Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Hi
Gareth, Yes we do! :-) great to have you here. You may have joined the list just after the announcement re the Black Country mapping party on 4/5 April. See the list archive and the wiki page for the event: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mappa_Mercia/Black_Country Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: talk-gb-westmidlands-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb- westmidlands-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Gareth Walker Sent: 19 March 2009 3:15 AM To: talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Hi New here, been meaning to join for a couple of months. Do you need any help mapping out Willenhall? With best regards, Gareth ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
[Talk-GB] Clarifying tagging for footway/cycleway etc
I’ve been trying to work out how OSM can be used to record and display the cycle networks in Oxford. I can get most of the way with the standard tagging in Map Features, but run up a few situations where the tagging doesn’t fit the reality. One of these is the mishmash of tagging rules for footways/cycleways/bridleways/paths. I think what we need is a tagging approach that is simple enough to let newbies tag clearly and reliably, and also simple enough to avoid needing complicated deciphering by renderers. We don’t have that at the moment. As a general principle, I think Key:highway should do most of the work. It should concentrate on describing the physical nature of the way, both because that’s fairly easy to agree on (and the established principle for roads), and because it mostly tells map-users what they want to know. We should leave the legal technicalities, and any unusual access restrictions to subsidiary tags. Path/footway/cycleway/bridleway/track isn’t really descriptive enough, and come laden with assumptions about cycle access (in particular) that currently need to be reviewed when tagging and rendering. I think there’s a need for a highway=cyclefootway tag, for paths that it is legal and practical to cycle on, but which are shared with pedestrians. This leaves highway=cycleway for those paths where either pedestrians have a separate path, or where there’s so much room that nobody’s fussed. Separately from that, I would agree (picking up a discussion on the Talk list), that there should be a designation=footpath/bridleway/permissive_footpath etc tag, to record the legal status where known (usually from a signpost). The main advantage of this is that it avoids polluting the highway key (which is the main one that renderers look at) with potentially misleading right-of-way info (eg footpaths that no-one objects to being cycled on, mudbath bridleways that you would be advised to avoid cycling on). The access tags should be mainly for the routing software, and there to correct the default assumptions generated by the highway tag. I would suggest that the routing software should be assumed to ignore the designation tag, because that’s the simplest approach – keeping the different issues separate. I think the access=designated/permissive tags should be deprecated and instead concentrate on things that are meaningful for routing software, perhaps access=preferred/yes/discouraged/no. I’d like feedback on two things: 1) highway=cyclefootway 2) divorcing the legal status from the highway tag Richard Mann Oxford ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Clarifying tagging for footway/cycleway etc
Richard Mann wrote: Path/footway/cycleway/bridleway/track isn’t really descriptive enough, and come laden with assumptions about cycle access (in particular) that currently need to be reviewed when tagging and rendering. highway=path has no such assumptions. highway=track is totally irrelevant to the discussion (being for motor vehicles), but also has no such assumptions. I’d like feedback on two things: 1) highway=cyclefootway It seems to me that this conflicts with your point 2. If you want to separate the legal access rights from the physical path description, creating a new highway value which only has different access rights. 2) divorcing the legal status from the highway tag Sounds good to me. Isn't this exactly what highway=path does, since it doesn't carry any access implications? -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Clarifying tagging for footway/cycleway etc
On 19 Mar 2009, at 16:32, Ed Loach wrote: highway=path has no such assumptions. I'm not sure that any of the highway= values have assumed permissions. If you tag something as a footway in JOSM it defaults to adding both highway=footway and foot=yes (or at least I think it did in a recent build). So if you have a shared use cycle/footpath where the bicycle and people are above each other white on a blue sign I'd say that I would say that sign should be tagged as highway=cycleway, cycleway=shared, foot=yes highway=cycleway, foot=designated, cycle=designated and highway=footway, foot=designated, cycle=designated are equivalent, and the only difference is in how they render. I tend to sway towards cycleway if they are part of a signposted cycle route, or if there is a preferred cycle route sign anywhere, or footway otherwise. For footpaths on housing estates I'll probably have highway=footway, foot=yes and also add cycle=no where there is a no cycling sign. Personally I think that there should be a way to tag differently, you definitely cannot take your bike on this path, like many gardens, and you need to dismount to continue the next section (usually signified by a cyclists dismount sign. This is why I like to use the bicycle=dismount tag. I like the idea of designation= for distinguishing between these paths on housing estates and the signs which are signposted Public Footpath in England (and perhaps other UK nations) so if OpenFootMap ever takes off they could perhaps be rendered differently. Shaun Ed ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Clarifying tagging for footway/cycleway etc
Kevin Peat wrote: Richard Mann wrote: As a general principle, I think Key:highway should do most of the work. It should concentrate on describing the physical nature of the way... +1 on this...I also think highway should just describe the physical way so probably just: highway=path|track|road With the rest of the stuff split out: Do you think that, just possibly, having to change the tagging on every single road in the database to implement your scheme might make it just a tad impractical... Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Clarifying tagging for footway/cycleway etc
Just an idea, practical doesn't come into it ;- But if we've always done it that way wins out every time then the maps we produce probably aren't going to be as useful as they could be. Kevin Tom Hughes wrote: Kevin Peat wrote: Richard Mann wrote: As a general principle, I think Key:highway should do most of the work. It should concentrate on describing the physical nature of the way... +1 on this...I also think highway should just describe the physical way so probably just: highway=path|track|road With the rest of the stuff split out: Do you think that, just possibly, having to change the tagging on every single road in the database to implement your scheme might make it just a tad impractical... Tom ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Clarifying tagging for footway/cycleway etc
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 07:11:06PM +, Tom Hughes wrote: Do you think that, just possibly, having to change the tagging on every single road in the database to implement your scheme might make it just a tad impractical... Oh, there are only 20‐odd million. Piece of cake ;) Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Clarifying tagging for footway/cycleway etc
Simon Ward wrote: On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 07:11:06PM +, Tom Hughes wrote: Do you think that, just possibly, having to change the tagging on every single road in the database to implement your scheme might make it just a tad impractical... Oh, there are only 20‐odd million. Piece of cake ;) To be fair, it wouldn't really be that hard. It's convincing those who care, and then educating the mappers, that is the hard part. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Clarifying tagging for footway/cycleway etc
2009/3/19 Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net: Simon Ward wrote: On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 07:11:06PM +, Tom Hughes wrote: Do you think that, just possibly, having to change the tagging on every single road in the database to implement your scheme might make it just a tad impractical... Oh, there are only 20‐odd million. Piece of cake ;) To be fair, it wouldn't really be that hard. It's convincing those who care, and then educating the mappers, that is the hard part. -Alex Mauer hawke I care, but for the moment simply getting some roads and paths on the map hereabouts takes priority. Maybe in a year or so when the first pass is done ... Cheers, Jim ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Clarifying tagging for footway/cycleway etc
I'm aware that there's a school of thought that says there should be a lot fewer highway tags, with further details in other tags. Can we not rehearse that debate (please). I'm assuming the lower change option of keeping the diversity of tags (and suggesting the addition of a new one between cycleway and footway) precisely because renderers typically use this diversity. There is a definite difference between a 2m wide path and a 4m wide path, and I think this is a distinction that could sensibly be made. In parallel, moving legal designations to a separate tag, would keep the highway tag doing almost entirely physical stuff, on a rough-and-ready, this-is-what-it's-good-for basis. Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
