Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:20 AM, John Sturdy wrote: > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 6:28 AM, André Riedel wrote: > >> As the creator of the proposal I do not like your proposed key/value >> entrance=public_transport. >> The tag should show the importance of an entrance and not what you >> will find behind the door. > > Definitely. I think it would be good, wherever possible, to stick to > the idea of the value of a tag "subclassing" the key, so that > building=* indicates what kind of building, and entrance=* indicates > what kind of entrance. If can't even tag *entrances* to a subway with this tag I see little use for it. Could either of you perhaps expand a bit about what you mean. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*
2011/10/14 Erik Johansson : > If can't even tag *entrances* to a subway with this tag I see little > use for it. Could either of you perhaps expand a bit about what you > mean. You can tag the entrance of a train or subway station as entrance=yes/main BUT only together with a correspondending building (or poi area). It is not possible to use the tag entrance=yes on a single node without any connection to a building or area. Ciao André ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*
Hi, On 10/14/2011 01:00 PM, André Riedel wrote: If can't even tag *entrances* to a subway with this tag I see little use for it. Could either of you perhaps expand a bit about what you mean. You can tag the entrance of a train or subway station as entrance=yes/main BUT only together with a correspondending building (or poi area). It is not possible to use the tag entrance=yes on a single node without any connection to a building or area. Are you recommending to tag subway stations as buildings in order to be able to tag their entrances? Bye Frederik ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Erik Johansson wrote: > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:20 AM, John Sturdy wrote: >> Definitely. I think it would be good, wherever possible, to stick to >> the idea of the value of a tag "subclassing" the key, so that >> building=* indicates what kind of building, and entrance=* indicates >> what kind of entrance. > If can't even tag *entrances* to a subway with this tag I see little > use for it. Could either of you perhaps expand a bit about what you > mean. The value of the "building" tag would always be a type of building, such as building=house, building=apartment_block, building=shed, etc, but never building=entrance, because "entrance" is not a kind of building. Likewise, the value of the "entrance" tag would always be a kind of entrance, such as entrance=main, entrance=service, but never entrance=subway, because subway is not a kind of entrance. To show an entrance to a subway... depends on which country's English you're using: for the American sense (underground light railway), you'd outline the subway station, and mark one of the nodes of that outline as being an entrance, with entrance=yes or entrance=main. For the UK sense of subway (underpass, for pedestrians to cross a busy road by going under it in a tunnel) I guess you could mark the subway with a way, and tag the nodes at each end of the way with "entrance=yes", and tag the way itself to indicate that it is a tunnel; but that seems implicit anyway. __John ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Are you recommending to tag subway stations as buildings in order to be able > to tag their entrances? That seems logical to me. Is there some problem with doing this, that I haven't seen? I know that it would be possible to have a station which isn't a building (for example, some rural railway stations in the UK just have open platforms with no buildings) but it would still be an area feature, that could have one of its boundary nodes tagged as an entrance. __John ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*
Hi, On 10/14/2011 01:18 PM, John Sturdy wrote: Are you recommending to tag subway stations as buildings in order to be able to tag their entrances? That seems logical to me. Is there some problem with doing this, that I haven't seen? Sorry, I forgot that a subway station does not always have to be under ground. Tagging an above-ground subway station as a building is common practice. For underground buildings, things are more difficult; we don't have an established way of recording the fact that they are below the surface. layer=-1 doesn't cut it as it is only relative to other features, not relative to the surface; and tunnel=yes doesn't sound right either (a subway station is not a tunnel, and is not usually "in a tunnel" either). For this reason, most renderings will look shite with underground buildings, and even non-rendering uses will draw the wrong conclusions from a subterranean subway stations being tagged as buildings. But then again, the underground buildings are those for which knowing the location of the entrance is most useful because you cannot simply walk around them until you find one ;) Bye Frederik ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*
On 10/14/2011 7:35 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Tagging an above-ground subway station as a building is common practice. For underground buildings, things are more difficult; we don't have an established way of recording the fact that they are below the surface. layer=-1 doesn't cut it as it is only relative to other features, not relative to the surface; and tunnel=yes doesn't sound right either (a subway station is not a tunnel, and is not usually "in a tunnel" either). I've seen location=underground: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:location (though the two examples given there do in fact make sense as tunnels). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > On 10/14/2011 01:18 PM, John Sturdy wrote: >>> >>> Are you recommending to tag subway stations as buildings in order to be >>> able >>> to tag their entrances? >> >> That seems logical to me. Is there some problem with doing this, that >> I haven't seen? > > Sorry, I forgot that a subway station does not always have to be under > ground. > > Tagging an above-ground subway station as a building is common practice. For > underground buildings, things are more difficult; we don't have an > established way of recording the fact that they are below the surface. > layer=-1 doesn't cut it as it is only relative to other features, not > relative to the surface; and tunnel=yes doesn't sound right either (a subway > station is not a tunnel, and is not usually "in a tunnel" either). I'd go with Nathan's suggestion of "location=underground" for this one. > For this reason, most renderings will look shite with underground buildings, > and even non-rendering uses will draw the wrong conclusions from a > subterranean subway stations being tagged as buildings. Although perhaps such applications should be written to check the location tag? There are also some "overground" buildings, in which the only part of the building at ground level is a set of pillars, so such applications might have problems with those, too. Alternatively, I suppose we could have "man_made=subway_station" to avoid calling it a building, but I think "made_made=*" seems to be for things less similar to normal buildings than underground stations are. > But then again, the underground buildings are those for which knowing the > location of the entrance is most useful because you cannot simply walk > around them until you find one ;) Now I see what you mean --- I had forgotten that some subway stations are entirely underground rather than having at least a small building on the surface. I think that underground buildings rendering badly is a problem for the renderer authors, and we should stick to the rule "don't tag for the renderer", as it's better for renderers to be re-written to understand location=underground (perhaps as a generic thing for all kinds of feature, maybe setting them to use dashed lines or paler colours). __John ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*
"André Riedel" wrote: > 2011/10/14 Erik Johansson : > > If can't even tag *entrances* to a subway with this tag I see little > > use for it. Could either of you perhaps expand a bit about what you > > mean. > > You can tag the entrance of a train or subway station as > entrance=yes/main BUT only together with a correspondending building > (or poi area). It is not possible to use the tag entrance=yes on a > single node without any connection to a building or area. > > Ciao André > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging In the case of a subway station, this will mean that the station's area will need to underlay other mapped objects, and the mapper will need to map the access tunnels as well as the station proper. -- 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 - Voting - entrance=*
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:18 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > > In the case of a subway station, this will mean that the station's area will > need to underlay other mapped objects, and the mapper will need to map the > access tunnels as well as the station proper. Burrr! Openstreetmap is not made for mapping in 3D atm, even though people do try [1]. Even looking at 3D renders of subway stations complexes make my head go around. So lets not use building=* for subsurface buildings, but I'm guessing people are already doing this? [2] [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Building_attributes [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/112427969 subway tagged as building and layer=-1 -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:00 PM, André Riedel wrote: > 2011/10/14 Erik Johansson : >> If can't even tag *entrances* to a subway with this tag I see little >> use for it. Could either of you perhaps expand a bit about what you >> mean. > > You can tag the entrance of a train or subway station as > entrance=yes/main BUT only together with a correspondending building > (or poi area). It is not possible to use the tag entrance=yes on a > single node without any connection to a building or area. That leaves a tricky problem to where does an entrance go; Which of the 10 different locations in the building will I enter, and also which of these 10 different entrances lead to the one I want. Most buildings are not single use. I'll try to change my perspective a bit, marking important entrances is a good thing there are several entrances that are more important than others, subway_entrance is just one of them.. -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*
2011/10/14 Frederik Ramm : > Hi, > > On 10/14/2011 01:18 PM, John Sturdy wrote: >>> >>> Are you recommending to tag subway stations as buildings in order to be >>> able >>> to tag their entrances? >> >> That seems logical to me. Is there some problem with doing this, that >> I haven't seen? > > Sorry, I forgot that a subway station does not always have to be under > ground. > > Tagging an above-ground subway station as a building is common practice. For > underground buildings, things are more difficult; we don't have an > established way of recording the fact that they are below the surface. > layer=-1 doesn't cut it as it is only relative to other features, not > relative to the surface; and tunnel=yes doesn't sound right either (a subway > station is not a tunnel, and is not usually "in a tunnel" either). What about covered=yes? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > What about covered=yes? > or underground=yes which could be a simple filter for all of us who don't want to be disturbed by underground features during edition. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Pieren wrote: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: >> >> What about covered=yes? >> > > or underground=yes which could be a simple filter for all of us who > don't want to be disturbed by underground features during edition. Well, we already have location=underground established (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:location) and I think it would be a pity to have more than one way of indicating that something is underground. __John ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*
2011/10/14 John Sturdy : > On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Pieren wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer >> wrote: >>> What about covered=yes? >> or underground=yes which could be a simple filter for all of us who >> don't want to be disturbed by underground features during edition. > Well, we already have location=underground established (see > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:location) and I think it would > be a pity to have more than one way of indicating that something is > underground. +1, completely agree that having more then 1 way to tag the same aspect of a feature is a pity. The established way is covered, at least it has a definition in the wiki and dates back to 2009 + it is used more often (covered, usage: "C. denote an area such as an underground parking lot, a covered reservoir/cistern or even such things as an aquarium (e.g., Kelly Tarlton's, Auckland, NZ), when the covering is not a man-made structure that would allow layer differentiation."). The location page dates back to July 2011 and has no real definition on it. To avoid this mess of duplicate tagging categories there is the proposal process. However, I also agree with Pieren that it could be useful to distinguish between underground buildings and all kind of covered features (many mappers might not be interested in underground buildings but they might be in covered stuff on the surface). My suggestion is to go with location=underground and mark the covered=yes for underground structures as deprecated. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Key "location" (was "Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*")
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> Well, we already have location=underground established (see >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:location) and I think it would >> be a pity to have more than one way of indicating that something is >> underground. > 'established' is a big word. I'm surprised by the taginfo stats. I never used this tag myself and I don't remember if it was really discussed in the international lists. It is in the wiki since July. These numbers can only come from an import or a bot. I find the key "location" the worst possible choice we could find for such a tag. An OSM "node" with lat/lon coordinates is a location. All poi's are locations. All "place" entities are locations. All addresses are locations. And what to say about the wiki example with traffic_sign which is pointing to a node where the tag is more a "note" than anything else. The wiki says "in context of traffic sign=*: may be used to designate the location of a traffic sign where the mapped element does not necessarily correspond to the physical location of the sign". Please map the elements where they are physically, not where they should be... Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*
On 10/14/2011 9:43 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: The established way is covered, at least it has a definition in the wiki and dates back to 2009 + it is used more often (covered, usage: "C. denote an area such as an underground parking lot, a covered reservoir/cistern or even such things as an aquarium (e.g., Kelly Tarlton's, Auckland, NZ), when the covering is not a man-made structure that would allow layer differentiation."). The location page dates back to July 2011 and has no real definition on it. To avoid this mess of duplicate tagging categories there is the proposal process. Covered doesn't mean something is underground, just that it has a roof on top. For example a road passing through a building at ground level would be covered=yes. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*
2011/10/14 Nathan Edgars II : > On 10/14/2011 9:43 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Covered doesn't mean something is underground, just that it has a roof on > top. For example a road passing through a building at ground level would be > covered=yes. covered doesn't necessarily mean that sth. is underground, but the wiki page for covered states unambigously that underground buildings are an usecase (see Usage, C, quote above). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Key "location" (was "Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*")
2011/10/14 Pieren : > On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: >>> Well, we already have location=underground established (see >>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:location) and I think it would >>> be a pity to have more than one way of indicating that something is >>> underground. >> > > 'established' is a big word. I'm surprised by the taginfo stats. I > never used this tag myself and I don't remember if it was really > discussed in the international lists. It is in the wiki since July. +1, I never wrote what is written above but I wrote more or less what you wrote, please do your quoting with attention. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Key "location" (was "Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*")
>'established' is a big word. I'm surprised by the taginfo stats. I >never used this tag myself and I don't remember if it was really >discussed in the international lists. It is in the wiki since July. Taginfo won't show the combinations at the moment, but location=* is, afaik, used on ways with man_made=pipeline and nodes tagged amenity/emergency=fire_hydrant. The pipeline tagging proposal suggested it first on 6 December 2007(*) and the proposal vote ended on 31 December 2007. The "proper" mention has been on Tag:man_made=pipeline from the day that page was created, on 17 May 2009. *) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Approved_features/Tag:man_made%3Dpipeline&oldid=62974 -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Key "location"
Left out a significant word by mistake: >is, afaik, *mostly* used on ways with man_made=pipeline and nodes The fire hydrant page now suggests fire_hydrant:type=underground/wall etc., but many old mappers try to avoid type=* as a key - or as a part of a key. -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Key "location" (was "Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*")
2011/10/14 Kytömaa Lauri : > Taginfo won't show the combinations at the moment, but location=* > is, afaik, used on ways with man_made=pipeline and nodes tagged > amenity/emergency=fire_hydrant. Yes but the proposal is now to extend its usage to everything under ground. To be honest, I'm not aware about pipelines and fire hydants tagging but I'm concerned if I discover a tag "location=*" in many OSM objects like buildings, shops or e.g. telephones just because they are underground. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Key "location"
> The fire hydrant page now suggests fire_hydrant:type=underground/wall etc., > but many old mappers try to avoid type=* as a key - or as a part of a > key. As an old mapper, you should also avoid the key "location" since the location is stored in the nodes lat/lon coordinates... Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Key "location"
Pieren wrote: > > The fire hydrant page now suggests > fire_hydrant:type=underground/wall etc., > > but many old mappers try to avoid type=* as a key - or as a part of > a > > key. > > As an old mapper, you should also avoid the key "location" since the > location is stored in the nodes lat/lon coordinates... > > Pieren > In the case of underground structures such as subway stations (Underground stations in UK parlance), where the surface-level entrances may be offset from the station proper and connected to it by tunnels, it may be difficult to establish the exact longitude/latitude of the station, as opposed to the longitude/latitude of its entrances. GPS units don't work while underground. -- 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] Key "location" (was "Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*")
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Pieren wrote: > 2011/10/14 Kytömaa Lauri : >> Taginfo won't show the combinations at the moment, but location=* >> is, afaik, used on ways with man_made=pipeline and nodes tagged >> amenity/emergency=fire_hydrant. > > Yes but the proposal is now to extend its usage to everything under > ground. To be honest, I'm not aware about pipelines and fire hydants > tagging but I'm concerned if I discover a tag "location=*" in many OSM > objects like buildings, shops or e.g. telephones just because they are > underground. I don't think the word "location" is very good, but then it wouldn't be the only tag key in use that seems a bit clumsy; I guess tagging is just far enough away from normal use of natural language words that we'll have to put up with that. (I would have chosen the word "level" for this use, and that is not documented as being used, but is it worth trying to change to use it?) I think it makes sense to have one tag that indicates that something is underground, for any type of thing. That means that software (e.g. renderers) can do a simple test for it, and that mappers only need to know one tag for it. And I prefer "location=underground" over "underground=yes" because we could also use "location=overground", and thus still only have to do one check in software to know that something's not at ground level. __John ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Key "location"
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011, John F. Eldredge wrote: > Pieren wrote: > > > As an old mapper, you should also avoid the key "location" since the > > location is stored in the nodes lat/lon coordinates... > > In the case of underground structures such as subway stations > (Underground stations in UK parlance), where the surface-level entrances > may be offset from the station proper and connected to it by tunnels, it > may be difficult to establish the exact longitude/latitude of the > station, as opposed to the longitude/latitude of its entrances. GPS > units don't work while underground. A fully-qualified mapper is then of course looking for other sources of information that could provide an accurate longitude/latitude relative to something on the ground. E.g., floor and roof tile counting, locating ventilation shafts, emergency exit staircases, etc. can be helpful :-). -- i. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
