Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?
On 08/30/2010 10:41 AM, Graham Jones wrote: I think we might need some finer grained assessment of c, because as my son gets bigger (or I get older!) I am finding I give up on more tracks than I used to... Does anyone know if there is such a scheme in use already, or would we need to invent a new one? You may want to have a look at the (much-maligned) smoothness tag: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness#Values —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 2:40 AM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: Then mark the reasons it's not suitable. We have this same discussion with cycling (in fact, Peter Miller had an entire presentation on this issue at SOTM09 - he just suggested the wrong solution :-) ). One persons unsuitable for motorcycles is another person's fun and games. So if the problem is that there are steps, then mark the steps. If the problem is that there's a massive chasm with a log over it, then mark bridge=yes width=0.25m surface=log maxweight=150kg (or similar!). Mark the stepping stones as stepping stones. In short, mark the facts that lead you to think it's not suitable, and leave the judgement to the producers of the map as to what they think is appropriate for their particular audience. This solution sounds appealing, but is totally impractical. Recording the information you cite is orders of magnitude more work than recording a simple yes/no. It might be harder, but it's also better. Recording the attributes of the path is the right thing to do, making sweeping generalisations whilst mapping is easy but wrong. Moreover, even with all the information you suggest tagging, I honestly don't even know what the end user would do with it all. Something somewhere has to boil it down to a yes/no. Your GPS isn't going to deal with it, so the logic has to be up stream. By far the best person to make a judgment call is the person who mapped it. Ah, see here's the issue. The best person to judge the features of the real-world situation is certainly the mapper on the ground. The absolute worst person to judge how that data is going to be used is ... the mapper on the ground. When they are walking along a path and want to add information to OSM they have no idea if it's going to be used for a cycling map, for a route planner, for a wheelchair, for a horse rider, for a forestry worker, for a firefighter, for a local council official, for a birdwatcher, or for whoever. They have absolutely no idea what the data will be used for, and more importantly, they probably don't have the expert knowledge needed to assess the criteria for most of these activities. So the mapper should stick to the stuff only they can do - describe what's there in front of them. All the decision making should be done by the people processing the data, since they much better know what it's going to be used for. And the people doing the processing can have different takes on what makes a path unrideable - which combinations of features would make that path no passable to the people the product is intended for - and then end users can find a particular variation that suits them well. For example, if we only mark cycling=suitable and forget about the width tags, how would I make bikes-with-kiddie-trailers-maps.org? In order to make new, interesting - and unexpected - outputs, we need to reign in any assumptions about what the data will be used for, and stick to the facts. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Craig Wallace craig...@fastmail.fm wrote: On 30/08/2010 14:53, Steve Bennett wrote: So you could end up mapping highway=path; bicycle=yes; width=1; surface=dirt; in great detail, and totally miss the fact it's unrideable. Use mtb:scale and/or sac_scale, to tag how ridable/hikable it is. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale I think these kinds of things would be great, if we were only making products for mountain bikers and hikers. But we aren't. Are we instead supposed to send one person from every end-user fraternaty to map every path over and over again? Also, given that I'm a mountain biker and I have no idea what a handy surface is, nor what a bail like hairpin is, I have great doubts about these particular guidelines. They sound like they can open the way for many tagging disputes! Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 2:40 AM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: Then mark the reasons it's not suitable. We have this same discussion with cycling (in fact, Peter Miller had an entire presentation on this issue at SOTM09 - he just suggested the wrong solution :-) ). One persons unsuitable for motorcycles is another person's fun and games. So if the problem is that there are steps, then mark the steps. If the problem is that there's a massive chasm with a log over it, then mark bridge=yes width=0.25m surface=log maxweight=150kg (or similar!). Mark the stepping stones as stepping stones. In short, mark the facts that lead you to think it's not suitable, and leave the judgement to the producers of the map as to what they think is appropriate for their particular audience. This solution sounds appealing, but is totally impractical. Recording the information you cite is orders of magnitude more work than recording a simple yes/no. It's probably too late for any useful solution to arise, but I think it's possible to define sensible meanings for suitable. I ride a bike, and I'm perfectly capable of distinguishing between what's suitable for a road bike, a hybrid, or what is really a mountain biking path. You could easily have a scheme like: bicycle=no mtb=yes Meaning, this is not a practical way for the average cyclist to travel. Moreover, even with all the information you suggest tagging, I honestly don't even know what the end user would do with it all. Something somewhere has to boil it down to a yes/no. Your GPS isn't going to deal with it, so the logic has to be up stream. By far the best person to make a judgment call is the person who mapped it. A path that sounds perfectly suitable for cycling due to its tags might turn out to be crap for all kinds of reasons: slippery roots, blackberries, poor drainage, lots of blind corners, boardwalks with wide gaps aligned with the tyres. So you could end up mapping highway=path; bicycle=yes; width=1; surface=dirt; in great detail, and totally miss the fact it's unrideable. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?
On 30/08/2010 14:53, Steve Bennett wrote: So you could end up mapping highway=path; bicycle=yes; width=1; surface=dirt; in great detail, and totally miss the fact it's unrideable. Use mtb:scale and/or sac_scale, to tag how ridable/hikable it is. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?
Hi All, I think the use of the existing tagging schemes for bicycle suitability is the way to go - no point inventing another scheme. One that I would like to use though is a scale for wheelchair accessibility. I envisage a scheme along the lines of the mtb one where you could have the range: a. paved path, suitable for self propelled wheelchairs. b. A rough (maybe gravel) path for a fit user of a self propelled one, or a fit pusher. c. Passable with an 'off road' type of chair. d. for some sections the chair needs to be carried (over stiles etc.), so only suitable of the user can walk. e. not worth trying! I think we might need some finer grained assessment of c, because as my son gets bigger (or I get older!) I am finding I give up on more tracks than I used to... Does anyone know if there is such a scheme in use already, or would we need to invent a new one? Thanks Graham. On 30/08/2010, Craig Wallace craig...@fastmail.fm wrote: On 30/08/2010 14:53, Steve Bennett wrote: So you could end up mapping highway=path; bicycle=yes; width=1; surface=dirt; in great detail, and totally miss the fact it's unrideable. Use mtb:scale and/or sac_scale, to tag how ridable/hikable it is. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Dr. Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK email: grahamjones...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?
I don't know if there already is such a scheme, but it makes sense to me. In addition to tagging the trail as a whole, it would also make sense to tag any particularly difficult sections, such as using the incline= tag on steep sections, and width= on particularly narrow sections. This would allow a wheelchair user to realize I can reach point X on the trail, but will then have to turn back. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway,trail? From :mailto:grahamjones...@googlemail.com Date :Mon Aug 30 10:41:10 America/Chicago 2010 Hi All, I think the use of the existing tagging schemes for bicycle suitability is the way to go - no point inventing another scheme. One that I would like to use though is a scale for wheelchair accessibility. I envisage a scheme along the lines of the mtb one where you could have the range: a. paved path, suitable for self propelled wheelchairs. b. A rough (maybe gravel) path for a fit user of a self propelled one, or a fit pusher. c. Passable with an 'off road' type of chair. d. for some sections the chair needs to be carried (over stiles etc.), so only suitable of the user can walk. e. not worth trying! I think we might need some finer grained assessment of c, because as my son gets bigger (or I get older!) I am finding I give up on more tracks than I used to... Does anyone know if there is such a scheme in use already, or would we need to invent a new one? Thanks Graham. On 30/08/2010, Craig Wallace craig...@fastmail.fm wrote: On 30/08/2010 14:53, Steve Bennett wrote: So you could end up mapping highway=path; bicycle=yes; width=1; surface=dirt; in great detail, and totally miss the fact it's unrideable. Use mtb:scale and/or sac_scale, to tag how ridable/hikable it is. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Dr. Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK email: grahamjones...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?
Snowmobiles (http://www.google.se/images?q=snowmobile) have a total trackwith of about 1 m, so they are definitely narrower than cars. Konrad 2010/8/26 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: [...] I don't know if snowmobiles are narrower than cars. [...] ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?
Pieren schrieb: a 2 wheels vehicle like a moped or a motorbike (or no wheels like a snowmobile ;-). Who says that a snowmobile doesn't have wheels? http://home.kairo.at/?d=gi=449m=ff.i=22196 (at the right - and yes, Elvis was crazy for wanting to drive a snowmobile in Memphis) ;-) Sorry, I just couldn't resist. Robert Kaiser ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?
2010/8/27 Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at: Who says that a snowmobile doesn't have wheels? http://home.kairo.at/?d=gi=449m=ff.i=22196 (at the right - and yes, yes, you can find all kind of weirdos, but generally they don't look like this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1951B12a.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dual-track_snowmobile.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kegresse_tsar17.jpg I was thinking about those actually, which I think aren't called snowmobile in English: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stok_narciarski_w_Przemy%C5%9Blu_-_Ratrak.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BR180.JPG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sapporo-72-slope.jpg cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:12 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: Wouldn't that only be used on the section of the path that actually has the steps, however? I am wondering how (or if) you would tag the entire path to indicate that you can, legally, use a bicycle or motorcycle on it, but it isn't well-suited to such use. Another reason that you might want to tag a path in such a manner would be if it had stepping-stones across a stream, rather than a bridge. Then mark the reasons it's not suitable. We have this same discussion with cycling (in fact, Peter Miller had an entire presentation on this issue at SOTM09 - he just suggested the wrong solution :-) ). One persons unsuitable for motorcycles is another person's fun and games. So if the problem is that there are steps, then mark the steps. If the problem is that there's a massive chasm with a log over it, then mark bridge=yes width=0.25m surface=log maxweight=150kg (or similar!). Mark the stepping stones as stepping stones. In short, mark the facts that lead you to think it's not suitable, and leave the judgement to the producers of the map as to what they think is appropriate for their particular audience. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?
Maarten Deen wrote: As highway=path means no motorized traffic, it might be a footpath or cyclepath or bridleway (or others). That's the more specific part. highway=path doesn't mean no motorized traffic, if means no wide vehicles. So no cars, but mopeds are still allowed. Greetings Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway= path, footway, trail?
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:28:53 +0200, Ben Laenen benlae...@gmail.com wrote: Maarten Deen wrote: As highway=path means no motorized traffic, it might be a footpath or cyclepath or bridleway (or others). That's the more specific part. highway=path doesn't mean no motorized traffic, if means no wide vehicles. So no cars, but mopeds are still allowed. That is not how it is described in the wiki: The default access restriction of highway=path is open to all non-motorized vehicles, but emergency vehicles are allowed. (Although it depends on each country what vehicles are allowed by default). Regards, Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?
On Thursday 26 August 2010 12:34:26 Maarten Deen wrote: That is not how it is described in the wiki: Then the wiki is wrong. In the initial discussions about the path tag, one of the things that kept cropping up was: snowmobile trail. Snowmobiles are definitely motorised. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?
n Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: On Thursday 26 August 2010 12:34:26 Maarten Deen wrote: That is not how it is described in the wiki: Then the wiki is wrong. It's not detailled enough. A path is too narrow for a 4 wheels vehicle like a car but not for a 2 wheels vehicle like a moped or a motorbike (or no wheels like a snowmobile ;-). Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?
What additional tag would one use to state that a particular path is not advisable for vehicular use (for instance, because it contains steps at one or more points), but doesn't have a sign forbidding vehicular use? My impression is that tags such as bicycle=no and motorcycle=no are generally reserved for cases where there is a sign stating that restriction. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway,trail? From :mailto:pier...@gmail.com Date :Thu Aug 26 08:07:18 America/Chicago 2010 n Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl mailto:carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: On Thursday 26 August 2010 12:34:26 Maarten Deen wrote: That is not how it is described in the wiki: Then the wiki is wrong. It's not detailled enough. A path is too narrow for a 4 wheels vehicle like a car but not for a 2 wheels vehicle like a moped or a motorbike (or no wheels like a snowmobile ;-). Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?
2010/8/26 John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com: What additional tag would one use to state that a particular path is not advisable for vehicular use (for instance, because it contains steps at one or more points), but doesn't have a sign forbidding vehicular use? this is not to solve by additional tags, but with highway=steps cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?
2010/8/26 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: n Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: On Thursday 26 August 2010 12:34:26 Maarten Deen wrote: That is not how it is described in the wiki: Then the wiki is wrong. I agree with Cartinus here: the wiki is wrong. Path is not necessary for non-motorized vehicles. Btw,: if assisted bicycles gain more popularity we might have to decide how to deal with them. btw2: this should be discussed on tagging-list It's not detailled enough. A path is too narrow for a 4 wheels vehicle like a car but not for a 2 wheels vehicle like a moped or a motorbike (or no wheels like a snowmobile ;-). I don't know if snowmobiles are narrower than cars. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?
Wouldn't that only be used on the section of the path that actually has the steps, however? I am wondering how (or if) you would tag the entire path to indicate that you can, legally, use a bicycle or motorcycle on it, but it isn't well-suited to such use. Another reason that you might want to tag a path in such a manner would be if it had stepping-stones across a stream, rather than a bridge. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail? From :mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com Date :Thu Aug 26 14:59:01 America/Chicago 2010 2010/8/26 John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com: What additional tag would one use to state that a particular path is not advisable for vehicular use (for instance, because it contains steps at one or more points), but doesn't have a sign forbidding vehicular use? this is not to solve by additional tags, but with highway=steps cheers, Martin -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?
2010/8/26 John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com: Wouldn't that only be used on the section of the path that actually has the steps, however? yes, of course. And dependant where (how far) you want to go, it might also be suitable to take the path. I am wondering how (or if) you would tag the entire path to indicate that you can, legally, use a bicycle or motorcycle on it, but it isn't well-suited to such use. I don't really see the point (maybe in a printed map, but in a digital one? You could check with your routing engine). What is the entire path? Probably this is more about routes than about tagging a way IMHO. Another reason that you might want to tag a path in such a manner would be if it had stepping-stones across a stream, rather than a bridge. this should be tagged there. (don't know how. surely not as bridge. ford?) cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?
I have gravitated toward JOSM's preset style highway=footway for foot-only traffic highway=path + foot=designated / bicycle=designated / foot=yes / bicycle=yes as appropriate I would clarify the phrase as with a more specific tag as appropriate. From: Greg Corradini Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 4:30 PM To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway,trail? I've been looking at a lot of hiking trails on OSM in the Cascade Mountains near Seattle. I've noticed a few different tags in regard to trail GPS traces (highway=path,highway=footway,highway=trail,highway=footpath). The wiki page on US roads tagging recommendations only has the following advice to offer about trails: Ways on which most motor vehicle traffic is either legally of physically prohibitive get highway=path, or a more specific tag as appropriate. This category includes roads that normally function as hiking trails because of barricades opened only occasionally or rarely. I'm wondering if anyone with more OSM trail tagging experience can clarify the last part of the first sentence -- or a more specific tag as appropriate. Has anyone done a tag count of trail-like values in OSM to get an idea what's being used the most? Does anyone have a opinion about a more specific tag to use for this feature? Thanks ___ 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] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway= path, footway, trail?
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 13:30:18 -0700, Greg Corradini gregcorrad...@gmail.com wrote: I've been looking at a lot of hiking trails on OSM in the Cascade Mountains near Seattle. I've noticed a few different tags in regard to trail GPS traces (highway=path,highway=footway,highway=trail,highway=footpath). The wiki page on US roads tagging recommendations only has the following advice to offer about trails: Ways on which most motor vehicle traffic is either legally of physically prohibitive get highway [1]=path [2], or a more specific tag as appropriate. This category includes roads that normally function as hiking trails because of barricades opened only occasionally or rarely. I'm wondering if anyone with more OSM trail tagging experience can clarify the last part of the first sentence -- OR A MORE SPECIFIC TAG AS APPROPRIATE. Has anyone done a tag count of trail-like values in OSM to get an idea what's being used the most? Does anyone have a opinion about a more specific tag to use for this feature? As highway=path means no motorized traffic, it might be a footpath or cyclepath or bridleway (or others). That's the more specific part. Regards, Maarten Links: -- [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
