Re: [Tagging] End voting bicycle=use_cycleway

[Erik Johansson]

I agree with Martin the voting is meaningless for this, you will have
to prove that this is usefull in some way first then post the proposal
again. Show us how routers should use the data and how invasive this
tagging is.



On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Pee Wee  wrote:
> @ Martin
>
> I understand what you are saying. With regard to routing I did not expect we
> had to explain why it could be improved by this new tag. There have been
> some examples like this one showing that a router that wants SHORTEST way
> has no way of knowing it should not take the main road. Still routing is a
> difficult issue. And as some say... routing is not something to be mapped as
> a prime goal so our aim is to just focus on bicycle access. A better routing
> is then a spin off. Discussions about routing leads away from  "bicycle
> access" as the main goal. I think (but you never know ;-) )  it is easier to
> explain that bicycle access on these roads differs from roads with explicit
> ban or roads that allow cycling (always). Having said that it still is
> difficult to come to some sort of agreement but we're going to give it a
> try.
>
> Cheers
> PeeWee32
>
>
> 2013/12/14 Martin Koppenhoefer 
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/13 Pee Wee 
>>>
>>> Today the voting of the bicycle=use_cycleway ended.  Voting results:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes:  10 (not counting the 2 that made the proposal)
>>>
>>> No:  11
>>>
>>> Abstain:  3
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is reason enough for us to work on a better proposal so we reject
>>> the current one.
>>
>>
>>
>> if you look at the reasons from the rejecters you'll find that the vast
>> majority of them neglected in general that this was something to be tagged,
>> either they said the routing software should solve this (impossible btw., if
>> there is no hint in the data, how should the router do it?), or they
>> existing tags would suffice (these said you should tag bicycle=no or
>> destination on the road, what is not working and has already been
>> discussed).
>>
>> As these are the reasons for opposing this, a "better proposal" very
>> likely won't change anything (when the problem is not understood, no
>> solution will be agreed on).
>>
>> cheers,
>> Martin
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor openstreetmap.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
/emj

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

Re: [Tagging] End voting bicycle=use_cycleway

[Masi Master]

Yes, it will be included in the new proposal.
PeeWee32 created an example of routing the SHORTEST way:
http://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=52.508705%2C13.273662&point=52.509385%2C13.270111&vehicle=BIKE&locale=nl


Am 14.12.2013, 14:25 Uhr, schrieb Erik Johansson :


I agree with Martin the voting is meaningless for this, you will have
to prove that this is usefull in some way first then post the proposal
again. Show us how routers should use the data and how invasive this
tagging is.



On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Pee Wee  wrote:

@ Martin

I understand what you are saying. With regard to routing I did not  
expect we

had to explain why it could be improved by this new tag. There have been
some examples like this one showing that a router that wants SHORTEST  
way
has no way of knowing it should not take the main road. Still routing  
is a
difficult issue. And as some say... routing is not something to be  
mapped as
a prime goal so our aim is to just focus on bicycle access. A better  
routing

is then a spin off. Discussions about routing leads away from  "bicycle
access" as the main goal. I think (but you never know ;-) )  it is  
easier to
explain that bicycle access on these roads differs from roads with  
explicit
ban or roads that allow cycling (always). Having said that it still  
is

difficult to come to some sort of agreement but we're going to give it a
try.

Cheers
PeeWee32


2013/12/14 Martin Koppenhoefer 



2013/12/13 Pee Wee 


Today the voting of the bicycle=use_cycleway ended.  Voting results:



Yes:  10 (not counting the 2 that made the proposal)

No:  11

Abstain:  3



This is reason enough for us to work on a better proposal so we reject
the current one.




if you look at the reasons from the rejecters you'll find that the vast
majority of them neglected in general that this was something to be  
tagged,
either they said the routing software should solve this (impossible  
btw., if

there is no hint in the data, how should the router do it?), or they
existing tags would suffice (these said you should tag bicycle=no or
destination on the road, what is not working and has already been
discussed).

As these are the reasons for opposing this, a "better proposal" very
likely won't change anything (when the problem is not understood, no
solution will be agreed on).

cheers,
Martin

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





--
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor openstreetmap.

___
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] Topographic place names

[Tobias Knerr]

On 12.12.2013 21:52, Steve Bennett wrote:
> It'd be a way, not a node. And maybe there are strong guidelines
> somewhere for defining its exact location?

You could also use an area and construct a word shape as illustrated in
this featured image:
http://wiki.osm.org/File:Maxbe-stubaier-beschriftung_en.png

Here's the map as a whole:
http://geo.dianacht.de/topo/?zoom=10&lat=46.947&lon=11.09077

I can't tell how well it would work (and whether the current tagging of
those mountain range areas is the best choice) but the resulting map
looks nice.

Tobias

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

Re: [Tagging] End voting bicycle=use_cycleway

[fly]

Am 14.12.2013 15:18, schrieb Masi Master:
> Yes, it will be included in the new proposal.
> PeeWee32 created an example of routing the SHORTEST way:
> http://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=52.508705%2C13.273662&point=52.509385%2C13.270111&vehicle=BIKE&locale=nl
> 
> 
> 
> Am 14.12.2013, 14:25 Uhr, schrieb Erik Johansson :
> 
>> I agree with Martin the voting is meaningless for this, you will have
>> to prove that this is usefull in some way first then post the proposal
>> again. Show us how routers should use the data and how invasive this
>> tagging is.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Pee Wee  wrote:
>>> @ Martin
>>>
>>> I understand what you are saying. With regard to routing I did not
>>> expect we
>>> had to explain why it could be improved by this new tag. There have been
>>> some examples like this one showing that a router that wants SHORTEST
>>> way
>>> has no way of knowing it should not take the main road. Still routing
>>> is a
>>> difficult issue. And as some say... routing is not something to be
>>> mapped as
>>> a prime goal so our aim is to just focus on bicycle access. A better
>>> routing
>>> is then a spin off. Discussions about routing leads away from  "bicycle
>>> access" as the main goal. I think (but you never know ;-) )  it is
>>> easier to
>>> explain that bicycle access on these roads differs from roads with
>>> explicit
>>> ban or roads that allow cycling (always). Having said that it
>>> still is
>>> difficult to come to some sort of agreement but we're going to give it a
>>> try.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> PeeWee32
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/12/14 Martin Koppenhoefer 


 2013/12/13 Pee Wee 
>
> Today the voting of the bicycle=use_cycleway ended.  Voting results:
>
>
>
> Yes:  10 (not counting the 2 that made the proposal)
>
> No:  11
>
> Abstain:  3
>
>
>
> This is reason enough for us to work on a better proposal so we reject
> the current one.



 if you look at the reasons from the rejecters you'll find that the vast
 majority of them neglected in general that this was something to be
 tagged,
 either they said the routing software should solve this (impossible
 btw., if
 there is no hint in the data, how should the router do it?), or they
 existing tags would suffice (these said you should tag bicycle=no or
 destination on the road, what is not working and has already been
 discussed).

 As these are the reasons for opposing this, a "better proposal" very
 likely won't change anything (when the problem is not understood, no
 solution will be agreed on).


As I am not voting anymore (I did on few occasions in the past), I am
sorry for you guys.

There are still many options left.

1. No one can stop you from using the value anyway.
2. create a similar proposal and just leave it as proposal without
voting but have some software adapted to show the results.

I am really in favour of a tag like this as the current situation is not
working and people start to use bad concepts to make it work (Lübeck).

Cheers fly

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

Re: [Tagging] End voting bicycle=use_cycleway

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 13 December 2013 19:37, Pee Wee  wrote:
> We want to thank all the contributors to this discussion.  We think  and
> hope we have enough information to work on  new proposal.

Thank you for not giving up, and for trying to improve the proposal.

I think many of the no-votes were the result of a lack of
understanding. Perhaps it would be good to find a couple of real-world
illustrations, and for each of them explain the legal situation, the
desired behaviour of the router, the current tagging situation, and
one (or more) proposed tagging schemes. Then you can show how the
current tagging does not allow desired routing in all cases, and how
proposed tagging schemes do or not not allow for a better routing.

One of the things I was not convinced about in the previous vote is
the legal situation of cycling on roads next to a compulsory cycleway
(in various jurisdictions), and in particular whether or not it is
legal to use the main road to make a turn. Perhaps you can try to
clarify this with reference to law texts, opinions of experts, and
examples?

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby care

[Satoshi IIDA]

Thank you your feedback.

> your gender restrictions and access tags only work with the baby facility
as primary tag.
> Adding changing_table:[sex]=* and similar with push_chair to the page is
needed.
OK, I'll think about combination, then reform the page.

> At least one example for both cases would be nice and maybe some pictures.
Yes, I'm making samples, and will go to survey once again this weekend to
take photos.

Regards,





2013/12/13 fly 

> On 06.12.2013 02:24, Satoshi IIDA wrote:
> >
> > Hi list,
> >
> > I have created a proposal page to describe Baby care schema.
> > It's now on RFC stage with this mail.
> >
> > Please feel free to add your comments on the page.
> >
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/babycare
>
> Your proposal is not really understandable in the way how to use the
> access subkeys.
>
> On top you talk about mainly using the tags as additional keys for other
> primary tags but your gender restrictions and access tags only work with
> the baby facility as primary tag.
>
> Adding changing_table:[sex]=* and similar with push_chair to the page is
> needed.
>
> At least one example for both cases would be nice and maybe some pictures.
>
> Cheers fly
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Satoshi IIDA
mail: nyamp...@gmail.com
twitter: @nyampire
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag max width at chicane-type bicycle barriers

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 4:30 AM, Richard Mann <
richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You could probably calculate it for "standard" bikes by drawing a ?0.7m
> straight path through the barrier and then calculating the degrees of
> deviation from straight that requires.


I might be missing something here.  0.7m is awful short for a standard
bike.  Granted, my bike is on the large side for a standard bike (at 6'2"
(1.88m) in length, it's just 4" short of the maximum length allowed on the
vast majority of transit systems (6'6" or 1.98m).  City of Portland (and
likely soon, USDOT) consider a single bicycle parking space as minimum
3'x6' (though I'd really prefer it, and wouldn't be surprised, if they
bumped that up to 7' or 8' just to be consistent with 6'6" being a popular
maxlength requirement and provide for a little extra clearance given
inconsistencies with locking strategies between riders).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] End voting bicycle=use_cycleway

[Pee Wee]

Thanks Matthijs, Fly, Erik ,Ilpo and Martin for your reply. I’ll say a few
words on how I look at the matter. I have not discussed all this with
co-author MasiMaster so this is my personal view.



*Proposal  process (with or without voting) *

As Fly stated a proposal is not needed to start using new tags. And yes we
can start a new proposal without voting.  The advantage of  a proposal and
discussion is that it improves documentation. We’ve gained more insight
after the voting because of discussion in the voting
section
and comments on the bicycle=use_cycleway
talk
page. This will help us improve the proposal. What surprised me a bit was
that discussions really  started during voting. Remember this was my first
proposal and I’ve only recently joined the tagging mailinglist so I may
have been a bit naïve. For me the discussion about the proposal is the most
important part of the proposal process.



*To vote of not to vote?*

To be honest I do not really take the voting too seriously. Why?

1.   There are no absolute rules as to when it is approved/rejected
(and I can understand that)

2.   For some reason it seems that the ones that make the proposal can
not vote. This is a barrier to team up with others because you then loose
votes.

3.   Only if you have a wiki account you can vote.

4.   You can vote no without having given any objections to the
proposal before voting.

5.   You can always vote no just for an irrelevant reason. (and that is
subjective, I know)

6.   There are more then 1 million mappers and only a few vote (24 in
this case).



So even if the proposal is rejected I see no harm in starting to use the
tag because  it adds information to the database. And this proposal is not
going to start an edit war either because it is not replacing any accepted
tag. In 
Bremen
there are already roads tagged with this value. Even if the “final”
proposal is different then it is fairly easy to change these tags.



*Improvements in the next proposal*

*Country specific access on these roads.*

We’re thinking about making a country specific access scheme for various
vehicles/situations on roads next to a compulsory cycleway. Something
similar to 
thisand
we’re going to need some help from others for this as you can
understand.



*Give more and better examples*

I think some have thought that parallel cycleway is always a straight
cycleway next to a straight road. And as a consequence said it will not
improve routing because a router should give preference to the cycleway. A
situation like 
this
one could have made things clearer but could also confuse.



*Routing or no routing in the proposal*

Although I am convinced the new tag will improve routing we failed to make
this clear (to all) in the proposal. We’ve had NO voters because of this.
Routing is a consequence of proper (access) tagging. We have 2 options in
our next proposal. 1) Not mention routing at all  or 2) mention it and give
some very good examples.  W now think that we should not mention routing at
all but you never know what we’re going to do. Better routing might
convince some but it is also something that might complicate things.

The fact that routers usually have the option of shortest route seems to be
unknown or hard to understand. Though I probably do not have to convince
you I will give one more example just for the record. I’ll use Bremen this
time because of some roads being tagged with bicycle=use_cycleway.

Here’s
what most routers would do when you want shortest route. They’ll propose a
route over roads where you are not supposed to ride your bicycle.
Here’sthe
same situation showing which roads are tagged with
bicycle=use_cycleway. That should give routers enough information to
propose a better route.



Cheers

PeeWee32


2013/12/14 Matthijs Melissen 

> On 13 December 2013 19:37, Pee Wee  wrote:
> > We want to thank all the contributors to this discussion.  We think  and
> > hope we have enough information to work on  new proposal.
>
> Thank you for not giving up, and for trying to improve the proposal.
>
> I think many of the no-votes were the result of a lack of
> understanding. Perhaps it would be good to find a couple of real-world
> illustrations, an