[Tagging] Climbing access path

[k4r573n]

I would like to distinguish between hiking paths and climbing_access paths.
In my area only climbers are allowed to use the paths to access the cliffs.

Therefore I thought of this tagging for climbing_access paths:
  access=customers
  customers=climbers

what I found so far:
  path=climbing_access
  taginfo found 391 items
  eg here:
  http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4sK

any suggestions how we should map this?

Karsten

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

Re: [Tagging] Climbing access path

[Никита]

I understand access=customers, it is okay tag for this case. But what does
customers=climbers mean? How do you distinguish climbers from others?..
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/customers#values says there 25
instances with 4 values, but what exactly do they mean?

If customers=climbers mean than you should be member of some closed group
of people (scholar, climber, staff) or with "invitation only" rules, then
you should just use access=private IMO.


2014-08-07 11:51 GMT+04:00 k4r573n :

> I would like to distinguish between hiking paths and climbing_access paths.
> In my area only climbers are allowed to use the paths to access the cliffs.
>
> Therefore I thought of this tagging for climbing_access paths:
>   access=customers
>   customers=climbers
>
> what I found so far:
>   path=climbing_access
>   taginfo found 391 items
>   eg here:
>   http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4sK
>
> any suggestions how we should map this?
>
> Karsten
>
> ___
> 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] Climbing access path

[Marc Gemis]

Wouldn't it be better to use the sac_scale [1] instead of artificially
limiting it to customers ?

regards

m

[1 ]http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale


On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 9:51 AM, k4r573n  wrote:

> I would like to distinguish between hiking paths and climbing_access paths.
> In my area only climbers are allowed to use the paths to access the cliffs.
>
> Therefore I thought of this tagging for climbing_access paths:
>   access=customers
>   customers=climbers
>
> what I found so far:
>   path=climbing_access
>   taginfo found 391 items
>   eg here:
>   http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4sK
>
> any suggestions how we should map this?
>
> Karsten
>
> ___
> 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] Climbing access path

[Dan S]

The sac_scale is about difficulty, not permission. I assume from
Karsten's original message that only climbers are permitted to use
those paths. If so, then access=customers is appropriate, and
customers=climbers seems helpful...

Dan

2014-08-07 9:50 GMT+01:00 Marc Gemis :
> Wouldn't it be better to use the sac_scale [1] instead of artificially
> limiting it to customers ?
>
> regards
>
> m
>
> [1 ]http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 9:51 AM, k4r573n  wrote:
>>
>> I would like to distinguish between hiking paths and climbing_access
>> paths.
>> In my area only climbers are allowed to use the paths to access the
>> cliffs.
>>
>> Therefore I thought of this tagging for climbing_access paths:
>>   access=customers
>>   customers=climbers
>>
>> what I found so far:
>>   path=climbing_access
>>   taginfo found 391 items
>>   eg here:
>>   http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4sK
>>
>> any suggestions how we should map this?
>>
>> Karsten
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Climbing access path

[Tobias Knerr]

On 07.08.2014 09:51, k4r573n wrote:
> I would like to distinguish between hiking paths and climbing_access paths.
> In my area only climbers are allowed to use the paths to access the cliffs.
> 
> Therefore I thought of this tagging for climbing_access paths:
>   access=customers
>   customers=climbers

This is some very odd tagging. access=customers is commonly used for
customer parking spots so far, i.e. you may use this as a customer of
some facility.

Are you trying to express that you have to pay to use these? Then use fee=*.

If you are just trying to say "climbers only", then I don't see where
the customers bit comes in. In that case, something like access=no +
climbing=yes would make a lot more sense.

I can think of no situation where "customers=climbers" would make any
sense, but perhaps you can explain further?


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

Re: [Tagging] Climbing access path

[Philip Barnes]

On Thu, 2014-08-07 at 10:03 +0100, Dan S wrote:
> The sac_scale is about difficulty, not permission. I assume from
> Karsten's original message that only climbers are permitted to use
> those paths. If so, then access=customers is appropriate, and
> customers=climbers seems helpful...

Customers implies that climbers have to pay to climb, there is someone
controlling access, collecting money.

I would go for highway=path, access=climbers.

But then my brain goes into what if I'm a rambler who may want to do
some scrambling and wants a look if that is possible. Or I'm an OSMer
who needs to walk the path with my GPS in order to include the path in
openstreetmap.

Phil (trigpoint)

> 
> Dan
> 
> 2014-08-07 9:50 GMT+01:00 Marc Gemis :
> > Wouldn't it be better to use the sac_scale [1] instead of artificially
> > limiting it to customers ?
> >
> > regards
> >
> > m
> >
> > [1 ]http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 9:51 AM, k4r573n  wrote:
> >>
> >> I would like to distinguish between hiking paths and climbing_access
> >> paths.
> >> In my area only climbers are allowed to use the paths to access the
> >> cliffs.
> >>
> >> Therefore I thought of this tagging for climbing_access paths:
> >>   access=customers
> >>   customers=climbers
> >>
> >> what I found so far:
> >>   path=climbing_access
> >>   taginfo found 391 items
> >>   eg here:
> >>   http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4sK
> >>
> >> any suggestions how we should map this?
> >>
> >> Karsten
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



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

[Tagging] amenity=job(_)centre outdated?

[Andreas Goss]

There are like 20x amenity=jobcentre and 65x amenity=job_centre. 
Meanwhile office=employment_agency is used 1200x


On 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Jobcentre_%28plus%29 you 
find:

"Currently unclear if that tag encompass government run job centres."

Checking in Germany the huge majority tagged office= are definitely 
government run. So should we merge the amenity= tags with office? I 
currently see no reason to keep them as the information seems to be the 
same.


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:office%3Demployment_agency
__
openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎


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

Re: [Tagging] Climbing access path

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-08-07 11:14 GMT+02:00 Philip Barnes :

> Customers implies that climbers have to pay to climb, there is someone
> controlling access, collecting money.
>
> I would go for highway=path, access=climbers.
>



>From how I understood the original poster I'd go for fee=yes /
and/or access=private.
Access=customers might also have some sense if you have to pay to go there.
I don't see any point in access=climbers (far too specific).
>From a practical point of view I believe you could gain access if you
really wanted to go there (e.g. for mapping): you could always pretend you
were interested in climbing, but noone could then force you to actually
climb (you could have become afraid, or changed your mind for other
reasons).

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=job(_)centre outdated?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-08-07 11:48 GMT+02:00 Andreas Goss :

> There are like 20x amenity=jobcentre and 65x amenity=job_centre. Meanwhile
> office=employment_agency is used 1200x
>
> On http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/
> Jobcentre_%28plus%29 you find:
> "Currently unclear if that tag encompass government run job centres."
>
> Checking in Germany the huge majority tagged office= are definitely
> government run. So should we merge the amenity= tags with office? I
> currently see no reason to keep them as the information seems to be the
> same.
>



isn't this sort of a brand name rather than a generic type? I'd suggest
something like employment_agency. FWIW, the British brand is
"Jobcentre_Plus" and the German term is currently "Jobcenter" (AE spelling).

I wouldn't mix up government agencies and private recruiters / companies,
because the former (at least in Germany) also serve to concede social
assistance.

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=job(_)centre outdated?

[Philip Barnes]

On Thu, 2014-08-07 at 11:48 +0200, Andreas Goss wrote:
> There are like 20x amenity=jobcentre and 65x amenity=job_centre. 
> Meanwhile office=employment_agency is used 1200x
> 
> On 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Jobcentre_%28plus%29 you 
> find:
> "Currently unclear if that tag encompass government run job centres."
> 
> Checking in Germany the huge majority tagged office= are definitely 
> government run. So should we merge the amenity= tags with office? I 
> currently see no reason to keep them as the information seems to be the 
> same.
> 
A job Centre is different to an employment agency. A job Centre is a
place staffed by civil servants you go to claim unemployment benefit, as
well as find work. Other social security issues, such as pensions are
often dealt with at these places. 

It would be very very wrong to try to merge Job Centre with employment
agency.

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Tagging] Climbing access path

[Tom Pfeifer]

If I understand Karsten correctly, the limitation is not about payment,
it is to limit the number of people using this path. This would be
typical for climbing crags in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conservation
areas.

A typical example is the sandstone climbing in Saxonia/Germany, which is in
a national park that even has a core zone.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1595534

The agreement between the protectionists and the climbing associations
is that only people "destined" to climb should leave the hiking paths
marked for the general public and use those narrow access paths.

Thus it would be possible to tag
access=destination
which could then be specified with
destination=climbing

Tom

Philip Barnes wrote, on 2014-08-07 11:14:

On Thu, 2014-08-07 at 10:03 +0100, Dan S wrote:

The sac_scale is about difficulty, not permission. I assume from
Karsten's original message that only climbers are permitted to use
those paths. If so, then access=customers is appropriate, and
customers=climbers seems helpful...


Customers implies that climbers have to pay to climb, there is someone
controlling access, collecting money.

I would go for highway=path, access=climbers.

But then my brain goes into what if I'm a rambler who may want to do
some scrambling and wants a look if that is possible. Or I'm an OSMer
who needs to walk the path with my GPS in order to include the path in
openstreetmap.

Phil (trigpoint)



Dan

2014-08-07 9:50 GMT+01:00 Marc Gemis :

Wouldn't it be better to use the sac_scale [1] instead of artificially
limiting it to customers ?

regards

m

[1 ]http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale


On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 9:51 AM, k4r573n  wrote:


I would like to distinguish between hiking paths and climbing_access
paths.
In my area only climbers are allowed to use the paths to access the
cliffs.

Therefore I thought of this tagging for climbing_access paths:
   access=customers
   customers=climbers

what I found so far:
   path=climbing_access
   taginfo found 391 items
   eg here:
   http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4sK

any suggestions how we should map this?

Karsten




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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=job(_)centre outdated?

[Andreas Goss]

It would be very very wrong to try to merge Job Centre with employment
agency.


99% of Jobcenters in Germany are tagged as office=employment_agency, so 
currently the distinction you point out does not exist.


Should we tag the government ones with amenity=jobcentre in addition? 
But as Martin pointed out this might be a brand name in Germany and the UK.


Or should there be a subtag, like employment_agency(:tpye)=public, 
private? Looking at Wikipedia this seems like the better idea. In 
addition there is also the operator= tag.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_employment_service
__
openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎


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

[Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

[Richard Z.]

Hi,

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge mentions "swing" bridges without
defining them.

Apparently mappers do totally disagree what "swing" means.. out of our mapped 
bridge=swing 
* about half are small swinging bridges (aka simple suspension, hanging bridges)
* some are swing bridges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_bridge
* some are high-tech suspension bridges
* some are bridges that would be best defined as bridge=movable according to 
our 
  wiki page

Those are radically different types of bridges.. comparing 
   http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/worlds-scariest-bridges/11
with
   
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~tynesidehistory/pictures/swingbridge.jpg
or
   http://structurae.net/structures/bilbao-cable-stayed-swing-bridge

Wondering what to do with that? With just 687 objects worldwide the problem
would be easily fixable.. just how?


Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-08-07 17:25 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. :

>
> Wondering what to do with that? With just 687 objects worldwide the problem
> would be easily fixable.. just how?



I think tagging the type of bridge as road attribute might be an
exxageration. We should start mapping bridges as objects (area) and then
add relevant detail like bridge typology to this. Maybe man_made=bridge?
and bridge:type? This object could get further attributes so that they can
be combined. Current bridge values (the road attribute) are a mess:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/bridge#values

viaduct 
39 055
1.76%
✔
A ''long'' rail, road, or other bridge made up of many short spans.
no 
6 987
0.32%
-

suspension 
2 035
0.09%
✔

aqueduct 
1 821
0.08%
-

abandoned 
776
0.04%
-

culvert 
734
0.03%
-

swing 


"culvert" isn't a bridge type at all (in my understanding), neither is
aqueduct. IMHO we should distinguish between different aspects (there is
not 1 bridge typology, but there are more systems, e.g. by type of
construction and construction material, by shape, by function/features,
etc.). See also here for reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge#Types_of_bridges

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

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

[Volker Schmidt]

Good old Wiipedia helps:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge#Types_of_bridges

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_bridge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_bridge


On 7 August 2014 17:25, Richard Z.  wrote:


>
> Those are radically different types of bridges.. comparing
>http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/worlds-scariest-bridges/11
>

Suspension

>
>
> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~tynesidehistory/pictures/swingbridge.jpg
>

Swing in the foreground
(Tied ) Arched in the background

>
>http://structurae.net/structures/bilbao-cable-stayed-swing-bridge
>

Suspension

>
> Wondering what to do with that? With just 687 objects worldwide the problem
> would be easily fixable.. just how?
>

there  is no automatic fix that can be applied-

Maybe the wiki needs improving

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bridge
mixes uses and structures.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Bridge_types
was supposed to improve the situation but it sems not to be in
widespread use

Volker

>
>
> Richard
>
> ___
> 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] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

[Philip Barnes]

On Thu, 2014-08-07 at 17:53 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> 2014-08-07 17:25 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. :
> 
> Wondering what to do with that? With just 687 objects
> worldwide the problem
> would be easily fixable.. just how?
> 
> 
> I think tagging the type of bridge as road attribute might be an
> exxageration. We should start mapping bridges as objects (area) and
> then add relevant detail like bridge typology to this. Maybe
> man_made=bridge? and bridge:type? This object could get further
> attributes so that they can be combined. Current bridge values (the
> road attribute) are a mess:
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/bridge#values
> 
> viaduct
> 39 055
> 1.76%
> ✔
> A ''long'' rail,
> road, or other
> bridge made up of
> many short spans.
> no
> 6 987
> 0.32%
> -
>  
> suspension
> 2 035
> 0.09%
> ✔
>  
> aqueduct
> 1 821
> 0.08%
> -
>  
> abandoned
> 776
> 0.04%
> -
>  
> culvert
> 734
> 0.03%
> -
>  
> swing
> 
> 
> 
> "culvert" isn't a bridge type at all (in my understanding), neither is
> aqueduct. IMHO we should distinguish between different aspects (there
> is not 1 bridge typology, but there are more systems, e.g. by type of
> construction and construction material, by shape, by
> function/features, etc.). See also here for reference:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge#Types_of_bridges
> 
> 

An aqueduct is definitely a type of bridge, i.e. one carrying a
waterway, usually a canal over a road, river or valley.

The most famous, and scariest of them all
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontcysyllte_Aqueduct

Phil (trigpoint)




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

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

[Volker Schmidt]

Yes. That is a navigable aqueduct bridge.

It is a structurally a viaduct with an aqueduct function on top. So how to
map these two orthogonal properties of this bridge? I would map this as
waterway=canal, bridge=viaduct, boat=yes, layer=x exactly as we do for a
road bridge. If you want you can add bridge_type=aqueduct, but this is
redundant, as we have already waterway=canal.



On 7 August 2014 19:06, Philip Barnes  wrote:

> On Thu, 2014-08-07 at 17:53 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> > 2014-08-07 17:25 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. :
> >
> > Wondering what to do with that? With just 687 objects
> > worldwide the problem
> > would be easily fixable.. just how?
> >
> >
> > I think tagging the type of bridge as road attribute might be an
> > exxageration. We should start mapping bridges as objects (area) and
> > then add relevant detail like bridge typology to this. Maybe
> > man_made=bridge? and bridge:type? This object could get further
> > attributes so that they can be combined. Current bridge values (the
> > road attribute) are a mess:
> > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/bridge#values
> >
> > viaduct
> > 39 055
> > 1.76%
> > ✔
> > A ''long'' rail,
> > road, or other
> > bridge made up of
> > many short spans.
> > no
> > 6 987
> > 0.32%
> > -
> >
> > suspension
> > 2 035
> > 0.09%
> > ✔
> >
> > aqueduct
> > 1 821
> > 0.08%
> > -
> >
> > abandoned
> > 776
> > 0.04%
> > -
> >
> > culvert
> > 734
> > 0.03%
> > -
> >
> > swing
> >
> >
> >
> > "culvert" isn't a bridge type at all (in my understanding), neither is
> > aqueduct. IMHO we should distinguish between different aspects (there
> > is not 1 bridge typology, but there are more systems, e.g. by type of
> > construction and construction material, by shape, by
> > function/features, etc.). See also here for reference:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge#Types_of_bridges
> >
> >
>
> An aqueduct is definitely a type of bridge, i.e. one carrying a
> waterway, usually a canal over a road, river or valley.
>
> The most famous, and scariest of them all
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontcysyllte_Aqueduct
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-08-07 19:06 GMT+02:00 Philip Barnes :

> An aqueduct is definitely a type of bridge, i.e. one carrying a
> waterway, usually a canal over a road, river or valley.
>
> The most famous, and scariest of them all
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontcysyllte_Aqueduct
>




yes, aqueducts will usually also have bridges as parts of them (not all,
some even run underground for instance). Still this is a completely
different kind of typology than other values in the bridge key. E.g. the
bridge you refer to could also be categorized as trough bridge. "aqueduct"
and "viaduct" are classifications that refer to the way that runs on the
bridge, "trough bridge" or "truss bridge" or "arch bridge" refer to the
kind of structural system. There are of course also lots and lots of
subtypes (and mixed types).

That's why I propose to use several tags to (potentially) describe
different aspects like structure, material, etc.

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

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

[Volker Schmidt]

On 7 August 2014 18:35, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>
> yes, aqueducts will usually also have bridges as parts of them (not all,
> some even run underground for instance).
>
Not true. In California the aqueducts look like navigable canals, but carry
drinking water.


> Still this is a completely different kind of typology than other values in
> the bridge key. E.g. the bridge you refer to could also be categorized as
> trough bridge. "aqueduct" and "viaduct" are classifications that refer to
> the way that runs on the bridge,
>

I do not agree: "A *viaduct* is a bridge composed of several small spans"
according to Wikipeda, and that is a construction aspect not a property of
the way on top of the bridge. In that sense Aqueduct and Viaduct are two
different categories (even though the original Latin meaning would point in
your direction, Martin)


>
>
> That's why I propose to use several tags to (potentially) describe
> different aspects like structure, material, etc.
>
> I fully agree with that statement, but there seems to be no common
practice on how to do that

But this is not the original argument of this thread. I think the
distinction between swing and suspension bridge is clear.

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