Re: [Tagging] tag templates in the wiki

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Re: >On the wiki pages you can ignore / overwrite most of the the
values from data items but in iD you always get the values from the
data items.

Yuri,

This is quite concerning. If ID is getting descriptions and other data
from the data items, but the pages are displaying the text on the
page, it is easy for someone to edit a data item to be entirely
different than the previous wiki description, yet no one will know:
there will not be any notifications to those watching the wiki, and
the text on the wiki won't change.

This seems like a serious maintenance problem.

Also, right now I can use taglists to check the descriptions of many
features all it once, in a particular language, eg. everything on Map
Features.

Is there any way to do this with the data items direction - see a list
of all the descriptions for a whole list of data items at months,
instead of clicking on a links one by one by one?

Joseph

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

Re: [Tagging] tag templates in the wiki

[Peter Elderson]

I guess next, someone will come up with another solution to replace both,
so we will have three solutuions. And then, someone...

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op di 13 aug. 2019 om 09:26 schreef Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:

> Re: >On the wiki pages you can ignore / overwrite most of the the
> values from data items but in iD you always get the values from the
> data items.
>
> Yuri,
>
> This is quite concerning. If ID is getting descriptions and other data
> from the data items, but the pages are displaying the text on the
> page, it is easy for someone to edit a data item to be entirely
> different than the previous wiki description, yet no one will know:
> there will not be any notifications to those watching the wiki, and
> the text on the wiki won't change.
>
> This seems like a serious maintenance problem.
>
> Also, right now I can use taglists to check the descriptions of many
> features all it once, in a particular language, eg. everything on Map
> Features.
>
> Is there any way to do this with the data items direction - see a list
> of all the descriptions for a whole list of data items at months,
> instead of clicking on a links one by one by one?
>
> Joseph
>
> ___
> 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] Classifying roads from Trunk to Tertiary and Unclassified

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 13. Aug 2019, at 05:19, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> Changing the classification from trunk to
> primary to trunk again, in the middle of a rural area, breaks the
> network.


it breaks the trunk network, but if there isn’t a trunk network (according to 
what is considered a trunk), it is consistent to see this also in the map. 

Ideally the renderer would only show those primaries additionally (where they 
are not usually shown), when they are needed for a complete network. This is 
probably difficult (or even impossible in a nearly live rendering), at least if 
there isn’t more guidance from tagging.

Would it make sense to introduce network qualifiers for connecting roads?

Sometimes it won’t help if this can only be one road, because for example a 
primary road could dissolve into several secondary roads (or can’t it?).

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

[Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

[s8evq]

Hello everyone,

On the discussion page of the wiki entry Hiking 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Hiking#Synchronize_wiki_page_Hiking.2C_Walking_Routes.2C_route.3Dhiking_and_route.3Dfoot_on_tagging_scheme.)
 I have started a topic, but with little response so far. That's why I come 
here, before proceeding.


Currently, there are four tagging scheme tables describing how walking (or 
hiking) routes should be tagged.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dhiking
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dfoot

Would it not be easier and more clear if we just keep one, and add a link to it 
in the others?

Last month, I already started harmonizing these four tagging scheme tables. I 
changed the order, added some missing tags, adjusted the explanation etc... In 
my view, I only had to do minor edits. For those interested, here are my edits:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Hiking&type=revision&diff=1878387&oldid=1873054
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Walking_Routes&type=revision&diff=1881156&oldid=1879580
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dhiking&type=revision&diff=1878383&oldid=1853636
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dfoot&type=revision&diff=1878384&oldid=1853797

So these four tagging scheme tables are now almost 100% the same.


My idea was to keep the tagging scheme table on one of the wiki pages, and put 
a link to it on the three other pages. I would like to have broader support 
before going further.


Of course, we can discuss about the content of the tagging scheme. But that's 
irrelevant to my question about the organization of the wiki page.




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

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

[Peter Elderson]

I am all for harmonizing the wiki pages about walking routes. When that is
done, I would like to do the Dutch translation and discuss the tagging
scheme.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op di 13 aug. 2019 om 10:52 schreef s8evq :

> Hello everyone,
>
> On the discussion page of the wiki entry Hiking (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Hiking#Synchronize_wiki_page_Hiking.2C_Walking_Routes.2C_route.3Dhiking_and_route.3Dfoot_on_tagging_scheme.)
> I have started a topic, but with little response so far. That's why I come
> here, before proceeding.
>
>
> Currently, there are four tagging scheme tables describing how walking (or
> hiking) routes should be tagged.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dhiking
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dfoot
>
> Would it not be easier and more clear if we just keep one, and add a link
> to it in the others?
>
> Last month, I already started harmonizing these four tagging scheme
> tables. I changed the order, added some missing tags, adjusted the
> explanation etc... In my view, I only had to do minor edits. For those
> interested, here are my edits:
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Hiking&type=revision&diff=1878387&oldid=1873054
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Walking_Routes&type=revision&diff=1881156&oldid=1879580
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dhiking&type=revision&diff=1878383&oldid=1853636
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dfoot&type=revision&diff=1878384&oldid=1853797
>
> So these four tagging scheme tables are now almost 100% the same.
>
>
> My idea was to keep the tagging scheme table on one of the wiki pages, and
> put a link to it on the three other pages. I would like to have broader
> support before going further.
>
>
> Of course, we can discuss about the content of the tagging scheme. But
> that's irrelevant to my question about the organization of the wiki page.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 09:52, s8evq  wrote:

Would it not be easier and more clear if we just keep one, and add a link
> to it in the others?
>

A principle used in programming is "DRY."  Don't repeat yourself.
Maintaining the same
code in two or more places will cause problems down the line when one
version gets
changed and the other does not.

Documentation is a little different, because you often wish the same
information to appear
in several places.  This is the case where the documentation is extensive
but people
assume that everything they need to know about a topic will appear in one
place.   OTOH,
the desirability of not repeating yourself increases a lot when you have
many translations
of the material.

One way of handling this is a link.  Another way of doing it offered by the
wiki is transclusion.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Transclusion and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Transclusion/How_Transclusion_Works
(the first of those two links transcludes the second of those links, just
so you can see how
it looks).

There are arguments against each way.  If you link to a full page then the
poor user
encountering the link has to wade through that full page to find the
table.  If you transclude
then those wishing to edit the page, or even the transcluded material, may
find it
difficult to figure out how to do it.  You could, of course, put the table
in its own page and
link to that, which avoids the editing problem and the information overload
problem, but
still means more clicks and page loads are required than reading a page
with a
transclusion.

Up to you which one you go with.  Note that at some point in the future,
somebody may
decide that whichever way you chose to do it was wrong and edit it to do it
differently. :)

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

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

[Warin]

On 13/08/19 19:12, Peter Elderson wrote:

I am all for harmonizing the wiki pages about walking routes.

+1
When that is done, I would like to do the Dutch translation and 
discuss the tagging scheme.


Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op di 13 aug. 2019 om 10:52 schreef s8evq >:


Hello everyone,

On the discussion page of the wiki entry Hiking

(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Hiking#Synchronize_wiki_page_Hiking.2C_Walking_Routes.2C_route.3Dhiking_and_route.3Dfoot_on_tagging_scheme.)
I have started a topic, but with little response so far. That's
why I come here, before proceeding.


Currently, there are four tagging scheme tables describing how
walking (or hiking) routes should be tagged.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dhiking
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dfoot

Would it not be easier and more clear if we just keep one, and add
a link to it in the others?

Last month, I already started harmonizing these four tagging
scheme tables. I changed the order, added some missing tags,
adjusted the explanation etc... In my view, I only had to do minor
edits. For those interested, here are my edits:


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Hiking&type=revision&diff=1878387&oldid=1873054

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Walking_Routes&type=revision&diff=1881156&oldid=1879580

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dhiking&type=revision&diff=1878383&oldid=1853636

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dfoot&type=revision&diff=1878384&oldid=1853797

So these four tagging scheme tables are now almost 100% the same.


My idea was to keep the tagging scheme table on one of the wiki
pages, and put a link to it on the three other pages. I would like
to have broader support before going further.


Of course, we can discuss about the content of the tagging scheme.
But that's irrelevant to my question about the organization of the
wiki page.






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

Re: [Tagging] Classifying roads from Trunk to Tertiary and Unclassified

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 01:37, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> If classes like motorway or trunk are bound to legal or physical
> characteristics rather than only a hierarchical network, and aren’t
> “complete” from a network aspect, you will get the gaps.
>

This is the case in the UK.  You do get gaps in the network, to the extent
that occasionally
a section of a trunk road has been replaced with a short section of
motorway.  Unavoidable,
but not really a problem.  Both are rendered in a way that indicates they
are preferred routes
and humans looking at a map are good at spotting that there is a continuous
route even
though one segment has different legal/physical characteristics.

Where the problem comes is with those who insist that a trunk road passing
through a
city or large town should be tagged as residential.  A good example is the
A487 passing
through the centre of the city of Aberystwyth:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.4163&mlon=-4.0802#map=15/52.4163/-4.0802

In my opinion, tagging the trunk roads (and secondary roads) passing
through that city
as residential would be very unhelpful.

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

Re: [Tagging] Classifying roads from Trunk to Tertiary and Unclassified

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 04:23, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

>
> Rather than using highway=trunk to define a autovia, motorroad or
> expressway with a certain maxspeed=, lanes=, or surface quality, I
> believe it is better to either 1) follow the national classification
> system, when this is logical and internally consistent,


Hard agree.  Even though it's starting to look like I live in the only
country
in the world with a national classification system that is logical and
internally consistent (and even we have a few rare exceptional cases). :)


> or 2) use network relationships and to assign a classification for a

 complete road route between towns. Changing the classification from trunk
>
 to primary to trunk again, in the middle of a rural area, breaks the
>
network.
>

I don't really agree on this.  It is possible for two trunks to be linked
by a primary.
In some cases it's mostly trunk from A to B with a bit of primary in the
middle.
In some cases two trunk routes, one from A to B and the other from C to D
have a primary linking them, and you'd use that primary to get from A to D.
And then there are cases where a section of a trunk road has been upgraded
to, or replaced by, a motorway.

UK map readers cope with these being rendered somewhat differently.
They're even
able to take secondary routes into account.  These things are coloured
whereas
minor through routes and non-through routes are not.  You look for the
coloured roads
linking A to B and try to figure out which is going to be best.

Where it goes wrong is people deciding that a trunk, primary, or even
secondary passing
through a town, city or village should be tagged as residential.

Certainly mappers should also tag maxspeed=, lanes=, surface=, and
> should map divided highways as 2 separate ways, and grade-separated
> intersections with bridge= and tunnel= + layer= so that routers will
> recognize faster routes.
>

Yep.  But I don't see those as a way of allowing one to tag primaries as
trunks.
They're a way of allowing routers to recognize that one particular primary
has
characteristics that are as good (or even better) than one particular trunk
where
either would be feasible alternative routes.

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

Re: [Tagging] tag templates in the wiki

[Mateusz Konieczny]

13 Aug 2019, 07:52 by hufkrat...@gmail.com:
>> Fortunately we can (and should) ignore it
>> by filling parameters of the template.
>>
>>
>
> On the wiki pages you can ignore / overwrite most of the the valuesfrom 
> data items but in iD you always get the values from the dataitems. In 
> JOSM not yet, but perhaps that will come one day too, see > 
> https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/17842 
> >  So perhaps better not 
> ignore them.
>
AFAIK there is supposed to be a bot that overwrites
data items by what was edited on the wiki.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Classifying roads from Trunk to Tertiary and Unclassified

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 09:28, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> Sometimes it won’t help if this can only be one road, because for example
> a primary road could dissolve into several secondary roads (or can’t it?).
>

Town or city on the coast with only one primary road leading to it.
Secondary roads connect it
to nearby villages which have no other primary or secondary road to them.
Fan-out like
this is possible.

Better to avoid the computational complexity of figuring out which
primaries are or are not
terminal and just show all primaries.  After all, somebody looking at the
map may be trying
to find a primary route linking two terminal settlements.  So not only is
it computationally
difficult to strip out terminal primaries, it's unhelpful.  Those routes
are primaries for
several reasons, but one of those reasons is that people wish to go to the
places they
connect to, even locations at the end of a primary.

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

Re: [Tagging] Classifying roads from Trunk to Tertiary and Unclassified

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Re: > In Spain we have motorways (autopistas) and also we have
motorways (autovías).

I believe those translate as (sorry, my Spanish is rusty)

autopista (Lit. auto(mobile) raceway) = freeway (US), motorway (UK)
 - tag as highway=motorway

autovía (Lit. auto(mobile) road) = expressway (US), motorroad (UK)
 - add motorroad=yes (?)

> Our physical classification would not be subjective:
> -Is average speed statistics (here you can access and use this data for free) 
> subjective?
> -Is Average Daily Traffic (ADT) data subjective?

However, these statistics cannot be practically verified by us. We
could only copy and paste these from the official government
statistics, which would be updated infrequently and might not be
available for all roads (at least if Spain is similar to the USA). See
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability#Statistical_properties
"statistical properties often cannot be verified by individual
mappers." - that's why there are no commonly used tags for average
speed or average daily traffic.

> -Is maximum speed subjective?
> -Is the existence of bridges to avoid track crossings subjective?
> -Is the restriction for some kinds of traffic (bikes) subjective?

These can and should be tagged, because they are based on signs and
physical features, and I believe most good routing engines use all of
this information.

> The signage will be ALWAYS represented by the first letter of the reference.

That's not easy for foreigners and travelers to interpret. It's nice
to use a classification system that works internationally.

But as I mentioned before, I think the current tagging of
highway=trunk and highway=primary in Spain looks great. Go ahead and
add more tags like motorroad=yes if needed to distinguish the faster
routes.

-Joseph

On 8/13/19, yo paseopor  wrote:
> Sorry for this missunderstanding.
> In Spain we have motorways (autopistas) and also we have motorways
> (autovías). The problem goes with some roads (in some little moments can
> have two lanes per direction) that does not fit the standards of an
> "autovía or autopista" (bicycles, crossings at the same level -with no
> bridges with roundabouts to avoid the direct crossing) with unpaved tracks,
> no physical separation between directions... I assure you trunks are not
> motorways here in Spain.
> Our problems are first with same administrative classification (Nacional N-
> roads) but with some of them there is little maintance and horrible
> smoothness instead of newer constructions versus new roads done by
> Country's government . Or with very good roads (infrastructures are good
> pub for the government zone's so they publicate detailed projects with
> these kind of information and previsions
>
> Our physical classification would not be subjective:
>
> -Is average speed statistics (here you can access and use this data for
> free) subjective?
> -Is Average Daily Traffic (ADT) data subjective?
> -Is maximum speed subjective?
> -Is the existence of bridges to avoid track crossings subjective?
> -Is the restriction for some kinds of traffic (bikes) subjective?
>
> No, they don't.
>
> The signage will be ALWAYS represented by the first letter of the
> reference.
>
> Also I want to attach some pics of these questions
>
> https://imgur.com/R1xTsXu
> C-37 in this section should be trunk: 100/80, interlevel (with bridges)
> crossing with tracks, restricted access to bikes and agricultural
> vehicles...
> But it is not of Fomento (Country): it is from Generalitat de Catalunya
> (State). So...it would not be the best level fro a road. Some people in
> Spain thinks this should be primary for this last reason I have said. Some
> trucks uses this to go to France by Pyrenees instead of paying AP-7 toll.
>
> https://imgur.com/vXeELEN
> CG 2.2 in this section also should be trunk: same case before. It is from
> Xunta de Galicia (State), not Fomento (Country)
>
> 
> https://imgur.com/FyRh0Je
> N-260 in this section should be...secondary o tertiary: -of 50 maximum
> speed, all traffic allowed, road marks are orientatives of the middle of
> the road, two big cars does not fit at the same time ... But it is of
> Fomento (Country) so some people thinks this should be trunk. No big trucks
> use this section to travel around  Pyrenees. It is better to use whatever
> other solution.
>
> https://imgur.com/ejM93LR
> N-340 in this section should be primary:50/60 maximum speed, all traffic
> allowed but it is near the second city in population of Spain, Barcelona
> and this is the alternative of AP-7. Also two cars fit in. It is of Fomento
> (Country) so some people thinks this should be trunk.
>
> https://imgur.com/3AaQzpS
> T-340 in this section should be primary: 80/60 average speed, all traffic
> allowed, crossings with tracks at the same level without no bridges. But it
> is from Diputació de Tarragona (Province) so for some people this should be
> secondary or tertiary. It is the main road to access to Delta de l'Ebre 

Re: [Tagging] Classifying roads from Trunk to Tertiary and Unclassified

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 13. Aug 2019, at 13:18, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> 
> In my opinion, tagging the trunk roads (and secondary roads) passing through 
> that city
> as residential would be very unhelpful.


yes, this is a discussion we also had over weeks and months in Italy, many 
years ago, where some mappers sustained that even in cities like Milan the 
highest road class would be tertiary, which led to illegible maps in these 
areas for some time, until they could finally be convinced...

In case of a road going through a settlement I would keep the road class. The 
wiki page on residential is also clear on this I thought: ‘This tag is used for 
roads accessing or around residential areas but which are not normally used as 
through routes (which would usually be classified highways or unclassified 
highways).’


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

Re: [Tagging] Classifying roads from Trunk to Tertiary and Unclassified

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 14:49, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> In case of a road going through a settlement I would keep the road class.
> The wiki page on residential is also clear on this I thought: ‘This tag is
> used for roads accessing or around residential areas but which are not
> normally used as through routes (which would usually be classified highways
> or unclassified highways).’
>

It is clear as of nine days ago.  Somebody changed it a while back to be
rather unclear
because that person confused "unclassified" (OSM meaning) with
"uncategorized."  And
because residential roads are categorized, that person believed that meant
they were not
unclassified (not the OSM meaning).

Somebody (might even have been you) asked for a reversion.  I did it, and
expanded it a little
to avoid the unclassified/uncategorized confusion arising again.  That
change was not without
dispute from those who thought that through roads that pass through a
residential area ought
to be tagged as residential.  Which diverged into this thread.  We've come
full circle.  And may
go around the loop a few more times before we all collapse from exhaustion.
:)

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

Re: [Tagging] tag templates in the wiki

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Unfortunately, the "bot" stops working if the data item is directly
edited, according to Yurik's comment on my talk page:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Jeisenbe#Status_removal

"...I couldn't get the status "abandoned" to show up as an option, so
gave up. I expect your bot will fix it in the morning. ..." - Jeisenbe
" Sadly no, the bot won't fix it -- it will never touch anything
contaminated by humans :) In other words, if you modify a specific
property of a data item, that property becomes taboo for the bot. So
it has to be forever maintained by the human." - Yurik

On 8/13/19, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
>
>
>
> 13 Aug 2019, 07:52 by hufkrat...@gmail.com:
>>> Fortunately we can (and should) ignore it
>>> by filling parameters of the template.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> On the wiki pages you can ignore / overwrite most of the the values
>> from data items but in iD you always get the values from the data
>> items. In JOSM not yet, but perhaps that will come one day too, see >
>> https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/17842
>> >  So perhaps better not
>> ignore them.
>>
> AFAIK there is supposed to be a bot that overwrites
> data items by what was edited on the wiki.

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

Re: [Tagging] tag templates in the wiki

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 15:05, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

>
> "...I couldn't get the status "abandoned" to show up as an option, so
> gave up. I expect your bot will fix it in the morning. ..." - Jeisenbe
> " Sadly no, the bot won't fix it -- it will never touch anything
> contaminated by humans :) In other words, if you modify a specific
> property of a data item, that property becomes taboo for the bot. So
> it has to be forever maintained by the human." - Yurik
>

I suppose the bot could be bi-directional, using the most-recently changed
to update the
least-recently changed, if the wikidata keeps track of modification
date/time.  But it might
be undesirable because it could lead to unintentional edits wars with one
person changing
the wiki and the other changing the wikidata, neither realizing what is
happening.

What might be feasible, and better is one of the following (in order of
preference)

1) Editor warns somebody editing that part of the page that they ought to
make the change
to the wikidata.  But many of us prefer the source editor, so that may not
be possible at all.

2) Bot mails the person who changed that part of the page that the wikidata
needs to be
edited to match.  If, after a set period of time, no such change is made,
an admin is mailed.

3) The bot mails an admin to come clear up the mess.

4) The bot forces the page to match the wikidata and emails the person who
made the
change to alter the wikidata instead, including details of the changes made
in the mail.
If, after a set period of time, no such change is made, an admin is mailed.

5) The bot forces the page to match the wikidate and emails and admin to
fix things,
including details of the changes made in the mail.

None of those are perfect, and maybe somebody can come up with something
better.

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

Re: [Tagging] Classifying roads from Trunk to Tertiary and Unclassified

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 13. Aug 2019, at 16:02, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> Which diverged into this thread.  We've come full circle. 


I am aware, but apparently from time to time you have to repeat and explain the 
outcome of older discussions to bring those on board who have joined later ;-)


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

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

[Kevin Kenny]

I'm all for harmonizing, as well - but let's bear in mind that in some
places, a 'walking' route and a 'hiking' route may be distinct
concepts, partly in terms of accessibility. If a walking route can be
managed by Grandpa with his cane and two-year-old granddaughter in
tow, that's hardly what an American would call 'hiking'!

But we surely don't need four inconsistent classifications!

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 7:08 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 13/08/19 19:12, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
> I am all for harmonizing the wiki pages about walking routes.
>
> +1
>
> When that is done, I would like to do the Dutch translation and discuss the 
> tagging scheme.
>
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>
>
> Op di 13 aug. 2019 om 10:52 schreef s8evq :
>>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> On the discussion page of the wiki entry Hiking 
>> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Hiking#Synchronize_wiki_page_Hiking.2C_Walking_Routes.2C_route.3Dhiking_and_route.3Dfoot_on_tagging_scheme.)
>>  I have started a topic, but with little response so far. That's why I come 
>> here, before proceeding.
>>
>>
>> Currently, there are four tagging scheme tables describing how walking (or 
>> hiking) routes should be tagged.
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dhiking
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dfoot
>>
>> Would it not be easier and more clear if we just keep one, and add a link to 
>> it in the others?
>>
>> Last month, I already started harmonizing these four tagging scheme tables. 
>> I changed the order, added some missing tags, adjusted the explanation 
>> etc... In my view, I only had to do minor edits. For those interested, here 
>> are my edits:
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Hiking&type=revision&diff=1878387&oldid=1873054
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Walking_Routes&type=revision&diff=1881156&oldid=1879580
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dhiking&type=revision&diff=1878383&oldid=1853636
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dfoot&type=revision&diff=1878384&oldid=1853797
>>
>> So these four tagging scheme tables are now almost 100% the same.
>>
>>
>> My idea was to keep the tagging scheme table on one of the wiki pages, and 
>> put a link to it on the three other pages. I would like to have broader 
>> support before going further.
>>
>>
>> Of course, we can discuss about the content of the tagging scheme. But 
>> that's irrelevant to my question about the organization of the wiki page.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ___
> 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] Classifying roads from Trunk to Tertiary and Unclassified

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 7:35 AM Paul Allen  wrote:
> Hard agree.  Even though it's starting to look like I live in the only country
> in the world with a national classification system that is logical and
> internally consistent (and even we have a few rare exceptional cases). :)

The US certainly doesn't, because of the way we practice federalism.
All fifty states have their own classification systems, and the
classifications have more to do with how funding is doled out than the
actual importance or traffic volume of the road. It is more political
than technical. (Thanks to Martijn van Exel for pointing that out in
last night's Zoom call!)

Back in the days when you would grab a road map at a gas station in
the US, the map-makers used their own hierarchy which was usually
based on the attributes, "toll charged", "grade separated", "number of
lands" and "surface". They typically aggregated these into about half
a dozen different renderings, and had a legend on the map explaining
the symbology used.

I suspect that as routers get more sophisticated, the classification
will become progressively less important, because attributes such as
these will be taken into account more.

Until then, we'll we'll always have some arguments, at every level of
the hierarchy.  Recent arguments: "Is a six-lane dual-carriageway with
a 120 km/h speed limit a motorway if it's hgv-no?" "Is a road built to
full motorway standards actually a motorway if its service is suburban
rather than interurban?" "Can a surface street that parallels a
motorway ever be a trunk, or even primary?" "Can there be tertiary
roads in a state that doesn't have county highways?" "Is there
actually a difference between 'residential' and 'unclassified' in
rural areas?" "Is the last segment of a motorway actually a motorway
when it ends at a grade crossing? (What if the grade crossing is tens
of km from the last elevated crossing?)"

Of such questions are edit wars made, and edit wars make the
classification even less useful.  Out in the boonies, I've encountered
roads where other mappers have argued to me that the classification
ought to be "tertiary", "unclassified", "residential", "service" or
"track" - because different attributes of the (admittedly poor) road
were important to different mappers. (Numbered county highway; the
principal route, at least in summer, between two villages;
non-hard-surfaced; a low-clearance automobile would have a bad day in
inclement weather and a road bike would have a bad time any time;
there are at least a few homesteads along it; and the primary reason
for travelling in that particular area at all is forestry.)

Alas, we can't do what Google Maps does, and aggregate the private
information of everyone carrying a cell phone to measure current
traffic speeds. That appears to be how Google's router makes its
decisions.

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

Re: [Tagging] Classifying roads from Trunk to Tertiary and Unclassified

[Jmapb via Tagging]

On 8/13/2019 12:14 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:

Alas, we can't do what Google Maps does, and aggregate the private
information of everyone carrying a cell phone to measure current
traffic speeds. That appears to be how Google's router makes its
decisions.


Of course we used to have something along those lines with Strava RIP.

Smaller-scale but still useful -- The rideshare company Juno, which uses
OSM data for both routing and map display, shares a rolling aggregate of
their GPS traces which can be enabled as a layer in JOSM. No doubt it
could be algorithmically cross-reference with road classification; I've
just been inspecting it visually. Juno only operates in NYC for now, and
the data has clear demographic limitations (it shows which roads are
priorities for the kind of people who either work for or use rideshare
services). But it actually covers the city's grid pretty well, and I've
found it useful.

(See
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-March/082303.html
...also there were a couple Maproulette challenge using this data to
spot incorrect one-ways, bad turn restrictions, missing connections,
etc, see
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2019-February/019210.html
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2019-February/019224.html
)

Note that this didn't require a bunch of end-user data consumers to
install an app which shares their location data with OSM. Obviously
Juno's customers do install the Juno app, but the shared data comes from
the driver's app, not the rider's.

Also note that Juno's decision to share back to OSM in this way was
entirely optional -- I don't think any reasonable interpretation of the
ODbL would actually require this. Nonetheless it's a nice precedent, and
if other companies that consume OSM data chose to give back in this way
it would help.

(Of course the trigger for this whole process was the fact that OSM's
road and address data in NYC was good enough that it was  a reasonable
decision to use it in a business setting!)

Jason


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

Re: [Tagging] Classifying roads from Trunk to Tertiary and Unclassified

[Kevin]

In the US I have been a proponent of using the Highway Functional
Classification as a guide when determining road classifications. I have
used it extensively in Georgia to help with road classification.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/statewide/related/highway_functional_classifications/section03.cfm


It is a national system, with each state having a say in how their roads
are classed. Take a look, I think it's a good way to a solution for the
perennial roadway class issue in the US.

Kevin

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 12:21 PM Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 7:35 AM Paul Allen  wrote:
> > Hard agree.  Even though it's starting to look like I live in the only
> country
> > in the world with a national classification system that is logical and
> > internally consistent (and even we have a few rare exceptional cases). :)
>
> The US certainly doesn't, because of the way we practice federalism.
> All fifty states have their own classification systems, and the
> classifications have more to do with how funding is doled out than the
> actual importance or traffic volume of the road. It is more political
> than technical. (Thanks to Martijn van Exel for pointing that out in
> last night's Zoom call!)
>
> Back in the days when you would grab a road map at a gas station in
> the US, the map-makers used their own hierarchy which was usually
> based on the attributes, "toll charged", "grade separated", "number of
> lands" and "surface". They typically aggregated these into about half
> a dozen different renderings, and had a legend on the map explaining
> the symbology used.
>
> I suspect that as routers get more sophisticated, the classification
> will become progressively less important, because attributes such as
> these will be taken into account more.
>
> Until then, we'll we'll always have some arguments, at every level of
> the hierarchy.  Recent arguments: "Is a six-lane dual-carriageway with
> a 120 km/h speed limit a motorway if it's hgv-no?" "Is a road built to
> full motorway standards actually a motorway if its service is suburban
> rather than interurban?" "Can a surface street that parallels a
> motorway ever be a trunk, or even primary?" "Can there be tertiary
> roads in a state that doesn't have county highways?" "Is there
> actually a difference between 'residential' and 'unclassified' in
> rural areas?" "Is the last segment of a motorway actually a motorway
> when it ends at a grade crossing? (What if the grade crossing is tens
> of km from the last elevated crossing?)"
>
> Of such questions are edit wars made, and edit wars make the
> classification even less useful.  Out in the boonies, I've encountered
> roads where other mappers have argued to me that the classification
> ought to be "tertiary", "unclassified", "residential", "service" or
> "track" - because different attributes of the (admittedly poor) road
> were important to different mappers. (Numbered county highway; the
> principal route, at least in summer, between two villages;
> non-hard-surfaced; a low-clearance automobile would have a bad day in
> inclement weather and a road bike would have a bad time any time;
> there are at least a few homesteads along it; and the primary reason
> for travelling in that particular area at all is forestry.)
>
> Alas, we can't do what Google Maps does, and aggregate the private
> information of everyone carrying a cell phone to measure current
> traffic speeds. That appears to be how Google's router makes its
> decisions.
>
> ___
> 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] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

[Jmapb via Tagging]

On 8/13/2019 4:50 AM, s8evq wrote:


Currently, there are four tagging scheme tables describing how walking (or 
hiking) routes should be tagged.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dhiking
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dfoot


Hi s8evq, I'm withholding judgement for now on the larger question of
combining these, but one comment: All four of these tables describe
'colour' as "especially useful for public transport routes" which isn't
particular relevant to this topic IMO. Maybe "useful for trails blazed
with a specific colour"?

Thanks, Jason


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

Re: [Tagging] tag templates in the wiki

[Hufkratzer]

On 13.08.2019 16:16, Paul Allen wrote:
> [...] None of those are perfect, and maybe somebody can come up with 
something better. [...]


My suggestion is that the bot only updates in one direction: values ​​of 
wiki pages always take precedence and override corresponding fields in 
the data elements. On the data element pages, these fields should either 
be uneditable or at least marked somehow to warn everyone about the bot.


Reasons:
1. Get a complete history on the wiki pages. The history of the data 
element pages is not very helpful because it is cluttered with bot edits 
and does not contain many meaningful comments. There is a gadget written 
by Yuri that you can use to add something to the auto-generated 
changeset comments. However, it is still buggy and is used by only a few 
people (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:GadgetUsage).
2. Someone who wants to edit something that appears on a wiki page needs 
to look at the entire page and see if this (intended) change is 
compatible with the rest of the page. I'm assuming that then he will 
often find out that he should have edited the wiki page anyway to 
achieve this.


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

Re: [Tagging] Classifying roads from Trunk to Tertiary and Unclassified

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 19:18, Kevin  wrote:

>
> It is a national system, with each state having a say in how their roads
> are classed. Take a look, I think it's a good way to a solution for the
> perennial roadway class issue in the US.
>

I took a quick look.  It appears that a lot of thought has been put into
it.  It didn't seem obviously
wrong.  It would take a lot more examination by somebody far more familiar
with US roads
than I am to give a more refined opinion.

It might be as good as you're going to get as far as the US is concerned.
Probably a good
starting point for other countries without formal road classification
systems.  But I expect
a lot of bickering about it here. :)

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

Re: [Tagging] tag templates in the wiki

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 19:20, Hufkratzer  wrote:

> On 13.08.2019 16:16, Paul Allen wrote:
>  > [...] None of those are perfect, and maybe somebody can come up with
> something better. [...]
>
> My suggestion is that the bot only updates in one direction: values of
> wiki pages always take precedence and override corresponding fields in
> the data elements. On the data element pages, these fields should either
> be uneditable or at least marked somehow to warn everyone about the bot.
>
> Reasons:
>
[...]

Makes sense to me.  I expect there's some deeper reason we haven't thought
of why
this is a bad idea, but I find your reasons compelling.

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

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

[s8evq]

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 14:17:07 -0400, Jmapb via Tagging 
 wrote:
 
> Hi s8evq, I'm withholding judgement for now on the larger question of
> combining these, but one comment: All four of these tables describe
> 'colour' as "especially useful for public transport routes" which isn't
> particular relevant to this topic IMO. Maybe "useful for trails blazed
> with a specific colour"?
> 
> Thanks, Jason

Indeed, I didn't notice that. You're right.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

[s8evq]

True, that's something that could be added to the tagging scheme. For example 
"route=foot|hiking" explaining the difference in de explanation column.

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 11:07:56 -0400, Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> I'm all for harmonizing, as well - but let's bear in mind that in some
> places, a 'walking' route and a 'hiking' route may be distinct
> concepts, partly in terms of accessibility. If a walking route can be
> managed by Grandpa with his cane and two-year-old granddaughter in
> tow, that's hardly what an American would call 'hiking'!
> 
> But we surely don't need four inconsistent classifications!
> 
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 7:08 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 13/08/19 19:12, Peter Elderson wrote:
> >
> > I am all for harmonizing the wiki pages about walking routes.
> >
> > +1
> >
> > When that is done, I would like to do the Dutch translation and discuss the 
> > tagging scheme.
> >
> > Vr gr Peter Elderson
> >
> >
> > Op di 13 aug. 2019 om 10:52 schreef s8evq :
> >>
> >> Hello everyone,
> >>
> >> On the discussion page of the wiki entry Hiking 
> >> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Hiking#Synchronize_wiki_page_Hiking.2C_Walking_Routes.2C_route.3Dhiking_and_route.3Dfoot_on_tagging_scheme.)
> >>  I have started a topic, but with little response so far. That's why I 
> >> come here, before proceeding.
> >>
> >>
> >> Currently, there are four tagging scheme tables describing how walking (or 
> >> hiking) routes should be tagged.
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dhiking
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dfoot
> >>
> >> Would it not be easier and more clear if we just keep one, and add a link 
> >> to it in the others?
> >>
> >> Last month, I already started harmonizing these four tagging scheme 
> >> tables. I changed the order, added some missing tags, adjusted the 
> >> explanation etc... In my view, I only had to do minor edits. For those 
> >> interested, here are my edits:
> >>
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Hiking&type=revision&diff=1878387&oldid=1873054
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Walking_Routes&type=revision&diff=1881156&oldid=1879580
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dhiking&type=revision&diff=1878383&oldid=1853636
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dfoot&type=revision&diff=1878384&oldid=1853797
> >>
> >> So these four tagging scheme tables are now almost 100% the same.
> >>
> >>
> >> My idea was to keep the tagging scheme table on one of the wiki pages, and 
> >> put a link to it on the three other pages. I would like to have broader 
> >> support before going further.
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course, we can discuss about the content of the tagging scheme. But 
> >> that's irrelevant to my question about the organization of the wiki page.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

[Peter Elderson]

Foot is always right, at some point it may turn into hiking, also dependent
on what you carry, where it happens, and how you feel about it. Personal
preference/country/region largely determine how you call it. For all
practical purposes, highway=foot and highway=hiking are the same. If a
renderer or datauser wants to be more specific, better to consider specific
attributes of the relation(s) and the ways it uses, to determine how to
render/categorize/filter the routes.

Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op di 13 aug. 2019 om 21:38 schreef s8evq :

> True, that's something that could be added to the tagging scheme. For
> example "route=foot|hiking" explaining the difference in de explanation
> column.
>
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 11:07:56 -0400, Kevin Kenny 
> wrote:
>
> > I'm all for harmonizing, as well - but let's bear in mind that in some
> > places, a 'walking' route and a 'hiking' route may be distinct
> > concepts, partly in terms of accessibility. If a walking route can be
> > managed by Grandpa with his cane and two-year-old granddaughter in
> > tow, that's hardly what an American would call 'hiking'!
> >
> > But we surely don't need four inconsistent classifications!
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 7:08 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 13/08/19 19:12, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > >
> > > I am all for harmonizing the wiki pages about walking routes.
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > When that is done, I would like to do the Dutch translation and
> discuss the tagging scheme.
> > >
> > > Vr gr Peter Elderson
> > >
> > >
> > > Op di 13 aug. 2019 om 10:52 schreef s8evq :
> > >>
> > >> Hello everyone,
> > >>
> > >> On the discussion page of the wiki entry Hiking (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Hiking#Synchronize_wiki_page_Hiking.2C_Walking_Routes.2C_route.3Dhiking_and_route.3Dfoot_on_tagging_scheme.)
> I have started a topic, but with little response so far. That's why I come
> here, before proceeding.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Currently, there are four tagging scheme tables describing how
> walking (or hiking) routes should be tagged.
> > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking
> > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes
> > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dhiking
> > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dfoot
> > >>
> > >> Would it not be easier and more clear if we just keep one, and add a
> link to it in the others?
> > >>
> > >> Last month, I already started harmonizing these four tagging scheme
> tables. I changed the order, added some missing tags, adjusted the
> explanation etc... In my view, I only had to do minor edits. For those
> interested, here are my edits:
> > >>
> > >>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Hiking&type=revision&diff=1878387&oldid=1873054
> > >>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Walking_Routes&type=revision&diff=1881156&oldid=1879580
> > >>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dhiking&type=revision&diff=1878383&oldid=1853636
> > >>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dfoot&type=revision&diff=1878384&oldid=1853797
> > >>
> > >> So these four tagging scheme tables are now almost 100% the same.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> My idea was to keep the tagging scheme table on one of the wiki
> pages, and put a link to it on the three other pages. I would like to have
> broader support before going further.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Of course, we can discuss about the content of the tagging scheme.
> But that's irrelevant to my question about the organization of the wiki
> page.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > ___
> > > 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] Classifying roads from Trunk to Tertiary and Unclassified

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 21:19, Paul Allen  wrote:

> A good example is the A487 passing
> through the centre of the city of Aberystwyth:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.4163&mlon=-4.0802#map=15/52.4163/-4.0802
>

Just looking at your sample there, Paul, & it's a good chance to ask a
question that I've often wondered about.

I use OSMand+ to nav when required, & it will tell me to drive along SR3
then turn onto SR80 & proceed. I don't! - I drive along Bermuda St (which
is officially Southport - Burleigh Rd!), then turn onto Reedy Creek Rd.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/-28.0944/153.4260

In your sample, would someone driving from Aberystwyth Uni, go along the
A487, then the A44 & the A4120 to get to Blandolau Rec Grounds, or would
they use Penglais Rd, Quebec Rd, Ffordd Sulien then Heol-y-Bont?

In other words, do you navigate & drive by numbers or names?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Classifying roads from Trunk to Tertiary and Unclassified

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed, 2019-08-14 at 08:26 +1000, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 21:19, Paul Allen  wrote:
> > A good example is the A487 passing
> > through the centre of the city of Aberystwyth:
> >  
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.4163&mlon=-4.0802#map=15/52.4163/-4.0802
> 
> Just looking at your sample there, Paul, & it's a good chance to ask
> a question that I've often wondered about.
> 
> I use OSMand+ to nav when required, & it will tell me to drive along
> SR3 then turn onto SR80 & proceed. I don't! - I drive along Bermuda
> St (which is officially Southport - Burleigh Rd!), then turn onto
> Reedy Creek Rd.
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/-28.0944/153.4260  
> 
> In your sample, would someone driving from Aberystwyth Uni, go along
> the A487, then the A44 & the A4120 to get to Blandolau Rec Grounds,
> or would they use Penglais Rd, Quebec Rd, Ffordd Sulien then Heol-y-
> Bont?
> 
> In other words, do you navigate & drive by numbers or names?
> 
In The UK we mostly navigate by numbers.

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tag templates in the wiki

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 00:18, Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> What might be feasible, and better is one of the following (in order of
> preference)
>

Not arguing or disagreeing in any way, but poor bloody Admins ... :-(

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Classifying roads from Trunk to Tertiary and Unclassified

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 23:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> In your sample, would someone driving from Aberystwyth Uni, go along the
> A487, then the A44 & the A4120 to get to Blandolau Rec Grounds, or would
> they use Penglais Rd, Quebec Rd, Ffordd Sulien then Heol-y-Bont?
>
>
They'd probably take Cefn Llan to avoid the city centre.  Especially during
rush hour.  :)


> In other words, do you navigate & drive by numbers or names?
>

As for names vs numbers, it depends if you're local or an outsider, or
somewhere in
between.  If you're a local and have lived there for decades, you just know
the way and don't
think of names or numbers.  If you're a local, but not a long-term one,
maybe the names,
because when you see adverts for shops they give the road name in the
address, not
the road reference number.   If you're an outsider you go by the numbers
because you know
there will be prominent signs wherever two A roads meet.  Signs with road
names on them can
be at any height from kneecap level to a couple of metres up, not as large,
and aren't always
placed where you need them to figure out which turn to take at a junction.

Sign on A487/Penglais Road for upcoming junction with A44:
https://goo.gl/maps/R652WXJJK2gnZN2W7

Signs at junction of A487 and A44: https://goo.gl/maps/Y8qLrGFh9rd4BuoJ6

Looking at signs at end of A44 where it connects to A487:
https://goo.gl/maps/KejdyofPsCUxapAG8
There you can see a sign for Penglais Road.  Smaller than the signs at the
junction for
A487 and A44.  A lot smaller than the sign warning you of the upcoming
junction.

For comparison, here's a road name in Cardigan.
https://goo.gl/maps/3e7KHPXeaAkj8PnQ9
Don't worry, not all roads in Cardigan have signs that are so high up and
partway down the
road.  Some of the roads don't have any sign at all.

If you weren't a local, you'd be looking for the signs for A487, A44, etc.
because they're bigger,
more prominent, have regulations governing placement, and are standardized
sizes and colours.
Signs for road names are smaller, and the colours are fairly arbitrary
depending on the tastes
of the town council.

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

Re: [Tagging] tag templates in the wiki

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 23:36, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 00:18, Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>>
>> What might be feasible, and better is one of the following (in order of
>> preference)
>>
>
> Not arguing or disagreeing in any way, but poor bloody Admins ... :-(
>

Indeed.  But look on the bright side.  If those admins are aware of the
first of the three 
great virtues of a programmer  (and probably even
if they are not), after the first few times of
having to deal with it, they'll come up with an entirely new system that
means they don't have
to do anything.  Pretty much guaranteed that after the first few times
they'll think "#@*& this for
a game of soldiers" and come up with a way that makes users clean up their
own
messes.

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

[Tagging] Past discussions Was:Re: Classifying roads from Trunk to Tertiary and Unclassified

[Warin]

On 14/08/19 00:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 13. Aug 2019, at 16:02, Paul Allen  wrote:

Which diverged into this thread.  We've come full circle.


I am aware, but apparently from time to time you have to repeat and explain the 
outcome of older discussions to bring those on board who have joined later ;-)




Should be an FAQ?
Or easier to find links to past discussions (both those with an outcome and 
those still in contention). A few of these are not frequent.


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

Re: [Tagging] tag templates in the wiki

[Warin]

On 14/08/19 09:47, Paul Allen wrote:
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 23:36, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:



On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 00:18, Paul Allen mailto:pla16...@gmail.com>> wrote:


What might be feasible, and better is one of the following (in
order of preference)


Not arguing or disagreeing in any way, but poor bloody Admins ... :-(


Indeed.  But look on the bright side.  If those admins are aware of 
the first of thethree 
great virtues of a programmer  (and probably 
even if they are not), after the first few times of
having to deal with it, they'll come up with an entirely new system 
that means they don't have
to do anything.  Pretty much guaranteed that after the first few times 
they'll think "#@*& this for
a game of soldiers" and come up with a way that makes users clean up 
their own

messes.


+1 (Not that I am not guilty of making messes!)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Past discussions Was:Re: Classifying roads from Trunk to Tertiary and Unclassified

[Joseph Eisenberg]

It’s reasonable to add something to the wiki page, eg a link to the start
of the thread in the Tagging archives. Perhaps also mention a summary of
the discussion on the Talk page too.
Joseph

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 9:02 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 14/08/19 00:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> > sent from a phone
> >
> >> On 13. Aug 2019, at 16:02, Paul Allen  wrote:
> >>
> >> Which diverged into this thread.  We've come full circle.
> >
> > I am aware, but apparently from time to time you have to repeat and
> explain the outcome of older discussions to bring those on board who have
> joined later ;-)
> >
> >
>
> Should be an FAQ?
> Or easier to find links to past discussions (both those with an outcome
> and those still in contention). A few of these are not frequent.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Gorges, Canyons, Ravines: natural=valley or new tag?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

A few months ago we discussed how to tag gorges, canyons and ravines. These
are steep-sided valleys, sometimes with cliffs.

Myself and at least one other person were in favor of using natural=valley,
+ valley=ravine / valley=gorge / valley=canyon.

However, there is already a non-English wiki page for natural=canyon, and a
new English page for natural=gorge - the author of the gorge page thought
that he would like a single tag, rather than a secondary tag with
natural=valley.

This would be a little more work for database users, and also you would
have to pick natural=valley vs =gorge/canyon/etc.

Also, Wikipedia basically says ravine, gorge and canyon are synonyms,
though as an American from the West, I tend to think of canyons as having
vertical, rock cliffs, vs ravines and gorges as less steep, but this may be
a dialectal difference.

Thoughts on this?

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

Re: [Tagging] Gorges, Canyons, Ravines: natural=valley or new tag?

[Andrew Harvey]

To me a canyon is narrow with steep cliffs on either side (a place where
you'd go canyoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canyoning) and a gorge is
much wider and may have less steep sides but then you have the Grand
Canyon in the US which is wide and less steep sides.

I'd vote for separate tags natural=canyon, etc. Because a valley is very
different to a canyon so you'd want to be explicit about this.

As an aside, I think route=canyon is good for documenting recreational
canyoning routes.

On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 12:25, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> A few months ago we discussed how to tag gorges, canyons and ravines.
> These are steep-sided valleys, sometimes with cliffs.
>
> Myself and at least one other person were in favor of using
> natural=valley, + valley=ravine / valley=gorge / valley=canyon.
>
> However, there is already a non-English wiki page for natural=canyon, and
> a new English page for natural=gorge - the author of the gorge page thought
> that he would like a single tag, rather than a secondary tag with
> natural=valley.
>
> This would be a little more work for database users, and also you would
> have to pick natural=valley vs =gorge/canyon/etc.
>
> Also, Wikipedia basically says ravine, gorge and canyon are synonyms,
> though as an American from the West, I tend to think of canyons as having
> vertical, rock cliffs, vs ravines and gorges as less steep, but this may be
> a dialectal difference.
>
> Thoughts on this?
>
> -Joseph
> ___
> 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] Gorges, Canyons, Ravines: natural=valley or new tag?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Apparently in the UK and Canada both Gorge and Ravine are used for narrow
valleys with steep sides, according to Wikipedia.

So will we have natural=canyon/gorge/ravine/defile as synonyms, or can we
pick the best “British English” term and use it for all 3.

See natural=cape, used for points/headlands/etc, and natural=bay, used for
fjords/inlets/lagoons/sounds/etc

(There is also natural=gully, but these are small features, much narrower
and shallower than a valley, and usual formed by different processes: local
surface erosion of soft materials like soil, so they are more similar to
stream banks than to a valley or gorge)

Joseph

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 12:28 PM Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> To me a canyon is narrow with steep cliffs on either side (a place where
> you'd go canyoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canyoning) and a gorge
> is much wider and may have less steep sides but then you have the Grand
> Canyon in the US which is wide and less steep sides.
>
> I'd vote for separate tags natural=canyon, etc. Because a valley is very
> different to a canyon so you'd want to be explicit about this.
>
> As an aside, I think route=canyon is good for documenting recreational
> canyoning routes.
>
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 12:25, Joseph Eisenberg 
> wrote:
>
>> A few months ago we discussed how to tag gorges, canyons and ravines.
>> These are steep-sided valleys, sometimes with cliffs.
>>
>> Myself and at least one other person were in favor of using
>> natural=valley, + valley=ravine / valley=gorge / valley=canyon.
>>
>> However, there is already a non-English wiki page for natural=canyon, and
>> a new English page for natural=gorge - the author of the gorge page thought
>> that he would like a single tag, rather than a secondary tag with
>> natural=valley.
>>
>> This would be a little more work for database users, and also you would
>> have to pick natural=valley vs =gorge/canyon/etc.
>>
>> Also, Wikipedia basically says ravine, gorge and canyon are synonyms,
>> though as an American from the West, I tend to think of canyons as having
>> vertical, rock cliffs, vs ravines and gorges as less steep, but this may be
>> a dialectal difference.
>>
>> Thoughts on this?
>>
>> -Joseph
>>
> ___
>> 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] Gorges, Canyons, Ravines: natural=valley or new tag?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 13:50, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

>
> So will we have natural=canyon/gorge/ravine/defile as synonyms, or can we
> pick the best “British English” term and use it for all 3.
>
> See natural=cape, used for points/headlands/etc, and natural=bay, used for
> fjords/inlets/lagoons/sounds/etc
>

Personally, I'd go for natural=valley = valley=canyon/gorge/ravine/defile
where applicable

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Gorges, Canyons, Ravines: natural=valley or new tag?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Thanks

Graeme


On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 15:19, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> Personally, I'd go for natural=valley = valley=canyon/gorge/ravine/defile
> where applicable
>

That's supposed to say

 natural=valley *+* valley=canyon etc

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