Re: [Tagging] lanes - is "parking allowed" a parking lane?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

I would describe https://westnordost.de/misc/2or1lanes.jpg as road
with 
- one lane driveable by full-size vehicles
- one parking lane

And tag it as:
lanes=1
parking:lane:both=parallel (judging from what is visible about left side)

Additional detail that I am generally not tagging may specify
for example:

parking:lane:right:parallel=on_street
parking:lane:left:parallel=on_kerb (judging from what is visible on photo)

Tagging whatever parking lane has just allowed parking that fully block it
or is it explicitly marked as parking lane can go into new tag (if not
covered by an existing tagging).

For example I would consider
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Barton_St_view_E_between_South_Park_Rd_and_Brown_St,_Macclesfield.jpg
as lanes=1, not lanes=3

-

This gets trickier with:

- illegal parking that nevertheless is accepted, widespread and typical, de 
facto changing
number of available lanes

For example street that in theory is lanes=2 but due to how people park and 
lack of need for two lanes,
it is de facto lanes=1 (cars driving over marked centerline as theoretical 
lanes are blocked
by cars)

- lane that switches between parking lane and driveable lane depending on
hour/day (lanes:conditional solves this)
- lane that switches between parking lane and driveable lane depending on
how many people park there

Nov 19, 2020, 15:17 by o...@westnordost.de:

> Hello all
>
> First of all, in the past, we have explored many edge cases for the lanes-tag 
> in various discussions and I am happy that for the most part, it seems to be 
> quite well defined by now. However, there is one edge case which is not 
> uncommon at all but still unclear or awkward to tag. Look at this:
>
> https://westnordost.de/misc/2or1lanes.jpg
>
> It is a residential road marked clearly for 2 lanes, so it seems obvious to 
> tag it with lanes=2. But on the other hand, you'll notice that there are 
> parking cars on the right side that effectively render the right lane 
> unusable. These parking cars would (currently) be tagged I believe as
>
> parking:lane:right=parallel
> parking:lane:right:parallel=on_street
>
> And the wiki states
>
>> And the following lanes should be excluded:
>> [...] Parking lanes [...]
>>
>
> So here is an ambiguity in the documentation. On the one hand, if the road 
> has marked lanes, the number of marked lanes should be tagged, on the other 
> hand, there are these kind of "parking lanes" which do not have their own 
> space marked as a parking lane but simply absorb the space assigned to normal 
> car traffic. In OSM tagging, these are also "parking:lane"s as far as I know.
>
> We need to dissolve this ambiguity by defining a way how to distinguish 
> between these two cases:
>
> https://westnordost.de/misc/parallel_parking_lane.png
> (1) a dedicated parallel parking lane. This lane should not count as a lane 
> in the lanes-tag.
> (2) (parallel) parking is allowed (and used). This should be irrelevant for 
> the lane count.
>
> My suggestion would be
> (1) parking:lane:*:parallel = lane
> (2) parking:lane:*:parallel = on_street
>
> Maybe especially those who recently involved themselves with parking lane 
> tagging out and about and its documentation could also state their point of 
> view here. According to the wiki edit history, looks like at least Mateusz 
> Konieczny, Supaplex030 and Minh Nguyễn were active.
> What do you think?
>
> There is also at least one data consumer I know about that is using parking 
> lane information and displays it visually,
> https://github.com/dabreegster/abstreet it would be good to know how they 
> interpret and visualize the data.
>
> Cheers
> Tobias
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

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

Re: [Tagging] lanes - is "parking allowed" a parking lane?

[Mark Wagner via Tagging]

In most if not all of the United States, the cars *would* be parked
illegally: most places have a law stating that you can't park on the
side of the road if doing so would obstruct traffic.  For example, from
the Spokane Municipal Code:

> It is unlawful for any person to park, or leave parked, a vehicle
> upon any street or highway within the City unattended in a position
> that it constitutes an obstruction to traffic

-- 
Mark

On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 23:58:27 +0100
Tobias Zwick  wrote:

> For the smart (the white car), the same rules apply as if it was 
> overtaking the parked cars, it may only pass once the other side is
> free.
> 
> The signs on the right say "no stopping", arrow to the left means "no 
> stopping starts here", arrow to the right means "...and ends here".
> They are just there temporarily, there is some construction or
> something like that.
> 
> Maybe it is difficult to see in the perspective the photo was taken,
> but actually none of the parking cars is parking there illegaly. At
> the sections where stopping is forbidden, there are no parking cars.
> 
> Tobias
> 
> On 19/11/2020 23:22, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 at 00:22, Tobias Zwick  > > wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > https://westnordost.de/misc/2or1lanes.jpg
> > 
> > 
> > It is a residential road marked clearly for 2 lanes, so it seems
> > obvious
> > to tag it with lanes=2. But on the other hand, you'll notice
> > that there are parking cars on the right side that effectively
> > render the right lane unusable.
> > 
> > 
> > So what happens when somebody wants to drive the other way - & by
> > the direction those parked cars are facing, they must?
> > 
> > Also, what do the signs mean above the parked cars - Red X & white 
> > left-pointing arrow on a blue background? Anything relevant to
> > parking?
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
> > Graeme
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > 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] lanes - is "parking allowed" a parking lane?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Fr., 20. Nov. 2020 um 09:45 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> I would describe https://westnordost.de/misc/2or1lanes.jpg as road
> with
> - one lane driveable by full-size vehicles
> - one parking lane
>


really? And if vehicles would be parking on both sides (without the
explicit roadside parking area that is present in this case), you would tag
it as lanes=0 and 2 parking lanes only?
IMHO these are 2 lanes, clearly marked on the ground. I do not see a reason
for one lane to be seen as parking lane only.



This gets trickier with:
>
> - illegal parking that nevertheless is accepted, widespread and typical,
> de facto changing
> number of available lanes
>


yes, this is a significant issue on a few arterial roads around here.
People parking in the second row while entering shops, effectively reducing
a 2 lane road to 1 lane.
Or parked cars obstructing half of a lane, like here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8681677,12.4682868,3a,75y,310.76h,92.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPewZ855iYnfav5arDeED0g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Although not legal, both are typically permanent phenomena in certain
areas, you could go there every day during business hours and find the
lanes obstructed or blocked.
Also very typical in front of every school at the start and end of school
(as well as parents obstructing sidewalks with their cars at these times).

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

Re: [Tagging] lanes - is "parking allowed" a parking lane?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Nov 20, 2020, 11:03 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

> Am Fr., 20. Nov. 2020 um 09:45 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> 
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> >:
>
>> I would describe >> https://westnordost.de/misc/2or1lanes.jpg>>  as road
>> with 
>> - one lane driveable by full-size vehicles
>> - one parking lane
>>
>
>
> really? And if vehicles would be parking on both sides (without the explicit 
> roadside parking area that is present in this case), you would tag it as 
> lanes=0 and 2 parking lanes only?
>
This seems unlikely, with 0 lanes it would mean that cars inside are blocked
and unable to leave.

It is not impossible, but is it a typical situation anywhere?

I even mentioned two variants of "two parking lanes":
- two parking lanes on road, one driveable lane, no road markings - I would tag 
as lanes=1
 ( 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Barton_St_view_E_between_South_Park_Rd_and_Brown_St,_Macclesfield.jpg
 )
- two marked lanes, cars parking illegally on both sides, resulting in single 
usable lane
(cars driving over centerline) - is it possible to have this happen legally?
And illegal de-facto parking is problematic in general


> IMHO these are 2 lanes, clearly marked on the ground. I do not see a reason 
> for one lane to be seen as parking lane only.
>
Even if it is both de facto pernament parking lane and parking in this way is 
legal?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] lanes - is "parking allowed" a parking lane?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Fr., 20. Nov. 2020 um 11:28 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <
matkoni...@tutanota.com>:

> This seems unlikely, with 0 lanes it would mean that cars inside are
> blocked
> and unable to leave.
>


that's not the meaning of "lanes", lanes=0 would mean that there are no
traffic lanes. (this is what the wiki says about "lanes").



> I even mentioned two variants of "two parking lanes":
> - two parking lanes on road, one driveable lane, no road markings - I
> would tag as lanes=1
>  (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Barton_St_view_E_between_South_Park_Rd_and_Brown_St,_Macclesfield.jpg
> )
>


parking "lanes" are not counting as "lanes", because parked vehicles are
not "traffic".
I agree for your example that I would tag this as lanes=1 as well.



> And illegal de-facto parking is problematic in general
>


yes, maybe we should rather tag the police station as corrupt or lazy or
both, than focussing on all the problematic, tolerated, illegal parking ;-)


IMHO these are 2 lanes, clearly marked on the ground. I do not see a reason
> for one lane to be seen as parking lane only.
>
> Even if it is both de facto pernament parking lane and parking in this way
> is legal?
>


as long as cars do not have to stop in order to pass each other, yes. I
agree the width of the road is restricted, but if opposite traffic can
continuously pass, it is 2 lanes according to the current wiki ("how many
traffic lanes there are on a highway.")
Another question that comes to mind, now that we have removed the
requirement for road markings. In a situation where 3 lanes are marked, but
vehicles ignore the marked lanes and actually drive in 4 lanes, would you
tag this as 3 or 4 lanes?

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

Re: [Tagging] lanes - is "parking allowed" a parking lane?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Nov 20, 2020, 11:47 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

> Am Fr., 20. Nov. 2020 um 11:28 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <> 
> matkoni...@tutanota.com> >:
>
>> This seems unlikely, with 0 lanes it would mean that cars inside are blocked
>> and unable to leave.
>>
>
>
> that's not the meaning of "lanes", lanes=0 would mean that there are no 
> traffic lanes. (this is what the wiki says about "lanes"). 
>
With two parking lanes and 0 traffic lanes cars would be unable to leave, as 
both lanes would
be filled with cars and there would be no space to drive.

If there are two parking lanes and there is still space for a single driving 
lane
then it would be lanes=1 

>> IMHO these are 2 lanes, clearly marked on the ground. I do not see a reason 
>> for one lane to be seen as parking lane only.
>> Even if it is both de facto pernament parking lane and parking in this way 
>> is legal?
>>
>
>
> as long as cars do not have to stop in order to pass each other, yes. I agree 
> the width of the road is restricted, but if opposite traffic can continuously 
> pass, it is 2 lanes according to the current wiki ("how many traffic lanes 
> there are on a highway.")
>
I would also tag as lanes=2

But what about case raised by Tobias where there is no space for that?
https://westnordost.de/misc/2or1lanes.jpg 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-November/056322.html

> Another question that comes to mind, now that we have removed the requirement 
> for road markings. In a situation where 3 lanes are marked, but vehicles 
> ignore the marked lanes and actually drive in 4 lanes, would you tag this as 
> 3 or 4 lanes?
>
No idea. I would probably treat marking as overriding and tag 3 and invent new 
tag for de facto lane
count.

And probably also petition local government to redraw too wide lanes if that 
would be 
applicable.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Pumping proposal

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

I am not a fan of deprecating
pump=manual and replacing it with nearly impossible to remember and less clear
mechanical_driver=manual

Also, this proposal deprecates pump=powered without providing replacement

Now to tag this info one is supposed to select value from
reciprocating_solenoid
combustion_engine
electric_motor
cylinder
turbine

and no way to tag equivalent of pump=powered is provided.

Mapper may be uninterested in or unable to get info about technical detail,
but they should be still able to tag info that pump is not manually operated.

Nov 19, 2020, 20:05 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com:

> Hi all
>
> Tonight I'm pleased to announce the start of voting for the tagging proposal 
> about pumps
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Pumping_proposal
>
> A lot of comments lead us to an interesting tagging for pumps devices, water 
> wells and wind pumps. Thank you to anyone involved in this review.
> Some values are proposed to be deprecated as to classify pumps according to 
> their technologies and capabilities.
>
> Several contributors tested the proposed tags in real conditions and no 
> problem seems to remain.
>
> Feel free to give your opinion until December 3
>
> All the best
>
> François
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Pumping proposal

[François Lacombe]

Dear Mateusz,

Proposal goes through different stages and I was proposing simpler driver=*
instead of mechanical_driver. Comments have been made about the possible
confusion with human drivers driving cars.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Pumping_proposal#Consider_drivers_as_pump_specific_devices
However, drivers aren't specific to pumps at all.

Current pump=* doesn't deal with pumps but with water wells and possible
motors/engines installed to get water. I was confused by this in the very
beginning.
pump=powered mixes electric motors and gasoline engines which are way
different. Situations may occur with emergency services coming with
gasoline to run an electric motor for instance.
The opportunity (not an obligation) to replace this particular value with
more detailed and useful information is the goal of the proposal.

One possible way to state the isn't manually operable is to use handle=no
without any mechanical_driver (waiting to be defined by knowledgeable
people)

All the best

François

Le ven. 20 nov. 2020 à 12:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> a écrit :

> I am not a fan of deprecating
> pump=manual and replacing it with nearly impossible to remember and less
> clear
> mechanical_driver=manual
>
> Also, this proposal deprecates pump=powered without providing replacement
>
> Now to tag this info one is supposed to select value from
> reciprocating_solenoid
> combustion_engine
> electric_motor
> cylinder
> turbine
>
> and no way to tag equivalent of pump=powered is provided.
>
> Mapper may be uninterested in or unable to get info about technical detail,
> but they should be still able to tag info that pump is not manually
> operated.
>
> Nov 19, 2020, 20:05 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com:
>
> Hi all
>
> Tonight I'm pleased to announce the start of voting for the tagging
> proposal about pumps
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Pumping_proposal
>
> A lot of comments lead us to an interesting tagging for pumps devices,
> water wells and wind pumps. Thank you to anyone involved in this review.
> Some values are proposed to be deprecated as to classify pumps according
> to their technologies and capabilities.
>
> Several contributors tested the proposed tags in real conditions and no
> problem seems to remain.
>
> Feel free to give your opinion until December 3
>
> All the best
>
> François
>
>
> ___
> 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] lanes - is "parking allowed" a parking lane?

[Tobias Zwick]

You stated how you would tag that, which I'd summarize as

> Any parking on the street surface is subtracted from the lanes as the
> lanes-tag first and foremost indicates the number of usable lanes, not
> the number of marked lanes

Ok, so apparently there is no consensus on that if there are marked 
lanes, it's always the marked lanes that first and foremost should be 
counted.


But let's not fall in the trap that everybody states how he tags it and 
in the end we can agree that we cannot agree. We have a problem to 
solve, let's identify it and find a solution together. I'd say, the core 
of it is:


How to tag if usable lanes deviate from marked lanes?


And the solution we are aiming at should fulfill at least these criteria:

1. that the street layout can be interpreted correctly and completely
   (for data visualization, f.e. JOSM lanes plugin, abstreet, renderers
...)
2. that the effective usable width of the street for car traffic can be
   ascertained (for routers)

---

The criteria above were already in my head when I wrote the second half 
of my intial post: When do usable lanes deviate from marked lanes?
-> When there are cars not parking in an own dedicated parking lane but 
just at one side of the street. Hence, this example:


https://westnordost.de/misc/parallel_parking_lane.png

If these situations are tagged like this...

(1)
lanes = 2
parking:lane:right = parallel
parking:lane:right:parallel = lane

(2)
lanes = 2
parking:lane:right = parallel
parking:lane:right:parallel = on_street

..., both criteria are fulfilled, given the definition for lanes is:
"if marked, number of marked lanes. Dedicated and marked parking lanes 
don't count" (adding "dedicated and marked" to wiki definition).


For visualization, the lanes tag can then be directly used. Routers will 
want to additionally look at the parking lanes tag to see whether the 
effectively usable road is being narrowed by parking lanes with 
on_street or half_on_kerb and subtract that from the usable width.


I further suggested this solution because of its separation of concerns: 
Lanes is then just the marked lanes, no need to factor in possible 
parking lanes into that one tag and estimate whether the parking cars 
subtract enough of lane space to decrease it by one.


So, the definition of parking lanes go into the parking:lane tag, 
including where it is located. Well, and that's already how it is done, 
so that's not a real change.


The change here would be to find a tag the describes "parking lane is on 
street surface but has its own space/lane". Alex noted that he found 
that the "lane" value might have a different meaning already. I'll look 
into that and come up with an alternative.


Tobias

On 20/11/2020 09:16, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
I would describe https://westnordost.de/misc/2or1lanes.jpg 
 as road

with
- one lane driveable by full-size vehicles
- one parking lane

And tag it as:
lanes=1
parking:lane:both=parallel (judging from what is visible about left side)

Additional detail that I am generally not tagging may specify
for example:

parking:lane:right:parallel=on_street
parking:lane:left:parallel=on_kerb (judging from what is visible on photo)

Tagging whatever parking lane has just allowed parking that fully block it
or is it explicitly marked as parking lane can go into new tag (if not
covered by an existing tagging).

For example I would consider
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Barton_St_view_E_between_South_Park_Rd_and_Brown_St,_Macclesfield.jpg 


as lanes=1, not lanes=3

-

This gets trickier with:

- illegal parking that nevertheless is accepted, widespread and typical, 
de facto changing

number of available lanes

For example street that in theory is lanes=2 but due to how people park 
and lack of need for two lanes,
it is de facto lanes=1 (cars driving over marked centerline as 
theoretical lanes are blocked

by cars)

- lane that switches between parking lane and driveable lane depending on
hour/day (lanes:conditional solves this)

- lane that switches between parking lane and driveable lane depending on
how many people park there

Nov 19, 2020, 15:17 by o...@westnordost.de:

Hello all

First of all, in the past, we have explored many edge cases for the
lanes-tag in various discussions and I am happy that for the most
part, it seems to be quite well defined by now. However, there is
one edge case which is not uncommon at all but still unclear or
awkward to tag. Look at this:

https://westnordost.de/misc/2or1lanes.jpg

It is a residential road marked clearly for 2 lanes, so it seems
obvious to tag it with lanes=2. But on the other hand, you'll notice
that there are parking cars on the right side that effectively
render the right lane

[Tagging] surface=rock

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

It seems that we have no good value to mark surface of path of rocky paths.

surface=gravel fits for surface of small rocks (almost always man made, though
especially in mountains some may be of a natural origin)

surface=fine_gravel fits for small gravel

surface=unhewn_cobblestone =sett =paving_stones for processed rocks

surface=ground is not specific at all (though sometimes useful to avoid 
splitting
way into 191919 parts)

suface=earth / dirt for exposed soil
surface=mud  for exposed soil that is typically full of water

But it seems that we have no tag for exposed rock that ends as surface of path.
It is typical on mountainous trails. See for example:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bare_Rock_Trail_Surface_at_Lake_Roland.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Krywan.JPG
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Krywan_podejscie.jpg

surface=rock
surface=bare_rock ()

there is also case of surface made of unprocessed rocks (typically on trails
with heavy use to protect area from erosion and tourists from mud)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hrebienok10Slovakia5.JPG
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Trail_in_Tatra_mountains_paved_with_local_rocks.jpg
surface=rock? other tag?

(some time ago I floated idea of using surface=unhewn_cobblestone for them,
but it was not liked by anyone - 
see https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=703751#p703751 )
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=rock

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 20. Nov 2020, at 23:01, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> surface=rock
> surface=bare_rock


these seem both explicit and ok, although bare rock is a bit redundant 
and rock alone has 5 times the usage: 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/surface=rock

I would go with this 

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

Re: [Tagging] surface=rock

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Nov 20, 2020, 23:14 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>
>> On 20. Nov 2020, at 23:01, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> surface=rock
>> surface=bare_rock
>>
>
>
> these seem both explicit and ok, although bare rock is a bit redundant 
> and rock alone has 5 times the usage: > 
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/surface=rock
>
Both for exposed natural rock and steps/footways made of rock pieces?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=rock

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

There is also an undocumented surface=stone, which I tend to thing is
identical to bare_rock.  Though I could see "rock" meaning a rougher
surface than stone/bare_rock.

On Fri, Nov 20, 2020, 5:22 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> Nov 20, 2020, 23:14 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 20. Nov 2020, at 23:01, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> surface=rock
> surface=bare_rock
>
>
>
> these seem both explicit and ok, although bare rock is a bit redundant
> and rock alone has 5 times the usage:
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/surface=rock
>
> Both for exposed natural rock and steps/footways made of rock pieces?
> ___
> 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] surface=rock

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

I was having similar thoughts just a couple of days ago, about what to call
a pile of rocks that a farmer has cleared from, then piled up in, a field?

natural=bare_rock says it's exposed bedrock
=scree has fallen from an adjacent rockface
=shingle is on a beach or river bed
=stone is for large boulders
=rock is " a notable rock feature or small group of rocks, attached to the
underlying bedrock"
none of which really fit?

I did see man_made=cairn as "a mound of stones, usually conical or
pyramidal, raised as a landmark or to designate a point of importance in
surveying", which also isn't really right, because this isn't for any use
apart from getting all the rocks in one place.

Thanks

Graeme


On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 at 08:01, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> It seems that we have no good value to mark surface of path of rocky paths.
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Piles of stones

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairn it seems that it is
something more purposefully constructed than 
"pile of unwanted stones kept in one place"

Create area and mark as surface=stone ?
man_made=pile_of_stones ?


Nov 20, 2020, 23:32 by graemefi...@gmail.com:

> I was having similar thoughts just a couple of days ago, about what to call a 
> pile of rocks that a farmer has cleared from, then piled up in, a field?
>
> natural=bare_rock says it's exposed bedrock
> =scree has fallen from an adjacent rockface
> =shingle is on a beach or river bed
> =stone is for large boulders
> =rock is "a notable rock feature or small group of rocks, attached to the 
> underlying bedrock"
> none of which really fit?
>
> I did see man_made=cairn as "a mound of stones, usually conical or pyramidal, 
> raised as a landmark or to designate a point of importance in surveying", 
> which also isn't really right, because this isn't for any use apart from 
> getting all the rocks in one place.
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 at 08:01, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> 
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>> It seems that we have no good value to mark surface of path of rocky paths.
>>

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

Re: [Tagging] surface=rock

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 at 22:35, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> I was having similar thoughts just a couple of days ago, about what to
> call a pile of rocks that a farmer has cleared from, then piled up in, a
> field?
>

In the part of the world I was raised, rocks cleared from fields were used
to build drystone walls.  Solves two problems with one stone.

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

Re: [Tagging] surface=rock

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

We call them stone walls, but every so often a pedantist comes along and
reminds us that they're actually stone fences.

On Fri, Nov 20, 2020, 5:56 PM Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 at 22:35, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>> I was having similar thoughts just a couple of days ago, about what to
>> call a pile of rocks that a farmer has cleared from, then piled up in, a
>> field?
>>
>
> In the part of the world I was raised, rocks cleared from fields were used
> to build drystone walls.  Solves two problems with one stone.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> 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] surface=rock

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 at 08:41, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairn it seems that it is
> something more purposefully constructed than
> "pile of unwanted stones kept in one place"
>

Yes, that's what I thought

man_made=pile_of_stones ?
>

Had a look & there are 14 uses of man_made=bare_rock & 9 of =rock.

May just go for man_made=rock_pile

Just spotted this image which is very similar to what I was talking about
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rock_Pile_-_geograph.org.uk_-_443119.jpg

On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 at 09:00, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

> We call them stone walls, but every so often a pedantist comes along and
> reminds us that they're actually stone fences.
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020, 5:56 PM Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>>
>> In the part of the world I was raised, rocks cleared from fields were used
>> to build drystone walls.  Solves two problems with one stone.
>>
>
Thanks, fellas, but no rock walls / fences, just a pile :-)

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Pumping proposal

[Joseph Eisenberg]

On the Talk page, the proposal author has now ignored two different
requests to change the new pump=values to a different key like
pump_mechanism, which would allow the continued use of pump=manual and
pump=powered.

The author claims: "I find current tagging meaningless (with all due
respect to people who created it in the past)"

This is absolutely disrespectful to the current mappers using this tag to
specify the type of water well found in lower-income countries.

Perhaps you have never lived in a place where people get their drinking and
washing water from public or semi-public wells. In these places it is quite
important to know if a well is just a hole in the ground where you need to
use a bucket and rope to draw out water (pump=no), or if there is a
mechanical pump handle which you can physically operate, with some amount
of force, to pump out bursts of water (pump=manual).

And the other type of well is "a well that is attached to pipes and a
motorized pump", which is usually powered by electricity but sometimes by a
diesel motor. In this type of well you don't have to use any physical
effort at all, you just flip a switch or open a faucet and water comes out
- as most Westerners are accustomed to enjoy in their own homes.

But you will need electricity or fuel to operate it. So usually a
man_made=water_well + pump=powered is much more convenient, but when the
power goes out or there is no fuel, it can be nearly useless, while a
pump=manual is now much more helpful.

I am quite frustrated that this proposal has gone forward even though these
concerns were brought up months ago on the Talk page.

-- Joseph Eisenberg


On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 4:23 AM François Lacombe 
wrote:

> Dear Mateusz,
>
> Proposal goes through different stages and I was proposing simpler
> driver=* instead of mechanical_driver. Comments have been made about the
> possible confusion with human drivers driving cars.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Pumping_proposal#Consider_drivers_as_pump_specific_devices
> However, drivers aren't specific to pumps at all.
>
> Current pump=* doesn't deal with pumps but with water wells and possible
> motors/engines installed to get water. I was confused by this in the very
> beginning.
> pump=powered mixes electric motors and gasoline engines which are way
> different. Situations may occur with emergency services coming with
> gasoline to run an electric motor for instance.
> The opportunity (not an obligation) to replace this particular value with
> more detailed and useful information is the goal of the proposal.
>
> One possible way to state the isn't manually operable is to use handle=no
> without any mechanical_driver (waiting to be defined by knowledgeable
> people)
>
> All the best
>
> François
>
> Le ven. 20 nov. 2020 à 12:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> a écrit :
>
>> I am not a fan of deprecating
>> pump=manual and replacing it with nearly impossible to remember and less
>> clear
>> mechanical_driver=manual
>>
>> Also, this proposal deprecates pump=powered without providing replacement
>>
>> Now to tag this info one is supposed to select value from
>> reciprocating_solenoid
>> combustion_engine
>> electric_motor
>> cylinder
>> turbine
>>
>> and no way to tag equivalent of pump=powered is provided.
>>
>> Mapper may be uninterested in or unable to get info about technical
>> detail,
>> but they should be still able to tag info that pump is not manually
>> operated.
>>
>> Nov 19, 2020, 20:05 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com:
>>
>> Hi all
>>
>> Tonight I'm pleased to announce the start of voting for the tagging
>> proposal about pumps
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Pumping_proposal
>>
>> A lot of comments lead us to an interesting tagging for pumps devices,
>> water wells and wind pumps. Thank you to anyone involved in this review.
>> Some values are proposed to be deprecated as to classify pumps according
>> to their technologies and capabilities.
>>
>> Several contributors tested the proposed tags in real conditions and no
>> problem seems to remain.
>>
>> Feel free to give your opinion until December 3
>>
>> All the best
>>
>> François
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Feature Proposal - Voting - Pumping proposal

[Joseph Eisenberg]

The current tagging of man_made=water_well + pump=no/manual/powered is
currently used by the HDM style, featured as the "Humanitarian" map layer
on Openstreetmap.org, to determine what sort of icon should be shown for a
water well. Examples:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5768737664#map=17/-8.54734/122.04898&layers=H
- well with powered pump (and you can see 3 more nearby, one for each
"dusun" or small "neighborhood" in this village)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5768453092#map=18/-8.74465/122.07912&layers=H
- lots of wells with no pump, represented by a bucket, also one powered
well in this village.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6449466014#map=18/14.52455/121.05865&layers=H
- water well with a manual pump in a school yard - also another one in the
school to the east.

-- Joseph Eisenberg



On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 9:19 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> On the Talk page, the proposal author has now ignored two different
> requests to change the new pump=values to a different key like
> pump_mechanism, which would allow the continued use of pump=manual and
> pump=powered.
>
> The author claims: "I find current tagging meaningless (with all due
> respect to people who created it in the past)"
>
> This is absolutely disrespectful to the current mappers using this tag to
> specify the type of water well found in lower-income countries.
>
> Perhaps you have never lived in a place where people get their drinking
> and washing water from public or semi-public wells. In these places it is
> quite important to know if a well is just a hole in the ground where you
> need to use a bucket and rope to draw out water (pump=no), or if there is a
> mechanical pump handle which you can physically operate, with some amount
> of force, to pump out bursts of water (pump=manual).
>
> And the other type of well is "a well that is attached to pipes and a
> motorized pump", which is usually powered by electricity but sometimes by a
> diesel motor. In this type of well you don't have to use any physical
> effort at all, you just flip a switch or open a faucet and water comes out
> - as most Westerners are accustomed to enjoy in their own homes.
>
> But you will need electricity or fuel to operate it. So usually a
> man_made=water_well + pump=powered is much more convenient, but when the
> power goes out or there is no fuel, it can be nearly useless, while a
> pump=manual is now much more helpful.
>
> I am quite frustrated that this proposal has gone forward even though
> these concerns were brought up months ago on the Talk page.
>
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 4:23 AM François Lacombe <
> fl.infosrese...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Mateusz,
>>
>> Proposal goes through different stages and I was proposing simpler
>> driver=* instead of mechanical_driver. Comments have been made about the
>> possible confusion with human drivers driving cars.
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Pumping_proposal#Consider_drivers_as_pump_specific_devices
>> However, drivers aren't specific to pumps at all.
>>
>> Current pump=* doesn't deal with pumps but with water wells and possible
>> motors/engines installed to get water. I was confused by this in the very
>> beginning.
>> pump=powered mixes electric motors and gasoline engines which are way
>> different. Situations may occur with emergency services coming with
>> gasoline to run an electric motor for instance.
>> The opportunity (not an obligation) to replace this particular value with
>> more detailed and useful information is the goal of the proposal.
>>
>> One possible way to state the isn't manually operable is to use handle=no
>> without any mechanical_driver (waiting to be defined by knowledgeable
>> people)
>>
>> All the best
>>
>> François
>>
>> Le ven. 20 nov. 2020 à 12:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
>> tagging@openstreetmap.org> a écrit :
>>
>>> I am not a fan of deprecating
>>> pump=manual and replacing it with nearly impossible to remember and less
>>> clear
>>> mechanical_driver=manual
>>>
>>> Also, this proposal deprecates pump=powered without providing replacement
>>>
>>> Now to tag this info one is supposed to select value from
>>> reciprocating_solenoid
>>> combustion_engine
>>> electric_motor
>>> cylinder
>>> turbine
>>>
>>> and no way to tag equivalent of pump=powered is provided.
>>>
>>> Mapper may be uninterested in or unable to get info about technical
>>> detail,
>>> but they should be still able to tag info that pump is not manually
>>> operated.
>>>
>>> Nov 19, 2020, 20:05 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com:
>>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> Tonight I'm pleased to announce the start of voting for the tagging
>>> proposal about pumps
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Pumping_proposal
>>>
>>> A lot of comments lead us to an interesting tagging for pumps devices,
>>> water wells and wind pumps. Thank you to anyone involved in this review.
>>> Some values are proposed to be deprecated as to classify