Re: [Tagging] tunnel=building_passage or covered=yes
On 12/09/2016 01:15, Daniel Koć wrote: W dniu 11.09.2016 17:53, Dave F napisał(a): Well, OK. 'Classification' then (which gives indications to who can use it). I still hold my position. Classification doesn't tell who can use it, rather the purpose. Hmm.. 'Motorway', when first mapped, had the assumption of a surface suitable to take vehicles at high speed & bike riders weren't permitted. This is now gradually changing with specific sub-tag to clarify. Service road and corridor are clear about it: first is for "last mile" servicing roads (and not who can drive there), the second one is for connecting rooms inside the building. I've no idea what you're talking about here. How are they second class? This is where secondary tags become useful. If renderers wants to This is exactly why it is a second class citizen - it needs a secondary tagging. Err.. No. It gives clarity & detail. See my note about motorways above. What would you say if we had: highway=road road:class=primary road:link=yes instead of highway=primary_link? And this sub-type has only 250k of uses. I'd say use primary_link as it involves less typing, but both are equal in meaning & standing. Highway=path may be as generic as say highway=road, highway=pedestrian is more or less as luxury as motorway - and we have highway=footway for all the other uses. Even path/footway difference is not clear, so we try to fix it with adding surface. Yes. Richard Faihurst has called for the end of 'path'. All should be footway & defined further by using sub-tags. show, for instance, all paths in one style, they easily can by filtering just highway=footway* If they want to differentiate different surfaces*, access restrictions etc, they can do that by referring to secondary tags. But you can also use surface for roads to differentiate them. Yet we mainly rely on roads purpose, not the surface. Again, see my motorway comment. Pedestrian ways can be also serving different purposes (and so they should have different rendering, as we do for roads): - corridors - cemetery, park and allotments alleys - long-distance outdoor hiking trails - sidewalk - crossing - via ferrata and probably some other specific types for which we even have a proper name for. Well, yes & no Yes: This is done using sub-tags as I clearly showed above. No: You know cemetery & park paths are cemetery & park paths because they're in a cemetery or park. (OSM is geospatially aware - see discussions in Talk about is_in tag) Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Pedestrian ways as second class citizens in OSM
W dniu 12.09.2016 15:31, Dave F napisał(a): I'd say use primary_link as it involves less typing, but both are equal in meaning & standing. We could tag "any tag we like", but while the meaning may be the same, in practice only one is used and the other one is not. That's the first class - you can do it without fatigue by default, but you may add details and exceptions (!) if you need. The second class is not about something being just impossible, but it's less convenient and more error prone: more typing and more assumptions you have to express when you just want to tell one general thing. When I want to tag corridor it's easier to express it by using its name than try to define "what the corridor really is - using terms of OSM tagging practice?". Defining is hard and we can get few different schemes for one typical element. No: You know cemetery & park paths are cemetery & park paths because they're in a cemetery or park. (OSM is geospatially aware - see discussions in Talk about is_in tag) You can also assume that a service road on the parking is a "parking aisle", but we tag it anyway and it's a common practice (2.2 millions of uses). We also tag the residential area, even when you have residential buildings tagged. And you can add a road property lit=* even if we have lamps around it and we may tag them as working. Why? Because it's a different level of abstraction. -- "To co ludzie zwą marskością wątroby/ Tak naprawdę jest śmiercią z tęsknoty" [Afro Kolektyw] ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Tagging horse hitching rail / hitching post / "horse parking"?
How do I tag "designated horse parking", such as: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4398390415/history I don't see anything suitable at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Riding ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging horse hitching rail / hitching post / "horse parking"?
On 13-Sep-16 02:22 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: How do I tag "designated horse parking", such as: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4398390415/history I don't see anything suitable at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Riding The German osm riding page has amenity=hitching_post - 20 odd uses in taginfo http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Reiten There is also amenity=horse_hitch - 2 uses in taginfo Would be nice to have horse trough too. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Public transport routes with multiple reference numbers
On Friday 05 August 2016 02:15:35 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 3. There is a service, due to operational reasons, identified by two > > different numbers. However, the two different numbers are used in > > different segment of the service, but in fact, they belongs to the same > > service (i.e. passengers can get a ticket and board the vehicle on the > > segment with the first number, and alight at the end of the segment with > > the second number without intermediate alighting or additional payment). > > This is the case with train route Z806/Z803 from Zhaoqing to Kowloon, > > where the number Z806 is used on the segment from Zhaoqing to Guangzhou, > > and Z803 is used on the segment from Guangzhou to Kowloon (i.e. it can be > > treated as a through service). > > I would make 2 relations. Would be nice to invent a way to say that z806 > will always become z803 (link the relations), but I don't know if there is > already something in use for this Now I encounter a bus route like this: A scheduled departure first runs the route K58, but in the middle the route, it enters the bus terminus of the route K53, change the route display from K58 to K53 without unloading passengers (i.e. passengers can remain on board from the segment on route K58 to the segment on route K53), and runs the remaining journey on route K53. What's the proper way of mapping this route? Michael -- Sent from KMail ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
