Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (nutrition_supplements)
sent from a phone > Am 03.08.2015 um 07:57 schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > > herbal there's also a tag shop=herbalist cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Telecoms Tagging
>> Is there a reason for using the key "azimuth" instead of "direction"? is there a good reason to use "direction" for the azimuth? The word suggests to mean a combination of azimuth and altitude but the suggested values indicate to mean azimuth. cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path
sent from a phone > Am 03.08.2015 um 00:58 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen : > > Many mappers don't want to input all those types using many keys because > of increased effort that slows down useful mapping it doesn't matter with presets as they can set several tags at the same time, but I'd generally reject this argument as not relevant. Surveying a way takes a lot of time, drawing the geometry as well, opposed to this, very few seconds to add an additional tag (with autocompletion it is sth like 1-2 secs per tag) are really completely insignificant. cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landcover=trees definition
sent from a phone
> Am 03.08.2015 um 00:55 schrieb Daniel Koć :
>
> landcover=trees has no Wiki page,
it does
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover
> it's quite established tag (I wouldn't say "popular" here, because it's just
> about 1% of forest/wood uses) and we could officially define as a generic tag
> for trees areas, when it's not clear for the mapper if it's natural or not
> ("forest" vs "wood").
it is not a last resort for cases where the mapper doesn't know what he is
mapping, it is an orthogonal tagging scheme to map physical landcover as
opposed to landuse and abstract geographic entities like natural (Forest with a
name, vs. area used as forest vs. area covered with trees). All those tags have
a meaning and may be put at the same time on the same piece of land, BUT: while
natural objects (named entities) often make sense to be nested/ can overlap,
landuse and landcover shouldn't
cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path
What we have is a mess. Most data consumers will simplify it to meet their needs. About the only useful high-level distinction is between well-made paths, typically in an urban environment, which clearly have been built with the intention that they be used by someone, and poorly-made paths (mostly in the countryside, but some in marginal land in urban environments), where the intention is unclear or absent. If people want to add further tags (foot=designated+bicycle=designated+segregated=yes or whatever) then feel free: some specialised data users might use such detail (and indeed, with all those tags, the specialised data user is unlikely to read too much into the actual value of the highway tag). So lets at least have a clear difference between a plain highway=footway and a plain highway=path. And leave the fine distinctions about who is supposed to use them (if known) to further tags. highway=path should be a rough path highway=footway should be a made-up path with limited room for non-foot traffic (eg bicycles), or an explicit ban highway=cycleway should be a made-up path with good room for bicycles (given other usage) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Telecoms Tagging
Hi all, Le 3 août 2015 06:11, "Tim Waters" a écrit : > > Is the idea to have a network map of an enclosed local loop? Is a loop > a mappable thing in its own right and if so do you think that a local > loop be represented as a relation perhaps? The idea is to map some components of such local loops. Among them : central offices and connection points (often enclosed in street cabinets). Cables and households connections are very optional and may be hard to describe and maintain in OSM. A local loop in its whole may be represented as a relation if necessarily (with several roles obviously) > > > For street cabinets. Heat and sound. Are these side effects of the > street cabinet? > I pass one which sometimes in the warm weather you can hear a fan > running, but in the winter I have not noticed any visible melting of > ice around it, could it just be dependent on weather, or is it a > permanent feature, I wonder? > > Would it be primarily heat found via touch so that blind people may be > able to identify it better? Heat and sound are optional tags for effects of cabinet itself (if the sun only makes the cabinet unbearably hot in summer, heat=* shouldn't be used). Users can add any details they found interesting in these keys. All the best François ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landcover=trees definition
landcover=trees has it's origins in this proposal:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover
The proposal wanted to seperate the phsyical landscape (landcover) from the
cultural landscape (landuse). But the proposal never got the support it
needed to get established.
cheers Hedaja
2015-08-03 0:55 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć :
> I have just discovered that while landcover=trees has no Wiki page, it's
> quite established tag (I wouldn't say "popular" here, because it's just
> about 1% of forest/wood uses) and we could officially define as a generic
> tag for trees areas, when it's not clear for the mapper if it's natural or
> not ("forest" vs "wood").
>
> Do you agree with this idea?
>
> --
> "The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags
> down" [A. Cohen]
>
> ___
> 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] Telecoms Tagging
On 02/08/2015 22:10, Tim Waters wrote: Is a loop a mappable thing In the telecom context, "loop" is a synonym for "circuit", i.e. a pair of wires, twisted together and is always a point-to-point connection (linear (non-closed) way in OSM mapping). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landcover=trees definition
christian.pietz...@googlemail.com wrote on 2015-08-03 09:20: landcover=trees has it's origins in this proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover The proposal wanted to seperate the phsyical landscape (landcover) from the cultural landscape (landuse). > But the proposal never got the support it needed to get established. 17000 x landcover in the database, by 748 different users, of which 9300 are trees, is definitely support. Probably the key should be refined and documented more precisely. Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2015-08-03 10:00: > it is an orthogonal tagging scheme to map physical landcover as opposed to landuse > and abstract geographic entities like natural ... Which makes a lot of sense. I often have cases that a commercial or residential plot of land (which boundaries are now mappable from open land registry data) which is covered in parts by certain vegetation or surface (which is visible in aerial photography). Being able to combine these different sources will bring out the strengths of OSM. The tag also helps to solve the issue that nature claims back land that is not used by humans anymore, with arbitrary vegetation, and no land_use_ tag fits. tom ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path
sent from a phone > Am 03.08.2015 um 11:07 schrieb Richard Mann > : > > So lets at least have a clear difference between a plain highway=footway and > a plain highway=path there is, a path is generic while a footway is for pedestrians cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Telecoms Tagging
On 3 August 2015 at 10:34, Malcolm Herring wrote: > On 02/08/2015 22:10, Tim Waters wrote: >> >> Is a loop >> a mappable thing > > > In the telecom context, "loop" is a synonym for "circuit", i.e. a pair of > wires, twisted together and is always a point-to-point connection (linear > (non-closed) way in OSM mapping). Ahh I see, thank you for the clarification, that makes a lot of sense Tim > > > > ___ > 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] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path
> On Aug 3, 2015, at 6:07 PM, Richard Mann > wrote: > > highway=path should be a rough path > highway=footway should be a made-up path with limited room for non-foot > traffic (eg bicycles), or an explicit ban > highway=cycleway should be a made-up path with good room for bicycles (given > other usage) +1 I DO NOT WANT path & footway merged - we need to be able to show rough/informal paths. There are sidewlks that go up mountains, and trails that go up mountains. they are completely different, and merging the values together to be defined by subkeys is a terrible idea. we don’t define motorways and residential roads with the same value, and a rough path through the woods or an informal cut in the grass along some train tracks is not a sidewalk through a park or a footbridge over an intersection. As I understand it from reading bits of wiki and mailing lists (Please correct if wrong.): From all the history, it looks like path was made to show some kind of mixed use way that footway was not good at - for mapping useful but unpaved and irregular pathways - trails, tracks, etc. A guy was pushing for this as useful for horses, I think. Then Track showed up, taking a lot of the path’s job for things like farming roads, fire roads, and other mixed use roads. Also, there’s bridleway, paths designated for horses. And cycleway too. I don’t know when they showed up, but it seems later than path. This leaves path to a more “rough, informal, unpaved, and/or sporadically maintained” role, narrowed down over time. This discussion is the result of the old definition of path clashing with it’s clearly smaller (but important) role. final step to officially narrowing path’s focus to a more limited role. ~ I find 3-5 year old data imports where paths are marked that are clearly farming tracks or service roads (bridges!) and I retag them as appropriate. I use paths for hiking trails through forests, irregular narrow dirt paths through parks or along rivers (that brach off paved ways that are footways), and other official or in-use paths that are not paved or have a rough/impassible surface for a wheelchair, therefore not defacto "designated" for easy/effortless foot traffic and other uses (like a sidewalk). This is informal path / maintained trail / line cut through the grass is a great use for path. We really need an easily defined highway=path and a separate highway=footway. And the above does it very very well. Javbw___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path
No, that isn't a difference. If path is generic then footway is a subset of path. It's this idea, that we need a vague generic basket for smaller highways that has created all this confusion. It amounts to saying: put in a vague tag and then add others to clarify. That isn't how people use tags in practice: all tags develop a semantic meaning, the only question is whether anybody understands what that meaning is! On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > Am 03.08.2015 um 11:07 schrieb Richard Mann < > richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com>: > > > > So lets at least have a clear difference between a plain highway=footway > and a plain highway=path > > > there is, a path is generic while a footway is for pedestrians > > > 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] Telecoms Tagging
On 3/08/2015 8:22 PM, Tim Waters wrote: On 3 August 2015 at 10:34, Malcolm Herring wrote: On 02/08/2015 22:10, Tim Waters wrote: Is a loop a mappable thing In the telecom context, "loop" is a synonym for "circuit", e.g. a pair of wires, twisted together and is always a point-to-point connection (linear (non-closed) way in OSM mapping). It may also be a microwave link, a radio link, a coaxial fibre, an optical fibre or composed from any combination of these. Not only a twisted pair of wires. I may have left some out too! Ahh I see, thank you for the clarification, that makes a lot of sense Tim ___ 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] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path
sent from a phone > Am 03.08.2015 um 12:30 schrieb johnw : > > From all the history, it looks like path was made to show some kind of mixed > use way that footway was not good at - for mapping useful but unpaved and > irregular pathways - trails, tracks, etc. A guy was pushing for this as > useful for horses, I think. > > Then Track showed up, taking a lot of the path’s job for things like farming > roads, fire roads, and other mixed use roads. > > Also, there’s bridleway, paths designated for horses. And cycleway too. I > don’t know when they showed up, but it seems later than path. footway, bridleway, cycleway were all already there by the time path was introduced. btw also track, but this is a different story as tracks are meant to be used by utility vehicles. before the introduction of path a lot of fine detail of mixed use ways was lost because of the then valid dogma to classify according to the "highest"'use (foot, bike, horse), resulting - as there is no natural order among these - in arbitrary decisions based on the personal preference of the mapper for a certain means of transport. cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Tagging depots without introducing yet another landuse value
I created http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/*%3Ddepot intended as alternative to landuse=depot that I consider as really bad tagging scheme. 27 basic landuses is more than enough and introducing more is not useful. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging depots without introducing yet another landuse value
sent from a phone > Am 03.08.2015 um 14:15 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny : > > I created > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/*%3Ddepot intended > as alternative to landuse=depot that I consider as really bad tagging > scheme. I agree with you, but suggest to make that vehicle_depot to distinguish from other types of depots (e.g. military) cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path
-1. Using that kind of definition would require to redefine the standard access restrictions or would require to always use access-tags. Plus it characterizations depends mostly on subjective impressions, as Martin already stated. Also ways accessible by foot are nearly always accessible by bicycle, too. For me highway=path is a generic way in regard to access rights. However I expect that: highway=footway è highway=path, foot=designated, (access=no) è implies surface=paved unless stated otherwise. highway=cycleway è highway=path, bicycle=designated, (access=no) è implies surface=paved unless stated otherwise. highway=bridleway è highway=path, bicycle=horse, (access=no) è implies surface=unpaved unless stated otherwise. (Note that designated doesn’t mean mandatory in this context) I don’t see the problem ((or I’m missing it)) using highway=path for informal ways and implying surface=unpaved unless stated otherwise (*=designated, surface=*, etc.) Yours Hubert From: johnw [mailto:jo...@mac.com] Sent: Montag, 3. August 2015 12:30 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path On Aug 3, 2015, at 6:07 PM, Richard Mann wrote: highway=path should be a rough path highway=footway should be a made-up path with limited room for non-foot traffic (eg bicycles), or an explicit ban highway=cycleway should be a made-up path with good room for bicycles (given other usage) +1 I DO NOT WANT path & footway merged - we need to be able to show rough/informal paths. There are sidewlks that go up mountains, and trails that go up mountains. they are completely different, and merging the values together to be defined by subkeys is a terrible idea. we don’t define motorways and residential roads with the same value, and a rough path through the woods or an informal cut in the grass along some train tracks is not a sidewalk through a park or a footbridge over an intersection. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path
On 03/08/2015 11:30, johnw wrote:
From all the history, it looks like path was made to show some kind of
mixed use way that footway was not good at - for mapping useful but
unpaved and irregular pathways - trails, tracks, etc. A guy was
pushing for this as useful for horses, I think.
My understanding (and it is only that - I'd welcome more definitive
evidence or the recollection of someone who's been around longer) is
that "footway", "bridleway" and "cycleway" were originally for "physical
characteristics match a use type of X". So a typical highway=cycleway
is constructed so that a bicycle can easily travel along it; a typical
highway=footway may not be. In Germany these terms were mapped onto
specific roadsigns, with "cycleway" mapped onto "cycle only" cycleways
(something that's rare in the UK) and leaving a gap for "both bicycles
and pedestrians" ones (which is normal in the UK). "highway=path" came
along and filled the gap, with the access tags replaced by signage
information, with "yes" or "permissive" in the access tag changed to
"designated"(1).
We are where we are with tag usage worldwide - in addition to e.g. path
vs cycleway we've already seen in the parallel discussion how
highway=path and highway=footway mean something different in Norway(2)
compared to e.g. England and Wales. Renderers have to do the best job
they can of this. Users changing "highway=footway" to "highway=path"
(as happened in response to the recent attempt to change the wiki page
of "footway") without changing other tags just removes information from
the map.
FWIW I don't believe that:
"The current definition ("minor pathways which are used mainly or exclusively
by pedestrians") is not specific in providing definite distinctive features
between footway and path"
is actually a problem at all. In the absense of signage, whether
something is e.g. a bridleway or a footway is always going to be a value
judgement (Are there wide gates rather than stiles? Is the clear height
to overhanging trees enough for a horse+rider? Is there "evidence that
the path has been used by horses recently" on the ground?).
If you don't know (perhaps you're mapping from imagery alone) then
highway=path might be useful as a "vague generic basket" (to borrow
Richard Mann's term) but following survey in most cases in many
countries you'd be able to provide more detail than that(3).
As to "highway=footpath", I can only offer the obligatory:
https://xkcd.com/927/
Cheers,
Andy
(1) For example, how do I tag a way that's designed mostly for horse
traffic but is actually only horse=permissive without using
highway=bridleway?
(2)
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1698#issuecomment-127129167
(3) In addition to surface, width, legal access, tracktype, smoothness,
sac_scale, mtb:scale etc. that also help to provide more information.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path
On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 19:30:09 +0900 johnw wrote: > I DO NOT WANT path & footway merged - we need to be able to show > rough/informal paths. The problem is that distinction of highway=path and highway=footway is meaningless, like with natural=wood vs landuse=forest as it varies from location to location and from mapper to mapper. Various mappers use different distinctions, other consider them equivalent (highway=path was not supposed to imply anything about quality, importance or surface). Changing definitions now is pointless - who is going to resurvey and verify over 9 million highway=path/footway ways to ensure that it will fit new definition? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path
sent from a phone > Am 03.08.2015 um 17:41 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny : > > Changing definitions now is pointless - who is going to resurvey and > verify over 9 million highway=path/footway ways to ensure that it will > fit new definition? +1 for informal paths there is the informal=yes attribute which was introduced especially for this kind of feature cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path
I think the highway=trail proposal was right on the point. highway=path was meant as equivalent to footway, cycleway etc and is most often used that way. It's wording is unfortunate as the association with path for many people is an unmade way. So it got mistakenly used for that too, as there is no better or dedicated tag. Using highway=trail for narrow, unmade trails would be intuitive and clarify the current ambiguity of path. Considering that a new tag highway=via_ferrata was introduced for trails that require climbing/equipment it is weird that there still is no dedicated tag to fill the gap between well built footways/paths and a via_ferrata. Reviving highway=trail to go in between would be logical. bye, Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/highway-footway-Advanced-definition-Distinction-footway-vs-path-tp5851506p5851586.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] New Key capacity:*=n values
What is the point of quoting someone else without adding any additional comment? -- 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." -- Martin Luther King, Jr. On August 1, 2015 5:04:44 PM John Willis wrote: Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 2, 2015, at 4:25 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > access=no > disabled=yes ___ 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] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:36:15 -0700 (MST) NopMap wrote: > > I think the highway=trail proposal was right on the point. > > highway=path was meant as equivalent to footway, cycleway etc and is > most often used that way. It's wording is unfortunate as the > association with path for many people is an unmade way. So it got > mistakenly used for that too, as there is no better or dedicated tag. > > Using highway=trail for narrow, unmade trails would be intuitive and > clarify the current ambiguity of path. > > Considering that a new tag highway=via_ferrata was introduced for > trails that require climbing/equipment it is weird that there still > is no dedicated tag to fill the gap between well built footways/paths > and a via_ferrata. Reviving highway=trail to go in between would be > logical. There is plenty of cases where there is no neat classification (for example narrow paths with gravel placed there sometimes to keep mud from forming). Really, there is no need fro more highway values - just add surface, tracktype, width etc. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (nutrition_supplements)
Did anyone else see this message as containing only headers, but no message contents? That is how it rendered on my system. -- 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." -- Martin Luther King, Jr. On August 2, 2015 6:17:21 AM Alberto Chung wrote: ___ 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - (nutrition_supplements)
On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 02:35:28PM -0500, John Eldredge wrote: > Did anyone else see this message as containing only headers, but no message > contents? That is how it rendered on my system. Same here. Presumably finger trouble? ael ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path
> On Aug 4, 2015, at 12:41 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > The problem is that distinction of highway=path and highway=footway is > meaningless, I have a ton of sidewalks to map and a ton of dirt trails in the mountains informal cut-throughs in the grass to map. the distinction is very clear to me. Especially in a country where there are no bridleways (horse-riding for recreation is almost non-existant) and the land is covered with concrete and asphalt sidewalks. I know that this is pertinent only to my mapping area - but the argument over the footpath and path about highest usage is not necessary - Go by built conditions. a concrete sidewalk, a concrete walkway in a park, an asphalt path along a river, a walkway through a parking lot to get to a mall entrance, a pedestrian footbridge over a river - all are built to the same usage assumptions, and people seeing the red dots can assume they can walk leaisurely without watching their feet or worry about mud. a dirt path through a forest, a narrow trail along a fence to cut around a field, an informal path next to a road connecting to separate sidewalk segments - all of these too have the same expectations of conditions. I have no issues with their distinction here. The issues arise in more complicated places. Take the basis of these two tags and figure out a solution based on the idea of built condition and expected usage, and most of these issues will disappear. Most people can’t ride a horse down a sidewalk. Most people cant take a wheelchair up a mountain trail. and most people shouldn’t drive a car down a cycleway or through a mall. it’s only the edge cases that is making this so difficult. the vast majority of trails and footpaths fit neatly into the two categories above.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 71, Issue 5
I'm not sure what's the way to reply this, sorry about that...
- Martin Koppenhoefer: "there's also a tag shop=herbalist" but i think
is not the best tag for this, because the supplements can be or can't be
herbs and herbalist definition: Shop focused on selling herbs, often for
medical purposes.
- Warin: Thanks for your comments, i will change the definition. I
mentioned the past proposal in Examples section and in the Talk section.
2015-08-03 2:35 GMT-05:00 :
> Send Tagging mailing list submissions to
> tagging@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> tagging-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Tagging digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction
> footway vs path (geow)
>2. landcover=trees definition (Daniel Koć)
>3. Re: highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction
> footway vs path (Ilpo Järvinen)
>4. Re: highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction
> footway vs path (Warin)
>5. Re: Telecoms Tagging (Warin)
>6. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (nutrition_supplements) (Warin)
>7. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (nutrition_supplements)
> (Martin Koppenhoefer)
>8. Re: Telecoms Tagging (Martin Koppenhoefer)
>
>
> -- Mensaje reenviado --
> From: geow
> To: Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Cc:
> Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 15:06:00 -0700 (MST)
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction
> footway vs path
> Richard Z. wrote
> > ...
> > I would leave it alone and introduce highway=footpath which would be a
> > variant
> > of path for pedestrians, not suited or permitted for horses and vehicles
> > unless
> > otherwise tagged and expected to be more demanding than footways.
> > ...
>
> @Richard - I wouldn't even dream of that ;-) Actually - do we really need 5
> or even 6 highway types for non motorized traffic?
>
> Wouldn't it be better to use the universal and compatible "highway=path"
> along with specific and unmistakable attributes for physical and access
> properties. That way we could replace all
> highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway
> keys.
>
> The mess as you described it, was partly caused by mixing physical tags and
> assumed access-restrictions in these traditional keys.
>
> geow
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/highway-footway-Advanced-definition-Distinction-footway-vs-path-tp5851506p5851515.html
> Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
>
> -- Mensaje reenviado --
> From: "Daniel Koć"
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> Cc:
> Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 00:55:48 +0200
> Subject: [Tagging] landcover=trees definition
> I have just discovered that while landcover=trees has no Wiki page, it's
> quite established tag (I wouldn't say "popular" here, because it's just
> about 1% of forest/wood uses) and we could officially define as a generic
> tag for trees areas, when it's not clear for the mapper if it's natural or
> not ("forest" vs "wood").
>
> Do you agree with this idea?
>
> --
> "The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags
> down" [A. Cohen]
>
>
>
>
> -- Mensaje reenviado --
> From: "Ilpo Järvinen"
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> Cc:
> Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 01:58:41 +0300 (EEST)
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction
> footway vs path
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2015, geow wrote:
>
> > Richard Z. wrote
> > > ...
> > > I would leave it alone and introduce highway=footpath which would be a
> > > variant
> > > of path for pedestrians, not suited or permitted for horses and
> vehicles
> > > unless
> > > otherwise tagged and expected to be more demanding than footways.
> > > ...
> >
> > @Richard - I wouldn't even dream of that ;-) Actually - do we really
> need 5
> > or even 6 highway types for non motorized traffic?
> >
> > Wouldn't it be better to use the universal and compatible "highway=path"
> > along with specific and unmistakable attributes for physical and access
> > properties. That way we could replace all
> highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway
> > keys.
> >
> > The mess as you described it, was partly caused by mixing physical tags
> and
> > assumed access-restrictions in these traditional keys.
>
> Many mappers don't want to input all those types using many keys because
> of increased effort that slows down useful mapping. They could all could
> go directly into highway=* instead to make it less effort to input the
> same a
Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path
On 4/08/2015 1:41 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 19:30:09 +0900 johnw wrote: I DO NOT WANT path & footway merged - we need to be able to show rough/informal paths. The problem is that distinction of highway=path and highway=footway is meaningless, like with natural=wood vs landuse=forest as it varies from location to location and from mapper to mapper. Various mappers use different distinctions, other consider them equivalent (highway=path was not supposed to imply anything about quality, importance or surface). Changing definitions now is pointless - who is going to resurvey and verify over 9 million highway=path/footway ways to ensure that it will fit new definition? With the present definitions ... it is a mess. Changing the definition/s is to address the distinction between the two. If done well it would help, and that is the point. To fix this mess will require work, leaving it alone will simply mean new data added will contribute to the mess and to the work required to fix the mess in the future. Saying it is now a lot of work, too hard, etc simply makes more work for any future fix. Fix it now and hopefully it remains fixed into the future. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (nutrition_supplements)
On 3/08/2015 5:25 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone Am 03.08.2015 um 07:57 schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: herbal there's also a tag shop=herbalist Missed that one! :-) Alberto .. I think you should change the 'definition' in your proposal to match the change you made. It is in the grey rectangle ... you'll need to 'edit' the whole page to get access to it. remove the acknowledgement to me ... there is no need for it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
