Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features

[James Livingston]

On 17/08/2010, at 2:09 AM, Matthias Meißer wrote:
> Yes soft moderation by the community but therefore the community needs some 
> central space and some guidelines. You already see the lack of voters, just 
> cause it's to decentral communication atm.

It's also because some people (myself included) actively dislike voting in it's 
current form, and don't pay attention to it.

The last time I added something to the wiki, I looked to see if something was 
already there describing how to tag the thing in question, and after finding 
there wasn't I create a page documenting what I did. I didn't put it under 
Proposed because I wasn't proposing anything and certainly didn't want to do 
any of that stupid voting thing, just documenting how I used it in case someone 
else was interested.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Wiki q: rolling many proposals into one

[Tom Chance]

Hello,

Following discussion about power tagging, I'd like to propose several things
in one go:

- A couple of new tags
- Changing all the power_* tags to power:* tags, to make them more
object-oriented

So we would go from:

power=generator
power_rating
power_source (changed by proposals)
power_output (proposal)
power_method (proposal)

To:

power=generator
power:rating
power:source
power:output
power:method

(or perhaps generator:* ?)

Can I create one proposal page on the wiki to encompass all three changes -
two new tags and a change to the way existing tags are written?

It would certainly save a lot of time and emphasise that I am proposing a
systematic improvement of power tagging, not just a new tag.

Regards,
Tom


-- 
http://tom.acrewoods.net   http://twitter.com/tom_chance
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features

[digi_c]

I see your point James, so might moving /Proposed to a more general term 
solve a part of the problem?
I agree that voting isn't a very nice sollution for acceptance of an idea 
but I like the style of having a garage where everybody is free to see my 
idea and to extend it :)


regards
Matthias 



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

Re: [Tagging] Wiki q: rolling many proposals into one

[digi_c]

Hi Tom,

to me this sounds very good. I recommend to ask user:Bahnpirat before, and 
invite him to work on this proposal. He makes the whole power=* rendering 
things...


regards
Matthias 



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

Re: [Tagging] Wiki q: rolling many proposals into one

[Tom Chance]

On 19 August 2010 11:24, digi_c  wrote:

> to me this sounds very good. I recommend to ask user:Bahnpirat before, and
> invite him to work on this proposal. He makes the whole power=* rendering
> things...
>
>
Thanks, I will do that.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
http://tom.acrewoods.net   http://twitter.com/tom_chance
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 08:40:13 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Anthony
>  wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Paul Johnson
>>  wrote:
>>> The way I've been handling this is to stretch the limits of the
>>> bicycle=destination tag; if it's more major than residential, open to
>>> bicycles, but lacks shoulders and has narrow lanes or on-street
>>> parking, then I tag it bicycle=destination (unless it qualifies for
>>> cycleway=lane).
>>
>> Please don't do that.
> 
> Agreed. *=destination means local traffic only; I've removed the tag.

Please stop doing that.  While the cycle network is not fully mapped in 
the area, impeding it's progress by reverting routes that are local only 
because there is an immediately adjacent cycleway or bicycle boulevard 
under Oregon law ORS 814.420 is not helpful or necessary.  As the Data 
Working Group pointed out, it's also extremely poor form to revert work 
done by people who actually know the area, especially when the person 
doing the reverting has never even set foot in said area (as evidenced by 
your lack of GPX tracks).

Feel free to hire a lawyer who has passed the Oregon bar if you want to 
try to continue down this path; otherwise you're simply vandalizing the 
map and discouraging anyone local from editing.  Stick to what you 
actually know.


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

Re: [Tagging] Is cycleway:right=lane necessary on a one-way street?

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/8/19 Steve Bennett :
> A single cycle lane which can be ridden in both directions:
> oneway=yes
> cycleway=opposite_lane
> (or cycleway:right=opposite_lane for more precision)


but doesn't this not just reduce the bike traffic to the opposite
direction? Would you say that the oneway direction is already
implicit? Maybe adding a cycleway:lanes=2 could clarify (at least for
humans). Btw.: when adding lanes-tag to highways: do you count
cycleway-lanes?

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?

[Anthony]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Ed Loach  wrote:
> Anthony:
>
>> Ugh, another point:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_
>> Categories
>>
>> Putting all the elements which have addresses referencing a
>> street
>> into a relation seems to me to violate that principle.
>
> No. There is a relation between the houses and the street. You don't
> need addr:street on the houses if you have it on the relation. You
> could argue that putting all the ways that make up a street into a
> single street relation is also just using a relation as a category
> if you think that of associatedStreet, in which case the answer to
> the subject of this thread is "none of them".

Moved to the tagging list.

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?

[Anthony]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Ed Loach  wrote:
> Anthony:
>
>> Ugh, another point:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_
>> Categories
>>
>> Putting all the elements which have addresses referencing a
>> street
>> into a relation seems to me to violate that principle.
>
> No. There is a relation between the houses and the street. You don't
> need addr:street on the houses if you have it on the relation. You
> could argue that putting all the ways that make up a street into a
> single street relation is also just using a relation as a category
> if you think that of associatedStreet, in which case the answer to
> the subject of this thread is "none of them".

Of course they have a relation.  However, the relation is like the one
between HSBC and its ATMs.  It is an exclusive relation - an address
only refers to one streeet.

On the other hand, a way can be part of multiple streets.

The answer to this thread is "none of them".  All the proposals have problems.

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

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

[Anthony]

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 08:40:13 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Anthony
>>  wrote:
>>> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Paul Johnson
>>>  wrote:
 The way I've been handling this is to stretch the limits of the
 bicycle=destination tag; if it's more major than residential, open to
 bicycles, but lacks shoulders and has narrow lanes or on-street
 parking, then I tag it bicycle=destination (unless it qualifies for
 cycleway=lane).
>>>
>>> Please don't do that.
>>
>> Agreed. *=destination means local traffic only; I've removed the tag.
>
> Please stop doing that.  While the cycle network is not fully mapped in
> the area, impeding it's progress by reverting routes that are local only
> because there is an immediately adjacent cycleway or bicycle boulevard
> under Oregon law ORS 814.420 is not helpful or necessary.

I must point out that you made no mention in your original post about
there being "an immediately adjacent cycleway or bicycle boulevard".
That makes all the difference.  (And in fact, you said the streets are
"open to bicycles".)

I apologize for not being more clear.  By "please don't do that" I do
not mean to "revert all instances of Paul using bicycle=destination".
I hope you will take a look at your uses of bicycle=destination
yourself, and self-revert any places where you were "stretching the
limits".

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

Re: [Tagging] Vacant shop tagging...

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/8/19 Craig Wallace :
>> IMHO a shop is a shop because it is officially commercial space (and
>> not residential), it has a separate entrance (usually from the
>> street), it has appropriate windows, etc. Of course there might be
>> exceptions, but I think you get it.
>
> I disagree. A shop is by definition a place selling products or services.
> And if its empty its not doing that.
> Yes, it might still be commercial space, so within an area of landuse=retail
> or whatever, but its not a shop.


IMHO it is a shop, but maybe this is language dependant. Would you
apply the same criteria to an appartment, i.e. an appartment where
noboby lives is not an appartment?


>>> ie use a separate namespace, so tag it something like disused:shop=yes
>>> Then it can be easily ignored by applications that just want to show
>>> currently existing shops, or rendered differently etc.
>>
>> that's a good idea as well, and very versatile.
>
> Yes, plus it would allow tagging other disused things. eg disused:amenity=
> for things like cafes, pubs, postboxes, phoneboxes etc, which I think would
> be useful.
> Or you could tag what sort of disused shop it is (or was). eg
> disused:shop=supermarket or whatever.


+1

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] Vacant shop tagging...

[John F. Eldredge]

One distinction sometimes made in American English is between "shop" (meaning a 
retail business) and "storefront" (the location in which such a business is 
typically located, particularly if it is within a larger building).  For 
example, if a professional office is located among a group of stores in a 
shared building, it is referred to as a storefront office.

---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [Tagging] Vacant shop tagging...
>From  :mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com
Date  :Thu Aug 19 07:53:11 America/Chicago 2010


2010/8/19 Craig Wallace :
>> IMHO a shop is a shop because it is officially commercial space (and
>> not residential), it has a separate entrance (usually from the
>> street), it has appropriate windows, etc. Of course there might be
>> exceptions, but I think you get it.
>
> I disagree. A shop is by definition a place selling products or services.
> And if its empty its not doing that.
> Yes, it might still be commercial space, so within an area of landuse=retail
> or whatever, but its not a shop.


IMHO it is a shop, but maybe this is language dependant. Would you
apply the same criteria to an appartment, i.e. an appartment where
noboby lives is not an appartment?


>>> ie use a separate namespace, so tag it something like disused:shop=yes
>>> Then it can be easily ignored by applications that just want to show
>>> currently existing shops, or rendered differently etc.
>>
>> that's a good idea as well, and very versatile.
>
> Yes, plus it would allow tagging other disused things. eg disused:amenity=
> for things like cafes, pubs, postboxes, phoneboxes etc, which I think would
> be useful.
> Or you could tag what sort of disused shop it is (or was). eg
> disused:shop=supermarket or whatever.


+1

cheers,
Martin

___
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] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

[Dave F.]

 On 18/08/2010 23:39, Paul Johnson wrote:

On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 08:40:13 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:


On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Anthony
  wrote:

On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Paul Johnson
  wrote:

The way I've been handling this is to stretch the limits of the
bicycle=destination tag; if it's more major than residential, open to
bicycles, but lacks shoulders and has narrow lanes or on-street
parking, then I tag it bicycle=destination (unless it qualifies for
cycleway=lane).

Please don't do that.

Agreed. *=destination means local traffic only; I've removed the tag.

it's also extremely poor form to revert work
done by people who actually know the area,


It's also "poor form" to mis-use tags & therefore corrupt the map.

There appears to be clear consensus here that your using  *=destination 
incorrectly. Please stop doing that & revert any edits you've made.


Dave F.

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

[Tagging] ISWC Workshop, Semantic Repositories, SERES.

[Alexander Garcia Castro]

Natasha Noy, Peter Yim and Jeff Pan will be at our round table discussion.
Keynote speakers: Natasha Noy and Peter Yim

==

CALL FOR PAPERS
==

1st International Workshop on Semantic Repositories for the Web (SERES 2010)

http://www.ontologydynamics.org/od/index.php/seres2010/


at the 9th International Semantic Web Conference

Natasha Noy and Peter Yim will be our keynote speakers at the 1st
International Workshop on Semantic Repositories for the Web (SERES 2010).


  http://iswc2010.semanticweb.org

November 7, 2010, in Shanghai, China
==



Ontologies and Linked Data vocabularies are being actively developed and
used by numerous applications. Several domains are making their vocabularies
available for others to reuse. In addition, good practices when developing
ontologies are often followed, particularly for producing reusable modules.
The Semantic Web is a modular and highly federated environment of reusable
knowledge sources; these provide the meaning so that SW applications change
our experience of the web. Within this context, the need for repositories
delivering the added value that makes the SW a concrete step beyond our
current experience of the web is palpable. SERES addresses issues around
semantic repositories within the context of the SW.



The number of ontologies being built and made available for reuse has
increased steadily in the last few years. Semantic Web search engines such
as Swoogle  and
Watson currently
index several tens of thousands of them; there are also systems specifically
designed to support the publication of ontologies, e.g.
Cupboard
, NCBO Bioportal , and
ONKI.
Some tools also support editing features, e.g.
Neologism
, Knoo dl . While being a foundation
for the Semantic Web, this new environment where ontologies are shared and
interlinked online also poses new challenges; fostering thus a number of
research projects aiming to understand, amongst others, ontology reuse,
storage, publication, versioning, quality control, evaluation, retrieval and
modularization. For instance, as part of the EU NeOn
project new
tools supporting Knowledge Engineering in the age of “networked ontologies”
have been developed, while in the EU OASIS project approaches from software
engineering and formalization are now also being applied to inter-connect
ontologies. Moreover, despite initial efforts, ontology repositories are
hardly interoperable *amongst themselves*. Although sharing similar aims
(providing easy access to Semantic Web resources), they diverge in the
methods and techniques employed for gathering these documents and making
them available; each interprets and uses metadata in a different manner.
Furthermore, many features are still poorly supported; for instance,
modularization, versioning, and the relationship between ontology
repositories and ontology engineering environments (editors) to support the
entire ontology lifecycle.



By the same token, there are several domains making available knowledge
resources; for instance, digital libraries such as Pubmed Central offer a
large collection of biomedical abstracts and, in some cases, open access to
the full document. Some researchers are starting to bridge the gap between
clinical and experimental data and literature; such connection is being
built via ontologies, some approaches have had BioPortal as their ontology
repository. Linked Data is also being explored as a means for publishers to
expose their content. Knowledge management over documents is actively aiming
to make real the notion of self-descriptiveness; being this intrinsically
related to various resources over the web providing meaning for atomic
component in documents –words, tables, figures, maps, etc. In order for
these systems to be successful, it is necessary to provide a forum for
researchers and developers to discuss features and exchange ideas on the
realization of repositories providing semantics. In addition, it is now
critical to achieve interoperability *between* these repositories, through
common interfaces, standard metadata formats, etc. SERES10 intends to
provide such a forum.



*Questions addressed by SERES10:*

·How can semantic repositories support the realization of
the SW?

·Semantic repositories, ontology repositories, knowledge
repositories, where are the boundaries? How are they interacting? Are they
changing our experience of the web?

·How are domain specific knowledge repositories, such as
biomedical digital libraries, interconnecting knowledge in meaningful
manners?

·How are e-government initiatives using and delivering
semantics and knowledge repos

[Tagging] Tagging individual properties?

[Tyler Gunn]

I'm curious, what would be the best way to tag the boundaries of
individual properties?  Or SHOULD I even attempt this?
The Cadestral data for Manitoba is available from the Manitoba Lands
Initiative under a free for use license, so I was thinking of incorporating
this data.

I've converted a bit of the data, opting to merge all the lots into larger
blocks to indicate the landuse of residential, park, etc.  It's kinda nice
because it also gives you a guide for aligning the roads; they should
typically be in between the landuse areas. 

I think it looks pretty decent with the houses I added in from Yahoo:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.775024&lon=-97.170408&zoom=18&layers=M

However, in areas where there is no satellite imagery available to put in
the houses, I feel that NOT identifying the boundaries of each lot really
gives up on what could be valuable information; knowing the boundaries of
each lot would be a great navigational aid.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.78962&lon=-97.164207&zoom=18&layers=M

I tried just importing the data straight in where each lot was it's own
multipolygon (lots of shared boundaries) with landuse=residential.  However
when rendered in Mapnik and osmarenderer, it just came out as a solid
colored area with no indication where the lots are.  Perhaps I would need
to mark the ways some how?  Just trying to think how to get the data to
show up.  If it doesn't show up then my current approach of just marking
the landuse using this data is sufficient.  

Opinions?

Tyler


-- 
--
Tyler Gunn
ty...@egunn.com

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?

[Pieren]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Anthony  wrote:

>
> Of course they have a relation.  However, the relation is like the one
> between HSBC and its ATMs.  It is an exclusive relation - an address
> only refers to one streeet.
>
>
Please stop using this example of HSBC, it does not apply here. A relation
between a house number and it's street is not a category. If you don't
understand that, we cannot help you.
When we use an associatedStreet relation, the node or building  just carries
a tag addr:housenumber=xx, nothing else. There is no exclusive relation
here. And even if you add the add:street, nothing says in which town. You
can just speculate that the nearest highway with the exact same name is the
related street. And what happens if the name is not exactly the same ?
That's why some contributors prefer the relation.

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?

[Anthony]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Pieren  wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>>
>> Of course they have a relation.  However, the relation is like the one
>> between HSBC and its ATMs.  It is an exclusive relation - an address
>> only refers to one streeet.
>>
>
> Please stop using this example of HSBC, it does not apply here.

I believe that was the first time I used it.

> A relation between a house number and it's street is not a category. If you 
> don't
> understand that, we cannot help you.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Anyway, Ulf asked for our opinions.  I gave mine.  If you have a
different opinion, I'd ask you to express it, not blabber on about how
you disagree with mine.

> And even if you add the add:street, nothing says in which town.

Do you know of any houses which are in a different town from the
street in their street address?

> And what happens if the name is not exactly the same ?

Then there's an error that needs to be fixed.

> That's why some contributors prefer the relation.

Right problem, wrong solution.

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?

[Richard Welty]

 On 8/19/10 10:10 AM, Anthony wrote:



And even if you add the add:street, nothing says in which town.

Do you know of any houses which are in a different town from the
street in their street address?

in the case of the US, postal addresses are tied to post offices, not
to towns. a short distance away from me, there are addresses
physically in the Town of East Greenbush, but with West Sand
Lake postal addresses because that's the post office doing the
delivery to the area.

likewise, there are cases where the borders between municipalities
run down road centerlines, the housenumbers on one side are
not necessarily coordinated with the housenumbers on the other
side.  they might even be getting deliveries from different post
offices, and so would have different city and postcode values from
one side to the other. the value for addr:street would be the only
thing that's actually shared (well, that and state.)

richard




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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?

[Simone Saviolo]

2010/8/19 Anthony :
>> And what happens if the name is not exactly the same ?
>
> Then there's an error that needs to be fixed.
>
>> That's why some contributors prefer the relation.
>
> Right problem, wrong solution.

So, if the name of a street is changed for whatever reason, I have to
go through the, maybe, several hundreds of house numbers on that way,
change the addr:street on every single one of them, and then hope the
name isn't changed again too soon? Is this the right solution?

Regards.

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?

[Anthony]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Richard Welty  wrote:
>  On 8/19/10 10:10 AM, Anthony wrote:
>>
>>> And even if you add the add:street, nothing says in which town.
>>
>> Do you know of any houses which are in a different town from the
>> street in their street address?
>
> in the case of the US, postal addresses are tied to post offices, not
> to towns. a short distance away from me, there are addresses
> physically in the Town of East Greenbush, but with West Sand
> Lake postal addresses because that's the post office doing the
> delivery to the area.

Yes, I used to live in such a place too.  I lived in Foo Township, but
my mailing address was The City of Bar.  However, that wasn't the
question, since I lived in Foo Township and the street I lived on was
in Foo Township.

> likewise, there are cases where the borders between municipalities
> run down road centerlines, the housenumbers on one side are
> not necessarily coordinated with the housenumbers on the other
> side.  they might even be getting deliveries from different post
> offices, and so would have different city and postcode values from
> one side to the other. the value for addr:street would be the only
> thing that's actually shared (well, that and state.)

Still not what I was asking, but I guess it's closer.

What I was thinking was that given addr:street (e.g. addr:street=Main
Street), you could assume that town in which the street was located
was equal to the town in which the building (or POI) was located.
However, it might be the case that the street is actually on the
border between such town and another town, or maybe even a few meters
on the opposite side of the border (in cases where the street
centerline and/or the legal boundary changed but not both).

So, I guess in those borderline (literally) cases you couldn't assume
the street was located in the same town as the POI.

On the other hand, thinking about the response by Jukka, it probably
wouldn't be difficult to create a functional index on a function like
"find_nearest_street_with_matching_name".

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?

[Anthony]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Simone Saviolo
 wrote:
> 2010/8/19 Anthony :
>>> And what happens if the name is not exactly the same ?
>>
>> Then there's an error that needs to be fixed.
>>
>>> That's why some contributors prefer the relation.
>>
>> Right problem, wrong solution.
>
> So, if the name of a street is changed for whatever reason, I have to
> go through the, maybe, several hundreds of house numbers on that way,
> change the addr:street on every single one of them, and then hope the
> name isn't changed again too soon? Is this the right solution?

No, the right solution is to have the API support references.

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?

[Simone Saviolo]

2010/8/19 Anthony :
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Simone Saviolo
>  wrote:
>> 2010/8/19 Anthony :
 And what happens if the name is not exactly the same ?
>>>
>>> Then there's an error that needs to be fixed.
>>>
 That's why some contributors prefer the relation.
>>>
>>> Right problem, wrong solution.
>>
>> So, if the name of a street is changed for whatever reason, I have to
>> go through the, maybe, several hundreds of house numbers on that way,
>> change the addr:street on every single one of them, and then hope the
>> name isn't changed again too soon? Is this the right solution?
>
> No, the right solution is to have the API support references.

They do, sort of. You create a relation which holds a "reference" to the street.

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?

[Anthony]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Simone Saviolo
 wrote:
> 2010/8/19 Anthony :
>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Simone Saviolo
>>  wrote:
>>> 2010/8/19 Anthony :
> And what happens if the name is not exactly the same ?

 Then there's an error that needs to be fixed.

> That's why some contributors prefer the relation.

 Right problem, wrong solution.
>>>
>>> So, if the name of a street is changed for whatever reason, I have to
>>> go through the, maybe, several hundreds of house numbers on that way,
>>> change the addr:street on every single one of them, and then hope the
>>> name isn't changed again too soon? Is this the right solution?
>>
>> No, the right solution is to have the API support references.
>
> They do, sort of. You create a relation which holds a "reference" to the 
> street.

That's backwards, though, and the implementation is quite costly from
a performance perspective.  You want the address to reference the
street, not the street to reference the address.

See 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories#Partly_disagree

Richard, you're on this list.  What do you think?  Is the
associatedStreet relation an appropriate use of relations?

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?

[Anthony]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Anthony  wrote:
> That's backwards, though, and the implementation is quite costly from
> a performance perspective.

When you add an address to a street, do you want to upload the entire
associatedStreet relation, or upload the one address?

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?

[Tobias Knerr]

On 19.08.2010 16:27, Simone Saviolo wrote:
> So, if the name of a street is changed for whatever reason, I have to
> go through the, maybe, several hundreds of house numbers on that way,
> change the addr:street on every single one of them, and then hope the
> name isn't changed again too soon?

No, you bring up JOSM's search box, type "addr:street"=TheStreetName
and change them all at once.

Tobias Knerr


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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?

[Simone Saviolo]

2010/8/19 Tobias Knerr :
> On 19.08.2010 16:27, Simone Saviolo wrote:
>> So, if the name of a street is changed for whatever reason, I have to
>> go through the, maybe, several hundreds of house numbers on that way,
>> change the addr:street on every single one of them, and then hope the
>> name isn't changed again too soon?
>
> No, you bring up JOSM's search box, type "addr:street"=TheStreetName
> and change them all at once.

Well, duh, of course! But since when is "let's change a thousand
items!" a better strategy than "let's make a relation between the two
things"?

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?

[Tobias Knerr]

On 19.08.2010 17:09, Simone Saviolo wrote:
> 2010/8/19 Tobias Knerr :
>> On 19.08.2010 16:27, Simone Saviolo wrote:
>>> So, if the name of a street is changed for whatever reason, I have to
>>> go through the, maybe, several hundreds of house numbers on that way,
>>> change the addr:street on every single one of them, and then hope the
>>> name isn't changed again too soon?
>>
>> No, you bring up JOSM's search box, type "addr:street"=TheStreetName
>> and change them all at once.
> 
> Well, duh, of course! But since when is "let's change a thousand
> items!" a better strategy than "let's make a relation between the two
> things"?

It's a better strategy because it doesn't make normal editing harder in
order to accommodate this rare event.

For the relatively uncommon situation that a street's name changes,
updating a relation might be somewhat more elegant (though it wouldn't
actually mean less effort than using search selection).

Basic address editing, however, requires more knowledge if implemented
using relations - which is bad, because editing addresses is one of the
most basic tasks and would otherwise be well suited for new mappers.
"Click on the building whose address you want to add/change, then
write/change address data in text fields" is likely one of the the
easiest methods to present address editing, and addr:* tags offer this.
Compared to this, creating or editing associatedStreet relations
severely lacks usability.

Tobias Knerr

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?

[Tom Chance]

On 19 August 2010 16:54, Tobias Knerr  wrote:

> Basic address editing, however, requires more knowledge if implemented
> using relations - which is bad, because editing addresses is one of the
> most basic tasks and would otherwise be well suited for new mappers.
> "Click on the building whose address you want to add/change, then
> write/change address data in text fields" is likely one of the the
> easiest methods to present address editing, and addr:* tags offer this.
> Compared to this, creating or editing associatedStreet relations
> severely lacks usability.
>
>
OpenStreetMap is already completely unusable for 90% of the population. The
addressing system is unwieldy and complicated whether you use relations or
not.

The solution is in making the editor UIs more usable, not refusing to use
the elegance offered by relations.

A more usable editor for addressing might, for example, offer a drop-down
list of ways to associate a new object with rather than making them manually
type in addr:street=whatever. The software could then automatically check
for a relation and create one if it doesn't exist.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
http://tom.acrewoods.net   http://twitter.com/tom_chance
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 08:40:13 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Anthony
>>  wrote:
>>> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Paul Johnson
>>>  wrote:
 The way I've been handling this is to stretch the limits of the
 bicycle=destination tag; if it's more major than residential, open to
 bicycles, but lacks shoulders and has narrow lanes or on-street
 parking, then I tag it bicycle=destination (unless it qualifies for
 cycleway=lane).
>>>
>>> Please don't do that.
>>
>> Agreed. *=destination means local traffic only; I've removed the tag.
>
> Please stop doing that.  While the cycle network is not fully mapped in
> the area, impeding it's progress by reverting routes that are local only
> because there is an immediately adjacent cycleway or bicycle boulevard
> under Oregon law ORS 814.420 is not helpful or necessary.

There's no such thing as an "immediately adjacent" bicycle boulevard;
there's going to be at least one block between.

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?

[Tobias Knerr]

On 19.08.2010 18:28, Tom Chance wrote:
> On 19 August 2010 16:54, Tobias Knerr  > wrote:
> 
> Basic address editing, however, requires more knowledge if implemented
> using relations - which is bad, because editing addresses is one of the
> most basic tasks and would otherwise be well suited for new mappers.
[...]
> The solution is in making the editor UIs more usable, not refusing to
> use the elegance offered by relations.
>
> A more usable editor for addressing might, for example, offer a
> drop-down list of ways to associate a new object with rather than making
> them manually type in addr:street=whatever. The software could then
> automatically check for a relation and create one if it doesn't exist.

A specialized editing tool that is hand-written for a single task will,
in theory, always offer the best UI for that task. And, of course, the
underlying representation doesn't matter anymore if you use such a tool:
Neither relations nor plain tags have an advantage if you hide them
behind software abstractions.

Unfortunately, writing specialized editing tools for each task scales
badly with the number of features that can be mapped. This means that we
have to deal with the fact that these tools will likely not be available
for most relation types in most editors* for quite a while.

Therefore, I still prefer things to remain as easily editable as
possible with general purpose editing tools, instead of relying on
specialized tools that may or may not be widely available in the future.

Tobias Knerr


* By the way, changing the user interface of your editor wouldn't even
be enough. Not only are there other editors, there are also additional
tools such as history viewers - their output is likely confusing if the
editor pretends that I'm editing an object when I'm in fact editing a
completely different object (such as an associatedStreet relation).
Maintaining an user-friendly illusion across different programs is hard.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging individual properties?

[John Smith]

On 19 August 2010 23:09, Tyler Gunn  wrote:
>
> I'm curious, what would be the best way to tag the boundaries of
> individual properties?  Or SHOULD I even attempt this?

A way to do this would be to map any fence lines marking the boundaries.

> The Cadestral data for Manitoba is available from the Manitoba Lands
> Initiative under a free for use license, so I was thinking of incorporating
> this data.

Have you checked it for accuracy? The DCDBLite data for Qld had ok
accuracy in some areas, but in others it has lots and lots of mistakes
and out of date information and incorrect positioning.

> I've converted a bit of the data, opting to merge all the lots into larger
> blocks to indicate the landuse of residential, park, etc.  It's kinda nice
> because it also gives you a guide for aligning the roads; they should
> typically be in between the landuse areas.

We ended up using the DCDB data here to map other features like
railway lines and waterways, rather than the property boundaries
themselves.

> Opinions?

Depending on the quality of the data it may be a very bad thing to do,
this is typically referred to as implopping and with everything else
everyone wants to map the bad data is never touched or updated and
left to rot.

If this is mainly for your own use, you may be better converting it to
KML or your own pgsql DB and making a transparent layer, rather than
putting it directly into the OSM DB.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging individual properties?

[Tyler Gunn]

> A way to do this would be to map any fence lines marking the boundaries.

That's a possibility.  Though I have no way to be sure where the fences
extend to in the front half of the properties.  Probably not worth it now
that I think of it. 

> Have you checked it for accuracy? The DCDBLite data for Qld had ok
> accuracy in some areas, but in others it has lots and lots of mistakes
> and out of date information and incorrect positioning.

So far the data seems pretty accurate.  It's the IDENTICAL data that is on
the city's website, which lines up perfectly to the high resolution (<1m)
aerial imagery they have of the entire city.  When I brought it over into
OSM as large "landuse blobs", it straddles the existing OSM streets quite
nicely.  

> We ended up using the DCDB data here to map other features like
> railway lines and waterways, rather than the property boundaries
> themselves.

The railway lands and park boundaries are another great use of this data. 
Especially given how out of date the satellite imagery of my city is. :)


> Depending on the quality of the data it may be a very bad thing to do,
> this is typically referred to as implopping and with everything else
> everyone wants to map the bad data is never touched or updated and
> left to rot.
> 
> If this is mainly for your own use, you may be better converting it to
> KML or your own pgsql DB and making a transparent layer, rather than
> putting it directly into the OSM DB.

Yeah, the more I think of it, the less I want to use this to mark property
boundaries.  I think I'll stick with just deriving the landuse areas out of
it and be done with that.  It's still a great source of information in that
respect.

Thanks,
Tyler


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging individual properties?

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Tyler Gunn  wrote:
>
> I'm curious, what would be the best way to tag the boundaries of
> individual properties?  Or SHOULD I even attempt this?
> The Cadestral data for Manitoba is available from the Manitoba Lands
> Initiative under a free for use license, so I was thinking of incorporating
> this data.
>
> I've converted a bit of the data, opting to merge all the lots into larger
> blocks to indicate the landuse of residential, park, etc.  It's kinda nice
> because it also gives you a guide for aligning the roads; they should
> typically be in between the landuse areas.

I've been mapping individual properties locally, and the finest I've
gone in (suburban) residential areas has been each subdivision as a
multipolygon. Any finer than that seems pointless.

On the other hand, separating each individual commercial or industrial
property (where owned by different companies) probably makes sense.

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/8/19 Anthony :
> between HSBC and its ATMs.  It is an exclusive relation - an address
> only refers to one streeet.


that's not always true. I know of a Pizza take away which is at the
corner of a block, it has two addresses (one on each road), but is
just one small place, not 2.

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 14:06:57 +0100, Dave F. wrote:

> It's also "poor form" to mis-use tags & therefore corrupt the map.

It's also poor form to be adversarial and abusive in every communication 
you've had with me.

> There appears to be clear consensus here that your using  *=destination
> incorrectly. Please stop doing that & revert any edits you've made.

You and NE2 doesn't a consensus make.


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

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 08:51:49 -0400, Anthony wrote:

> I apologize for not being more clear.  By "please don't do that" I do
> not mean to "revert all instances of Paul using bicycle=destination". I
> hope you will take a look at your uses of bicycle=destination yourself,
> and self-revert any places where you were "stretching the limits".

That's not a problem, however, for this to happen, we absolutely need NE2 
to stop making this a moving target.


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

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 08:51:49 -0400, Anthony wrote:
>
>> I apologize for not being more clear.  By "please don't do that" I do
>> not mean to "revert all instances of Paul using bicycle=destination". I
>> hope you will take a look at your uses of bicycle=destination yourself,
>> and self-revert any places where you were "stretching the limits".
>
> That's not a problem, however, for this to happen, we absolutely need NE2
> to stop making this a moving target.

You need to understand that your interpretation of the law is probably
wrong, and listen to sources such as the Bicycle Transportation
Alliance, whose email I copied to this list.

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

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

[Dave F.]

 On 19/08/2010 22:01, Paul Johnson wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 14:06:57 +0100, Dave F. wrote:


It's also "poor form" to mis-use tags&  therefore corrupt the map.

It's also poor form to be adversarial and abusive in every communication
you've had with me.


I'm fully entitled to disagree with you, especially when I've given 
clear reasons for doing so.


I've been polite to you in all communications.

It is you that has solely been abusive. Not only to me, including 
private correspondence, but also to others on this forum, who have 
clearly the best interests of OSM at heart.


It is disappointing you interpret people having differing views in such 
a way.




There appears to be clear consensus here that your using  *=destination
incorrectly. Please stop doing that&  revert any edits you've made.

You and NE2 doesn't a consensus make.


Well, on this thread there's also Anthony who wants you to revert your 
changes.


However, most importantly of all, the wiki is in disagreement with your 
understanding.


As I've requested previously, please read up on the subject you're 
discussing before posting about it.


Regards
Dave F.


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

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 12:33:17 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

> There's no such thing as an "immediately adjacent" bicycle boulevard;
> there's going to be at least one block between.

That would be a difference without distinction.


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging individual properties?

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 04:18:30 +1000, John Smith wrote:

> On 19 August 2010 23:09, Tyler Gunn
>  wrote:
>>
>> I'm curious, what would be the best way to tag the boundaries of
>> individual properties?  Or SHOULD I even attempt this?
> 
> A way to do this would be to map any fence lines marking the boundaries.

That runs into the problem of fences that aren't actually on property 
lines.  A trivial example would be my neighbors, which actually built 
their fence on the curbline.  Everyone in the neighborhood has told them 
that they've build their fence a few feet beyond their property lines on 
county land, so we're just waiting for the Jerry Springer moment when the 
county decides to put in sidewalks and removes the fence from county land 
without notice.

A more notorious example would be the US-Canada boundary, which in theory 
is exactly at 49.00⁰N across most of the continent west of the Great 
Lakes.  In practice, it's significantly nonlinear.

> If this is mainly for your own use, you may be better converting it to
> KML or your own pgsql DB and making a transparent layer, rather than
> putting it directly into the OSM DB.

Is there an easy how-to for that?  I've been considering my own side-
project for mapping virtual worlds such as Second Life for a while now.


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

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Dave F.  wrote:
> I'm fully entitled to disagree with you, especially when I've given clear
> reasons for doing so.
>
> I've been polite to you in all communications.
>
> It is you that has solely been abusive. Not only to me, including private
> correspondence, but also to others on this forum, who have clearly the best
> interests of OSM at heart.

It's not only unpoliteness, but outright lying:

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 19:04 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>> > The ground truth is the ways I flagged as bicycle=destination only
>> > permit bicycles locally based on local signage in the Portland area.
>> > Assumptions are not a substitute for having actual knowledge of the
>> > area, quit editing based on assumptions.
>> What's on the local signage?
>
> NO BICYCLES - EXCEPT LOCAL ACCESS

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?

[Anthony]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 4:30 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
> 2010/8/19 Anthony :
>> between HSBC and its ATMs.  It is an exclusive relation - an address
>> only refers to one street.
>
> that's not always true. I know of a Pizza take away which is at the
> corner of a block, it has two addresses (one on each road), but is
> just one small place, not 2.

It's still true.  An address only refers to one street.  Two
addresses, on the other hand, refer to two streets.

I never said a building can't have two addresses, nor did I ever say a
business can't have two addresses.

In any case, how are you saying this would be handled by using the
associatedStreet relation?  Is the housenumber the same in both
addresses?

(As an aside, I suppose an address could have two streets, in that it
could be "Corner of X and Y".  But associatedStreet wouldn't really
work for that either.

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?

[Anthony]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Simone Saviolo
 wrote:
> 2010/8/19 Tobias Knerr :
>> On 19.08.2010 16:27, Simone Saviolo wrote:
>>> So, if the name of a street is changed for whatever reason, I have to
>>> go through the, maybe, several hundreds of house numbers on that way,
>>> change the addr:street on every single one of them, and then hope the
>>> name isn't changed again too soon?
>>
>> No, you bring up JOSM's search box, type "addr:street"=TheStreetName
>> and change them all at once.
>
> Well, duh, of course! But since when is "let's change a thousand
> items!" a better strategy than "let's make a relation between the two
> things"?

According to the wiki page I linked to, this has always been the case,
since relations were never meant to handle a thousand items.

I wonder, how does associatedStreet work if the address is a route,
such as "489 United States Highway 1"?

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

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:26:41 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

> You need to understand that your interpretation of the law is probably
> wrong, and listen to sources such as the Bicycle Transportation
> Alliance, whose email I copied to this list.

Rather than trusting a bunch of non-lawyers over at the BTA (and I say 
this as a member; their advice about bicycle restrictions is generally 
about as accurate as AAA's at best given previous experiences traveling 
to other parts of the state), you should probably hire an attorney that 
has passed the Oregon bar and specializes in traffic law as it applies to 
bicycles to settle the matter in your favor.  So far, I haven't seen any 
such evidence.


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

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:26:41 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>
>> You need to understand that your interpretation of the law is probably
>> wrong, and listen to sources such as the Bicycle Transportation
>> Alliance, whose email I copied to this list.
>
> Rather than trusting a bunch of non-lawyers over at the BTA (and I say
> this as a member; their advice about bicycle restrictions is generally
> about as accurate as AAA's at best given previous experiences traveling
> to other parts of the state), you should probably hire an attorney that
> has passed the Oregon bar and specializes in traffic law as it applies to
> bicycles to settle the matter in your favor.  So far, I haven't seen any
> such evidence.

The question isn't whether they're necessarily reliable, but whether
they're more reliable than you.

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

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

[Anthony]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:26:41 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>
>> You need to understand that your interpretation of the law is probably
>> wrong, and listen to sources such as the Bicycle Transportation
>> Alliance, whose email I copied to this list.
>
> Rather than trusting a bunch of non-lawyers over at the BTA (and I say
> this as a member; their advice about bicycle restrictions is generally
> about as accurate as AAA's at best given previous experiences traveling
> to other parts of the state), you should probably hire an attorney that
> has passed the Oregon bar and specializes in traffic law as it applies to
> bicycles to settle the matter in your favor.  So far, I haven't seen any
> such evidence.

Can you give a few examples of ways which you feel you have correctly
tagged with bicycle=destination?

And/Or maybe Nathan can give a few examples of ways which he feels you
have tagged incorrectly?

How many ways are we talking about in total?

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

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> And/Or maybe Nathan can give a few examples of ways which he feels you
> have tagged incorrectly?

Burnside Street: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/44706996
(including adjacent ways extending from 2nd Avenue on the east to 24th
Place on the west)
173rd Avenue: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/51281544
>
> How many ways are we talking about in total?

57

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

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

[Simon Biber]

On Fri, 20 August, 2010 10:00:36 AM, Nathan Edgars II  
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> > And/Or maybe Nathan can give a few examples of ways which he feels you
> > have tagged incorrectly?
> 
> Burnside Street: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/44706996
> (including adjacent ways extending from 2nd Avenue on the east to 24th
> Place on the west)

Thanks Nathan for the examples.

Paul, ORS 814.420 says "a person commits the offense of failure to use a bicycle
lane or path if the person operates a bicycle on any portion of a roadway that 
is not a bicycle lane or bicycle path when a bicycle lane or bicycle path is 
adjacent to or near the roadway" and then gives several exceptions.

If you are arguing that bicycle=destination applies to this portion of Burnside 
Street as a result of ORS 814.420, then where is the adjacent bicycle lane or 
bicycle path? Burnside Street is not tagged cycleway=track or cycleway=lane, 
and 

neither is there any way tagged highway=cycleway next to it.

And to pre-empt your answer: the parallel streets (Southwest Oak, Northwest 
Couch) do not count. ORS 814.420 cannot be read as requiring cyclists to use 
parallel streets since they are in no way "adjacent to or near the roadway" of 
the street in question.


  


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

Re: [Tagging] Is cycleway:right=lane necessary on a one-way street?

[Steve Bennett]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:32 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
> but doesn't this not just reduce the bike traffic to the opposite
> direction? Would you say that the oneway direction is already
> implicit?

cycleway=opposite_lane means travel in *both* the forward direction,
and the backward direction. I don't think we have a way to express a
road which has a cycleway only in the opposite direction (that
actually doesn't sound that crazy, I'm sure I've seen things like that
in France - when riding with traffic, there are no markings, but
against traffic there is a lane primarily to stop cars from thinking
you're breaking the law). Or maybe I'm not reading the wiki correctly.

I suppose a much simpler scheme could have been invented, but anyway.

Steve



 Maybe adding a cycleway:lanes=2 could clarify (at least for
> humans). Btw.: when adding lanes-tag to highways: do you count
> cycleway-lanes?
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Is cycleway:right=lane necessary on a one-way street?

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Steve Bennett  wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:32 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
>  wrote:
>> but doesn't this not just reduce the bike traffic to the opposite
>> direction? Would you say that the oneway direction is already
>> implicit?
>
> cycleway=opposite_lane means travel in *both* the forward direction,
> and the backward direction. I don't think we have a way to express a
> road which has a cycleway only in the opposite direction

I've seen this called a contraflow bike lane. The only difference
between an actual contraflow bike lane and a one-way street that's
two-way for bikes is a centerline, and we don't normally tag whether a
street has a centerline. So I don't think it's worth distinguishing
between these two cases. In other words:
*cycleway=opposite: one-way street with bikes allowed both ways;
equivalent to oneway:bicycle=no
*cycleway=opposite_lane: one-way street with bike lane, bikes allowed
the other way; equivalent to cycleway=lane oneway:bicycle=no
and if you want, centerline=yes/no.

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

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:30:36 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Anthony
>  wrote:
>> And/Or maybe Nathan can give a few examples of ways which he feels you
>> have tagged incorrectly?
> 
> Burnside Street: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/44706996
> (including adjacent ways extending from 2nd Avenue on the east to 24th
> Place on the west)

Couch is the bicycle boulevard there.


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

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:10:25 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Dave F.
>  wrote:
>> I'm fully entitled to disagree with you, especially when I've given
>> clear reasons for doing so.
>>
>> I've been polite to you in all communications.
>>
>> It is you that has solely been abusive. Not only to me, including
>> private correspondence, but also to others on this forum, who have
>> clearly the best interests of OSM at heart.
> 
> It's not only unpoliteness, but outright lying:

State Street in Salem has that sign.  Thanks for playing.  I stand what I 
said about you being rude.


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

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> State Street in Salem has that sign.  Thanks for playing.  I stand what I
> said about you being rude.

You didn't say one street had it. Let's review what you told me:

> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> > The ground truth is the ways I flagged as bicycle=destination only
> > permit bicycles locally based on local signage in the Portland area.

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

Re: [Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:30:36 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> Burnside Street: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/44706996
>> (including adjacent ways extending from 2nd Avenue on the east to 24th
>> Place on the west)
>
> Couch is the bicycle boulevard there.

So do you have any new arguments, or is it just your interpretation of
the law, which the rest of us seem to have rejected?

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