Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[geow]

 

Therefore proper tags on the individual way would be helpful like surface,
width, incline, smoothness, sac_scale, mtb:scale etc.

 

Rendering should never rely on assumptions but on physical values. 

 

I get the impression, you overestimate the importance of duck tagging. It's
not that intuitive and explicit as you think, non-native English mappers may
have different assumptions of what is semantically implied or what is usable
according to their region.

 

A footway opend to bicycles is a multi-use-path and should be distinguished
from a footway or even sidewalk restricted exclusively to pedestrians.

geow





--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/highway-footway-Advanced-definition-Distinction-footway-vs-path-tp5851506p5851877.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] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[John Willis]

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 7, 2015, at 3:59 PM, geow  wrote:
> 
> Rendering should never rely on assumptions but on physical values

Theres no *physical* value separating a primary, secondary, tertiary, 
unclassified, or service road. I can find one of each that the exact same 
width, surface, smoothness, length, lanes, incline, lighting, poodle=yes - 
everything - here within 5miles of my location. its all about purpose or legal 
definition - So purpose is best - the duckiness. 

Why purposely make tagging non-car ways different and make it massive 
hinderance to new mappers when a single tag could do it? An existing single 
tag! It is a total mystery to me. 


You can tag all of those grade/sac/smoothness attributes on *any* non-carway - 
but the root highway=* tag does more to say what it is than any other tag. Im 
not going to tagging SAC scale on a sidewalk because the tag creators were too 
myopic to make proper tags.  We're trapped in a sea of subtags that pretends to 
define main tags, when they don't. They are *further attributes* of the way. 

The main highway=tag is king. For car and non-car ways. 

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Ilpo Järvinen]

On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, geow wrote:

>  The difference between a cycleway, a footway, and a trail can be access
> rules, but mostly its *the built condition of the way* and that *will* vary
> from a 1st world to 3rd would country - and from continent to
> continent. 
> 
> Therefore proper tags on the individual way would be helpful like surface,
> width, incline, smoothness, sac_scale, mtb:scale etc.

Fair enough, but if the rendering/router/whatever won't differentiate 
based on those tags, it won't help any the map user. Thus your point is 
moot if e.g. the rendering is based solely on surface=* (or actually, any 
particular subset of those "helpful" tags).

>  Tagging implies the built condition - and assumptions made from that tagging
> affect rendering - which therefore affects routing decisions or user choice
> of ways.  
> 
> Rendering should never rely on assumptions but on physical values. 

But this footway/path/trail controversy is about not rendering object that 
are physically very much different the same.


-- 
 i.

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[John Willis]

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 7, 2015, at 3:59 PM, geow  wrote:
> 
> non-native English mappers may
> have different assumptions of what is semantically implied or what is usable
> according to their region.

Tell me about it - I live and map in Japan. And their rules on =trunk through 
=secondary definitions are different than most other countries mapped in OSM 
because they follow Japanese mapping convention where the legal name /shield 
designation of the road is the *only* information for determining which kind of 
road it is tagged as - 1.5 lane "primary" road a hundred years old next to a 4 
lane "tertiary" bypass built 10 years ago to go around the narrow primary is 
common. It leads to a lot of errors and horrible navigation problems (in Apple 
Maps and Google Maps) because they rely on the legal standing more than lanes 
or width when routing - so i know they have a place and a Job - but you cannot 
declare every road is highway=main and then base everything on lanes, width, 
and smoothness. 

What highway=* value is given to a way is the most important tag it can 
receive, and there is not a sub-tag that even comes close to its importance - 
to mappers, renders, routers, or map viewers. It is king. And =path is too 
muddled to be used properly, and should be narrowed/depreciated over time. 

Javbw 



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

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Ilpo Järvinen]

On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Greg Troxel wrote:

> 
> Ilpo Järvinen  writes:
> 
> > It's not just about paved/unpaved. What I mean that there are two kinds of 
> > "not paved trails through forest". Those which come with man applied 
> > surface, even if we tag them as surface=unpaved (typically 
> > surface=fine_gravel to be more precise), which tends to be rather level 
> > and easy to walk on and reasonably free from obstacles, and those where 
> > the conditions are close to unknown (given unfamiliar terrain), might be 
> > easy/ok but might as well require negotiating tricky parts or even 
> > backtracking. It's important aspect for (non-computerized) routeplanning 
> > to know this difference.
> 
> That's fair, but I think it's not really about artificial surface.  It's
> about whether someone with some familiarity with hiking in general is
> going to be able to follow the trail without too much trouble.   But I'm
> afraid that this is a continuum more than a yes/no sort of thing.

Indeed, it's true that some set of trails can (and likely are) passable 
for many but there are more variable which affect their usability. It's 
about providing reasonable set of ways that _at minimum_ is likely is 
reasonable conditions (obviously there still can be problems with those 
but it's much easier to predict with common sense than with forest 
trails).


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

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[John Willis]

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 7, 2015, at 3:59 PM, geow  wrote:
> 
> multi-use-path

Highway=cycle-ped_path
Done! 
Lets render it with purple dots (blue+red).

Or we could just render it as a sidewalk, as that is what it is. A Sidewalk. 

Highway=footway+footway=sidewalk. 

Which conveniently already exists and is rendered and is used 192k times. 

So lets stick with that. 
And depreciate =path. 

Javbw. 



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

Re: [Tagging] Contact:* prefix

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 07.08.2015 um 00:38 schrieb Dave F. :
> 
> For some tag developments i can see the benefits, but I'm struggling with 
> this one I'm afraid.


+1
while in the addr:-namespace all keys are actually address components, this can 
be contested for the contact: namespace. A website for instance is not 
primarily a means of contact, sometimes it might not be suitable at all for 
contact purposes, but still there are generally good reasons to add website 
tags (further information and context). 

These discussions are going on for years (eg on talk-it), and truth is the 
contact prefixed tags are always less and their numbers are growing slower. 
Contact-advocates are usually replying this was due to the non-prefixed tags 
used in the editor presets, and they might be right that this is part of the 
reason, still it should be admitted that this proposal didn't gain sufficient 
support to overtake the non-prefixed form and it doesn't look like it ever will.

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Marc Gemis]

On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 9:58 AM, John Willis  wrote:

> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Aug 7, 2015, at 3:59 PM, geow  wrote:
> >
> > multi-use-path
>
> Highway=cycle-ped_path
> Done!
> Lets render it with purple dots (blue+red).
>
> Or we could just render it as a sidewalk, as that is what it is. A
> Sidewalk.
>
> Highway=footway+footway=sidewalk.
>
> Which conveniently already exists and is rendered and is used 192k times.
>
> So lets stick with that.
> And depreciate =path.


For Belgium we follow this convention:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Eimai/Belgian_Roads#Paths
It's full of highway=path examples. You'll give us a lot of work if we have
to revisit and retag them all. :-)


regards

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 07.08.2015 um 09:50 schrieb John Willis :
> 
> And their rules on =trunk through =secondary definitions are different than 
> most other countries mapped in OSM because they follow Japanese mapping 
> convention where the legal name /shield designation of the road


what is this legal name/ shield designation about, the relative importance of 
the highway as a connection in the road network? Or something else like who 
maintains the road (typically more politics and history than traffic logics)? 


> is the *only* information for determining which kind of road it is tagged as 
> - 1.5 lane "primary" road a hundred years old next to a 4 lane "tertiary" 
> bypass built 10 years ago to go around the narrow primary is common.


being an island, it won't bother people outside Japan, but it sounds neither  
reasonable, nor beneficial for anyone, and it is clearly contradicting the 
documentation and the community consensus globally - will result likely in 
routing problems like suboptimal routes and increased computation time.

IMHO it is probably a sign of immature mapping that will be solved by the time 
when people acknowledge the problems it creates. Adopting some arbitrary 
national classification (usually there are several systems and classes for 
roads used by the public entities for planning, designing, construction and 
maintenance, but the system the mappers "choose" is always the signposted refs) 
is the simplest way of mapping that doesn't require further thinking or 
interpretation and avoids discussions. It is therefore often used in the 
beginning of mapping when people are shy of making decisions.

Be bold, analyze the situation and go by common sense: if you know an area, it 
is not so difficult to create/recognize a road hierarchy (unless you're in 
Tokyo maybe). Then start applying your findings and iterate in the following 
time until you come to some sort of more stable consensus. It's worth it.

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 07.08.2015 um 01:15 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen :
> 
> "unpaved paths" is actually built-up 
> recretional route whereas the others are just tiny, some even faintly 
> visible, forest trails.


there are the tags width, trail visibility and maybe others, that address this 
problem 



> In theory this prominance problem might be solved 
> by informal=yes but in practice I expect at least the mapnik stylesheet 
> guys to stonewall on this because of the extra data column that will be 
> needed to make them less prominant


Osm carto is about to activate the hstore extension which will remove the 
requirement of a column for every key...


Informal is not a key about visual prominence but rather a way to distinguish 
built ways from those that emerge by pure usage

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Ilpo Järvinen]

On Fri, 7 Aug 2015, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> > Am 07.08.2015 um 01:15 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen :
> > 
> > "unpaved paths" is actually built-up 
> > recretional route whereas the others are just tiny, some even faintly 
> > visible, forest trails.
> 
> there are the tags width, trail visibility and maybe others, that 
> address this problem 

The problem is not that we don't have tags to these. The issue is that 
when all this information is spread to n tags hardly any 
renderer/router/whatever takes advantage of all these "helpful" tags and 
therefore the information won't appear to the end user at all or is 
seriously limited.

> > In theory this prominance problem might be solved 
> > by informal=yes but in practice I expect at least the mapnik stylesheet 
> > guys to stonewall on this because of the extra data column that will be 
> > needed to make them less prominant
> 
> Osm carto is about to activate the hstore extension which will remove 
> the requirement of a column for every key...

Oh, that's nice to hear, finally. :-) :-)

> Informal is not a key about visual prominence but rather a way to 
> distinguish built ways from those that emerge by pure usage

I agree, it's not 100% match. However, I think it still present hierarcy 
that has basis on common sense (remember what you wrote about Japan's road 
hierarcy ;-)) and would be the easiest way to render them with less 
prominance. Arguably it would also  cause some extremely strong informal 
shortcut trail to look less usable than it is based on physical 
appearance but I think it would still be useful compromise (similar 
"misdimensioning" issues occur time to time anyway with car network too 
and we don't make big fuzz about it every time). In theory even that could 
be fixed by looking the other keys too but I doubt that, e.g., default 
mapnik will (or even should try) to make sense out of all sac_scale, 
smoothness, path visibility, etc. tags, it would just get too specific 
and there are just too many tags to create sensible combined styling out 
of all of them.


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

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[johnw]

> On Aug 7, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> 
> For Belgium we follow this convention: 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Eimai/Belgian_Roads#Paths 
> 
> It's full of highway=path examples. You'll give us a lot of work if we have 
> to revisit and retag them all. :-)

I know path is in heavy use, but a few proper mechanical edits (how are those 
done?) for certain tag combos and a couple years elapsed would eventually take 
care of it. I don’ think it is something that could be done easily or with a 
simple edit - but it could be depreciated and retired in a few years. 

Leave it to the noisy American living abroad to cause trouble in Belgium!


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

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[johnw]

> On Aug 7, 2015, at 6:07 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> what is this legal name/ shield designation about, the relative importance of 
> the highway as a connection in the road network? Or something else like who 
> maintains the road (typically more politics and history than traffic logics)? 



basically national roads are trunks, regionals are primary, and local numbered 
roads are secondary. the un-numbered ones with a center line are tertiary. 

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Japan_tagging 


This wouldn’t be too big a deal if they moved the designations to the bypasses, 
but they don’t, and “roads” make right turns at intersections - which is really 
odd to me, but that is Japan. 


People have a very different expectation when using a visual map - they are 
familiar with this odd road pattern (no other map - Google, Apple, Bing,  
Mapple, Mapion, Zenrin, and car GPS and others present the data in any other 
way), and count traffic lights from the train station or other central city 
landmark for completely relative directions - as there are no road names on 
tertiary and below nor sequential house address numbers on any building, so the 
odd shape of the road grid colors and traffic light mapping is the most 
important part of the rendered map (we still cant agree to have one signal icon 
per intersection so it breaks this too). - but it really screws with routing. 

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Richard Mann]

On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Marc Gemis  wrote:
>
> For Belgium we follow this convention:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Eimai/Belgian_Roads#Paths
> It's full of highway=path examples. You'll give us a lot of work if we
> have to revisit and retag them all. :-)
>

So if it's a 2m paved path with pedestrians and cyclists allowed, you call
it highway=cycleway if it's got a blue/white sign, and highway=path+various
other tags if it's got a red/white/black sign.

I'm sorry, that's just a muddle.

I'd also note that there are a lot more surface values that just
paved/unpaved nowadays - which kinda indicates the problem with relying on
subkeys: their values tend to get more complicated, making it impossible to
use them reliably to subdivide the main key.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 07.08.2015 um 13:05 schrieb Richard Mann 
> :
> 
> 
> So if it's a 2m paved path with pedestrians and cyclists allowed, you call it 
> highway=cycleway if it's got a blue/white sign, and highway=path+various 
> other tags if it's got a red/white/black sign.
> 
> I'm sorry, that's just a muddle.


IMHO it is accurate, together with the country specific default access situation


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

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 07.08.2015 um 13:05 schrieb Richard Mann 
> :
> 
> I'd also note that there are a lot more surface values that just 
> paved/unpaved nowadays - which kinda indicates the problem with relying on 
> subkeys: their values tend to get more complicated, making it impossible to 
> use them reliably to subdivide the main key.


paved/unpaved are completely insufficient for many cases:

For example:

sett and cobblestone are paved values but you'd want to avoid them with bikes

the unpaved surfaces are very different: some are smooth and others are very 
rough, together with water (rain), frost, etc. different surfaces will behave 
very differently 


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

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Andy Townsend]

‎Whilst hstore will make keys available, it won't make the SQL to use a 
plethora of new keys any less horrible. The code to handle certain highway=path 
as either cycleways and footways is more convoluted than it would otherwise be 
already.

Something like "lua" processing of keys at import would simplify things, but I 
suspect isn't an option for the main site (because of the requirement to do a 
database reload if you change the lua script).

Cheers,
Andy

  Original Message  
From: Ilpo Järvinen
Sent: Friday, 7 August 2015 11:23
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Reply To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction 
footway vs path

On Fri, 7 Aug 2015, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> > Am 07.08.2015 um 01:15 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen :
> > 
> > 
> 
> Osm carto is about to activate the hstore extension which will remove 
> the requirement of a column for every key...

Oh, that's nice to hear, finally. :-) :-)



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

Re: [Tagging] oil binding agent?

[Bryce Nesbitt]

Note the subtle spelling difference between
absorption and adsorption:
http://www.integrityabsorbents.com/content/abvsad.php
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] oil binding agent?

[John Willis]

So if it swells less than 50%, it is adsobent. I learned a new word today. 

Javbw


> On Aug 8, 2015, at 5:54 AM, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:
> 
> Note the subtle spelling difference between
> absorption and adsorption:
> http://www.integrityabsorbents.com/content/abvsad.php
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging