Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Mark Wagner]

On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 20:57:04 +0100
Peter Elderson  wrote:

> 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.
> 

There's a definite disconnect in definitions here.

Looking at "Nationaal Park De Loonse en Drunense Duinen", there are
nearly a dozen places that that I would probably call trailheads:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63153/5.06300
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.65683/5.07140
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.65623/5.08233
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.66740/5.08273
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.67192/5.07931
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.66658/5.14424
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.65640/5.15269
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63970/5.14803
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63535/5.11149
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63125/5.09456
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.62901/5.08933

only two of which appear to be designated as such.  I also found
about as many locations where I'd expect to find a trailhead, informal
or otherwise.

Compare to the main section of Riverside State Park, a park in the
western United States of comparable size and urban-ness, with nine named
trailheads and about a dozen unnamed ones:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/47.7429/-117.5226

None of them meets the Netherlands definition of a trailhead.   Sontag
Park trailhead probably comes the closest, lacking only a marking
pole/stele.  The rest are paid parking, and most of them lack benches
and information boards as well as markers.

(Incidentally, if you insist on "starting point" rather than "access
point", only two of them are trailheads: Nine Mile, the starting point
for the Spokane Centennial Trail, and the equestrian-area trailhead,
starting point for 25-Mile Trail.)

-- 
Mark


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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

Please note that the description of official TOPs in Nederland is not
intended as a limitative requirement for trailheads around the globe.

If we would mark every access point to a route as a trailhead,  Nederland
would be covered with trailheads, and nobody would have any use for the
information. So we limit it to these specially designed "official" transit
places. These can be usefully listed, searched, and presented based on the
OSM data. Other countries may differ in what's useful, thats fine.
 And that's why the idea is just to mark a node as highway=trailhead and
(usually) a name.

About the name: it's common to list places with names. The operator must
have some kind of name or reference. Even when there is no special name on
a sign, you still need to describe the thing, maybe using the name of the
trail and which end (north, or a town name, road name, or..).  Or name of
the park and numbered acces points, something.
If there really is nothing of the sort, and the place is still deemed as
useful to map, fine. Could still be useful to display them on a POI map or
hiking map, but search by name is then impossible.



Op do 3 jan. 2019 om 09:23 schreef Mark Wagner :

> On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 20:57:04 +0100
> Peter Elderson  wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> There's a definite disconnect in definitions here.
>
> Looking at "Nationaal Park De Loonse en Drunense Duinen", there are
> nearly a dozen places that that I would probably call trailheads:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63153/5.06300
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.65683/5.07140
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.65623/5.08233
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.66740/5.08273
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.67192/5.07931
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.66658/5.14424
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.65640/5.15269
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63970/5.14803
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63535/5.11149
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63125/5.09456
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.62901/5.08933
>
> only two of which appear to be designated as such.  I also found
> about as many locations where I'd expect to find a trailhead, informal
> or otherwise.
>
> Compare to the main section of Riverside State Park, a park in the
> western United States of comparable size and urban-ness, with nine named
> trailheads and about a dozen unnamed ones:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/47.7429/-117.5226
>
> None of them meets the Netherlands definition of a trailhead.   Sontag
> Park trailhead probably comes the closest, lacking only a marking
> pole/stele.  The rest are paid parking, and most of them lack benches
> and information boards as well as markers.
>
> (Incidentally, if you insist on "starting point" rather than "access
> point", only two of them are trailheads: Nine Mile, the starting point
> for the Spokane Centennial Trail, and the equestrian-area trailhead,
> starting point for 25-Mile Trail.)
>
> --
> Mark
>
>
> ___
> 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 - (Hierarchies route=bicycle)

[Peter Elderson]

I just did some work on a hierarchy of hiking routes. Can't be done with Id
or Potlatch, the only available tool is JOSM and even with JOSM you'll have
to do extra steps not to break things.
Reverse is seldom a problem with hiking. Nevertheless, one iwn uses some
sections of a national trail (which in turn is built of three parts, which
in turn are built of ca 10 sections each covering about one day's walking
distance). The basic direction of the common  sections is reversed for this
iwn. I did not use roles, but simply took reversed copies of the sections
and used those for the iwn.

For biking, roles forward and backward are used on ways in the route
relation, because there's a very limited amount of ways where the forward
and backward route actually differ.

Indication of continuity in higher level routes, could be handy when
sectioning a large single route, but often variants are included,
shortcuts, extra loops, branches...

Op wo 2 jan. 2019 om 19:17 schreef 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
>


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

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

[Richard Fairhurst]

Peter Elderson wrote:
> I just did some work on a hierarchy of hiking routes. Can't be done with 
> Id or Potlatch

What specifically can't be done in P2?

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] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Hierarchies route=bicycle)

[Peter Elderson]

Sorry, I assumed Potlatch would work approximately similar to Id. Can it
easily sort/reverse ways within relations, move elements between relations,
create and manipulate superroutes, and keep all the routes (hiking,
cycling, PT) happy when removing/splitting/extending ways?

Op do 3 jan. 2019 om 12:44 schreef Richard Fairhurst :

> Peter Elderson wrote:
> > I just did some work on a hierarchy of hiking routes. Can't be done with
> > Id or Potlatch
>
> What specifically can't be done in P2?
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html
>
> ___
> 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 - (Hierarchies route=bicycle)

[Richard Fairhurst]

Peter Elderson wrote:
> Sorry, I assumed Potlatch would work approximately similar to Id. 

If you're addressing a mailing list with 551 subscribers, could I suggest
you take a few minutes to actually research your statements before posting?

> Can it easily sort/reverse ways within relations, move elements 
> between relations, create and manipulate superroutes, and keep 
> all the routes (hiking, cycling, PT) happy when removing/splitting/
> extending ways?

Potlatch 2 can create and edit relations of any type and with any members
permitted by the OSM API.

You now appear to have changed from "Can't be done" to "Can it easily",
which is a different, subjective question and frankly not one I can be
bothered to answer.

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] Trailhead tagging

[Marc Gemis]

I wonder why it is under "highway", it seems more related to "tourism"
/ "information".

Another problem I see is that there is no other definition for
trailheads in The Netherlands than "location being picked by the
tourist agency as trailhead" or better "location being designated by
the tourist agency as TOP"
It seems to me that any other definition means that one has to map
many more places in The Netherlands as trailhead or that some of the
"picked by tourist agency" are not a trailhead.

Given that the Dutch community has a very specific definition of
trailhead, I wonder whether this can  be solved by a dedicated tag
(tourism=top) or subtag (tourism=information;information=top) ? The
benefit would be to avoid confusion with a more general definition of
trailheads (whatever that might be).

m.

On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 10:21 AM Peter Elderson  wrote:
>
> Please note that the description of official TOPs in Nederland is not 
> intended as a limitative requirement for trailheads around the globe.
>
> If we would mark every access point to a route as a trailhead,  Nederland 
> would be covered with trailheads, and nobody would have any use for the 
> information. So we limit it to these specially designed "official" transit 
> places. These can be usefully listed, searched, and presented based on the 
> OSM data. Other countries may differ in what's useful, thats fine.
>  And that's why the idea is just to mark a node as highway=trailhead and 
> (usually) a name.
>
> About the name: it's common to list places with names. The operator must have 
> some kind of name or reference. Even when there is no special name on a sign, 
> you still need to describe the thing, maybe using the name of the trail and 
> which end (north, or a town name, road name, or..).  Or name of the park and 
> numbered acces points, something.
> If there really is nothing of the sort, and the place is still deemed as 
> useful to map, fine. Could still be useful to display them on a POI map or 
> hiking map, but search by name is then impossible.
>
>
>
> Op do 3 jan. 2019 om 09:23 schreef Mark Wagner :
>>
>> On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 20:57:04 +0100
>> Peter Elderson  wrote:
>>
>> > 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.
>> >
>>
>> There's a definite disconnect in definitions here.
>>
>> Looking at "Nationaal Park De Loonse en Drunense Duinen", there are
>> nearly a dozen places that that I would probably call trailheads:
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63153/5.06300
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.65683/5.07140
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.65623/5.08233
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.66740/5.08273
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.67192/5.07931
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.66658/5.14424
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.65640/5.15269
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63970/5.14803
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63535/5.11149
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63125/5.09456
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.62901/5.08933
>>
>> only two of which appear to be designated as such.  I also found
>> about as many locations where I'd expect to find a trailhead, informal
>> or otherwise.
>>
>> Compare to the main section of Riverside State Park, a park in the
>> western United States of comparable size and urban-ness, with nine named
>> trailheads and about a dozen unnamed ones:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/47.7429/-117.5226
>>
>> None of them meets the Netherlands definition of a trailhead.   Sontag
>> Park trailhead probably comes the closest, lacking only a marking
>> pole/stele.  The rest are paid parking, and most of them lack benches
>> and information boards as well as markers.
>>
>> (Incidentally, if you insist on "starting point" rather than "access
>> point", only two of them are trailheads: Nine Mile, the starting point
>> for the Spokane Centennial Trail, and the equestrian-area trailhead,
>> starting point for 25-Mile Trail.)
>>
>> --
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openst

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

[Peter Elderson]

First point: you are right and again, I am sorry.
Second: What about the same question without the “easily”?

Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 3 jan. 2019 om 13:10 heeft Richard Fairhurst  het 
> volgende geschreven:
> 
> Peter Elderson wrote:
>> Sorry, I assumed Potlatch would work approximately similar to Id. 
> 
> If you're addressing a mailing list with 551 subscribers, could I suggest
> you take a few minutes to actually research your statements before posting?
> 
>> Can it easily sort/reverse ways within relations, move elements 
>> between relations, create and manipulate superroutes, and keep 
>> all the routes (hiking, cycling, PT) happy when removing/splitting/
>> extending ways?
> 
> Potlatch 2 can create and edit relations of any type and with any members
> permitted by the OSM API.
> 
> You now appear to have changed from "Can't be done" to "Can it easily",
> which is a different, subjective question and frankly not one I can be
> bothered to answer.
> 
> 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

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

[Andy Townsend]

On 03/01/2019 14:37, Peter Elderson wrote:

What about the same question without the “easily”?


I occasionally (especially with a DWG hat on) have to modify relations 
on a member-by-member basis, and depending on what exactly what you want 
to do, JOSM, P2 or something else might be the best for the job - but 
both* can edit relations member-by-member and create and edit the sorts 
of things that you're talking about here (see e.g. 
https://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/relation/4304873944 ).  Whether that 
to you is "easily" I can't answer though - you'd have to try it yourself.


Best Regards,

Andy

* as can iD I suspect - I can certainly edit the (relation) members and 
tags of the example above.


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

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

[Thilo Haug OSM]

8X--
Bryan Housel bhousel at gmail.com
Thu Jan 3 04:39:03 UTC 2019We 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.
8X--

Thanks for mentioning that, I really forgot about it.
At the time I obviously didn't realize the dimension of this
(implementing it in ID, and in which opulence).
Meanwhile it's destroying established tagging schemes and it's still not
documented
nor did someone take care to avoid further entries in the format which
triggered this decision (shop=car service=*).
And I'm afraid if I do there will be a lot of whiners crying "where has
this been discussed" ?

There was an appropriate comment at the time,
but it seems it's been ignored:

8X--
Martin Koppenhoefer
    dieterdreist at gmail.com
  
    Sun May  6 20:07:50 UTC 2018

introducing undocumented and formerly unused tags via preset without any
discussion or proposal process
is something I didn’t expect from the main osmf endorsed editor.
Are there more tags that have been introduced this way,
and if yes, have they been documented in the meantime?
8X--

So which ACTION should we take now ?
At least those who introduced it should be in charge.


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

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

[Thilo Haug OSM]

Forgot to mention :
" it follows what `service:bicycle:*` does."
is not true.

And if you introduce a new system,
you should also explain the namespace structure.
And not just create a hard to find "notice"
which isn't linked to from the affected existing tags
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:service:vehicle

8X---

Bryan Housel bryan at 7thposition.com
Sun May 6 12:27:15 UTC 2018

    Previous message: [Tagging] service:vehicle: prefix
    Next message: [Tagging] service:vehicle: prefix
    Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hey all, this is something I added to iD because we can’t support
reusing the `service=*` tag to also store values for vehicle services. 
The tag is already overwhelmingly used to hold values for
`highway=service` and `railway=service`.

So we added `service:vehicle` for users to tag these, and it follows
what `service:bicycle:*` does.

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-May/036107.html

8X---


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

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

[Peter Elderson]

Well, I regularly edit and maintain a lot of routes, route hierarchies and node 
networks. Id is fine for a few basic things, adding and editing tags, combining 
two routes in a superroute. Now try checking and sorting routes from hundreds 
up to thousands of members, including forward and backward roles. Try cutting a 
way belonging to 10 different routes and route systems, then repair the damage. 
I have tried very hard to do  this with Id. Try splitting an old unmanageable 
damaged hiking route into manageable and reusable parts, each complete, sorted, 
and fitting together end-to-start. Try checking and repairing a node network. 

I have checked the capabilities of P2. As with Id, basic things are possible: 
add, edit a member, edit tagging, as long as it stays simple and not too big. 
If it’s more complex, involves sorting and error checking/repair of multiple 
routes, networks, hierarchies: If anyone does a lot of work like that in Id or 
P2, I would like to know how, so I could do more work online. 
Let’s start with sorting the members of a route relation containing 300 
members. How would you do that in P2? 


Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 3 jan. 2019 om 16:25 heeft Andy Townsend  het volgende 
> geschreven:
> 
>> On 03/01/2019 14:37, Peter Elderson wrote:
>> What about the same question without the “easily”?
> 
> I occasionally (especially with a DWG hat on) have to modify relations on a 
> member-by-member basis, and depending on what exactly what you want to do, 
> JOSM, P2 or something else might be the best for the job - but both* can edit 
> relations member-by-member and create and edit the sorts of things that 
> you're talking about here (see e.g. 
> https://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/relation/4304873944 ).  Whether that to 
> you is "easily" I can't answer though - you'd have to try it yourself.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Andy
> 
> * as can iD I suspect - I can certainly edit the (relation) members and tags 
> of the example above.
> 
> ___
> 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] How to tag access restriction on interstate highway crossovers?

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 3:32 PM Xavier  wrote:

>
> By "interstate highway crossovers" I mean small bits of road that
> connect the two carriage ways of a US interstate highway and are signed
> as "Authorized Vehicles Only" (at least in Virginia they are signed
> this way).
>
> An example is here:
>
> http://openstreetcam.org/details/1253343/475/track-info
>
> If you look at the left edge of the photo, you will see part of the
> pavement of the small way that connects to the other traffic lane of
> the highway.  Zooming in on the sign visible just behind the curved
> guardrail at the far end of the crossover in the photo will show the
> "Authorized Vehicles Only" restriction language.  Clicking on the "edit
> in Id|JOSM" links will open the location so you can see the aerial
> images of the "crossover".
>
> The "Authorized Vehicles Only" sign really translates to: access
> allowed for police, fire, and rescue vehicles.
>
> A way mapping this feature would obviously be highway=service.
>
> And an initial access=no tag to prevent routers from deciding to try to
> use it for U-turns.
>
> But looking at the wiki values for the access= key there are two
> 'close' values for "access allowed for police, fire, and rescue":
>
> 1) private
> 2) designated
>
> However the description of designated indicates that it is a different
> meaning than what is meant here.  That leaves private, but somehow
> 'private' seems not really a good fit at the same time.  It is not
> really 'private' as in privately owned, it is public, but restricted.
>
> So is access=private correct, or is there a better tag that I've not
> located yet?
>

Typically these are

highway=service
access=no
emergency=yes
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging