Re: [Tagging] shop selling trucks

[Volker Schmidt]

Wikipedia includes pickups in the "Truck
" category.
But HGV  excludes many
pickups because of the H in HGV ("GCM
 over 3500kg").

An aside: in the EU, and hence for the time being also in the UK, HGV is
superceded by LGV - no idea why, as the criterion is mass over 3500kg)

On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 at 22:34, Markus  wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 at 19:23, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> >
> > AFAIK, VW does not sell lorries/hgv/trucks. Their commercial vehicles
> > are pick ups and vans (caddy/transporter/crafter) The largest, has a
> > GVW of 5t.
> >
> > Which tags do we have to use in case the shop only sells those vehicles?
>
> It seems we don't have one, but it may make sense to use
> shop=utility_vehicle or something similar.
>
> Regards
>
> Markus
>
> ___
> 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] shop selling trucks

[Philip Barnes]

Maybe to reflect driving licence requirements?

Only those with relatively recent licenses need a special license to drive a 
vehicle between 3.5 and 7.5t.

Many of us can drive a 7.5t vehicle on a car license.

Phil (trigpoint) 

On Monday, 18 November 2019, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> Wikipedia includes pickups in the "Truck
> " category.
> But HGV  excludes many
> pickups because of the H in HGV ("GCM
>  over 3500kg").
> 
> An aside: in the EU, and hence for the time being also in the UK, HGV is
> superceded by LGV - no idea why, as the criterion is mass over 3500kg)
> 
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 at 22:34, Markus  wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 at 19:23, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> > >
> > > AFAIK, VW does not sell lorries/hgv/trucks. Their commercial vehicles
> > > are pick ups and vans (caddy/transporter/crafter) The largest, has a
> > > GVW of 5t.
> > >
> > > Which tags do we have to use in case the shop only sells those vehicles?
> >
> > It seems we don't have one, but it may make sense to use
> > shop=utility_vehicle or something similar.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Markus
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] shop selling trucks

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 18. Nov. 2019 um 12:08 Uhr schrieb Philip Barnes <
p...@trigpoint.me.uk>:

> Maybe to reflect driving licence requirements?
> Only those with relatively recent licenses need a special license to drive
> a vehicle between 3.5 and 7.5t.
> Many of us can drive a 7.5t vehicle on a car license.



might be true for Britain or Germany, but definitely is countryspecific.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Pedestrian lane

[Markus]

On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 02:48, John Willis via Tagging
 wrote:
>
> I use “unmarked crossing” for all connections of sidewalks where they 
> dead-end and have to be connected into the road.

If there's a second sidewalk or a pedestrian lane on the opposite side
of the road, this may make sense. But if there's just a sidewalk that
ends and pedestrians don't cross the road there (example [1]),
footway=crossing + crossing=unmarked seems wrong to me.

[1]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/547007384

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Pedestrian lane

[Markus]

Hello everyone

As the discussion has moved from pedestrian lanes to linking ending
sidewalks with a road and as there haven't been any more changes or
suggestions to the proposal on pedestrian lanes, i'm opening the
proposal for vote:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Pedestrian_lane

Definition: a marked lane on the roadway, designated for pedestrians

Thank you in advance for taking part in the vote.

Best regards

Markus

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=link

[Markus]

Hello everyone

As the discussion has moved from pedestrian lanes to linking ending
sidewalks with a road and as there haven't been any more changes or
suggestions to the proposal on pedestrian lanes, i'm opening the vote
on that proposal and requesting comments on the proposal on
footway=link:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:footway%3Dlink

Definition: to link steps or a sidewalk with a road

Best regards

Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

[Richard]

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 11:15:49AM +0900, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

> 
> 1) Map the central line as man_made=dyke, or highway + cutting=yes /
> embankment=yes as relevant. This line should not be 100 kilometers
> long, but a reasonable length: probably no more than 10 kilometers,
> and even shorter in a major city.
> 
> This step is enough for most uses. You don't actually have to do steps 2 or 3.
> 
> 2) If you want to, you can map the top line of any man_made=embankment
> lines, if desired.
> 
> 3) Finally (this part is very optional), you could map the area of the
> cutting or embankment or dike as a series of closed ways. Don't make
> them more than a kilometer or 2 long, since it's a pain to edit them
> if they are too huge. It's better to use a few smaller closed ways
> rather than a huge multipolygon to map complex features with holes.

a couple of points:
* people may confuse what the "area of embankment" is, my intuition is this 
  would be the top area of the embankment not the slope of it as you perhaps
  intend it.
* still thinking in most case it would be better to map eg the bottom edge of
  the embankment where there is a clear cut bottom edge as it much easier 
  than mapping a slope area. If you map both the edge of the embankment and
  the slope, the top ways will be "shared", which means either a multipolygon 
  or drawing the ways on top of each other. Slope areas would typically get 
  another area attributes (surface, landuse, vegetation), again to be solved 
  with multipolygons or the hacky way.
* the comparison with riverbanks may miss some points: rivers are named so 
  they are easier to piece together. Two adjacent embankment areas may be 
  a valid attempt to map an edge of an embankment for example.
  River areas are just water and don't have any other landuse or vegetation
  attributes.
* it would be nice to have a concept that extends easily to earth banks, cliffs
  and cuttings.

> (We should not use a new tag like man_made=levee for this, because
> "levee" is American English for "dike", so it would be better to use
> man_made=dyke_area or something similar.)

After googling dyke I am wondering if we should make an exception and use 
American English in this very particular case ? Googling levee gives me much
more useful information than "dyke".

Other than that, "dyke_area" or "area:dyke" in analogy to 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area:highway ?


Richard


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=link

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Markus

Will this fix the "error" of "Footpaths are disconnected from other roads"?

Thanks

Graeme


On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 at 07:25, Markus  wrote:

> Hello everyone
>
> As the discussion has moved from pedestrian lanes to linking ending
> sidewalks with a road and as there haven't been any more changes or
> suggestions to the proposal on pedestrian lanes, i'm opening the vote
> on that proposal and requesting comments on the proposal on
> footway=link:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:footway%3Dlink
>
> Definition: to link steps or a sidewalk with a road
>
> Best regards
>
> Markus
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=link

[Allroads]

All waylines inside a area:highway=footway footway=sidewalk is a 
highway=footway footway=sidewalk
When there is a connection to the road, inside the area:highway=footway, 
footwalk=sidewalk is till the barrier=kerb.


Only on the road from barrier=kerb till the centerline of the road (wayline) 
could be highway=footway footway=link.

When the footway crossed the total road, then footway=crossing is used.

This is a example, where the highway=footway footway=sidewalk, is drawn till 
the barrier=kerb from a cycleway, then a unmarked crossing.

https://josm.openstreetmap.de/raw-attachment/ticket/18213/noselectwayline.png



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=link

[Allroads]

When there should be a footway=link
then there should also be a
path=link
cycleway=link

This is then a new method to tag a virtual  T connection on the road.

This must be well thought out.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=link

[John Willis via Tagging]

+1

Make the proposal cover all non-road ways (footway, cycleway, path, bridleway, 
etc)

While we may not imagine a use-case for all of them, it is *far better* to have 
it standardized so mapping is similar - and when the issue comes up for a 
mapper in an unexpected situation, it’s there waiting for them. 

Totally on board for this. I have been using unmarked crossing for years - 
better to have a proper tag. 

Javbw

> On Nov 19, 2019, at 7:49 AM, Allroads  wrote:
> 
> When there should be a footway=link
> then there should also be a
> path=link
> cycleway=link


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

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

[John Willis via Tagging]

On Nov 19, 2019, at 6:53 AM, Richard  wrote:
> 
> Other than that, "dyke_area" or "area:dyke" in analogy to 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area:highway ?

I think dykes/levees are made of inner and outer embankments, and pairing them 
might be the only way to do it properly. 

Whatever is decided for embankments (I will work on some examples today) I 
think a levee/dyke will have to be a relation of *some* sort (built on top of 
the existing man_made=dyke tag) - either a relation of this way plus: 
- 4 “levee lines (inner&outer top+bottom)
- 2 embankments+ 2 embankment_area polygons
- 4 embankment lines. 

Mapping them as a total area (lower inner to lower outer) with a single polygon 
with the man_made=dyke as the “top” down the middle is unacceptable to me. The 
“top” is often a mappable area (with large levees worthy of this detail). If it 
big enough to need this detail, it has a pretty large and varying top area as 
well (as examples have shown). 

Also, The ship has sailed on “levee” - the term in OSM is dyke. 

Javbw

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

[Tagging] Business which sells static caravans / mobile homes: shop=mobile_home or shop=static_caravan?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

There are places in the USA where you can buy a "mobile home" which is
meant to be semi-permanently installed in one place, unlike an "RV"
which is meant for camping in different places. I believe these are
called "static caravans" in Britain, and there is a tag
"building=static_caravan" for the installed feature, also known
colloquially as a "trailer" (USA), "caravan" (Britain), or
"manufactured home" (only really used in advertising by the industry).

In the USA small ones are "single-wide" if they can be moved in 1
piece, but you can get a "double-wide" or "triple-wide" manufactured
house, which is moved in 2 or 3 pieces and has to be reassembled at
the site where it is installed. These bigger ones usually get a
foundation, but the smaller cheap ones are often left up on wheels or
concrete blocks.

Right now there is a page documenting "shop=mobile_home" which is used
only 14 times -
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dmobile_home

But is seems like this isn't the right terminology in British English.
What would be better? shop=static_caravan perhaps?

- Joseph Eisenberg

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=link

[Clifford Snow]

First off I like this proposal and agree that it be applied more broadly.
However there is a difference between a motorway=link (and similar) and a
footway=link. A motorway=link is a physical feature unlike a footway=link.
A footway=link is more of an attempt to bridge vector representation of a
footway and how it connects to a vector representation of a road. In
reality, they are adjacent features. If highways=* were drawn as areas, we
wouldn't need a footway link but still need a motorway=link. Then there is
the question of how footway=link should be rendered. I would be happy with
a dashed gray line to indicate that it's just a connection for a router.

Best,
Clifford

-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=link

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I'm skeptical about the need to tag this differently.

If we do this, wouldn't we also need to tag differently a "T"
intersection of a `highway=residential` into a `highway=trunk`?

Doing this for every intersection between a path and road, or lower
classification road with a high classification road, would be a large
amount of extra work for mappers, so it should only be done if there
is no other way to get this information.

But roads are tagged with "width=" and "lanes" already. So if that
information (which is generally useful in many ways) is added, a
database user can use the width (or approximate width, based on number
of lanes) of the main road to approximate how many meters of the
intersecting footway are in the main carriageway.

When rendering, the highway is going to be wider than the actual width
at all but the very highest zoom levels, so again this is not needed
for most cases, and if someone is rendering very high zoom levels to
show lots of detail, they can do more pre-processing to get it right,
or we can map area:highway - and if that area is mapped, there is no
need to tag section of footway or cycleway to say "this
footway/cycleway is inside of an area:highway polygon" - the geometry
in the database says this already.

Openstreetmap's most valueable, nay, PRICELESS, resource is the hours
of time that individual mappers volunteer to add and fix data. We
should not suggest that mappers do extra work so that database users
can save a few steps or processing cycles.

(I'm also a little concerned that "footway=link" may seem similar to
"highway=tertiary_link" and "highway=motorway_link" but this could be
fixed with a different value)

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 11/19/19, Clifford Snow  wrote:
> First off I like this proposal and agree that it be applied more broadly.
> However there is a difference between a motorway=link (and similar) and a
> footway=link. A motorway=link is a physical feature unlike a footway=link.
> A footway=link is more of an attempt to bridge vector representation of a
> footway and how it connects to a vector representation of a road. In
> reality, they are adjacent features. If highways=* were drawn as areas, we
> wouldn't need a footway link but still need a motorway=link. Then there is
> the question of how footway=link should be rendered. I would be happy with
> a dashed gray line to indicate that it's just a connection for a router.
>
> Best,
> Clifford
>
> --
> @osm_washington
> www.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Javbw,

Are you sure that the information that you want is not already
available from a Digital Elevation Model?

See for example how your area looks in Opentopomap.org, on
Opencyclemap, or on the Terrain layer of Google Maps, or a similar
rendering.

Large embankments should be clearly visible in the topography, so we
do not need to reproduce them as 3D model in the database, any more
than we need to map the exact contours of a quarry or mountain.

Like Opentopomap or Opencyclemap, database users that want to show the
topography are expected to combine Openstreetmap data with one of the
many available digital elevation models (DEM) to produce contour
lines, shading and 3D terrain visualizations.

Is there something else that we are expecting could be done by mapping
this in great detail which cannot be done with a simpler
representation + a DEM?

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

Re: [Tagging] Business which sells static caravans / mobile homes: shop=mobile_home or shop=static_caravan?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Joseph

Back in January when I created shop=caravan & the other versions, there was
*very* extensive discussion on here regarding the various options &
combinations of names.

You may like to find a comfortable seat, pour yourself either a hot coffee
or a cold beer, & have a read of
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-January/041883.html
:-)

Thanks

Graeme


On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 at 11:44, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> There are places in the USA where you can buy a "mobile home" which is
> meant to be semi-permanently installed in one place, unlike an "RV"
> which is meant for camping in different places. I believe these are
> called "static caravans" in Britain, and there is a tag
> "building=static_caravan" for the installed feature, also known
> colloquially as a "trailer" (USA), "caravan" (Britain), or
> "manufactured home" (only really used in advertising by the industry).
>
> In the USA small ones are "single-wide" if they can be moved in 1
> piece, but you can get a "double-wide" or "triple-wide" manufactured
> house, which is moved in 2 or 3 pieces and has to be reassembled at
> the site where it is installed. These bigger ones usually get a
> foundation, but the smaller cheap ones are often left up on wheels or
> concrete blocks.
>
> Right now there is a page documenting "shop=mobile_home" which is used
> only 14 times -
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dmobile_home
>
> But is seems like this isn't the right terminology in British English.
> What would be better? shop=static_caravan perhaps?
>
> - Joseph Eisenberg
>
> ___
> 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] Business which sells static caravans / mobile homes: shop=mobile_home or shop=static_caravan?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I looked back at that discussion but it seems to be about
RVs/caravans/motor homes/camper trailers.

I'm not asking about shops that sell "motor homes" or "RVs" or "5th
wheels" or "camper trailers" or "caravans" or "camper vans". I
understand that both self-propelled "motorhomes" and pulled "caravans"
can be sold at a shop=caravan.

Rather this is a place where you can view and order a manufactured
dwelling, aka "static caravan", "mobile home", which you might place
in a "trailer park" in the USA. Some of these look rather house-like,
if they are "double-wide" and have to be delivered in 2 parts, others
are somewhat similar to camping caravans but are designed for
year-round living in one place, in mild climates.

Perhaps in Britain you can buy a "mobile home" or something designed
as a "static caravan" at the same shop which sells self-propelled
motorhomes, but I expect not?

Another user made the page shop=mobile_home but I'm guessing that this
is American English and might not be correct.

"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_home: "A *mobile home* (also *trailer*
, *trailer home*, *house trailer*, *static caravan*, *residential caravan*)
is a prefabricated structure,
built in a factory on a permanently attached chassis before being
transported to site (either by being towed or on a trailer). Used as
permanent homes , or for holiday or
temporary accommodation, they are left often permanently or
semi-permanently in one place"

Do they have shops that sell these in Britain?

On 11/19/19, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> Joseph
>
> Back in January when I created shop=caravan & the other versions, there was
> *very* extensive discussion on here regarding the various options &
> combinations of names.
>
> You may like to find a comfortable seat, pour yourself either a hot coffee
> or a cold beer, & have a read of
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-January/041883.html
> :-)
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 at 11:44, Joseph Eisenberg 
> wrote:
>
>> There are places in the USA where you can buy a "mobile home" which is
>> meant to be semi-permanently installed in one place, unlike an "RV"
>> which is meant for camping in different places. I believe these are
>> called "static caravans" in Britain, and there is a tag
>> "building=static_caravan" for the installed feature, also known
>> colloquially as a "trailer" (USA), "caravan" (Britain), or
>> "manufactured home" (only really used in advertising by the industry).
>>
>> In the USA small ones are "single-wide" if they can be moved in 1
>> piece, but you can get a "double-wide" or "triple-wide" manufactured
>> house, which is moved in 2 or 3 pieces and has to be reassembled at
>> the site where it is installed. These bigger ones usually get a
>> foundation, but the smaller cheap ones are often left up on wheels or
>> concrete blocks.
>>
>> Right now there is a page documenting "shop=mobile_home" which is used
>> only 14 times -
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dmobile_home
>>
>> But is seems like this isn't the right terminology in British English.
>> What would be better? shop=static_caravan perhaps?
>>
>> - Joseph Eisenberg
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>

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