Re: [Tagging] start_date variants

[Sergio Manzi]

Hi Stephan!

Yes, a relation can be made up of a relation: no problem with that, AFAIK.

In your particular case, anyway, I'm afraid there is something wrong:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1937535 (name=MuseumsQuartier) is tagged 
as "building=yes" and also with "building:architecture=baroque", but in reality 
MusemQuartier is not "_*a*_" building, but an area, a cultural district (on 
https://www.mqw.at/en/ I read "/MuseumsQuartier Wien is one of the largest 
districts for contemporary art and culture in the world/"), made up of several 
different building_*s*_ ranging from the baroque to the contemporary era.

MuseumsQuartier (/the district/) is already mapped with 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/335982323 as both a tourism=attraction and 
landuse=commercial (/yeah... I know... it seems we miss a specific tag for 
cultural districts and I think that's something we should address.../), and 
several of the tags applied to relation 1937535 (e.g. wikidata=*, wikipedia=*) 
are already there. Anything globally related to the MuseumsQuartier cultural 
district should be tagged on that way.

If relation 1937535 is meant to map *one* of the several buildings which are 
part of the MuseumQuartier district, then anything related to the district 
should be deleted from it and probably the name should also be changed: a 
building is not a /quartier/ and I suppose the correct name for that particular 
building (/the baroque building encompassing the district/) to be 
/Hofstallungen./

The "building:start_date=1725" tag should be modified into just a 
"start_date=1725" tag, and the "start_date=2001-06..2001-09" tag should be 
instead applied to the /quartier /(/the way.../) if it is a property of the 
district, or, if it is meant to indicate the date of the /Hofstallungen 
/renewal, it should probably go into a note of the 1937535 relation or we could 
use and document a "renewal_date=*" key (/there is already 1 usage for that, 
here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7255270/).

Cheers!

Sergio


On 2019-02-17 08:07, Stephan Bösch-Plepelits wrote:
> In the particular case which I was describing in the opening mail
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1937535
> the building is already a multipolygon relation.
>
> Do you think a relation with a multipolygon relation as member would work?
> Or would it be better to duplicate the multipolygon relation?


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables Proposal RFC

[santamariense]

> That was actually what I had originally proposed. My role format was
> stop:+00:32, though, which is only slightly different.  People in this list
> noted that it would corrupt existing relation roles, so I redesigned the
> proposal to have no effect on existing data.

The way I think it I cannot see how it corrupts relation roles. This
complement to the role would be optional, not compulsory. So, up to
now, what have been mapped without it (complement) can be seen in one
of the following 2 ways:
1 - As an incomplete information, though it doesn't change the meaning
of the role in the relation;
2 - As an already complete info, because not necessarily all stops
would have this complementary information, because there are stops
with not exact time to arrive/leave whose situation can have their
times stipulated.

> Perhaps this is something that could be proposed later.

For sure, that's the reason I'm already voting yes.

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

Re: [Tagging] Waterway length

[Eugene Podshivalov]

вс, 17 февр. 2019 г. в 00:11, André Pirard :

> It's easy to make a script to total up all the segments of a waterway or
> any way.
>

It will work but only if the entire river from its spring to mouth is drawn
precisely enough, all relation roles are labeled properly and nobody breaks
the labeling by intent or mistake some day.
The more side streams a river has the greater probabily is to break it one
day.
Here is an example of such complex river which name means "a river of a
hundred waterways"
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5561722#map=13/51.4077/25.2271

Cheers,
Eugene

вс, 17 февр. 2019 г. в 01:18, Sergio Manzi :

> Sorry for the typo: of course Wikip*a*dia was meant to be Wikip*e*dia!
> On 2019-02-16 23:15, Sergio Manzi wrote:
>
> Then why don't you submit a paper to the CNFG (http://www.cnfg.fr/) and 
> correct the Wikipadia articles?
>
> Sergio
>
>
> On 2019-02-16 23:07, marc marc wrote:
>
> Le 16.02.19 à 22:32, Sergio Manzi a écrit :
>
> A static value for a river length in OSM, without any information about
> its source
>
> every tag you add into osm have a changeset with a source tag, isn't it?
> so adding the lenght should/must also have a source (extrapolation (sum
> of all way of a relation) of osm data is a source)
>
> a few month ago, I have checked the length of Rhône [1]
> the french wikipedia list 2 sources for the lenght... both are very fair
> away of the lenght found after some work on osm data.
> which one to choose? osm without hesitation. maybe it is not fair but at
> least it is verifiable (everyone can load the relationship, see the
> result and correct errors if necessary) while the other 2 sources
> (including the official French source) are totally unverifiable.
>
> unfortunately I did not send in osm the result of the cleaning because
> it concerned partly errors in osm (mainly roles in the relationship)
> but I started by purging everything that didn't interest me in the
> relationship before fixing. it will have to be done again
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rh%C3%B4ne
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> 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] Waterway length

[Sergio Manzi]

On 2019-02-17 12:55, Eugene Podshivalov wrote:
>
> It will work but only if the entire river from its spring to mouth is drawn 
> precisely enough, all relation roles are labeled properly and nobody breaks 
> the labeling by intent or mistake some day.

That's as old as data processing: "/garbage in, garbage out/". Let's fix the 
data.

And yes, the river you pointed at is particularly complex and probably 
geographers are pulling each other's hairs about computing its length. You'll 
probably can find many different estimations about its length. Which one are 
you going to choose?

Sergio



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway length

[Eugene Podshivalov]

вс, 17 февр. 2019 г. в 15:18, Sergio Manzi :
>
>   That's as old as data processing: "*garbage in, garbage out*". Let's
> fix the data.

Fixing data is a good thing but from utilization in production point of
view the choice between unstable and stable data is not questioned.
Competeness of data is even more important than its stability, and that
unfortunately cannot be achieved that quickly. One can create a waterway
relation with a length defined and then there may be a long run until all
waterway segments are drawn properly to finally be able to compare it to an
official length.

You'll probably can find many different estimations about its length. Which
> one are you going to choose?

 I would take one from any encyclopedia (subject to its license) and that
figure will at least serve other mappers as a guidence when searching for
incomplete or broken rivers.

Cheers,
Eugene


вс, 17 февр. 2019 г. в 15:18, Sergio Manzi :

> On 2019-02-17 12:55, Eugene Podshivalov wrote:
>
>
> It will work but only if the entire river from its spring to mouth is
> drawn precisely enough, all relation roles are labeled properly and nobody
> breaks the labeling by intent or mistake some day.
>
> That's as old as data processing: "*garbage in, garbage out*". Let's fix
> the data.
>
> And yes, the river you pointed at is particularly complex and probably
> geographers are pulling each other's hairs about computing its length.
> You'll probably can find many different estimations about its length. Which
> one are you going to choose?
>
> Sergio
> ___
> 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] Waterway length

[Sergio Manzi]

I think I know understand what usage you want to do of that "waterway length" 
datum (/or at  least that's what I'm reading in your last message/): use it as 
a "control" for checking if the waterway's segments add up to the "official" 
(/whatever that can mean.../) waterway length.  Or at least in part: that datum 
will be close to useless to check waterways with the complexity of the "/river 
of a hundred waterways/" and many similar ones.

For that I guess  a better solution would be to use the fixme=* tag: "fixme: 
check that this river length is between 5499 and 7088 Km", for the Nile.

TBH I see A LOT of issues with this tag:

  * it is wrongly named (/distance instead of length/)
  * it is unverifiable "on the ground"
  * it can assume multiple different values according to different sources
  * it is IMNSHO useless (/just point to a Wikipedia article to get this 
information/)

Personally I'm leaning to propse to deprecate the usage of this key and subject 
that to a vote. What is the process for that?

Sergio


On 2019-02-17 14:07, Eugene Podshivalov wrote:
> вс, 17 февр. 2019 г. в 15:18, Sergio Manzi  >: 
>
>   That's as old as data processing: "/garbage in, garbage out/". Let's 
> fix the data. 
>
> Fixing data is a good thing but from utilization in production point of view 
> the choice between unstable and stable data is not questioned.
> Competeness of data is even more important than its stability, and that 
> unfortunately cannot be achieved that quickly. One can create a waterway 
> relation with a length defined and then there may be a long run until all 
> waterway segments are drawn properly to finally be able to compare it to an 
> official length.
>
> You'll probably can find many different estimations about its length. 
> Which one are you going to choose? 
>
>  I would take one from any encyclopedia (subject to its license) and that 
> figure will at least serve other mappers as a guidence when searching for 
> incomplete or broken rivers.
>
> Cheers,
> Eugene
>
>  
> вс, 17 февр. 2019 г. в 15:18, Sergio Manzi mailto:s...@smz.it>>:
>
> On 2019-02-17 12:55, Eugene Podshivalov wrote:
>>
>> It will work but only if the entire river from its spring to mouth is 
>> drawn precisely enough, all relation roles are labeled properly and nobody 
>> breaks the labeling by intent or mistake some day.
>
> That's as old as data processing: "/garbage in, garbage out/". Let's fix 
> the data.
>
> And yes, the river you pointed at is particularly complex and probably 
> geographers are pulling each other's hairs about computing its length. You'll 
> probably can find many different estimations about its length. Which one are 
> you going to choose?
>
> Sergio
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - new tag departures=*

[Leif Rasmussen]

Voting is open for the tag departures, which states the list of departure
times in a public transport route.

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging "test preperation" / cram school / Juku (eg: Komon)

[Jmapb]

On 2/16/2019 7:27 PM, Jmapb wrote:

On 1/30/2019 7:21 PM, John Willis via Tagging wrote:
Looking over the page for schools and  all the abandoned proposals, I 
assume there is some in-use tag for after-school study and test 
preparation type private “schools”


[...]

Does anyone have any experience tagging these types of things?

tagging it as “amenity=school” seems wrong.


I've been tagging them as office=tutoring... can't remember whose 
suggestion that was, but it seems adequate. (Only 35 hits on taginfo 
though.) Could combine with tutoring=test_prep if that's the main focus.


I checked back and it turns out I found it (office=tutoring) in the 
bowels of the wiki -- see 
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/26677/how-to-tag-education-centres 
.  The original answer there suggested amenity=tutoring_centre but that 
feels a little out of fashion given the general trend away from using 
the amenity key for everything under the sun.


J

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

Re: [Tagging] start_date variants

[Markus]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, 08:09 Stephan Bösch-Plepelits  Do you think a relation with a multipolygon relation as member would work?
> Or would it be better to duplicate the multipolygon relation?
>

A multipolygon can only consist of ways (with the roles outer and inner),
so you need to duplicate the relation.

For objects inside smaller buildings i think a node would be enough.

Regards

Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] start_date variants

[Markus]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, 23:55 Sergio Manzi  Then I guess the correct solution would be to not "stick" the amenity to
> the building but to a new relation whose only member will be the building
> itself.
>

+ 1

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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 15. Feb 2019, at 13:20, Tobias Wrede  wrote:
> 
> By German law you are required to use footpaths if they exists on the road. 
> In these examples there are no footpaths on the roads so you should be able 
> to use the carriageways.


this is oversimplified, you are indeed legally required to walk on the road 
even in the presence of sidewalks: if carrying big loads. When there is no 
signage, foot=no is incorrect and will not represent the situation on the 
ground. 

If nobody should ever walk in that underpass, authorities should put a sign to 
prevent them, come on, it’s Germany,  in Italy they do it:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9072106,12.5050822,0a,75y,340.46h,91.26t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sdU0xMXx0zp9JjpMHB24tOQ!2e0

Nobody sane would anyway walk into a traffic tunnel without pedestrian spaces, 
regardless of the instructions your navigation device issues ;-)

Ciao, Martin 






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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging "test preperation" / cram school / Juku (eg: Komon)

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 10:48, Jmapb  wrote:
> I've been tagging them as office=tutoring... can't remember whose suggestion 
> that was, but it seems adequate. (Only 35 hits on taginfo though.) Could 
> combine with tutoring=test_prep if that's the main focus.

Hi John and J,

In Toronto I've seen a Kumon tagged as office=educational_institution.
I don't know if that's very good, OSM wiki suggests it is/can be used
for both admin offices of institutions as well as tutoring locations.
I think office=tutoring + tutoring=* is a better idea.

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] Medicine Disposal

[Philip Barnes]

Sharps is the term used in the UK too.

Phil (trigpoint) 

On 16 February 2019 22:37:00 GMT, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 16/02/19 19:54, Markus wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, 00:59 Graeme Fitzpatrick >  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Would =drugs also apply to sharps bins for needle disposal?
>>
>> I would think they should have their own tag? (or is there one
>> already that I just didn't see?)
>>
>>
>> I guess you usually aren't allowed to throw syringes in a drugs drop 
>> box or to throw drugs in a syringes drop box. Therefore i think that 
>> separate keys make sense. How about waste=syringes? (Imho you throw 
>> the whole syringe in, not just the needle.)
>>
>> For the unlikely case of a drop box for both drugs and syringes,
>these 
>> values could be combined as waste=drugs;syringes.
>>
>Here waste boxes for syringes tend to be lables 'sharps' .. I think
>that 
>is an Americanizm. Any UK experience?

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway length

[Eugene Podshivalov]

>
> it is wrongly named (distance instead of length)

Has already been corrected (at least in the english wiki)

> it can assume multiple different values according to different sources

"length:source" can resolve this if needed.

> it is unverifiable "on the ground"

it is IMNSHO useless (*just point to a Wikipedia article to get this
> information*)

Let me ask you a question please: how do you verify "name:es" of a river
which flows in France?
Should we delete all "name:" tags and direct users to wikipedia
instead?

For that I guess  a better solution would be to use the fixme=* tag:
> "fixme: check that this river length is between 5499 and 7088 Km", for the
> Nile.

This would mean keeping fixme=* tag in every waterway relation forever
which contradicts its purpose.

Cheers,
Eugene

вс, 17 февр. 2019 г. в 16:36, Sergio Manzi :

> I think I know understand what usage you want to do of that "waterway
> length" datum (*or at  least that's what I'm reading in your last message*):
> use it as a "control" for checking if the waterway's segments add up to the
> "official" (*whatever that can mean...*) waterway length.  Or at least in
> part: that datum will be close to useless to check waterways with the
> complexity of the "*river of a hundred waterways*" and many similar ones.
>
> For that I guess  a better solution would be to use the fixme=* tag:
> "fixme: check that this river length is between 5499 and 7088 Km", for the
> Nile.
>
> TBH I see A LOT of issues with this tag:
>
>- it is wrongly named (*distance instead of length*)
>- it is unverifiable "on the ground"
>- it can assume multiple different values according to different
>sources
>- it is IMNSHO useless (*just point to a Wikipedia article to get this
>information*)
>
> Personally I'm leaning to propse to deprecate the usage of this key and
> subject that to a vote. What is the process for that?
>
> Sergio
>
>
> On 2019-02-17 14:07, Eugene Podshivalov wrote:
>
> вс, 17 февр. 2019 г. в 15:18, Sergio Manzi :
>>
>>   That's as old as data processing: "*garbage in, garbage out*". Let's
>> fix the data.
>
> Fixing data is a good thing but from utilization in production point of
> view the choice between unstable and stable data is not questioned.
> Competeness of data is even more important than its stability, and that
> unfortunately cannot be achieved that quickly. One can create a waterway
> relation with a length defined and then there may be a long run until all
> waterway segments are drawn properly to finally be able to compare it to an
> official length.
>
> You'll probably can find many different estimations about its length.
>> Which one are you going to choose?
>
>  I would take one from any encyclopedia (subject to its license) and that
> figure will at least serve other mappers as a guidence when searching for
> incomplete or broken rivers.
>
> Cheers,
> Eugene
>
>
> вс, 17 февр. 2019 г. в 15:18, Sergio Manzi :
>
>> On 2019-02-17 12:55, Eugene Podshivalov wrote:
>>
>>
>> It will work but only if the entire river from its spring to mouth is
>> drawn precisely enough, all relation roles are labeled properly and nobody
>> breaks the labeling by intent or mistake some day.
>>
>> That's as old as data processing: "*garbage in, garbage out*". Let's fix
>> the data.
>>
>> And yes, the river you pointed at is particularly complex and probably
>> geographers are pulling each other's hairs about computing its length.
>> You'll probably can find many different estimations about its length. Which
>> one are you going to choose?
>>
>> Sergio
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> 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] Tagging "test preperation" / cram school / Juku (eg: Komon)

[Erkin Alp Güney]

See:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Education_Reform_Alternative


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging "test preperation" / cram school / Juku (eg: Komon)

[Jmapb]

On 2/17/2019 12:30 PM, Erkin Alp Güney wrote:

See:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Education_Reform_Alternative


Link doesn't work for me.


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging "test preperation" / cram school / Juku (eg: Komon)

[Erkin Alp Güney]

This is correct:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Education_Reform_Alternative


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

Re: [Tagging] Medicine Disposal

[Topographe Fou]

  Hi,Wiki suggests amenity=recycling + recycling:drugs=yes/nohttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3DrecyclingIf we choose to put it under 'waste' (instead of recycling) then I suggest to copy the recycling namespace schema and use waste:drugs= yes/no (or something similar) instead of creating something different for a similar use (i.e. waste=drugs).Yours,LeTopographeFou   De: cliff...@snowandsnow.usEnvoyé: 15 février 2019 1:50 AMÀ: tagging@openstreetmap.orgRépondre à: tagging@openstreetmap.orgObjet: [Tagging] Medicine Disposal  How should sites that offer drop box disposal for unneeded medicine be tagged? Typical locations would include pharmacys, clinics, hospitals, and law enforcement buildings. I've thought about using the tag amenity=waste + waste=medicineAny better suggestions?Thanks in advance,Clifford-- @osm_seattleosm_seattle.snowandsnow.usOpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Medicine Disposal

[Markus]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 19:07, Topographe Fou  wrote:
>
> Wiki suggests amenity=recycling + recycling:drugs=yes/no
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Drecycling

Thanks for the hint.

It might be that drugs that haven't reached their expiration date are
sorted out and recycled, but i don't think that expired drugs get
recycled as they likely get ineffective or even dangerous.

> If we choose to put it under 'waste' (instead of recycling) then I suggest to 
> copy the recycling namespace schema and use waste:drugs= yes/no (or something 
> similar) instead of creating something different for a similar use (i.e. 
> waste=drugs).

I don't think that this is a good idea because (a) waste=* is already
used over 32,000 times (b) values in keys are considered problematical
by many and (c) i don't see a benefit in such a change.

Regards

Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] Medicine Disposal

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 19:05, Markus  wrote:

>
> It might be that drugs that haven't reached their expiration date are
> sorted out and recycled, but i don't think that expired drugs get
> recycled as they likely get ineffective or even dangerous.
>

In the UK returned drugs cannot be recycled even if they have not expired.
There are safety
issues to do with tampering.

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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

[Dave F via Tagging]

Why do you exclude tracks?
Legal access to them are often denied as they're on private land 
(example: farms)


Why ford?
Why oneway?

Cheers
DaveF

On 15/02/2019 11:50, Tobias Wrede wrote:
As far as I am concerned roads that are most likely to merit a foot=no 
are


- all highway road types except tracks and except where foot=no is 
regionally implied


- where there is no sidewalk

any that have one of:
- bridge=yes
- tunnel=yes
- ford=yes
- oneway=yes
- bicycle=no/private/...
- bicycle_road=yes (?) Not sure if there are countries where a 
bicycle_road would forbit foot traffic in absence of sidewalks


you could also exclude highways that are part of a hiking route (might 
be difficult with relations and might overdo it).


lit=* is to fuzzy in my opinion to be useful.

Tobias


___
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] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

[Mark Wagner]

Tracks are often "access=private" for everyone, so there's no reason to
call out foot access in particular.

-- 
Mark

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 19:27:44 +
Dave F via Tagging  wrote:

> Why do you exclude tracks?
> Legal access to them are often denied as they're on private land 
> (example: farms)
> 
> Why ford?
> Why oneway?
> 
> Cheers
> DaveF
> 
> On 15/02/2019 11:50, Tobias Wrede wrote:
> > As far as I am concerned roads that are most likely to merit a
> > foot=no are
> >
> > - all highway road types except tracks and except where foot=no is 
> > regionally implied
> >
> > - where there is no sidewalk
> >
> > any that have one of:
> > - bridge=yes
> > - tunnel=yes
> > - ford=yes
> > - oneway=yes
> > - bicycle=no/private/...
> > - bicycle_road=yes (?) Not sure if there are countries where a 
> > bicycle_road would forbit foot traffic in absence of sidewalks
> >
> > you could also exclude highways that are part of a hiking route
> > (might be difficult with relations and might overdo it).
> >
> > lit=* is to fuzzy in my opinion to be useful.
> >
> > Tobias
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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 mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

[Andy Townsend]

Places where you are "not allowed to walk*" vary hugely from one country to 
another - in some places the presumption is yes unless denied, in others no 
unless allowed, in still others still not really defined.

I don't think that a "global" encouragement to add foot=no makes sense; 
there'll be lots of countries where it'd be silly.

Does StreetComplete allow "per country" suggestions?  If so maybe there are 
some places where it would help.

Cheers,
Andy

* as has already been pointed out foot=no has a clear meaning in OSM - you are 
not allowed to walk here.  It doesn't mean it would be unwise or dangerous, 
just illegal.



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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

[Dave F via Tagging]

On 15/02/2019 12:20, Tobias Wrede wrote:
Unfortunately, the legal situation is not always as clear as we wish 
to. There are a lot of grey zones and we need to apply common sense 
when tagging the access rules.


You're undoubtedly correct. However, foot=yes/no has always represented, 
as stated many times previously & in the wiki,  the legality of access.




Here are a few situations where I would not hesitate to put a foot=no 
on the road even if there is no corresponding traffic sign.


Pedestrians can take the level footpaths/sidewalks instead taking the 
underpass: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/6187386#map=18/50.94224/6.95277. 
There is no signage forbidding foot traffic. 
(https://www.google.de/maps/@50.978,6.9530483,3a,60y,190.35h,87.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQMNheDoeod1aqNAV9jAkzQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) 



For that example you should use another tag & not misappropriate.

Cheers
DaveF

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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

[Dave F via Tagging]

I should have been clearer. I was indicating a case where foot=no would 
be appropriate, but I should have stated there are also cases where 
'yes' or 'designated' are required. I'm still unsure why Tobias W. 
thinks tracks shouldn't be queried at all yet residential roads should.


Don't misunderstand - I'm not advocating the use of the app. I'm dubious 
about it's quality if Tobias Z. can spend "3+ years" developing it, yet 
not read the wiki. This query should be retitled to something like 'do 
pedestrians have legal access to this street?' Hopefully that would 
deter users from adding either yes or no when they're unsure which it is 
or even if it required at all.


Cheers
DaveF

On 17/02/2019 19:44, Mark Wagner wrote:

Tracks are often "access=private" for everyone, so there's no reason to
call out foot access in particular.




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

Re: [Tagging] Medicine Disposal

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 17. Feb 2019, at 20:03, Markus  wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the hint.
> 
> It might be that drugs that haven't reached their expiration date are
> sorted out and recycled


I would doubt this. Maybe somewhere, in Europe it is very unlikely, also 
because the expiry date is for things stored in appropriate conditions, which 
you never know for something from the trash. I’m for moving drugs to “waste”, 
the recycling tags should be reserved for recycling related features.

Cheers, Martin 


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging "test preperation" / cram school / Juku (eg: Komon)

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 03:51, Erkin Alp Güney 
wrote:

> This is correct:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Education_Reform_Alternative


Any further progress with your proposal Erkin?

There's at least one comment supporting the idea, & I would also like to
see it introduced!

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

[Tobias Zwick]

>> Pedestrians can take the level footpaths/sidewalks instead taking the
>> underpass:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/6187386#map=18/50.94224/6.95277.
>> There is no signage forbidding foot traffic.
>> (https://www.google.de/maps/@50.978,6.9530483,3a,60y,190.35h,87.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQMNheDoeod1aqNAV9jAkzQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
>>
> 
> For that example you should use another tag & not misappropriate.

No, that tag is correct. It is not allowed to walk in the tunnel,
because the tunnel is still part of the street Tunisstraße, which has a
sidewalk. See StVO §25 (1)
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stvo_2013/__25.html

I expect similar laws to be in place for other countries.

Tobias

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

Re: [Tagging] Medicine Disposal

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 05:18, Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> In the UK returned drugs cannot be recycled even if they have not
> expired.  There are safety
> issues to do with tampering.
>

Same thing applies in Australia, even if the original seals haven't yet
been broken.

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Medicine Disposal

[Colin Smale]

On 2019-02-17 20:17, Paul Allen wrote:

> In the UK returned drugs cannot be recycled even if they have not expired.  
> There are safety 
> issues to do with tampering.

And the fact that you don't know how/where they have been stored.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Sharps / syringe disposal

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Carrying on from where it was raised under Medicine Disposal

On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 at 18:56, Markus  wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, 00:59 Graeme Fitzpatrick   wrote:
>
>>
>> Would =drugs also apply to sharps bins for needle disposal?
>>
>> I would think they should have their own tag? (or is there one already
>> that I just didn't see?)
>>
>
> I guess you usually aren't allowed to throw syringes in a drugs drop box
> or to throw drugs in a syringes drop box. Therefore i think that separate
> keys make sense. How about waste=syringes? (Imho you throw the whole
> syringe in, not just the needle.)
>
> For the unlikely case of a drop box for both drugs and syringes, these
> values could be combined as waste=drugs;syringes.
>

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 08:38, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
Here waste boxes for syringes tend to be lables 'sharps' .. I think that is
an Americanizm. Any UK experience?

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 02:53, Philip Barnes  wrote:

> Sharps is the term used in the UK too.
>

So, would waste=sharps be an acceptable term?

Would they be best tagged as a separate node of their own? (Biohazard
sympol would make for a nice icon!
https://www.dreamstime.com/sharp-container-icon-sharp-container-simple-icon-medicine-waste-clipart-isolated-white-background-image125538340
)

Sharps bins like these https://goo.gl/images/pmXf7G are frequently found in
public toilet blocks - would they also get a separate tag on the building,
or just be listed under attributes of the toilet?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

[Tobias Wrede]

Am 17.02.2019 um 21:57 schrieb Dave F via Tagging:
I should have been clearer. I was indicating a case where foot=no 
would be appropriate, but I should have stated there are also cases 
where 'yes' or 'designated' are required. I'm still unsure why Tobias 
W. thinks tracks shouldn't be queried at all yet residential roads 
should.


Don't misunderstand - I'm not advocating the use of the app. I'm 
dubious about it's quality if Tobias Z. can spend "3+ years" 
developing it, yet not read the wiki. This query should be retitled to 
something like 'do pedestrians have legal access to this street?' 
Hopefully that would deter users from adding either yes or no when 
they're unsure which it is or even if it required at all.


Cheers
DaveF

On 17/02/2019 19:44, Mark Wagner wrote:

Tracks are often "access=private" for everyone, so there's no reason to
call out foot access in particular.

We are discussing a quest whose basis is the speculation that a 
sidewalk=none could also warrant a foot=no. I was thinking about how 
likely that is in different situations. And I think it is very unlikely 
for tracks. I don't think I have ever seen a track with a sidewalk so 
not having a sidewalk is pretty meaningless in regards to  being a 
candidate for this quest.


Tobias W-


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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 17. Feb 2019, at 22:39, Tobias Zwick  wrote:
> 
> No, that tag is correct. It is not allowed to walk in the tunnel,
> because the tunnel is still part of the street Tunisstraße, which has a
> sidewalk. See StVO §25 (1)
> https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stvo_2013/__25.html


Why are you ignoring StVO p.25(2)?

(2) Wer zu Fuß geht und Fahrzeuge oder sperrige Gegenstände mitführt, muss die 
Fahrbahn benutzen, wenn auf dem Gehweg oder auf dem Seitenstreifen andere zu 
Fuß Gehende erheblich behindert würden. 

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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

[Tobias Wrede]

Am 17.02.2019 um 20:44 schrieb Andy Townsend:

I don't think that a "global" encouragement to add foot=no makes sense; 
there'll be lots of countries where it'd be silly.

I don't think the app "encourages" anything. In this quest the app 
merely speculates that the sidewalk=none could maybe warrant a foot=no 
and asks the user if that is the case.


As others and I have pointed out this speculation is not so ill-founded 
for some situations (e. g. bridges, tunnels) but overdoes it for the 
standard roads out there.


Tobias W


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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

[Tobias Wrede]

Am 15.02.2019 um 17:09 schrieb Hubert87:


why not use foot=use_sidepath and/or sidewalk=no? In combination with 
hw=primary/secondary, routers should be able to work out that that 
route is a bad one.


Well, not all foot=no roads do have a sidepath. And anyway this 
discussion is on whether the sidewalk=none and absence of a foot=* 
warrants asking the user for it.


Also OT the city should declare that tunnel a motorroad, or put up 
signs disallowing pedestrians and bicycle riders (and horses), like 
opposite direction 
 
of your first example.


Also people using routers should apply common sense, too. Or stay at home.

Well, tell that the city. I could list you any number of cases in my 
city where the officials have not signed everything we would like it in 
OSM. We also need to apply common sense when mapping.


Tobias W



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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

[Tobias Wrede]

Am 17.02.2019 um 17:45 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
this is oversimplified, you are indeed legally required to walk on the 
road even in the presence of sidewalks: if carrying big loads.


Sure there are exceptions to every rule. We usually don't map that.

When there is no signage, foot=no is incorrect and will not represent 
the situation on the ground.
I don't agree. There are various cases where legal situation is not 
defined by signage.
If nobody should ever walk in that underpass, authorities should put a 
sign to prevent them, come on, it’s Germany,  in Italy they do it:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9072106,12.5050822,0a,75y,340.46h,91.26t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sdU0xMXx0zp9JjpMHB24tOQ!2e0

You of all should no how much more regulated Italy is in many aspects 
compared to Germany.
Nobody sane would anyway walk into a traffic tunnel without pedestrian 
spaces, regardless of the instructions your navigation device issues ;-)


Exactly, but how should the router know that? And not everyone listening 
to navigation instructions is able to assess the complete situation or 
find alternatives.


Tobias


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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 17. Feb 2019, at 23:35, Tobias Wrede  wrote:
> 
> We also need to apply common sense when mapping.


yes. Although common sense is not a criterion for legal access. This is either 
allowed or forbidden, and unless it is forbidden, access is by default allowed 
on roads. 

It is common sense not to tag for the renderer/router etc.

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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 17. Feb 2019, at 23:49, Tobias Wrede  wrote:
> 
> Exactly, but how should the router know that?


highway=*
tunnel=yes
sidewalk=no
and a significant length


Cheers, Martin 




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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

On 17. Feb 2019, at 23:49, Tobias Wrede  wrote:

>> this is oversimplified, you are indeed legally required to walk on the road 
>> even in the presence of sidewalks: if carrying big loads.
> 
> Sure there are exceptions to every rule. We usually don't map that.


I did not mean to add tags just for the „exceptional“ case(1), but at least I 
would try to support it in my mapping: if you add foot=no to a road where 
pedestrian access is not legally restricted, as the conclusion of a supposed 
obligation to use the sidewalk, then I tell you it breaks the use case where 
you have the obligation to use the road as a pedestrian.


(1) actually this is not such a big exception, it’s the second sentence in the 
paragraph you cited and applies to everyone pushing or pulling vehicles, hand 
carts or carrying other big loads. Also, it is an obligation, not a „nice if 
they would, am only daydreaming“ desire.

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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

[Dave F via Tagging]

As already stated, sidewalk is to indicate a physical object. Sidewalk 
has no legal implications. 'Foot' is used purely to indicate legality.


On 17/02/2019 22:29, Tobias Wrede wrote:

Am 17.02.2019 um 20:44 schrieb Andy Townsend:
I don't think that a "global" encouragement to add foot=no makes 
sense; there'll be lots of countries where it'd be silly.


I don't think the app "encourages" anything. In this quest the app 
merely speculates that the sidewalk=none could maybe warrant a foot=no 
and asks the user if that is the case.


As others and I have pointed out this speculation is not so 
ill-founded for some situations (e. g. bridges, tunnels) but overdoes 
it for the standard roads out there.


Tobias W


___
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] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

[Peter Elderson]

I'm afraid countries differ with respect to legal imlications of sidewalk.
This discussion, I've seen it 5 times now ande it never ends with
consensus. It never ends at all.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op ma 18 feb. 2019 om 00:49 schreef Dave F via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> As already stated, sidewalk is to indicate a physical object. Sidewalk
> has no legal implications. 'Foot' is used purely to indicate legality.
>
> On 17/02/2019 22:29, Tobias Wrede wrote:
> > Am 17.02.2019 um 20:44 schrieb Andy Townsend:
> >> I don't think that a "global" encouragement to add foot=no makes
> >> sense; there'll be lots of countries where it'd be silly.
> >>
> > I don't think the app "encourages" anything. In this quest the app
> > merely speculates that the sidewalk=none could maybe warrant a foot=no
> > and asks the user if that is the case.
> >
> > As others and I have pointed out this speculation is not so
> > ill-founded for some situations (e. g. bridges, tunnels) but overdoes
> > it for the standard roads out there.
> >
> > Tobias W
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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 mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

[Dave F via Tagging]

True. Primarily because there's a false conflation of meanings, such as 
yours. That there are laws in certain countries around the world is 
irrelevant. *Within* OSM that tag has no legality implied. A different 
tag would be required to map what you suggest.


Cheers
DaveF.

On 18/02/2019 00:30, Peter Elderson wrote:
I'm afraid countries differ with respect to legal imlications of 
sidewalk.
This discussion, I've seen it 5 times now ande it never ends with 
consensus. It never ends at all.


Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op ma 18 feb. 2019 om 00:49 schreef Dave F via Tagging 
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>>:


As already stated, sidewalk is to indicate a physical object.
Sidewalk
has no legal implications. 'Foot' is used purely to indicate legality.

On 17/02/2019 22:29, Tobias Wrede wrote:
> Am 17.02.2019 um 20:44 schrieb Andy Townsend:
>> I don't think that a "global" encouragement to add foot=no makes
>> sense; there'll be lots of countries where it'd be silly.
>>
> I don't think the app "encourages" anything. In this quest the app
> merely speculates that the sidewalk=none could maybe warrant a
foot=no
> and asks the user if that is the case.
>
> As others and I have pointed out this speculation is not so
> ill-founded for some situations (e. g. bridges, tunnels) but
overdoes
> it for the standard roads out there.
>
> Tobias W
>
>
> ___
> 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 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] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 18:07, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
> highway=*
> tunnel=yes
> sidewalk=no
> and a significant length

+1 on this. I would expect a pedestrian router to apply a scoring
penalty to highways with sidewalk=no or sidewalk=separate, and with
the help of this scoring choose the footway route.

If a pedestrian router sends people down a way tagged as no sidewalk
where a route via a nearby footway is 20 metres longer, the problem is
not with a lack of a foot=no tag.

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] Waterway length

[André Pirard]

On 2019-02-17 12:55, Eugene Podshivalov wrote:
вс, 17 февр. 2019 г. в 00:11, André Pirard >:


It's easy to make a script to total up all the segments of a
waterway or any way.


It will work but only if the entire river from its spring to mouth is 
drawn precisely enough, all relation roles are labeled properly and 
nobody breaks the labeling by intent or mistake some day.
The more side streams a river has the greater probabily is to break it 
one day.
Here is an example of such complex river which name means "a river of 
a hundred waterways"

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5561722#map=13/51.4077/25.2271

Cheers,
Eugene

The method I describe has the advantage that the length written in an 
OSM relation would be the only, or almost, number that shows exactly 
what it measures instead of other measures said better than others for 
no explained precise reason. The relation makes a consensus of what the 
river is, the number is right, and anyone having another conception of 
the river can explain it and compute the length difference the same way 
as the relation does.
Imprecision is to be corrected, just as I'm spending much time using 
JOSM to improve to a 20 cm precision errors of 3 to 5 m or more made 
with other editors.
I saved as a GPX file the relations that I found for rivers Le Rhône 
, La Meuse 
 and Байкал road 
 (going to Иркытск where 
a guy tried to sell me confiscated material such as cranes, lorries and 
railway wagons).
Anyone can use JOSM to make routes and save them as *.osm and *.gpx 
files without modifying OSM.


I tried to upload them to RouteYou , but it 
would limit the length.
I uploaded them to GPSies 
 but the lengths are 
bogus, apparently multiplied by a strange factor.


GPSies
real
×
GPSies name (by PapoudeOSM)
12,275.62 	614 	18 	OpenStreetMap La Meuse 
 (FR+BE)

15,052.41   812 20
	OpenStreetMap Rhône 


33,926.12   1 113   30
	OpenStreetMap Байкал road 




(Turn off waypoint display)

Anyway, that's the idea.

All the best,

André.


вс, 17 февр. 2019 г. в 01:18, Sergio Manzi >:


Sorry for the typo: of course Wikip_*a*_dia was meant to be
Wikip_*e*_dia!

On 2019-02-16 23:15, Sergio Manzi wrote:

Then why don't you submit a paper to the CNFG (http://www.cnfg.fr/) and 
correct the Wikipadia articles?

Sergio


On 2019-02-16 23:07, marc marc wrote:

Le 16.02.19 à 22:32, Sergio Manzi a écrit :

A static value for a river length in OSM, without any information about
its source

every tag you add into osm have a changeset with a source tag, isn't it?
so adding the lenght should/must also have a source (extrapolation (sum
of all way of a relation) of osm data is a source)

a few month ago, I have checked the length of Rhône [1]
the french wikipedia list 2 sources for the lenght... both are very fair
away of the lenght found after some work on osm data.
which one to choose? osm without hesitation. maybe it is not fair but at
least it is verifiable (everyone can load the relationship, see the
result and correct errors if necessary) while the other 2 sources
(including the official French source) are totally unverifiable.

unfortunately I did not send in osm the result of the cleaning because
it concerned partly errors in osm (mainly roles in the relationship)
but I started by purging everything that didn't interest me in the
relationship before fixing. it will have to be done again

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rh%C3%B4ne
___
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 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] Waterway length

[André Pirard]

On 2019-02-16 23:00, Markus wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, 20:06 Eugene Podshivalov  wrote:


What is the best way to correct this, so that all other langauge
pages got the correction as well?


I'm not aware of any other way than correcting it on each page. I've 
just done this and also added a note that this tag lacks verifiability.




In June 2013, the notes help page was saying
Leave a short message on the map if something is missing or obviously 
wrong, like "oneway in wrong direction"...
I made a correction in English, French and Russian and asked the 
linguists to translate it to other languages.

I suggested _thinking twice_ to the persons who write notes as follows:
Leave a short message on the map if something is missing or obviously 
wrong, like "oneway goes northbound" or "bridge or level_crossing?". 
These reports can be processed by map editors. Add the message 
understandably and thoughtfully, e.g. not "oneway in wrong direction" 
because someone could have flipped the direction before the note is read.
I see that, English people are requested to stop _thinking twice_ 
because, as it often happens to what one does for OSM, that advice has 
been removed from the English version, that French and Russian people 
must continue to think twice because the text remained and that German 
people and probably others were always requested to continue making 
errors because the text never changed:
Gib einen kurzen Hinweis auf der Karte, wenn etwas fehlt oder falsch 
ist, z.B. ein "*Einbahn in der falschen Richtung*" ...

Removal happened to other corrections I made, that's the way OSM goes.
I hope I have answered your question, Eugene.

All the best,

André.


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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

[Jan S]

>> We also need to apply common sense when mapping.
>
>
>yes. Although common sense is not a criterion for legal access. This is
>either allowed or forbidden, and unless it is forbidden, access is by
>default allowed on roads. 

I fear common sense in fact somehow IS a legal criterion. Lawyers and lawmakers 
have already more than a hundred years ago rendered to the fact that it's 
impossible to regulate people's behaviour into every last detail. This is 
particularly true for a system with so many participants like traffic. That's 
why above all other traffic rules there's the basic rule of " you shall not 
pose more risk to others than what is strictly inevitable". Here in Germany 
this rule is expressed in section 1 subsection 2 of the traffic code (§ 1 (2) 
StVO). And that's why no sign is necessary at the tunnel at Tunisstrasse in 
Cologne (the example put forward in this discussion before). There, all 
pedestrians, load-bearing or not, have plenty of less dangerous options than 
walking through the tunnel. In consequence, I would consider it right to tag 
the tunnel as "foot=no".

All the best!___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging