Re: [OSM-talk] Non-designated cycleway vs. designation info missing
access=official is a proposal (and one that appears to be in abeyance) It's basically trying to create another access= value to try to sort out some of the mess with access=designated, but I fear it just adds further to the confusion. Richard On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: > On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Martin > Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > >>> Bicycle=signed is IMHO not the best idea, because what do you do for > >>> official or designated _and_ signed ways? > >> > >> As I mentioned before, you would have to change the syntax to > >> something more like bicycle:designated=* and bicycle:official=*, > >> bicycle:signed=*, etc. Alternatively, change the tag definitions so > >> that the issue doesn't occur, or make one imply the other(s) - e.g. > >> signed implies official implies designated (we do already have > >> "'official' is stronger than 'designated'", so the latter is more or > >> less already true). > > > > doesn't this break the key-left-value-right-scheme? (Maybe not an > > issue as this is done for other tags as well). What would the values > > be? "yes" and "no"? Or could it be bicycle:official=signed? > > bicycle:official=permissive for the case of customary law? > > Well yes, bicycle should be on the right, and yes, values of "yes" and > "no". If you want bicycle on the right, I would propose using: > access:designated:vehicle=bicycle;yes/no, > access:official:vehicle=bicycle;yes/no, etc. This scheme would be > quite extensible (e.g. access:maxspeed:weather=wet;40). > > >>> Also I didn't get the difference of designated and official. Maybe you > >>> can explain? I thought it was intended for the same situation. > >> > >> Please see the wiki. > > > > actually for designated you don't get a stable consensus on the > > meaning, the page changes from time to time the meaning so the meaning > > might be different according to when the mapper last looked it up in > > the wiki. > > Yeah...contradiction within the wiki is something that needs to be fixed. > > >> Eventually I gathered that official is what you > >> think it means, whereas designated is more of a "recommendation" as in > >> "this way is designed for *". The wiki definition makes only vague > >> references to "signs", but then the examples all heavily reference > >> signage. This IMHO is confusing. > > > > this is due to the change in meaning. An older Version stated: "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. It may imply > > extra usage rights for the given mode of transport, or may be just a > > suggested route." > > > > "specially designated" I'd interpret stronger than "recommendation". > > Maybe, but not much: e.g. "may be just a suggested route". The fact > that 'official' was introduced implies that designated is less than > 'official', which I am not so sure reflects its usage. > > ___ > 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] Non-designated cycleway vs. designation info missing
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >>> Bicycle=signed is IMHO not the best idea, because what do you do for >>> official or designated _and_ signed ways? >> >> As I mentioned before, you would have to change the syntax to >> something more like bicycle:designated=* and bicycle:official=*, >> bicycle:signed=*, etc. Alternatively, change the tag definitions so >> that the issue doesn't occur, or make one imply the other(s) - e.g. >> signed implies official implies designated (we do already have >> "'official' is stronger than 'designated'", so the latter is more or >> less already true). > > doesn't this break the key-left-value-right-scheme? (Maybe not an > issue as this is done for other tags as well). What would the values > be? "yes" and "no"? Or could it be bicycle:official=signed? > bicycle:official=permissive for the case of customary law? Well yes, bicycle should be on the right, and yes, values of "yes" and "no". If you want bicycle on the right, I would propose using: access:designated:vehicle=bicycle;yes/no, access:official:vehicle=bicycle;yes/no, etc. This scheme would be quite extensible (e.g. access:maxspeed:weather=wet;40). >>> Also I didn't get the difference of designated and official. Maybe you >>> can explain? I thought it was intended for the same situation. >> >> Please see the wiki. > > actually for designated you don't get a stable consensus on the > meaning, the page changes from time to time the meaning so the meaning > might be different according to when the mapper last looked it up in > the wiki. Yeah...contradiction within the wiki is something that needs to be fixed. >> Eventually I gathered that official is what you >> think it means, whereas designated is more of a "recommendation" as in >> "this way is designed for *". The wiki definition makes only vague >> references to "signs", but then the examples all heavily reference >> signage. This IMHO is confusing. > > this is due to the change in meaning. An older Version stated: "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. It may imply > extra usage rights for the given mode of transport, or may be just a > suggested route." > > "specially designated" I'd interpret stronger than "recommendation". Maybe, but not much: e.g. "may be just a suggested route". The fact that 'official' was introduced implies that designated is less than 'official', which I am not so sure reflects its usage. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Non-designated cycleway vs. designation info missing
2009/8/15 Roy Wallace : > The wiki says "'Official' is stronger than 'designated'...'Offical' is > only for ways marked with a legal traffic sign". the map-features main page states for access: " * official is used for ways dedicated to a certain mode of travel by law. Usually indicated by a traffic sign. " _usually_ This page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dofficial states: "The value official for the access tags foot, bicycle and horse indicates a way legally dedicated to specific modes of travel by a law or by the rules of traffic. The tag is to signify the official, binding, legal nature of the dedication. A way may have several official dedications. " don't know why there is a limitation to "foot, bicycle and horse" and llamas and snowmobiles and others are not mentioned. Why don't we define the tags generally? Furthermore the page says: "The tag should only be used where there is a an official traffic sign or an unambiguous law. " so it is not equal to "signed". > My question stands - I still don't see much of a difference between > 'official' and 'signed'. see above, the difference is: "or an unambiguous law" (btw: who decides whether a law is "unambiguous"? Does "law" include customary law?) >> Bicycle=signed is IMHO not the best idea, because what do you do for >> official or designated _and_ signed ways? > > As I mentioned before, you would have to change the syntax to > something more like bicycle:designated=* and bicycle:official=*, > bicycle:signed=*, etc. Alternatively, change the tag definitions so > that the issue doesn't occur, or make one imply the other(s) - e.g. > signed implies official implies designated (we do already have > "'official' is stronger than 'designated'", so the latter is more or > less already true). doesn't this break the key-left-value-right-scheme? (Maybe not an issue as this is done for other tags as well). What would the values be? "yes" and "no"? Or could it be bicycle:official=signed? bicycle:official=permissive for the case of customary law? >> Also I didn't get the difference of designated and official. Maybe you >> can explain? I thought it was intended for the same situation. > > Please see the wiki. actually for designated you don't get a stable consensus on the meaning, the page changes from time to time the meaning so the meaning might be different according to when the mapper last looked it up in the wiki. > Eventually I gathered that official is what you > think it means, whereas designated is more of a "recommendation" as in > "this way is designed for *". The wiki definition makes only vague > references to "signs", but then the examples all heavily reference > signage. This IMHO is confusing. this is due to the change in meaning. An older Version stated: "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. It may imply extra usage rights for the given mode of transport, or may be just a suggested route." "specially designated" I'd interpret stronger than "recommendation". >> There is people already using tags like this: >> traffic_sign=DE:237 >> to tag signs. If you put this on a way it would be clear that and how >> a way is signed. > > Hmm. I think that is for tagging traffic signs, not for tagging ways. actually you find this on ways. And it's not the worst method (personally I don't use it), as the signs are (mostly) unambiguous, what you can't say about our tags ;-) cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Non-designated cycleway vs. designation info missing
If 'official' means exclusive access then it would rarely be used in England and Wales except for public footpaths - as pedestrians have legal access on all other rights of way (other than motorways) in addition to one or more other classes of user. This is why I find =designated very helpful as, being a value, it is non-exclusive. Personally, I have never used 'official' but have nothing against it if someone else finds it useful! Perhaps the wiki at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated does need a minor tweak or two to see whether the official/designated overlap can be minimised? Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Roy Wallace [mailto:waldo000...@gmail.com] Sent: 15 August 2009 00:12 To: Mike Harris Cc: Jukka Rahkonen; talk@openstreetmap.org; m...@koppenhoefer.com Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Non-designated cycleway vs. designation info missing On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Mike Harris wrote: > > Tend to agree in part - I think the 'official' bit is actually redundant? Would this improve the page? I'm not sure you'd be successful in removing 'official' altogether, but I think it could do with some clarification, as Martin points out. The access=designated wiki page says 'official' means "exclusive access", but the access=official page says "In most cases, [ it's exclusive ]". This needs to be fixed. There is a lot of overlap between designated and official, but I don't think 'official' is redundant, given their different definitions on the wiki. Of course, hopefully everyone actually uses them according to their wiki definitions... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Non-designated cycleway vs. designation info missing
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2009/8/15 Roy Wallace : >> Could the definition of "official" be simplified to "signed"?? If not, >> what would be the difference between bicycle=official and >> bicycle=signed? > > As I have understood, official is intended to tag the formal > dedication (usually of the local administration who decided to build > the way). In some cases there might be missing the sign, but it still > would be officially dedicated to be a xy-way. The wiki says "'Official' is stronger than 'designated'...'Offical' is only for ways marked with a legal traffic sign". My question stands - I still don't see much of a difference between 'official' and 'signed'. > Bicycle=signed is IMHO not the best idea, because what do you do for > official or designated _and_ signed ways? As I mentioned before, you would have to change the syntax to something more like bicycle:designated=* and bicycle:official=*, bicycle:signed=*, etc. Alternatively, change the tag definitions so that the issue doesn't occur, or make one imply the other(s) - e.g. signed implies official implies designated (we do already have "'official' is stronger than 'designated'", so the latter is more or less already true). > Also I didn't get the difference of designated and official. Maybe you > can explain? I thought it was intended for the same situation. Please see the wiki. Eventually I gathered that official is what you think it means, whereas designated is more of a "recommendation" as in "this way is designed for *". The wiki definition makes only vague references to "signs", but then the examples all heavily reference signage. This IMHO is confusing. I don't like the current situation - but that is what we have at present. > There is people already using tags like this: > traffic_sign=DE:237 > to tag signs. If you put this on a way it would be clear that and how > a way is signed. Hmm. I think that is for tagging traffic signs, not for tagging ways. Basically, my main concern is that the examples on the wiki for the access=* tags extensively use traffic signs (which is a good thing!), but at the same time the access=* tag definitions make little explicit reference to signs. In other words, if a way is signed with, say, a picture of a bicycle and a picture of a pedestrian, I think it should be straightforward for a newbie mapper to know which access=* tags to use. At the moment, I think it's more confusing than it needs to be. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Non-designated cycleway vs. designation info missing
2009/8/15 Roy Wallace : > Could the definition of "official" be simplified to "signed"?? If not, > what would be the difference between bicycle=official and > bicycle=signed? As I have understood, official is intended to tag the formal dedication (usually of the local administration who decided to build the way). In some cases there might be missing the sign, but it still would be officially dedicated to be a xy-way. Bicycle=signed is IMHO not the best idea, because what do you do for official or designated _and_ signed ways? Also I didn't get the difference of designated and official. Maybe you can explain? I thought it was intended for the same situation. There is people already using tags like this: traffic_sign=DE:237 to tag signs. If you put this on a way it would be clear that and how a way is signed. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Non-designated cycleway vs. designation info missing
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Mike Harris wrote: > The problem is that some of us follow the wiki advice re designated= which > was developed after a lot of discussion in this group! > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated > > Designated= does not mean signed. Signed= could of course be an additional > tag - so long as we know what the sign means e.g. for routing or even for > simple access. We would have to distinguish between signed= 'public > footpath', signed= 'permissive path' path - and even signed= 'private'. But > we already have tags and a working system that does all of this. If it ain't > broke don't fix it? I'm a little concerned that there's no way to indicate "signed". You said designated does not mean signed. Also, according to the wiki, ""Offical" is only for ways marked with a legal traffic sign." What is a "legal traffic sign"? Is a "legal traffic sign" just a "traffic sign"? Could the definition of "official" be simplified to "signed"?? If not, what would be the difference between bicycle=official and bicycle=signed? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Non-designated cycleway vs. designation info missing
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Mike Harris wrote: > > Tend to agree in part - I think the 'official' bit is actually redundant? > Would this improve the page? I'm not sure you'd be successful in removing 'official' altogether, but I think it could do with some clarification, as Martin points out. The access=designated wiki page says 'official' means "exclusive access", but the access=official page says "In most cases, [ it's exclusive ]". This needs to be fixed. There is a lot of overlap between designated and official, but I don't think 'official' is redundant, given their different definitions on the wiki. Of course, hopefully everyone actually uses them according to their wiki definitions... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Non-designated cycleway vs. designation info missing
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Roy Wallace wrote: > > To me, cycleway means path, designated means signed, and bicycle=yes > means it's suitable for bikes. So if you have a path that is suitable > for a bicycle but does not have a sign with a bicycle, I would use > highway=path (or cycleway, if you insist); designated=no; bicycle=yes. I made a mistake. designated is not a key, it's a value. So yeah, you'd just use bicycle=yes to infer that it isn't designated. In other words, maybe we should clarify in the wiki that bicycle=designated implies bicycle=yes and absence of bicycle=designated implies not designated. Hmm... to avoid this situation you would have to change to something more like bicycle:designated=no and bicycle=yes. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Non-designated cycleway vs. designation info missing
Tend to agree in part - I think the 'official' bit is actually redundant? Would this improve the page? Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] Sent: 14 August 2009 12:54 To: Mike Harris Cc: Jukka Rahkonen; talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Non-designated cycleway vs. designation info missing 2009/8/14 Mike Harris : > The problem is that some of us follow the wiki advice re designated= > which was developed after a lot of discussion in this group! > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated > > If it ain't > broke don't fix it? IMHO it IS BROKEN. The cited page has contradictions on it. E.g. it defines "To indicate an exclusive access use access=official" and then suggests to tag bicycle=official AND foot=official to the same way (combined). This is not what I understand from "exclusive". Another example: a cycleway (dedicated) could according to this page be tagged: bicycle=designated and foot=yes/no depending on country and horse=no why is horse not depending on country? why does "official" not need specification depending on country (according to the page)? There is more like this on the page, and there is other pages that probably suggest different tagging, so there is a problem that IMHO should be solved by unifying and a general proposal, whether we should tag legal implications explicitly or handle them country specifically (and probably document the implications countrywise in the wiki). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Non-designated cycleway vs. designation info missing
2009/8/14 Mike Harris : > The problem is that some of us follow the wiki advice re designated= which > was developed after a lot of discussion in this group! > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated > > If it ain't > broke don't fix it? IMHO it IS BROKEN. The cited page has contradictions on it. E.g. it defines "To indicate an exclusive access use access=official" and then suggests to tag bicycle=official AND foot=official to the same way (combined). This is not what I understand from "exclusive". Another example: a cycleway (dedicated) could according to this page be tagged: bicycle=designated and foot=yes/no depending on country and horse=no why is horse not depending on country? why does "official" not need specification depending on country (according to the page)? There is more like this on the page, and there is other pages that probably suggest different tagging, so there is a problem that IMHO should be solved by unifying and a general proposal, whether we should tag legal implications explicitly or handle them country specifically (and probably document the implications countrywise in the wiki). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Non-designated cycleway vs. designation info missing
The problem is that some of us follow the wiki advice re designated= which was developed after a lot of discussion in this group! http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated Designated= does not mean signed. Signed= could of course be an additional tag - so long as we know what the sign means e.g. for routing or even for simple access. We would have to distinguish between signed= 'public footpath', signed= 'permissive path' path - and even signed= 'private'. But we already have tags and a working system that does all of this. If it ain't broke don't fix it? Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Roy Wallace [mailto:waldo000...@gmail.com] Sent: 13 August 2009 23:15 To: Jukka Rahkonen Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Non-designated cycleway vs. designation info missing On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: > Hi, > > What might be an unambiguous way to tell that some cycleway is NOT designated? > In theory if bicycle=designated means what it says then bicycle=yes > might mean that yes, it is a cycleway, but no, it is not a designated > cycleway. However, I feel that bicycle=yes means more often that > nobody has bothered to save the designation info at all. Well, first you have to decide what "cycleway" means to you, and what "designated" means to you. To me, cycleway means path, designated means signed, and bicycle=yes means it's suitable for bikes. So if you have a path that is suitable for a bicycle but does not have a sign with a bicycle, I would use highway=path (or cycleway, if you insist); designated=no; bicycle=yes. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Non-designated cycleway vs. designation info missing
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: > Hi, > > What might be an unambiguous way to tell that some cycleway is NOT designated? > In theory if bicycle=designated means what it says then bicycle=yes might mean > that yes, it is a cycleway, but no, it is not a designated cycleway. > However, I > feel that bicycle=yes means more often that nobody has bothered to save the > designation info at all. Well, first you have to decide what "cycleway" means to you, and what "designated" means to you. To me, cycleway means path, designated means signed, and bicycle=yes means it's suitable for bikes. So if you have a path that is suitable for a bicycle but does not have a sign with a bicycle, I would use highway=path (or cycleway, if you insist); designated=no; bicycle=yes. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
