Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - More Consistency in Railway Tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am 14/apr/2013 um 15:21 schrieb Rovastar :

> It seems that the terms light rail and tram are used interchangeably around
> the world so mostly ignore my last comments. I don't know where this leave
> OSM tagging standards for them though. In the UK we do class them as
> different and it just show my sheltered life and knowledge on this
> subject...


it is not always an easy issue to decide whether it is a tram or a light rail, 
in Germany we decided to map this according to German law, but different towns 
might have the same word in German for what legally/technically are different 
services, in Berlin for instance we use light_rail for the S-Bahn, subway for 
the U-Bahn (although some lines travel entirely above ground, but never level 
crossings) and tram for the Straßenbahn. Only the latter shares sometimes the 
road with cars. In other cities the U-Bahn has level crossings and is operated 
according to tram rules...

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - More Consistency in Railway Tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

btw, here is an example showing how further detail is currently tagged: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/89290807

(FYI, I do not promote all of the used tags, e.g. pzb is an abbreviation of a 
German term, so it seems to be against tagging guidelines)

cheers,
Martin___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - More Consistency in Railway Tagging

[Richard Mann]

The German use of railway=light_rail for S-Bahn is a bit peculiar, since it
is generally operated with "heavy" rail equipment (often loco&coaches), to
mainline signalling standards (which tend to be defined in terms of the
stopping distance for a heavy freight train), and with heavy rail
structures and clearances. There probably needs to be a term for railways
that largely operate independently of the the mainline network, but are
heavy-rail in technical terms (and may get used as diversionary routes for
long-distance trains, during engineering works, and for excursions etc).

railway=suburban would be a possibility (or as an intermediate step, to let
data-users adjust, railway_type=suburban)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] riverbanks wiki (was [OSM-dev] Coastline, lakes, rivers)

[Pieren]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Tobias Knerr  wrote:

> On 16.04.2013 11:53, Pieren wrote:
> > I'm not sure that the "New tagging" of riverbanks has been really
> > adopted, excepted by the 16 who approved it on the wiki
>
> Just for clarity: A redefinition of riverbanks has *not* been approved
> by wiki vote.
>
>
I forward this discussion on the tagging list.
You say that "a redefinition of riverbanks has not been approved" but the
current wiki page says the opposite:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driverbank

== Common tagging ==
The area of the river should be marked by a closed area drawn along the
riverbanks...

== New tagging ==
A new tagging schema has been approved...
... The ways around a river can still be tagged as waterway=riverbank (as
they still are riverbanks), although this isn't needed, and riverbanks
aren't treated as areas any more...


The current status of this wiki page is very bad and confusing. First, we
explain two methods and we don't explain why. Second, the new tagging is
not adopted by editors presets since a year. Third, the section titled
"unification of the island case" is showing a multipolygon relation with an
outer ring unclosed (you have gaps between way1, way2 and way5, way6) !
Please, clarify the riverbanks taggins either by:
- deprecate the old tagging, at least clearly in the wiki !
- or withdraw the "new tagging schema" never adopted for riverbanks
excepted by the 16 voters and some imports (2500 "water=river" after two
years of official "approval" !)
- say clearly if riverbanks have to be a closed polygon (or multipolygon
relation) or not !
- fix the unclosed outer ring in multipolygon relation. It's something that
can happen in real data (and fixed by data consumers) but not something we
can recommand in the reference documentation.

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

Re: [Tagging] riverbanks wiki (was [OSM-dev] Coastline, lakes, rivers)

[Tobias Knerr]

On 16.04.2013 16:46, Pieren wrote:
> You say that "a redefinition of riverbanks has not been approved" but
> the current wiki page says the opposite:
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driverbank
[...]
> == New tagging ==
> A new tagging schema has been approved...
> ... The ways around a river can still be tagged as waterway=riverbank
> (as they still are riverbanks), although this isn't needed, and
> riverbanks aren't treated as areas any more...

That section currently has three paragraphs. The first and third
correctly represent the content of the approved proposal.

The second does have no basis in the proposal. Look at it:
http://wiki.osm.org/Proposed_features/Water_details#Deprecation
It tries to make the waterway=riverbank tag obsolete in the long term,
but does *not* assign a new meaning to it. It even mentions that it is
equivalent to the new water areas (which directly contradicts the
riverbank-as-way interpretation), and suggests it should be kept around
for compatibility.

So that entire paragraph could in fact be replaced with "An approved
proposal suggests to tag riverbank areas as natural=water + water=river.
Even then, the waterway=riverbank tag should be kept for compatibility."

Tobias

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

[Tagging] railway=abandoned + highway=cycleway (was: [OSM-talk-be] Abandoned Railways / cycleways)

[André Pirard]

  
  

From OSM-talk-be, with best regards.  I put the questions before the
replies ;-)

  

  

  

  On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 2:31 PM, André
Pirard 
wrote:
  


  

  
On 2013-04-13 23:02, Marc Gemis wrote :


  ... [ full
  message ]

  So why
  two lines for an abandoned railway and
  the cycleway/footway on it ? Can't
  they be combined ?

  

What to do is explained in the OSM wiki at ... Railways
Abandoned - The track
  has been removed and the line may have been
  reused or left to decay but is still clearly
  visible, either from the replacement
  infrastructure, or purely from a line of trees
  around an original cutting or embankment. Use
  railway=abandoned. Where
  it has been reused as a cycle path then add highway=cycleway.
  Consider adding a end_date=*
  tag or more specifically a railway:end_date=*
  tag. 
...
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Marc Gemis 
wrote:

  This means that the separate
track should be removed for the 3 cases I
listed, or not ?

On 2013-04-14
  23:11, Ben Laenen wrote :


  
No, highway and cycleway should not
  share any ways. The only thing which may
  be acceptable is reusing the same nodes
  for two different ways, but only if they
  are on exactly the same location, which is
  actually quite rare. In quite a lot of
  cases there will be an offset, or it will
  diverge a little bit from the original
  railway track.
  

Ben
  


  

  

  

  

  


  

  

  
IMVHO, there is no
  railway if there are no rails, just a cycleway, just
  one way.
  And the intention may be to add information that there
  was a railway there, the genesis.
  How then explain the wiki rules: "railway=abandoned"
  and "add highway=cycleway
  to railway=abandoned"
  instead of "add ...???... to highway=cycleway"?
  
  Obviously questions for Tagging@OSM which I cc:.
  
  Cheers, 
  
  

  
André.
  

  
  

  

  

  


  


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

[Tagging] New childcare proposal

[def onion]

Dear osm tagging list,

im starting a new proposal for detailed tagging of childcare facilities. I
kindly request your comments about this proposal ->
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/childcare2.0

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

Re: [Tagging] riverbanks wiki (was [OSM-dev] Coastline, lakes, rivers)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/4/16 Tobias Knerr 

> So that entire paragraph could in fact be replaced with "An approved
> proposal suggests to tag riverbank areas as natural=water + water=river.
> Even then, the waterway=riverbank tag should be kept for compatibility."
>


+1, for the current state. Still, if this tagging became widely approved
practise it could be thought to remove these riverbank tags. It is really
not very meaningful or elegant to have riverbanks in the middle of the
river (borders between two riverbank polygons). For compatibility reasons
we could also think about having natural=riverbank on an area (in the end a
riverbank is not only a line) and deprecate waterway=riverbank.

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

Re: [Tagging] Power generation refinement: power plant model evolution

[François Lacombe]

Hi,

2013/4/14 François Lacombe 

> It would be great to find out what are the "state of the art" in OSM to
> make a better choice than "heads or tails" : *what is used for airports,
> train stations, factories,... ?*
>

Airports : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aeroway%3Daerodrome
No relations (however often closed area).

Train stations : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dstation
No relations (however often single buildings which hold the whole station,
sometimes node on railway).

Factories : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/industrial
No relations recommended so far.


So current version of generation refinement proposal seems to be consistent
with large set of map features.
If you have objection with that, please told me!

I would add in proposal that enclosed power plant may be mapped with
multipolygon relation in case of complex perimeter as explained here :
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon

Multipolygon should be used as soon as there are two or more distinct
fenced perimeters.



-- 
*François Lacombe*

francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu
http://www.infos-reseaux.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] New childcare proposal

[malenki]

Am Tue, 16 Apr 2013 23:16:39 +0200
schrieb def onion :

> I kindly request your comments about this proposal ->
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/childcare2.0

My first thought:
What about orphanages and facilities alike?

Regards
malenki

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

Re: [Tagging] New childcare proposal

[Sean Bartell]

Hello,

> im starting a new proposal for detailed tagging of childcare facilities. I
> kindly request your comments about this proposal ->
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/childcare2.0

Thanks for working on this! This is long overdue, especially considering
the Kindergarten page's absurd recommendation to tag daycares as
amenity=kindergarten + description="Not really a kindergarten."

I added a few comments to the talk page; mainly, I suggest renaming
"educational_paradigm=" to "pedagogy=" or something else short. On a
larger scale, I wonder whether there should be more tagging overlap
between childcare, schools, and tutoring services.

Sean Bartell

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