yellow > / blue / > red scheme described on UK_public_rights_of_way? I've seen it > southwest > of London and maybe parts of Oxfordshire, but don't recall it > elsewhere. I don't know any byways around here, but I've seen both the yellow and blue arrows (on footpaths and bridleways), although sometimes the old concrete finger posts with the writing on the sign are more obvious. I'm in Essex, so the arrows seem to have the Essex council logo on them. e.g. http://flickr.com/photos/edloach/3304768464/ Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
I wrote: > e.g. http://flickr.com/photos/edloach/3304768464/ But as a better example (of what I'd mentioned) http://flickr.com/photos/edloach/3304728052/ has the Bridleway arrows with the Essex logo on. The first example just has blue arrows with Bridleway on. Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
If it was necessary to tag what was actually used (rather than legal) than near me a lot of the footpaths would be "scruffy_kids_on_motorbikes=yes". Also, at least one railway line would occasionally be "cows=yes". ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
2009/2/23 Guenther Meyer : > Am Montag 23 Februar 2009 schrieb Dave Stubbs: >> 2009/2/22 Guenther Meyer : >> > Am Sonntag 22 Februar 2009 schrieb Dave Stubbs: >> >> You could just /not/ run a bot on it. Seriously, these tag correcting >> >> bots can be really annoying. As long as it's documented both ways it >> >> can be trivially implemented both ways. >> > >> > but why should we use two different tags for the same thing? >> > it would be better to consolidate this... >> >> I don't give a monkey's about the tag, I just don't want to see a >> proliferation of bots of this kind. There's already of couple of >> unilateral bots running, arbitrarily determining which tags you're >> allowed to use and it's irritating. Too many more and we'll just be >> facing a pile of grey goo. >> >> So my question is this: given that there /are/ two tags in use, why go >> to all the effort to change it? Document both and be done with it. >> > because... > > 1. ... every application trying to use the data has to deal with several > taggings for the same thing. that's an unnecessary waste of resources. > a script running on the database can minimize this waste, and furthermore, can > fix typos in tags, which are also found all over the database. > 1) Typos are a different beast entirely. If you've applied proper context then some sort of fix bot might work. And some kind of validation tool would be even better. 2) OMG two tags!!1! Trust me when I say this is a trivial thing to include when you consider some of the other random tagging variations that people keep voting in. > 2. ... it is easier for new mappers to have one documented tag for one > feature, instead of having to choose... Fine, no problem. I said document both, not recommend both. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
2009/2/23 Yann Coupin : > > Le 23 févr. 09 à 11:26, Dave Stubbs a écrit : > >> So my question is this: given that there /are/ two tags in use, why go >> to all the effort to change it? Document both and be done with it. > > And this is helping the data not to turn into a pile of grey goo, how ? This > is exactly what's damaging the database's content value. Because it makes > the data in it unusable. Next thing you know, someone in Germany will tag > doctors office "hartz" and someone in France "docteur", those tags' use will > spread and the data will be a mess. > > So unless your goal in life is to enter as much data as possible and never, > ever, do something useful with it: DON'T DUPLICATE TAGS !!! > You obviously missed the emphasis, and hey, the entire sentence: "given that there /are/ two tags in use". That doesn't mean, "hey guys, let's duplicate as many tags as possible"; it means that duplicate tags already exist. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
r classes of user. Blue:public bridleway - i.e. a public right of way on horseback and on foot but not for higher classes of user. Cyclists also have (but only since 1968) a legal right of use unless this has been removed by local over-riding regulation (local regulation can only over-ride for cyclists), but they must give way to walkers and riders. Red: "byway open to all traffic" (aka "BOAT") - a misleading term but the correct legal one. This is a "carriageway" and thus a right of way for "vehicular traffic" but one that is used primarily for the purposes for which footpaths and bridleways are used (i.e. by walkers and horse-riders). There are clear rights for walkers, horse-riders and probably cyclists. However, the type of vehicular traffic and the conditions of use are defined on an ad hoc basis for each BOAT and it cannot be assumed that any vehicle can use the way at any time and in any manner! Plum:"restricted byway" - a new term that replaces the former (ill-defined and no longer extant) "road used as public path" or RUPP). A public right of way on foot, on horseback or leading a horse and for vehicles that are NOT mechanically propelled (i.e. pedal cyclists and horse-drawn vehicles but NOT motor cars, motor cycles, quad bikes, motorised scooters, etc.). Like anything else that is created and managed by humans the scheme is not always applied perfectly (!) A common failing is the use of yellow waymarks where another colour should be used - simply because stocks of yellow ones tend to be larger and more readily available! Waymarking problems should be reported to your local Highway Authority and/or to your local walking group. Hope this helps. Should I add an abbreviated form to the wiki - perhaps on the mis-named UK Public Rights of Way page? Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Someoneelse [mailto:li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk] Sent: 23 February 2009 19:55 To: Mike Harris Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging] Either my memory is playing up (entirely possible) or the Wiki, although still confusing*, is actually clearer than it used to be on this. The tag page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:foot refers to the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access page that you mentioned. which makes it clear that it's about the legal right of access rather than the physical possibility of doing so. Unfortunately, UK_public_rights_of_way doesn't refer to either of these or make it clear what the "yes" in "foot=yes; highway=footway" actually means (although "UK_Countryside_mapping" does explain "yes"). A significant minority of the footpaths that I add are actually "foot=unknown" since although it's a path that "everyone uses" there's actually nothing on the ground that says that it is a public footpath - just a hole in a hedge and a muddy track across a field. Things are further complicated by landowners diverting paths (sometimes legally, sometimes not) and new trails such as former railway lines for which "who is currently invited to use the trail" is clear, but the permanent legal status isn't. *thinking about it, read without the UK- (actually England and Wales-) specific pages, and approached from the perspective of adding what's on the ground first, and then adding what is known about access rights, it actually makes much more sense. Finally - a question. How widespread is the use of the yellow / blue / red scheme described on UK_public_rights_of_way? I've seen it southwest of London and maybe parts of Oxfordshire, but don't recall it elsewhere. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
Hi Just replied to Someoneelse's posting and copied it to you as well as to the list ... The 'Essex Way' waymarks are a good example of Type 2 (see my earlier posting); the yellow and blue ones are consistent with the Type 1 waymarking colour scheme. A 'byway' may be a BOAT or a RB and thus red or plum respectively. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Ed Loach [mailto:e...@loach.me.uk] Sent: 23 February 2009 21:00 To: 'Someoneelse'; 'Mike Harris' Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging] Someoneelse (?) wrote: > which makes it clear that it's about the legal right of access rather > than the physical possibility of doing so. Of course. It all makes sense now. Thanks. Guess I'd better check some of my bicycle=yes tags that I've added to various footways :( > Finally - a question. How widespread is the use of the yellow / blue > / red scheme described on UK_public_rights_of_way? I've seen it > southwest of London and maybe parts of Oxfordshire, but don't recall > it elsewhere. I don't know any byways around here, but I've seen both the yellow and blue arrows (on footpaths and bridleways), although sometimes the old concrete finger posts with the writing on the sign are more obvious. I'm in Essex, so the arrows seem to have the Essex council logo on them. e.g. http://flickr.com/photos/edloach/3304768464/ Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
2009/2/23 Tom Chance : > > On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:46:09 +0100, Guenther Meyer > wrote: >> because... >> >> 1. ... every application trying to use the data has to deal with several >> taggings for the same thing. that's an unnecessary waste of resources. >> a script running on the database can minimize this waste, and > furthermore, >> can >> fix typos in tags, which are also found all over the database. >> >> 2. ... it is easier for new mappers to have one documented tag for one >> feature, instead of having to choose... > > I completely agree. > > There is no benefit in this case for us to have two or more tags that > describe exactly the same thing *. True. > > Moreover, nobody has expressed a good argument for not running bots that > correct small mistakes when there has been a general agreement that one tag > is preferable over another. Just imagine the great, unusable grey goo that > would result if OSM offers a database with catholic, Catholic, cahtolic, > etc. because somebody thinks it's a bad idea to run a bot on it. Right. You really haven't thought this through. You've gone and assumed the bot worked and didn't have some nasty weird side effect. The big problem with the bots that most people out there would write is that they'd forget about context, or cases that might not match what they thought was happening. Xybot already had fun with all the denomination tags... and I'm not entirely sure, but I think it may have wiped out a particular Scottish denomination in the process... the fact that I'm not entirely sure means there's zero chance the xybot author knew what he was doing. What you want is this: a validation tool so that users with a brain can figure it out for themselves. > > Can we please: > 1. put this silly argument to rest, > 2. agree on the tag used by JOSM, > 3. document it on the wiki, > 4. add this case to a general "typos" bot that is run on a regular basis, > 5. get back to something useful. > 1. sure 2. don't care 3. fine 4. PLEASE GOD NO!! 5. Like writing a validation tool and banning bots? Sure. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
... I can relate to that really well! But when it comes to "bull=yes" you should (a) make sure that you can run faster than the bull, and then (b) report it to the Highway Authority - unless the bull in question is either under ten months old or "of a recognised dairy breed and at large with cows or heifers". Footpath law in Britain is nothing if not arcane! Make sure you know your breeds before walking in the British countryside and apply action (a) before considering action (b). Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Someoneelse [mailto:li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk] Sent: 23 February 2009 23:00 To: Ed Loach Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging] If it was necessary to tag what was actually used (rather than legal) than near me a lot of the footpaths would be "scruffy_kids_on_motorbikes=yes". Also, at least one railway line would occasionally be "cows=yes". ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
Hi, Dave Stubbs wrote: > What you want is this: a validation tool so that users with a brain > can figure it out for themselves. I think that the "tagging" view in the OSM Inspector (http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/) is already quite a good start for such a validation tool. The OSMI is based on the very idea of not fixing anything automatically, just flagging things and saying "did you perhaps mean so-and-so", and making it as easy as possible to then go and fix them manually. There's still a long way to go obviously (full JOSM integration would be cool ;-) but it's a good start I think. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
Dave Stubbs schrieb: > >> 2. ... it is easier for new mappers to have one documented tag for one >> feature, instead of having to choose... > > > Fine, no problem. I said document both, not recommend both. document both IS recommend both! ULFL - who thinks that having already hundreds (literally!) of tags is a mess for someone who wants to use our data. Can't hear that argument "let the application developers decide what they want" any longer! Oh, BTW, didn't I mention that this discussion was already on this list a while ago? That's the reason that amenity=doctors is already in map features and JOSM mappaint for quite a while ... Regards, ULFL ... who don't want to be a data messy! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
> This then would seem to make foot=yes unavailable as a description of the > physical nature of the way and to duplicate foot=designated. The Key:access wiki uses the word "preferred" when describing designated. I can see the point with regard to e.g. truck routes, but less so for English and Welsh footpaths. The case for =designated as opposed to =yes is probably best made by one of the proponents of that tag (I think that it's already been mentioned that it came along later). I had assumed that "highway=footway" implied that the physical nature of the path was such that you could walk along it. > What would we > then use to describe the physical nature? Similarly if bicycle=yes (even if > we already have an option of bicycle=designated) means that bicycles are > legally allowed on a way then how do we say whether a way is suitable for > bicycles? Do we resort to using surface= or even smoothness= ? A good point, and further complicated by the fact that ground conditions vary throughout the year. > We have several converted former railway lines in Cheshire and I have been > in discussion with colleagues on these as all are multi-use although > priorities differ. In one case the county council has designated the old > railway as a route for riders - but cyclists and walkers have also adopted > the route; legally the use is only permissive for every class of user as it > is not a right of way; ... Actually that raises another issue (notwithstanding the point below) - in cases where the legal status is only available on either a copyright map (either bought or on the wall at the local council) - it's sometimes not possible to know what the legal status of all traffic on e.g. a former railway line is. In such cases I've gone with what the signs say on the ground, interpreted in the context of other signs nearby, and resorted to "unknown" and added a note where it isn't clear. (re coloured footpath parkings): > Excellent question - I had not thought of it because I am so familiar with > the scheme (as one of those who actually put the waymarks in place!) - but > it does give clear information as to legal status in England and Wales. (... lots of useful info clipped ...) > Hope this helps. Should I add an abbreviated form to the wiki - perhaps on > the mis-named UK Public Rights of Way page? I'd certainly find it extremely helpful, and it would also help if someone either renamed the page or added a separate Scottish section explaining what the situation is there. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
2009/2/24 Ulf Lamping : > Dave Stubbs schrieb: >> >>> 2. ... it is easier for new mappers to have one documented tag for one >>> feature, instead of having to choose... >> >> >> Fine, no problem. I said document both, not recommend both. > > document both IS recommend both! > amenity=doctors -> A doctor's surgery. Note: people have also used amenity=doctor for this. Wow. Hard. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
Hi > The Key:access wiki uses the word "preferred" when describing designated. I can see the point with regard to e.g. truck > routes, but less so for English and Welsh footpaths. The case for =designated as opposed to =yes is probably best made > by one of the proponents of that tag (I think that it's already been mentioned that it came along later). I take your point about =designated - I had noted the use of the word "preferred" in the wiki and found it just added to the confusion. This is one of the reasons that I have never used this tag - and after the recent exchange on this list, I think I made the right decision and will stick to =yes. > I had assumed that "highway=footway" implied that the physical nature of the path was such that you could walk along it. Interesting thought! Perhaps I will also go with that concept for the sake of simplicity! > Actually that raises another issue (notwithstanding the point below) - in cases where the legal status is only available > on either a copyright map (either bought or on the wall at the local council) - it's sometimes not possible to know what > the legal status of all traffic on e.g. a former railway line is. In such cases I've gone with what the signs say on > > the ground, interpreted in the context of other signs nearby, and resorted to "unknown" and added a note where it isn't > clear. I work by default on this one. I know which ways are public rights of way (in my county), so if e.g. a converted abandoned railway or a towpath is not a right of way then I assume that all forms of traffic are =permissive at most and, like you, use what's on the ground to confirm this - again resorting to a note when unclear. > I'd certainly find it extremely helpful, and it would also help if someone either renamed the page or added a separate > > Scottish section explaining what the situation is there. OK - I'll add some brief note to the wiki, risk changing the title of the page ... And hope that there's a helpful Scot out there - as I claim no expertise on Scottish rights of way! In fact, I believe they may even have the excellent and simple Scandinavian system of 'allmannsrätt' - clearly the Vikings were not all bad (:>)? Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Someoneelse [mailto:li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk] Sent: 24 February 2009 12:40 To: Mike Harris Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging] > This then would seem to make foot=yes unavailable as a description of > the physical nature of the way and to duplicate foot=designated. The Key:access wiki uses the word "preferred" when describing designated. I can see the point with regard to e.g. truck routes, but less so for English and Welsh footpaths. The case for =designated as opposed to =yes is probably best made by one of the proponents of that tag (I think that it's already been mentioned that it came along later). I had assumed that "highway=footway" implied that the physical nature of the path was such that you could walk along it. > What would we > then use to describe the physical nature? Similarly if bicycle=yes > (even if we already have an option of bicycle=designated) means that > bicycles are legally allowed on a way then how do we say whether a way > is suitable for bicycles? Do we resort to using surface= or even smoothness= ? A good point, and further complicated by the fact that ground conditions vary throughout the year. > We have several converted former railway lines in Cheshire and I have > been in discussion with colleagues on these as all are multi-use > although priorities differ. In one case the county council has > designated the old railway as a route for riders - but cyclists and > walkers have also adopted the route; legally the use is only > permissive for every class of user as it is not a right of way; ... Actually that raises another issue (notwithstanding the point below) - in cases where the legal status is only available on either a copyright map (either bought or on the wall at the local council) - it's sometimes not possible to know what the legal status of all traffic on e.g. a former railway line is. In such cases I've gone with what the signs say on the ground, interpreted in the context of other signs nearby, and resorted to "unknown" and added a note where it isn't clear. (re coloured footpath parkings): > Excellent question - I had not thought of it because I am so familiar > with the scheme (as one of those who actually put the waymarks in > place!) - but it does give clear information as to legal status in England and Wales. (... lots of useful info clipped ...) > Hope this helps. Should I add an abbreviated form to the wiki -
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
Dave Stubbs schrieb: > 2009/2/24 Ulf Lamping : >> Dave Stubbs schrieb: 2. ... it is easier for new mappers to have one documented tag for one feature, instead of having to choose... >>> >>> Fine, no problem. I said document both, not recommend both. >> document both IS recommend both! >> > > amenity=doctors -> A doctor's surgery. Note: people have also > used amenity=doctor for this. > > Wow. Hard. > Hmmm. And that is more helpful for anyone going to use this tag (mapping or rendering or ...) than simply saying: amenity=doctors -> A doctor's surgery. ?!? I don't think so ... Regards, ULFL P.S: I really hesitate to have a map features page that has more footnotes than a mobile phone contract. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
>>> document both IS recommend both! >>> >> >> amenity=doctors -> A doctor's surgery. Note: people have also >> used amenity=doctor for this. >> >> Wow. Hard. >> > > Hmmm. And that is more helpful for anyone going to use this tag (mapping or > rendering or ...) than simply saying: > > amenity=doctors -> A doctor's surgery. > > ?!? > > > I don't think so ... If you happen to have found an amenity=doctor tag then sure it is. Or you want to know why your renderer isn't finding half the doctors in an area. It's completely pointless if you're running a bot that makes it virtually impossible to use the tag, but I don't want you to be running those bots. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
>Actually that raises another issue (notwithstanding the point below) - >in cases where the legal status is only available on either a copyright >map (either bought or on the wall at the local council) - it's sometimes >not possible to know what the legal status of all traffic on e.g. a >former railway line is. I'm not 100% sure whether the status on a council map is copyright actually - this has come up several times but never been definitively resolved. While the council maps are overlaid on an OS map, presumably the *council* decides the status of the path, so while the course of the path might be subject to copyright, I would assume that the status on a definitive council map is not. Also I distinctly remember one council (W Sussex) mentioning "public domain data overlaid on a copyrighted OS map". However I don't *know* this as *fact*, so do not use them as a source for status unless someone has definitely said that it's OK. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
Sorry, belated reply to this, didn't realise the thread was about this topic. I guess I'm the "oldest" of the OSM countryside mappers, having been involved in open countryside mapping since Mar 2004 (via my own Freemap project, now using OSM data) and OSM since a year later, so... >As what might be described as a "footpath worker" (and getting very involved >outside of OSM in all sorts of footpath issues), when I was a complete OSM >newbie (as opposed to having 'P' plates) I read the wiki avidly and was a >bit surprised to find that the recommendation for UK (should be England and >Wales anyway!) public footpaths (i.e. public rights of way on foot) was >highway=footway plus foot=yes. Whereas imho it should be foot=designated. This is because "designated" was recommended much more recently than "yes", and people (myself included I have to admit) have tended to stick with what they were using before. >But as a newbie I didn't then dare to rock the boat and have now tagged >hundreds of ways with foot=yes! But your first thought seems eminently >sensible - foot=designated where there is a public 'right' of way and >foot=yes where a path is physically capable of being walked on foot. By the same token, imho, a public bridleway (with 'bridleway' as defined in rights >of way law) should be highway=track plus foot=yes and horse=designated and If you're using "designated" for horse, you'd have to use it for foot too as bridleways have legal status for walkers as well as horse riders. >(usually - this is a more complex legal issue) bicycle=yes. But the wiki >recommends foot=yes plus horse=yes etc. In short, the wiki >http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_public_rights_of_way doesn't seem to >know about x=designated at all. Again this is because it predates "designated". >If we were starting from scratch I would strongly recommend the use of >=designated for public rights of way but, unless someone wants to set up a >new bot, this would require a huge amount of re-tagging (and a bot for the >change would be hard to program unless one had knowledge of the rights of >way status of each and every footway etc.). Would be OK with me, just change the renderers to equivalence "yes" and "designated" for now. >In an ideal and consistent logical world (i.e. not a wiki?!) we would >perhaps use =designated, =permissive and =no for legality, reserving =yes >for physical characteristics enabling the specified type of use (and perhaps >implying permissive). This would also help with the problem of multi-user >paths that are not public rights of way, such as most cycleways forming part >of the regional and national networks - foot=permissive, bicycle=permissive, >motorcar=no, motorcycle=no, horse=??? - as opposed to the cycleways that are >specifically for cyclists alongside major roads (sometimes split only by a >painted line from a parallel footway) - foot=no, bicycle=designated, etc. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
>This then would seem to make foot=yes unavailable as a description of the >physical nature of the way and to duplicate foot=designated. What would we >then use to describe the physical nature? Similarly if bicycle=yes (even if >we already have an option of bicycle=designated) means that bicycles are >legally allowed on a way then how do we say whether a way is suitable for >bicycles? Do we resort to using surface= or even smoothness= ? Well my preferred approach in an ideal world would be to abolish highway=footway, bridleway, cycleway etc and replace them with highway=path, track, or service (using "highway" to describe the type of way as opposed to its permissions), together with appropriate permissions for foot, horse, bicycle (yes [or designated], no, permissive or private). Also use access=private for a catch-all private access to avoid having to tag each mode of transport separately. These could be augmented with surface (e.g. paved or unpaved) and width (e.g. width=narrow for a vague, hard to follow path). But in practice I recognise abolishing footway, bridleway etc is impractical due to the amount of tagging done already, and indeed I still use them, for consistency's sake. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
Hi Fwiw - I hold the view that the OS cannot own the status in any way as it is the Highway Authority that decides / maintains the status. The only way the OS even know about the status is by the Highway Authority telling them - as they do (and a few years later the OS *might* amend their mapping! - although I have plenty of examples where this has not been done for the past ten years). The practitioners in Cheshire County Council regard the status information as public domain and would agree wholly with West Sussex - though I have not tested it with their lawyers. I simply don't see how anyone can have copyright over something they only know about because they have been told about it by someone else! On the other hand the cartography IS copyright to the OS and clearly verboten for OSM purposes - no dispute there. So strip away the base layer and look only at the overlay. Another way of looking at it - which is effectively just this - is that, in Cheshire at least, all of the status information is also available direct from the Highway Authority (including an on-line downloadable version) as an Excel spreadsheet that simply lists the grid references of the beginning and end of each path, its reference number and its legal status. No map involved. Does the OS have a copyright over a grid reference? It is only a mathematical transform of latitude and longitude. Do they hold copyright over latitude and longitude? And in any case, given that I would only ever be mapping paths that I had physically walked and for which I had a timed GPS trace, I know the latitude and longitude anyway (who knows which grid I have set in my GPS receiver? and I could also transform between any grids quite trivially on return to base or even eyeball which path was which once I had loaded the trace into JOSM). My bottom line is that I would never use the Highway Authority's cartography - neither as a map nor as a means of positioning a path using grid references even from a spreadsheet. But if I have walked the path and have a live GPS trace, then identifying reference number and status from the spreadsheet is surely OK. After all, if I were, say, a Finn on vacation in England I would walk the path with my GPS, recording the data in the Finnish uniform grid or some such - and then compare with the spreadsheet. On finding that the spreadsheet used something funny (called the British Grid and the OS datum) I would realise that this was how the Highway Authority had recorded their survey for the convenience of people in the UK who might want to use the data with an OS map. Having no interest in the OS or their maps, I then convert this peculiar spreadsheet thing into WGS 84 and the Finnish grid - or WGS 84 and latitude and longitude - so that I could see what's going on in my own "language". In this context the position reference is just a way of saying where something is on the Earth's surface - the "language" in which it is expressed - whether OS grid or latitude/longitude etc. is irrelevant. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Nick Whitelegg [mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk] Sent: 24 February 2009 15:35 To: Someoneelse Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging] >Actually that raises another issue (notwithstanding the point below) - >in cases where the legal status is only available on either a copyright >map (either bought or on the wall at the local council) - it's >sometimes not possible to know what the legal status of all traffic on >e.g. a former railway line is. I'm not 100% sure whether the status on a council map is copyright actually - this has come up several times but never been definitively resolved. While the council maps are overlaid on an OS map, presumably the *council* decides the status of the path, so while the course of the path might be subject to copyright, I would assume that the status on a definitive council map is not. Also I distinctly remember one council (W Sussex) mentioning "public domain data overlaid on a copyrighted OS map". However I don't *know* this as *fact*, so do not use them as a source for status unless someone has definitely said that it's OK. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
Nick
Yes - I think we are basically in agreement. You were there already - I am
fast getting there, in part with the assistance of this dialogue via the
list. (Btw - you are of course right about bridleway tagging if =designated
is to be used then it should be used both for foot= and horse= - my bad!).
A lot is explained by the fact that =designated came later on the scene -
and also because it seems to be defined in terms of someone's intention for
the way rather than in terms of its legal status ("This tag indicates that a
route has been specially designated (typically by a government) for use by a
particular mode (or modes) of transport. The specific meaning varies
according to jurisdiction").
So where I have got to - and thanks to all who have helped my thinking - is
that highway=footway, foot=yes, etc. is the way to go (or route to take
(:>)) in the context that =yes implies a legal right of access.
In which case, we might well render =yes and =designated in the same way, as
I suspect that those using = designated tend to use it to imply a right of
access.
I am pulling right away from my flirtation with =designated and, like Nick,
will continue to do what I have always done (though for nothing like as
long!).
Mike
-Original Message-
From: Nick Whitelegg [mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk]
Sent: 24 February 2009 15:41
To: Mike Harris
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
Sorry, belated reply to this, didn't realise the thread was about this
topic. I guess I'm the "oldest" of the OSM countryside mappers, having been
involved in open countryside mapping since Mar 2004 (via my own Freemap
project, now using OSM data) and OSM since a year later, so...
>As what might be described as a "footpath worker" (and getting very
involved
>outside of OSM in all sorts of footpath issues), when I was a complete
OSM
>newbie (as opposed to having 'P' plates) I read the wiki avidly and was
>a bit surprised to find that the recommendation for UK (should be
>England
and
>Wales anyway!) public footpaths (i.e. public rights of way on foot) was
>highway=footway plus foot=yes. Whereas imho it should be foot=designated.
This is because "designated" was recommended much more recently than "yes",
and people (myself included I have to admit) have tended to stick with what
they were using before.
>But as a newbie I didn't then dare to rock the boat and have now tagged
>hundreds of ways with foot=yes! But your first thought seems eminently
>sensible - foot=designated where there is a public 'right' of way and
>foot=yes where a path is physically capable of being walked on foot. By
the
same token, imho, a public bridleway (with 'bridleway' as defined in rights
>of way law) should be highway=track plus foot=yes and horse=designated
and
If you're using "designated" for horse, you'd have to use it for foot too
as bridleways have legal status for walkers as well as horse riders.
>(usually - this is a more complex legal issue) bicycle=yes. But the wiki
>recommends foot=yes plus horse=yes etc. In short, the wiki
>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_public_rights_of_way doesn't seem
to
>know about x=designated at all.
Again this is because it predates "designated".
>If we were starting from scratch I would strongly recommend the use of
>=designated for public rights of way but, unless someone wants to set up
a
>new bot, this would require a huge amount of re-tagging (and a bot for
the
>change would be hard to program unless one had knowledge of the rights of
>way status of each and every footway etc.).
Would be OK with me, just change the renderers to equivalence "yes" and
"designated" for now.
>In an ideal and consistent logical world (i.e. not a wiki?!) we would
>perhaps use =designated, =permissive and =no for legality, reserving =yes
>for physical characteristics enabling the specified type of use (and
perhaps
>implying permissive). This would also help with the problem of multi-user
>paths that are not public rights of way, such as most cycleways forming
part
>of the regional and national networks - foot=permissive,
bicycle=permissive,
>motorcar=no, motorcycle=no, horse=??? - as opposed to the cycleways that
are
>specifically for cyclists alongside major roads (sometimes split only by
a
>painted line from a parallel footway) - foot=no, bicycle=designated, etc.
Nick
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
Nick Again I find myself in almost complete agreement with you. I found highway=cycleway a particularly difficult concept given that bicycle rights are somewhat ill-defined in rights-of-way lore (notwithstanding the 1968 Countryside Act). I would have wanted to use it only for cycle lanes beside vehicular highways - otherwise replacing it with highway=track plus surface=, bicycle=yes, etc. However, your logic is better - and goes further - scrap highway=footway / bridleway / cycleway .. Might as well be hung for a sheep ... and upset the walkers and riders as well as the cyclists! (;>) So ... back from the perfect world into the wonderful world of wiki - and we stick with the established practice because it is just to difficult to change ... And I shall continue doing what you have apparently been doing and do what has always been done because anything is impractical ... Mike -Original Message- From: Nick Whitelegg [mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk] Sent: 24 February 2009 15:46 To: Mike Harris Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging] >This then would seem to make foot=yes unavailable as a description of >the physical nature of the way and to duplicate foot=designated. What >would we >then use to describe the physical nature? Similarly if bicycle=yes >(even if >we already have an option of bicycle=designated) means that bicycles >are legally allowed on a way then how do we say whether a way is >suitable for bicycles? Do we resort to using surface= or even smoothness= ? Well my preferred approach in an ideal world would be to abolish highway=footway, bridleway, cycleway etc and replace them with highway=path, track, or service (using "highway" to describe the type of way as opposed to its permissions), together with appropriate permissions for foot, horse, bicycle (yes [or designated], no, permissive or private). Also use access=private for a catch-all private access to avoid having to tag each mode of transport separately. These could be augmented with surface (e.g. paved or unpaved) and width (e.g. width=narrow for a vague, hard to follow path). But in practice I recognise abolishing footway, bridleway etc is impractical due to the amount of tagging done already, and indeed I still use them, for consistency's sake. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Mike Harris wrote: > Nick > > Again I find myself in almost complete agreement with you. I found > highway=cycleway a particularly difficult concept given that bicycle rights > are somewhat ill-defined in rights-of-way lore (notwithstanding the 1968 > Countryside Act). They do, however, make pretty much sense in many other parts of the world. I see no good reason why the (very UK specific) right of way tags should not be something like uk_row:foot=, uk_row:briddleway= and so on. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
Am Dienstag 24 Februar 2009 schrieb Dave Stubbs: > > 1. ... every application trying to use the data has to deal with several > > taggings for the same thing. that's an unnecessary waste of resources. > > a script running on the database can minimize this waste, and > > furthermore, can fix typos in tags, which are also found all over the > > database. > > 1) Typos are a different beast entirely. If you've applied proper > context then some sort of fix bot might work. And some kind of > validation tool would be even better. > yes, this is something different, but technically very similar. you mean validation in the editors? ok, but not during editing but before the upload/commit. > 2) OMG two tags!!1! Trust me when I say this is a trivial thing to > include when you consider some of the other random tagging variations > that people keep voting in. > it may be trivial, but when you have to do this for every possible tag with some variations, it's a waste of time, that should not be necessary. parsing the osm xml files is already a ressource consuming task; every unnecessary work should be omitted. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
On 24/02/2009 17:02, Mike Harris wrote: > Fwiw - I hold the view that the OS cannot own the status in any way as it is > the Highway Authority that decides / maintains the status. The only way the > OS even know about the status is by the Highway Authority telling them - as > they do (and a few years later the OS *might* amend their mapping! - ... But you are overlooking Database Copyright. It's not the individual facts, but the way in which they are collated as a collection that is copyrightable. So if you are taking the information off their map, you are, in effect, ripping off their database. And yes, they do claim copyright over grid references, when they are derived from their maps. See the letter they sent to licensees about superimposing items geolocated from OS maps on top of Google maps recently. You can't wish this copyright stuff away by disagreeing with it! David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
I have to say i'm siding with those in favour of validation as well. Not for everything, but at the very least some kind of "spell checking" utility when uploading from the editors. I've seen a number of spelling mistakes when "residential" was clearly the intended tag value. I have nearly uploaded incorrectly spelled residential tags as well from Merkaartor (even though the correct spelling auto-completes... if you just type in the box, sometimes you mess it up - my own stupid user error). In fact I corrected a number of clearly inaccurately spelled tags the other day (after finding them in my local DB). Would a "spell check" type utility that could point out possible errors perhaps make sense? I'm thinking of a "Did you mean" kind of dialog used to validate the data before upload (like MS Word / Open Office). The user can thus ignore the validation (add it to their "dictionary" even) if they feel strongly about their implementation, but it might catch some blatant errors. We could also include OGC validation later on (like a grammar check - to take the analogy further:P) if the users wanted to (I know the MS Sql Server users of OSM would love this... even though we're in the minority:P) Regards, Brendan On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Guenther Meyer wrote: > Am Dienstag 24 Februar 2009 schrieb Dave Stubbs: >> > 1. ... every application trying to use the data has to deal with several >> > taggings for the same thing. that's an unnecessary waste of resources. >> > a script running on the database can minimize this waste, and >> > furthermore, can fix typos in tags, which are also found all over the >> > database. >> >> 1) Typos are a different beast entirely. If you've applied proper >> context then some sort of fix bot might work. And some kind of >> validation tool would be even better. >> > yes, this is something different, but technically very similar. > you mean validation in the editors? > ok, but not during editing but before the upload/commit. > >> 2) OMG two tags!!1! Trust me when I say this is a trivial thing to >> include when you consider some of the other random tagging variations >> that people keep voting in. >> > it may be trivial, but when you have to do this for every possible tag with > some variations, it's a waste of time, that should not be necessary. > parsing the osm xml files is already a ressource consuming task; every > unnecessary work should be omitted. > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
Gustav Foseid wrote: > They do, however, make pretty much sense in many other parts of > the world. I see no good reason why the (very UK specific) right of > way tags should not be something like uk_row:foot=, > uk_row:briddleway= and so on. A UK Right of Way legal status, unsurprisingly, is much more nuanced than simply "horse yes, bicycle yes, foot yes, car no". So, in itself, it's a valuable piece of information to store in the database. Rather than just approximating this with 5,000 OSM tags, let's be precise. Use a general tag such as "highway=track" so the path is routable/renderable and so on, but augment with "designation=uk:restricted_byway", so those applications which want to parse the detailed information can do so. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/amenity%3Ddoctor-or-amenity%3Ddoctorstagging--tp22117960p22189786.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
Guenther Meyer wrote: > it may be trivial, but when you have to do this for every possible > tag with some variations, it's a waste of time, that should not > be necessary. parsing the osm xml files is already a ressource > consuming task; every unnecessary work should be omitted. Maybe, but you shouldn't be working "live" with OSM XML anyway. You should be preprocessing it into the format which makes sense for your app, making performance less of an issue. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/amenity%3Ddoctor-or-amenity%3Ddoctorstagging--tp22117960p22189744.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:51 PM, David Earl wrote: > But you are overlooking Database Copyright. It's not the individual > facts, but the way in which they are collated as a collection that is > copyrightable. So if you are taking the information off their map, you > are, in effect, ripping off their database. Are you talking about the sui generis rights for databases? Database Copyright (with capital D and C) is not very precise, especially not combined with phrases like "ripping off". > And yes, they do claim copyright over grid references, when they are > derived from their maps. See the letter they sent to licensees about > superimposing items geolocated from OS maps on top of Google maps recently. As far as I understood, they based this on contract law, not a license? Besides, trying to overstate your rights does not imply that you are right. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
Am Dienstag 24 Februar 2009 schrieb Richard Fairhurst: > Guenther Meyer wrote: > > it may be trivial, but when you have to do this for every possible > > tag with some variations, it's a waste of time, that should not > > be necessary. parsing the osm xml files is already a ressource > > consuming task; every unnecessary work should be omitted. > > Maybe, but you shouldn't be working "live" with OSM XML anyway. You should > be preprocessing it into the format which makes sense for your app, making > performance less of an issue. > that's what I already do. but why going on with workarounds, when it can be done a faster and easier way? even when an application is working live with the osm api, thsi is an issue! signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
Not quite the case ... Are the grid references derived by the Highway Authority from the OS maps or from their own GPS surveys that they (the Highway Authority) carry out themselves on every right of way? Pre-GPS you might have a point - but with the use of GPS technology, not only by us but also by the Highway Authority, I'm not sure that it applies. I fully accept your point re Google Maps correlated with OS maps but don't think it is the same case. Indeed, in general I would agree with you re geo-location using a copyright map but in this particular case (agreed, not in general) it can be done *without* the map - not using grid references at all - the information in this case would come from the public domain overlay and not from the base map. I could look at the overlay *without* the base map and compare the topology with the download of my own GPS trace to identify the paths - especially as I know the area so well on the ground. Even if the database (which *is* public domain - so can't be 'ripped off') includes grid references - and even taking the most conservative view - there could only be a problem if the database itself were derived from OS mapping rather than from GPS surveys. And even then, I am not sure that there is a problem as the grid references in the database are not strictly necessary to identify the path given my local knowledge and my own GPS surveys in parallel to and independent of those of my colleagues in the Highway Authority. The Highway Authority owns the information as to the status of 'footpath nnn' and it is in the public domain as it is after all a *public* right of way and the public has the right to know that it is a public right of way! - or the whole concept of *public* becomes meaningless. The only issue is how do we know which footpath on the ground is 'footpath nnn'. Sometimes there is signage that includes the footpath number. Sometimes there is not, but I have extensive records going back for years that discuss most of the public rights of way in my area and I know half of them off by heart without even looking at a map. I'm not going so far as to generalise and I would not suggest using any old database outside my area of "geographical competence". Incidentally, the next step that 'my' County Council is planning is to enhance their public domain interactive mapping system (which acknowledges that the *base* mapping is OS) by allowing any member of the public to click on the map to report a problem with a public right of way (they already have this working for highways on the list of streets - another public domain database). No grid reference involved here - but I would myself be concerned that the 'clicker' is 'using' the base map to decide where to click. What's the view on this? I'm not 'wishing the problem away' - I am arguing a case that may (or may not - given the earlier West Sussex reference) be unique to Cheshire. We could generate random number references for the rights of way and then I could use local history and knowledge to correlate the random numbers with the real numbers - but is this really a necessary game to play? Do believe me, I am serious about copyright law and sensitive to the issues. I am not a lawyer but have had responsibilities in this area in the past. So we may have to disagree on the specifics of this case ... Cheers ... Mike -Original Message- From: David Earl [mailto:da...@frankieandshadow.com] Sent: 24 February 2009 19:51 To: Mike Harris Cc: 'Nick Whitelegg'; 'Someoneelse'; talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging] On 24/02/2009 17:02, Mike Harris wrote: > Fwiw - I hold the view that the OS cannot own the status in any way as > it is the Highway Authority that decides / maintains the status. The > only way the OS even know about the status is by the Highway Authority > telling them - as they do (and a few years later the OS *might* amend > their mapping! - ... But you are overlooking Database Copyright. It's not the individual facts, but the way in which they are collated as a collection that is copyrightable. So if you are taking the information off their map, you are, in effect, ripping off their database. And yes, they do claim copyright over grid references, when they are derived from their maps. See the letter they sent to licensees about superimposing items geolocated from OS maps on top of Google maps recently. You can't wish this copyright stuff away by disagreeing with it! David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
... fair comment ... the English/Welsh system is indeed pretty much unique - so the two level key is not a bad idea - apart from the large number of paths already tagged! (:>) Mike Harris _ From: Gustav Foseid [mailto:gust...@gmail.com] Sent: 24 February 2009 17:41 To: osm Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging] On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Mike Harris wrote: Nick Again I find myself in almost complete agreement with you. I found highway=cycleway a particularly difficult concept given that bicycle rights are somewhat ill-defined in rights-of-way lore (notwithstanding the 1968 Countryside Act). They do, however, make pretty much sense in many other parts of the world. I see no good reason why the (very UK specific) right of way tags should not be something like uk_row:foot=, uk_row:briddleway= and so on. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
>> Fwiw - I hold the view that the OS cannot own the status in any way as it is >> the Highway Authority that decides / maintains the status. The only way the >> OS even know about the status is by the Highway Authority telling them - as >> they do (and a few years later the OS *might* amend their mapping! - ... >But you are overlooking Database Copyright. It's not the individual >facts, but the way in which they are collated as a collection that is >copyrightable. So if you are taking the information off their map, you >are, in effect, ripping off their database. Is that true though? The path status is a *separate layer* on top of the OS map. So are you saying that the OS copyright of the underlying map is somehow spreading to (in a GPL-like way, but obviously not coming from a GPL standpoint!) the council-owned, and public domain, path status data? Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
Hello Mike, (cced to list in case of interest) >Incidentally, the next step that 'my' County Council is planning is to >enhance their public domain interactive mapping system (which acknowledges >that the *base* mapping is OS) by allowing any member of the public to click >on the map to report a problem with a public right of way (they already have >this working for highways on the list of streets - another public domain >database). No grid reference involved here - but I would myself be concerned >that the 'clicker' is 'using' the base map to decide where to click. What's >the view on this? Hampshire also does this. But one of my plans for Freemap (shortly to be re-launched as OpenFootMap, all being well) is to add a nationwide "Fix My Paths" feature where users can use OSM-derived maps to report a problem with a path. In other words, they could click on the map, then the corresponding OSM way could be located in the database and they could tag the way with an issue. Councils could then potentially subscribe to an RSS feed of, or view a web page of, path issues reported through OpenFootMap. Users could also report the issues in the field using a mobile client (I already kind-of have code to do this). Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
Nick Interesting to hear that Hampshire has this - so far Cheshire only has it for (vehicular) highway faults but wants to add PRoWs. I wasn't aware of your Freemap Clearly I need to go and take a look as a priority ... Sounds right up my street (if that isn't a bad pun). Btw, I've been doing some further research and you may be reassured to know that the definitive maps for Cheshire PRoWs have a "relevant date" (a term with legal significance) of 1 November 1956 - so are out of copyright, even including the OS mapping itself. The exceptions to this are the City of Chester, which did its definitive map later and, of course, later amendments to the network (of most of which I am personally aware on the basis of personal knowledge and many of which I was involved in negotiating) - so I don't think I'm wrecking OSM with my Cheshire activities (:>) and I don't propose that I add path reference numbers outside of Cheshire. I'm still pretty convinced that OS would have a hard time making a case that the public need an OS licence to know the name or number given by a highway authority to identify a *public* *right* of way in order that the public can exercise their statutory rights with regard to that way. I've been in some pretty tough negotiations in my time (used to work a lot of the time in UN and EU meetings) but this one would take the biscuit! Of course, if we can get the LAs to use FreeMap in the way you describe that would be fantastic. I fear that in Cheshire their interactive mapping site is so established on the basis of OS mapping that it would be hard to get them to change - but it could be very attractive to cash-strapped authorities who have not yet gone so far down this road. I have found this exchange very useful - thanks for expressing your concerns as this forced me to think harder and dig deeper - even if I have yet to change my view! Mike -Original Message- From: Nick Whitelegg [mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk] Sent: 25 February 2009 13:33 To: Mike Harris Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging] Hello Mike, (cced to list in case of interest) >Incidentally, the next step that 'my' County Council is planning is to >enhance their public domain interactive mapping system (which acknowledges >that the *base* mapping is OS) by allowing any member of the public to click >on the map to report a problem with a public right of way (they already have >this working for highways on the list of streets - another public >domain database). No grid reference involved here - but I would myself >be concerned >that the 'clicker' is 'using' the base map to decide where to click. What's >the view on this? Hampshire also does this. But one of my plans for Freemap (shortly to be re-launched as OpenFootMap, all being well) is to add a nationwide "Fix My Paths" feature where users can use OSM-derived maps to report a problem with a path. In other words, they could click on the map, then the corresponding OSM way could be located in the database and they could tag the way with an issue. Councils could then potentially subscribe to an RSS feed of, or view a web page of, path issues reported through OpenFootMap. Users could also report the issues in the field using a mobile client (I already kind-of have code to do this). Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
I support Richard's logic 100% but am unsure whether I want to put the effort in to go back and add the tags to all those ways I have done! (;>) - at least until there had been enough discussion that this was well established as a new standard. Is the proposal for a new key "designation" (afaik there isn't such a key yet in (common) use??) with the various values - footpath, bridleway, restricted_byway, BOAT and - perhaps - ORPA, adopted, unadopted? Mike -Original Message- From: Richard Fairhurst [mailto:rich...@systemed.net] Sent: 24 February 2009 20:22 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging] Gustav Foseid wrote: > They do, however, make pretty much sense in many other parts of the > world. I see no good reason why the (very UK specific) right of way > tags should not be something like uk_row:foot=, uk_row:briddleway= and > so on. A UK Right of Way legal status, unsurprisingly, is much more nuanced than simply "horse yes, bicycle yes, foot yes, car no". So, in itself, it's a valuable piece of information to store in the database. Rather than just approximating this with 5,000 OSM tags, let's be precise. Use a general tag such as "highway=track" so the path is routable/renderable and so on, but augment with "designation=uk:restricted_byway", so those applications which want to parse the detailed information can do so. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/amenity%3Ddoctor-or-amenity%3Ddoctorstagging--tp22 117960p22189786.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
Nick Whitelegg wrote: > But one of my plans for Freemap (shortly to be re-launched as OpenFootMap, > all being well) is to add a nationwide "Fix My Paths" feature where users > can use OSM-derived maps to report a problem with a path. In other words, > they could click on the map, then the corresponding OSM way could be > located in the database and they could tag the way with an issue. Councils > could then potentially subscribe to an RSS feed of, or view a web page of, > path issues reported through OpenFootMap. Nick, Please, please talk to mysociety.org about this -- they've already done something similar for urban infrastructure at www.fixmystreet.com. They have a licence to use OS maps for that, but I don't see why they wouldn't be interested in an OSM-based system if it's simpler/cheaper/better. I'll try to find the best person for you to speak to, if you like. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
