Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Marc Gemis]

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Colin Smale  wrote:

> And the Dutch/Flemish "plaatselijk verkeer" is better translated as "local
> traffic"; now what the hell is the (legal) definition of that?


Same as the Dutch bestemmingsverkeer I assume. Translated as "destination"
in OSM.
See
http://wegcode.be/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=100:art2&catid=48:kb-01121975&Itemid=48#uitgezonderd%20plaatselijk%20verkeer
for the Dutch text.
inhabitants, visitors, delivery, emergency, service + horses + bicycles +
foot.


BTW, it seems that "Uitgezonderd aangelanden" is not mentioned in the law
(see http://www.gratisrijbewijsonline-forum.be/viewtopic.php?t=7359  (in
Dutch))
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Colin Smale]

 

Exactly my point - the actual definition of what is allowed and what is
forbidden is a whole lot more complex than a single word on a sign. 

Let's not forget that OSM is only a model of reality, which means it
will contain approximations of the truth. IMHO "access=destination" is
probably enough for the majority of usecases for motorised traffic, but
non-motorised traffic (foot, bicycle, horse etc) may need explicit
tagging. If one wants to be more specific, one has to reference the
traffic sign which indicates the access conditions/restrictions, with a
reference to the article of law with the full definition. 

//colin 

On 2015-10-06 09:04, Marc Gemis wrote: 

> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Colin Smale  wrote:
> 
>> And the Dutch/Flemish "plaatselijk verkeer" is better translated as "local 
>> traffic"; now what the hell is the (legal) definition of that?
> 
> Same as the Dutch bestemmingsverkeer I assume. Translated as "destination" in 
> OSM. 
> See 
> http://wegcode.be/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=100:art2&catid=48:kb-01121975&Itemid=48#uitgezonderd%20plaatselijk%20verkeer
>  for the Dutch text. 
> inhabitants, visitors, delivery, emergency, service + horses + bicycles + 
> foot. 
> 
> BTW, it seems that "Uitgezonderd aangelanden" is not mentioned in the law 
> (see http://www.gratisrijbewijsonline-forum.be/viewtopic.php?t=7359  (in 
> Dutch))  
> 
> ___
> 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] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 06.10.2015 07:15, Marc Gemis wrote:
> And (Flemish) Dutch "aangelanden (verkeer)". 
> 
> We also have the difference between 
> "uitgezonderd plaatselijk verkeer" = "except destination"
> "uitgezonderd aangelanden" = "except 'visitor'"
> 
> and I even saw
> 
> "uitgezonderd bewoners" = "except inhabitants" 
> 
> once on a street.

I'm glad to see that the tag I'm going to propose will be useful for at
least one other country.

You can then use:
uitgezonderd plaatselijk verkeer ... vehicle=destination
uitgezonderd aangelanden ... vehicle=
uitgezonderd bewoners ... vehicle=private

> Wonder whether a moving or delivery company would be
> allowed in the latter case. Or whether someone would try to enforce it in
> such case.

I don't know Belgian law, but it might be similar to the situation in
Austria where "ausgenommen Anrainer" only means residents, no
moving/delivering companies. That caused lots of problems, because residents
wanted things delivered to their homes. That's why "ausgenommen
Anrainerverkehr" was invented, and many "...Anrainer" signs have been
replaced by "...Anrainerverkehr" signs over the decades. This process will
surely continue.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 06.10.2015 08:47, Colin Smale wrote:
> Instead of trying to translate the words on the signs, why look at what the
> relevant laws say. There is only room on the sign for one or two words, but
> in the laws which define the signing there will/may be more detailed
> definitions of what is meant; these definitions will of course be
> country-specific.

Sadly enough, most people who participate in discussions do not even know
(or at least not fully understand) the laws in the own country, let alone in
foreign countries. That's why a list of country-specific equivalents cannot
be the target of a proposal. The proposal can only introduce a tag and its
definition, and it's up to the local communities to discuss what their
traffic signs mean and how they relate to the tag definitions.

> In NL there is "uitgezonderd bestemmingsverkeer" (except for destination
> traffic) which sounds clear, but these days there is also "uitgezonderd
> aantoonbare bestemming" (except traffic with demonstrable destination). The
> latter is not defined (yet) in law, but I guess it is an attempt to plug a
> hole in "bestemmingsverkeer" because it is not defined how you have to
> justify being "destination traffic."

The Austrian term "Anrainerverkehr" is not defined by a law either. But it
has been a topic in literature, official websites, court decisions, and
discussions in specific newsgroups and webforums. So there's now a common
understanding what the term means.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-10-05 12:01 GMT+02:00 Friedrich Volkmann :

> The meaning is a superset of
> access=private/customers/delivery/agricultural/forestry. Everyone is
> permitted to use the feature (road) if - and only if - he is either a
> resident or owner of adjacent property or if he is aiming to get in contact
> or business with a resident or owner.
>


in Germany there's no limitation to residents or owners, it could also be a
tenant, business operator etc. without the necessity of "property" or
"residence" (= formally living there).



>
> So if you own the property beside the street, you are permitted to use the
> street.
> If you want to visit a resident for a talk, you are permitted.
> If you are delivering to a resident, you are permitted.
> Hotel guests are permitted.
>


would you be permitted if you wanted to ask for hotel pricing? Or room
availability?




>
>
> Many people have been using (motor_)vehicle=destination for this, but
> that's
> just wrong, because "destination" would mean that you are allowed to drive
> in to take a walk or shoot photos. In exchange, "destination" would prohibt
> residents from driving through - but they are actually allowed to do so.
>


IMHO we should change the wiki to make this more explicit, because the
German situation is similar, it isn't sufficient to want to go there (like
the wiki currently states), but you have to want to come in contact with
someone living there or operating his business there.



>
> I have been using (motor_)vehicle=delivery, because it's more permissive
> than private, and I always felt that delivery somewhat implies customers.
>


-1, delivery is quite different (e.g. would exclude residents that don't
"deliver"). I don't think that delivery implies something for customers.



>
>
> So we need a new tag.
>
> Maybe *=visitors?
> or *=guests (but this could make believe that deliverers are excluded)
> or *=contact (puzzling?)
> or *=contact_with_residents (too bulky?)
> or *=contact_with_abutters (same)
> or *=in_touch... ?
>
> What do you think?
>


"visitors" would exclude a lot of stuff, including residents. Also
"visitor" implies IMHO you have to stay. Is the postman a "visitor"? I'd
say no.

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

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 06.10.2015 09:04, Marc Gemis wrote:
> And the Dutch/Flemish "plaatselijk verkeer" is better translated as
> "local traffic"; now what the hell is the (legal) definition of that?
> 
> Same as the Dutch bestemmingsverkeer I assume.

I wouldn't assume that.

> inhabitants, visitors, delivery, emergency, service + horses + bicycles + 
> foot.

If we can include horse-and-cart in that list, it perfectly matches the new tag:
motor_vehicle=visitors (or whatever we name it)

horse=yes + bicycle=yes + foot=yes are certainly implied by the road type.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=penstock to complete pipeline tagging

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 05 October 2015, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> > probably not very practical to
> > differentiate between 'pipelines with a pipe' and pipelines without
> > a pipe' underground.
>
> can you give an example for a pipeline without a pipe?

Apart from the pressure tubes of hydropower plants the most common case 
is probably sewer pipes.  For general transport pipelines cutting them 
into rock is rare due to the high costs.  Hydropower penstocks are an 
exception mostly due to the high volume high pressure combination and 
sewage due to the space constraints in urban environments.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-10-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale :

> Instead of trying to translate the words on the signs, why look at what
> the relevant laws say. There is only room on the sign for one or two words,
> but in the laws which define the signing there will/may be more detailed
> definitions of what is meant; these definitions will of course be
> country-specific.
>
> What is the relationship between the German "Anlieger" and
> "Anliegerverkehr"? Does the latter mean traffic "owned by a resident",
> "going to/from a resident with explicit invitation", or what?
>


there are some cases that have led to legal clarifications by sentences. It
means you have to want to come into contact with someone living there or
operating her business there.



> If I am thinking of buying a house on that road and want to take a look,
> is that allowed?
>

If you have an appointment with the proprietor: yes, if you don't, no (my
interpretation). You are not allowed if you want to come into contact with
a house or a vending machine etc., you have to want to come into contact
with a person/business (but they don't have to be there, you may drive into
the area, find out they are not at home and continue to drive without even
leaving your car).


In Italy there are signs that say "except residents" or "residents only",
but these are quite different normally, because it actually isn't
sufficient to be a resident, you also have to apply for a permit once a
year (this permit will not be for you, but for the vehicle, i.e. has a
number plate on it), pay the fee, expose the permit behind the windscreen.
(These procedures and the details may vary from one municipality to
another). These situations I'm usually tagging as motor_vehicle=private
(because of the required explicit permit).

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

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Simon Poole]

People, sometimes creatively, put lots of stuff on signs that don't
necessarily correspond to the set of values that is actually supported
by law*. It frankly doesn't make sense to try and capture each fine
semantic difference (wit visitor vs. destination), particularly as  it
may simply be misguided to start with.

Your Anrainer vs. Anrainerverkehr example for AT doesn't seem to be any
different than the Anwohner/Anlieger difference in DE, which
semantically for routing purposes boils down to private/destination
(which I suspect most routers wouldn't actually differentiate in any case).

@Marc can you point to a reference that shows that "uitgezonderd
aangelanden" is anything else than creativity? Your relevant regulations
seem to only know about "plaatselijk verkeer"

Simon

* naturally there are often access restrictions issued by a court, but
they tend to have longer text inferencing the decision and detailing the
restriction.

Am 06.10.2015 um 09:16 schrieb Friedrich Volkmann:
> On 06.10.2015 07:15, Marc Gemis wrote:
>> And (Flemish) Dutch "aangelanden (verkeer)". 
>>
>> We also have the difference between 
>> "uitgezonderd plaatselijk verkeer" = "except destination"
>> "uitgezonderd aangelanden" = "except 'visitor'"
>>
>> and I even saw
>>
>> "uitgezonderd bewoners" = "except inhabitants" 
>>
>> once on a street.
> I'm glad to see that the tag I'm going to propose will be useful for at
> least one other country.
>
> You can then use:
> uitgezonderd plaatselijk verkeer ... vehicle=destination
> uitgezonderd aangelanden ... vehicle=
> uitgezonderd bewoners ... vehicle=private
>
>> Wonder whether a moving or delivery company would be
>> allowed in the latter case. Or whether someone would try to enforce it in
>> such case.
> I don't know Belgian law, but it might be similar to the situation in
> Austria where "ausgenommen Anrainer" only means residents, no
> moving/delivering companies. That caused lots of problems, because residents
> wanted things delivered to their homes. That's why "ausgenommen
> Anrainerverkehr" was invented, and many "...Anrainer" signs have been
> replaced by "...Anrainerverkehr" signs over the decades. This process will
> surely continue.
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-10-06 9:57 GMT+02:00 Friedrich Volkmann :

> Sadly enough, most people who participate in discussions do not even know
> (or at least not fully understand) the laws in the own country,
>



+1, the access=destination is likely an example, because it seems the
definition in the wiki doesn't fit perfectly on the German situation
either. There's also confusion about the term "Anlieger" (some think it is
coming from "ein Anliegen haben", others say its "an der Straße anliegend
sein"). Think about "Anliegerstaaten der Nordsee", are these states with a
wish for the North Sea?

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

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Colin Smale]

 

So to summarise, you are proposing a new value for access=*, which has
some overlap with "destination", "delivery" and "private" (and others),
whereby the distinction with the existing values can only be made clear
by refererring to legal texts? 

Whatever the conclusion, the new value has to be easy to use correctly,
and such subtle differences are just asking for problems... 

Maybe we can put a matrix in the wiki with the values down the left,
"traffic classes" across the top, and "yes/no" in the cells? 

Traffic classes would be something like: 

* actual residents 

* visitors to residents, with or without an appointment (including
delivery/contractor traffic) 

* visitors to residents, with pre-arranged appointment (including
delivery/contractor traffic) 

* residents of a side-road to the road in question (it may be the
intention that the side-roads are accessed by entering the road in
question from the other end) 

* visitors to the road itself, not to a resident (e.g. intending to park
the car and go for a walk) 

* anything else you can think of here? 

whereby the matrix would define the standard interpretation of the
values and any deviation must be explicity tagged. 

//colin 

On 2015-10-06 09:57, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: 

> On 06.10.2015 08:47, Colin Smale wrote: 
> 
>> Instead of trying to translate the words on the signs, why look at what the
>> relevant laws say. There is only room on the sign for one or two words, but
>> in the laws which define the signing there will/may be more detailed
>> definitions of what is meant; these definitions will of course be
>> country-specific.
> 
> Sadly enough, most people who participate in discussions do not even know
> (or at least not fully understand) the laws in the own country, let alone in
> foreign countries. That's why a list of country-specific equivalents cannot
> be the target of a proposal. The proposal can only introduce a tag and its
> definition, and it's up to the local communities to discuss what their
> traffic signs mean and how they relate to the tag definitions.
> 
>> In NL there is "uitgezonderd bestemmingsverkeer" (except for destination
>> traffic) which sounds clear, but these days there is also "uitgezonderd
>> aantoonbare bestemming" (except traffic with demonstrable destination). The
>> latter is not defined (yet) in law, but I guess it is an attempt to plug a
>> hole in "bestemmingsverkeer" because it is not defined how you have to
>> justify being "destination traffic."
> 
> The Austrian term "Anrainerverkehr" is not defined by a law either. But it
> has been a topic in literature, official websites, court decisions, and
> discussions in specific newsgroups and webforums. So there's now a common
> understanding what the term means.
 ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 06.10.2015 10:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> would you be permitted if you wanted to ask for hotel pricing? Or room
> availability?

Yes. Asking means contact, and that's what it is about.

> Many people have been using (motor_)vehicle=destination for this, but 
> that's
> just wrong, because "destination" would mean that you are allowed to drive
> in to take a walk or shoot photos. In exchange, "destination" would 
> prohibt
> residents from driving through - but they are actually allowed to do so.
> 
> 
> IMHO we should change the wiki to make this more explicit, because the
> German situation is similar, it isn't sufficient to want to go there (like
> the wiki currently states), but you have to want to come in contact with
> someone living there or operating his business there.

I am ok with explicitely stating in the wiki that access=destination does
*not* require contact with residents.

> "visitors" would exclude a lot of stuff, including residents. Also "visitor"
> implies IMHO you have to stay. Is the postman a "visitor"? I'd say no.

I don't know either. This is why I started this thread. What value do you
suggest?

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-10-06 10:45 GMT+02:00 Simon Poole :

> People, sometimes creatively, put lots of stuff on signs that don't
> necessarily correspond to the set of values that is actually supported
> by law*. It frankly doesn't make sense to try and capture each fine
> semantic difference (wit visitor vs. destination), particularly as  it
> may simply be misguided to start with.
>


I'm not convinced. IF there are subtle differences I find it desirable to
try to capture them. If there aren't (in jurisdiction), we don't have to
capture them, naturally.



>
> Your Anrainer vs. Anrainerverkehr example for AT doesn't seem to be any
> different than the Anwohner/Anlieger difference in DE
>


It seems that "Anwohner frei" (old sign, not used any more, but can still
be found) and "Anlieger frei" as additional signs for access restrictions
do have the same meaning (read this in different places in the web,
apparently it is written in BayObLG, DAR 81, 18; OLG Düsseldorf NZV 92, 85,
which I found only behind a pay wall and have not read in the original).
"Anwohner frei" as a parking restriction should be replaced by "Bewohner
frei"(?).



, which
> semantically for routing purposes boils down to private/destination
> (which I suspect most routers wouldn't actually differentiate in any case).
>


whether the routers do evaluate these rules specifically should not matter
to us. We should try to capture the reality, also in subtle details, so
that someone _could_ interpret the data precisely if he wanted to.

I agree that "destination" sh/could be the correct access restriction for
these cases, but it isn't well defined in the wiki at the moment.

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

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-10-06 11:06 GMT+02:00 Friedrich Volkmann :

> > IMHO we should change the wiki to make this more explicit, because the
> > German situation is similar, it isn't sufficient to want to go there
> (like
> > the wiki currently states), but you have to want to come in contact with
> > someone living there or operating his business there.
>
> I am ok with explicitely stating in the wiki that access=destination does
> *not* require contact with residents.
>


I wouldn't do that, but I'd rather make it the opposite way (state that
destination does require contact). I'm not sure about the term "residents".
Are these signs only found in areas which are "purely residential" (i.e.
there are no offices if not inside residences and run by the resident, no
shops, haircutters, agencies, ...)? Otherwise I'd include something
referring to businesses. We should check if the currently described
definition in the wiki for "destination" is correctly describing the
situation for some place on Earth (some jurisdiction). If yes we have to
leave it as it is IMHO, and we'd have to retag a lot of stuff in Germany.
If not we could change the definition.



>
> > "visitors" would exclude a lot of stuff, including residents. Also
> "visitor"
> > implies IMHO you have to stay. Is the postman a "visitor"? I'd say no.
>
> I don't know either. This is why I started this thread. What value do you
> suggest?




I'd use "destination" (with the changed definition). We do need maybe
another value anyway for Austria, from what I read in WP there is a
distinction between "Anrainer frei" (who has his residence there) and
"Anrainerverkehr frei" (adds the people that want to come into contact with
residents).

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

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Simon Poole]

Am 06.10.2015 um 11:15 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> ...
> whether the routers do evaluate these rules specifically should not
> matter to us. We should try to capture the reality, also in subtle
> details, so that someone _could_ interpret the data precisely if he
> wanted to.
> ...
The proper way to do that is to describe the specific
country/national/whatever detailed semantics of a specific value in a
separate table, just as we do it here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions
(in the case at hand naturally nobody is ever going to use it, but if it
makes people happy)

Doing the above allows us to limit the possible values to a manageable
set and allows our mappers to tag things without in-depth knowledge of
the the actual detailed regulations. Creating a new value for each
national variant is going to go nowhere.

Simon



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 06.10.2015 10:45, Simon Poole wrote:
> Your Anrainer vs. Anrainerverkehr example for AT doesn't seem to be any
> different than the Anwohner/Anlieger difference in DE, which
> semantically for routing purposes boils down to private/destination
> (which I suspect most routers wouldn't actually differentiate in any case).

It's *not* destination, see my other posts.
To put it more clearly:
"destination" targets a location, while Anrainerverkehr targets people.
You can also see it like this:
"destination" is about where you go, while Anrainerverkehr is about what you
wanna do there.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=penstock to complete pipeline tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-10-06 10:42 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann :

> >
> > can you give an example for a pipeline without a pipe?
>
> Apart from the pressure tubes of hydropower plants the most common case
> is probably sewer pipes.  For general transport pipelines cutting them
> into rock is rare due to the high costs.  Hydropower penstocks are an
> exception mostly due to the high volume high pressure combination and
> sewage due to the space constraints in urban environments.




but are these called "pipelines"? Aren't those "pressure tunnels" /
"hydraulic galleries"? The only pipeless pipelines I could find in a quick
search are referring to a python library ;-)

I'm not sure (not rethoric, I'm really not sure, maybe we should indeed?)
whether we want to use man_made=pipeline for all kind of linear way for
liquids and gas, regardless of size, length, construction, purpose. The
wiki says the tag is only for "major" pipelines (typical wiki speech, not
usable to make a decision, I'd rather remove this word to avoid splitting
hair). Would the water tubes and sewage tubes in my house be regarded a
"pipeline"? The one in the road in front of my house? What would be a
sensible limit? Might depend on the substance as well, e.g. a beer pipeline
might have only 20mm and would already be significant.

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

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Simon Poole]

Am 06.10.2015 um 11:29 schrieb Friedrich Volkmann:
> ...
> It's *not* destination, see my other posts.
> To put it more clearly:
> "destination" targets a location, while Anrainerverkehr targets people.
> You can also see it like this:
> "destination" is about where you go, while Anrainerverkehr is about what you
> wanna do there.
> ...
As already pointed out multiple times you are translating far too
literally.

The value "destination" works perfectly for the concept of "you are only
allowed to enter here for a limited number of activities that require
you to be physically at the specific destination/location" however that
is concretised in the relevant legislation.  



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-10-06 11:31 GMT+02:00 Simon Poole :

> Doing the above allows us to limit the possible values to a manageable
> set and allows our mappers to tag things without in-depth knowledge of
> the the actual detailed regulations. Creating a new value for each
> national variant is going to go nowhere.
>


Yes, I didn't imply this. There's another possibility: split it into
several tags, that can be combined to describe the actual situation (e.g. 2
or 3 rather than one tag). Each of these could have specific (global)
meaning, and there would be no need for different meanings in different
countries (like you suggest). Regarding the Austrian situation there seem
to be at least 2 different similar restrictions with different meanings
(Anrainer and Anrainerverkehr), so another values or key is likely needed
anyway.

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

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Florian Lohoff]

On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 12:01:57PM +0200, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> I intend to write a proposal for a new access=* value, but I don't know a
> reasonable tag name. So I'm asking you for suggestions.
> 
> We need the tag for Austrian road signs labelled "ausgenommen
> Anrainerverkehr" or "ausgenommen Anliegerverkehr", where "ausgenommen" means
> "excepted" and "Anrainerverkehr" or "Anliegerverkehr" is the word I am
> struggling to translate. These signs are mostly used in conjunction with [no
> vehicles] or [no motor vehicles] signs.

From my understanding this is exactly what destination is for. You are
allowed to enter as long are allowed as a resident or visitor of a
resident. The exact legal term is slightly different for different countries.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anlieger
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anrainer

"Die österreichische Straßenverkehrsordnung kennt den Anrainerbegriff
unter anderem in Verbindung mit Fahrverboten. Diese können mit Ausnahmen
für Anrainer oder den Anrainerverkehr versehen sein. Der Unterschied
liegt darin, dass im ersten Fall nur der Anrainer selbst über dieses
Straßenstück zufahren darf, im zweiten die Anrainer selbst und alle, die
zu den betroffenen Anrainern möchten. Somit besteht eine Ähnlichkeit mit
dem Begriff des Anliegers aus der deutschen Rechtsprechung."

For the non German speakers - It basically describes that there can
be a difference between "Anrainer" which is the resident on a street
and "Anrainerverkehr" which means residents and their visitors.
Germany does not have this distinction. The last one is the German
"Anlieger" and comparable to the "no thru traffic" and thus would
be mapped as e.g. "motor_vehicle=destination".

The "Anrainer" e.g. only residents would most likely translate to e.g.
"motor_vehicle=private" as its ONLY for a really small known group of people
and not for the public.

> There are similar signs in Germany and Switzerland, although there has been
> some debate whether the terms mean the same thing. So I am primarily
> considering Austrian jurisdiction by now. The Germans or Swiss can then
> decide whether they use the new access value or not.

In the end it doesnt matter what the exact legal term is. You tag it 
destination and the router could probably tell you are in austria and
there is a destination so i treat it slightly different.

But stepping back a little - All this detail is irrelevant for
routing/navigation application. In the end ALL access restrictions
whatever their meaning is have to be treated as "destination" - even
an access=private. When there is no other way the navigation
application leads you to the next point on roads to that destination.
If you are allowed to actually take the last 50m has to be decided by 
the driver itself. The navigaton application simply points you a
direction.


Flo
PS: Making "access=destination" really behave correctly in navigational 
apps is REALLY complicated. Just increasing the graphs costs on that
roads is plain wrong. Basically connected roads for destination
restrictions build a subgraph which has a one time cost of
entering it - not a per meter cost.
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
 We need to self-defense - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Simon Poole]

Am 06.10.2015 um 12:02 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
>
>
> Yes, I didn't imply this. There's another possibility: split it into
> several tags, that can be combined to describe the actual situation
> (e.g. 2 or 3 rather than one tag). Each of these could have specific
> (global) meaning, and there would be no need for different meanings in
> different countries (like you suggest). Regarding the Austrian
> situation there seem to be at least 2 different similar restrictions
> with different meanings (Anrainer and Anrainerverkehr), so another
> values or key is likely needed anyway.
Anrainer seems to be clearly covered by private and Anrainerverkehr is
bullseye covered by the normal use of destination in DACH.

What is the third value supposed to cover?

Simon
 



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 06.10.2015 um 12:10 schrieb Simon Poole :
> 
> Anrainer seems to be clearly covered by private


"private" is "Only with permission of the owner on an individual basis"
this is kind of vague, but from what it says literally it clearly doesn't apply 
(because if it's a publicly owned road, the owner can neither permit other 
people than residents to  use the road, while residents cannot be forbidden to 
use it, if this would be the meaning of "individual basis" it could just as 
well be applicable to "delivery", Anrainerverkehr, ), there's not an individual 
permission but a general one restricted to certain conditions.

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

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 06.10.2015 11:09, Colin Smale wrote:
> So to summarise, you are proposing a new value for access=*, which has some
> overlap with "destination", "delivery" and "private" (and others),

There is no overlap with "destination", although many mappers mix it up.
Of course there is overlap with "delivery" and "private" as the new value
will be a superset to them.

> whereby
> the distinction with the existing values can only be made clear by
> refererring to legal texts?

No, that's exactly what I want to avoid. The tag definitions should be
concise, clear and comprehensive, and any traffic signs or legal texts
should go to an examples section at best. We better leave it over to local
communities to discuss those.

> Maybe we can put a matrix in the wiki with the values down the left,
> "traffic classes" across the top, and "yes/no" in the cells?
> 
> Traffic classes would be something like:
> 
> * actual residents
> 
> * visitors to residents, with or without an appointment (including
> delivery/contractor traffic)
> 
> * visitors to residents, with pre-arranged appointment (including
> delivery/contractor traffic)
> 
> * residents of a side-road to the road in question (it may be the intention
> that the side-roads are accessed by entering the road in question from the
> other end)

This is another dimension, so the matrix would become 3-dimensional.

> * visitors to the road itself, not to a resident (e.g. intending to park the
> car and go for a walk)
>  
> 
> * anything else you can think of here?

In order to get the "designated" and "use_sidepath" values in, we'd need to
add a distinction whether the feature is designated, or whether a designated
sidepath is present. That adds one more dimension to the matrix. For
"discouraged" we'd need yet another dimension. So we can hardly get all
values in one matrix. I would prefer a tree structure, similar to how the
keys are documented at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Land-based_transportation. Of
course we can do both: a tree for all values, and a matrix for "difficult"
values.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

Re: [Tagging] intermittent vs seasonal

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 08:37:54 +1100
Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/10/2015 5:29 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > I will respond to other parts later.
> >
> > On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 21:58:25 +1000
> > Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Again: Intermittent does not mean seasonal.
> > I never claimed this. AFAIK nobody claimed that. What is the point
> > of repeating it?
> >
> 
> Because you latter say
> 
> On 3/10/2015 6:51 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > Can you provide sources that in hydrology "intermittent waterway"
> > does not apply to regular appearance/disappearance of water?

According to my understanding seasonal waterway implies that it
is non-permanent waterway, and currently in OSM "intermittent
waterway" is treated as synonym of "non-pernament waterway".

I claimed that seasonal implies intermittent.

I never claimed that intermittent means seasonal (intermittent
certainly does not imply seasonal).

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

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 06.10.2015 11:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I wouldn't do that, but I'd rather make it the opposite way (state that
> destination does require contact).

That would change the meaning of the tag, and how would you tag "Zufahrt
gestattet" (or "Durchfahrt verboten" or "ausgenommen Ziele in ...") then?
This does not require contact.

> I'm not sure about the term "residents".
> Are these signs only found in areas which are "purely residential" (i.e.
> there are no offices if not inside residences and run by the resident, no
> shops, haircutters, agencies, ...)? Otherwise I'd include something
> referring to businesses.

Businesses are included, see my initial post.

> We should check if the currently described
> definition in the wiki for "destination" is correctly describing the
> situation for some place on Earth (some jurisdiction).

Destination is destination, the meaning of this word is obvious, and this
does not depend on some place on Earth.

> If yes we have to
> leave it as it is IMHO, and we'd have to retag a lot of stuff in Germany.

That's the problem of the Germans, and it's their own fault. I corrected the
mistranslation in the German wiki multiple times, and explained it to them
numerous times, to no avail.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 06.10.2015 11:58, Simon Poole wrote:
> Am 06.10.2015 um 11:29 schrieb Friedrich Volkmann:
>> ...
>> It's *not* destination, see my other posts.
>> To put it more clearly:
>> "destination" targets a location, while Anrainerverkehr targets people.
>> You can also see it like this:
>> "destination" is about where you go, while Anrainerverkehr is about what you
>> wanna do there.
>> ...
> As already pointed out multiple times you are translating far too
> literally.

As already pointed out multiple times, you still owe me an explanation what
translation you are talking about.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[johnw]

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Friedrich Volkmann  wrote:
> 
> Maybe *=visitors?
> or *=guests (but this could make believe that deliverers are excluded)
> or *=contact (puzzling?)
> or *=contact_with_residents (too bulky?)
> or *=contact_with_abutters (same)
> or *=in_touch... ?


Guests sounds way too much like customers. Customers of hotels are referred to 
as guests. 

Contact (to me) sounds confusing compared to contact=* key

I would use something a little odd sounding like transitors or something, 
though that sounds like homeless people or electronics.

visitors is also really close to guests and customers, so I wouldn’t use it 
either. 

ah!

Locals! people who live there. delivery people and visitors certainly are not 
locals, so.. 

what word implies locals + delivery + customers? But not people just um.. 
wandering about?

I can’t think of one. I don't’ think there is one. 

Destination is very good, because it implies people who are going to a 
destination on that street/area. not free to roam around, not free to park and 
wander off. 

=Destination is for people *visiting* the destination the road services. it 
doesn’t matter the purpose - as long as their destination is one of the 
residences. Which excludes sightseers and shortcut-takers. 


There’s no way to find a word that means all those different groups, for so 
many different purposes - so define it by their action - “Destination” . 

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

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 06.10.2015 12:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am 06.10.2015 um 12:10 schrieb Simon Poole
>> Anrainer seems to be clearly covered by private

Correct.

> "private" is "Only with permission of the owner on an individual basis"
> this is kind of vague, but from what it says literally it clearly doesn't 
> apply (because if it's a publicly owned road, the owner can neither permit 
> other people than residents to  use the road, while residents cannot be 
> forbidden to use it,

The owner (i.e. the commune) can extend or revoke the permission by
replacing the signs whenever they like.

> if this would be the meaning of "individual basis" it could just as well be 
> applicable to "delivery", Anrainerverkehr, ), there's not an individual 
> permission but a general one restricted to certain conditions.

The right is granted to registered residents, who are a strictly defined set
of individuals. Deliverers are not a strictly defined set of individuals.
Each of the 8 billion people on Earth can deliver something.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 06.10.2015 13:06, johnw wrote:
> Destination is very good, because it implies people who are going to a
> destination on that street/area. not free to roam around, not free to park
> and wander off. 
> 
> =Destination is for people *visiting* the destination the road services. it
> doesn’t matter the purpose - as long as their destination is one of the
> residences. Which excludes sightseers and shortcut-takers. 

So if "destination" excludes off-wanderers and sightseers, what tag do you
use when you need to include them?

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - aeroway=heliport

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 23.09.2015 19:20, Daniel Koć napisał(a):

W dniu 18.09.2015 14:52, Daniel Koć napisał(a):


So here is my quick draft documenting aeroway=heliport scheme:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/aeroway%3Dheliport

Definition: Aerodrome for helicopters.

I don't think it needs much more explanations, since the change would
be rather clear, but still all the comments are welcome!


No single comment appeared there for 5 days, so I think there's really
not too much to discuss: I'll wait about 2 more days just in case and
start a voting procedure.


All the comments was resolved and nothing more appeared, so it's time to 
start voting - please visit this page:


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/aeroway%3Dheliport

and leave your vote. Please remember to put the reason if opposing.

--
"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

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Florian Lohoff]

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 01:48:27PM +0200, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> On 06.10.2015 13:06, johnw wrote:
> > Destination is very good, because it implies people who are going to a
> > destination on that street/area. not free to roam around, not free to park
> > and wander off. 
> > 
> > =Destination is for people *visiting* the destination the road services. it
> > doesn’t matter the purpose - as long as their destination is one of the
> > residences. Which excludes sightseers and shortcut-takers. 
> 
> So if "destination" excludes off-wanderers and sightseers, what tag do you
> use when you need to include them?

Whats the possible signage which can induce that?

In Germany we have the StVO which has Zeichen 1020-* which are the
exceptions and there nothing like that. It doesnt even make sense - When
you include them - its the public which is allowed to enter. Then there
is no restriction.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bildtafel_der_Verkehrszeichen_in_der_Bundesrepublik_Deutschland_seit_2013

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
 We need to self-defense - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 06.10.2015 19:31, Florian Lohoff wrote:
>> So if "destination" excludes off-wanderers and sightseers, what tag do you
>> use when you need to include them?
> 
> Whats the possible signage which can induce that?

"no through traffic"
"no thru traffic"
"local traffic only"

In Austria:
Fahrverbot + Zusatztafel "Zufahrt gestattet"
Fahrverbot + Zusatztafel "ausgenommen Ziele in..."
"Durchfahrt verboten"
"Durchgang verboten"

The latter two are no traffic signs in terms of StVO, but they are valid
anyway due to other laws such as ABGB.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Florian Lohoff]

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 08:54:09PM +0200, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> On 06.10.2015 19:31, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> >> So if "destination" excludes off-wanderers and sightseers, what tag do you
> >> use when you need to include them?
> > 
> > Whats the possible signage which can induce that?
> 
> "no through traffic"
> "no thru traffic"
> "local traffic only"

Sorry - no - All of them are *=destination.

If you include them? What would be the legal sign? I know
of none. You can put up signs which say - "Redheads only on
mondays" but thats nothing OSM could or should follow.
Simplification - make it a permissive/private ...

> In Austria:

> Fahrverbot + Zusatztafel "Zufahrt gestattet"
motor_vehicle=customer/destination/permissive/private depending
on use case
> Fahrverbot + Zusatztafel "ausgenommen Ziele in..."
Do you have pictures of something like this?
> "Durchfahrt verboten"
motor_vehicle=destination or vehicle=destination - depends on
what is beeing ment. Might also be a access=private. Varys 
on location and usage.
> "Durchgang verboten"
access=destination?

> The latter two are no traffic signs in terms of StVO, but they are valid
> anyway due to other laws such as ABGB.

You need to accept simplification - there is NO WAY in the world we can
accurately a) tag all ways with any combination of blurp and make b) all
data consumers "do the right thing". 

A lot of signs in the countryside are complicated but are only
interesting for locals e.g. the farm 500m away. Why should i tag this
when then audience is about 2-3 People and there are 400 Programmers
which need to fix all data consumers?

When there is a sign saying - "No vehicle access accept for housenumber
12" you CANT put this in attributes. So the next valid tagging is
vehicle=no - People living in house number 12 might possibly know
they are allowed so there is no need to put this in the data.

My suggestion is you take some photographs with the mapillary app and
we talk through real not artifical examples.

I think the access stuff in OSM is very rich of its possibilities and we
today already have problems to interpret all those combinations and
we see "misbehaviour" in all routing apps concerning different
interpretation of tags - so we need to simplify.

Flo
PS: https://xkcd.com/927/
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
 We need to self-defense - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[John Willis]

> On Oct 6, 2015, at 8:48 PM, Friedrich Volkmann  wrote:
> 
> So if "destination" excludes off-wanderers and sightseers, what tag do you
> use when you need to include them?

Yes/permissive under general.

If I am free to come up park my car for any reason and wander about, that is 
pretty damn permissive. 

I may be wrong, but the signage you are describing is very interesting to me 
because in general it doesn't exist in the US. Usually private residential 
streets (not driveways) are still access=yes/permissive unless there is a gate 
(I lived adjacent to one w/o a gate), and parking on busy streets/ 
neighborhoods is done with permits - but the road itself is permissive. 

They will have a "pass at your own risk" sign for legal purposes at the ends of 
the road.

If they don't want you to use a road as a shortcut through a neighborhood, the 
city puts a turn restriction on the intersection (either 24h or for a certain 
time of day), which the public road I lived on had, to keep people from 
bypassing an annoying stop sign on a trunk road where people have to wait in 
the morning. 

If there is some sign that says "residents and people with business with 
residents only" - that sounds an awful lot like access=destination. 

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

[Tagging] Parcel box tagging

[Daniel Koć]

I was looking for a proper tagging scheme for a parcel box and it looks 
like we have something strange:


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Packstation

has a note from 2008 that it's just for German parcel boxes ("This is 
not an international parcel box page. If you want one, create one."). It 
also shows amenity=parcel_box (which sounds reasonable) as old scheme 
and at the same time it proposes a value with semicolon:


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:vending%3Dparcel_pickup;parcel_mail_in

What should we do with it? In my opinion having popular amenity type 
only for one country and using obligatory semicolon is just wrong, so I 
would rather try with amenity=parcel_box, vending=parcel_box or 
vending=parcel.


--
"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

Re: [Tagging] intermittent vs seasonal

[Warin]

On 6/10/2015 9:48 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 08:37:54 +1100
Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:


On 4/10/2015 5:29 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

I will respond to other parts later.

On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 21:58:25 +1000
Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:


Again: Intermittent does not mean seasonal.

I never claimed this. AFAIK nobody claimed that. What is the point
of repeating it?


Because you latter say

On 3/10/2015 6:51 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

Can you provide sources that in hydrology "intermittent waterway"
does not apply to regular appearance/disappearance of water?

According to my understanding seasonal waterway implies that it
is non-permanent waterway, and currently in OSM "intermittent
waterway" is treated as synonym of "non-pernament waterway".

I claimed that seasonal implies intermittent.

I never claimed that intermittent means seasonal (intermittent
certainly does not imply seasonal).



For me;

Seasonal means it is in a set yearly pattern, regularly, repeating on a yearly 
cycle.

Intermittent means it is irregularly, random without a pattern. Not cyclic.

Note that the words and descriptions above apply to anything.. rivers, lakes 
leaves falling off trees, animal migration.

Some statistics I managed to find

For the Cooper River Australia..

Mean annual flow 3.35 km3 (for non metric people k= kilo m3 = cubic metres)

Standard deviation 3.45 km3    The standard deviation is larger that the 
mean! Looks wrong to me.. but the source goes on to repeat that for others.

Source 
http://www.k26.com/eyre/The_Lake/Data/Tributaries/The_Cooper_Creek/the_cooper.html

The reason why the Cooper is regarded as intermittent .. is because in some 
years it does not flow at all .. in others .. it floods .. lots.
And no one has any way of predicting the flows.

Official records .. 
http://www.bom.gov.au/qld/flood/brochures/cooper/cooper.shtml




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

Re: [Tagging] Parcel box tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 06.10.2015 um 23:31 schrieb Daniel Koć :
> 
> In my opinion having popular amenity type only for one country



it's not about the country, it's about the system I guess. Some time ago I 
spotted a DHL Packstation at the main station in Rome, so they're not limited 
to Germany. I agree this definition is not nice, and using a brand name as 
amenity value is not nice.


> and using obligatory semicolon is just wrong, so I would rather try with 
> amenity=parcel_box, vending=parcel_box or vending=parcel.


what has this to do with "vending"? 

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

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Warin]

On 6/10/2015 7:32 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:

On 06.10.2015 09:04, Marc Gemis wrote:

 And the Dutch/Flemish "plaatselijk verkeer" is better translated as
 "local traffic"; now what the hell is the (legal) definition of that?

Same as the Dutch bestemmingsverkeer I assume.

I wouldn't assume that.


inhabitants, visitors, delivery, emergency, service + horses + bicycles + foot.

If we can include horse-and-cart in that list, it perfectly matches the new tag:
motor_vehicle=visitors (or whatever we name it)

horse=yes + bicycle=yes + foot=yes are certainly implied by the road type.



In some jurisdictions the legal definition of a  vehicle  includes 
horses, horse and cart and bicycles.


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

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Warin]

On 6/10/2015 8:09 PM, Colin Smale wrote:


So to summarise, you are proposing a new value for access=*, which has 
some overlap with "destination", "delivery" and "private" (and 
others), whereby the distinction with the existing values can only be 
made clear by refererring to legal texts?


Whatever the conclusion, the new value has to be easy to use 
correctly, and such subtle differences are just asking for problems...


Maybe we can put a matrix in the wiki with the values down the left, 
"traffic classes" across the top, and "yes/no" in the cells?


Traffic classes would be something like:

* actual residents

* visitors to residents, with or without an appointment (including 
delivery/contractor traffic)


* visitors to residents, with pre-arranged appointment (including 
delivery/contractor traffic)


* residents of a side-road to the road in question (it may be the 
intention that the side-roads are accessed by entering the road in 
question from the other end)


* visitors to the road itself, not to a resident (e.g. intending to 
park the car and go for a walk)


* anything else you can think of here?

whereby the matrix would define the standard interpretation of the 
values and any deviation must be explicity tagged.




May have to be country specific?!

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

Re: [Tagging] Parcel box tagging

[André Pirard]

On 2015-10-07 00:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote :
> sent from a phone
You are excused ;-)
>> Am 06.10.2015 um 23:31 schrieb Daniel Koć :
>>
>> In my opinion having popular amenity type only for one country
> it's not about the country, it's about the system I guess. Some time ago I 
> spotted a DHL Packstation at the main station in Rome, so they're not limited 
> to Germany. I agree this definition is not nice, and using a brand name as 
> amenity value is not nice.
cc: Marc Gemis has spotted in Belgium and discussed on talk-be@ similar
boxes that have nothing to do with DHL, Germany or other countries, pure
Belgian (no beer, no chips inside, though).

Cheers

André.



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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=penstock to complete pipeline tagging

[Warin]

On 6/10/2015 8:57 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


2015-10-06 10:42 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann >:


>
> can you give an example for a pipeline without a pipe?

Apart from the pressure tubes of hydropower plants the most common
case
is probably sewer pipes.  For general transport pipelines cutting them
into rock is rare due to the high costs.  Hydropower penstocks are an
exception mostly due to the high volume high pressure combination and
sewage due to the space constraints in urban environments.




but are these called "pipelines"? Aren't those "pressure tunnels" / 
"hydraulic galleries"? The only pipeless pipelines I could find in a 
quick search are referring to a python library ;-)


I'm not sure (not rethoric, I'm really not sure, maybe we should 
indeed?) whether we want to use man_made=pipeline for all kind of 
linear way for liquids and gas, regardless of size, length, 
construction, purpose. The wiki says the tag is only for "major" 
pipelines (typical wiki speech, not usable to make a decision, I'd 
rather remove this word to avoid splitting hair). Would the water 
tubes and sewage tubes in my house be regarded a "pipeline"? The one 
in the road in front of my house? What would be a sensible limit? 
Might depend on the substance as well, e.g. a beer pipeline might have 
only 20mm and would already be significant.





I'd like to think anything carrying waste water (sewer) would have a non 
permeable lining.. and that lining could be called a 'pipe' and thus it 
is a 'pipeline'.


To me the 'tubes' in my house for carrying water/gas are pipes .. and as 
they are a line then they are pipelines!
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Parcel box tagging

[Marc Gemis]

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:57 AM, André Pirard 
wrote:

> On 2015-10-07 00:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote :
>
> sent from a phone
>
> You are excused ;-)
>
> Am 06.10.2015 um 23:31 schrieb Daniel Koć  :
>
> In my opinion having popular amenity type only for one country
>
> it's not about the country, it's about the system I guess. Some time ago I 
> spotted a DHL Packstation at the main station in Rome, so they're not limited 
> to Germany. I agree this definition is not nice, and using a brand name as 
> amenity value is not nice.
>
> cc: Marc Gemis has spotted in Belgium and discussed on talk-be@ similar
> boxes that have nothing to do with DHL, Germany or other countries, pure
> Belgian (no beer, no chips inside, though).
>
> Cheers
>

 The one that I saw in Belgium is a personal "mailbox" for parcels in front
of your house. Those are an alternative to your traditional mailbox, but
are big enough to accept parcels and operated by keycode/smartphone

The ones that are mentioned here places where more than one person can
bring parcels to be send, not ?

regards

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

Re: [Tagging] Parcel box tagging

[Warin]

On 7/10/2015 2:21 PM, Marc Gemis wrote:


On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:57 AM, André Pirard 
mailto:a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com>> wrote:


On 2015-10-07 00:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote :

sent from a phone

You are excused ;-)

Am 06.10.2015 um 23:31 schrieb Daniel Koć 
:

In my opinion having popular amenity type only for one country

it's not about the country, it's about the system I guess. Some time ago I 
spotted a DHL Packstation at the main station in Rome, so they're not limited 
to Germany. I agree this definition is not nice, and using a brand name as 
amenity value is not nice.

cc: Marc Gemis has spotted in Belgium and discussed on talk-be@
similar boxes that have nothing to do with DHL, Germany or other
countries, pure Belgian (no beer, no chips inside, though).

Cheers 



 The one that I saw in Belgium is a personal "mailbox" for parcels in 
front of your house. Those are an alternative to your traditional 
mailbox, but are big enough to accept parcels and operated by 
keycode/smartphone


The ones becoming available here in Australia are for large parcels delivered 
to your home.
IIRC They have a key that can be opened by the post office people to place the 
parcel/s, and another key for yourself to retrieve the parcel.
They are purchased by the home owner so that things like ebay purchases can be 
left without having to go back to the post office to get them.



The ones that are mentioned here places where more than one person can 
bring parcels to be send, not ?


They are a source of packing materials (satchels, boxes, tape) that can be used 
to enclose your parcel before it is sent.

There may be an attached mailing box suitable for the parcels, with some way 
for paying for the postage.

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