Re: [Tagging] Literal translation of street names

[martianfreeloader]

I agree with Patrick, Niels, Sebastian and Anne.

Tag names in other languages only if at least one of these is true:
- it's an *official* translation by the competent authority (e. g. the 
municipality)

- or the name is in *common use*
- or it's a *documented historical* name in another language. (I'm 
personally not a fan of this, but it seems to be accepted by the community)



On 20/09/2022 00:51, André Pirard wrote:

On 19/09/22 12:36, Janko Mihelić wrote:
A user in my city (Zagreb) started translating street names into 
English, and I don't know what to do about it. An example of 
translation is Butcher Street for Mesnička ulica, or Stone Street for 
Kamenita ulica. I found a few of these in Berlin, for example,Straße 
der Erinnerung translatedRoad of Remembrance. These are valid 
translations, but it isn't helpful for a map. If an english user of 
our map saw "Road of Remembrance", she won't be able to find that 
street sign, or explain to a taxi driver where she wants to go.


I think I've seen someone talk against such translations, but I can't 
find a wiki page that talks about it. I can create one if there is 
consensus that this is wrong tagging. Or maybe just add a few 
sentences about it on the name=* wiki page.


The problem is, he is doing valid work, so it feels wrong to just 
delete it. Another way to deal with this is to create a new tag, 
name:literal_translation:en=* or just literal_translation:en=*.


Another question, what is the right name:en=* in these cases, or is 
there none? Erinnerung Road?


Thanks!
Janko Mihelić

Hi, thanks for writing.
What you mean in the Subject is semantic translation, according to meaning.
Literal, which is according to sounds, Bruxelles vs Brussels is valid.
Those literal translations are many 
.
And I find them useful for people using other scripts like Cyrillic, 
Arab, Greek, etc

And sometimes funny too (1).
The specialists of multi-language are Belgian people, I To: them.
*Legally*, Brussels  is 
French-Flemish bilingual.

So, not only are the street names written in both language on the plates,
but also the question's would be raised which is the OSM primary name.
Look there, they have written both names in name=*
and default_language=fr - nl.
Also, there are other communities where the default language, although 
legally set, is disputed and OSM comes there as a trouble maker.

I let the specialists talk if there is more to say.

(1) In my browser, I specified as accepted languages  en fr ... ru ...
When Nominatim finds in a French speaking place name=frnam name:ru=runam
it will write it runam to me because it found no suitable name:fr=
default_language=fr should be used to imply name:fr=frnam in this case.
Proposed features/Defaults 
 should 
be used to set default_language in one place and in all places 
administratively below it. This is more important than many things 
discussed here.
But that proposition should be reworked and voted. Many contributors' 
comments I used to read about it did not understand its goal or found it 
unaesthetic which is not its purpose, etc.
If it was voted, for example the default speed limit could be set 
differently in Wallonia and Flanders with two tags instead of specifying 
each Flanders road's limit and forgetting some.


All the best,

André.



___
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 - highway=scramble

[martianfreeloader]

I think if something is tagged highway=path then data consumers should 
be able to expect that regular people can walk on it without having to 
look at an ever growing zoo of secondary tags.


Data consumers, like all of us, have limited capacity. We make their 
lives much easier if primary tags (like highway=path) mean something 
(one can walk here) and secondary tags are there to explain the details, 
not to say "this primary tag doesn't mean what you think it means".


I'm a mapper, not a data consumer, but I think we should try to be as 
nice as possible to those who make use of our mapping work. I found this 
talk very instructive, especially around minutes 30-42: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=660lvPS06SI


I think a new generic highway= is a very good idea. It 
would encompass any way which requires at least one of these:

- special skill
- extraordinary courage
- special equipment.

This would encompass
- via ferratas
- demanding or dangerous hikes
- climbing routes
- anything else?

To me, highway=scramble seems a good solution for this, but I'm not a 
native English speaker, so there may be better terms that I'm not a 
aware of.





On 17/09/2022 01:35, Georg wrote:


Dear martianfreeloader,

you wrote Thu Sep 15 2022 00:27:11 GMT+0200


I am a hiker and a climber, but I made experiences similar to Peter's on
more than one occasion. I have been led along ways by osmand which were
mapped as highway=path; obviously by other climbers. They were
definitely not suitable for folks without climbing experience that want
to go on a physically demanding hike



Yet, these kind of paths/scrambles are
often not considered "real climbing" in the narrower sense (mountaineers
would usually still go without rope).


from your description, I've the impression you're less seeking
information specifically about scrambling (using hands) but more how
demanding and dangerous a way is. Both is reflected by SAC hiking grade;
T5 and T6 seem matching very well the ways you describe – too easy to be
listed anywhere as a climbing route, so listed as hiking path while
bearing too high falling risk for quite a share of hikers.

In case my impression is correct, do you remember any of these ways and
could check a hand full whether they are carrying SAC T grade? Then,
this tag "just" needs to be considered by data consumers, i.e. humans
shall set desired maximum hike difficulty and routers shall not suggest
any paths that are more difficult. That works very reliable in BRouter,
but I did not try OsmAnd much for that purpose.

In case my impression is not correct, could you please tell with other
words how your experiences link to highway=scrambling?

Best regards,
Georg

___
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 - highway=scramble

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 20 Sep 2022, at 10:56, martianfreeloader  
> wrote:
> 
> This would encompass
> - via ferratas
> - demanding or dangerous hikes
> - climbing routes
> - anything else?
> 
> To me, highway=scramble seems a good solution for this, but I'm not a native 
> English speaker, so there may be better terms that I'm not a aware of.



just to get it right, you are suggesting to deprecate highway=via_ferrata in 
favor of highway=scramble?

AFAIK climbing routes aren’t currently tagged as highways, why would we want to 
have them in the same category as hiking paths?

Is a torch qualifying for special equipment? E.g. paths in caves that aren’t 
lit?

What kind of shoes would you consider special equipment?

Is special equipment and extraordinary courage a requirement that is relative 
to local habits or is it to be seen on a global level?

Cheers Martin 



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=scramble

[martianfreeloader]

Yes, what I have in mind is a new primary tag:

`highway=scramble`

with secondary tags like

`scramble=via_ferrata`
`scramble=climbing`
`scramble=alpine_hiking`
etc.

Tertiary tags would be:
`via_ferrate_scale=*`
`climbing:grade:uiaa=*`
`sac_scale=*`

The secondary tags would be orthogonal. In case of conflict, the most 
common use of the scramble should be tagged. The tertiary tags can be 
used side by side if applicable.


-
*Implications for data consumers*

`highway=scramble` for data consumers basically means:

1a) Don't render this as normal paths.
1b) If you do render it, render it differently.
2a) Don't route pedestrians along here.
2b) If you do want to route specialists here, then have a look at the 
secondary (and tertiary) tags.



-
*Obsolescence of other tags*

This would mean that there is a new primary tag `highway=scramble` which 
makes some currently existing primary tags obsolete:
1) `highway=via_ferrata` gets replaced by `highway=scramble + 
scramble=via_ferrata`

2) `climbing=route` gets replaced by `highway=scramble + scramble=climbing`
3) Paths on the difficult end of `highway=path + sac_scale=*` get 
replaced by `highway=scramble + scramble=alpine_hiking + sac_scale=*` 
(exact difficulty threshold to be discussed, see below).



-
*Detailed definition(s)*

This is just a coarse sketch.

If it gets any support, then yes, the details would certainly need to be 
thought through and discussed:
- What's the exact scope of highway=scramble? Does it include caves or 
tunnels where you have to crawl? (I'm sure there are many other examples 
that haven't been mentioned yet)

- What are the exact thresholds between path and scramble?
- What counts as special equipment?
- etc.

I suggest we first decide whether we find the general concept of 
highway=scramble to be useful and want to introduce it at all. In case 
we answer this positively, then focus on working out the exact details 
like what's the exact sac scale threshold, etc.



Cheers,
martianfreeloader


On 20/09/2022 12:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone


On 20 Sep 2022, at 10:56, martianfreeloader  
wrote:

This would encompass
- via ferratas
- demanding or dangerous hikes
- climbing routes
- anything else?

To me, highway=scramble seems a good solution for this, but I'm not a native 
English speaker, so there may be better terms that I'm not a aware of.




just to get it right, you are suggesting to deprecate highway=via_ferrata in 
favor of highway=scramble?

AFAIK climbing routes aren’t currently tagged as highways, why would we want to 
have them in the same category as hiking paths?

Is a torch qualifying for special equipment? E.g. paths in caves that aren’t 
lit?

What kind of shoes would you consider special equipment?

Is special equipment and extraordinary courage a requirement that is relative 
to local habits or is it to be seen on a global level?

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 - RFC - site_type=defensive_settlement

[martianfreeloader]

Hi Anne,

Thanks for the proposal. I've left a comment on the wiki talk page.

On 18/09/2022 12:39, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote:

Hello everyone,

I'm proposing to introduce a new sub class of (archaeological) site
types "defensive settlement":
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:site_type%3Ddefensive_settlement 



My reasoning will hopefully be clear from the proposal page.

Feel free to point out examples from your part of the world.

Have a good Sunday,

Anne


___
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 - highway=scramble

[Peter Elderson]

Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 20 sep. 2022 om 13:49 heeft martianfreeloader 
>  het volgende geschreven:
> 
> This would mean that there is a new primary tag `highway=scramble` which 
> makes some currently existing primary tags obsolete:
> 1) `highway=via_ferrata` gets replaced by `highway=scramble + 
> scramble=via_ferrata`
> 2) `climbing=route` gets replaced by `highway=scramble + scramble=climbing`
> 3) Paths on the difficult end of `highway=path + sac_scale=*` get replaced by 
> `highway=scramble + scramble=alpine_hiking + sac_scale=*` (exact difficulty 
> threshold to be discussed, see below).

1. From previous discussion I got the impression that actual climbing and via 
ferrata are different from scrambling, i.e. not a type of scramble. 
2. sac_scale grading indicates the experience level and equipment needed. It 
seems odd to cut out some grades and tag them differently.


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=scramble

[Georg]

Dear all,

martianfreeloader, wrote Tue Sep 20 2022 10:52:06 GMT+0200


I think if something is tagged highway=path then data consumers should
be able to expect that regular people can walk on it without having to
look at an ever growing zoo of secondary tags. > ...
I think a new generic highway= is a very good idea.  > It would 
encompass any way which requires at least one of these:
- special skill
- extraordinary courage
- special equipment.


I agree to your underlying motivation 👍 To understand what exactly
people would expect from highway=path, I looked up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path and interestingly, *wikipedia has no
definition for "path" but only for less generic terms,* so bridle path,
foodpath, sidewalk, trail, or desire path (which seems to include
typical mountain hiking paths).

*Maybe we as OSM community shall never have introduced the generic
highway=path but only more specialized ones. Maybe we shall correct that
and deprecate highway=path.* Why? Because in different areas, an "usual
path" in local understanding will have quite different characteristics.

In flat areas like northern Germany, a path is usually not at all
demanding. Many can even be driven with stroller or city bike – mostly
limited by how soft the ground is and the width between vegetation.

In mountain regions like Alps, Atlas or Andes, connections between two
points are sometimes in flat areas like valley or tableland, so ways
with same characteristics as above, but sometimes paths hit hurdles
caused by the terrain, like crossing a field of big rock blocks, high
steps, a steep grass area, etc. Many of such paths are often not created
for tourists, but are traditional connections. They were managed over
hundreds of years by average people with no extraordinary equipment or
skills, they can be used by young kids and elderly locals – even if
containing scrambling sections.

So, such a mountain path obviously matches your definition, i.e. your
definition is probably including "too many" paths for the purpose you
had in mind 😕 Such mountain paths also perfectly match
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path as well as
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trampelpfad which tell both _"small trail
created ... by human or animal traffic. The path usually represents the
shortest or the most easily navigated route between an origin and
destination"_ and the DE page makes it even more clear (translation by
me) _"paths represent the shortest route, even if one can proceed only
slowly"._ Both do not require you can walk upright without ever using
hands or without facing the risk of falling down a deep cliff.




Back to your underlying motivation and suggestion.

martianfreeloader wrote Tue Sep 20 2022 13:42:47 GMT+0200

Yes, what I have in mind is a new primary tag:

`highway=scramble`

with secondary tags like

`scramble=via_ferrata`
`scramble=climbing`
`scramble=alpine_hiking`


*I strongly suggest to use use a more generic term than scramble.* Why?
As I learned in the discussion, "scramble" has a quite well defined
meaning in some parts of the world, so it creates assumptions that will
neither be met for a narrow but horizontal tunnel nor for a climbing
UIAA grade VI – so we'd end up exactly with the same situation as we now
have and as described in the first sentence of this mail 🙄 Maybe the
more generic term could just be "path" combined with certain "qualities"
like e.g. highway=easy_path and highway=demanding_path? I don't mind
whether highway=demanding_path also contains paths with considerable
incline, which is told in secondary tag, or we'd have a third
alternative highway=mountaineering (or other term).


I like the approach to split current highway=path into two different
values that are thought from view of map & data consumers. I also assume
many data & map consumers would appreciate if the primary tag alone made
it easy to distinguish between easy paths "everyone" can go without
further research and one "more demanding" path type where you better
look at the additional tags before deciding whether you want to walk
that path in your individual situation.

*Of course, we'd need a definition allowing to tell apart the easy from
the demanding path type. Here's a first suggestion.* It includes
feasibility with a stroller or city bike – well knowing both are
vehicles while we are [also] talking about ways for [purely] pedestrian
use – because their usage limit is hopefully much less individual than
"easy to walk" or "requiring use of hands".

Easy path: A path that
* matches current definition of
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath (mainly: a
highway not fitting to another value like track, footway or bridleway
and open to non-motorized vehicles)
* poses no considerable risks, so e.g. no hazards like quicksand and not
directly next to a deep cliff without railing
* can be walked upright without use of hands for balance or propelling
by the vast majority of humans that are able to walk and have sufficien

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=scramble

[Georg]

Dear all,

Peter wrote Tue Sep 20 2022 14:02:24 GMT+0200


This would mean that there is a new primary tag `highway=scramble` which makes 
some currently existing primary tags obsolete:
1) `highway=via_ferrata` gets replaced by `highway=scramble + 
scramble=via_ferrata`
2) `climbing=route` gets replaced by `highway=scramble + scramble=climbing`



1. From previous discussion I got the impression that actual climbing and via 
ferrata are different from scrambling, i.e. not a type of scramble.


I fully agree that climbing and via ferrata are no subset of scrambling
because more difficult climbs/ferratas are going way beyond what a
scramble is. But to my understanding, there is definitely a fuzzy
overlapping zone in the sense simple climbs and via ferrata are at the
same time scrambles. To me, definitions of UIAA climbing grade I are
mostly equal to the posted definitions of scrambling grade 1, similar
overlaps in higher grades until around UIAA IV. Same for the easiest 1-2
grades of via ferrata (see e.g.
https://www.bergfreunde.eu/via-ferrata-grades-calculator/). This is not
only in definitions but also in real life, e.g. in the Alps, simple via
ferrata are done by many as scramble, i.e. they simply do not use the
metal but the rock unless conditions are harsh.

Best regards,
Georg

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - site_type=defensive_settlement

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Re “ it makes a differences whether the structure results in a self-imposed
isolation or isolation created by an adversary party.”

How can a non-archeologist determine the initial purpose of an
archeological site?

For example, Machu Picchu is a very famous site in Peru which has been
extensively studied. It is fortified in a sense, being built on t he end of
a ridge, with narrow bridges that could be removed to repel attack
probably. Initial explorers thought it was a capital city, moser
scholarship suggests it was a royal retreat from the city for recreation or
a site of royal religious religious devotion.

This proposed tag would be used for much less well known sites. How should
ordinary mappers determine if a ruin is an old fort or a fortified
settlement or a an ancient prison?

-Joseph Eisenberg

On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 5:05 AM martianfreeloader <
martianfreeloa...@posteo.net> wrote:

> Hi Anne,
>
> Thanks for the proposal. I've left a comment on the wiki talk page.
>
> On 18/09/2022 12:39, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > I'm proposing to introduce a new sub class of (archaeological) site
> > types "defensive settlement":
> >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:site_type%3Ddefensive_settlement
> >
> >
> > My reasoning will hopefully be clear from the proposal page.
> >
> > Feel free to point out examples from your part of the world.
> >
> > Have a good Sunday,
> >
> > Anne
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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 - RFC - highway=scramble

[martianfreeloader]

Hi Georg,

I mostly agree, except in one point: I totally did have steep 
mountainous paths in mind in the definition of highway=path, as long as 
regular people can walk them.


I think your highway=demanding_path tag instead of highway=scramble is a 
great idea!


How about this:

- keep highway=path for everything that can be walked by normal people 
(this means we don't need to re-tag millions of ways)

- introduce a new tag highway=demanding path for everything else.

Then, the secondary tags would be
demanding_path=via_ferrata
demanding_path=climbing
demanding_path=alpine_hiking
optionally demanding_path=scramble if the community decides this is a thing

Alternatively, if we don't want the secondary tag to be orthogonal, as 
you desired, we could instead use:

via_ferrata=yes/no
climbing=yes/no
alpine_hiking=yes/no
(scramble=yes/no)

Best,
m


On 20/09/2022 17:00, Georg wrote:

Dear all,

martianfreeloader, wrote Tue Sep 20 2022 10:52:06 GMT+0200


I think if something is tagged highway=path then data consumers should
be able to expect that regular people can walk on it without having to
look at an ever growing zoo of secondary tags. > ...
I think a new generic highway= is a very good idea.  > 
It would encompass any way which requires at least one of these:

- special skill
- extraordinary courage
- special equipment.


I agree to your underlying motivation 👍 To understand what exactly
people would expect from highway=path, I looked up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path and interestingly, *wikipedia has no
definition for "path" but only for less generic terms,* so bridle path,
foodpath, sidewalk, trail, or desire path (which seems to include
typical mountain hiking paths).

*Maybe we as OSM community shall never have introduced the generic
highway=path but only more specialized ones. Maybe we shall correct that
and deprecate highway=path.* Why? Because in different areas, an "usual
path" in local understanding will have quite different characteristics.

In flat areas like northern Germany, a path is usually not at all
demanding. Many can even be driven with stroller or city bike – mostly
limited by how soft the ground is and the width between vegetation.

In mountain regions like Alps, Atlas or Andes, connections between two
points are sometimes in flat areas like valley or tableland, so ways
with same characteristics as above, but sometimes paths hit hurdles
caused by the terrain, like crossing a field of big rock blocks, high
steps, a steep grass area, etc. Many of such paths are often not created
for tourists, but are traditional connections. They were managed over
hundreds of years by average people with no extraordinary equipment or
skills, they can be used by young kids and elderly locals – even if
containing scrambling sections.

So, such a mountain path obviously matches your definition, i.e. your
definition is probably including "too many" paths for the purpose you
had in mind 😕 Such mountain paths also perfectly match
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path as well as
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trampelpfad which tell both _"small trail
created ... by human or animal traffic. The path usually represents the
shortest or the most easily navigated route between an origin and
destination"_ and the DE page makes it even more clear (translation by
me) _"paths represent the shortest route, even if one can proceed only
slowly"._ Both do not require you can walk upright without ever using
hands or without facing the risk of falling down a deep cliff.




Back to your underlying motivation and suggestion.

martianfreeloader wrote Tue Sep 20 2022 13:42:47 GMT+0200

Yes, what I have in mind is a new primary tag:

`highway=scramble`

with secondary tags like

`scramble=via_ferrata`
`scramble=climbing`
`scramble=alpine_hiking`


*I strongly suggest to use use a more generic term than scramble.* Why?
As I learned in the discussion, "scramble" has a quite well defined
meaning in some parts of the world, so it creates assumptions that will
neither be met for a narrow but horizontal tunnel nor for a climbing
UIAA grade VI – so we'd end up exactly with the same situation as we now
have and as described in the first sentence of this mail 🙄 Maybe the
more generic term could just be "path" combined with certain "qualities"
like e.g. highway=easy_path and highway=demanding_path? I don't mind
whether highway=demanding_path also contains paths with considerable
incline, which is told in secondary tag, or we'd have a third
alternative highway=mountaineering (or other term).


I like the approach to split current highway=path into two different
values that are thought from view of map & data consumers. I also assume
many data & map consumers would appreciate if the primary tag alone made
it easy to distinguish between easy paths "everyone" can go without
further research and one "more demanding" path type where you better
look at the additional tags before deciding whether you want to walk
that path in your ind

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - site_type=defensive_settlement

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 20 Sep 2022, at 18:07, Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:
> 
> This proposed tag would be used for much less well known sites. How should 
> ordinary mappers determine if a ruin is an old fort or a fortified settlement 
> or a an ancient prison? 


either there will be a sign explaining what you see, or other sources like 
guides, or if you do not know it you cannot tag it. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=scramble

[Yves via Tagging]

Le 20 septembre 2022 19:04:59 GMT+02:00, martianfreeloader 
 a écrit :
>
>How about this:
>
>- keep highway=path for everything that can be walked by normal people (this 
>means we don't need to re-tag millions of ways)
>- introduce a new tag highway=demanding path for everything else.
>
 I think you forgot to mention we would need to re-tag the hundred of thousand 
ways falling into your second bullet. That's normal, we tend to forget how 
easily we manage competing tagging schemes ;-) 

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=scramble

[martianfreeloader]

Nope, didn't forget about that.

My point was rather that in case the community decides the discussed 
primary-tag distinction is favourable, it would be the least effort for 
us is to keep highway=path for the vast majority of ways (12 million) 
instead of changing them all to highway=easy_path (I don't see any 
chance this big of a change will find acceptance).


But yes, you're totally right, it will still be a considerable task to 
re-tag all the 2k via ferratas, 3k climbing routes and ~20k difficult hikes.


Luckily this not quite hundreds of thousands as you feared, but "just" 
tens of thousands... :-)




On 20/09/2022 20:23, Yves wrote:



Le 20 septembre 2022 19:04:59 GMT+02:00, martianfreeloader 
 a écrit :


How about this:

- keep highway=path for everything that can be walked by normal people (this 
means we don't need to re-tag millions of ways)
- introduce a new tag highway=demanding path for everything else.


  I think you forgot to mention we would need to re-tag the hundred of thousand 
ways falling into your second bullet. That's normal, we tend to forget how 
easily we manage competing tagging schemes ;-)


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=scramble

[Peter Elderson]

Introducing a new highway value to replace rather common existing values can 
only succeed if the community agrees AND significant data users and renderers 
confirm they can and will handle it, AND local communities commit to implement 
it massively. And that is, assuming consensus is reached and documentation and 
tooling will be altered to reflect and incorporate the new guidelines.

The OSM world does not have the structure to implement such a change, I think. 
Theoretically, yes; in practice,  no. Feel free to regard this as a challenge, 
though!

I think adding *=yes tags for special sections could work, if they are set by 
communities in local/regional projects, properly documented, and offered for 
implementation as path-modifiers to relevant data consumers. The incentive 
being that it enables e.g. renderers to show relevant details on specialised 
maps, and e.g. routers to offer better routes for relevant profiles.

If one community does this and creates, publishes and maintains e.g. a 
specialised map and router for the region, it's worth it. Then other communites 
will follow. if not, no harm done, the data is still valid and nothing is 
broken.

Peter Elderson

> Op 20 sep. 2022 om 20:26 heeft Yves via Tagging  
> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> 
> 
> Le 20 septembre 2022 19:04:59 GMT+02:00, martianfreeloader 
>  a écrit :
>> 
>> How about this:
>> 
>> - keep highway=path for everything that can be walked by normal people (this 
>> means we don't need to re-tag millions of ways)
>> - introduce a new tag highway=demanding path for everything else.
>> 
> I think you forgot to mention we would need to re-tag the hundred of thousand 
> ways falling into your second bullet. That's normal, we tend to forget how 
> easily we manage competing tagging schemes ;-) 
> 
> ___
> 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 - site_type=defensive_settlement

[martianfreeloader]

I agree.

We have loads of tags that only mappers with special knowledge can use 
correctly (just dive into the world of railways). This doesn't mean 
these tags shouldn't used by those who know what they're doing.


When it comes to trees, I'm a quite "ordinary" mapper. I have no idea 
how to use genus=*. I still find the tag very much deserves to exist.


On 20/09/2022 20:16, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone

On 20 Sep 2022, at 18:07, Joseph Eisenberg 
 wrote:


This proposed tag would be used for much less well known sites. How 
should ordinary mappers determine if a ruin is an old fort or a 
fortified settlement or a an ancient prison?



either there will be a sign explaining what you see, or other sources 
like guides, or if you do not know it you cannot tag it.


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 - RFC - highway=scramble

[Yves via Tagging]

Tens of thousand in remote areas, where contributors are scarce, just to change 
 sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking to 
highway=demanding_mountain_hiking_alias, I don't see this going to get a lot of 
support. I'm also afraid that would put a lot of strain on a relatively small 
community of mappers mapping the great outdoors, maybe I'm wrong.
Yves___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - site_type=defensive_settlement

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

There are apps for that. ;-) For trees, I mean. But thanks for adding
them anyway.

Anne

On 20/09/2022 20:03, martianfreeloader wrote:

I agree.

We have loads of tags that only mappers with special knowledge can use
correctly (just dive into the world of railways). This doesn't mean
these tags shouldn't used by those who know what they're doing.

When it comes to trees, I'm a quite "ordinary" mapper. I have no idea
how to use genus=*. I still find the tag very much deserves to exist.

On 20/09/2022 20:16, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone


On 20 Sep 2022, at 18:07, Joseph Eisenberg
 wrote:

This proposed tag would be used for much less well known sites. How
should ordinary mappers determine if a ruin is an old fort or a
fortified settlement or a an ancient prison?



either there will be a sign explaining what you see, or other sources
like guides, or if you do not know it you cannot tag it.

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


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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refine departures board tagging

[Dimitar]

 Hello all,

Following the rejection of my previous proposal, I've created a new
proposal. It proposes to deprecate passenger_information_display and
introduces new keys which can be used to add additional information about
the departures boards.

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

Please discuss this proposal on its Wiki Talk page.

Best regards,
Dimitar
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=scramble

[Georg]

Dear all,

martianfreeloader wrote Tue Sep 20 2022 20:59:07 GMT+0200


But yes, you're totally right, it will still be a considerable task to  > 
re-tag all the 2k via ferratas, 3k climbing routes and ~20k difficult

> hikes.

Please bear in mind that quite a lot of them can be re-tagged
automatically, to pick just one example, all SAC T4 can be turned from

highway=path
sac_scale=alpine_hiking

to

highway=demanding_path
demanding_path=alpine_hiking

without any doubt and without creating nonsense. In the following course
of time, people can add for example "scramble=1" – just like many
streets exist in the database, are a helpful & meaningful information,
but still wait for someone adding lit=yes/no.

This reduces the manual transition effort to those "few" paths that are
"nearby" the "border" between easy and demanding path. Yes, it will
still need years – but that's very likely the same with any approach to
make highway=path less ambiguous.

Best regards,
Georg

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=scramble

[Yves via Tagging]

"Please bear in mind that quite a lot of them can be re-tagged
automatically" 
Can you give a single example of similar automatic re-tagging in the past ?
Yves___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging