Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

On May 25, 2020 15:35:44 Jack Armstrong wrote: I agree with Mateusz Konieczny. If there is some vestige of the object remaining, then mapping it in some way seems reasonable. But, if the railway, building, highway, etc., are completely removed and there are absolutely no visible remains of wha

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

On 27/5/20 11:42 pm, Volker Schmidt wrote: What has been proposed is to add a new way of tagging of what with the present tagging could be:described with highway=path plus sac_scale=hiking with a new combination of highway=path plus path=hiking I don't think that will help. Replacing sac_s

Re: [Tagging] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

Colin Smale wrote: > > In the UK simple trespass to land is not illegal, it is for the landowner to > claim under civil law: "unjustifiable interference with land which is in the > immediate and exclusive possession of another". What constitutes > "unjustifiable" is the key here. Delivering a

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 20:34, Daniel Westergren wrote: > And there is (c) a non-urban trail with legal access for bicycles but in >> practice only usable with a mountain bike but lacking a MTB scale tag as >> the hiker, like me, who mapped it has no clue what MTB scale to put on it. >> > > This i

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

When I used the term ""hiking" path" that was meant inclusive of bicycle (MTB) use, an , in most countries also horses. The default access settings for path in most countries are foot, bicycle, horse On Wed, 27 May 202

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

May 27, 2020, 20:31 by wes...@gmail.com: > Fine with JOSM messing up combined foot- and cycleways (I tried to look, but > couldn't find an issue tracker to discuss that misbehaviour with the JOSM > developers). > https://josm.openstreetmap.de/report available vie "view tickets" tabs at JOSM we

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

> > And there is (c) a non-urban trail with legal access for bicycles but in > practice only usable with a mountain bike but lacking a MTB scale tag as > the hiker, like me, who mapped it has no clue what MTB scale to put on it. > This is likely the default way of interpreting highway=path with no

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

> On May 27, 2020, at 6:42 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > This does not describe the situation > highway=footway is "urban", implies foot=designated, usage can be expanded > with tags like bicycle=yes|permisive||designated to describe mid-use ways > > highway=cycleway implies bicycle=designated,

Re: [Tagging] Change of wiki page Key:access

May 27, 2020, 15:12 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com: > I went back to this edit [1] before the wiki was changed recently. > Back then, bicycle=no was simply defined as "where bicycles are not > permitted." If nothing else is said, then nobody can conclude that > "riding bicycles is not permitted but

Re: [Tagging] Change of wiki page Key:access

May 27, 2020, 18:36 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 6:22 AM Fernando Trebien <> > fernando.treb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > If there really is widespread agreement that bicycle=no should be > treated like bicycle=dismount (plus, perhaps, some treatment when > foot/acc

Re: [Tagging] Change of wiki page Key:access

On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 6:22 AM Fernando Trebien wrote: > > One more thing: the distinction between bicycle=no and > bicycle=dismount has made its way to this important article for > various countries around 2015. [14] > > [14] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restri

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 15:15, Andrew Harvey wrote: > The way I see it is there are two main views of highway=footway,path in > OSM. > > 1. Is that footway is urban and path is remote/forest > 2. Is that footway is for primary walking paths (including remote/forest > paths) and that path is for no

Re: [Tagging] Change of wiki page Key:access

One more thing: the distinction between bicycle=no and bicycle=dismount has made its way to this important article for various countries around 2015. [14] [14] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 10:12 AM Fernando Trebien wrote: >

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

Just to demonstrate that "hiking" paths with sac_scale=mountain_hiking properties and combined foot-cycleways are not mutually exclusive: a real-world Mapillary shot from Padova, a bustling city in the flatlands of the Po Valley (not photosho

Re: [Tagging] Change of wiki page Key:access

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 8:55 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > May 27, 2020, 01:35 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com: > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 1:48 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > May 26, 2020, 18:04 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com: > > Bikes may "pass" in two different ways: r

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 17:15, Daniel Westergren wrote: > Yeah, the main problem is that a path can be anything and everything can > be a path. > > I mostly use JOSM and prefer presets to remember to tag all relevant > attributes. That means that a combined foot- and cycleway becomes a path... > I

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

Daniel Westergren: > And a path should never get surface=paved, asphalt or similar, because > then it's not a path, but a footway or cycleway. > Sorry that's too strict. I often can't tell from the pavement what the use or access is. Lots of paths get an asphalt layer for ease of maintenance, tha

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

> Would it be wrong to set sac_scale=hiking on an urban footway? I’m worried > that we’ll get highway=path, foot=designated, cycle=designated, > surface=paved, width=2.5, lit=yes, rubbish_bins_every=100m, > sac_scale=hiking. > Same with mtb:scale. A footway or cycleway should, in my opinion, neve

Re: [Tagging] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 08:17:20AM +0200, Arne Johannessen wrote: > I interpreted "random person" as meaning "random traffic, not destined > for your uncle's residence". > > But perhaps you meant that the person is in fact a visitor destined > for your uncle's residence – maybe trying to sell some

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

sent from a phone > On 27. May 2020, at 12:44, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > What we are discussing now is how to make sure that a hiking path (not a > foot-cycle-way) is tagged correctly as such. can you explain what you mean by the word hiking path? Is it about the purpose (only useful for h

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

> 27 maj 2020 kl. 12:42 skrev Volker Schmidt : > > > > […]how to indicate that a path is a hiking trail. It has been proposed to > introduce a new value path=trail or path=hiking for that purpose. > As we do already have the sac_scale tagging for level of difficulty of hiking > paths and th

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 11:30, Daniel Westergren wrote: > To confuse things more (or maybe less...), I just realized that iD is > using highway=cycleway, bicycle=designated, foot=designated for a "Cycle > and foot path". But in JOSM, the preset for the same is using > highway=path... Similarly, i

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

To confuse things more (or maybe less...), I just realized that iD is using highway=cycleway, bicycle=designated, foot=designated for a "Cycle and foot path". But in JOSM, the preset for the same is using highway=path... Similarly, iD is using highway=footway as default for a sidewalk. So basicall

Re: [Tagging] Change of wiki page Key:access

On Wed, 27 May 2020 08:26:55 +0200 Colin Smale wrote: > On 2020-05-26 19:31, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > > > May 26, 2020, 19:19 by f...@zz.de: > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 06:46:11PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via > > Tagging wrote: May 26, 2020, 18:04 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com: >

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

> On May 26, 2020, at 9:18 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > For me highway=footway and highway=path without any other tags are the same > thing. Introducing yet another tag for similar paths/footways may lead to > more confused tagging of these things. > I think the use of sub tags

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

Yeah, the main problem is that a path can be anything and everything can be a path. I mostly use JOSM and prefer presets to remember to tag all relevant attributes. That means that a combined foot- and cycleway becomes a path... In Sweden, 99% of all cycleways are open to pedestrians and there are

Re: [Tagging] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

On 2020-05-27 08:17, Arne Johannessen wrote: > Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: May 26, > 2020, 08:28 by a...@thaw.de: Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > Maybe it can be argued that there is implicit permission for delivery > services? > My uncle has farm, with clearly private yard