[Tagging] Fwd: Ojeq Stand
OK, So i make bad (formatting and approach) proposal for tag ojeq stand. It is a motorcycle taxi stand. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Indonesia/adaptation/ojeq_stand Help requested with proposal, please, for formatting, placement, generalization. Alex ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Ojeq Stand
2012/4/30 Alex Rollin : > OK, So i make bad (formatting and approach) proposal for tag ojeq > stand. It is a motorcycle taxi stand. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Indonesia/adaptation/ojeq_stand You put this into the Indonesia-namespace of the wiki, but proposals like this, which describe potentially useful features for the whole world, should better go into the proposal namespace. This is probably not an "Indonesia-only-feature". Have a look here for the established proposal process: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Creating_a_proposal usually you do first a draft, then you ask for comments on this list (tagging) by sending a message beginning with "RFC". After a reasonable time for other mappers to comment and discuss (usually at least 14 days), you can go to voting. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] area=yes on polygones (was Block names)
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote: > Right now, we already have to distinguish three types of tags: > * always area > * always way > * way unless area=yes is present. > > I simply do not think that the possibility to decrease of the number of > tags is worth introducing "area unless area=no is present" in addition > to these. Particularly because whether area or way is the default would > depend on what is assumed to be more likely in reality. And people might > easily have different assumptions here, making that kind of default > non-obvious. I'm always standing in the contributor point of view. It is not the wiki (or better said "our recommendations") to follow the osm2pqsql style file but the opposite. I was asking myself why I accept so easily a 2nd tag for the highway closed loop and not for the railway platform. And this is because my assumption is coming form my own experience like all other mappers. Adding a 2nd tag is acceptable if we all meet at least some substantial examples IRL. Adding a 2nd tag just to fix a theoritical issue is much less acceptable, especially when the main reaction is to say that mapnik/osm2pgsql will fail because the assumption is done on a key, not a key/value pair. Here we speak about a non-obvious assumption for the 0.1% cases ... Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:29:52 Kytömaa Lauri wrote: > >Before that I added a point in the Open issues section about lanes=1.5 > >and modified the note at the end of the section Narrow road. As > > So, today I got a chance to revisit an unpaved residential road > I've tagged as lanes=1.5 in the distant past. Here's two > pictures of it (in one) > > Above, usual traffic drives almost in the center of the road, > as if it were lanes=1. > > Below, the car in picture has it's right side mirror almost > touching the fence, and there's 2.2 meters of the > carriageway free for oncoming traffic, 2.6-2.7 meters > of space to the fence on the other side of the road. > Oncoming cars can get past each other, so it's not > lanes=1. Yet all driveers will slow to a crawl, or at least > to a jogging speed, so IMO it can't be lanes=2, > either. > > http://i46.tinypic.com/2cfqivn.png > > Which value would people use for the lanes=*? Sometimes the answer is "It doesn't matter." If you tagged it with lanes=1, but not oneway=yes, then it's clearly a bottleneck and should be avoided by routers. If you didn't tag lanes=* at all and you didn't have oneway=yes then my assumption would be lanes=2 (because it's not one way). Or you could tag it explicitly with lanes=2. Either way, map users would probably complain that it's too narrow for certain types of vehicle, so it should be re-tagged lanes=1. If you tagged the width then it wouldn't matter if it was lanes=1 or lanes=2 because we can see the overall width and use heuristics to decide if it's a slow road or 'normal' road. Furthermore, if it's classified as highway=residential that would be a hint that it's a narrow road not to be driven too fast. Any of these factors, either assumed, or explicit, should be used by a route planner to make this road unattractive for routing. It's very tempting to add explicit values for every tag, but I really think sometimes it just doesn't matter, and we can get the same meaning for combinations of other tags (even if the tags are absent). Best wishes, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:29:52 Kytömaa Lauri wrote: > >Before that I added a point in the Open issues section about lanes=1.5 > >and modified the note at the end of the section Narrow road. As > > So, today I got a chance to revisit an unpaved residential road > I've tagged as lanes=1.5 in the distant past. Here's two > pictures of it (in one) > > Above, usual traffic drives almost in the center of the road, > as if it were lanes=1. > > Below, the car in picture has it's right side mirror almost > touching the fence, and there's 2.2 meters of the > carriageway free for oncoming traffic, 2.6-2.7 meters > of space to the fence on the other side of the road. > Oncoming cars can get past each other, so it's not > lanes=1. Yet all driveers will slow to a crawl, or at least > to a jogging speed, so IMO it can't be lanes=2, > either. > > http://i46.tinypic.com/2cfqivn.png > > Which value would people use for the lanes=*? Sometimes the answer is "It doesn't matter." If you tagged it with lanes=1, but not oneway=yes, then it's clearly a bottleneck and should be avoided by routers. If you didn't tag lanes=* at all and you didn't have oneway=yes then my assumption would be lanes=2 (because it's not one way). Or you could tag it explicitly with lanes=2. Either way, map users would probably complain that it's too narrow for certain types of vehicle, so it should be re-tagged lanes=1. If you tagged the width then it wouldn't matter if it was lanes=1 or lanes=2 because we can see the overall width and use heuristics to decide if it's a slow road or 'normal' road. Furthermore, if it's classified as highway=residential that would be a hint that it's a narrow road not to be driven too fast. Any of these factors, either assumed, or explicit, should be used by a route planner to make this road unattractive for routing. It's very tempting to add explicit values for every tag, but I really think sometimes it just doesn't matter, and we can get the same meaning for combinations of other tags (even if the tags are absent). Best wishes, Andrew ___ 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] area=yes on polygones (was Block names)
2012/4/30 Pieren : > I'm always standing in the contributor point of view. It is not the > wiki (or better said "our recommendations") to follow the osm2pqsql > style file but the opposite. +1 > especially > when the main reaction is to say that mapnik/osm2pgsql will fail > because the assumption is done on a key, not a key/value pair. +1, besides from the already named tags in this thread there is also leisure=track which is a nice example. Even it's wiki page says explicitly that it is not clear, whether this is an area or a linear feature, but there are asumptions that mapnik renders this as an area because the rest of the leisure tags are all areas (or nodes): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dtrack cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Ojeq Stand
At 2012-04-30 01:07, Alex Rollin wrote: OK, So i make bad (formatting and approach) proposal for tag ojeq stand. It is a motorcycle taxi stand. Why not first search for existing usage? Taxi stands are common all over the world. Searching the wiki for "taxi" yields: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dtaxi . Add taxi=motorcycle;car;hov or maybe individual tags like motorcycle=yes, etc. in the style of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access#Transport_mode_restrictions . -- Alan Mintz ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Ojeq Stand
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Alan Mintz wrote: > At 2012-04-30 01:07, Alex Rollin wrote: >> >> OK, So i make bad (formatting and approach) proposal for tag ojeq >> stand. It is a motorcycle taxi stand. > > > Why not first search for existing usage? Taxi stands are common all over the > world. Searching the wiki for "taxi" yields: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dtaxi . Add > taxi=motorcycle;car;hov or maybe individual tags like motorcycle=yes, etc. > in the style of > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access#Transport_mode_restrictions . > Thank you to Martin for pointing out the generalization, and for telling me where to find the process. Thank you to Alan for noticing that uses exist. Alan, indeed the text of the page read "motorcycle=yes" and I am SO NEW to this that I didn't actually know if it's ok to just add "motorcylce=yes" or if I needed to make a proposal. Can I just do that? So far I have followed what I read to the letter, so, I'm trying play along. I did have to search to figure that out. Alex ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] roundhouses tagging
Should railway roundhouses be tagged railway=roundhouse (as suggested on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Droundhouse) or as building=roundhouse? Or both? And how would you tag an old roundhouse that is nowadays used for something else (building=warehouse)? Mihkel Rämmel ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] roundhouses tagging
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Mihkel Rämmel wrote: > Should railway roundhouses be tagged railway=roundhouse (as suggested on > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Droundhouse) > or as building=roundhouse? Or both? > And how would you tag an old roundhouse that is nowadays used for > something else (building=warehouse)? > > building=yes, railway=roundhouse? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] roundhouses tagging
Would soon lead to building=roundhouse, railway=roundhouse . Which is information duplication. On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Mihkel Rämmel wrote: > >> Should railway roundhouses be tagged railway=roundhouse (as suggested on >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Droundhouse) >> or as building=roundhouse? Or both? >> And how would you tag an old roundhouse that is nowadays used for >> something else (building=warehouse)? >> >> > building=yes, railway=roundhouse? > > ___ > 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] roundhouses tagging
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Mihkel Rämmel wrote: > On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: >> >> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Mihkel Rämmel wrote: >>> >>> Should railway roundhouses be tagged railway=roundhouse (as suggested on >>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Droundhouse) >>> or as building=roundhouse? Or both? >>> And how would you tag an old roundhouse that is nowadays used for >>> something else (building=warehouse)? >>> >> >> building=yes, railway=roundhouse? > > Would soon lead to building=roundhouse, railway=roundhouse . Which is > information duplication. I don't see why building would have to duplicate the railway tag. building=yes asks "Is there a building of any kind?" and answers it with "yes." Pretty commonly accepted practice. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] roundhouses tagging
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 18:36 +0300, Mihkel Rämmel wrote: > Should railway roundhouses be tagged railway=roundhouse (as suggested > on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Droundhouse) > or as building=roundhouse? Or both? > And how would you tag an old roundhouse that is nowadays used for > something else (building=warehouse)? Am not aware of any in the UK still in railway use, the most famous one is here http://osm.org/go/euu4dDLW7-- and tagged as a theatre. Phil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
