Re: [Tagging] Ferry frequency

[Peter Wendorff]

Am 04.10.2013 21:47, schrieb Richard Fairhurst:
> John F. Eldredge wrote:
>> That brings up an issue for routing in general, not 
>> just cycle-routing.  The routing algorithm needs 
>> to take into account the day of the week, and what 
>> time it will be when you reach a point with time-
>> dependent restrictions, or only intermittent 
>> service (such as a bus or ferry).
> 
> Well, yes and no. There are certainly routers that do that; the very
> wonderful CycleStreets has a "what time are you leaving" input field. But
> it's equally possible to make the case that, for the 2% edge case (your
> route includes a ferry), it's not worth cluttering up the UI for the 98% who
> are just, say, cycling across town to work.
> 
> FWIW, I'm planning to flag up the presence of a ferry by saying "route
> includes ferry, 5 services an hour" and let the user drag the route
> somewhere else if that doesn't suit them.
I guess currently the estimated time necessary for the calculated route
is shown somewhere, e.g. like

Duration: 3 hours, 4 minutes

What about printing the estimated time necessary in a way like this:

Duration: estimated 7 hours, 4 minutes but includes ferry which gives
between 3 hours, 17 minutes and 11 hours, 23 minutes, depending on ferry
schedule"

This would print what you want:
- the necessary time without any waiting times (if the ferry would
travel just for you),
- the worst case time (if you just miss the ferry and have to wait for
the next)
- the average case, if you arrive the ferry at a random time.

For calculating the best (shortest, fastest...) route, either the
average case would be used.

regards
Peter

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

[Tagging] your advice please about corrections to tagging instructions

[André Pirard]

Hello 2,

Not sure what's going on out there.  I received a reject from both lists
for 40KB and 80KB excess but it seems that the post to talk-be went
through anyway.
Well, I put the second part of the e-mail here
 and I'm resending
fingers crossed and sorry for possible dupe.

Thanks,
Cheers,

André.




Hello,

May I ask for your advice about the proposed corrections (below) to this
tagger instructions tables
?
Please reply to this e-mail, with a ±1 under each table pair or once
ahead of them all, or just C3=±1, C3bis=±1, ...
You may indicate your tagging alongside a -1 or +1 (OK but yours
better); discussions should be kept apart and later, thanks.
Please note that F99c is ubiquitous for "vehicles prohibited" while the
other F99 seem for so-tagged "designated".

If you browse the table, still as under construction as the OSM map, any
suggestion for improvements is welcome later.
Let's thank Eimai  for
the impressive work in making this table.
I'm lending a cheerful hand, many missing signs, TOC and anchors, a few
errors, ...
(I recommend for such data not only the TOC but mostly the anchors of
which you can copy the URL to link to any particular sign.)

Why the corrections?  Because, importantly enough, those tags cause GPS
routing errors. In particular, none of the F99x signs means any
restriction at all and I made some OSM map corrections because they let
cars pass where they shouldn't.  It's urgent because of the spreading.

Why polling?  Because of these rejecting counter arguments (mainly
regarding C3bis (+destination)):
- no-one will do this, no editor will do this, no person will do this.
Almost everyone in Belgium who encountered an "uitgezonderd plaatselijk
verkeer" sign has tagged it with access= destination. No-one will
systematically add all the tags needed to translate that to their own
vehicle tree. Some that try will forget one or more vehicle type etc.
- if you say that the "vehicle" class doesn't include horse drivers,
well, it also doesn't include cattle, pack animals etc. They also have
drivers, which is what the C3 sign prohibits. Drive a camel or an
elephant and you're not allowed. Not very likely maybe, but
nevertheless, walk next to a cow to move it between two fields and you
have become a driver. Tagging a simple C3 sign will be a lot of fun.
- Hence, in Belgium, "vehicle" will include all things that have a
driver, because that suits our traffic code best. I've always held the
belief that tagging should be as straight forward as possible and that
one traffic sign (or more specifically: one element of information on a
traffic sign) should preferably translate to one tag in OSM.

My opinion:
- a GPS does not know the specifics of Belgium. It obeys the OSM rules
blindly and what I did is translate the Belgian rules to OSM rules strictly.
- tagging instructions must not indicate what the users do but what OSM
dictates;  laziness is no valid reason for bad tagging.
- regarding the ménagerie: I do not understand. C3bis obviously does not
cope with other animals than horses because IMHO there is no OSM class
for them (if there had been I would have cared for it). But would it be
useful as there's no GPS setting for each animal and shepherds rarely
use a GPS?
- on the other hand, and much more importantly than those animals, at
the sole cost of a more correct access->vehicle modification, the new
tags correctly admit the pedestrians and horses that were wrongly
rejected, and the only addition needed is bicycle=yes to make it all-right.
- single tag tagging would require modification of the software and
rules, more of this later, I hope.
- very importantly, like in the early days of Wikipedia, OSM is living a
period of enthusiastic, wild activity; if it is based on missing,
partial or personal rules, we will regret it but, like Wikipedia too,
the taggers, especially bulk ones, will have little incentive to revise
much of what they have done before.

Thanks,
Cheers,

André.


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

[Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

[Dan S]

Hi all,

One of the things I noticed at SOTM was that the Aston campus has two
little wind turbines, perched on top of some of the buildings. They're
quite small, yet the standard OSM style shows them even at zoom level
15, as if they're significant landmarks:



The relevant tags on these items are
   generator:source = wind
   power = generator
   power_source = wind

I've no problem with them being rendered, but I'd suggest it'd be
better to show them only at finer zoom levels. However, as far as I
can tell our renderers don't have much choice, because there's no
tagging that distinguishes a tiny building-mounted turbine from a
massive free-standing turbine.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:generator:source%3Dwind
In open areas with wind-farms, the turbines are significant landmarks,
so I can see it makes sense to render them then.

I'm suggesting this is not a problem we can leave for the renderer,
since the renderer doesn't know the turbine's significance - it
doesn't know if the turbine is 5 feet high or 50 feet high. (This
implies that tagging the height could be a solution... might be a bit
tricky to get correct height data though...)

Best
Dan

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

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 07/ott/2013 um 14:16 schrieb Dan S :
> 
> it
> doesn't know if the turbine is 5 feet high or 50 feet high. (This
> implies that tagging the height could be a solution... might be a bit
> tricky to get correct height data though...)


yes, tagging the height could be a solution. I'm generally using ele for the 
ground elevation and height for the highest point. In the case of a wind 
turbine, would you tag the highest rotor height or that of the support?

We could also have a tag for the rotor diameter. To determine the size of a 
windmill, the power output might also give an indication for rendering purpose. 
Other tags that could be used to distinguish more prominent ones (and that 
don't require precise measurements) could be landmark=yes

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

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

[Janko Mihelić]

2013/10/7 Dan S 

>
> (This
> implies that tagging the height could be a solution... might be a bit
> tricky to get correct height data though...)
>


What if the wind turbine is on the roof of a
building?
That would still be high (because we tag height from the ground, not just
the height of the wind turbine). Actually, all small wind turbines are
usually high .

The solutions Martin suggested seem better (rotor diameter, power output),
but are even harder to get. Landmark seems a bit like a "tag for renderer"
solution to me, but it doesn't seem harmful.

Another solution comes to mind. What if we started tagging values with >
and ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

[Richard Welty]

On 10/7/13 9:12 AM, Janko Mihelic' wrote:
>
> What if the wind turbine is on the roof of a building
> ? That would
> still be high (because we tag height from the ground, not just the
> height of the wind turbine). Actually, all small wind turbines are
> usually high .
>
> The solutions Martin suggested seem better (rotor diameter, power
> output), but are even harder to get. Landmark seems a bit like a "tag
> for renderer" solution to me, but it doesn't seem harmful.
>
> Another solution comes to mind. What if we started tagging values with
> > and 
or just something that's sort of observable like "large" and "small"

i've only really seen two general sizes with nothing in between.
large and small might be good enough for our purposes.

richard



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Pre-proposal: gambling

[Matthijs Melissen]

> IMHO we should distinguish between "real casinos" and those called for
instance "Automaten Casino" in Germany [...]

I agree this distinction also makes sense in the Netherlands. I think I
haven't seen comments from outside of Europe. Would for example Americans
consider this distinction meaningful as well?

> IMHO this differentiation should be made in the main tag, not on subtag
level.

How would you suggest implementing this change, given that they are
currently aggregated in one tag? Do you think voting and documenting the
tags on the wiki would be sufficient? Note that some mappers are opposed to
re(de)fining the meaning of established tags, and some believe that mappers
should keep following existing use, even though voting and wiki say
different. As this example shows, that makes it hard to resolve ambiguities
(as here between real casinis and amusement arcades), even if the community
agrees on a way to resolve the ambiguity.

-- Matthijs
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[fly]

Hey

I wonder if it is useful to tag bicycle=dismount on ways.

At least in Germany there is no official traffic sign despite of the
existence of some.

You are allowed to push your bike on every footway/pedestrian plus ways
with vehicle=no. E.g. it is useless. Either you are allowed to ride
(bicycle=yes/designated) or not (bicycle=no or vehicle=no)

I can understand if it is used together with barrier on nodes.

How is the situation in other countries ?


Cheers fly

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

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Dan S]

Yes, certainly in the UK at least there is a difference: there are
routes I have seen where bikes are not allowed, *even if* dismounted
and pushed. There are routes where bikes are explicitly allowed only
if dismounted. bicycle=dismount is used over 23,000 times, and I
believe routers like cyclestreets make use of it...

Best
Dan


2013/10/7 fly :
> Hey
>
> I wonder if it is useful to tag bicycle=dismount on ways.
>
> At least in Germany there is no official traffic sign despite of the
> existence of some.
>
> You are allowed to push your bike on every footway/pedestrian plus ways
> with vehicle=no. E.g. it is useless. Either you are allowed to ride
> (bicycle=yes/designated) or not (bicycle=no or vehicle=no)
>
> I can understand if it is used together with barrier on nodes.
>
> How is the situation in other countries ?
>
>
> Cheers fly
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/7 fly 

> You are allowed to push your bike on every footway/pedestrian plus ways
> with vehicle=no. E.g. it is useless. Either you are allowed to ride
> (bicycle=yes/designated) or not (bicycle=no or vehicle=no)
>



I agree that bicycle=dismount seems useless, at least as long as you only
look at public ways in Germany (and probably in most countries), but there
are a lot of places where you can walk but you cannot bring your bicycle,
not even pushing. E.g. in shopping malls and on private squares there might
be restrictions. Then again there might be further distinctions (e.g. "are
you allowed to carry your bike"? What if it is foldable? ...)

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

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

[fly]

On 07.10.2013 15:12, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> 2013/10/7 Dan S mailto:danstowell+...@gmail.com>>
> 
> 
> (This
> implies that tagging the height could be a solution... might be a bit
> tricky to get correct height data though...)
> 
> 
> 
> What if the wind turbine is on the roof of a building
> ? That would
> still be high (because we tag height from the ground, not just the
> height of the wind turbine). Actually, all small wind turbines are
> usually high .

Please note, we have ele=* for elevation (ground level) and height=*
(height of the object). So tagging a turbine on the roof you would have
ele="elevation of building + height of building" and height would be
little more than the diametre I guess.

cu
fly


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

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Volker Schmidt]

I have started using bicycle dismount mainly on nodes like pedestrian
crossings  (where by law you have to dismount) and bicycle barriers (to
indicate that the obstacle forces you to dismount, unless you are an
acrobat).
Occasionally I have used it on ways where bicyckles need to be pushed, like
very narrow footpaths along busy highways (typically between guard rails)
or on narrow foot bridges, to indicate that it is extremely dangerous to
ride a cycle there. But I admit that this is in a certain way mapping for
the router.



On 7 October 2013 18:09, fly  wrote:

> Hey
>
> I wonder if it is useful to tag bicycle=dismount on ways.
>
> At least in Germany there is no official traffic sign despite of the
> existence of some.
>
> You are allowed to push your bike on every footway/pedestrian plus ways
> with vehicle=no. E.g. it is useless. Either you are allowed to ride
> (bicycle=yes/designated) or not (bicycle=no or vehicle=no)
>
> I can understand if it is used together with barrier on nodes.
>
> How is the situation in other countries ?
>
>
> Cheers fly
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Richard Welty]

On 10/7/13 12:18 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> 2013/10/7 fly  >
>
> You are allowed to push your bike on every footway/pedestrian plus
> ways
> with vehicle=no. E.g. it is useless. Either you are allowed to ride
> (bicycle=yes/designated) or not (bicycle=no or vehicle=no)
>
>
>
>
> I agree that bicycle=dismount seems useless, at least as long as you
> only look at public ways in Germany (and probably in most countries),
> but there are a lot of places where you can walk but you cannot bring
> your bicycle, not even pushing. E.g. in shopping malls and on private
> squares there might be restrictions. Then again there might be further
> distinctions (e.g. "are you allowed to carry your bike"? What if it is
> foldable? ...)
>
>
it has implications for routing of bicycles. bicycle=no will mean that
it will never be used on a bicycle route. bicycle=dismount would indicate
that inclusion of the way on a bicycle route is reasonable.

richard



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/7 fly 

> Please note, we have ele=* for elevation (ground level) and height=*
> (height of the object). So tagging a turbine on the roof you would have
> ele="elevation of building + height of building" and height would be
> little more than the diametre I guess.
>


Well, this is not completely clear. Why not: ele is the ground elevation (a
building is not "the ground"), so ele won't become the elevation of the
buildings roof, so when you tag a wind turbine on a building you would have
to add ele and building height and wind turbine height to get the upper top
of the wind turbine?

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

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/7 Richard Welty 

> it has implications for routing of bicycles. bicycle=no will mean that
> it will never be used on a bicycle route. bicycle=dismount would indicate
> that inclusion of the way on a bicycle route is reasonable.
>



bicycle=no indicates that you cannot (legally) ride your bicycle there. If
you dismount and push you become a pedestrian, so you are not riding a
bicycle and bicycle=no has no effect on you.

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

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[fly]

On 07.10.2013 18:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> 2013/10/7 Richard Welty  >
> 
> it has implications for routing of bicycles. bicycle=no will mean that
> it will never be used on a bicycle route. bicycle=dismount would
> indicate
> that inclusion of the way on a bicycle route is reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bicycle=no indicates that you cannot (legally) ride your bicycle there.
> If you dismount and push you become a pedestrian, so you are not riding
> a bicycle and bicycle=no has no effect on you.

+1

Otherwise the routing in Germany will not work at all.

Think we need some different tag that you are not allowed to push your
bicycle.

fly


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

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Mike N]

On 10/7/2013 12:27 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

bicycle=no indicates that you cannot (legally) ride your bicycle there.
If you dismount and push you become a pedestrian, so you are not riding
a bicycle and bicycle=no has no effect on you.


 There are wilderness trails where no wheels are allowed.   When 
campers move through the area with a bicycle, they must pack the bicycle 
on their back along with their supplies.



I will say that bicycle=dismount is useful for routing instructions, 
which give explicit dismount instructions.   Sure this is tagging for 
the router, but what better way to convey this to map data consumers? 
For example


http://trip.greenvilleopenmap.info/opentripplanner-webapp/index.html#/submit&fromPlace=34.841472,-82.394065&toPlace=34.843872,-82.400352&mode=BICYCLE&min=TRIANGLE&triangleTimeFactor=0&triangleSlopeFactor=0&triangleSafetyFactor=1&maxWalkDistance=4828&walkSpeed=1.341&time=12:32pm&date=10/7/2013&arriveBy=false&itinID=1&wheelchair=&preferredRoutes=&unpreferredRoutes=&bannedRoutes=

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

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[John F. Eldredge]

fly  wrote:
> Hey
> 
> I wonder if it is useful to tag bicycle=dismount on ways.
> 
> At least in Germany there is no official traffic sign despite of the
> existence of some.
> 
> You are allowed to push your bike on every footway/pedestrian plus
> ways
> with vehicle=no. E.g. it is useless. Either you are allowed to ride
> (bicycle=yes/designated) or not (bicycle=no or vehicle=no)
> 
> I can understand if it is used together with barrier on nodes.
> 
> How is the situation in other countries ?
> 
> 
> Cheers fly
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

On some bridges that have a relatively narrow footway, I have seen signs 
indicating that bicyclists must dismount.  So, I think that it is useful as a 
way of telling someone planning a cycle route "you will have to move at walking 
speed on this section".

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness: 
only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[fly]

On 07.10.2013 18:48, John F. Eldredge wrote:


> On some bridges that have a relatively narrow footway, I have seen signs
> indicating that bicyclists must dismount. So, I think that it is useful
> as a way of telling someone planning a cycle route "you will have to
> move at walking speed on this section".

As said above, I know these signs but I wonder if they are official.

In Germany they are not and the have no judicial effect. You will always
have to take care of pedestrians especially on a small way with mixed
use. Maybe you might even have to stop or dismount. But if you are
really only allowed to push you bicycle a bicycle=no or vehicle=no is
needed.

Router can work with footways or pathes and even steps and you do not
need bicycle=dismount.

fly

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

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[John F. Eldredge]

On 10/07/2013 11:59 AM, fly wrote:

On 07.10.2013 18:48, John F. Eldredge wrote:



On some bridges that have a relatively narrow footway, I have seen signs
indicating that bicyclists must dismount. So, I think that it is useful
as a way of telling someone planning a cycle route "you will have to
move at walking speed on this section".

As said above, I know these signs but I wonder if they are official.

In Germany they are not and the have no judicial effect. You will always
have to take care of pedestrians especially on a small way with mixed
use. Maybe you might even have to stop or dismount. But if you are
really only allowed to push you bicycle a bicycle=no or vehicle=no is
needed.

Router can work with footways or pathes and even steps and you do not
need bicycle=dismount.

fly

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Well, it may vary by jurisdiction, but I would not be surprised if it 
were legally enforced in cases where riding the bicycle could be a 
safety hazard to pedestrians, and in some cases to the cyclist as well.  
I remember seeing such a "cyclists must dismount" on the narrow footway 
of a bridge over the James River, in Richmond, Virginia, USA.  Not only 
was the footway narrow, but the railing between the footway and the 
river was only a little over a meter tall.  This is adequate for a 
pedestrian, but a mounted cyclist could easily fall over the railing and 
into the river. Unfortunately, I am about 600 miles from Richmond at the 
present, so I can't show a photograph.



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

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Richard Welty]

On 10/7/13 1:08 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> Well, it may vary by jurisdiction, but I would not be surprised if it
> were legally enforced in cases where riding the bicycle could be a
> safety hazard to pedestrians, and in some cases to the cyclist as
> well.  I remember seeing such a "cyclists must dismount" on the narrow
> footway of a bridge over the James River, in Richmond, Virginia, USA. 
> Not only was the footway narrow, but the railing between the footway
> and the river was only a little over a meter tall.  This is adequate
> for a pedestrian, but a mounted cyclist could easily fall over the
> railing and into the river. Unfortunately, I am about 600 miles from
> Richmond at the present, so I can't show a photograph.
there's a cyclists must dismount sign for the footway along the Dunn
Bridge between Albany and Rensselaer NY. i can go get a picture if
anyone wants to see one. i think there may also be one for the NY 378
bridge over the Hudson a little further north as well.

richard




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[fly]

On 07.10.2013 19:08, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> On 10/07/2013 11:59 AM, fly wrote:
>> On 07.10.2013 18:48, John F. Eldredge wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On some bridges that have a relatively narrow footway, I have seen signs
>>> indicating that bicyclists must dismount. So, I think that it is useful
>>> as a way of telling someone planning a cycle route "you will have to
>>> move at walking speed on this section".
>> As said above, I know these signs but I wonder if they are official.
>>
>> In Germany they are not and the have no judicial effect. You will always
>> have to take care of pedestrians especially on a small way with mixed
>> use. Maybe you might even have to stop or dismount. But if you are
>> really only allowed to push you bicycle a bicycle=no or vehicle=no is
>> needed.
>>
>> Router can work with footways or pathes and even steps and you do not
>> need bicycle=dismount.
>>

> Well, it may vary by jurisdiction, but I would not be surprised if it
> were legally enforced in cases where riding the bicycle could be a
> safety hazard to pedestrians, and in some cases to the cyclist as well. 
> I remember seeing such a "cyclists must dismount" on the narrow footway
> of a bridge over the James River, in Richmond, Virginia, USA.  Not only
> was the footway narrow, but the railing between the footway and the
> river was only a little over a meter tall.  This is adequate for a
> pedestrian, but a mounted cyclist could easily fall over the railing and
> into the river. Unfortunately, I am about 600 miles from Richmond at the
> present, so I can't show a photograph.

Wonder if this sign would be needed if the footway would just be signed
as footway (highway=path,foot=designated,vehicle=no) without any extras
signs for bicycle ?

cu
fly


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

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Matthijs Melissen]

On Oct 7, 2013 7:00 PM, "fly"  wrote:
> On 07.10.2013 18:48, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> > On some bridges that have a relatively narrow footway, I have seen signs
> > indicating that bicyclists must dismount. So, I think that it is useful
> > as a way of telling someone planning a cycle route "you will have to
> > move at walking speed on this section".

> As said above, I know these signs but I wonder if they are official.
> In Germany they are not and the have no judicial effect.

Just to be clear: do you mean that you always have to dismount on
footpaths, even without the sign, or do you mean that you don't need to
dismount, despite the presence of the sign?

-- Matthijs
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

[Janko Mihelić]

Dana ponedjeljak, 7. listopada 2013., korisnik fly<
lowfligh...@googlemail.com> je napisao:
> On 07.10.2013 15:12, Janko Mihelić wrote:
>> 2013/10/7 Dan S >
>>
>>
>> (This
>> implies that tagging the height could be a solution... might be a bit
>> tricky to get correct height data though...)
>>
>>
>>
>> What if the wind turbine is on the roof of a building
>> ? That would
>> still be high (because we tag height from the ground, not just the
>> height of the wind turbine). Actually, all small wind turbines are
>> usually high .
>
> Please note, we have ele=* for elevation (ground level) and height=*
> (height of the object). So tagging a turbine on the roof you would have
> ele="elevation of building + height of building" and height would be
> little more than the diametre I guess.
>

Wiki says "ele" is height of "ground" above sea level, and "height" is
height of the highest point of an object above ground. But there is
"min_height" for height of lowest point of an object above ground.

See here: http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/File:Minlevel.svg

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

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[fly]

On 07.10.2013 19:33, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2013 7:00 PM, "fly"  > wrote:
>> On 07.10.2013 18:48, John F. Eldredge wrote:
>> > On some bridges that have a relatively narrow footway, I have seen signs
>> > indicating that bicyclists must dismount. So, I think that it is useful
>> > as a way of telling someone planning a cycle route "you will have to
>> > move at walking speed on this section".
> 
>> As said above, I know these signs but I wonder if they are official.
>> In Germany they are not and the have no judicial effect.
> 
> Just to be clear: do you mean that you always have to dismount on
> footpaths, even without the sign, or do you mean that you don't need to
> dismount, despite the presence of the sign?

A highway=footway (same as highway=path, foot=designated, vehicle=no) in
Germany needs always a sign and your are only allowed to push your
bicycle. There exists an additional sign to allow bicycles on these pathes.

Without a sign there are no footways but only pathes. You are allowed to
ride your bicycle on these pathes.

There are some restrictions on pathes in the forest/mountains but that
is a different story and a totally different law.

The extra sign "bicycle dismount" does not mean anything in a judicially
way, that means it does not change anything. Depending on the other
signs you either are allowed to ride or not.

In Germany it gets even more special as you are forced to use official
cycleways and in situations like you describe I would tell people here
to not use the path but the road if possible to be on the save side of
law (official statement of the German Bicycle Club).

Cheers fly

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

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

[John F. Eldredge]

On 10/07/2013 12:33 PM, Janko Mihelic' wrote:



Dana ponedjeljak, 7. listopada 2013., korisnik 
flymailto:lowfligh...@googlemail.com>> je 
napisao:

> On 07.10.2013 15:12, Janko Mihelic' wrote:
>> 2013/10/7 Dan S  >>

>>
>>
>> (This
>> implies that tagging the height could be a solution... might be 
a bit

>> tricky to get correct height data though...)
>>
>>
>>
>> What if the wind turbine is on the roof of a building
>> ? That would
>> still be high (because we tag height from the ground, not just the
>> height of the wind turbine). Actually, all small wind turbines are
>> usually high .
>
> Please note, we have ele=* for elevation (ground level) and height=*
> (height of the object). So tagging a turbine on the roof you would have
> ele="elevation of building + height of building" and height would be
> little more than the diametre I guess.
>

Wiki says "ele" is height of "ground" above sea level, and "height" is 
height of the highest point of an object above ground. But there is 
"min_height" for height of lowest point of an object above ground.


See here: http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/File:Minlevel.svg

Janko


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
As far as I know, we don't have a standard method for tagging the height 
of an object mounted on top of another object, as distinct from the 
combined heights of the objects above ground, or the elevation above sea 
level of the base of the object.  There are likely to be other cases, in 
addition to wind turbines, where this distinction would be useful.


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

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

[Janko Mihelić]

Dana ponedjeljak, 7. listopada 2013., korisnik John F. Eldredge<
j...@jfeldredge.com> je napisao:
>
> As far as I know, we don't have a standard method for tagging the height
of an object mounted on top of another object, as distinct from the
combined heights of the objects above ground, or the elevation above sea
level of the base of the object.  There are likely to be other cases, in
addition to wind turbines, where this distinction would be useful.
>

I think we have a method.

Say we have a 20 meter building with a 3 meter wind turbine on the roof.
You would have an area tagged with building=yes + height=20 and a node
tagged with power=generator + generator:source=wind + height=23 +
min_height=20.

It's a question if a power=generator represents the whole tower or just the
generator. I would maybe add a man_made=tower to all wind turbines to
remove any doubt.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Richard Fairhurst]

dieterdreist wrote:
> bicycle=no indicates that you cannot (legally) ride your bicycle there. 
> If you dismount and push you become a pedestrian, so you are not 
> riding a bicycle and bicycle=no has no effect on you.

That may not be the case in the UK.

The law allows walkers and their "usual accompaniments" along public
footpaths. It's generally agreed that (for example) a car is not a "usual
accompaniment", so you can't push a car along a public footpath. It is
unclear whether or not a bike is. CTC (the Cyclists' Touring Club) thinks it
is, many local councils disagree.

That said, for routing purposes in the UK, I treat bicycle=no the same as
bicycle=dismount, because in reality the tag is often used on paths where
cycling is tolerated.

cheers
Richard





--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Usefulness-of-bicycle-dismount-on-ways-tp5780527p5780567.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

[Yves]

This ele / height discussion might show we need a simple tagging scheme to 
distinguish wind turbines that can be seen as a landmark.
Yves


"Janko Mihelić"  a écrit :
>Dana ponedjeljak, 7. listopada 2013., korisnik John F. Eldredge<
>j...@jfeldredge.com> je napisao:
>>
>> As far as I know, we don't have a standard method for tagging the
>height
>of an object mounted on top of another object, as distinct from the
>combined heights of the objects above ground, or the elevation above
>sea
>level of the base of the object.  There are likely to be other cases,
>in
>addition to wind turbines, where this distinction would be useful.
>>
>
>I think we have a method.
>
>Say we have a 20 meter building with a 3 meter wind turbine on the
>roof.
>You would have an area tagged with building=yes + height=20 and a node
>tagged with power=generator + generator:source=wind + height=23 +
>min_height=20.
>
>It's a question if a power=generator represents the whole tower or just
>the
>generator. I would maybe add a man_made=tower to all wind turbines to
>remove any doubt.
>
>
>
>
>___
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

[fly]

On 07.10.2013 21:13, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> Dana ponedjeljak, 7. listopada 2013., korisnik John F.
> Eldredgemailto:j...@jfeldredge.com>> je napisao:
>>
>> As far as I know, we don't have a standard method for tagging the
> height of an object mounted on top of another object, as distinct from
> the combined heights of the objects above ground, or the elevation above
> sea level of the base of the object.  There are likely to be other
> cases, in addition to wind turbines, where this distinction would be useful.
>>
> 
> I think we have a method.
> 
> Say we have a 20 meter building with a 3 meter wind turbine on the roof.
> You would have an area tagged with building=yes + height=20 and a node
> tagged with power=generator + generator:source=wind + height=23 +
> min_height=20.

No, if it is mounted on top I would say height=3 for the object.

min_height is only used for building:part but not for explicit tagged
objects on top of another object. Please use ele=* to specify the elevation.

> It's a question if a power=generator represents the whole tower or just
> the generator. I would maybe add a man_made=tower to all wind turbines
> to remove any doubt.

And you tag the height of the mast/tower or the height of the generator ?


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

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/7 Yves 

> This ele / height discussion might show we need a simple tagging scheme to
> distinguish wind turbines that can be seen as a landmark.




we "have" this: landmark=yes

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

[Tagging] Mapping a region/landscape

[Tobias]

I would like to map some areas like Wiehengebirge and Teutoburgerwald.

At the moment the Tagging is attached on areas which represent forest.

http://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/search?polygon=1&q=Wiehengebirge

Can somebody help me to find the right tags? There was some weeks ago a
discussion about mapping areas in the alps. I do not have the mails
anymore - was there a conclusion?

Regards, cracklinrain

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

Re: [Tagging] Consolidating tags for building attributes

[Vivien Deparday]

Thank you Tobias (sorry for the late answer), that is very useful feedback
and pretty much exactly in line with our thinking on all the cases which is
great. For B, we are actually also using plaster as one of the values as
the values are recorded by looking at the building 'from the streets'.
For C, I think we will use both building:use (for general usage categories)
and building= with specific values in the cases similar to what you
mentioned.
The Kathmandu Living Labs Team has added a description of all the tags and
values in the preset including for shape:elevation that you were asking
about:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nepal/kathmandulivinglabs/exposuresurveyIt
is a simple way of recording the vertical shape if you cannot record
all
the details of each building.

Best,

Vivien

On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Tobias Knerr  wrote:

> Hello Vivien,
>
> I develop a 3D renderer working with OSM data, so I will look at your
> questions based on that background.
>
> Case A: roof:material vs. building:roof
>
> The preferred key from 3D rendering documentation is roof:material
> because, as you guessed, it clearly differentiates this attribute from
> roof:shape. Based on just the wording of the key, building:roof could be
> either - so you would have to look it up.
>
> Case B: building:walls vs. building:material
>
> I'm not sure what building:walls means exactly, I'm not using that tag
> for rendering so far. But I can clarify the intention with
> building:material: It's supposed to represent the outer material as seen
> while mapping on-the-ground. Therefore, "plaster" is a valid value for
> building:material because that's the outermost layer, even though the
> entire wall is not made from plaster. If building:walls has the same
> meaning, then I prefer building:material for the same reason as in Case A.
>
> Case C: building vs. building:use
>
> I have to agree with you here, the values used for the building key are
> quite chaotic. But from the original intention as I remember it, I do
> not think that the two things have the same meaning. For example, a
> commonly cited example is that a church building which is no longer used
> as a church and is now a museum (but still looks like a typical church)
> would be tagged building=church + amenity=museum.
>
> Personally, I only use a few hand-picked values from the building key
> that have a rather clear meaning.
>
> As for Case D and the other suggested keys, these are new or seem
> unrelated to 3D rendering. However, I'm not sure about the exact meaning
> of your suggested shape:elevation?
>
> Tobias
>
>
> On 23.08.2013 18:22, Vivien Deparday wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > The OpenDRI project has been doing some work in Nepal and Sri Lanka to
> > trace building footprints and to enter attribute data about the
> > buildings. We are looking to get feedback from the tagging and HOT
> > mailing list on the building presets that we are using and we would like
> > to consolidate them with the HDM preset [1] and with the rest of the
> > work done by HOT (e.g. in Indonesia [2]) to make sure it is consistent
> > to use it with InaSafe [3] or for 3D Modeling [4] or any other
> applications.
> >
> > The presets developed by OpenDRI so far are Nepal [5] and Sri Lanka [6].
> > The Nepal presets already received a couple comments from the tagging
> > list that were applied.
> >
> > 1. We have been using 3D building guidelines (although they have a few
> > contradictory elements), taginfo statistics and looked at a lot of
> > tagging guidelines on the OSM wiki to create the keys and values but we
> > didn't really find one general guideline for creating new tags so we
> > would welcome any feedback on the presets [5] and [6].
> >
> > 2. There are a couple discrepancies:
> >
> > Case A:
> > For the roof material, these keys have been used about the same number
> > of times:
> > In wiki gbothuidelines: roof:material=
> > or
> > In HDM or Indonesia: building:roof=
> > It seems like the first option would be better? because it allows to
> > differentiate with roof:shape ?
> >
> > Case B:
> > For wall material (different from building structure)
> > In Indonesia: building:walls=
> > or
> > In HDM presets: building:material=
> > building:material is more widely used or do the two tags are meant to be
> > different?
> >
> > Case C:
> > For building usage,
> > building=
> > building:use=
> > I am not sure what is the best between these two or do they have
> > different goal/usage? building= seem to be a mix of usage, amenity type,
> > structure type.
> >
> > Case D:
> > capacity:persons=
> > occupants=
> > I suppose they represents two different things: full capacity of a
> > building vs actual occupancy ?
> >
> >
> > Some other tags that could be added to the HDM:
> > building:structure
> > roof:shape
> > shape:plan
> > shape:elevation
> >
> > If there is some kind of agreement I can create a pull request on the
> > HDM presets and add some of the new tags we are using too. The 

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

[Clifford Snow]

On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 11:05 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote:

> As far as I know, we don't have a standard method for tagging the height
> of an object mounted on top of another object, as distinct from the
> combined heights of the objects above ground, or the elevation above sea
> level of the base of the object.  There are likely to be other cases, in
> addition to wind turbines, where this distinction would be useful.


It seems that small and large are too granular for the complexities of wind
turbines. Wikipedia has numerous sizes of wind turbines. There is a
classification for small, 100kw or less wind turbines, but it is not
related to physical size, just power output.

Tagging wind turbines should have room for type, tower height, rotor and
hub size and power output.


-- 
Clifford

OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Power tower and pole usefulness

[François Lacombe]

Hi,

Please note the update of the power transmission proposal
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_transmission_refinement

1. Removing the man_made=pole / man_made=tower introduction
- Deeper work should be done both in power and telecommunication fields to
find a proper way to define supports (like tower, poles, trees, buildings,
whatever) in a consistent and sustainable way that proposal can't cover.
- The substation refinement proposal was accepted today and it was
important to be consistent with its "hosted features on poles"
recommendations.
- Things stay as now and this topic may be come back in debate in a couple
of months with a new proposal

2. Replacing cables=* and wires=* by bundles=* and conductors=* for power
lines phy description as suggested by polderrunner on talk.

3. Power line description is done as "strings of towers".
Numerical values to describe it are always given without any circuit
considerations.
Circuits (I.e. path used by power to from A to B) will be described as
relations in the power routing proposal (which is currently draft) and will
actually accept power=line ways as member.
This prevent us to put useless redundancy (and consistency errors not to
mention) in database.

4. power=cable deprecation remains here. power=line aims to be the only way
to describe a power line whatever its location.
Please keep in mind this big change is intended to improve the "system"
approach more than any rendering or local terminology particular case...
and it's hard work.

You can send me any formal and constructive suggestion about that.
Vote will begin shortly. Stay tuned.

Cheers.


*François Lacombe*

francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu
http://www.infos-reseaux.com


2013/9/23 François Lacombe 

> Hi,
>
> I can't open voting right now since some other points are still incomplete
> (RFC outlined comments and it's time to find a solution).
> Moreover, substation refinement vote is currently opened, one thing at a
> time.
>
> Be sure I'm willing to propose a good solution to the multiple power
> instances on the same node.
> But it's hard work to look wide and time is currently missing for me.
> That's why it's not good to launch vote now too : proposal has 99% chances
> to be rejected regarding this point and I don't want to recap my investment
> to that.
>
> Sorry but the "consistency thread" was too big to follow it correctly :(
>
>
> *François Lacombe*
>
> francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu
> http://www.infos-reseaux.com
>
>
> 2013/9/23 Pieren 
>
>> On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 9:38 PM, François Lacombe
>> > Deprecating power=tower and power=pole was my first proposition.
>> > Many people goes against it and then I refined the proposal.
>> > For now I'm just introducing man_made=tower + tower:type=power to use it
>> > when power=* is needed to describe hosted devices.
>> > Thus, man_made=tower doesn't seem to be the perfect solution, so let's
>> try
>> > to find it but the topic isn't to deprecate power=tower because it
>> won't.
>>
>> François, another thread on this ML was opened about "consensus in
>> OSM" and raised some inconsistencyies in our taging documentation. And
>> now, you are creating a new inconsistency. You already got some advice
>> about how to fix the "power" tag issue when you need the key more than
>> once (use subtags). Please, open now a "vote" on your proposal to get
>> some feedback from a larger audience and see if you are in the right
>> direction or not.
>>
>> Pieren
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

[Janko Mihelić]

Dana ponedjeljak, 7. listopada 2013., korisnik fly<
lowfligh...@googlemail.com> je napisao:
> No, if it is mounted on top I would say height=3 for the object.
>
> min_height is only used for building:part but not for explicit tagged
> objects on top of another object. Please use ele=* to specify the
elevation.

With your logic, if a building has underground floors, they should be
counted into the height, don't you think so?

Anyway, wiki isn't clear on this at all, there's obviously some work to do.
It's only clear with ele being elevation of ground over sea level, even if
it's tagged on a node like man_made=tower.

>
>> It's a question if a power=generator represents the whole tower or just
>> the generator. I would maybe add a man_made=tower to all wind turbines
>> to remove any doubt.
>
> And you tag the height of the mast/tower or the height of the generator ?

The top of the highest point of the structure (top of the blade in the
highest position). That's my proposal.

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

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Ole Nielsen]

On 07/10/2013 21:42, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

dieterdreist wrote:

bicycle=no indicates that you cannot (legally) ride your bicycle there.
If you dismount and push you become a pedestrian, so you are not
riding a bicycle and bicycle=no has no effect on you.


That may not be the case in the UK.

The law allows walkers and their "usual accompaniments" along public
footpaths. It's generally agreed that (for example) a car is not a "usual
accompaniment", so you can't push a car along a public footpath. It is
unclear whether or not a bike is. CTC (the Cyclists' Touring Club) thinks it
is, many local councils disagree.

That said, for routing purposes in the UK, I treat bicycle=no the same as
bicycle=dismount, because in reality the tag is often used on paths where
cycling is tolerated.


At least in the Netherlands you have to distinguish between bicycle=no 
and bicycle=dismount. Some pedestrian streets are explicitly signed with 
no bicycle pushing. In other words you may not bring your bicycle here. 
Thus you need bicycle=no in its strict interpretation.


In other situations bicycle=dismount is useful for routing as already 
mentioned. One good example is steps having a groove along the side 
intended for bicycle pushing. Routers would probably not suggest steps 
as routable for bicycles unless you indicate that fact.


Ole


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

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

[Ole Nielsen]

On 07/10/2013 22:40, Clifford Snow wrote:


It seems that small and large are too granular for the complexities of
wind turbines. Wikipedia has numerous sizes of wind turbines. There is a
classification for small, 100kw or less wind turbines, but it is not
related to physical size, just power output.

Tagging wind turbines should have room for type, tower height, rotor and
hub size and power output.


Maybe we shouldn't tag such small wind turbines as power=generator as 
they hardly count as power infrastructure. My suggestion is 
man_made=small_generator or something like that for (could also apply to 
rooftop solar panels).


Ole

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

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

[François Lacombe]

2013/10/7 Ole Nielsen 

> Maybe we shouldn't tag such small wind turbines as power=generator as they
> hardly count as power infrastructure. My suggestion is
> man_made=small_generator or something like that for (could also apply to
> rooftop solar panels).
>

Don't agree.

The power generation model has been refined especially for that.
If the device produce power, it should be tagged as power=generator, even
it's small.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Power_generation_refinement#Solar_thermal_energy

No need to create new values in man_made for that.


*François Lacombe*

francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu
http://www.infos-reseaux.com



> __**_
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/7 Ole Nielsen 

> Maybe we shouldn't tag such small wind turbines as power=generator as they
> hardly count as power infrastructure.



-1, it is already done like this (also for solar power) and there is no
reason why they shouldn't count as power infrastructure.

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

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/7 Matthijs Melissen 

> Just to be clear: do you mean that you always have to dismount on
> footpaths, even without the sign, or do you mean that you don't need to
> dismount, despite the presence of the sign?



you will always have to dismount, so the sign has no further indication as
what is already said by the footway sign.

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

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/7 Ole Nielsen 

> At least in the Netherlands you have to distinguish between bicycle=no and
> bicycle=dismount. Some pedestrian streets are explicitly signed with no
> bicycle pushing. In other words you may not bring your bicycle here. Thus
> you need bicycle=no in its strict interpretation.



the wiki says, "bicycle" is about "cyclists" (access-page). Are you a
cyclist when pushing your bike? Are you maybe still a cyclist when you
parked your bike and you still wear your bicycle clothing? Or when you have
a bicycle at home?

My suggestion would be to use something more specific when pushing a
bicycle is forbidden, as you are not a cyclist when you carry or push your
bike, so bicycle=no "in its strict interpretation" doesn't apply to you
when pushing your bike as it applies to "cyclists" and not to bicycles.

Btw.: What about monocycles? Are you alled to carry a monocycle in these
streets?

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

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Kytömaa Lauri]

>Martin Koppenhoefer:
>Btw.: What about monocycles? Are you alled to carry a monocycle in these 
>streets?

What would the traffic ticket claim as the offence?

FWIW, our law has a clause that on a footway a pedestrian may not push a bike, 
moped, kicksled, ski or skate or carry a big load if it can cause considerable 
hindrance to others. I've only once seen a dismount sign, it was this year at a 
combined cycleway on a bridge that was being renovated. Had they changed to a 
footway sign, cyclists would have taken the main carriageway legally, but 
because of the circumstances they probably wanted that they'd rather be pushing 
their bikes on the sidewalk for that 50 meters, than have them wobbling between 
the buses on narrower-than-usual lanes between the guard rails.

-- 
Alv
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Consolidating tags for building attributes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/8/23 Vivien Deparday 

> Case C:
> For building usage,
> building=
> building:use=
> I am not sure what is the best between these two or do they have different
> goal/usage? building= seem to be a mix of usage, amenity type, structure
> type.
>


building:use is for the current use of the building, building is for the
type of building (architecture). In some circumstancese these are the same,
but they don't have to be. Maybe an example can make this more clear: a
building built as a church will remain a church building, also when
desacrated (building=church, eventually further subtagged), and you can
also operate a church in a residential or an office building (or open air
etc.).

Or a hotel, there are different types of dedicated hotel buildings (e.g.
atrium-hotel has a big atrium in the center and loggias around it to got to
the room) but there are also small hotels operated in residential buildings
(and in this case building would not be "hotel").

The building:use tag would mostly be duplicates of the amenities, shops
etc. inside the building, wouldn't it? There is also landuse, so I am not
sure if you really need this (might be suitable for residential buildings,
the rest will either be covered by amenity/shop/craft/office/etc. or we are
missing a tag)

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

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/7 Kytömaa Lauri 

> FWIW, our law has a clause that on a footway a pedestrian may not push a
> bike, moped, kicksled, ski or skate or carry a big load if it can cause
> considerable hindrance to others.



This list doesn't contain babystrollers, does the situation change when you
have a small kid on the bike? ;-)

My guess is that many countries have a similar law. The question is what is
considered a "considerable hindrance to others." In Italy there are more or
less the same laws as in Germany (regarding the traffic) but the traffic is
completely different, a Roman policeman does not even consider a cyclist to
be part of the traffic (and he will often also close both eyes for the
rules infringement of motorcars or maybe not even notice them because he is
used to).

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

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[fly]

On 07.10.2013 23:06, Ole Nielsen wrote:
> On 07/10/2013 21:42, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>> dieterdreist wrote:
>>> bicycle=no indicates that you cannot (legally) ride your bicycle there.
>>> If you dismount and push you become a pedestrian, so you are not
>>> riding a bicycle and bicycle=no has no effect on you.
>>
>> That may not be the case in the UK.
>>
>> The law allows walkers and their "usual accompaniments" along public
>> footpaths. It's generally agreed that (for example) a car is not a "usual
>> accompaniment", so you can't push a car along a public footpath. It is
>> unclear whether or not a bike is. CTC (the Cyclists' Touring Club)
>> thinks it
>> is, many local councils disagree.
>>
>> That said, for routing purposes in the UK, I treat bicycle=no the same as
>> bicycle=dismount, because in reality the tag is often used on paths where
>> cycling is tolerated.
> 
> At least in the Netherlands you have to distinguish between bicycle=no
> and bicycle=dismount. Some pedestrian streets are explicitly signed with
> no bicycle pushing. In other words you may not bring your bicycle here.
> Thus you need bicycle=no in its strict interpretation.

Please use a different tag for this or is it the law in the Netherlands
that you are not allowed to push a bicycle on sidewalks/footpathes ?

> In other situations bicycle=dismount is useful for routing as already
> mentioned. One good example is steps having a groove along the side
> intended for bicycle pushing. Routers would probably not suggest steps
> as routable for bicycles unless you indicate that fact.

You can use ramp or ramp:bicycle and bicycle=yes/designated on the steps.

Also step_count (along with incline) is nice as you might even carry
your bike for some steps

cu
fly

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

Re: [Tagging] Consolidating tags for building attributes

[fly]

On 07.10.2013 22:39, Vivien Deparday wrote:
> Thank you Tobias (sorry for the late answer), that is very useful
> feedback and pretty much exactly in line with our thinking on all the
> cases which is great. For B, we are actually also using plaster as one
> of the values as the values are recorded by looking at the building
> 'from the streets'.
> For C, I think we will use both building:use (for general usage
> categories) and building= with specific values in the cases similar to
> what you mentioned.
> The Kathmandu Living Labs Team has added a description of all the tags
> and values in the preset including for shape:elevation that you were
> asking about:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nepal/kathmandulivinglabs/exposuresurvey
> It is a simple way of recording the vertical shape if you cannot record
> all the details of each building.

Hey Vivien

Please change your building=* to building:use=*, Building=* is used for
the type of building but not the use. This might be the same e.g. if the
building was primary built as hospital and is still occupying one but
you will probably find kindergardens in normal residential buildings and
you will also find hospital buildings which are no building=hospital as
they where built to accommodate the staff and might still be in use this
way.

It is usally a good pratice to tag an amenity as area once it covers
more than one building.

Please do not use abbreviations if possible. I do not understand "icu"
nor "opd" but "intensive_care".

I am not sure about operator:type. Think your values would fit with
simple operator=* and if you want to separate the operator of the
building from the operator of the amenity I think operator:amenity would
be better

My 2 ct
Cheers fly

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

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

[fly]

On 07.10.2013 22:53, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> Dana ponedjeljak, 7. listopada 2013., korisnik
> flymailto:lowfligh...@googlemail.com>> je
> napisao:
>> No, if it is mounted on top I would say height=3 for the object.
>>
>> min_height is only used for building:part but not for explicit tagged
>> objects on top of another object. Please use ele=* to specify the
> elevation.
> 
> With your logic, if a building has underground floors, they should be
> counted into the height, don't you think so?

Mmh the underground is a real difficult problem but no, I do not want to
dig and measure the height of the mast.

I know buildings on steep areas which have two different ground levels
so simply building height is really difficult.

To state it:
1. define/tag ele=* for the object (ground)
2. measure the maxheight from this point -> height=*
3. do this for each object individually (eg. an object on top of another
one gets a different ele=* and its height.

For underground we would need a new tag.

> Anyway, wiki isn't clear on this at all, there's obviously some work to
> do. It's only clear with ele being elevation of ground over sea level,
> even if it's tagged on a node like man_made=tower.

cu
fly



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

Re: [Tagging] Consolidating tags for building attributes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 08/ott/2013 um 00:48 schrieb fly :
> 
> Think your values would fit with
> simple operator=* and if you want to separate the operator of the
> building from the operator of the amenity I think operator:amenity would
> be better


you should not use amenity and building on the same object, even if the 
geometry is the same you will get ambiguities. Better use a distinct object for 
the building and one for the hospital, and you will not need operator:amenity 
or building:name or tags like that, instead you can use name, operator, etc. on 
the object they belong to (use a multipolygon relation to reuse polygon 
geometry).

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

Re: [Tagging] Consolidating tags for building attributes

[Tod Fitch]

I don't see the use of multipolygon relations in this manor in the wiki. Nor 
have I noticed it in use in the areas that I have edited. Nor do I recall 
answers suggesting using multiple multipoloygons on the help site.

Is this a common technique that I have somehow missed?

Thanks!
Tod

-- 
Sent from my mobile device. Please excuse my brevity.

Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>
>
>> Am 08/ott/2013 um 00:48 schrieb fly :
>> 
>> Think your values would fit with
>> simple operator=* and if you want to separate the operator of the
>> building from the operator of the amenity I think operator:amenity
>would
>> be better
>
>
>you should not use amenity and building on the same object, even if the
>geometry is the same you will get ambiguities. Better use a distinct
>object for the building and one for the hospital, and you will not need
>operator:amenity or building:name or tags like that, instead you can
>use name, operator, etc. on the object they belong to (use a
>multipolygon relation to reuse polygon geometry).
>
>cheers,
>Martin 
>___
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Consolidating tags for building attributes

[SomeoneElse]

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

you should not use amenity and building on the same object


Er, what?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element

Cheers,

Andy

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

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Matthijs Melissen]

> At least in the Netherlands you have to distinguish between bicycle=no
and bicycle=dismount. Some pedestrian streets are explicitly signed with no
bicycle pushing.

I never heard of that, what sign do you mean? In which contexts is out
used? Do you have a picture by any chance?

-- Matthijs
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging