[Tagging] Tag:bicycle accident=true
Someone added last night a unique contribution in the wiki about a new tag: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle_accident%3Dtrue If we believe taginfo stats, this key has not been used until now. The wiki page is also orphan. Is it a good idea to keep such tag in the wiki ? Should we delete it ? or forward the readers to some of the existing 'hazard' proposals ? Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag:bicycle accident=true
It has a bad discription, it's a tag for a temporary feature (at least how I interpret it) and it didn't go via the voting process. So I would just delete it and point the writer to the voting process. Op 17 aug. 2011 11:39 schreef "Pieren" het volgende: > Someone added last night a unique contribution in the wiki about a new tag: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle_accident%3Dtrue > > If we believe taginfo stats, this key has not been used until now. The > wiki page is also orphan. > > Is it a good idea to keep such tag in the wiki ? Should we delete it ? > or forward the readers to some of the existing 'hazard' proposals ? > > Pieren > > ___ > 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] Tag:bicycle accident=true
On 17/08/2011 12:19, Sander Deryckere wrote: It has a bad discription, it's a tag for a temporary feature (at least how I interpret it) and it didn't go via the voting process. So I would just delete it and point the writer to the voting process. Since when is the voting process mandatory? I would guess that actually the majority of tags and values in current use have not been formally discussed, let alone voted on. Discussions very often just bleed to death anyway. The whole basis of OSM is "openness" - you can use whatever tags you like. Discussion and voting is really required only if you expect other consumers of the data to do something with your data, e.g. map renderers or routing engines. This is how it is; it doesn't mean I agree with it. Colin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag:bicycle accident=true
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Colin Smale wrote: > The whole basis of OSM is "openness" - you can > use whatever tags you like. Discussion and voting is really required only if > you expect other consumers of the data to do something with your data I don't want to enter in such discussion. We are free to put all rubish in the database and others are free to remove it. I would just like to concentrate on this particular tag. The best argument I could find against it is the 'verifiability' (1). Is there any argument to keep this tag documented in the wiki, excepted the "do whatever you like" ? Pieren 1. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag:bicycle accident=true
It's probably worth trying to include the original author of the page in any discussion. There's no wiki user page or talk page, but my guess is that it's this guy: http://bryankaraffa.com/contact/ Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] shop=farm shop=greengrocer
I've proposed an icon. What action might be useful to get it actually implemented? http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/3906 On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > I'm interested in propsing an icon for "shop=farm", for highlighting > roadside farm stands (this is a fun travel activity, as such farm stands are > often not listed in the Yellow pages or conventional maps). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Charging station
For charging stations it seems exceptionally important to define the plug style available. A charging station with the wrong plug is just as useful as a gas station offering only nuclear fuel pellets. The trick is to standardize on names for each of the various charging paddle styles, and also allow for multiple types at one location. -Bryce Nesbitt ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Oneway except for buses
In cycle planning in the USA the "bikes only" direction on a road is called a "contraflow" lane. My goal in mapping includes that the routers work (both the car and bike routers). Thus I have sometimes mapped the contraflow as a separate short little parallel bike path. It keeps the routers happy, even if it is not always a perfect description of what's on the ground. The other common USA concept is "Do not enter (except bikes, buses)". That's a turn restriction, not a travel restriction. On 07/23/2011 07:34 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote: There's no reason to prefer cycleway=opposite except "tradition". Apart from that, it's inconsistent and confusing. All other values of the cycleway key indicate that there is a physically separate lane or track for bicycles, and that's what the cycleway key should really be used for. cycleway=opposite is not a "cycleway", it's an exception from an oneway restriction! The oneway:bicycle key is much better because it fits in with other exceptions from oneway restrictions, such as oneway:bus. So just use both for now. cyceway=opposite for backwards compatibility, oneway:bicycle=no because it is the better tag. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Oneway except for buses
On 8/17/2011 3:11 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: In cycle planning in the USA the "bikes only" direction on a road is called a "contraflow" lane. My goal in mapping includes that the routers work (both the car and bike routers). Thus I have sometimes mapped the contraflow as a separate short little parallel bike path. It keeps the routers happy, even if it is not always a perfect description of what's on the ground. Please don't do this unless there is an actual barrier between directions. The other common USA concept is "Do not enter (except bikes, buses)". That's a turn restriction, not a travel restriction. Not necessarily; a do not enter is often coupled with a one-way. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Charging station
That would be the two major drawbacks with the current proposal: A. No possibility to have several plug types at the same node. B. No clear way of sharing a node with amenity=fuel. A: The the same scheme as for "liquid" fuels could be used (i.e. fuel:e85=yes/no, fuel:diesel=yes/no, et.cet). Something like "charging_station:plug:VDE-AR-E-2623-2-2=yes/no" would be nice, and easy to expand with "charging_station:battery:AAA"... B: Data miners and alikes should be able to gather info regarding charging facilities from a amenity=fuel if it has tags matching "charging_station:*". The other way around would of course also be possible, if an charging_station also offers something like fuel:e85. /Jonas On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 21:06, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > For charging stations it seems exceptionally important to define the plug > style > available. A charging station with the wrong plug is just as useful as a > gas station > offering only nuclear fuel pellets. > > The trick is to standardize on names for each of the various charging > paddle styles, > and also allow for multiple types at one location. >-Bryce Nesbitt > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Identifying pit toilets
For amenity=toilets there are lot of suggested attributes: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dtoilets But among them none would distinguish a pit toilet from a flush toilet. More importantly perhaps would be does the toilet have water and handwashing available. Some toilets may be "waterfree" (especially on the men's side urinal) but still have water for handwashing. Would people support a new attribute, and what would you suggest? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] man_made=crane
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Mihkel Rämmel wrote: > Wiki page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Crane about crane has > controversial information on it. On one place it says that these tags can be > used on nodes and ways on other place it says that on nodes and areas. > Shouldn't it be the third option (nodes, ways and areas)? Heh, so it does. Nodes and areas certainly seem legitimate. I'm a bit iffy about using ways to mean "crane on rails" as I think you can have several cranes sharing the same set of rails, and I think it would be legitimate to describe the rails and the crane (in some indicative central position) separately. I've updated to include area in the main text, and left the way icon there as well. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Light rail station
Hi all, A light rail stop, would that be a railway=tram_stop or a railway=station? I'm mapping the recently opened UTA TRAX extensions [1] and tagged the stops of the West Valley extension as railway=station, but now I see that existing stops are railway=tram_stop. I think a tram stop suggests something less intrusive than the TRAX stops [2] so I'm inclined to go with railway=station even though I don't like the rendering very much (see [3]). Also in that permalink by the way: a light rail line that shares the road does not get rendered if it is tagged highway=*, railway=light_rail whereas a highway=*,railway=tram does get a center line. I guess in the case of light rail the road is not really shared as the tracks are in the center dividing the road in two separate lanes - and thus it should be mapped. Some work to do then. Martijn [1] see changesets: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9053297 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9053532 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9053566 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9053580 [2] see an example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhodes/6054496613/in/photostream [3] http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.70694&lon=-111.94415&zoom=16&layers=M -- martijn van exel schaaltreinen.nl ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Light rail station
On 18 August 2011 14:59, Martijn van Exel wrote: > Hi all, > A light rail stop, would that be a railway=tram_stop or a railway=station? Light rail is nearly always, if not always, trams... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
