Re: [talk-au] Undiscussed edits to Australian Tagging Guidelines on tagging footpaths/cycleways (Was: Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law)
Fair points, so I agree to revert back the previous guidelines. I see highway=path used a lot for unsignposted bush walking track (single person wide, definitely not wide enough for vehicles), though for something that's unpaved then highway=path and highway=footway mean the same thing to me. On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 16:48, Andrew Davidson wrote: > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:30 PM Andrew Harvey > wrote: > >> I'm mildly for reverting, although I'm happy to hear out arguments either >> way and be proven wrong. >> > > Up until May this year path meant an unsealed "track" that was too small > for vehicles (or at least that's how mappers were using them) now the > guidelines tell you to use them for all shared paths. I don't like this > because: > >1. The whole path tagging concept is not universally admired: >https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_controversy >2. It makes Richard unhappy >https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333 >3. Bare highway=path tags are meaningless >4. Footway/bicycle=yes Cycleway/foot=yes tagging allows you >differentiate between shared paths that are old 1.25m wide footpaths and 3m >wide cycle paths. Switching to a path based tagging method throws this >information out [1]. > > By the way, there is no right and wrong in tagging; only more or less > useful > > > [1] width=* is only going to make Richard more unhappy. > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Undiscussed edits to Australian Tagging Guidelines on tagging footpaths/cycleways (Was: Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law)
On 04/10/19 17:20, Andrew Harvey wrote: Fair points, so I agree to revert back the previous guidelines. I see highway=path used a lot for unsignposted bush walking track (single person wide, definitely not wide enough for vehicles), though for something that's unpaved then highway=path and highway=footway mean the same thing to me. Highway=footway and highway=path can have additional secondary tags that make them the same thing. The highway=path came along as an idea of mapping footways with particular secondary tag as defaults so they would not have to be added to highway=footway. And thus OSM has the present confusion. Do not confuse the OSM terms with any legal terms e.g. path in OSM vs path in ACT legal terms. Fine with wiki reversion... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Undiscussed edits to Australian Tagging Guidelines on tagging footpaths/cycleways (Was: Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law)
On 4/10/19 5:20 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote: though for something that's unpaved then highway=path and highway=footway mean the same thing to me. I think at one point footway was assumed to be paved and path unpaved. The default now appears to be unpaved for both as they are rendered the same. There was a user diary entry at the time it was changed but I can't seem to find it. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Undiscussed edits to Australian Tagging Guidelines on tagging footpaths/cycleways (Was: Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law)
On 04/10/2019 12:46, Andrew Davidson wrote: I think at one point footway was assumed to be paved and path unpaved. I think that it's actually a bit more complicated than that. The "standard" style on OpenStreetMap.org changed to displaying footway and path the same because it was clear that communities around the world had different views on what each one meant - some used footway for urban paved paths and path for rural unpaved ones, and some vice versa. This discussion from about 4 years ago: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1698#issuecomment-134914770 (read both above and below that comment) covers it fairly well. Going back to the dawn of OSM, "path" wasn't one of the original "highway" types. When OSM was started in the UK, the "footway/bridleway/cycleway" split was based on what we typically saw paths "mostly used for". It'd be an odd bridleway or cycleway here that didn't allow pedestrians to also use it, so the "mostly used for" idea made sense. In places like Germany, however, dedicated infrastructure is more common, and there are usually signs telling you exactly what you are allowed to do. As I understand it (and this was before my time, so this is largely hearsay) "cycleway" and "footway" got used by the local community for the dedicated infrastructure there, leaving a problem of what to tag what we in the UK would now call "shared-use" or "multi-use" paths, and the likes of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24377739 in Perth would also fit too. "highway=path" (with the numerous subtags also needed) got invented for this use, and the 1-liner descriptions you see at e.g. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/highway#values reflect this use However, the adoption worldwide was often for rural unpaved paths (which based on the meaning of the original English words would make sense) but not always - and it was because OSM Carto is a style that has to work everywhere that the decision that I linked to at the top of this message was made. That doesn't mean that communities don't still think that "footway" and "path" have other slightly different meanings and map them to their legal code and custom and practice in different ways, and have a set of "$country tagging guidelines" to reflect that. Usage varies too - compare e.g. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.in/keys/highway#values , https://taginfo.openstreetmap.fr/keys/highway#values and https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/highway#values . France and the UK aren't that different, but the frequency of usage of footway vs path is very different. Best Regards, Andy PS: For the avoidance of doubt I'm absolutely not trying to influence what goes into the "Australian Tagging Guidelines" here - just trying to fill in a bit of history! ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Mapping 'private roads'
Hi, I am in 2 minds about this ... these roads exist so they can be seen. They might be usefull navigational features; firstly to plot progress along a public road - you have just past this private road so you must he here on the map. secondly for any emergency services - mainly thinking of fire, particularly of non local fireies. Some object as mapping them may encourage inappropriate use.. "its on my map, so I can use it" is one of the responses. Sigh. Adding access=private works for some renders and not others. - I do like to see the map with all these tracks, even private ones. On the other hand I don't want people seeing a line on the map and thinking they can use it... === A middle ground? Show the start of the track and no more??? --- From the Aust. Tagging Guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Road_Tagging How I would tag farm tracks.. "highway=track Gravel fire trails, forest drives, 4WD trails and similar roads. " Then goes on to "highway=service Unnamed access roads. e.g. Entrance ways and roads in parks, government properties, beach access etc. Use a short service road where you may want to mark the entrance to a private/government area, but not map the interior private roads in detail." The problem here is that some raise the "not map the interior private roads in detail" as not mapping them at all. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law
# Principle of tagging 1. Tagging should be consistent with the laws of the jurisdiction 2. Tagging should not be code but be explicit 3. Tagging should be useful 4. Tagging should be intuitive 5. Tagging should be easy (regional presets) I will comment on the first two. ## Principle 1 ONE set of rules for tagging paths across all Australia is not possible ie each state needs its own section on the ATG. Australia is a federation. Each state makes its own road rules. State road rules override the “Australian Road Rules”. You cannot sign everything. Even when it is not signed, the laws still apply with penalties and potential prosecution and imprisonment (8 months in one recent example, 2019). Most states laws are not signed. The ACT the law is clear. All paths can be used by cyclists, pedestrians, but any wheeled vehicle that is not motorised, without exception. Combustion motored vehicles are not permitted on paths of all types. Electric motored skateboards, bikes, mobility devices, and soon scooters ARE permitted. The motors have power limits (not sure what, around 200W). Speed limits apply for footpaths of 25kmh for all e-devices. The liability situation is also clear. If a bike hits a pedestrian the cyclist is always at fault. This is not true on the road for motor vehicles versus cyclists. Road cycling is not all the popular in the ACT but generally permitted unless there is a sign that says otherwise EVEN on motorways in cycle lanes. ACT rules document is called “Road Transport (Road Rules) Regulation 2017” the bike rules are in section 15, page 260, if you would like to read them. https://www.accesscanberra.act.gov.au/app/answers/detail/a_id/1828/related/1/session/L2F2LzEvdGltZS8xNTcwMjI5NzcyL2dlbi8xNTcwMjI5NzcyL3NpZC9mVVY1ZEs5M0Q4aENtcmVyX0kxNDRlWWxfYzFPc1NDMkx1MHZmZEVPbUtVcUhCYmNFSUkwN21OTXU2OEZ4V3NlYnRHWm5hc0NrUU1MQWtvS2NEQTNLVCU3RUt3MU5jcm9SbE5SOXBsSWNBWXRoVVBsWmRKMkZ3VzA0ZyUyMSUyMQ%3D%3D ## Principle 2 Tagging should not be code and be explicit in what it means. If the path is 3m wide we should specify that explicitly and we should not code this as “footpath”. If the width is not rendered, then that is the problem for the renderer. Wide paths are STANDARD now in the ACT. Narrow paths are historical artefacts. Here is how the NEW roads and paths of all types are constructed in the ACT. Look for this document: Municipal Infrastructure Design Standards Part 05 Active Travel Facilities Design (PDF) at the bottom of the page. https://www.tccs.act.gov.au/Development_and_Project_Support/standards-codes-and-guidelines/municipal_infrastructure_design_standards There is NO uniform standard for OLDER paths of any type ACT. They can be any width, made of any material, widely varying quality, no consistency in signage, don’t usually form complete networks, stop and start arbitrarily (particularly at boundaries), there no regular maintenance, and no regular audit of the infrastructure. Practice shows, that the ACT Government builds it and abandons it. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ Am Samstag, 28. September 2019 00:02 schrieb Herbert.Remi : > # Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law > I hope you can help. > (If you open this plain text post to a markdown editor it will be fully > formated. I recommend Typora.) > Abbreviation: ATG - Australian Tagging Guidelines > > ## The Issue > The way you use a map changes the way you see it. I am very interested in > cycling. I am interested in capturing the information for cyclable paths so > that maps can be made for all types of biking, including MTBs. > > The situation for OSM in the ACT for cyclists is unfortunate. The paths you > are allowed to ride with a bike are completely inconsistently tag. The cause > is no logical inconsistency between the ATG, the editor presets, the standard > rendering practice, and finally the many ways creative mappers have tried to > solve the problem in the last decade. > > The last is tragic and frustrating as mappers continually undo other mappers > work and redo the tags their own preferred way. Over time, the path tagging > does not improve but across the ACT become increasingly randomise. Where the > congested areas it happens most often. The paths in Commonwealth Park on Lake > Burley Griffin has been retagged over and over again, many times each year. > Some paths alternate regularly between the footpath and bike path preset, > even though neither applies in the ACT according to the ATG. ☹ > > ### Table of ID Editor presents, path types and rendering for each environment > | ID preset | Correct in the ACT > | tagging | ID > editor line style | Mapnik line style | > | --- | > - | > | > | --
Re: [talk-au] Mapping 'private roads'
I map them with access private because I can see them on aerial images and on the ground. If the path is e.g. behind a high hedge I will limit to the visible part or what I can see on aerial images. I think mapping these roads adds value for everyone who is trying to get to the particular address. Thinking of a delivery vehicle I am even considering if access=permissive would be appropriate. In the end it is not the map that is trespassing but the individual on location that is. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. On 5 October 2019 9:44:47 am AEST, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: >Hi, > >I am in 2 minds about this ... these roads exist so they can be seen. > >They might be usefull navigational features; > >firstly to plot progress along a public road - you have just past this >private road so you must he here on the map. > >secondly for any emergency services - mainly thinking of fire, >particularly of non local fireies. > >Some object as mapping them may encourage inappropriate use.. "its on >my map, so I can use it" is one of the responses. Sigh. > >Adding access=private works for some renders and not others. > >- > >I do like to see the map with all these tracks, even private ones. > >On the other hand I don't want people seeing a line on the map and >thinking they can use it... > >=== > >A middle ground? Show the start of the track and no more??? > >--- From the Aust. Tagging Guidelines > >https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Road_Tagging > >How I would tag farm tracks.. > >"highway=track Gravel fire trails, forest drives, 4WD trails and >similar >roads. " > >Then goes on to > >"highway=service Unnamed access roads. e.g. >Entrance ways and roads in parks, government properties, beach access >etc. Use a short service road where you may want to mark the entrance >to a private/government area, but not map the interior private roads >in detail." > >The problem here is that some raise the "not map the interior >private roads in detail" as not mapping them at all. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mailing lists (was: Re: Discussion H: public transport – the end game)
I too stated that the way he perceives the mailing list and wrote about the interface being poor that this might be due to the email client or settings he is using. Unfortunately there was no reaction to this (as with most of the other post). I agree with Frederick that we should have more patience and how that the olive branch for a personal face to face will be accepted. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. On 2 October 2019 7:23:58 pm AEST, Andy Townsend wrote: >On 02/10/2019 08:19, Edoardo Neerhut wrote: >> it would make sense to limit his communications so we're not >bombarded >> daily with his emails. > >At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, one thing that it is >perhaps worth mentioning is that in most mail clients it's perfectly >possible to "file unseen" certain emails at the recipient end (provided > >you're not reading the digest, of course). I think that I'd struggle >to >make sense of some OSM mailing lists without that as an option. > >Best Regards, > >Andy > > > >___ >Talk-au mailing list >Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapping 'private roads'
As you mention I can see these being useful for emergency services or anyone who has been granted access to private roads/tracks. If you're mapping based on what you can see from the aerial imagery, then I see no issue with mapping these as access=private. On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 at 09:46, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I am in 2 minds about this ... these roads exist so they can be seen. > > They might be usefull navigational features; > > firstly to plot progress along a public road - you have just past this > private road so you must he here on the map. > > secondly for any emergency services - mainly thinking of fire, particularly > of non local fireies. > > Some object as mapping them may encourage inappropriate use.. "its on my map, > so I can use it" is one of the responses. Sigh. > > Adding access=private works for some renders and not others. > > - > > I do like to see the map with all these tracks, even private ones. > > On the other hand I don't want people seeing a line on the map and thinking > they can use it... > > === > > A middle ground? Show the start of the track and no more??? > > --- From the Aust. Tagging Guidelines > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Road_Tagging > > How I would tag farm tracks.. > "highway=track Gravel fire trails, forest drives, 4WD trails and similar > roads. " > > Then goes on to > > "highway=service Unnamed access roads. e.g. > Entrance ways and roads in parks, government properties, beach access > etc. Use a short service road where you may want to mark the entrance > to a private/government area, but not map the interior private roads > in detail." > > The problem here is that some raise the "not map the interior > private roads in detail" as not mapping them at all. > > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapping 'private roads'
Maybe add the tag norender=yes when the owner or responsible body requests that a feature not be rendered. This might apply to private property, illegal tracks on public land , military bases and more. It would be up to individual map renderers whether they would respect the norender request. They might respect the tag differently for example in different countries. I would not render at openstreetmap.org (excluding for example country wide requests) but would render in the ID editor. The downside of my suggestion is that it might be adding another layer of complexity for little real improvement. Tony As you mention I can see these being useful for emergency services or anyone who has been granted access to private roads/tracks. If you're mapping based on what you can see from the aerial imagery, then I see no issue with mapping these as access=private. On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 at 09:46, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, I am in 2 minds about this ... these roads exist so they can be seen. They might be usefull navigational features; firstly to plot progress along a public road - you have just past this private road so you must he here on the map. secondly for any emergency services - mainly thinking of fire, particularly of non local fireies. Some object as mapping them may encourage inappropriate use.. "its on my map, so I can use it" is one of the responses. Sigh. Adding access=private works for some renders and not others. - I do like to see the map with all these tracks, even private ones. On the other hand I don't want people seeing a line on the map and thinking they can use it... === A middle ground? Show the start of the track and no more??? --- From the Aust. Tagging Guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Road_Tagging How I would tag farm tracks.. "highway=track Gravel fire trails, forest drives, 4WD trails and similar roads. " Then goes on to "highway=service Unnamed access roads. e.g. Entrance ways and roads in parks, government properties, beach access etc. Use a short service road where you may want to mark the entrance to a private/government area, but not map the interior private roads in detail." The problem here is that some raise the "not map the interior private roads in detail" as not mapping them at all. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
