Re: [Tagging] Driving side

[Pieren]

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Tobias Knerr  wrote:

> Could you elaborate?

The "left/right" is only on boundary relations.
The "opposite" is only on ways.
This will also avoid a proliferation of unnecessary
"driving_side=left/right" on ways where it's only required for the
non-default rule.

Pieren

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

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

[Dave F.]

On 14/03/2014 15:57, Pieren wrote:


You don't see the point where adding one "layer=-1"  is easier than
adding 10 "layer=1" ?


Not when you could have other entities passing under the bridges.
I see it as lazy & less accurate. Making OSM more accurate is a primary 
consideration when editing



I see the layer tag in "tunnel/bridge" in simple
cases but you should not follow all recommendations as fixed in stone.


True, but you should follow the correct ones.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com


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

Re: [Tagging] Adding boat routes to wiki

[John F. Eldredge]

The exact route across the lake probably isn't a big deal for a canoe, but for 
any watercraft requiring deeper water and/or moving at greater than 
hand-paddled speed, it helps to know where the recommended channel is located.


On March 25, 2014 12:39:21 AM CDT, Yves  wrote:
> Dave, you can connect with a straight way across the lake with no tag,
> but part of the relation.
> Yves
> 
> On 25 mars 2014 01:39:33 UTC+01:00, Dave Swarthout
>  wrote:
> >There is a definite need for a way to indicate a route that crosses
> an
> >open
> >body of water like a lake. I came across this issue when mapping a
> >"canoe
> >route" in Alaska recently. For such a route there are portions that
> are
> >footways, places where one carries the canoe from one lake to
> another,
> >these are called portages, and portions that go across the lake.
> >Currently
> >there is no way to tag the waterway portions but one can create a
> >relation
> >to handle them as part of a route.
> >
> >The route is the Swan Lake Canoe Trails:
> >http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/60.6847/-150.6384
> >
> >In the area shown the footway portions are clearly visible but the
> >water
> >portion, which divides in Spruce Lake, is not visible. I did not tag
> >those
> >waterway sections because I could not figure out how to do it short
> of
> >creating artificial "streams" through the lakes.
> >
> >Clearly, something needs to be done about this. Also, I am unable to
> >search
> >for this route in OSM. I'm not sure why that is but it's annoying.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Dave
> >
> >
> >On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:12 AM, fly 
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On 24.03.2014 22:11, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> >> > 2014-03-24 16:41 GMT+01:00 fly  >> > >:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I would use a type=waterway relation for the canal.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Seems good to me.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Yes, it won't but for proper routing you need to know the
> >waterway
> >> signs
> >> > and buoys.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > But even with waterway signs and buoys you need routes. You can't
> >tag
> >> > maxdrought=* on a buoy.
> >>
> >> maxdraught is very special for waterways if not only for canals. In
> >> general maxheight, -width and waterdepth are the important factors.
> >>
> >> Right now your route (waterway) is quite long and some parts do not
> >have
> >> the restrictions at all. That is why I prefer it on the ways.
> >>
> >>
> >> cu fly
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >-- 
> >Dave Swarthout
> >Homer, Alaska
> >Chiang Mai, Thailand
> >Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >___
> >Tagging mailing list
> >Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
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] Adding boat routes to wiki

[Dave Swarthout]

Actually it can be quite important even for a canoe. Perhaps not in my
particular example but some bigger lakes have obstacles like islands or
areas with heavy headwinds that are best avoided. Even in the small lake at
center of my area of interest, Spruce Lake, the trail divides. One leg
heads south, the other west. River routes have their own set of problems:
channels that go nowhere, rapids, etc.


On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:30 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote:

> The exact route across the lake probably isn't a big deal for a canoe, but
> for any watercraft requiring deeper water and/or moving at greater than
> hand-paddled speed, it helps to know where the recommended channel is
> located.
>
>
> On March 25, 2014 12:39:21 AM CDT, Yves  wrote:
> > Dave, you can connect with a straight way across the lake with no tag,
> > but part of the relation.
> > Yves
> >
> > On 25 mars 2014 01:39:33 UTC+01:00, Dave Swarthout
> >  wrote:
> > >There is a definite need for a way to indicate a route that crosses
> > an
> > >open
> > >body of water like a lake. I came across this issue when mapping a
> > >"canoe
> > >route" in Alaska recently. For such a route there are portions that
> > are
> > >footways, places where one carries the canoe from one lake to
> > another,
> > >these are called portages, and portions that go across the lake.
> > >Currently
> > >there is no way to tag the waterway portions but one can create a
> > >relation
> > >to handle them as part of a route.
> > >
> > >The route is the Swan Lake Canoe Trails:
> > >http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/60.6847/-150.6384
> > >
> > >In the area shown the footway portions are clearly visible but the
> > >water
> > >portion, which divides in Spruce Lake, is not visible. I did not tag
> > >those
> > >waterway sections because I could not figure out how to do it short
> > of
> > >creating artificial "streams" through the lakes.
> > >
> > >Clearly, something needs to be done about this. Also, I am unable to
> > >search
> > >for this route in OSM. I'm not sure why that is but it's annoying.
> > >
> > >Cheers,
> > >
> > >Dave
> > >
> > >
> > >On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:12 AM, fly 
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 24.03.2014 22:11, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> > >> > 2014-03-24 16:41 GMT+01:00 fly  > >> > >:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > I would use a type=waterway relation for the canal.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Seems good to me.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Yes, it won't but for proper routing you need to know the
> > >waterway
> > >> signs
> > >> > and buoys.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > But even with waterway signs and buoys you need routes. You can't
> > >tag
> > >> > maxdrought=* on a buoy.
> > >>
> > >> maxdraught is very special for waterways if not only for canals. In
> > >> general maxheight, -width and waterdepth are the important factors.
> > >>
> > >> Right now your route (waterway) is quite long and some parts do not
> > >have
> > >> the restrictions at all. That is why I prefer it on the ways.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> cu fly
> > >>
> > >> ___
> > >> Tagging mailing list
> > >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >Dave Swarthout
> > >Homer, Alaska
> > >Chiang Mai, Thailand
> > >Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >___
> > >Tagging mailing list
> > >Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> --
> 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
>



-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

[Dave Swarthout]

+1 for

Not when you could have other entities passing under the bridges.
I see it as lazy & less accurate. Making OSM more accurate is a primary
consideration when editing


On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Dave F.  wrote:

> On 14/03/2014 15:57, Pieren wrote:
>
>>
>> You don't see the point where adding one "layer=-1"  is easier than
>> adding 10 "layer=1" ?
>>
>
> Not when you could have other entities passing under the bridges.
> I see it as lazy & less accurate. Making OSM more accurate is a primary
> consideration when editing
>
>  I see the layer tag in "tunnel/bridge" in simple
>> cases but you should not follow all recommendations as fixed in stone.
>>
>
> True, but you should follow the correct ones.
>
> ---
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
> protection is active.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Fwd: Feature Proposal - RFC - use_sideway (was bicycle=use_cycleway)

[Pee Wee]

We have not had very much response on the new
proposal.
That could mean that most think it is OK (hopefully) but that could also be
whishfull thinking ;-)  On talk
Pieren
proposed to make the proposal shorter and focus on bicycles. We followed
his advice. On the NL
forumthere
was some discussion on the name of the tag.  There was an argument
that "use_sideway" is a wrong name for the tag because sideway is not a
proper English word and does not reflect our goal. "use_adjacent_way" was
proposed as an alternative or even the old "use_cycleway "  Any more
opinions on this?

This is also an invitation to those that will  oppose the proposal to give
us some hints on what they like to see changed in the proposal.


Cheers.

PeeWee32








-- Forwarded message --
From: Pee Wee 
Date: 2014-03-21 8:26 GMT+01:00
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - use_sideway (was
bicycle=use_cycleway)
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 


We followed Pieren's advice on the Talk
pageand
made the proposal
much
shorter.  This focuses on making clear what the proposal is and not so much
on our arguments. For those that are interested in our arguments we've made
a   sub 
page
including our comment on last proposal. Hope this helps.

With regard to Matthijs his question I can say that in yesterday's
newspaper (algemeen dagblad)  I read that NL has 35.000 KM of cycleways.

Not sure why Matthijs qoute's the "no backward compatibility to the
existing bicycle=no (in e.g. NL)" .  We've commented on that in the
proposal (which has moved to the subpage)

Cheers

PeeWee32


2014-03-17 0:07 GMT+01:00 Matthijs Melissen :

On 16 March 2014 17:34, Pee Wee  wrote:
> > Last november we proposed the "bicycle=use_cycleway".  There was a lot of
> > discussion before and during voting. The voting was very close but we
> > decided to reject the proposal and work on a new one.
>
> | no backward compatibility to the existing bicycle=no (in e.g. NL)
>
> Just curious: can anyone find out how many percent of the ways with
> highway=cyclepath are located in the Netherlands? It seems Tagwatch
> doesn't exist anymore, so I don't really know how to get these data.
>
> -- Matthijs
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap
.



-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap
.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-03-23 20:25 GMT+01:00 vali :

> Of course no ordinary car is going to use those tracks. Keep in main the
> track definition:
>
> "Roads for agricultural use, forest tracks etc."
>
> Cars are not agricultural vehicles and they should not be used as a
> reference when we are talking about tracks. By agricultural vehicles, the
> main and almost exclusive vehicle that use those tracks I show pictures of,
> I mean:
>



this might depend heavily on the area/region. Please note that agricultural
use has few to do with agricultural vehicles, instead it is referring to
the use. Any car (or bike etc.) that goes to a field for agricultural
purposes is agricultural traffic, regardless its vehicle class. In some
areas like southern Germany you will find a lot of cars on tracks, areas
where the fields are very small and nowadays often not used as main
breadwinning, but for hobby, on weekends to relax, etc. (some of them are
on steep hills, with apple or other fruit trees, etc.).

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

Re: [Tagging] Gritting routes

[Rob Nickerson]

> Craig said:
>
>What is the point in mapping roads where the gritter drives, if it is
>not gritting there? How is that useful for anyone?
>

In the UK any government data based on a map tends to be derived from the
national mapping agency and as such creates licence issues. We therefore
opt to use the gritting "route schedules". These are literally a list of
instructions in the form:

* Leave depot, turn Right
* GRIT to end of road, turn left
* TRAVEL to main street, turn left
* GRIT to ...

and so on...

I'm in two minds about whether to map the route as a relation, but I have
to follow the route on the map just to work out which roads are gritted and
which are not, so I may add it at the same time. Also if I add them to OSM
then I can demonstrate a benefit to the local council - they could use the
OSM data in a navigation device in the gritting trucks (thus ensuring that
the correct route is followed every time and that excess grit is not
wasted).

Regards,
Rob

p.s. For some context, whether a road is gritted or not is quite important
in the UK as we are lazy and don't tend to bother with winter tyres/chains
etc.. There is a fine balance between gritting more so that the roads are
kept moving (economic and safety benefit) and gritting less to reduce
direct costs and the corrosion/environmental cost of excess salt/grit.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

[Richard Z.]

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:38:08PM +0100, fly wrote:
> On 24.03.2014 20:45, Richard Z. wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:02:35AM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Friedrich Volkmann  wrote:
> 
> As it might be even hard to define the ground level (we just have a
> discussion on talk-de@ about houses built on slops), I would never say
> that an negative layer value is an indicator/synonym for underground.
> 
> >> Again, no mention in the wiki
> >> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer) to negative layer
> >> values being used to represent the idea of underground.
> > 
> > not an explicit mention, but if there is an object X1 with implicit layer=0,
> > with no level or location tags, and another object X2 with a layer=-1 than
> > there are not too many possibilities where to find X2. It could be 
> > underground
> > or it could be under a large overhanging rock. Both should have explicit
> > tags to clarify the situation.
> > 
> > 
> >>> No, except for underground rivers. They do exist in karst regions...
> > 
> > we need a way to tag underground rivers and lakes. layer=-1 itself is not
> > sufficient, we need additional tags. Perhaps tunnel=cave but this would
> > only describe part of those phenomena.
> 
> How about location=underground ?

seems good to me.

> covered=yes is another useful tag (eg your overhanging rock)

"covered" is already complicated enough and this might be too much of
stretching the original idea.

Richard

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