Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

[John Smith]

On 27 July 2010 15:59, S.Higashi  wrote:
> How about a fire extinguisher[1]?

I don't think this is a good idea, as they are 2 completely different things...

> Could it be included to fire_hydrant tag?
> Seems the same purpose to me.
> They are equipped by local government mainly along with residential
> roads/living streets for emergency use in Japan.

A fire hydrant is usually hooked up to water mains, where as an
extinguisher has a limited reservoir of either water or some other
chemical cocktail and may be used for various purposes depending on
the type of fire and this information could be very useful, but I'd
tag them separately...

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

[Richard Mann]

Pre-processing isn't really an option for Kosmos, Maperitive,
MapCSS/Halcyon (and judging by the number of rendering tags it spawns)
Osmarender.

Rendering is not something that only the gods do, there are tools
arriving that will make it a lot lot easier to render. When these
people render, they will fix the data so that it renders well. Either
they will fix it in their own way or they'll fix it in a standard way.

This idea that taggers do all the work, and renderers are gods is
s noughties.

Richard

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

[John Smith]

Why do taggers have to compensate for poorly written programs making
use of the data?

On 7/27/10, Richard Mann  wrote:
> Pre-processing isn't really an option for Kosmos, Maperitive,
> MapCSS/Halcyon (and judging by the number of rendering tags it spawns)
> Osmarender.
>
> Rendering is not something that only the gods do, there are tools
> arriving that will make it a lot lot easier to render. When these
> people render, they will fix the data so that it renders well. Either
> they will fix it in their own way or they'll fix it in a standard way.
>
> This idea that taggers do all the work, and renderers are gods is
> s noughties.
>
> Richard
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

[David Earl]

On 27/07/2010 10:21, John Smith wrote:

Why do taggers have to compensate for poorly written programs making
use of the data?


Why does the data model have to make it so difficult for data consumers 
in the first place?


You cannot tell from our data model whether a bridge supports two ways 
or whether there are two parallel bridges, unless you, the tagger, says 
so (in a relation, on which there is no common agreement). e.g.: 
http://osm.org/go/0EQSjpjFr-- where the two roads are actually on 
*separate* bridges,. but the cycleway to the north shares the northern 
bridge with the road. Even if you did this as a separate polygon (which 
there is no support for in any of our software and would be a big burden 
on data producers, and doesn't take account of the hundreds of thousands 
of bridges already out there), you'd still need the relation for 
applications other than just rendering.


You *can* tell which ways go underneath a bridge without tagging help. 
But you *can't* do it fast as it requires a search and some moderately 
complicated geometry. No doubt you want fast rendering as well as 
efficient tagging.


You cannot tell from our model, without additional information such as a 
relation, whether two parallel ways are part of a dual carriageway or 
just parallel roads.


You cannot reliably tell which street a property fronts onto.

You can't even easily tell what a street is. Yes you can deduce it, but 
I now regret the loss of segments that cause streets to be broken up 
into dozens of ways. It's not the renderer that's poorly written here, 
nor the tagger, it's the data model that forces vast amounts of 
heuristic code onto the consumer just to tell what a street is.


David

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

[John Smith]

On 27 July 2010 20:27, David Earl  wrote:
> Why does the data model have to make it so difficult for data consumers in
> the first place?

So this is another case of the current API limiting things?

I'd love to be able to micromap lanes, not just ways, which might fix
the problem of parallel ways over the same physical bridge, but I
can't.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

[David Earl]

On 27/07/2010 11:51, John Smith wrote:

On 27 July 2010 20:27, David Earl  wrote:

Why does the data model have to make it so difficult for data consumers in
the first place?


So this is another case of the current API limiting things?

I'd love to be able to micromap lanes, not just ways, which might fix
the problem of parallel ways over the same physical bridge, but I
can't.


It's not the API. The tagging is scheme is very general indeed, a 
"Turing machine of maps".


You could invent a tagging scheme that would let you model lanes. You 
could, for example, create a way tagged

  highway=lane
or
  lane=1 [2, 3, ...]
or some such - certainly needs some thought - maybe qualified with who 
can use it (access=psv ?), and so on, link all the lanes of a road 
together with a relation you also invent, and to the original road as 
well, which I'm sure we'd all prefer you didn't remove!


That's exactly how the house addressing "Karlsruhe schema" came into being.

You don't need anyone's permission to do this. If you do a good job and 
promote it, it might catch on.


Ideally we'd have tools in the editors to make this easier. A JOSM 
plugin would no doubt help in its adoption.


As someone said at the conference, it's a do-ocracy - just do it!

David

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

[David Earl]

On 27/07/2010 12:05, David Earl wrote:

... You don't need anyone's permission to do this. If you do a good job and
promote it, it might catch on...


which is one of the key reasons why I think Tag Central [1] would help us.

David

[1] http://www.frankieandshadow.com/sotm10/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

[John Smith]

On 27 July 2010 21:05, David Earl  wrote:
> You could invent a tagging scheme that would let you model lanes. You could,
> for example, create a way tagged
>  highway=lane
> or
>  lane=1 [2, 3, ...]
> or some such - certainly needs some thought - maybe qualified with who can
> use it (access=psv ?), and so on, link all the lanes of a road together with
> a relation you also invent, and to the original road as well, which I'm sure
> we'd all prefer you didn't remove!

The problem with doing something like this is, as show by admin
boundary debacles, is this is too brittle and too easily broken by
newbies. Whatever someone comes up with needs to be almost
transparent/hidden from everyone, except those that actually care
about it.

I'd love nothing more than to be able to widen the current ways at
nodes to the width of roads seen from aerial imagery and then be able
to twiddle about with lanes and line them up with actual road markings
etc and being able to tag lanes that can turn and lanes that can't,
yes you could do a plugin in JOSM, but without changes to the API the
first newbie that comes along would break it.

Same goes for 4D editing, and historical maps, historical data would
need to be hidden by the API unless the user specifically requests it.

> That's exactly how the house addressing "Karlsruhe schema" came into being.

It doesn't conflict with anything else, so this isn't quite the same thing.

> You don't need anyone's permission to do this. If you do a good job and
> promote it, it might catch on.

It's not about permission, it's the fact that nothing that anyone has
come up with is substandard and likely to get broken by others...

> As someone said at the conference, it's a do-ocracy - just do it!

Maybe so, but not all of us have the technical ability needed to pull
some of these more advanced concepts off...

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

[John Smith]

On 27 July 2010 21:27, David Earl  wrote:
> On 27/07/2010 12:05, David Earl wrote:
>>
>> ... You don't need anyone's permission to do this. If you do a good job
>> and
>> promote it, it might catch on...
>
> which is one of the key reasons why I think Tag Central [1] would help us.

How would that help with some of these very complex cartography techniques?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

[David Earl]

On 27/07/2010 12:30, John Smith wrote:

On 27 July 2010 21:27, David Earl  wrote:

On 27/07/2010 12:05, David Earl wrote:


... You don't need anyone's permission to do this. If you do a good job
and
promote it, it might catch on...


which is one of the key reasons why I think Tag Central [1] would help us.


How would that help with some of these very complex cartography techniques?


It was the "promotion" bit I was getting at. Doing it is one thing, 
getting it widely known is another.


David

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

[Bill Ricker]

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 3:12 AM, John Smith  wrote:
>> How about a fire extinguisher[1]?
> I don't think this is a good idea, as they are 2 completely different 
> things...
> t... but I'd > tag them separately...

+1

-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

[John F. Eldredge]

I agree that fire hydrants and fire extinguishers should be tagged differently. 
 While both are used for putting out fires, fire extinguishers (a) are limited 
to use on smaller fires, and (b) are useful by themselves, whereas you need a 
suitable hose in order to use a fire hydrant )and so are of use to 
firefighters, but not the general public).

Using the same tag for both could cost lives, by making delays in finding the 
necessary equipment (fire hydrant or fire extinguisher) to fight the fire in 
question.

---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant
>From  :mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
Date  :Tue Jul 27 02:12:28 America/Chicago 2010


On 27 July 2010 15:59, S.Higashi  wrote:
> How about a fire extinguisher[1]?

I don't think this is a good idea, as they are 2 completely different things...

> Could it be included to fire_hydrant tag?
> Seems the same purpose to me.
> They are equipped by local government mainly along with residential
> roads/living streets for emergency use in Japan.

A fire hydrant is usually hooked up to water mains, where as an
extinguisher has a limited reservoir of either water or some other
chemical cocktail and may be used for various purposes depending on
the type of fire and this information could be very useful, but I'd
tag them separately...

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
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
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

[John Smith]

On 27 July 2010 22:33, John F. Eldredge  wrote:
> Using the same tag for both could cost lives, by making delays in finding the 
> necessary equipment (fire hydrant or fire extinguisher) to fight the fire in 
> question.

While it may be useful to tag these things on OSM, I don't think
anyone could or should be using OSM for life threatening emergency
help in any way shape or form.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

[David Earl]

On 27/07/2010 13:51, John Smith wrote:

On 27 July 2010 22:33, John F. Eldredge  wrote:

Using the same tag for both could cost lives, by making delays in
finding the necessary equipment (fire hydrant or fire extinguisher)
to fight the fire in question.


While it may be useful to tag these things on OSM, I don't think
anyone could or should be using OSM for life threatening emergency
help in any way shape or form.


Like an earthquake in Haiti, for example,...

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

[Emilie Laffray]

On 27 July 2010 13:51, John Smith  wrote:

> On 27 July 2010 22:33, John F. Eldredge  wrote:
> > Using the same tag for both could cost lives, by making delays in finding
> the necessary equipment (fire hydrant or fire extinguisher) to fight the
> fire in question.
>
> While it may be useful to tag these things on OSM, I don't think
> anyone could or should be using OSM for life threatening emergency
> help in any way shape or form.
>
>
There are actually projects currently going to tag them in different places
in the world (there is one such project currently going in France).
Whether to use OSM in life threatening emergency is a different discussion
with a particular focus on liability. It is a rather large discussion not
limited to fire hydrants.

Emilie Laffray
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

[Peteris Krisjanis]

2010/7/27 John Smith :
> On 27 July 2010 22:33, John F. Eldredge  wrote:
>> Using the same tag for both could cost lives, by making delays in finding 
>> the necessary equipment (fire hydrant or fire extinguisher) to fight the 
>> fire in question.
>
> While it may be useful to tag these things on OSM, I don't think
> anyone could or should be using OSM for life threatening emergency
> help in any way shape or form.
>

Why not? As any other map, it has to be taken with piece of salt, but
if data are collected honestly and firefighters knows it, it can be
very valuable. Even more - it would be nice if firefighters would use
OSM as reference for themselves (having osm file copy somewhere of
course).

Cheers,
Peter.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

[John Smith]

On 27 July 2010 23:05, Peteris Krisjanis  wrote:
> Why not? As any other map, it has to be taken with piece of salt

Typical CYA legal stuff, that is unless you want to be personally
liable for mistakes you make which cost someone their life...

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

[John Smith]

On 27 July 2010 22:58, David Earl  wrote:
> Like an earthquake in Haiti, for example,...

I'd rather not be sued because someone thought they might be able to
do something with the data that turned out to be false...

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

[Anthony]

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 6:27 AM, David Earl  wrote:
> You cannot tell from our model, without additional information such as a
> relation, whether two parallel ways are part of a dual carriageway or just
> parallel roads.

What's the difference?  Just whether or not they have the same name?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

[Anthony]

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:29 AM, John Smith  wrote:
> I'd love nothing more than to be able to widen the current ways at
> nodes to the width of roads seen from aerial imagery and then be able
> to twiddle about with lanes and line them up with actual road markings
> etc and being able to tag lanes that can turn and lanes that can't,
> yes you could do a plugin in JOSM, but without changes to the API the
> first newbie that comes along would break it.

If someone actually did make such a plugin, I think any necessary
changes to the API would be approved rather quickly.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

[David Earl]

On 27/07/2010 15:58, Anthony wrote:

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 6:27 AM, David Earl  wrote:

You cannot tell from our model, without additional information such as a
relation, whether two parallel ways are part of a dual carriageway or just
parallel roads.


What's the difference?  Just whether or not they have the same name?


That's not sufficient. You'd have to do some kind of heuristic test to 
see whether they were approximately parallel as well, because there are 
often bits of the same (named) street elsewhere in the vicinity which 
aren't dual carriageway. More complicated geometry that could be solved 
by modelling.


But you're right to some extent, so I revise my statement: "You cannot 
*easily and accurately* tell from our model..."


David

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/7/27 David Earl :
> On 27/07/2010 10:21, John Smith wrote:
>>
>> Why do taggers have to compensate for poorly written programs making
>> use of the data?
>
> Why does the data model have to make it so difficult for data consumers in
> the first place?
>
> You cannot tell from our data model whether a bridge supports two ways or
> whether there are two parallel bridges, unless you, the tagger, says so (in
> a relation, on which there is no common agreement).

Yes, I agree and think, we should come to a common agreement here.
THere is also the problem, that the bridge itself might (or mostly
has) have a name. It also covers an area, has middle supports or not,
is built in a certain construction type, etc. There is lots of details
we currently don't care for, but might do so in the future. I think
that there is definitely space for a bridge-relation to deal with all
these informations and bring them together. An alternative might be to
draw an (additional) polygon for the bridge area in projection (with
common nodes on the start and end) and tag it appropriately with name
and other details.

I did this once in the past (but not to the full detail):
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/42922473

Probably I'd prefer relations as they do not require geometry that is
hardly available if you don't have good enough aerial imagery. In the
case you do have the geometry you could attach it to the relation as
well.

cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

[Anthony]

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:06 AM, David Earl  wrote:
> On 27/07/2010 15:58, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 6:27 AM, David Earl
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> You cannot tell from our model, without additional information such as a
>>> relation, whether two parallel ways are part of a dual carriageway or
>>> just
>>> parallel roads.
>>
>> What's the difference?  Just whether or not they have the same name?
>
> That's not sufficient. You'd have to do some kind of heuristic test to see
> whether they were approximately parallel as well

You said they were parallel.  Twice in fact.

> But you're right to some extent, so I revise my statement: "You cannot
> *easily and accurately* tell from our model..."

Personally I think the name of the road should be part of a relation
which consists of all ways which make the road, not tagged on every
single way individually.  If that's what you're getting at, I agree.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

[Simone Saviolo]

2010/7/27 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer :
> 2010/7/27 David Earl :
>> On 27/07/2010 10:21, John Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> Why do taggers have to compensate for poorly written programs making
>>> use of the data?
>>
>> Why does the data model have to make it so difficult for data consumers in
>> the first place?
>>
>> You cannot tell from our data model whether a bridge supports two ways or
>> whether there are two parallel bridges, unless you, the tagger, says so (in
>> a relation, on which there is no common agreement).
>
> Yes, I agree and think, we should come to a common agreement here.
> THere is also the problem, that the bridge itself might (or mostly
> has) have a name. It also covers an area, has middle supports or not,
> is built in a certain construction type, etc. There is lots of details
> we currently don't care for, but might do so in the future. I think
> that there is definitely space for a bridge-relation to deal with all
> these informations and bring them together. An alternative might be to
> draw an (additional) polygon for the bridge area in projection (with
> common nodes on the start and end) and tag it appropriately with name
> and other details.
>
> I did this once in the past (but not to the full detail):
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/42922473
>
> Probably I'd prefer relations as they do not require geometry that is
> hardly available if you don't have good enough aerial imagery. In the
> case you do have the geometry you could attach it to the relation as
> well.

+1
We've had a recent discussion on this matter on talk-it, and the
bridge relation came up there too. I, for one, support the idea and
hope to see the relation approved and used.

> cheers,
> Martin

Regards,

Simone

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

[Alan Mintz]

At 2010-07-27 06:18, John Smith wrote:

On 27 July 2010 22:58, David Earl  wrote:
> Like an earthquake in Haiti, for example,...

I'd rather not be sued because someone thought they might be able to
do something with the data that turned out to be false...


Doesn't our use license include a hold-harmless clause? If not, why not? 
Not that there's much in the way of assets anyway.


It seems already that public entities are interested in OSM. If we can keep 
those from being purely one-way forks, and manage to keep vandalism 
(intentional or not) at bay, there is certainly the potential to have 
extremely accurate maps of things (like hydrants, exits, extinguishers) 
that may not exist anywhere else. I'd certainly find that welcome in a 
bullding that's on fire.


--
Alan Mintz 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

[John F. Eldredge]

Yes, but my point was that fire extinguishers are not interchangeable with fire 
hydrants.  If you don't have a fire hose on hand, a fire hydrant won't be of 
any benefit to you, but a fire extinguisher might be of use.  Also, if the fire 
has already grown beyond what can be put out with a fire extinguisher can 
handle, but you do have a fire hose on hand, you need to know the location of 
the nearest fire hydrant, not of the nearest fire extinguisher.  If both fire 
hydrants and fire extinguishers are tagged identically, then you won't know 
from looking at a map which is which.

---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant
>From  :mailto:alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net
Date  :Tue Jul 27 12:29:25 America/Chicago 2010


At 2010-07-27 06:18, John Smith wrote:
>On 27 July 2010 22:58, David Earl  wrote:
> > Like an earthquake in Haiti, for example,...
>
>I'd rather not be sued because someone thought they might be able to
>do something with the data that turned out to be false...

Doesn't our use license include a hold-harmless clause? If not, why not?
Not that there's much in the way of assets anyway.

It seems already that public entities are interested in OSM. If we can keep
those from being purely one-way forks, and manage to keep vandalism
(intentional or not) at bay, there is certainly the potential to have
extremely accurate maps of things (like hydrants, exits, extinguishers)
that may not exist anywhere else. I'd certainly find that welcome in a
building that's on fire.

--
Alan Mintz 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
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
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

[Alan Mintz]

At 2010-07-27 11:41, John F. Eldredge wrote:
Yes, but my point was that fire extinguishers are not interchangeable with 
fire hydrants.


I did not quote, and was not arguing with, that.

I agree that hydrants and extinguishers should be tagged differently.



At 2010-07-27 06:18, John Smith wrote:
>On 27 July 2010 22:58, David Earl  wrote:
> > Like an earthquake in Haiti, for example,...
>
>I'd rather not be sued because someone thought they might be able to
>do something with the data that turned out to be false...

Doesn't our use license include a hold-harmless clause? If not, why not?
Not that there's much in the way of assets anyway.

It seems already that public entities are interested in OSM. If we can keep
those from being purely one-way forks, and manage to keep vandalism
(intentional or not) at bay, there is certainly the potential to have
extremely accurate maps of things (like hydrants, exits, extinguishers)
that may not exist anywhere else. I'd certainly find that welcome in a
building that's on fire.


--
Alan Mintz 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

[Liz]

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, Anthony wrote:
> > That's not sufficient. You'd have to do some kind of heuristic test to
> > see whether they were approximately parallel as well
> 
> You said they were parallel.  Twice in fact.

but not all dual carriageways are parallel so the heuristics have to cover 
that possibility as well
example
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-34.7699&lon=148.812&zoom=14&layers=M

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

[Richard Welty]

 On 7/27/10 8:33 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote:

I agree that fire hydrants and fire extinguishers should be tagged differently. 
 While both are used for putting out fires, fire extinguishers (a) are limited 
to use on smaller fires, and (b) are useful by themselves, whereas you need a 
suitable hose in order to use a fire hydrant )and so are of use to 
firefighters, but not the general public).
i'm uncertain about the case for fire extinguishers -- they're small and 
portable.

please provide scenarios where tagging extinguishers is meaningful.

richard


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

[John F. Eldredge]

S. Higashi stated, earlier in the thread, that the Japanese government provided 
fire extinguisher stations along some residential streets, and posted a link to 
a photograph: 
.  Such a 
fire extinguisher station would be useful to map, as you would be likely to 
find a fire extinguisher there.

---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant
>From  :mailto:rwe...@averillpark.net
Date  :Tue Jul 27 17:40:28 America/Chicago 2010


  On 7/27/10 8:33 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> I agree that fire hydrants and fire extinguishers should be tagged 
> differently.  While both are used for putting out fires, fire extinguishers 
> (a) are limited to use on smaller fires, and (b) are useful by themselves, 
> whereas you need a suitable hose in order to use a fire hydrant )and so are 
> of use to firefighters, but not the general public).
i'm uncertain about the case for fire extinguishers -- they're small and
portable.
please provide scenarios where tagging extinguishers is meaningful.

richard


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
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
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

[Ulf Lamping]

Am 28.07.2010 00:40, schrieb Richard Welty:

On 7/27/10 8:33 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote:

I agree that fire hydrants and fire extinguishers should be tagged
differently. While both are used for putting out fires, fire
extinguishers (a) are limited to use on smaller fires, and (b) are
useful by themselves, whereas you need a suitable hose in order to use
a fire hydrant )and so are of use to firefighters, but not the general
public).

i'm uncertain about the case for fire extinguishers -- they're small and
portable.
please provide scenarios where tagging extinguishers is meaningful.


They usually have a dedicated place where they have to be, very often 
mounted on a wall and might even be specially marked so people can find 
them better. Industrial plants often have these outside of buildings.


Of course, not all of them are worth being mapped, e.g. we're hopefully 
not talking about fire extinguishers mounted on a truck ;-)


Regards, ULFL

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

[Richard Welty]

 On 7/27/10 6:57 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote:

S. Higashi stated, earlier in the thread, that the Japanese government provided fire 
extinguisher stations along some residential streets, and posted a link to a 
photograph:.  
Such a fire extinguisher station would be useful to map, as you would be likely to 
find a fire extinguisher there.

ok. i've not previously seen any sort of "public" fire extinguisher station,
the concept is a bit new to me.

richard


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

[S.Higashi]

I also agree that hydrants and extinguishers should be tagged differently.
I'll try to write another wiki proposal page. (My first trial!)
Then, which tag key should I use "emergency" or "amenity"?

>   On 7/27/10 6:57 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
>> S. Higashi stated, earlier in the thread, that the Japanese government
>> provided fire extinguisher stations along some residential streets, and
>> posted a link to a
>> photograph:.
>>  Such a fire extinguisher station would be useful to map, as you would be
>> likely to find a fire extinguisher there.
> ok. i've not previously seen any sort of "public" fire extinguisher station,
> the concept is a bit new to me.
>
> richard
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

[Richard Welty]

 On 7/27/10 11:31 PM, S.Higashi wrote:

I also agree that hydrants and extinguishers should be tagged differently.
I'll try to write another wiki proposal page. (My first trial!)
Then, which tag key should I use "emergency" or "amenity"?

personally, i like the idea of moving to emergency=*

there is a whole suite of emergency related things that are not currently
handled, for example, in the US, EMS services are frequently housed
separately from fire departments and there's no tag codified for that
at present that i know of.

richard


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] emergency=*

[John Smith]

On 28 July 2010 13:51, Richard Welty  wrote:
> there is a whole suite of emergency related things that are not currently
> handled, for example, in the US, EMS services are frequently housed
> separately from fire departments and there's no tag codified for that
> at present that i know of.

People usually default to amenity=* when all else fails.

In Australia the ambulance service is a completely different
organisation to fire and police and I can almost bet some would be
tagged amenity=ambulance or amenity=ambulance_station... That isn't to
say we should keep doing this if nothing else has been documented or
used extensively...

We also have SES (State Emergency Service) which is a volunteer
organisation that helps during all other types of natural disasters
and emergencies not covered by the other 3, like when roofs are blown
off, or flooding traps people and animals etc...

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] emergency=*

[Steve Bennett]

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 3:19 PM, John Smith  wrote:
> In Australia the ambulance service is a completely different
> organisation to fire and police and I can almost bet some would be
> tagged amenity=ambulance or amenity=ambulance_station... That isn't to
> say we should keep doing this if nothing else has been documented or
> used extensively...

Coming up with tagging schemes for stuff like this hard, because of
the different ways different countries group stuff. I was recently in
an ambulance in France, and chatting with the people inside I was
surprised to learn that in addition to being ambulance officers they
also acted as firemen: they were "sapeurs-pompiers", and were employed
by the local council. They contrasted themselves with "ambulanciers"
who are employed by a hospital.

The right long term solution for this stuff is to use country-specific
tags, (eg, in australia we could use amenity=ses_station or
something), and to centrally define (in machine-readable terms) what
those country-specific tags are. But I think we're a fair way from
being able to implement anything like that at present.

Steve

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

[Colin Smale]

 I think there might be more types of "public fire control 
equipment"... I remember often seeing fire beaters (broomstick with 
flaps of rubber/leather) in a rack on moor and heathland prone to fires. 
Maybe amenity=fire_beater can be added to the proposal?


Colin

On 28/07/2010 02:41, Richard Welty wrote:

 On 7/27/10 6:57 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
S. Higashi stated, earlier in the thread, that the Japanese 
government provided fire extinguisher stations along some residential 
streets, and posted a link to a 
photograph:.  
Such a fire extinguisher station would be useful to map, as you would 
be likely to find a fire extinguisher there.
ok. i've not previously seen any sort of "public" fire extinguisher 
station,

the concept is a bit new to me.

richard


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging