Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse
Phyks wrote: > * Some are dedicated to a very particular category of cyclists, > often racing bikes. We have `route=mtb` for mountain bikes, > we might have `route=racing_bikes` for racing bikes? Typical > example is https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/163266 > (which might actually fall into the tag to render category) Agreed. I raised this in https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-September/047873.html in connection with https://www.visitsnowdonia.info/ffordd-brailsford-way, which is a signposted bike route (two routes, in fact) around North Wales, but entirely unsuitable except for experienced cyclists on road bikes - much of it is on highway=trunk. A new route_type= tag on the relation would be a good way to go. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse
On Oct 12, 2019, at 5:10 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: A new route_type= tag on the relation would be a good way to go. Route= cycle_touring road_touring cyclist road_cyclist road_cycling ? I think the word “race” should be left out, unless it is for mapping actual racing routes. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse
Netherlands usage is: the route must have some physical representation on the roads. Preferably waymarked all the way. But long routes tend to use local/regional/national sections as parts, so the waymarking does not have to be the same everywhere. Also, some routes are scarcely or even barely signed, still, when zooming out they are clear trails. Personally, I would even allow routes which consist of e.g. a list of places to visit, with a sign at the central square or the main church naming and showing the route. Some sections of Jacob’s trails and other european internation routes work like that. But, just documentation on a website or a book describing a route: I would oppose that. Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 12 okt. 2019 om 04:27 heeft John Willis via Tagging > het volgende geschreven: > > > >> On Oct 12, 2019, at 1:28 AM, Phyks wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I've found similar issues in France recently. Cycling routes is too >> broad and diverse and covers various realities. From a rendering >> perspective (disclaimer: I'm one of the maintainer of the new CyclOSM >> rendering style, https://cyclosm.org), it is very often a nightmare to >> try to figure out which one are worth rendering and which ones are just >> "tag to render". > > > Similar to how bus routes are laid over existing road infrastructure, I think > there should be a big distinction between the paths/crossings/roads that are > assembled to make a cycling “road", and some route that people have come up > with just for exercising that is just some generic road in rural area people > go touring on. > > - Cycling roads/routes for travel/transportation with some kind of documented > status with the government. > > - MTB routes, usually using off-road ways & infrastructure - documented by > the maintainer of the route, whoever that is. > > - roads used by cyclists for exercise/racing, with no documentation or > signage - usually shared via online route-sharing sites. > > if you are making a map of the cycling routes available, I would assume the > first category is the most important, and possibly the only one that should > be prominently rendered. > > similar to how we render roads, the prominence of motorways pales to the > prominence of lesser roads. Please include them, but we would need tagging > to show the purpose of the route, beyond “network” or what super-relation > they belong to. > > This might be difficult, as the usage probably vary from region to region: > MTB routes in Japan are negligible, and dedicated cycling roads abound. > Whereas in San Deigo, there are zero “cycling roads” that are maintained by > the government, and probably a lot of documented MTB routes in the wilderness > parks. > > but documenting & rendering any route that a cycle club enjoys cycling on the > weekend? unneeded. a motorcycle club’s favorite route in the mountains is > unworthy of a route relation as well. > > OSM is not an online route-sharing site. > > here is a “Nikko Loop” route made by some cyclist who enjoys cycling. > > https://ridewithgps.com/routes/31059198 > > This is the job of this other private website (ridewithgps.com) - document > and share routes for cyclist users. But Nikko City has no documentation for > such a route, and shouldn’t be included in OSM. > > > Javbw > > ___ > 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] Cycling relation misuse
On 12/10/19 20:13, John Willis via Tagging wrote: On Oct 12, 2019, at 5:10 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: A new route_type= tag on the relation would be a good way to go. Route= cycle_touring road_touring cyclist road_cyclist road_cycling ? I think the word “race” should be left out, unless it is for mapping actual racing routes. Cycling can be left off - already in the network tag. Not 'type' - says nothing. 'road' would be ? Narrow tyres? mtbs we already have .. but commuter - local commuter routes to/from shops, transport hubs touring - longer distance routes fitness/exorcise - for the locals scenic/cafe - for local meetings? Some of the routes around me are well sign posted .. others are not so well done. Some local council issue maps .. some of these routes are usefull others are dreaming. In some parts of the world there are no marked 'cycling routes' yet cyclists travel from one point to another using roads/tracks and paths that most motor vehicle don't.. it would be nice if these could be mapped in OSM as there is usually no other source. I don't think a requirement that bicycle routes must have signage fits the entire world. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Utility markers
Hi all The vote is now open on the proposal regarding utility markers, until October 26. Many comments allowed to find a nice and versatile tagging for markers useful to be added in OSM. It have been under test in France for the last month and didn't show any significant issue. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Utility_markers_proposal Like the title of the proposal may imply it, marker=* and utility=* are introduced to map many more markers than pipeline=marker originally allows. I choose to confirm pipeline=marker discouragement as it clutters the pipeline key with features not directly involved in pipeline operation and prevent definition of power=marker and telecom=marker as well. Hope you won't be reluctant to this, marker=* adoption will be progressive. Thanks in advance for your time, all the best François ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse
> This can be handled by looking at > roads/cycleways building relation, > right? Not really, the good metrics here would rather be the traffic (amount of traffic, type of motor vehicles, destination) rather than the underlying infrastructure and OSM at the moment has no such tagging possibility. In other words, a small residential street with low max speed (30 km/h or less) and only local traffic does not need any dedicated infrastructure for safe cycling. But the same street, with the same legal max speed but being a main transit axis in the city is a nightmare. Same apply in urban areas. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9866054#map=14/45.6545/-0.8889 for instance is using a lot of roads with no infrastructure and a maxspeed of 80km/h. It is however perfectly fine for touring since there are signs along the route and the roads have very little traffic meaning you are very safe there on your bicycle. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] junction=approach
Looking around my local area and trying to fix issues flagged by the iD editor, I came across a number of road sections on the approach to roundabouts, tagged as “junction=approach”. I can find no documentation in the Wiki to support this usage and it seems illogical to me, as “junction=*” should specify the type of junction. The iD editor also objects, stating that “junction-=approach” should be a closed way (i.e. an area object). An instance of this is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/205996585. This was created in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/15069009#map=14/52.0589/-0.7514, so I consulted the original mapper via Changeset comments, saying, “if I have consulted the history and changeset correctly, [this changeset] includes a number of instances (e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/205996585) where you have tagged a road flare approaching a roundabout with "junction=approach". I can find no documentation in the wiki for this tagging and iD raises it as an issue, saying that "Junction=approach" should be a closed way (i.e.a 2-D object, or area). Could you explain why you tagged it this way? What did you mean by the tag? Is it still relevant?” Mapper @c2r has responded, ---“I've always tagged roundabout approaches as junction=approach - I must have picked it up from somewhere. Looking at taginfo, there's about 1760 ways tagged as such all over Europe: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/junction=approach#map although I appreciate that it doesn't appear to be documented - although very little was at the beginning when stuff just sort of evolved. “The approaches themselves are pretty standard approaches to roundabouts in England, i.e. there is typically a raised centre triangular island, for a few meters in length where the carriageway flares and separates from the centre. It is not an area. I'd always assumed junction=approach was used as a shorthand to prevent navigation software deciding that a U turn at the gore was acceptable, without needing to actually specify it as such. “I'm not really bothered one way or another as to whether it remains as being a tag or not; whether it is relevant depends on whether it is useful to renderers or to navigation software. However, with the advent of mass aerial imagery and critical mass, I'm not as involved in OSM mapping as I was years ago when GPS traces were needed, although still add the occasional POI/correction so am active in that regard. “I'd suggest asking for a ruling from the powers that be. It'd presumably be easy to strip the lot from the database programatically if they weren't required/of use.”- Advice please. 1. How do I obtain a "ruling" on this, or at least a consensus? Is this the correct forum?2. Is “junction=approach” a useful tag?3. If not, should it be deleted?4. Could this be done automatically, or should it be by hand?5. Should I amend the Wiki entry for “Key:junction” to deprecate, or warn against this usage? Regards, Peter ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging forest parcels
There may be a misunderstanding here: what I mean about forest parcels is a piece of forest which is numbered and whose number is displayed on site, with a plate or a painted text. Such data can be useful for orientation in a forest and, until some years ago, these numbers were displayed on maps, at least in France. Regards. > Le 10 oct. 2019 à 10:11, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit > : > > I agree the parcels should not get the same tag as the trees, because not all > parcels will be covered 100% by trees. I would not use the "landuse"-tag for > these. Maybe "boundary" could be an acceptable key. (there are for example > around 175 boundary=parcel according to taginfo). > > Generally, we are not mapping parcels as such at all, neither in built-up > areas nor in natural areas. There seems to be a consensus against it > (personally, I have different priorities for now, but I would not stop others > from mapping parcel boundaries if they can be verified) and in the past, the > parcels/propery boundaries that had been imported in the past (somewhere in > the US, AFAIR from PD data) have been removed afterwards, I think by the Data > Working Group. Questions of verifiability have been raised. In my area, many > parcel boundaries (at least effective parcel boundaries) can be surveyed, > there are fences, hedges, walls and buildings. For forest parcel boundaries. > I could imagine it would be more difficult, or are these fenced off? > > In some areas I have seen there are place=locality nodes in the forest to > store the names of small areas, and while these are not really comparable to > parcel boundaries, they may be an alternative method if you are mostly > interested in names. > > Cheers > Martin > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Utility markers
Just letting you know that something has happened to the page in that the normal voting options to copy don't appear when you go to Edit Source? Somebody may have accidentally pasted in the wrong spot on the page? Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
