[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries (Version 1.6)

[Johnparis]

I have just posted version 1.6 of my proposal on mapping disputed
boundaries. It tightens the definition of the "controlled by" tag in an
effort to improve verifiability.

*Changelog*

   - *Version 1.6*
  - Defining terms for "controlled_by" tag to improve verifiability.
   - *Version 1.5.1*
  - Adding role de_facto for boundary relations in Conflict Areas.
   - *Version 1.5*
  - Eliminating Zones of Control as concept.
 - Permitting claimed_by and controlled_by tags to be placed
 directly on administrative boundary relations, eliminating those (now
 redundant) Zones of Control
 - Other Zones of Control become Boundary Claim relations.
  - *Version 1.4.2*
  - Changing Crimea example to conform to current administrative
  boundary.
   - *Version 1.4.1*
  - Changing "all" keyword to a list for the value of the
  "controlled_by" tag.
  - Adding "UN" as a special value for the "controlled_by" tag.
   - *Version 1.4*
  - Using maritime boundaries instead of land boundaries
  - Eliminating redundant or unneeded relations:
 - De facto relation is eliminated; it is now the same as the
 existing administrative boundary
 - Minimal boundary is eliminated; it is now a Zone of Control with
 role "undisputed" in Master Claim
 - Master Claims and Zones of Control are eliminated when not
 needed, such as for countries with no disputes
 - Conflict Areas are explicitly made optional
  - Roles in Master Claim now differentiate how claimant and zone are
  related: undisputed, joint, de facto, claimed
  - Describing administered territories
  - Adding how to change the criteria for the List of Claiming Entities
   - *Version 1.3*
  - Possible extensions page added
  - Flattening the hierarchy by removing Disputed and Undisputed Areas
  - Three Boundary Relations: de facto, master, minimal
  - All Zones of Control have the role zone in the three Boundary
  Relations
  - Eliminating Lines of Control
  - Country code tag introduced
   - *Version 1.2*
  - Removing "according_to" tags
  - Adding Zones of Control and Lines of Control
  - Adding Disputed Areas and Undisputed Areas
  - Using type=land_area + land_area=administrative
  - Full country relations are no longer members of each other.
   - *Version 1.1*
  - Adding "according_to" tag for relations
   - *Version 1.0*
  - Initial proposal.
  - Land-based borders only; no maritime claims.
  - De facto and claimed borders and roles
  - List of Claiming Entities
  - OSM-designated borders
  - Claimed border relation becomes a member of the De Facto border
  relation, and vice versa

I welcome feedback (public or private) on the new Resolution Period idea
for the "controlled by" tag -- the notion itself, and the length of the
period.

I've archived some of the comments that are no longer applicable.

The proposal is here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mapping_disputed_boundaries

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Tobias Wrede]

Wouldn't it make sense to add the trail head (node) to a route relation 
with role=trail_head?


Am 01.01.2019 um 12:54 schrieb Peter Elderson:
At this point, I settle for just requiring that it's a named location 
visibly designated as access point for one ore more recreational routes.


So just a node tagged highway=trailhead and name=.

Which node? Well, if it's just the start with a name on a guidepost, 
use the guidepost node. If it's an information board with the name, 
use that. If there is a flagpole or a stele or say a statue of the 
pioneer who walked it first, use that. If there is none of that, use 
the location which presents itself naturally as a starrting point when 
you get there. If there is no such location, then it's not a trailhead!


Anything else: optional, map and tag as seems appropriate.




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

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 at 02:19, Allan Mustard  wrote:

> Very interesting.  In the Turkmen case, the classifications are defined in
> law and involve both size (though population data are secret) and type of
> governance structure (for full details please see
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Turkmenistan#Administrative_Structure).
>
>
> Is it fair to call a settlement a "neighbourhood" when it has a governance
> structure (a village council with a chair who serves effectively as the
> municipal manager/mayor)?  In my experience a "neighbourhood" lacks any
> sort of governance structure aside from (sometimes) Neighborhood Watch.
>

I have the feeling that hamlet/village/town/city in OSM are (now) rather
arbitrary labels which don't
necessarily indicate size or governmental structure or available facilities
but "importance" for some
vague, country-specific value of "importance."  The values are essentially
a way of specifying which
population centres appear at which zoom levels.

As with many tags in OSM, with hindsight we'd have done it differently, but
it's almost impossible
to change things now.  Which is a shame, because with vector tiling we
might have the possibility
for users to select which characteristic they wish to determine what is
displayed at a particular
zoom level: population size, admin level or available facilities as denoted
by hamlet/village/etc.
Because hamlet/village are not always used as described in the wiki, and
when they are used
in such a way they essentially echo population size, we'd need yet another
tag for that to happen,
with hamlet/village eventually becoming ignored.  Good luck with that.

I have no idea how to resolve your problem.  I suspect it would require a
diplomat to get all
sides to agree, and where are we going to find one of those? :)

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

Sometimes it would, sometimes it would not. If the node actually represents
the start of the trail, it is already in the relation because it is part of
the way that belongs to the route. In the situation that a trailhead node
represents a named cluster of helpful facilities/amenities in the vicinity
of several trails or networks, you wouldn't want to add it to all the
relations, because a. it's not actually part of the routes and b.
maintenance of all the routes would be quite error-prone and not really
intuitive.

A site relation has been suggested for the more complex trailheads. You
would include the node there, the parking(s), the information booth or
guide stands, maybe PT-stops, possibly the route relations you can access
from the site...

Mapping a trailhead node as I suggested does not stand in the way of more
complex options. My idea: begin with the simplest common element which
supports all the other options.

Op wo 2 jan. 2019 om 12:04 schreef Tobias Wrede :

> Wouldn't it make sense to add the trail head (node) to a route relation
> with role=trail_head?
>
> Am 01.01.2019 um 12:54 schrieb Peter Elderson:
> > At this point, I settle for just requiring that it's a named location
> > visibly designated as access point for one ore more recreational routes.
> >
> > So just a node tagged highway=trailhead and name=.
> >
> > Which node? Well, if it's just the start with a name on a guidepost,
> > use the guidepost node. If it's an information board with the name,
> > use that. If there is a flagpole or a stele or say a statue of the
> > pioneer who walked it first, use that. If there is none of that, use
> > the location which presents itself naturally as a starrting point when
> > you get there. If there is no such location, then it's not a trailhead!
> >
> > Anything else: optional, map and tag as seems appropriate.
> >
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 2. Jan 2019, at 01:11, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> 
> but legal status is usually a rather
> poor indication.


in Italy we use the status to distinguish between town and village, and I 
believe in Germany and other places in Europe it is also done like this.

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Dave Swarthout]

Peter: " Mapping a trailhead node as I suggested does not stand in the way
of more complex options. My idea: begin with the simplest common element
which supports all the other options. "

+1

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 8:13 PM Peter Elderson  wrote:

> Sometimes it would, sometimes it would not. If the node actually
> represents the start of the trail, it is already in the relation because it
> is part of the way that belongs to the route. In the situation that a
> trailhead node represents a named cluster of helpful facilities/amenities
> in the vicinity of several trails or networks, you wouldn't want to add it
> to all the relations, because a. it's not actually part of the routes and
> b. maintenance of all the routes would be quite error-prone and not really
> intuitive.
>
> A site relation has been suggested for the more complex trailheads. You
> would include the node there, the parking(s), the information booth or
> guide stands, maybe PT-stops, possibly the route relations you can access
> from the site...
>
> Mapping a trailhead node as I suggested does not stand in the way of more
> complex options. My idea: begin with the simplest common element which
> supports all the other options.
>
> Op wo 2 jan. 2019 om 12:04 schreef Tobias Wrede :
>
>> Wouldn't it make sense to add the trail head (node) to a route relation
>> with role=trail_head?
>>
>> Am 01.01.2019 um 12:54 schrieb Peter Elderson:
>> > At this point, I settle for just requiring that it's a named location
>> > visibly designated as access point for one ore more recreational routes.
>> >
>> > So just a node tagged highway=trailhead and name=> trailhead>.
>> >
>> > Which node? Well, if it's just the start with a name on a guidepost,
>> > use the guidepost node. If it's an information board with the name,
>> > use that. If there is a flagpole or a stele or say a statue of the
>> > pioneer who walked it first, use that. If there is none of that, use
>> > the location which presents itself naturally as a starrting point when
>> > you get there. If there is no such location, then it's not a trailhead!
>> >
>> > Anything else: optional, map and tag as seems appropriate.
>> >
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> --
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 2. Jan 2019, at 01:11, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> 
> I understand that the UK is an exception, because the status of
> 'town', 'village', 'city' and so on relates to whether a given
> settlement has a church, a market, and similar facilities, and
> therefore does reflect somewhat the status of the settlement relative
> to its hinterland. (That scheme would surely not work for the US,
> where for instance, we have many country churches that are not part of
> larger settlements; it may be that the rectory is the only house
> within a couple of km in any direction.)


this is not a contradiction, it eventually shows there simply isn’t (or wasn’t) 
a town/village around. “church” isn’t the only criterion, it works quite well 
for the christian European context.


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

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

On 2. Jan 2019, at 01:18, Kevin Kenny  wrote:

>> I have never understood why people wanted to add place tags to 
>> administrative territorial entities like countries, states or 
>> municipalities. Aren’t these thoroughly defined with boundary=administrative 
>> and the related admin_level?
> 
> Around here, it's because there are a fair number of places that don't
> have any form of self-government, but are still identifiable villages.


this is a different thing, place for settlements is perfectly fine, I agree 
they can be orthogonal to administrative subdivisions. 

Countries without an administrative border are harder, depending on our 
interpretation of the meaning of place=country it might not be completely 
impossible any more, as long as we had the on the ground rule of defacto 
control it wasn’t though (i.e. until very recently).

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

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[Simon Poole]

At the danger of throwing a spanner in the works (or better sabots :-)):
there is an ongoing discussion on place mapping. Mainly taking place
here https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/2816

Essentially  the relationship between administrative divisions and
places/settlements is complicated and while we have working tagging for
administrative entities (and for them I would normally suggest following
whatever the "official" hierarchy and designation is), our place
modelling is a bit of a mess, which among other issue has led to
administrative boundaries being used for places.

In any case, on your original question, I would tend towards a national
consensus that doesn't deviate too much from the population guidelines
in the wiki, if at all reasonable. The US-Hamlet usage is an oddity
that, IMHO, should not serve as a role model.

Simon


Am 02.01.2019 um 05:12 schrieb Allan Mustard:
> Not according to the wiki.  It seems nodes are the accepted way of
> identifying a settlement, municipal or otherwise.  
>
> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 7:11 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
> mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 2. Jan 2019, at 00:44, Allan Mustard  > wrote:
> >
> > What do you think?
>
>
> I have never understood why people wanted to add place tags to
> administrative territorial entities like countries, states or
> municipalities. Aren’t these thoroughly defined with
> boundary=administrative and the related admin_level?
>
>
> 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


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Hierarchies route=bicycle)

[Richard Fairhurst]

Axelos wrote:
> Hello, I propose a concept for contributing cycling route.

Many thanks for looking at this - the current state of bike route
hierarchies is a mess, and trying to parse the many different tagging
practices so that cycle.travel can display them properly has been a
nightmare. It would be good to have a commonly agreed, intuitive standard.

From the description on the wiki page, I'm not sure how your proposal
differs from the practice documented at
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/help/rendering/hierarchies . Could you
explain the difference?



A few passing comments:

> Example name = Boucle de la Moselle: Toul - Pompey

Please don't do this - the name tag is for an object's commonly agreed name,
and "Boucle de la Moselle: Toul - Pompey" is not the official name of any
part of the route. You could perhaps use the description= or note= tag
instead.

There are lots of examples of this in your proposal: "name=PAN Segment 1",
"name=Véloroute 50 : Étapes", and so on.

(Similarly, some people have tagged sections of EuroVelo routes in one
country with the network=ncn tag. This is wrong: EuroVelo routes aren't
National, they're International. I think this is probably a mistaken attempt
to get them to render on OpenCycleMap.)

> To do this effectively, you will need a powerful editor: JOSM.

This is a "tagging smell" (cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_smell). Any
tagging scheme that requires a particular editor is probably a bad scheme.

As it happens, you can certainly edit relations like this with Potlatch 2 no
problem and I guess you can with iD too; but before any tagging scheme like
this is adopted, you should create a tutorial for iD users. It shouldn't be
necessary to learn a whole new editor just to be able to tag a bike route -
as you yourself say, "Is the hierarchy of cycle routes reserved for
experts?". Bear in mind too that iD users _will_ edit these routes, so the
scheme should be intuitive and robust (of course, that should be the case
anyway!).

cheers
Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

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

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 11:39 AM Simon Poole  wrote:
> In any case, on your original question, I would tend towards a national 
> consensus that doesn't deviate too much from the population guidelines in the 
> wiki, if at all reasonable. The US-Hamlet usage is an oddity that, IMHO, 
> should not serve as a role model.

What's odd?

Our administrative boundaries? I can't fix that. (Sometimes, I do
think US mappers get treated with "the tagging model is fine, fix your
country!" but I don't *think* that's what you're arguing here.)  We
also have administrative regions with indefinite boundaries, which
means that there's some force-fitting in OSM - but that's what we
have. Not all our county lines have ever been surveyed. (US government
practice is to map them with a fainter line and the words INDEFINITE
BOUNDARY as at https://caltopo.com/l/D1KV.)

Our data modelling? In US practice, place=* is based on relative
importance, not on legal designation. Any boundary=administrative, of
course, has to follow the legal designation, and in New York at least,
the designations of 'city', 'town', 'village' and 'hamlet' are based
on form of government, not on size or importance. That's why we
*don't* use them to inform place=*, but represent them with
admin_level=*. (Otherwise, it's a total mess, because of the size
inversions that I mentioned.)

By the way, I'd call it a 'New York State hamlet usage', because other
states have other forms of municipal government. That's why we have
that involved table on the Wiki for mapping the administrative regions
of the different states to admin_level=*.  Also, our admin_level's are
not strictly hierarchical, because our municipal governments aren't
either. But we don't have the luxury of making our politics fit our
map.

Making place=* depend on relative importance or population, while
boundary=administrative depends on political organization, seems to
follow accepted OSM practice, as far as I can tell. Where have we gone
astray?

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Jo]

Please don't add public transport stops to hiking route relations. That
would be really confusing.

Polyglot

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 2:39 PM Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> Peter: " Mapping a trailhead node as I suggested does not stand in the way
> of more complex options. My idea: begin with the simplest common element
> which supports all the other options. "
>
> +1
>
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 8:13 PM Peter Elderson  wrote:
>
>> Sometimes it would, sometimes it would not. If the node actually
>> represents the start of the trail, it is already in the relation because it
>> is part of the way that belongs to the route. In the situation that a
>> trailhead node represents a named cluster of helpful facilities/amenities
>> in the vicinity of several trails or networks, you wouldn't want to add it
>> to all the relations, because a. it's not actually part of the routes and
>> b. maintenance of all the routes would be quite error-prone and not really
>> intuitive.
>>
>> A site relation has been suggested for the more complex trailheads. You
>> would include the node there, the parking(s), the information booth or
>> guide stands, maybe PT-stops, possibly the route relations you can access
>> from the site...
>>
>> Mapping a trailhead node as I suggested does not stand in the way of more
>> complex options. My idea: begin with the simplest common element which
>> supports all the other options.
>>
>> Op wo 2 jan. 2019 om 12:04 schreef Tobias Wrede :
>>
>>> Wouldn't it make sense to add the trail head (node) to a route relation
>>> with role=trail_head?
>>>
>>> Am 01.01.2019 um 12:54 schrieb Peter Elderson:
>>> > At this point, I settle for just requiring that it's a named location
>>> > visibly designated as access point for one ore more recreational
>>> routes.
>>> >
>>> > So just a node tagged highway=trailhead and name=>> trailhead>.
>>> >
>>> > Which node? Well, if it's just the start with a name on a guidepost,
>>> > use the guidepost node. If it's an information board with the name,
>>> > use that. If there is a flagpole or a stele or say a statue of the
>>> > pioneer who walked it first, use that. If there is none of that, use
>>> > the location which presents itself naturally as a starrting point when
>>> > you get there. If there is no such location, then it's not a trailhead!
>>> >
>>> > Anything else: optional, map and tag as seems appropriate.
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
> ___
> 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 - (Hierarchies route=bicycle)

[Jo]

The existing scheme for tagging cycle routes is robust. The problem I see
when 'reusing' it in a hierarchy of routes, is that we would need a role to
indicate that the sub route is traversed in reverse for a particular
"super" route. It would also help to have an indicator in JOSM to indicate
continuity in the super route IF the sub route is continuous AND the last
node of the way / relation before it is the first of the sub route's way
AND the same applies for the last waynode in the sub route and the next way
/ route in the superroute.

iD is not ideal for working with route relations. It could be changed,
obviously, if a developer can be found who wants to dedicate to such a
task, but at the moment JOSM is your best bet to have a reasonable
experience working on such routes. For now we're already glad if iD doesn't
break the route relations.

Polyglot

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 6:39 PM Richard Fairhurst 
wrote:

> Axelos wrote:
> > Hello, I propose a concept for contributing cycling route.
>
> Many thanks for looking at this - the current state of bike route
> hierarchies is a mess, and trying to parse the many different tagging
> practices so that cycle.travel can display them properly has been a
> nightmare. It would be good to have a commonly agreed, intuitive standard.
>
> From the description on the wiki page, I'm not sure how your proposal
> differs from the practice documented at
> https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/help/rendering/hierarchies . Could you
> explain the difference?
>
>
>
> A few passing comments:
>
> > Example name = Boucle de la Moselle: Toul - Pompey
>
> Please don't do this - the name tag is for an object's commonly agreed
> name,
> and "Boucle de la Moselle: Toul - Pompey" is not the official name of any
> part of the route. You could perhaps use the description= or note= tag
> instead.
>
> There are lots of examples of this in your proposal: "name=PAN Segment 1",
> "name=Véloroute 50 : Étapes", and so on.
>
> (Similarly, some people have tagged sections of EuroVelo routes in one
> country with the network=ncn tag. This is wrong: EuroVelo routes aren't
> National, they're International. I think this is probably a mistaken
> attempt
> to get them to render on OpenCycleMap.)
>
> > To do this effectively, you will need a powerful editor: JOSM.
>
> This is a "tagging smell" (cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_smell).
> Any
> tagging scheme that requires a particular editor is probably a bad scheme.
>
> As it happens, you can certainly edit relations like this with Potlatch 2
> no
> problem and I guess you can with iD too; but before any tagging scheme like
> this is adopted, you should create a tutorial for iD users. It shouldn't be
> necessary to learn a whole new editor just to be able to tag a bike route -
> as you yourself say, "Is the hierarchy of cycle routes reserved for
> experts?". Bear in mind too that iD users _will_ edit these routes, so the
> scheme should be intuitive and robust (of course, that should be the case
> anyway!).
>
> cheers
> Richard
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html
>
> ___
> 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] Surface on turning circles

[Tod Fitch]

I am implementing a map rendering that differentiates roads based the type of 
surface. A number of these roads have turning circles which I would like to 
render too and I’d like to base the rendering on the surface.

Looking at the wiki page for turning_circle [1] and at taginfo [2] it appears 
that there has been no discussion or use of a surface tag on a point tagged as 
highway=turning_circle.

I suspect there are cases where a turning circle’s surface may not match the 
surface of the roadway so even if I could figure out how to determine the 
surface of the highway way the node was on it would not be a solution.

So, what is the opinion on adding to the turning_circle wiki page a section on 
tagging its surface? My thought would be to simply use the same surface tagging 
as for a highway way [3]

Thanks!

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dturning_circle
[2] 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=highway&value=turning_circle#combinations
[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 8:13 AM Peter Elderson  wrote:
> Sometimes it would, sometimes it would not. If the node actually represents 
> the start of the trail, it is already in the relation because it is part of 
> the way that belongs to the route. In the situation that a trailhead node 
> represents a named cluster of helpful facilities/amenities in the vicinity of 
> several trails or networks, you wouldn't want to add it to all the relations, 
> because a. it's not actually part of the routes and b. maintenance of all the 
> routes would be quite error-prone and not really intuitive.
>
> A site relation has been suggested for the more complex trailheads. You would 
> include the node there, the parking(s), the information booth or guide 
> stands, maybe PT-stops, possibly the route relations you can access from the 
> site...
>
> Mapping a trailhead node as I suggested does not stand in the way of more 
> complex options. My idea: begin with the simplest common element which 
> supports all the other options.

At the risk of repeating myself:

I think I'd need more concrete examples before I'd support such a
proposal. I think that we have people in this conversation with
different cultural expectations of what a 'trailhead' is. My
northeastern-US definition is, "anywhere that you get on and off a
trail", so usually there's parking, and perhaps a notice board or a
register book to sign, but I don't expect many more amenities than
that, and sometimes not even those. It may happen that a trailhead is
in a developed facility in a park (such as a ranger station,
recreation ground, campground or visitors' center), or even in a
populated place, but in that case I think of the amenities as
associated with the other facility and not with the trailhead.
(Except, of course, for the trail-specific ones such as notice boards,
signposts and registers!)

If what's under consideration is 'a NAMED place to get on and off a
trail,' then I know of only a handful of trailheads anywhere me that
have names other than the names of geographic features that they're
near. (The "Route 23 trailhead" or the "Roaring Brook trailhead" are
typical - they are simply informal descriptions, not real names.)
There are a handful of exceptions, like 'Sled Harbor' (near 42.5237 N
74.5629 W) or 'Elk Pen'
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1305445030) but they are actually
described well by place=locality, since they name the place, not the
trailhead. Historically, Elk Pen was where rail tycoon E.H. Harriman
kept the elk for his private hunting preserve, and Sled Harbor was
where loggers stored their sledges in the summer months. 'Named
uninhabited place' is a good description of these.

If 'trailhead' degenerates into 'any intersection of a trail and a
highway' (which is what it is in that National Park Service database)
then it's kind of redundant. It appears to me that the Europeans have
a more specific idea of what a 'trailhead' is - but I don't quite
understand that idea, and I suspect that's because there are no
trailheads of that sort near me, despite the fact that I'm within an
hour's drive of hundreds of hiking trails, including a handful of 'big
name' long-distance ones.

I'm not against the proposal, necessarily, but I'm far from convinced
that everyone is reading from the same page, and I'd like to avoid the
risk of a false consensus.

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

Re: [Tagging] Surface on turning circles

[LeTopographeFou]

My understanding is that surface=* can be used to describe any type of 
surface of a way/node, so yes it is ok to use it for turning_circle even 
if the Wiki might not explicitely suggest it (feel free to edit it).



LeTopographeFou

Le 02/01/2019 à 19:23, Tod Fitch a écrit :

I am implementing a map rendering that differentiates roads based the type of 
surface. A number of these roads have turning circles which I would like to 
render too and I’d like to base the rendering on the surface.

Looking at the wiki page for turning_circle [1] and at taginfo [2] it appears 
that there has been no discussion or use of a surface tag on a point tagged as 
highway=turning_circle.

I suspect there are cases where a turning circle’s surface may not match the 
surface of the roadway so even if I could figure out how to determine the 
surface of the highway way the node was on it would not be a solution.

So, what is the opinion on adding to the turning_circle wiki page a section on 
tagging its surface? My thought would be to simply use the same surface tagging 
as for a highway way [3]

Thanks!

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dturning_circle
[2] 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=highway&value=turning_circle#combinations
[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface

___
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] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

I agree. That is not suggested.

Op wo 2 jan. 2019 om 19:05 schreef Jo :

> Please don't add public transport stops to hiking route relations. That
> would be really confusing.
>
> Polyglot
>
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 2:39 PM Dave Swarthout 
> wrote:
>
>> Peter: " Mapping a trailhead node as I suggested does not stand in the
>> way of more complex options. My idea: begin with the simplest common
>> element which supports all the other options. "
>>
>> +1
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 8:13 PM Peter Elderson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sometimes it would, sometimes it would not. If the node actually
>>> represents the start of the trail, it is already in the relation because it
>>> is part of the way that belongs to the route. In the situation that a
>>> trailhead node represents a named cluster of helpful facilities/amenities
>>> in the vicinity of several trails or networks, you wouldn't want to add it
>>> to all the relations, because a. it's not actually part of the routes and
>>> b. maintenance of all the routes would be quite error-prone and not really
>>> intuitive.
>>>
>>> A site relation has been suggested for the more complex trailheads. You
>>> would include the node there, the parking(s), the information booth or
>>> guide stands, maybe PT-stops, possibly the route relations you can access
>>> from the site...
>>>
>>> Mapping a trailhead node as I suggested does not stand in the way of
>>> more complex options. My idea: begin with the simplest common element which
>>> supports all the other options.
>>>
>>> Op wo 2 jan. 2019 om 12:04 schreef Tobias Wrede :
>>>
 Wouldn't it make sense to add the trail head (node) to a route relation
 with role=trail_head?

 Am 01.01.2019 um 12:54 schrieb Peter Elderson:
 > At this point, I settle for just requiring that it's a named location
 > visibly designated as access point for one ore more recreational
 routes.
 >
 > So just a node tagged highway=trailhead and name=>>> trailhead>.
 >
 > Which node? Well, if it's just the start with a name on a guidepost,
 > use the guidepost node. If it's an information board with the name,
 > use that. If there is a flagpole or a stele or say a statue of the
 > pioneer who walked it first, use that. If there is none of that, use
 > the location which presents itself naturally as a starrting point
 when
 > you get there. If there is no such location, then it's not a
 trailhead!
 >
 > Anything else: optional, map and tag as seems appropriate.
 >


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

>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dave Swarthout
>> Homer, Alaska
>> Chiang Mai, Thailand
>> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

Copying from an earlier response: Designated starting point for multiple
routes into a nature area.  There is a designed marking pole or stele,
information boards, seats or benches, free parking space nearby. This one
is in a small village:
https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.4336993,6.834158,3a,75y,191.07h,84.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sby0P5NTeyqR3fyrgDNqCOA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl

Here is another one, with emphasis on Parking. On the left behind the
parking is the actual access point to the trails.
https://www.google.nl/maps/@51.6284198,5.0889629,3a,76.4y,32.53h,96.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy3HdYWJ2zZ1rw1ozqJyrXw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl

The operators are governmental bodies. They publish the lists on recreation
websites. Each province has its own list. VVV of course lists/presents them
as well.

These points are designed for trail access.

Some other examples have been mailed by others, I thought?



Op wo 2 jan. 2019 om 19:44 schreef Kevin Kenny :

> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 8:13 AM Peter Elderson  wrote:
> > Sometimes it would, sometimes it would not. If the node actually
> represents the start of the trail, it is already in the relation because it
> is part of the way that belongs to the route. In the situation that a
> trailhead node represents a named cluster of helpful facilities/amenities
> in the vicinity of several trails or networks, you wouldn't want to add it
> to all the relations, because a. it's not actually part of the routes and
> b. maintenance of all the routes would be quite error-prone and not really
> intuitive.
> >
> > A site relation has been suggested for the more complex trailheads. You
> would include the node there, the parking(s), the information booth or
> guide stands, maybe PT-stops, possibly the route relations you can access
> from the site...
> >
> > Mapping a trailhead node as I suggested does not stand in the way of
> more complex options. My idea: begin with the simplest common element which
> supports all the other options.
>
> At the risk of repeating myself:
>
> I think I'd need more concrete examples before I'd support such a
> proposal. I think that we have people in this conversation with
> different cultural expectations of what a 'trailhead' is. My
> northeastern-US definition is, "anywhere that you get on and off a
> trail", so usually there's parking, and perhaps a notice board or a
> register book to sign, but I don't expect many more amenities than
> that, and sometimes not even those. It may happen that a trailhead is
> in a developed facility in a park (such as a ranger station,
> recreation ground, campground or visitors' center), or even in a
> populated place, but in that case I think of the amenities as
> associated with the other facility and not with the trailhead.
> (Except, of course, for the trail-specific ones such as notice boards,
> signposts and registers!)
>
> If what's under consideration is 'a NAMED place to get on and off a
> trail,' then I know of only a handful of trailheads anywhere me that
> have names other than the names of geographic features that they're
> near. (The "Route 23 trailhead" or the "Roaring Brook trailhead" are
> typical - they are simply informal descriptions, not real names.)
> There are a handful of exceptions, like 'Sled Harbor' (near 42.5237 N
> 74.5629 W) or 'Elk Pen'
> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1305445030) but they are actually
> described well by place=locality, since they name the place, not the
> trailhead. Historically, Elk Pen was where rail tycoon E.H. Harriman
> kept the elk for his private hunting preserve, and Sled Harbor was
> where loggers stored their sledges in the summer months. 'Named
> uninhabited place' is a good description of these.
>
> If 'trailhead' degenerates into 'any intersection of a trail and a
> highway' (which is what it is in that National Park Service database)
> then it's kind of redundant. It appears to me that the Europeans have
> a more specific idea of what a 'trailhead' is - but I don't quite
> understand that idea, and I suspect that's because there are no
> trailheads of that sort near me, despite the fact that I'm within an
> hour's drive of hundreds of hiking trails, including a handful of 'big
> name' long-distance ones.
>
> I'm not against the proposal, necessarily, but I'm far from convinced
> that everyone is reading from the same page, and I'd like to avoid the
> risk of a false consensus.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries (Version 1.6)

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Amazing effort thanks, John!

Theoretical question please.

Would you use this to map the Korean DMZ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Demilitarized_Zone

I'd assume

claimed_by=NK;SK (may be the wrong country codes?)
controlled_by=nobody (or would that also be =NK;SK?)

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Tobias Wrede]

Am 02.01.2019 um 19:42 Kevin Kenny wrote:


At the risk of repeating myself:

I think I'd need more concrete examples before I'd support such a
proposal.


Yes, I second this request.


If 'trailhead' degenerates into 'any intersection of a trail and a
highway' (which is what it is in that National Park Service database)
then it's kind of redundant.


My examples below show they are rather a placeholder for 'any 
intersection of a trail and a highway' .



It appears to me that the Europeans have
a more specific idea of what a 'trailhead' is - but I don't quite
understand that idea, and I suspect that's because there are no
trailheads of that sort near me, despite the fact that I'm within an
hour's drive of hundreds of hiking trails, including a handful of 'big
name' long-distance ones.
Please don't generalize. From a German perspective I share your 
uneasiness (see my earlier remarks). Funnily, I always had the 
impression that in the US you have the more specific idea of what a 
trailhead is. :-)



I looked at some of the trailheads in the Netherlands 
(http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/EV4):


https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6141092027
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6141092007
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6141092068

All were tourism=information + information=board but none were in any 
way connected to a trail let alone to any other highway=* feature. Often 
there wasn't even a tagged route/trail nearby. As such I understand the 
hw=trailhead is important to find such trail on the map in the first 
place if the trail itself is not or cannot be mapped.


What I don't understand is why the highway tag is used to carry the 
information. The way you have mapped the trailheads Peter I would leave 
them under some subkey of information, e.g. tourism=information + 
information=board + board_type=trailhead.


In the proposal the hw=trailhead is supposed to "be mapped as a node or 
a node that is part of a trail segment (i.e.,highway=path) and should be 
tagged primarily as highway=trailhead". 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/trailhead#Tagging)


As a side note: Looking at the examples I found that you added keys like
wikipedia=nl:Toeristisch Overstappunt
url=https://gpsfietsroutesnederland.nl/toeristische-overstappunten/
website=https://www.natuurpoorten.nl/

These are all generic references that could be added to the OSM wiki 
page. On the individual trailheads I would expect a website of the 
specific trail.


Regards,

Tobias


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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 2:58 PM Peter Elderson  wrote:
> Designated starting point for multiple routes into a nature area.  There is a 
> designed marking pole or stele, information boards, seats or benches, free 
> parking space nearby.

> The operators are governmental bodies. They publish the lists on recreation 
> websites. Each province has its own list.

What of these are required characteristics, and what are merely usual?
 A lot of trails in the US are operated by non-government volunteer
organizations, and there's no central registry. (Some of these
organizations are more organized than others.)

> Some other examples have been mailed by others, I thought?

Some of the examples were mine, and I thought that you had rejected
them as not being 'trailheads' because of a relative lack of
facilities - typically at most a few parking places, a notice board
and a guidepost.

So, a largish collection from my area, none of which quite meet your criteria:

I would imagine that
http://www.nptrail.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/NPT-Section1.jpg
might qualify, since it has all the above (parking, information kiosk,
seats, and I presume that arch would qualify as a 'marking pole or
stele') - except that it's the jumping-off point for a single long
(220 km) route, not multiple routes.

1. I'd imagine that https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/16998968697
would be pretty marginal, since it's got just a wide compacted spot on
the roadside, with a notice board and register book, and it has no
name. It's very typical of what we'd call trailheads around here,
though. The notice board and register are present at the ones in
wilderness areas, because there's a legal requirement to register when
entering and leaving a wilderness area, and at the ones belonging to
the land conservancies (they use visitor statistics in grant
proposals, and ask that visitors register as a courtesy). For this
particular trail, the operator is a private conservancy, so it's
nongovernmental.

2. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14041171575/ was another
example I gave earlier - the start of two or three trails, but in that
case it's just a hairpin turn on a 4WD road, with enough natural bare
shale to park a few SUV's, and paint-blazed trails leading off. I seem
to recall that one got the answer, 'not a trailhead - having one or
more foot trails heading off into a nature area doesn't make it a
trailhead.' The operator here is indeed the state, and the trailhead
is listed in a state database.

3. I'd imagine that https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/29381789461
would also not be a 'trailhead', because it lacks parking (it's lawful
and reasonably safe to park on the side of the road, but not right
there in the snowplow turn-around), seating, signage, a register, or
anything except for a paint-blazed trail. Still, it's an access point
to a major long-distance (600+ km) trail. The operator is a private
volunteer organization, and the trail there follows easements over
private land. I don't know of a database listing this trailhead,
although it shows up in the trail's guidebook.

4. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/19584241442 is even more
primitive. It's got a compacted verge big enough to park a few
vehicles, and that little sign on the tree says 'TRAIL HEAD PARKING.'
The notice board and register are a few km back on the road, because
that's a grandfathered road in a designated wilderness, and so drivers
have to register on entry. (There's a ranger station at the nearest
entry gate.) The trailhead is state-owned, operated by the Adirondack
Mountain Club, and listed in the state database. There are no
facilities other than the sign and the blazed trail departing.

5. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/10282292144/ lacks parking,
seating, or a notice board. (Again, there's possible roadside parking
not too far away, and I suppose you can sit on the highway guard
rail.) There is a notice board and a register, but because of problems
in the past with vandalism, they're about half a km into the woods
along that access trail. The operator is the state.

6. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/8463648046 has signage, and a
notice board, but only roadside parking and no seating. The access
trail from there is popular enough that the grass is well trodden down
in summer and there is an obvious snowshoe track in winter. The notice
board is disused. The operator is the county, which has no trailhead
database. The county doesn't require visitor registration, so there's
no book.

7. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/28554220940 has an obvious
paint blaze and plastic trail marker. There is only roadside parking.
The notice board is clearly abandoned, and the register book is
nowhere to be found. The operator is the state, but this trailhead is
not in its list. The trailhead, however, does appear in the trail's
guidebook.

The only one with a toilet is the one by the Northville Arch. (There
may be a thunder box[1] somewhere near 4. I didn't look, not being 

[Tagging] Proposal Request for Comments: New Key "Departures"

[Leif Rasmussen]

The new key "interval" for adding the departure times interval of a public
transport route was recently approved after two weeks of voting.
I have created a new wiki page to document this key:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:interval

Full schedule information, however, is still impossible.  I originally
proposed using "timetable relations" to add full schedule information to
routes.  I have since realized that this would be a disaster just waiting
to happen.
I have now simplified the proposal to be easier to add and maintain, while
still keeping most of the same information in the database.

The key "departures" is my solution to keeping timetables simple and easy
to maintain.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_transport_schedules/Departures

Please provide feedback to help make this proposal work for everyone.  I
know that for many bus routes, it would be impossibly difficult to add (and
maintain) full schedule information.  Those routes should therefore only
include the tag "interval".  Others, however, including many ferry routes,
would be very easy to add schedule information to.

Thanks,
Leif Rasmussen
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

Thanks for the comments. Please understand that the mentioned proposal is
not my proposal.

We just kept the idea of a trailhead node marking a place specifically and
visibly designated to start one or more hiking routes, bicycle routes,
canoe routes, horseriding routes.  Just a crossing or the starting arrow
of a single route has no need for this kind of tagging. Just a map or a
board, not a trailhead. Just a parking, not a trailhead.

In the US many trailheads have been mapped because they are places where
you are allowed to access a single trail. The may not even have a name
other than "Start of " and a location name, but the are listed
and offered as designated trailheads.

These simple trailheads as they have been tagged consist of a node tagged
highway=trailhead and usually the name, and someties additional tags. The
node may be standalone or may be the first node of the trail or of a
branch. The node if standalone may coincide with a board or map or
guidepost.

So my suggestion is exactly that: use a node marked as trailhead,
preferably with a name it can be extracted, listed and rendered as being a
designated trailhead.

In Nederland we use some further tagging to indicate the modalities and the
facilities. The trailheads are specifically designated and designed for
transit to routes of all kinds: bicycle en walking routes, roundtrips and
networks are standard, free parking space must be available, a special
landmark marks them, and there are always some benches; a restaurant or
cafe nearby.

To see the trails starting at one of these places you best look at
Nederland on waymarkedtrails. They all have multiple hiking/foot routes and
walking routes to hop on, and most support other modalities.
Pity that the trailheads themselves are not yet rendered and clickable on
waymarkedtrails, but we are working on that.

So tagging becomes more complicated, but the basic function is still the
same: search, list and render places specifically designed to get out of
the car and start walking, cycling etcetera.
The node in this use case will always be standalone because of the
multimodality and many routes that it serves.

About the use of referencing tags. I agree this is not yet the best result.
Wikipedia links to the dutch page for TOP's (as they are called here), I
think that is correct. url links to a site which lists all the official
dutch trailheads. website links to the recreational publishing sites of
different official operators. Each province has its own operator (and
trailhead style).  Some of those have a web page for each trailhead, others
have a simple list, others an interactive map or search function... and
they reorganise quite often. Permalinks? What? Never heard of...) so we
don't link deep but refer to a list/search/map/filter page.

I'm sure the coming years will show what keeps and what not.


Op wo 2 jan. 2019 om 23:43 schreef Tobias Wrede :

> Am 02.01.2019 um 19:42 Kevin Kenny wrote:
> >
> > At the risk of repeating myself:
> >
> > I think I'd need more concrete examples before I'd support such a
> > proposal.
>
> Yes, I second this request.
>
> > If 'trailhead' degenerates into 'any intersection of a trail and a
> > highway' (which is what it is in that National Park Service database)
> > then it's kind of redundant.
>
> My examples below show they are rather a placeholder for 'any
> intersection of a trail and a highway' .
>
> > It appears to me that the Europeans have
> > a more specific idea of what a 'trailhead' is - but I don't quite
> > understand that idea, and I suspect that's because there are no
> > trailheads of that sort near me, despite the fact that I'm within an
> > hour's drive of hundreds of hiking trails, including a handful of 'big
> > name' long-distance ones.
> Please don't generalize. From a German perspective I share your
> uneasiness (see my earlier remarks). Funnily, I always had the
> impression that in the US you have the more specific idea of what a
> trailhead is. :-)
>
>
> I looked at some of the trailheads in the Netherlands
> (http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/EV4):
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6141092027
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6141092007
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6141092068
>
> All were tourism=information + information=board but none were in any
> way connected to a trail let alone to any other highway=* feature. Often
> there wasn't even a tagged route/trail nearby. As such I understand the
> hw=trailhead is important to find such trail on the map in the first
> place if the trail itself is not or cannot be mapped.
>
> What I don't understand is why the highway tag is used to carry the
> information. The way you have mapped the trailheads Peter I would leave
> them under some subkey of information, e.g. tourism=information +
> information=board + board_type=trailhead.
>
> In the proposal the hw=trailhead is supposed to "be mapped as a node or
> a node that is part of a trail segment (i.e.,highway=path) and should be
> tagge

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

Small addition about this remark:

"What I don't understand is why the highway tag is used to carry the
information. The way you have mapped the trailheads Peter I would leave
them under some subkey of information, e.g. tourism=information +
information=board + board_type=trailhead."

Some people say: it's just the start of the route. Some say: it's basically
just a parking. Some say: it's basically just a sign, a map or a board.

Well, if it's just one of those then you don't need to tag them as
suchthese places combine those things in a marked, designated way, and are
operated and published for the purpose, that makes them worth mapping.

It's the fact that

Op do 3 jan. 2019 om 00:57 schreef Peter Elderson :

> Thanks for the comments. Please understand that the mentioned proposal is
> not my proposal.
>
> We just kept the idea of a trailhead node marking a place specifically and
> visibly designated to start one or more hiking routes, bicycle routes,
> canoe routes, horseriding routes.  Just a crossing or the starting arrow
> of a single route has no need for this kind of tagging. Just a map or a
> board, not a trailhead. Just a parking, not a trailhead.
>
> In the US many trailheads have been mapped because they are places where
> you are allowed to access a single trail. The may not even have a name
> other than "Start of " and a location name, but the are listed
> and offered as designated trailheads.
>
> These simple trailheads as they have been tagged consist of a node tagged
> highway=trailhead and usually the name, and someties additional tags. The
> node may be standalone or may be the first node of the trail or of a
> branch. The node if standalone may coincide with a board or map or
> guidepost.
>
> So my suggestion is exactly that: use a node marked as trailhead,
> preferably with a name it can be extracted, listed and rendered as being a
> designated trailhead.
>
> In Nederland we use some further tagging to indicate the modalities and
> the facilities. The trailheads are specifically designated and designed for
> transit to routes of all kinds: bicycle en walking routes, roundtrips and
> networks are standard, free parking space must be available, a special
> landmark marks them, and there are always some benches; a restaurant or
> cafe nearby.
>
> To see the trails starting at one of these places you best look at
> Nederland on waymarkedtrails. They all have multiple hiking/foot routes and
> walking routes to hop on, and most support other modalities.
> Pity that the trailheads themselves are not yet rendered and clickable on
> waymarkedtrails, but we are working on that.
>
> So tagging becomes more complicated, but the basic function is still the
> same: search, list and render places specifically designed to get out of
> the car and start walking, cycling etcetera.
> The node in this use case will always be standalone because of the
> multimodality and many routes that it serves.
>
> About the use of referencing tags. I agree this is not yet the best
> result. Wikipedia links to the dutch page for TOP's (as they are called
> here), I think that is correct. url links to a site which lists all the
> official dutch trailheads. website links to the recreational publishing
> sites of different official operators. Each province has its own operator
> (and trailhead style).  Some of those have a web page for each trailhead,
> others have a simple list, others an interactive map or search function...
> and they reorganise quite often. Permalinks? What? Never heard of...) so we
> don't link deep but refer to a list/search/map/filter page.
>
> I'm sure the coming years will show what keeps and what not.
>
>
> Op wo 2 jan. 2019 om 23:43 schreef Tobias Wrede :
>
>> Am 02.01.2019 um 19:42 Kevin Kenny wrote:
>> >
>> > At the risk of repeating myself:
>> >
>> > I think I'd need more concrete examples before I'd support such a
>> > proposal.
>>
>> Yes, I second this request.
>>
>> > If 'trailhead' degenerates into 'any intersection of a trail and a
>> > highway' (which is what it is in that National Park Service database)
>> > then it's kind of redundant.
>>
>> My examples below show they are rather a placeholder for 'any
>> intersection of a trail and a highway' .
>>
>> > It appears to me that the Europeans have
>> > a more specific idea of what a 'trailhead' is - but I don't quite
>> > understand that idea, and I suspect that's because there are no
>> > trailheads of that sort near me, despite the fact that I'm within an
>> > hour's drive of hundreds of hiking trails, including a handful of 'big
>> > name' long-distance ones.
>> Please don't generalize. From a German perspective I share your
>> uneasiness (see my earlier remarks). Funnily, I always had the
>> impression that in the US you have the more specific idea of what a
>> trailhead is. :-)
>>
>>
>> I looked at some of the trailheads in the Netherlands
>> (http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/EV4):
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6141092027
>> h

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

I'm not granting tagging rights for trailheads if anyone thinks it's
worth mapping a place as a trailhead, be my guest!  I know that in the US
lots of trailheads have been tagged, I can find many on lists, there are
operators of these places keeping lists so others can find and select... so
some people think they are worth mapping.

Same in Nederland, though the population density and the terrrain are very
different. And in fact there are lots of sites with lists and maps and
details, but none have the quality and completeness that OSM now offers.

The minimum requirements here are: free parking space, some kind of
landmark, at least 2 bicycle routes and two walking routes, and an
information board or stand. And waymarks for route directions.

My requirements are: visibly designated for the purpose, and a name for the
trailhead, at least something like "TOP Groenlo" for the TOP in Groenlo
where all the routes start.

Op do 3 jan. 2019 om 00:36 schreef Kevin Kenny :

> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 2:58 PM Peter Elderson  wrote:
> > Designated starting point for multiple routes into a nature area.  There
> is a designed marking pole or stele, information boards, seats or benches,
> free parking space nearby.
>
> > The operators are governmental bodies. They publish the lists on
> recreation websites. Each province has its own list.
>
> What of these are required characteristics, and what are merely usual?
>  A lot of trails in the US are operated by non-government volunteer
> organizations, and there's no central registry. (Some of these
> organizations are more organized than others.)
>
> > Some other examples have been mailed by others, I thought?
>
> Some of the examples were mine, and I thought that you had rejected
> them as not being 'trailheads' because of a relative lack of
> facilities - typically at most a few parking places, a notice board
> and a guidepost.
>
> So, a largish collection from my area, none of which quite meet your
> criteria:
>
> I would imagine that
> http://www.nptrail.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/NPT-Section1.jpg
> might qualify, since it has all the above (parking, information kiosk,
> seats, and I presume that arch would qualify as a 'marking pole or
> stele') - except that it's the jumping-off point for a single long
> (220 km) route, not multiple routes.
>
> 1. I'd imagine that https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/16998968697
> would be pretty marginal, since it's got just a wide compacted spot on
> the roadside, with a notice board and register book, and it has no
> name. It's very typical of what we'd call trailheads around here,
> though. The notice board and register are present at the ones in
> wilderness areas, because there's a legal requirement to register when
> entering and leaving a wilderness area, and at the ones belonging to
> the land conservancies (they use visitor statistics in grant
> proposals, and ask that visitors register as a courtesy). For this
> particular trail, the operator is a private conservancy, so it's
> nongovernmental.
>
> 2. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14041171575/ was another
> example I gave earlier - the start of two or three trails, but in that
> case it's just a hairpin turn on a 4WD road, with enough natural bare
> shale to park a few SUV's, and paint-blazed trails leading off. I seem
> to recall that one got the answer, 'not a trailhead - having one or
> more foot trails heading off into a nature area doesn't make it a
> trailhead.' The operator here is indeed the state, and the trailhead
> is listed in a state database.
>
> 3. I'd imagine that https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/29381789461
> would also not be a 'trailhead', because it lacks parking (it's lawful
> and reasonably safe to park on the side of the road, but not right
> there in the snowplow turn-around), seating, signage, a register, or
> anything except for a paint-blazed trail. Still, it's an access point
> to a major long-distance (600+ km) trail. The operator is a private
> volunteer organization, and the trail there follows easements over
> private land. I don't know of a database listing this trailhead,
> although it shows up in the trail's guidebook.
>
> 4. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/19584241442 is even more
> primitive. It's got a compacted verge big enough to park a few
> vehicles, and that little sign on the tree says 'TRAIL HEAD PARKING.'
> The notice board and register are a few km back on the road, because
> that's a grandfathered road in a designated wilderness, and so drivers
> have to register on entry. (There's a ranger station at the nearest
> entry gate.) The trailhead is state-owned, operated by the Adirondack
> Mountain Club, and listed in the state database. There are no
> facilities other than the sign and the blazed trail departing.
>
> 5. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/10282292144/ lacks parking,
> seating, or a notice board. (Again, there's possible roadside parking
> not too far away, and I suppose you can sit on the highw

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries (Version 1.6)

[Johnparis]

Hi, Graeme, and thanks for the question. As I understand it (from reading
the wikipedia article and others), each country controls its territory up
to the cease-fire line. The zone is demilitarized, yes, but still policed.
And if you cross the line, you'll be stopped by someone from the other
side. It's not like the Cyprus buffer zone, for instance, which is
patrolled by the UN (and would be tagged controlled_by=UN).

So if my reading is correct, the Korean DMZ (two DMZs, actually) would not
need a separate controlled_by tag. North Korea (code KP) as a whole
(including its DMZ) would be claimed_by=KP;KR + controlled_by=KP. South
Korea (code KR) as a whole (including its DMZ) would be claimed_by=KP;KR +
controlled_by=KR.

Cheers,
John

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 10:17 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Amazing effort thanks, John!
>
> Theoretical question please.
>
> Would you use this to map the Korean DMZ
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Demilitarized_Zone
>
> I'd assume
>
> claimed_by=NK;SK (may be the wrong country codes?)
> controlled_by=nobody (or would that also be =NK;SK?)
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> 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] Trailhead tagging

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 7:26 PM Peter Elderson  wrote:
> The minimum requirements here are: free parking space, some kind of landmark, 
> at least 2 bicycle routes and two walking routes, and an information board or 
> stand. And waymarks for route directions.

None of the examples I posted meet all your requirements. Most
trailheads here are served by only short access trails, while the main
trails stay off road, so most trailheads serve either a single route
or else the entire trail network depending on definitions. Moreover,
there are relatively few entry points that serve both walking and
cycling routes. (We have a paucity of MTB routes on the whole.)

The only trailhead that I can think of that I've visited in recent
years that would meet your criteria serves a rather small natural area
and maybe 20 km of trail that's otherwise disconnected from the trail
network (except that the Erie Canalway, a paved
shared-foot-and-cycleway, runs down one side).  And that in turn means
that the Erie Canalway has a trailhead sort of by accident - because
it happens to be right there.

Most of our major national and regional trails simply aren't served by
that sort of facility.  To give the example of one intermediate-scale
trail (220 km) that I've mapped,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4286650, it visits
car-accessible highways fewer than ten times.  Only one has another
trail at the same access point, unless you count the short footways in
the campground at Lake Durant.  The two ends of the trail are in
villages, and one section in the middle has about a 5-km road-walk
through another village. Aside from those and the campground, the
trailheads consist of notice boards and registers at the crossings of
remote mountain roads.  There are two sections that are each over 60
km long that have no road crossings at all.

The two endpoints, as I said, are in villages, and are more
extensively marked; the southern terminus has the arch that I shared
earlier and ends at a village park that has toilets, and is behind a
commercial street that has various businesses. The northern terminus
is at a former railway station that is now a museum, and again has
many businesses close by. Neither terminus is a jumping-off point for
multiple other trails.

This is a trail of extensive regional significance. Not dignifying the
getting-on and getting-off points with the 'trailhead' tag, if we have
a 'trailhead' tag, seems a little parochial. (It'll also invite
further mistagging by us Americans, which will cause further arguments
on this mailing list down the road.)

Our definition would be much simpler: "designated point at which a
hiker, skier, cyclist, rider or snowmobilist gets on and off a
waymarked trail." Usually, but not always, a trailhead will have
dedicated parking (which may or not be free of charge), a notice board
and signage. More elaborate trailheads may have facilities such as
artwork or stelae marking them, seating, rubbish bins, toilets, and
public transportation access, particularly if they are located in
developed parks or campgrounds. Facilities such as these are
considerably rarer in trails that access "back country" or wilderness
areas.

I submit that the additional requirements you enumerate reflect a
European cultural assumption. Europe is much denser than the US. Its
trails are shorter. Its trailheads are closer to civilization, with
facilities to match.

The Adirondack Park, through which
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4286650 runs, is about 24000
km² - an area intermediate in size between Slovenia and Belguim - with
a population density of fewer than 5 inhabitants/km². (The density is
that high because it's a public-private partnership. There are [highly
regulated] settlements and villages inside the park.) It is too sparse
to support the sort of facilities that you have in mind, and there's
no need to run trails to common points of concentration. The trails go
where they go, and many never reach the highway at all, starting and
finishing on other trails. Because of the long distances covered by
the trail network, the trailheads assume greater importance, not less,
despite their lack of facilities. I once sprained a knee about 25 km
from the nearest highway - you can be sure that I was acutely aware of
where the nearest trailhead was, even though it took me a day and a
half to hobble there. Knowing where your alternative exit points are
and how to reach them is an essential part of route planning.

The parks also have a few access points that don't have trails at all,
but are merely parking areas for hikers and climbers who are willing
and able to make their own way cross-country. They have register books
and notice boards, but no trails. I'm not sure what to make of them in
this scheme of things, but can tag the parking area and notice board
at least. (I don't think that any proposal for tagging a register book
ever gained traction.)

___
Tagging maili

[Tagging] A fool with a tool ... Vehicle service tags

[Thilo Haug OSM]

Hi all,

just realized there's a "great" new feature in ID editor,
lots of senseless service tags in this format :
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=service%3Avehicle%3A

Seems to be over a year ago that someone decided to avoid conflicts
between the "street" and the "car" services :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:service:vehicle

They just forgot to check whether it had some influences on existing
tagging schemes
and didn't even adjust the "shop=car" wiki page (whose tagging scheme
apparently lead to this decision).

This leads to entries like this one :
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/44809

Thoughts ?
Ideas how to fix that ?
At least this opulent tagging scheme should be deactivated ASAP in ID.

Cheers,
Thilo


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

Re: [Tagging] A fool with a tool ... Vehicle service tags

[Bryan Housel]

We discussed it here on this list last year.  You started the thread even, so 
you can’t pretend like you "just realized” it.   
I even asked people to update the wiki.
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-May/036095.html 

 
Anyway, be nice & happy new year.



> On Jan 2, 2019, at 11:13 PM, Thilo Haug OSM  wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> just realized there's a "great" new feature in ID editor,
> lots of senseless service tags in this format :
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=service%3Avehicle%3A
> 
> Seems to be over a year ago that someone decided to avoid conflicts
> between the "street" and the "car" services :
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:service:vehicle
> 
> They just forgot to check whether it had some influences on existing
> tagging schemes
> and didn't even adjust the "shop=car" wiki page (whose tagging scheme
> apparently lead to this decision).
> 
> This leads to entries like this one :
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/44809
> 
> Thoughts ?
> Ideas how to fix that ?
> At least this opulent tagging scheme should be deactivated ASAP in ID.
> 
> Cheers,
> Thilo
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

I think your definition is fine. If it's worth listing/searching/displaying
the places, then map them, else do not.

We have these official places called TOPs, the things I listed are
necessary to be officially called a TOP (and funded & maintained). They are
not requirements for mapping and are not part of my general tagging
proposal. If mappers see other hop-on places for trails/routes which do not
meet these requirements but are visibly designated/designed for the purpose
and worth listing/searching/displaying, fine with me.

In Nederland, mappers have been mapping these places, just not
systematically. Now they have all been mapped.

Op do 3 jan. 2019 om 04:07 schreef Kevin Kenny :

> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 7:26 PM Peter Elderson  wrote:
> > The minimum requirements here are: free parking space, some kind of
> landmark, at least 2 bicycle routes and two walking routes, and an
> information board or stand. And waymarks for route directions.
>
> None of the examples I posted meet all your requirements. Most
> trailheads here are served by only short access trails, while the main
> trails stay off road, so most trailheads serve either a single route
> or else the entire trail network depending on definitions. Moreover,
> there are relatively few entry points that serve both walking and
> cycling routes. (We have a paucity of MTB routes on the whole.)
>
> The only trailhead that I can think of that I've visited in recent
> years that would meet your criteria serves a rather small natural area
> and maybe 20 km of trail that's otherwise disconnected from the trail
> network (except that the Erie Canalway, a paved
> shared-foot-and-cycleway, runs down one side).  And that in turn means
> that the Erie Canalway has a trailhead sort of by accident - because
> it happens to be right there.
>
> Most of our major national and regional trails simply aren't served by
> that sort of facility.  To give the example of one intermediate-scale
> trail (220 km) that I've mapped,
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4286650, it visits
> car-accessible highways fewer than ten times.  Only one has another
> trail at the same access point, unless you count the short footways in
> the campground at Lake Durant.  The two ends of the trail are in
> villages, and one section in the middle has about a 5-km road-walk
> through another village. Aside from those and the campground, the
> trailheads consist of notice boards and registers at the crossings of
> remote mountain roads.  There are two sections that are each over 60
> km long that have no road crossings at all.
>
> The two endpoints, as I said, are in villages, and are more
> extensively marked; the southern terminus has the arch that I shared
> earlier and ends at a village park that has toilets, and is behind a
> commercial street that has various businesses. The northern terminus
> is at a former railway station that is now a museum, and again has
> many businesses close by. Neither terminus is a jumping-off point for
> multiple other trails.
>
> This is a trail of extensive regional significance. Not dignifying the
> getting-on and getting-off points with the 'trailhead' tag, if we have
> a 'trailhead' tag, seems a little parochial. (It'll also invite
> further mistagging by us Americans, which will cause further arguments
> on this mailing list down the road.)
>
> Our definition would be much simpler: "designated point at which a
> hiker, skier, cyclist, rider or snowmobilist gets on and off a
> waymarked trail." Usually, but not always, a trailhead will have
> dedicated parking (which may or not be free of charge), a notice board
> and signage. More elaborate trailheads may have facilities such as
> artwork or stelae marking them, seating, rubbish bins, toilets, and
> public transportation access, particularly if they are located in
> developed parks or campgrounds. Facilities such as these are
> considerably rarer in trails that access "back country" or wilderness
> areas.
>
> I submit that the additional requirements you enumerate reflect a
> European cultural assumption. Europe is much denser than the US. Its
> trails are shorter. Its trailheads are closer to civilization, with
> facilities to match.
>
> The Adirondack Park, through which
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4286650 runs, is about 24000
> km² - an area intermediate in size between Slovenia and Belguim - with
> a population density of fewer than 5 inhabitants/km². (The density is
> that high because it's a public-private partnership. There are [highly
> regulated] settlements and villages inside the park.) It is too sparse
> to support the sort of facilities that you have in mind, and there's
> no need to run trails to common points of concentration. The trails go
> where they go, and many never reach the highway at all, starting and
> finishing on other trails. Because of the long distances covered by
> the trail network, the trailheads assume greater importance, not less,
> despite their l